User talk:EddieLeVisco/Archive 1

On images
It'll depend A bit what kind of images you're thinking about. The three basic principles are:
 * 1) Copyright: Is it definitely alright to use here? This is generally down to if it's either old enough, or if someone (possibly you) had the right to release it, usually under some variant of Cc-by.
 * 2) Quality things like Picture of the Day require the image to pass WP:FPC, which is meant to select the best images on Wikipedia. So if the image is small, or taken with a low-quality camera (for the time), it probably can't pass FPC.
 * 3) Encyclopedic Value Here (less so on commons:COM:FPC), it's important that the image is actually useful to articles. This means it's both used in an article and (for featured picture purposes) adds sufficient value to the article.

Happy to answer more, but probably best to get some idea what interests you first, because things really can vary a lot depending on the type of image. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.6% of all FPs 23:54, 12 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much for your help Adam, I appreciate your time. Very useful information.EddieLeVisco (talk) 15:07, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I just realised I said one bit backwards - a "high-quality camera" is not a problem at FPC, obviously. I meant to say that lower-quality cameras were hard to get images to pass FPC with. Not impossible. There's two ways you can compensate: 1. If an image is truly iconic. If someone has a mobile phone image of a historic event go viral, and uploads it here, it might well pass FPC. 2. Use a tripod. Zoom in, and take whole grids of images, then use software to stitch 'em all together into a massive one, substituting the sheer number of images for a perfect camera. This is... tricky, and not really my field. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.6% of all FPs 07:37, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Signpost (the Wikipedia newspaper)
Anyone can write and submit a draft to The Signpost. See the about page for information on contributing and the submissions desk where you can submit a draft. There is no guarantee that the piece will be published just because you've written it. You may want to reach out to, the Editor-in-Chief with a proposal. If you could write something about the prior history of your User Account, and the recent experience after posting at the Teahouse, I think that might make a splendid article that would help many people who find themselves in the same position as you did. Michael D. Turnbull (talk) 14:32, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Confidentiality of editors
"Thank you for your last message about keeping the confidentiality of editors. I promise I will not ever mention anything about you, anywhere and I will always abide by Wikipedia's rules and code of conduct." Quote, EddieLeVisco, on my Talk Page So what happened? Within days and following (I estimate) 30 hours of my work, for which you think you paid £1, you started to reveal confidences about me within a Teahouse article. Specifically, that we had discussed, in private e-mails off-wiki, a possible commission that I had in mind for you and for which if you agreed to undertake that commission I would pay you a mutually yet-to-be-agreed sum. I am still willing to give you the benefit of now considerable doubt and meet as we planned, in the spirit of WP:AGF. I had hoped that your curiosity in knowing more about me and how we could collaborate off-wiki would prevail over your obsession that Wikipedia be altered to suit your view of what it "should" contain at Ed Gold. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:53, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Paid editing is allowed
Paid editing IS allowed. The person being paid must put a paid announcement on their User page. Equally required - rather than editing the article directly, paid editors are to use the Talk page of the article to propose specific changes (as in change ____ to ____ and in support of that, add ____ as a reference. A non-connected editor then evaluates the propose changes and implements or not. Undeclared paid editing (UPE) is a big no-no, and can lead to the editor being blocked. David notMD (talk) 00:14, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

October 2020
Please be careful about what you say to people. Some remarks, such as your addition to Wikipedia:Teahouse can easily be misinterpreted, or viewed as harassment. Wikipedia is a supportive environment, where contributors should feel comfortable and safe while editing. ''Wikipedia is a volunteer organisation with WP:NODEADLINE, sorry if that's inconvenient for your agenda. Please stop posting the same stuff there and accusing editors of being useless'' Joseph2302 (talk) 08:30, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Unpleasant comments on and off Wikipedia
You comment endlessly about how useless the volunteers at Wikipedia are but you have done nothing to help us, if there is content missing from the article please request for it to be added on the article’s talk page here Talk:Ed Gold, being sure to provide reliable secondary in-depth sources, it really is that simple. Theroadislong (talk) 09:10, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

An unasked for explanation and some advice
The tone of your recent posts at the Teahouse (I am a host there) tells me that you are quite disgruntled about the state of the article about you. You seem to have been given bits and pieces of info as to why you are encountering numerous hurdles in correcting it [the article], but I figured I would explain it again here. Feel free to remove this message if you don't want it here or find it unhelpful.

On Wikipedia, we have five pillars. Most policies you will see around here are 'descendants' of the five pillars. (i.e. verifiability) and no original research come from the second pillar, no personal attacks from the fourth, etc.) In your instance, there is one policy that is preventing you from editing the article - WP:Conflict of interest. The reason that we don't let you edit the article if you have a conflict-of-interest is because the COI (intentionally or not) means that you can't write truly neutral content (a violation of the second pillar). To get around this, you can suggest changes on the article's talk page, and uninvolved editors can make a decision to add the info in or not. From what I can tell, they seem to be co-operative. You seem to have been working constructively to improve the article via edit requests, which is great to see.

What isn't great to see are your insults at other editors. This post is extremely counter productive and deeply unhelpful. We are all volunteers with absolutely zero obligation to help you, but we are doing it to improve Wikipedia. Going behind our backs and insulting us on very public forums on our own website is not going to inspire people to help you improve the article. Comment on content, not contributors, and don't insult people, especially not behind their backs.

Also, although we are a website that anyone can edit, that does not mean that anyone controls the content here. Decisions about deletion are made on Wikipedia by reaching consensus, not by one individual. Therefore is highly unlikely that your page will be deleted because you requested it. Other people have attempted similar things before. The article about you will most likely stay here until it satisfies one of our deletion criteria.

So I suggest you work with others to improve your article (I can help if you want), providing reliable information in a 'Change X to Y per [reliable source]' format. Don't comment on people, comment on content. If you do all of that, I can assure that the quality of the article will improve.

I hope this helps you. Giraffer munch 09:11, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

October 2020
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you purposefully and blatantly harass a fellow Wikipedian, as you did at Wikipedia:Teahouse. ''Asking for only female editors to help is sexism. And please stop spamming up the Teahouse with your incessant requests'' Joseph2302 (talk) 11:21, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Female editor here: Calling people 'ego-fueled' because they aren't doing what you want fast enough isn't getting you anywhere with anyone. You are insulting volunteers. No one owes you an article about yourself that is exactly what you want it to be NOW, and frankly you're making it less likely anyone wants to help you. No one is going to contact you on your website to discuss this; we discuss it on WP, preferably at the article talk, preferably in response to you making a COI edit request, which you can do using this form. But first I'd suggest you take a long step back and try to look at this from the perspective of people who have limited time to volunteer and are fully in charge of how they use that time, because that's exactly what every Wikipedia editor is. Also women can be just as ego-fueled as men lol —valereee (talk) 11:45, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

No more Teahouse posts, please!
Hello Eddie. I doubt you'll believe me, but I am not one of those 'ego-fueled' male editors you clearly despise. I am nevertheless, like above, an administrator here and a pretty fair-minded guy with a lot of experience of helping people, both in the real world and on Wikipedia. I'm afraid the consensus at the Teahouse is that you have become a disruptive element here. By choosing to ignore the advice you were given about making Edit requests to the article at Talk:Ed Gold, and by repeatedly insulting all and sundry, you are now highly unlikely to achieve your goal of being the only person on Wikipedia who has a perfectly crafted, fully finished article about them which meets all their personal expectations and requirements.

So, this is simply to tell you that we will not accept another post from you at the Teahouse, and that your editing privileges there may be withdrawn if you continue to try. You may, of course, still post at the talk page of the article about you to make suggestions/requests for changes, or you may delete factually incorrect content yourself if it is not substantiated by 'reliable sources'. Whatever you do, I must ask you to cease disparaging everyone here. It sounds like you think we're all a bunch of nerdy schoolkids with nothing better to do than embark on power-crazed trips messing with the heads of worthy people, like your good self. Nothing could be further from the truth. I am truly sorry it has come to this, because it could have been a really productive relationship between an excellent photographer and our Wikipedia editors. Sadly, that has not worked out, and your actions have become sufficiently disruptive at the Teahouse that they fit more with someone who is NOTHERE. With well over 6 million articles to maintain and protect, and tens of thousands of active editors, we cannot afford to spend the time bending over backwards to deal with the disruption that your combination of demands and complaints have brought here. Someone has just pointed out to me that, until your recent complaint about all those who have ever tried to work with you, your article was receiving, on average, three views a day. So I'm sure your time and effort could be better spent focussing on other online platforms to showcase your amazing photographic talents and real-world achievements. Kind regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 16:36, 26 October 2020 (UTC)


 * What part of "no more Teahouse posts" is unclear? This has been explained multiple times. Also, "NOTE that I am not reading any messages from anyone via Wikipedia, disgruntled editors and the like"- if you aren't reading any messages, then that's why you keep coming back with the same annoying questions. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:14, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Joseph2302 (talk) 09:21, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

November 2020
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:32, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

You seem to be using Wikipedia exclusively to complain about an article about you. Navigating Wikipedia's bureaucracy can be frustrating and confusing, but you've been instructed several times on how to get your article updated. Please read through Plain and simple conflict of interest guide. Once you've done that, make an unblock request, as above, and tell us what you'll do differently when you're unblocked. Hint: if you tell us that you'll stop posting rants in inappropriate places, that will go pretty far toward getting you unblocked all by itself. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:40, 24 November 2020 (UTC) That took long... You Got A Friend In Yee (talk) 19:14, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Unblocking request update
Ed, no, that is not correct. The Teahouse is a place where newer editors can go to find help learning how to edit. It is not intended to be a place for article subjects to find someone to update the article or to complain about the current article. It is not a complaint department. It's a help desk for editing. The place for an article subject to ask for updates to the article is at the article's talk page, by using a well-prepared edit request.

Otherwise, the article about you will get updated when someone becomes interested in updating it.

Which brings me to the unblock request. Have you read the advice at Guide to appealing blocks? Because making multiple bad unblock requests one after another can result in loss of access to your talk page, which means you won't even be able to complain here any more. And all three of today's unblock requests are bad unblock requests. I'm willing to help you figure out how to improve your situation, but only on the condition that you from now on not make any rude comments to any other editor anywhere on wikipedia. Can you make that commitment? —valereee (talk) 17:00, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I have been making a few minor edits to the article in order to reduce it's reliance on primary sources. Wikipedia is a work in progress, articles are rarely "completed" and if you want complete "updated" content about yourself then your own website is the best location, here we just report on what reliable, independent sources say about you, if they don't say anything, then we don't include that  content and to be honest your input really isn't required.  Theroadislong (talk) 17:12, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Final unblock request

 * The gazette-news.co.uk article is already used as a reference in the article, The Guardian piece is just a paid for listing and of no interest to Wikipedia. Theroadislong (talk) 18:35, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

The gazette-news.co.uk article is already used as a reference in the article
Theroadislong - The gazette-news.co.uk article is already used as a reference in the article? Please can I ask where? Because the Gazette has done MANY stories over the years about my photography and I am sure that this particular story has not been mentioned at all in the WP article about my work. I hope you don't mind that I say I am very embarrassed by the article about my work on Wikipedia. That isn't being rude is it? As I keep on saying it is incomplete and I cannot bring myself to look at it anymore. It's a very poor reflection of Ed Gold, the documentary photographer.EddieLeVisco (talk) 18:56, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Reference 23 is that article from the gazette, The magazine is self published and is not mentioned in the article because it hasn't received in-depth coverage in any reliable sources, meaning Wikipedia will not consider that it is notable enough to mention, you may be embarrassed by the article, but there is nothing we can do about that, the article is "about you" NOT "for you". It will NEVER be a complete record of your career, that is what your own website is for, Wikipedia merely reports what reliable independent sources have said about you, nothing else. Theroadislong (talk) 19:17, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Now I understand. Thank you for your time Theroadislong. I notice somebody added the Gazette story today. I won't bother anyone here again if I can help it. It now doesn't matter if I am blocked or not. I'd prefer not to be as it feels like I've done something wrong. But these are your rules.EddieLeVisco (talk) 19:33, 1 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Eddie, I've offered to help you. Let me know if you want the help. —valereee (talk) 20:03, 1 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Valereee, thank you very much. After communicating here with :Theroadislong I don't know what help can be given now? :Theroadislong stated that the article is about me and not for me, which I already know. But if the article is not allowed to be edited by anyone, there is little point in offering help. This is the most counter-productive situation I have ever been in. How would you be able to help me :Valereee?
 * Ed, the world's entire population of humans can edit the article. You and your own circle are the only ones who are asked not to. Theroadislong is correct, the article is about you and not for you, but that doesn't mean you aren't welcome to offer input. I have worked with multiple COI editors before, and I'll help you if you want. If you would rather just walk away, that's fine, but if you actually want to contribute productively to the article about you, I can show you how that can be accomplished. I can show you how to request changes/additions that are likely to be made.
 * I understand you're frustrated, and I'm really sorry you're embarrassed. Wikipedia has a very steep learning curve. Most new editors move from correcting a typo to rewording an awkward sentence to discovering talk pages, and they learn policy mostly-painlessly along the way before they start trying to make any major change to an article. Article subjects like you typically come in completely unfamiliar with policy and are looking for large changes, and it can feel overwhelming, especially when they run up against behavioral guidelines like you have. —valereee (talk) 20:43, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

—valereee I am grateful for your writing. I won't walk away if you are offering input. I have to sign off here as it is late in the UK, but please let me know tomorrow (2nd) or a day that suits you. I do of course want to positively contribute productively to the article about me, this has always been my intention. But I have to add that the last time an editor helped me, another editor said that we had a friendship, which was the weirdest thing to say as I didn't know the person at all, and that the friendship would affect the integrity of the article. (A 'friendship' just because we had emailed a number of times about the article). So it almost feels as though it is impossible to do anything in Wikipedia and at every turn this is a problem, or multiple problems. It is strange that Wikipedia is so well respected for information, but that information is not 100% complete. I am even wary now of asking you to write to my email address as this again will start a witch hunt. So please provide help in the open for all to read.EddieLeVisco (talk) 21:19, 1 January 2021 (UTC)}}


 * I don't think anyone's going to claim we have a friendship. We will interact only here on your talk and/or at the article talk, and we won't interact offline at all, so everyone will be able to see all of our interactions. I will not email with you unless there are privacy issues that require it. We prefer to conduct all conversations publicly unless there's a reason not to.
 * Wikipedia articles are never 100% complete. Even for articles about centuries-old subjects, there's always something else that needs to be considered, new scholarly research or whatever. In this case we're talking about a living person who has an active career; of course the article is not complete. It likely won't be anywhere near complete until decades after you've died, if scholars decide you're important enough to write about. If they are still discussing your work c.2453, we'll (assuming the world as we know it still exists) still be updating the article. The article on Pythagoras got an edit in the past week. :) That is true of all WP articles. We don't claim to be complete. We are your best starting place for answering a question. That is all.  —valereee (talk) 21:38, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Help
Okay, so as for starting the help.

Article subjects have two choices:
 * 1) Ignore the article, other than to check it occasionally to make sure there’s no actual libel.
 * 2) Use edit requests to suggest updates and corrections.

Unless someone becomes interested in the article and decides to work on it, There really is nothing else you can do. The article is not in your control. The only thing I can promise you is that it will never be exactly what you want it to be. If that's going to bother you, choice #1 is your best option.

Choice #2 means doing the work. It means deciding what is the one most important change you think needs to be made, finding a reliable source for that change, and making an edit request at the article talk. Another editor will come in and take a look and decide whether they agree with you that the change is an improvement. If they do, they'll make the change. Then you repeat that process with the next most important change.

If you tell me what one single addition or change seems like it's the most important to you, and give me a URL for the source for the change, we can talk about how to format an edit request in a way that makes it easy for another editor to help you. —valereee (talk) 19:27, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

—valereee Thank you very much for writing and for offering such useful help. I will definitely take you up on your kind assistance and will let you know the most important change(s) that I think needs to be made. Forgive me for not writing more here this evening but I am living outdoors and it is minus degrees celsius so not conducive to being able to work properly. I will be in contact soon when (if) I can be comfortable.EddieLeVisco (talk) 19:46, 2 January 2021 (UTC)


 * No worries, we have no deadlines here. Stay warm, you crazy artist person, you! :D —valereee (talk) 20:19, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

—valereee Hello Valeree, I hope you are well. At risk of contacting you for the first time, and being labelled 'friends' now by other WP editors, which would disable your help as it goes against WP Policy, I write to kindly ask for your help please. You had offered to help make additions or change to the article about me, if it is allowable. I note on the article page that I have 4 books listed as being published. I find this embarrassing because in fact I have made 58 books. 3 have been published commercially and the rest have been produced by myself and published via Blurb.com. Most of the 55 have ISBN numbers, so does that make them legitimate and validate them being included in the WP article? Also, I launched my own commercial quarterly magazine on 01 November 2020 and 2 issues have been published so far. It is for sale in 36 shops in the UK and in 10 shops overseas. The magazine 'Positive Futures' has been mentioned in a newspaper article that has been included on the WP article (Reference #23), but also it was recently reviewed in 'The Land' magazine in the UK. I can send you a URL of a PDF of the review which was a whole page in The Land magazine. The review is not available online but only in print. I wonder if it is eligible for inclusion as the last time we communicated I learnt that due to the nature of Wikipedia, articles can never be complete or 100%. Thank you for your time.185.60.5.17 (talk) 11:05, 27 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Hey, Eddie! Nah, you still have a user name, you just got logged out -- the system logs you out after a year, I believe. So your books that are self-published, we generally won't list unless they've received coverage somewhere. If you can find someone somewhere mentioning that you have other self-published books, we can mention the fact, but we wouldn't list them all. Actually we typically don't list any book that hasn't been mentioned somewhere; we probably need to get some citations for those books.
 * Now, here's the problem: I can't respond to edit requests from a blocked user. You'll need to address the block, I'm afraid. I'd recommend reading WP:GAB, as it's got helpful information. —valereee (talk) 14:49, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

—valereee Thank you Valeree. I have requested an unblock and posted as such. I won't contact you again as I now see it is not necessary to update the article about me. Wishing you a good day.EddieLeVisco (talk) 16:55, 27 February 2021 (UTC)