User talk:Graubert

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! --Candyfloss 22:49, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Alina Smith
Your recent edits to Alina Smith have been reverted because they do not conform to wikipedia's policy on maintaining a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a fansite, and all information must be properly sourced. If you have any questions, feel free to drop me a line on my talk page, and I'll be glad to try and help. Thanks! Snowfire51 (talk) 21:08, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Huh? I made the entry from a fan bio to a fact-based piece. Did you even bother to actually look at the writing and compare the versions? I did not change ANYTHING WHATSOVER that added facts. Moreover, my knowledge of this subject is personal, having worked with the subject and in fact actually written much of the original entry in another context. Also, frankly, rather than simply "reverting" something for lack of citations, why not leave it and indicate where citations are needed?


 * Exactly. It's quite apparent you have a personal interest in this subject, which means you're not a neutral source. A few days ago, I pared down most of the non-encyclopedic entries in the article, and sources were found for the rest. Fansite material and terms shouldn't be a part of wikipedia. Snowfire51 (talk) 21:29, 1 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Here's an example of what I'm talking about. You added "Most recently, Alina was named Vocalist of the Month by the website SingerUniverse.com." That's certainly noteworthy, although it needed a reference. However, you added "an honor made all the more significant considering that the site's advisory board includes some of the music industry's top producers and A&R heads, a nice distinction given that it comes prior to releasing her first commercial album." This is original research, and is non-encyclopedic. Snowfire51 (talk) 21:46, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Know what? I tried and put considerable time in, and you simply dropped it. This is extremely irksome and really seems abusive, quite frankly. You could have taken what I wrote and edited it yourself, instead. But I guess that would have taken more effort than arbitrarily dropping it. The reference to the Vocalist of the Month FACT is the website. Go to it and on the first page is her photo, though being January it will eventually get replaced by this month's winner. As to the addition that you mention, the detail about the site's advisory board is CERTAINLY objective and worth adding. I tried to make it non-promotional, but obviously not enough to satisfy you. Your efforts at editing are appreciated, and the page says this is autobiographical and requires more - well, I'm not Alina. I added more. Or is there a rule at Wikipedia that somehow people who ACTUALLY KNOW THE FACTS about the subject cannot contribute?


 * Yes, that's exactly the rule. Information in Wikipedia has to be verifiable through secondary sources. Personal knowledge is not sufficient, that's counted as original research and unverifiable, thus is has no place in an encyclopedia. If you'll look, I also spent considerable time cleaning this article up in hopes of keeping it in Wikipedia, because as of a few days ago, it was nothing more than a fansite. I made some changes to your edits (and the rest of this page), and some things were deleted because they were not appropriate for an encyclopedia. I left the reference about SingerUniverse.com in there because its a valid point, although it needs a proper reference. The rest is completely original research. Please don't take this as a personal attack, I'm only trying to get (and keep) the page up to wikipedia standards. Snowfire51 (talk) 04:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay. I won't take it so personally, and I see the points you make, and again, apreciate your efforts. What I hope you'll understand is that I found the entry at random and was spurred to edit it precisely in order to seek to make it less fansite-like. Actually, the initial info was taken from a bio written by me, not an autobio, even though it was apparently submitted by the subject, which is in her press kit. The initial research on that was verified wherever possible, or from sources other than her, yet not in the way which would be suited to Wikipedia. Anyway, my frustration came from your trashing the contribution wholesale with the ironic point that it was too fansite-like. Again, my purpose was to make it LESS SO! In any event, I'll just let it go, the piece is fine as a start. I'm sure that, as a starting piece on the subject, given that her career is new, this article will ultimately take on a very different shape as more facts of interest/relevance occur (which are not editorial in nature and which hopefully will include citations). I'd certainly like to think that, now that I am more versed in the rules as such, I can add to the piece in the future in an acceptable manner (i.e., with citations, just-the-facts, etc.). By the way, the correction to "more than a million hits" is in fact correct. There are TWO myspace pages, one created when the original page became temporarily inaccessible due to a Myspace technical glitch. The other is myspace.com/alinasmith. Together they have over a million hits. I tried to add the two pages to the citation, but found myself unable to edit that :)


 * Cool. I can see where we got off on a bad note, glad we've ben able to work things out. Thanks for your last corrections, I missed a word or two in there. Your additions to the page added a lot, and I look forward to working with you and watching this page develop. Take care! Snowfire51 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 04:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! You, too, and by the way, Happy New Year!

Polina Such (Polina Sukhinina)
Your recent edits to Polina Such (Polina Sukhinina) have been reverted because you erase fact-based part of bio and career. If the facts are true, they can not be slander. These facts also do not apply to private information, as are information about a career, not his personal life. Photos and videos, which are linked, are not private property. They are owned by companies that own these sites. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wrvasd (talk • contribs) 07:25, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

REPLY: this would ordinarily be the case, but it is not that simple in this case for the following important reason. The tort (legal liability cause of action) for "Public Disclosure of Private Facts" considers several things. In this case, it would certainly be relevant, and in my opinion (as an attorney) determinative to the case on this point, that the above information, while factual, was intended to be private since the subject used one or more pseudonyms obviously for privacy purposes. Indeed, the footnoted websites referenced for authority use those pseudonyms rather than the real name. Given the reputational harm, the entry should properly be removed. Even if it is Wikipedia's policy (and legal judgment) not to recognize a pseudonym that is maintained as distinct in such circumstances, it is wrong to include. Use of pseudonyms for such purposes is obviously intended to maintain privacy. I would think that Wikipedia would be respectful of that, especially for a semi-public, rather than fully public, individual. But, I will not seek to change this again if the reply to this is contrary. I have no personal stake here, incidentally, yet would consider that the motivation of anyone who would include this information may in fact be malicious. Thank you.

I want to draw your attention that the name of the article is a pseudonym. Thus, the reasoning offered a way to be removed the entire article as revealing privacy. Perhaps you are right, and the text of the article should remove aliases. The problem is that in this case, we first have to change the title.--Wrvasd (talk) 14:03, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I would agree that the name of the article should be the subject's real name since she uses that name. In fact, within the article the real name appears to be used as such. At most, the fashion model pseudonym ("Such") should be referenced. Clearly, the fashion model pseudonym, since it was adopted by the subject herself, is not an attempt to keep private identity information about the subject. Presumably enough, it is merely an effort to Americanize an otherwise foreign sounding Russian surname, a classic reason for entertainer name changes, whatever one might think of that or the name choice itself. Whereas, the "adult industry" website pseudonyms are for privacy. The damages from this no doubt ill-conceived effort, in this person's case, to move out of desperate poverty in Siberia should not be visited upon her by Wikipedia, I think. And, these should not be underestimated. Indeed, I submit to you that it is precisely such damages which the tort of "Public dissemination of private facts" is intended to address. It would be one thing if the information here is widely known, but it is not. Moreover, the legal test of whether or not the "facts" are "public" is not some availability. I think it would be good policy for Wikipedia to err on the side of privacy protection, at least with non-public or (as here) semi-public figures. Wikipedia, which is a primary resource, should not be ahead of the curve on outing people. Again, thank you for consideration of this.

It is not clear why are you trying to remove the obviously correct information, if (as you say) you have no personal interest. What sense to protect any person, if you do not know her opinion? It is likely that she, being a model, a positive attitude to the data. And stop point to some laws. This information is not defamatory (because these links are already in the public domain), slander (because it is true), or disclosing personal life (because it's not about the private life, and in addition to the article itself says about Polina Such, not Paulina Sukhinina). We have already discussed, and should not be repeated. And what is this "desperate poverty in Siberia," you say? So you additional supporting information in the article - Sukhinina was forced to work as porn actress because of poverty? According to unconfirmed information, it has also worked in escort services (prostitute). It is possible that she still has such a service. Do you have information about this?

I would advise the moderator or whoever is inserting this tortious material to see the following on point regarding the tort of Public Dissemination of Private Facts: http://www.citmedialaw.org/legal-guide/publication-private-facts. As this article (and Wikipedia's own entry on the family of defamation torts, of which this is one) makes clear, to be actionable legally - that is, for the person asserting such facts publicly - these facts need not be false. Indeed, they are true. The legal standard (as the article and all of the common law opinions make clear) is that the subject facts are of a nature that a reasonable person would find them offensive. I quote from this article:

A plaintiff must establish four elements to hold someone liable for publication of private facts:

1. Public Disclosure: The disclosure of facts must be public. Another way of saying this is that the defendant must "give publicity" to the fact or facts in question. 2. Private Fact: The fact or facts disclosed must be private, and not generally known. 3. Offensive to a Reasonable Person: Publication of the private facts in question must be offensive to a reasonable person of ordinary sensibilities. 4. Not Newsworthy: The facts disclosed must not be newsworthy. Stated differently, the facts disclosed must not be a matter of legitimate public concern.

As of this latest reversion, I have contacted the subject about this matter, who is an acquaintance. She has asked me to represent her as an attorney to pursue her immediate interest in holding liable Wikipedia and/or any individual included this material, which is not otherwise public within the meaning of the related first and second elements of the cause of action (see above, and further exposition on the cited page). The third prong of the cause of action is clear. As to the fourth prong, the facts at issue here are not "a matter of legitimate public concern" as would be clear to any fact-finder (i.e., judge or juror) evaluating this in the light of existing caselaw.

I have advised the subject that this matter must be further pursued in the event this material re-appears, which is her right. I hope that Wikipedia will consult its policies with respect to this issue and do what is necessary to avoid further damages to the subject so that it will not be necessary for her to take further action to protect herself.

You have ever tried to make questionable changes in other articles. It looks like you do not fully understand the meaning of existence Wikipedia as encyclopedia. If anyone tries to censor it, striking out the facts that he did not like, this site can be closed, as unnecessary. Wikipedia - not a fansite and is not a social network. If the facts are confirmed, they are not removed. Obviously, Pauline Sukhinina not deny the truth of the information? By the way, she confirmed the additional facts that have been mentioned? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wrvasd (talk • contribs) 20:01, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Alina Smith Photo 070513.jpeg
Thanks for uploading File:Alina Smith Photo 070513.jpeg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the file description page and add the text   below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing   with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
 * 2) On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 21:04, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:37, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 30
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Blind Lemon Jefferson, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Black Snake Moan. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:07, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Incorrectly using minor edits check box
Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you.

This is a minor edit that you made. You added a missing word "the".

This is not a minor edit, but is an example of your incorrectly using minor edits check box. You added that he had been "mutilated and castrated" and gave a source for this information. The edit was a good edit, but it was not a minor edit. -- Toddy1 (talk) 18:23, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Nicolas Pesce concern
Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Nicolas Pesce, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:32, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Nicolas Pesce


Hello, Graubert. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Nicolas Pesce".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the, , or  code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Sam Sailor 16:35, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Problem with your custom signature
You have a custom signature set in your account preferences. A change to Wikipedia's software has made your current custom signature incompatible with the software.

The problem: Your preferences are set to interpret your custom signature as wikitext. However, your current custom signature does not contain any wikitext.

The solutions: You can reset your signature to the default, or you can fix your signature.


 * Solution 1: Reset your signature to the default:
 * Find the signature section in the first tab of Special:Preferences.
 * Uncheck the box (☑︎→☐) that says "Treat the above as wiki markup."
 * Remove anything in the text box.  (It might already be empty.)
 * Click the blue "" button at the bottom of the page. (The red "" button will reset all of your preference settings, not just the signature.)
 * Solution 2: Fix your custom signature:
 * Find the signature section in the first tab of Special:Preferences.
 * Uncheck the box (☑︎→☐) that says "Treat the above as wiki markup."
 * Click the blue "" button at the bottom of the page.

More information about custom signatures is available at Signatures. If you have followed these instructions and still want help, please leave a message at Wikipedia talk:Signatures. Thank you. 18:03, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:31, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:26, 28 November 2023 (UTC)