User talk:Hrdap

--

--

Welcome!
Welcome ! 

Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions! I'm W.carter, one of the other editors here, and I hope you decide to stay and help contribute to this amazing repository of knowledge. Alternatively, leave me a message at my talk page or type  here on your talk page, and someone will try to help. Remember to always sign your posts on talk pages. You can do this either by clicking on the button on the edit toolbar or by typing four tildes   at the end of your post. This will automatically insert your, a link to this talk) page, and a timestamp. The best way to learn about something is to experience it. Explore, learn, contribute, and don't forget to have some fun! To get some practice editing you can use a sandbox. ou can  for use any time. Perfect for working on bigger projects. Then for easy access in the future, you  put  on.

 Sincerely, w.carter -Talk  20:34, 28 February 2015 (UTC)   [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:W.carter&action=edit&section=new&preload=Template:Welcome_to_Wikipedia/user-talk_preload (Leave me a message)]

Español

Deutsch

Français

Italiano

עברית

Русский

日本語

Polski

فارسی

The Picture in your daft
Hello again! It's just me from the Teahouse. I am a bit concerned about the picture you have uploaded for the article: File:Swedhr.jpg. You have listed it as your own work, and I suspect that you did not draw it yourself but that the copyright for it belongs to the organization. Uploading something here at the Wikipedia or at the Commons, which is the picture repository for the Wiki, also means that you release the pic of it's copyright and make it available for anyone to alter and use. I'm certain that it is not what you intended. You must instead upload the picture under fair use once the article is in the main space, and provide the right license for it. Best, w.carter -Talk  20:59, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

– Thanks, I'll do so. And I have now removed the pic. Brgds./ Hrdap

Hrdap (talk) 01:01, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

How to alert other editors
When someone is posting on your talk page you get an automatic notification. That notification is a red square followed by a long yellow box (for most browsers and settings). In all other cases you have to alert the other editor in some way, either by "ping" or by mentioning them in a link. This will result in just the red box notification on that users pages. So even if you respond on your talk page you still have to alert the editor you are addressing. If you want to get hold of me you write resulting in  or W.carter resulting in W.carter and sign with the four "squiggles" ~ at the end and hit "Save". There are some more, but these are the basics. And when you ask something on someone's talk page, you also create a new section so your question don't get entangled in some other conversation. If you are having a conversation with another user on some page, it is also customary to add that page to your Watchlist in case someone in the discussion forgets to alert.

The policy is to leave an answer on the same page as the question, keep the conversation intact unless there is some reason for moving it elsewhere. Like complicated questions at the Teahouse can be continued on the appropriate talk page. w.carter -Talk  08:14, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks.

(correct sent? Pls. confirm)

Hrdap (talk) 09:09, 1 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, the 'ping' worked. Just don't start a line with a "space", it creates a funny code. If you want to indent something,
 * do it using the ":"
 * as I have done in this example. (Look in the code)
 * I'm working on the draft now. w.carter -Talk  09:15, 1 March 2015 (UTC)


 * OK, thanks, W.carter

Hrdap (talk) 09:22, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

About the draft
Hello! I have left a note on the Draft talk:Swedish Doctors for Human Rights. Unfortunately I'm far from sure that the article will be accepted by a reviewer since it should be about the organization itself not just all the notable work the individual members have done. If you can dig up some sources, in any language, where the SWEDHR is mentioned, I will be happy to help you include those in the article. And as for the refs to social media, please read the Sources that are usually not reliable for more info. I will be keeping an eye on the whole thing and see how it develops.

And as for one of your questions at the Teahouse, the reviewers are experienced editors who knows how to sort out notable subjects from non-notable. Some of them may be admins, but that has nothing to do with the reviewing. If I had found that the SWEDHR was really notable beyond doubt, I could have moved the article to the main space, but I could not find such evidence so I'll leave it up to a more experienced reviewer. All the best, w.carter -Talk  11:21, 1 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks, W.carter. You have done a terrific job with the draft, and lärorik! I thank you sincerely, and I understand your point. Even if I disagree on whether this organization would not be important only because secondary sources refers mainly to notability of achievements by the organization's participants – achievements which are precisely on THAT field (the specific unique field of this organization). I will see what can I do about the secondary sourcing of SWEDHR activities you raise. In the meantime I would like to ask that the article remain in draft-form until the issue is addressed. I also wonder, as I referred in my first message in Teahouse, how come that there is a number of HR-organizations with articles in Wikipedia whose notability criteria, as sustained by secondary sources, is not only unclear, but far beyond what is stated in the draft on the SWEDHR article (a sample of these organizations listed in "Three questions on a newly created article", at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions). I had also contacted SWEDHR on the issue of the logo you took up before – no reply yet.
 * Please keep in touch.
 * Thanks again, and best wishes
 * Hrdap (talk) 12:17, 1 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Since the Wikipedia is a place where anyone can edit, we need to rely on secondary sources to establish notability for subject no matter how important they are. I'm not questioning whether the organization is important or not, it's certainly doing a good job, but we need it verified in some way. That's the policy, sorry. As for you question about the other organizations, there are unfortunately a lot of articles floating around that either were written before the more strict policy here was implemented or they were introduced directly in the main area by some editor, something that is against the policy here and they might be deleted at any time. Right now "the Wikipedia" is just waiting for someone to come and rescue them, but we are all volunteers here with a limited amount of time to fix things. I would much rather that this article was introduced the proper way.
 * Don't worry about the logo yet, we will use the fair use criteria as it is done on many, many articles here. Click on the "logo" on this article for example and you will see: Harvard Law School. Will be in touch, w.carter -Talk  12:43, 1 March 2015 (UTC)


 * This may sound paradoxical, but in fact I am just happy that Wikipedia has taken the even stricter policy that you mentioned above. That surely enhances the quality, but also the academic respectability of the articles.
 * (And I am still confident that I will be able to sort out completion of the secondary sourcing).
 * Hrdap (talk) 13:08, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Not paradoxical at all, that only means that you are an editor that is serious about this huge project called Wikipedia. Since it now is the No. 1 source for online information, we really need to keep up our reputation as much as we can. Fingers crossed that you find some good sources, otherwise there is always Plan B, which is to make it a sub-section of the existing article about Marcello Ferrada de Noli and thereby at least get it on the WP in a searchable way. But that article is such a mess, with so many things to tidy up that I wouldn't even know where to start!! I can see where you found your "guidance" for your draft. Best, <em style="font-family:Verdana;color:DarkBlue">w.carter <em style="font-family:Verdana;color:DarkBlue">-Talk  14:09, 1 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, I took from there the secondary sources I used when I created the article, and the rest after I was notified on the issue (25 Feb). I just pasted "the mess" in the old References & Footnotes of the draft, keeping the layout.
 * I found your idea of a new section in that article thrilling, in fact, excellent. The problem is that I would not know how to do it (I don't dare asking you on this because you must be exhausted by the moment after the editing).
 * Just for me to know how it would function, could you send over to me a link with a wikipedia article with sections, or how to search one?
 * Thanks a lot

Hrdap (talk) 15:14, 1 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Hej igen
 * In the meantime I will send a request to info@swedhr asking for secondary sources referred to the organization.

Hrdap (talk) 15:22, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Subsection
OK,, now I understand what you meant with "sub-section". First I got the impression that it was a separate article linked some how to a main article. Before I replied to you above I've searched in Wikipedia and I got to a complicated chapter called "Creating a daughter article" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Wikipedia:_The_Missing_Manual/Formatting_and_Illustrating_Articles/Article_Sections_and_Tables_of_Contents#Creating_a_daughter_article). But now I've searched in Google, and to my "surprise" I have had sections in the article in front of my eyes all the time. (I.e. "Organization", "Controversies", etc.). So, perhaps you meant that it would be sufficient to add the text of the draft in a new sub-section of another article? In this case, what would it happen with the professional layout of References & Notes you did? Sorry to disturb again. Hrdap (talk) 16:44, 1 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Just breaking of this post into another subsection since the post was getting rather lengthy. :) Yes, you are quite correct "Organization", "Controversies", etc. are subsections. There are also sub-sub-sections, and so on. This is the way it might be done if a subject is not notable enough for a separate article. For example, when I wrote the John Bauer article, I had to deal with the SS Per Brahe accident. On the SweWiki it had its own article, but here it was not notable enough for a separate one, so I had to incorporate it into a subsection "Death on Lake Vattern" instead.


 * As for all the notes and so on, well, the rest of the article would have to be "upgraded" in a similar fashion (which is why I hope that your draft will pass ...). But it is doable. It can't be any worse than when I fixed/wrote these articles: Stockholm Palace (which includes subsections of all hierarchies!) and Swedish East India Company, it will just take a bit more time that some lazy hours on a Sunday morning. ;) <em style="font-family:Verdana;color:DarkBlue">w.carter <em style="font-family:Verdana;color:DarkBlue">-Talk  17:40, 1 March 2015 (UTC)


 * P.S. Regarding the secondary sources, please let them know that any source that mention the organization is good: Chilean newspapers, US books, French journals, Afghanistan government documents, whatever. I can help you sort out the languages and how to write the references, I just need the facts. Scanned pages from said sources work as well, I have an e-mail for such things. Everything does not have to be available online. <em style="font-family:Verdana;color:DarkBlue">w.carter <em style="font-family:Verdana;color:DarkBlue">-Talk  17:55, 1 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I have now read the the article on Stockholm Palace. I just can say OMG! Over 50 subsections and 100 references, not to mention the content itself..., and the graphics. Wikipedia must be proud. I'll continue with the others.
 * For my part I can't advance just for the moment, but anyway optimist about soon finding those secondary sources. Meanwhile, and in waiting for the answers from info@swedhr.org, what can I do to prevent an eventual deleting of the draft? (Las question for today, W.carter, I promise).

Hrdap (talk) 18:27, 1 March 2015 (UTC)


 * As you may have discovered, I have put an "on hold" template on your draft. I'll keep an eye on it as well. I will not have as much time now during the week. I have a regular job and the Wikipedia is just a hobby I have to relax a bit on my time off. If you want to learn more about me and my work here, just check out my user page. Well, at least now you know that I'm not afraid to work on big articles. Have a pleasant evening, <em style="font-family:Verdana;color:DarkBlue">w.carter  <em style="font-family:Verdana;color:DarkBlue">-Talk  19:20, 1 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I thank you very much. Have a nice evening you too.
 * PS. Apart of the item ref. you do not like to cook (an one or two others) I found we have all main interests in common.

Your submission at Articles for creation: Swedish Doctors for Human Rights has been accepted
<div style="border:solid 1px #57DB1E; background:#E6FFE6; padding:1em; padding-top:0.5em; padding-bottom:0.5em; width:20em; color:black; margin-bottom: 1.5em; margin-left: 1.5em; width: 90%;"> Swedish Doctors for Human Rights, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article. You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. . Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia! -- Sam Sailor Talk! 09:58, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the  [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_talk/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=User_talk:Hrdap help desk] .
 * If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

Congrats!
Hej! How nice! :) The article was accepted with flying colors. Not many articles get the C-rating right away. As soon as I have the time I will continue to clean up the references and notes and make the article as good as I can. This is very satisfying. I also created a redirected page for the abbreviation SWEDHR in case some search is made with that, and fixed the links on the Marcello Ferrada de Noli page. All the best, <em style="font-family:Verdana;color:DarkBlue">w.carter <em style="font-family:Verdana;color:DarkBlue">-Talk  11:13, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I have also fixed the licensing for the logo. It is now uploaded at the Wikipedia under WP:Fair use. That means that we can use it in the article even though the copyrights belong to the organization, but only in the article and nowhere else. So no need for an ok from the organization. The copies of the files that you uploaded at the Commons will be deleted. I placed so called "Infobox" on the article. That kind of "box" is used in most articles. If you look in the coding you can see that there are a number of parameters that you can fill in if you like. The more info, the better. :) Best, <em style="font-family:Verdana;color:DarkBlue">w.carter <em style="font-family:Verdana;color:DarkBlue">-Talk  12:30, 6 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks, W.Carter
 * Hrdap (talk) 11:13, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Re titles
Hello again! No need to get frightened! :) I was only suggesting asking an admin since they are also the ones with most knowledge in these matters. They are admins because of their great knowledge of things WP and their skills in article creation. And since I am not 100% certain about this whole thing, it is better to ask. This is actually for your benefit, in case I am wrong. So I am kindly asking Philg88 to take a look at Swedish Doctors for Human Rights. We are not quite sure if titles (such as Dr. or Prof.) should be in front of the names in the article or in the infobox. We have tried to decipher the WP:CREDENTIAL to see how things should be, but are so far not 100% certain which way to go. Your help would be much appreciated.

Also, Hrdap, as I have said before all of the things you have emailed me about could have been written or discussed here on the Wikipedia, on your talk page, mine or the article's. We much prefer if articles are discussed here in the transparent environment of the WP. The email option is only for personal things and/or sensitive matters. So far everything has been about the article Swedish Doctors for Human Rights and none of it of any sensitive nature. So please proceed with any discussion here instead. Btw, please stop referring to me as "senior editor", I am nothing of the kind. All the best, <em style="font-family:Verdana;color:DarkBlue">w.carter <em style="font-family:Verdana;color:DarkBlue">-Talk  16:38, 14 March 2015 (UTC)


 * To W.carter: Wikipedia is very clear on that users should not be ascribed spurious intentions by others users. Your inference on that I would be ”frightened” (of what?) – by you calling an administrator to see my last edit – is offensive and unjustified, and it has absolutely no ground in what I wrote to you in my email [For clarity, I'll transcribe later the messages, below this reply].


 * Secondly, it was YOU that suggested me to write email to your instead of using the talk page. If I have agreed to use that channel towards you it is of the solely reason that you are the only one putting objections, some of them not relevant, to the editing of my new article. No one else has done it. In fact, neither the reviewer that accepted my article, and moved it to Wikipedia’s article space, did agree with your reservations. Besides, after the article was accepted I continued providing secondary source.


 * Third, I’ve NOT been calling you a "senior editor" in the correspondence you refer above. My wrong assumption in the past was motivated of the presentation you made on your self, addressed to me, in relation to your articles and vast experience you hinted having at Wikipedia. Why are you mentioning here this issue of you being “senior Wikipedia editor”, while I am NOT addressing you in that fashion, it can neither be ascribed to me.


 * I have so far, during these weeks, patiently read your “criticism” and personal offenses you wrote via email, without engaging in a discussion with you. Instead, I have thanked for the positive of your contribution to the editing of the article. Finally you wrote in the article page that precisely because all that editing, your conclusion could not be recommending the publication of the article. However, the article was properly reviewed and accepted for publication by a Wikipedia reviewer.  Now you call a new administrator, Philg88, not "to review an edit" (which in fact I performed exactly after your recommendation, and according to the Wikipedia manual you referred), but you call the administrator "to take a look at Swedish Doctors for Human Rights". Sincerely, as I fail to see the "conflict of opinions  or interpretations" in the final editing of the Info. Box, I wonder whether this is really an issue that one would need bothering an administrator to clarify. In my opinion, the one needing to clarify the readers here, is you, W.Carter.
 * Hrdap (talk) 18:07, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello again. Oh dear, my choice of word really managed to get you worked up. For that I am truly sorry. We use a rather casual language here and "frightened" was just a humorous way of trying to defuse a situation that was escalating in an unnecessary way. I apologize for my poor choice of words. As for emails, yes, I started it since I assumed you had some info in Swedish (not suitable on the English Wikipedia) that might help the article along. When it turned out that all the info was in English I pointed this out and said we could continue on WP. Once again a misunderstanding.

You did refer to me as senior editor on the talk page of the article, a title I do not deserve. As for insulting you in emails, I can not understand what you mean, I have only pointed out the policy of he Wikipedia and tried to make the article comply with that so that it would be accepted. That has been my sole goal in helping you. In some cases your opinion and wishes has not been within the rules and regulations of the WP, if you take that as a personal assult there is nothing I can do about it. But what I wrote on the talk page was that none of the reliable sources mentioned the organisation. That was not a recommendation in any way, just a statement. I have nowhere asked an admin to review an edit (please don't put quotations on texts I have never written), I have simply asked for an opinion from an admin who is a very experienced editor and know these things better than I do. I really hope that what he suggests is the way you want it to be, since that might reassure you that I do this for the good of the article and not to be "right". I need to learn too, and admins are use to be bothered so this is no big thing. Best, <em style="font-family:Verdana;color:DarkBlue">w.carter <em style="font-family:Verdana;color:DarkBlue">-Talk  18:54, 14 March 2015 (UTC)


 * When it comes to titles (honorary, academic or otherwise) Wikipedia ignores them in all biographic articles on such people to avoid clutter. A reader is credited with the intellligence to work out that a qualified doctor based on cited qualifications uses the title "Dr." in his or her name without the need for its explicit use. However, a reference to a third party who is not the subject of an article (i.e. unlinked) may use their professional title, for example "[Article subject] worked closely with Albus Dumbledore and Professor Ignoramus of Hogwarts School". Philg88 ♦talk 05:43, 15 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks Philg88. In fact, the list at "Key people" in the info.box at Swedish Doctors for Human Rights are reference to a third party, and who are not subject to an article. The exception being the organization's chairman, but no title is added there either. Any how, to be on the "safest side" I did not place academic titles beside the names of the key people listed even if they are only reference to a third party. Instead I categorized into group professors and doctors, respectively. I thought the distinction is relevant for the article refers to a research organization. If you would suggest a better formulation than the one currently in the box, just communicate that and I'll be happy to do the change.
 * Brgds, Hrdap (talk) 11:52, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. The infobox is fine as it is. There are a couple of copyedits required, which I'll do now. Cheers, Philg88 ♦talk 16:09, 15 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I thank you, Philg88. And I saw now your editing on section Controversies (section added after a proofreading done on the article 27 Feb 2015). Wow, what a difference with real ENGLISH!
 * Brgds, Hrdap (talk) 18:32, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Final rebuttal to W.carter on section above
Any one reading what I wrote above, understands that I said exactly the OPPOSITE of what you put as my words. Namely: I was NOT stating that you have called an administrator "to review one edit". What I clearly said instead is that you are calling a specific administrator, (quoting your own words) "to take a look at Swedish Doctors for Human Rights"; which means to take a look to the whole article, not only to my most recent edit of 14:14 -14:28, 14 March 2015‎.

And I also said, and I maintain this, that you are asking anew for an administrator to do that, after the reviewer assigned in the process (Sam Sailor) - contrary to your declared reservations specifically directed "To the reviewer of this page" - accepted the article for publication on the 6 of March. You seemed so convinced that the reviewer would follow your reservations, that you even said to me to save a copy of the draft in view of the eventual deletion. After the article was instead accepted without reservations by the reviewer, you expressly indicated your surprise on that the article has got the C-rating ("Not many articles get the C-rating right away").

Also important in this context: Neither is true that you and I disagree on the edit of 14:14 -14:28, 14 March 2015, about the insertion of academic titles at Key Persons in the Info Box. For you did KNOW that I have corrected it, and you did know that in doing that I followed exactly your recommendation that I base the correction according to the Wikipedia manual you cited. But you decided to call upon administrator Philg88 any way, despite I said over and over again per email that I had agreed with you on the edit [See transcript below]. What I mean is that you are making up a "conflict", which has never existed, in order to invite a new review of the whole article (I only repeat your own words, "to take a look at Swedish Doctors for Human Rights").

Follows the email exchange (excerpts):


 * W.Carter [March 14, 2015 at 12:20 PM] "The idea about no titles is not mine but the rules of the Wikipedia. It is not a matter of if I find this acceptable or not. You can read about it in the Manual of Style where it is very well explained at"


 * Hrdap [March 14, 2015 at 12:43 PM] ''"Thank you! I will read it carefully later today, and rewrite accordingly."

''
 * W.Carter [March 14, 2015 at 12:57 PM] ''"I think that the policy have something to do with the very long perspective that the Wikipedia works with. Titles change with time, a name not so much. So the title is only relevant in an historic context when it was given, otherwise not."

''
 * Hrdap [March 14, 2015 at 14:34 PM] ''"Yes, I understand. As I said, I will comply with the Wikipedia manual you referred at. No problem."


 * W.Carter [March 14, 2015 at 14:58 PM] "...But since I am no expert on the subject, I will ask a Wikipedia administrator to have a look at the article and see how it should be written, just to make sure we don't do anything wrong."


 * Hrdap [March 14, 2015 at 15:19 PM] "What? Since I have already communicated (twice) that I agreed with YOUR reasoning - based on the Wikipedia manual - why bringing a Wikipedia administrator? I have already done the corrections according to the manual."

Where is Wikipedia collegial-ethics in all this?

I leave the argument here, for others with more experience to judge. Readers of this page will have their own conclusions. Or best, they can look at the article and at the references and notes themselves. Or they can read the message-exchange from the starting at the Tea House – when you "kidnapped" the new draft from the very beginning (after you have read it, comprising about the same body-text than now), adducing that, being a Swede, you were in best position to "help", others forum should abstain. You wrote:


 * "There are a lot of things that needs to be addressed before your article can be considered for the main space, formatting, general fixes, disambiguation, reference clean up etc. Since it is about a Swedish subject and many of the references are in Swedish, I assume that you are too. | As for "I have sent this petition for help to other forum", please don't do that. We prefer to have discussion about an article contained in one place, and this is the right forum for discussing how to edit articles."

Yes, not knowing better then, I went blind to thank that help, and to thank that you did a "keeping an eye" on the article, and you had innumerable questions which I answered, and you suggested innumerable changes which I did, or did multiple edits of your own putting references in order, all that I thanked in multiple occasions. Only for you to finally acknowledge that you were not thinking to recommend the article for publication ('reason'? Because you assessed the publisher organization WikiLeaks as a non-reliable source, due to the use of social-media as reference? Really? A reference that was listed there in the article from the very beginning?). Now I know some better, not only about Wikipedia's truly assessment of WikiLeaks as source, but principally about that no one owns a Wikipedia article (ergo, you don't), and that in the English Wikipedia any user, or editor, any reviewer or administrator, regardless being or not a Swede, can edit on a published article even if it is referred to an international organization based in Sweden. And that any Wikipedia forum can help.


 * P.S. Although this is not directly related to the issues discussed above, now I would kindly request that user W.carter stops referring untruthfully to the use of secondary sources in this article, in number or on quality. I could hardly believe that a Wikipedia editor would be allowed to qualify secondary sources as "unreliable" as if it were some kind of ideological filtering. As in the case of user W.carter's disqualification of WikiLeaks as one of the sources used, knowing that social media is the only vehicle the organization WikiLeaks has for its publications, all of them on-line. It cannot be ignored by a Wikipedia editor the fact that very many of those exposures by the organization WikiLeaks in social media have been determinant in reshaping the media world, or world politics itself, as it was the case of the Diplomatic Cables, inclusive on Sweden. May I remind that when Chelsea Manning was sentenced to 30 years of prison, the main "secondary source" used as evidence were the materials exposed by WikiLeaks in social media.
 * WikiLeaks referred in their social media channels the exposures done by Swedish Doctors for Human Rights regarding Sweden's collaboration with CIA in the extraordinary renditions of prisoners. For which Sweden was sanctioned by the United Nations for severe violation on the Absolute Ban on Torture. Anyway, WikiLeaks is not the only secondary source referred in the article, including referring the organization as such.
 * Hrdap (talk) 03:00, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for clarifying. I will of course not bother you any more or make any edits on that article. Best, <em style="font-family:Verdana;color:DarkBlue">w.carter <em style="font-family:Verdana;color:DarkBlue">-Talk  07:24, 15 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I regret that, W.carter, but it is your decision. Nothing that I have asked you to, for everybody is welcome to do edits in any Wikipedia article. As I said, I thank you kindly for all the improvements you did in the article and also for what I learned in the process.
 * Brgds, Hrdap (talk) 12:08, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either: This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
 * 1) Add four tildes  ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment; or
 * 2) With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button (Insert-signature.png or Signature icon.png) located above the edit window.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 03:08, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Hrdap (talk) 07:34, 28 April 2017 (UTC)==Question== Hrdap, you tell here that One user wonders if it is a conflict of interest, and honestly, I do not know. OK. So, am I wrong about it? I asked you because your pattern of editing suggests a possible WP:COI, including you focusing on creating and editing only one page with great passion, your removal of AfD nomination for another related page with edit summary blaming others , or this edit where you call Wikipedia ... "WikiLeaks": "I am confident that the new version will meet the WikiLeaks requirements.". Something is not right here... My very best wishes (talk) 20:01, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes I had then much enthusiasm in creating the article, which vanished on the way for many reasons, one of them very private-dramatic. As you can see I do not edit there any longer. I do regret thou the edit you refer, for I just recently concluded, reading the discussion guidelines, that such edit would be improper, even if not forbidden. I thought of putting away my edit through revert to the previous version, but then I realized that by doing that I would be taken also away newer edits which are relevant to the article (and not to the delete-discussion process, as it was mine). To mix up "Wikipedia" with "Wikileaks" is not uncommon. I read from time to time that even prominent, well informed people, incur in that mistake. Most recent U.S. Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee, that said that both the Russians and "Wikipedia" interfered with the U.S. election. Talking about Russians, I saw now your edit at the SWEDHR page with a link in Russian. In fact there are English materials that have referred to the same spin. For instance this article, which is a reputed network (with article in Wikipedia, so it could not be invalidated as 'second source'). To end, I say that your assumptions about me are as wrong as those I previously wrote about you. Your editing is very honest.
 * Well, in any event, you are more than welcome to edit other pages. As about these two pages, I think you can edit them too, just be careful because you seem to have a bias about them (but some other people, including myself also have a bias). My very best wishes (talk) 17:39, 28 April 2017 (UTC)