User talk:OrangeFruitBowl

Welcome!
Hello, Kiwifruitbowl, and welcome to Wikipedia!&#32;Thank you for your contributions.

I noticed that one of the first articles you edited was Akilah Hughes, which appears to be dealing with a topic with which you may have a conflict of interest. In other words, you may find it difficult to write about that topic in a neutral and objective way, because you are, work for, or represent, the subject of that article.&#32;Your recent contributions may have already been undone for this very reason.

To reduce the chances of your contributions being undone, you might like to draft your revised article before submission, and then ask me or another editor to proofread it. See our help page on userspace drafts for more details. If the page you created has already been deleted from Wikipedia, but you want to save the content from it to use for that draft, don't hesitate to ask anyone from this list and they will copy it to your user page.

One rule we do have in connection with conflicts of interest is that accounts used by more than one person will unfortunately be blocked from editing. Wikipedia generally does not allow editors to have usernames which imply that the account belongs to a company or corporation. If you have a username like this, you should request a change of username or create a new account. (A name that identifies the user as an individual within a given organization may be OK.)

In addition, if you receive, or expect to receive, compensation for any contribution you make, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation to comply with our terms of use and our policy on paid editing.

Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
 * Best practices for editors with close associations
 * Plain and simple conflict of interest guide
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! —Unforgettableid (talk) 20:41, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

August 2020
Hello Kiwifruitbowl. The nature of your edits, such as the one you made to Akilah Hughes, gives the impression you may have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not, and is an especially serious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat search-engine optimization.

Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists. If the article does not exist, paid advocates are extremely strongly discouraged from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly.

Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, you are  required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:Kiwifruitbowl. The template Paid can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form:. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, do not edit further until you answer this message. —Unforgettableid (talk) 20:42, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Akilah Hughes shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Largoplazo (talk) 20:48, 9 August 2020 (UTC)


 * The content is obviously relevant since it's directly about her, so your justification that it's "irrelevant" is just plain false. Anyway, since others disagree with you, and you're removing sourced content, it's now up to you to gain consensus on the article's Talk page before removing the material, not to keep removing it single-handedly, if you think it isn't suitable for inclusion for some reason. Largoplazo (talk) 20:53, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions notification
Woodroar (talk) 21:51, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Paid Advocate Claim/Edit War Claim
This is a response for Woodroar I am not a paid advocate, nor employee, nor of any relation to Akilah Hughes. There is no conflict of interest here, but given the contentious nature of her Talk page I am reluctant to provide further detail in this public forum. Simply note that under penalty of law I can confirm I am not being paid to update that entry (or any entry). Is it then possible that other editors are paid advocates for the subject of the Fair Use Lawsuit? Have they also been advised to disclose that status?

In regards to the assertion that I have engaged in an edit war for reasons of bias, I want to emphasize that (1) this is not the only page I have helped edit in my time on Wikipedia, and (2) The information I have provided is more detailed and accurate than what remains currently. The individuals who continuously changed details of the entry admitted several times on the Talk page that their knowledge of the subject was limited to a very recent dismissed lawsuit. My edits never distorted this information, but they did serve to reiterate the lack of relevance in the overall understanding of this public figure.

The editors on Wikipedia are expected to maintain objectivity and when several editors on the Talk page insisted that the Akilah Hughes entry was (1) only notable because of this lawsuit and (2) that their own familiarity was limited (see Springee (talk) 11:41, 14 August 2020 (UTC) and Nil Einn (talk) 23:27, 14 August 2020 (UTC), and to that end placed a notification on the entry that this may not be a person notable enough to have an entry, it raised some red flags. I was also forced to change my screen name because of another editors' bad faith assumption that it had anything to do with Akilah Hughes. (Prior changes were made by Kiwifruitbowl. I have since changed it to OrangeFruitBowl)

I sought arbitration as it calls into question whether they should be editing that particular entry at all, considering their understanding is admittedly limited--and (3) The most recent updates to the Akilah Hughes entry erased important, pertinent information (I.e., the Education section is now lacking undergraduate degree information and now only lists a post-grad fellowship, though the code that has an image of Akilah Hughes and faster details lists that information with internal links. Similarly, information in the Television section removed an appearance on the more well-known show, Bob's Burgers that other guest stars have listed on their entries. If our goal is to explain how a person is known and what they are best known for in relevant terms, it would appear that these sweeping changes were in reaction to the deletion of the legal section and not to the benefit of anyone using Wikipedia as a research tool.

The legal decision from Richard J. Sullivan uses Akilah Hughes' status as a public figure as basis for his finding that the content in question was inherently criticizable and thus Fair Use. Therefore, the fact that these editors only know about the indecision of the Circuit Judge and the order for legal fees to be repaid only further illustrates that their bias makes the entry less objective, not the fact that Akilah Hughes attended Berea College.

To your rebuttal about Lizzo, I was referencing the lawsuit that was dismissed regarding a Postmates driver, not her most recent music lawsuit that was ruled on this past week. Public figures having court cases thrown out of court and not actually ruled on does not seem especially relevant to the understanding of why they are public figures, and a lawsuit does not itself make a person a public figure, but I am open to your perspective. If this case did set a legal precedent or was officially ruled on it would seem like a reason this person is a notable figure. TL;DR: People don't know about Lizzo because a Postmates driver sued her. OrangeFruitBowl (talk) 06:24, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * There's a lot to unpack here:
 * Other editors have suggested a possible conflict of interest and mentioned your edit warring, not me. I also haven't said anything or made any edits about Lizzo. I did leave a notice about discretionary sanctions for biographical content about living persons (BLP), though. Wikipedia has plenty of rules and it's usually okay to learn them as you go, but we have even more rules for BLP claims and we have to be very strict about them. It's a subject area that I certainly wouldn't recommend for new editors.
 * Wikipedia is a secondary source, meaning that we summarize what reliable sources say about the subject and we don't add our own original research. If a reliable source hasn't covered something, then we shouldn't, either. And because we only write about what reliable sources have covered, Wikipedia has notability guidelines that say whether or not we should even have an article about the subject. It's perfectly fine for editors to know absolutely nothing about a subject, because everything they need to know should come from reliable sources. It's also perfectly fine for editors to discuss whether a subject is notable. In fact, it's a test we should apply to every single article.
 * I did recently remove a great deal of content from the article. Some of it was unsourced original research. More of it was sourced to unreliable or poor-quality sources. (Just one of the extra rules we have for BLP content is that sources need to be exceptional quality.) You can read more about our sourcing requirements at WP:RS and some notes about specific sources at WP:RSP.
 * I think that covers most of your message here. I'll be honest, I think you should read through our introduction to Wikipedia, which is meant to acclimate new editors to the project. I'd also suggest reading through all of the links that other editors have left for you on your Talk page. If you have any questions, feel free to ask them here or visit the Teahouse. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 13:52, 18 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you for taking time to unpack:
 * I will re-read the Intro to Wikipedia page. I appreciate your help here. I am confused about the links that other editors have left for me on my Talk page. If they exist here I do not see them. I agree with your assertion that we must interrogate the merit of any entry, my point was to the end that if the discourse on the talk page is simply "This information should be included in the entry," and when there isn't reliable enough sourcing arguing that the page should not exist, the question of bias being directed at me doesn't add up. Beyond that point, there have been emotional pleas to add information from editors that undermine what you claim is most important to Wikipedia: objective, accurate information. Whatever is decided in terms of this entry will be respected, but the process to making a factually accurate page with detailed information has been surprisingly terrible. As long as I have edited this entry there have been major changes that are not sourced and are inaccurate. Her title "American Presenter" exists nowhere online. So while I appreciate your due diligence of prioritizing reliable primary sources, these standards are not equally applied in this article, or across the site at current. I would hope that a crowdfunded resource like Wikipedia would continue to improve in that regard. OrangeFruitBowl (talk) 05:28, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The links I'm talking about are the "Welcome!" message at the top of your Talk page, that's worth checking out, plus others like the paragraph about content disputes (next to the image of a stop sign with a hand on it). There may be some overlap between those links and the "introduction to Wikipedia" page, of course.
 * I'm not exactly sure why other editors brought up bias. I'm guessing it's because you added a great deal of biographical content about Hughes and had "Kiwi" in your username. Unfortunately, in a lot of cases that type of editing ends up being the subject writing about themselves, or someone editing on their behalf.
 * I do have to correct one thing, though. Our goal isn't to add "objective, accurate information" or "detailed information", it's to summarize what reliable sources say. Of course, we as editors do need to be objective, to fairly and accurately summarize those sources without adding our own interpretation or spin. Also, most reliable sources are considered reliable because they're reasonably objective, but that's not always the case. One example is the Southern Poverty Law Center. They're an advocacy group and inherently biased, but they're widely considered a reliable source on hate groups. So our work on Wikipedia is to see what all of the reliable sources say about subjects and summarize them, roughly in proportion to the sources. Now I'm talking theoretically here, but if half the sources about Hughes were covering her lawsuit, then you'd expect about half the article to be about that. And we'd cover it in exceptional detail. But as it is, there are only a couple good sources so we give it two sentences. And if no sources happen to cover her early life, that's a good sign that we shouldn't, either. Now personally, I'm not in a position to estimate what we should cover about Hughes, since I've literally just heard about her from the BLP noticeboard last week. But what I do know is evaluating/vetting sources, because it's something I've done on Wikipedia for over a decade, plus in my own work. So it's certainly possible that there are more sources out there about Hughes, sources that might let us fill in more biographical details or even revamp the entire article. But that's something that editors who know more about Hughes should tackle in discussions on the article's Talk page.
 * One last thing for now: I'm not sure what you mean about "American Presenter". I don't see that anywhere in the article. Was that maybe in an old version?
 * If you have any other questions, please let me know! Woodroar (talk) 21:41, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Akilah Hughes, by Nick Rasmussen, September 2019.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Akilah Hughes, by Nick Rasmussen, September 2019.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add OTRS pending to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as non-free fair use or one of the other tags listed at File copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log]. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Whpq (talk) 00:59, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Milana Vayntrub
Hello, I saw you uploaded pictures of Milana Vayntrub. Since you made them yourself, and since I believe it are great pictures: could you upload them to the Wikipedia Commons-site? Then those pictures can be used for other projects of the Wikimedia foundation too. Best regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 14:18, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi Jeff, I can upload it there. Thanks, --OrangeFruitBowl (talk) 21:13, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Deletion pending for File:Akilah Hughes, by Nick Rasmussen, September 2019.jpg
Hello, OrangeFruitBowl. Some time ago, a file you uploaded &mdash; File:Akilah Hughes, by Nick Rasmussen, September 2019.jpg &mdash; was tagged with OTRS pending, indicating that you (or perhaps the copyright holder if you did not create this image) submitted a statement of permission to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. Though there is often a backlog processing messages received at this address, we should have received your message by now.


 * If you have not submitted (or forwarded) a statement of permission, please send it immediately to permissions-en@wikimedia.org and let us know at the OTRS noticeboard that you have done so.


 * If you have already sent this message, it is possible that there was a problem receiving it. Please re-send it to permissions-en@wikimedia.org and let us know at the OTRS noticeboard that you have done so.

If we don't hear from you within one week, the file will be deleted. If we can help you, please feel free to ask at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 15:32, 13 January 2021 (UTC)