User talk:Sk4170/Archive 2

Hello. Can you please contact me about the Through Fire page? The band would like to keep it separate from the Emphatic page. Please e-mail me so we can discuss. I am not very familiar with Wiki, so please excuse my communication ignorance. e-mail - dkourelis@fmmusicmanagement.com Dkourelis (talk) 21:05, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:24, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Depeche Mode Live in Berlin.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Depeche Mode Live in Berlin.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:27, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 9
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Voice of Finland (season 5), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tequila Sunrise. 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) 09:56, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

December 2016
Hello, I'm Sagecandor. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Pizzagate (conspiracy theory) seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. This edit appears to be biased and lacks evidence and was summarily reverted: . Sagecandor (talk) 00:54, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Sources are either reliable sources or they are not. These are. Also, the editorial departments that make political endorsements are separate and independent from the news reporting side. Also, the conspiracy theory was debunked by Fox News, which did not endorse Hillary Clinton. Sagecandor (talk) 01:32, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The question was the political spectrum, not reliability. I don't think that the political spectrum was well-represented there, thus I asked for more sources. Don't you think that if Fox News debunked the story, it should be added as one source? As it is, I don't see that those three sources are enough. Sk4170 (talk) 01:42, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Adding here the sources that I posted at Sagecandor's talk page, the ones that I found one-sided and not sufficient to portray "political spectrum":

The Charlotte Observer: "For president: A flawed, but capable, Clinton", editorial from Oct 1, 2016 "The Miami Herald recommends Hillary Clinton for president of the United States", editorial from Oct 14, 2016 	The Seattle TImes:"The Times recommends: Hillary Clinton, the only choice for president", editorial from Oct 7, 2016

Well, now Fox News was added. Case closed. Sk4170 (talk) 01:51, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Pizzagate reflections
I don't have much time to spend here, but have recently participated in the weirdest Article for Delete discussion (Afd) on David Seaman (journalist). The result was "delete" and fairly so, as the consensus was that the subject of the article didn't have enough notability through published work and wasn't sufficiently noted in the media other than two quite controversial events: his alleged firing from Huffington Post as a blogger that was mentioned in the alt media both in US and abroad, and his active reporting of the Pizzagate controversy (on the "believer" side). However, the discussion itself showed that there is a group of editors that are very active on the Pizzagate controversy and in this case, regarding an independent journo, go to any lengths to get their opinions heard.

I've been looking into this as I normally do, googled a bit, browsed the archive.org and twitter for more information, and brought in some of my findings to prove some of my points. I find a little disturbing that almost every time I posted something it was immediately not just confronted, but misunderstood. For example, my last comment to the discussion reflected on the possible merge and a mention in the Pizzagate article. I based my view on the fact that this person was one of the Pizzagate activists that had received most views on YouTube, for his Pizzagate related videos. My comment immediately received responses, one claiming that Seaman could have bought the views and while my comment was about a possible merge, it was taken to direction that I very clearly didn't comment about, not meeting the criteria of BLP. I didn't have time to respond, to emphasize that I was talking about merge, not the criteria for deleting the BLP article, and that I resent implying that this person had bought views on YouTube, Afd was speedily closed, before I could post my answer.

What I found most disturbing is that the discussion was about a BLP, a biography of a living person, and the subject, even if controversial, should always be treated with respect. Instead, one of the editors pushed a narrative where this person is a liar who fabricated a story of his firing from his blogger contract with HuffPo and probably bought millions of views to his Pizzagate videos as well, to get more exposure. In the same vein, what caught my interest in this Afd, was that the title mentioned that the article in question was about a journalist, but his journalist credentials were stripped from the article and through out the Afd his work history was discredited, although to me he appears as any other journalist, just not notable enough for a BLP at this time. Ripping of someone's professional credentials and discrediting his work history while there is proof that this person has worked in the media for years, published several articles and appeared as commentator, to mention a few, is highly unacceptable. I can't call his treatment in this Afd other than character assassination.

I don't know what is behind this, how is it possible that this particular person is attracting so much opposition, but this Afd proved that the system _just__doesn't__work_. Disparaging is not allowed on BLP articles and the same should apply in Afds. Someone mentioned that this person has threatened to sue Wikipedia if his article was deleted. I don't know where this came from, and the person who mentioned it didn't provide any sources, but if it's true and it's going to happen, how he was personally treated in this Afd is surely going to be part of it.

I might also add another detail, about the deliberate misunderstandings in this Pizzagate wiki context. I was accused of bias in the Pizzagate article when I asked for more variety of sources. Unbelievable. There was something that was done 'through political spectrum' and all sources given appeared to be in support of the Democratic party. Thus my question for more sources was quite valid. This is quite exceptional, I've never before seen that simply asking for better sourcing for particular wording ends in accusations of bias!!! I assume that it must have something to do with my participation in the David Seaman Afd where my views were rather on the fence or slightly in favor of keeping the article than fiercely demanding 'delete'. There were a number of editors active in both the Afd and the Pizzagate main articles and the names that I noticed were strongly and actively favoring 'delete'.

All that happened also raised old suspicions, based on my experience here that some editors may edit from several accounts. It's not unacceptable in itself as it used to be a norm for e.g. admins to keep their admin work and contributing to articles separate. Usually, there was a note in both account profiles of it being another account for other named purposes and I think that it was a good practice. Isn't it required anymore? Nobody should have anything to hide in their edit history. We all make mistakes sometimes, but there has been a lot of abuse with multiple accounts in the past, surely also currently, and in the future, and it takes enormous amounts of time and effort to fight it.

I also found at least one active contributor to this Afd who has recently moved his old account to a new name after receiving a warning for edit warring. While edit warring is quite common, if there is a pattern of frequent edit warring type of disruptive editing, it definitely is a proof of a certain type of personality.

All of this reminded me again of the reasons why Wikipedia is not so nice a place. Sk4170 (talk) 13:52, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Update Deleting Seaman's article has been noted in the media, on Twitter and by Seaman himself while inside the wiki bubble barnstars are being handed around and the same names that are active in the Pizzagate conspiracy article are contributing to the new fake news article. As stated above, in the Afd discussion my comments were willfully misinterpreted, in effort to push the 'delete' camp's agenda. However, I want to underline that consensus was reached, with sufficient number of editors uninvolved in the sometimes heated discussion giving their vote, and the closing editor made the correct decision. Sk4170 (talk) 11:20, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 26
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Voice of Finland (season 6), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Love Me Now. 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) 10:29, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Checked and fixed- --Sk4170 (talk) 15:59, 27 March 2017 (UTC)