User talk:Tfarino

July 2016
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add soapboxing, promotional or advertising material to Wikipedia, as you did at Fred Lynn, you may be blocked from editing. Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 15:03, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion
This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident in which you may be involved. Thank you. Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 17:30, 28 July 2016 (UTC) Hello Tfarino. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have a financial stake in promoting a topic, such as the edit you made to Fred Lynn. 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 egregious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a black hat practice. 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, and if it does not, 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, 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:. 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. If you are being compensated, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, please do not edit further until you answer this message. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 18:08, 28 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I do not receive compnesation. Fred Lynn and his wife asked me to update the photo because they do not like the wikipedia and wanted it removed.  I simply updated the photo with a photo I took of him 6 years ago.  I really do not understand the big deal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tfarino (talk • contribs)

File:Fr.ColorInformTrinA.jpg
So just to be clear about the image you've added to the Fred Lynn article: I want to make sure we're understanding the situation with the image clearly. —C.Fred (talk) 17:41, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * You're the photographer who took the head shot in 2010, and
 * As an employee of Lynn or his publicist, you have irrevocably donated the picture under a free license, allowing any reuse of the image, including commercial reuse?

Also, can you clarify who pays you to edit the Fred Lynn article? As a paid editor, that is a required disclosure. —C.Fred (talk) 17:44, 28 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Nobody pays me anything. I am a friend of Fred's.  I helped them with their web site. His wife, who is his manager asked if I could change the photo of Fred to the one I took for his web site.  She hates that photo and just wants a different photo of Fred.  That is it.  We did take the photo, and yes wikipedia can have it for free.  We just want a different photo.


 * I make no money, I am correcting the wikipedia page as anybody else would.
 * Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tfarino (talk • contribs)


 * Technically, no, you're not correcting it as anybody else would. You have a conflict of interest because of your personal relationship, involvement with the website, and work as his photographer. I also note that the image you claim to have taken for his website is also in use by his booking agency. —C.Fred (talk) 19:49, 28 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I would also like to point out the hostile nature of the comments that were left on my page when I reverted the changes. ( & ). Particularly the statement that He just doesn't like that photo, and I will change it again and sign up as a new user and do it again. This indicates a willingness by Tfarino to engage in sockpuppetry to get their way and a clear personal connection to a topic or person. -- Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:37, 28 July 2016 (UTC)


 * To Tfarino: Look at Zackmann08's message above and the comment of yours he quoted. Do you see where he, Orangemike, and others on Wikipedia have interpreted your behaviour is intent to disrupt the systems and processes of Wikipedia, even if the ultimate goal of your actions might be an improvement? This might also be a good time to ask if you have read WP:Ownership of content and are aware that neither you nor Mr. Lynn have any degree of control over what appears in Lynn's article, but that consensus determines what appears in the article, so long as it complies with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines? —C.Fred (talk) 20:42, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

July 2016
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for persistent disruptive editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page:. Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  18:12, 28 July 2016 (UTC)


 * If the image you want to use has been published anywhere else first, then we cannot use it as-is unless it was explicitly released under an acceptable licence then. We don't allow fair-use images for living people. — Jeremy  v^_^v  Bori! 23:13, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Regarding your unblock request above, as well as your edit summary here, where you claim that you are placing the image that Fred Lynn wants on his Wikipedia page, you are operating under the misconception that the subjects of Wikipedia articles get to control their content; they do not. With the exception of outright libel, people who become the subject of Wikipedia articles do not get to control the content of those articles any more then they get to control the content of what the press says about them. This includes not getting to pick which image is used of them. Wikipedia prefers images that are donated under licensing that is compatible with Wikipedia's purposes. Independent photographers who take pictures of subjects and then upload them directly to Wikipedia are releasing the image under the Wikipedia licence (see here). But images taken from other websites are almost never published under compatible licensing terms and so can't be used here at Wikipedia, even if they are a better image and if the subject of the article prefers them. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:42, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * PS: Since you are a friend of Lynn's, why not just take a better image of him, and upload it directly to Wikipedia. That way we have a properly-licensed image, that presumably represents Lynn the way he'd like. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:44, 30 July 2016 (UTC)