User talk:TheWikiKing7

Welcome!


Hello, TheWikiKing7, 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:
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * The Wikipedia Adventure (a fun interactive editing tutorial that takes about an hour)
 * Wikipedia Teahouse (a user-friendly help forum)
 * 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, or you can  to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! We are so glad you are here! Yashovardhan (talk) 08:28, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Some advice about categories
Its important that pages are categorized, but you need to be mindful of avoiding over-categorizing pages. I recently tidied up the categories on a page you created. Be mindful of categories that don't yet exist and also of not using duplicating categories (eg: you dont need to categorize someone as being from Illinois and Chicago, since being from Illinois is a given if they are from Chicago). It can be a little tricky at first, but you should get the hang on if quickly :) —Frosty ☃ 23:55, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * But as an aside, your article was otherwise very detailed and well done. —Frosty ☃ 23:57, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback! I created a new category for one of the more fundamental categories. Thanks and have a good one! :) -TheWikiKing7
 * I assume you mean Category:Anti-Corruption? I'd like to suggest you use Category:Anti-corruption activists instead as the category alrrady exists and is established. The other page you recently created could similarly be filed under Category:Anti-corruption activism. —Frosty ☃ 02:34, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Talkback
Re: Grace Akinlemibola.jpg file addition

Invalid permission
While I appreciate the attempt to get this right, the permission on the page is invalid for two reasons. One, the copyright holder is the photographer not the person in the photograph. That would be Jovanka Novakovic unless the copyright has been transferred by legal action or contract. Second, the release statement is invalid as it doesn't include a legally binding copyright license. The one you picked CC-BY 4.0 is not mentioned anywhere on that page. For that reason, I am marking this image as "no evidence of permission". Please have the copyright holder read and fill out the release form located here: WP:CONSENT and sent it into our volunteer response team. They are tasked with copyright verification and will be able to move this along. As a side note, you need to drop the Facebook ToS claim. It isn't valid and never has been and will get you nowhere. You must follow our procedures or the image will not be allowed to be hosted here. --Majora (talk) 03:58, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Majora, instead of picking fights, why don't you follow protocol? No, the copyright holder is Akinlemibola. She has all rights. Jovanka is mentioned simply out of courtesy and a referral of her services. For you to simply assume that a black female who provides a professional referral of a white female's services as a way to "show them off" (as people customarily do when someone enjoys the photography services from another and want to allow others to use their services as well) automatically translates to the white female having superior rights is highly offensive to any minority. And no, I don't need to drop the ToS claim simply because you don't like it. Yelling louder about an issue without providing an actual rationale (and simply saying it's "just the way copyright law is") is not a rationale. Considering that Facebook expressly states that IN ORDER TO USE THEIR PRODUCT, you have to conform to their methods of service, an agreement between one party and another party, where Facebook specifically provides that using their product and following a particular protocol of activity (i.e., posting a picture with a "public" setting) translates to providing permission to not only the other party but anyone else to modify and use the public picture is valid. As for the license, the permission provided was free-ranging for "any picture" and for any use. If you prefer, you can just change the permission to use locally on Wikipedia. --TheWikiKing7 (talk) 04:43, 21 March 2017 (UTC)TheWikiKing7
 * To be completely honest with you I don't have to help you get this photo licensed under something Wikipedia can use. The abject nonsense that you wrote regarding race is complete and utter bullshit. According to copyright law the copyright holder of an image is the photographer unless that copyright is transferred by legal action or contract. It doesn't matter if you are black, white, brown, red, yellow, or blue. That law applies to everyone. Period. If you want a rather long winded reason as to why you are wrong in regards to Facebook's ToS you can read the thread on my talk page from another curious editor. You can find it here: User talk:Majora You have two options right now in regards to this image. Option 1: Do what I requested and have the copyright holder send in a filled out permission release form to our volunteer response team. If Grace Akinlemibola sends in this form I can guarantee you that they will ask her how the copyright was transferred. That is their protocol as that is the law. If she can't prove to them that the license was transferred they will simply ask for a release from the photographer. Again, that is their protocol. Option 2: Ignore my request and have the image deleted when the tag expires. And I can guarantee you that the image will be deleted if you choose this option. I've been doing this for a long time, I know how it works here, and if you continue to be stubborn about this the image will simply be deleted. It is your choice which option you choose. --Majora (talk) 22:05, 21 March 2017 (UTC)


 * As you have misconstrued the Facebook ToS argument, I have responded on your page (on the Facebook ToS argument section: User talk:Majora) regarding the ToS agreement. As for the other parts of your statement, it's not about the law "applying to everyone." Duh. It's about the fact that you are misconstruing the law to begin with. Would you have thought to say anything about Jovanka if Grace did not give Jovanka kudos on the pictures? Would you have responded differently had Grace been a white male or a white female? Also wanted to mention that you had edited the page I had created (Grace Akinlemibola) by placing a snarky, condescending comment in the article, which -- if you really are a Wiki editor -- should be beneath you. --TheWikiKing7 (talk) 14:28, 22 March 2017 (UTC)TheWikiKing7


 * Recopying my response to Majora's Facebook ToS argument here (that was deleted days ago): Interesting that you bring up the "totality," because it actually proves that someone can use a picture from the public domain. As you so eloquently pointed out, Majora, the earlier passage at the top of the Facebook ToS points out, "This IP License ends when you delete your IP content or your account unless your content has been shared with others, and they have not deleted it." To be honest, this passage not only reinforces the fact that anything used or taken while the image was made public, but it also restates current copyright law. I never once said I owned her image, but I was given permission to use the image (like everyone else). Not sure what your experience as a forensic scientist would lend to the situation enough to be condescending to another person, Majora, but from what I can tell, you seem to be "picking and choosing" what you want to value in the Facebook Term of Service agreement. Furthermore, you edited the page I had created by placing a snarky, condescending comment in the article, which -- if you really are a Wiki editor -- should be beneath you. --TheWikiKing7 —Preceding undated comment added 05:43, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
 * But since Majora seems to enjoy picking fights on Wikipedia without backing it up with the necessary rationales, I will leave well enough alone. You all should receive the consent form from the necessary party. --TheWikiKing7 (talk) 06:02, 24 March 2017 (UTC)TheWikiKing7

March 2017
Please stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial, to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Grace Akinlemibola. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Majora (talk) 04:30, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I would hope editors (like yourself) are held to the same standard. Is there a reason why you continue to edit that page or picture files I submit? Considering our history (or, in other words, your affinity for picking fights with me), I'd suggest you edit the millions of other pages on Wikipedia. And also, saying something positive about someone does not equal a "defamatory" comment. To defame someone means to damage their good reputation. I haven't been doing that. In fact, I would say the removal of a positive comment (like what you did with my revision) would equal defamation. Wouldn't you agree? (rhetorical question; don't answer)--TheWikiKing7 (talk) 04:55, 26 March 2017 (UTC)TheWikiKing7
 * Just because you view something as positive, it does not mean the entire world does. I would ask you to not re-add such a claim on any of our articles without finding a reliable source to back it up. You may consider this your only warning. Thank you for your anticipated cooperation. &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 05:13, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Great. Adjusted accordingly. --TheWikiKing7 (talk) 06:35, 26 March 2017 (UTC)TheWikiKing7

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Grace Akinlemibola. Jim1138 (talk) 06:53, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Jim1138, the source was included. Also, the sentence stated that she has been "said" with a source provided. Thus, not sure why you are so adamant about not including a positive attribution and comment. In fact, I'd say you not including should lead to you being blocked from editing.--TheWikiKing7 (talk) 07:04, 26 March 2017 (UTC)TheWikiKing7

I suggest you review what does and does not constitute a reliable source. Some random picture on the web does not. See wp:reliable sources and wp:references. Reverting with an edit summary of "Wikipedia policy violation" is bad form. Jim1138 (talk) 06:55, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Please see wp:Twitter which your source does not meet. It is not considered a wp:reliable source. May I suggest you take a look at wp:civil and avoid the wp:BATTLEGROUND. People are quite willing to help, but only when people are pleasant. Wikipedia is generally considered a liberal website. I myself own a BLM wristband. I have been called a Jew lover, a Nazi, threatened with disembowelment, threatened by lawyers. I strongly suggest you ask someone what source would be acceptable for your information. Try the wp:teahouse Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 08:01, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 * How are you helping when your only contribution to the page is to remove a positive attribute? Furthermore, you never addressed the issue of the sentence using the word "said" which would combat a lot of your problems with this. Social media is a place where items and things can be "said" similar to how U.S. President Trump "says" many things on his Twitter feed that are simultaneously reported in the news. And I am actually quite pleasant. I was not so pleasant to Majora simply because of her prior history of ridiculous behavior towards me. She also input a snarky comment in the page I created. So no, her pleasantness-esteem with me is done. As for you, you are removing a positive comment that is "said" (i.e., its foundation was already balanced). I appreciate editors who have something positive to contribute, or want to help "clean up," or even feel the need to question a category or two. What I do not appreciate are editors who want to remove positive attributes or make negative inserts. Wonderful that Wikipedia is a "liberal website." ? --TheWikiKing7 (talk) 08:27, 26 March 2017 (UTC)TheWikiKing7

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for persistently adding unsourced or poorly sourced content. 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 request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page:. &mdash; Coffee //  have a ☕️ //  beans  // 17:45, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Coffee, I'm confused by your phrasing of "unsourced" content. If an image has words fixated to it and is attached to a social media site, then the image should not be a problem. Furthermore, the fact that Majora has consistently pursued issues with me and is still able to edit on Wikipedia is amazing to me...[edit:Coffee] or are you also a forensic scientist (which is not a bad thing) who was upset at my prior exchange with Majora. The fact that you have spent all of your two times on my page to direct negativity towards me and not to your colleague, Majora, is further astonishing. I want to know why I'm blocked and Majora is not. --TheWikiKing7 (talk) 19:46, 26 March 2017 (UTC)TheWikiKing7
 * This block was to prevent the persistent addition of "poorly sourced content". &mdash; Coffee //  have a ☕️ //  beans  // 19:55, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 * You may note that I didn't say just add any source, I said you needed to use "a reliable source". &mdash; Coffee //  have a ☕️ //  beans  // 21:04, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Your edits - an explanation

 * Hello, NorthBySouthBaranof, I've responded to your critiques in the other venues you have posted and do not feel like reciting again. Sources are court documents that were sworn under oath and have yet to be disputed. Simply because you hate the content of these articles, doesn't mean the sources are automatically unreliable and unsourced. Also, there have been additional citings outside of the lawsuits. Anywho, please find my additional responses on the other page replies. --TheWikiKing7 (talk) 07:25, 29 March 2017 (UTC)TheWikiKing7
 * Please see WP:BLPPRIMARY, which specifically states Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. That is black-letter policy. We cannot include claims about living people — particularly negative claims — sourced only to another person's legal filings. We require coverage from reputable secondary sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:34, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Single Purpose Accounts
I wish someone had pointed you earlier to our page on WP: Single-purpose accounts. It could have save you some grief. I suggest that you start editing a wider range of articles, which will help you start to develop an understanding of Wikipedia policies. It will also help convince other editors that you are here to improve Wikipedia, rather than to improve a personal or political campaign that you are involved with. First Light (talk) 08:05, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah, got it. Thanks, First Light. --TheWikiKing7 (talk) 08:30, 29 March 2017 (UTC)TheWikiKing7
 * Long-time editors could also be helped by reading that page, which says, "Existing editors must assume good faith concerning the user account, act fairly and civilly, not bite newcomers, and remember everyone was new at some time." First Light (talk) 08:51, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Jim1138 (talk) 09:33, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Deletion discussion closed
Hi. I have closed Articles for deletion/Grace Akinlemibola with the result Speedy delete, and deleted the article Grace Akinlemibola. Bishonen &#124; talk 20:45, 29 March 2017 (UTC).

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Anti-Corruption


A tag has been placed on Category:Anti-Corruption requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

Pages previously in this category have all been deleted by AfD

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here.  Scr ★ pIron IV 13:37, 30 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I've removed your speedy tag, ScrapIronIV. The category is supposed to have been unpopulated for seven days for speedy to apply, but in fact the last page in it, Anti-Corruption Lawsuits filed by Grace Akinlemibola, was only deleted today. Please see Articles for deletion/Anti-Corruption Lawsuits filed by Grace Akinlemibola. Bishonen &#124; talk 15:22, 30 March 2017 (UTC).


 * Thank you, - I did not think it needed to wait so long, as it was only created to support the deleted article. Live, and learn.  Happy editing!  Scr ★ pIron IV 16:32, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, ScrapIronIV, maybe it could have been deleted per IAR. But I've never speedied a category — I only saw this because I'm aware of the pages this user created — so I went and looked at the category deletion criteria, and it said seven days. I suppose it can linger till the seven days are up. Bureaucracy! Bishonen &#124; talk 18:01, 30 March 2017 (UTC).

Nomination of Nola Adé for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Nola Adé is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Nola Adé until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 02:51, 23 February 2019 (UTC)