User talk:Dustfreeworld/Archive 1

Welcome!

Hi Dustfreeworld! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! Vsmith (talk) 13:10, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Welding fume

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Welding fume requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from https://www.ccohs.ca/oshanswers/safety_haz/welding/fumes.html. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

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 deleted 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. Mooonswimmer 23:20, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Overlinking

Please avoid wp:OVERLINKING. Don't link common words that most English speakers know. Limit the number of links on one page to a specific article to one, maybe two, seldom three links. Thank you Adakiko (talk) 23:33, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Your article Welding fume

Hello User:Dustfreeworld!

I'm sorry I had to tag your article. Unfortunately, it contained flagrant copyright violations, which are taken very seriously and must be dealt with swiftly (see WP:COPYVIO). An administrator will take care of deleting the page and any past revisions of it.

I would suggest continuing to work on Welding#Safety_issues. The article isn't overly long and hard to read, so expanding that section will not cause an issue. It seems as if you've been doing a good job so far with related articles. Just keep in mind Wikipedia policy regarding copyright and make sure anything you add is verified by a reliable source (which you seem to have been doing).

You can raise any questions you have on the talk pages of the articles you're editing, or at Wikipedia:Teahouse.

Happy editing! Mooonswimmer 23:38, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. It's not a direct copy of the whole page. But yes, there's excessive use of non-free material and I'm sorry about that. The tables from the CCOHS page are very good and on their page it says the source is "Work Safe Alberta's Welder's Guide to Hazards of Welding Gases and Fumes, 2009". So can the tables be added to Welding#Safety_issues? Or would that be too long?Dustfreeworld (talk) 00:04, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

By the way, I created that article just because it didn't exist and the wikilink Welding fumes I added to the Safety issues section redirects back to itself, which is really strange... Dustfreeworld (talk) 00:12, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Excessive use, unfortunately. Also, I just noticed that Welding is a Featured Article. I'd recommend discussing any substantial edits you plan to make on the article's talk page.

"Welding fumes" is currently a redirect (see Wikipedia:Redirect). It has been so since 2017. Mooonswimmer 00:27, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

I see. Thank you so much for the information :) Dustfreeworld (talk) 00:59, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia and copyright

Hello Dustfreeworld! Your additions to Welding have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.

• You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
• Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
• We have strict guidelines on the usage of copyrighted images. Fair use images must meet all ten of the non-free content criteria in order to be used in articles, or they will be deleted. To be used on Wikipedia, all other images must be made available under a free and open copyright license that allows commercial and derivative reuse.
• If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into either the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Please see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
• Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps described at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. See also Help:Translation#License requirements.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, please ask them here on this page, or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 22:13, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Smog tower, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Krishna Nagar. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 06:00, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 20

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Lead poisoning, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Cracking, Chipping and Damp.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:00, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 29

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Particulates, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Palma.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:05, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 12

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Fertilizer, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mercury.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

---

Merry Christmas message

Re [1]: I'm not a Christian and I don't celebrate Christmas. And actually I'm really tired of people ramming Christmas down my throat all month; with every store playing Christmas music the message of buy buy buy because baby Jesus - it's almost inescapable. Nearly all of the events that the holiday celebrates never happened and were imagined after the fact. Wikipedia is a place that is supposed to focus on truth, and I don't think it's an appropriate place to be spreading propaganda for one religion. -- Beland (talk) 18:21, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Ah ... I’m not a Christian either. Anyway, sorry about that. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 18:48, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

---

Minneapolis discussion

Hey, we have a discussion on the talk page of Minneapolis and I'm hoping you would participate in it. Thank you. Cleter (talk) 15:10, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

ANI

Hi Dustfreeworld,

I've closed your filing at ANI. You've received good advice from two other editors about how to make an effective post at ANI; I think it is unfortunate that you chose to argue with them rather than take their comments onboard. Please view my closure as without prejudice, and feel free to open a new thread that presents direct evidence of a continuing user conduct issue.

Happy editing, JBL (talk) 19:50, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for closing it, JBL. That discussion is getting long and off topic. I still don’t think every filer must become the “detective” though. It’s strange to me that many newcomers are blocked just because of one problematic edit (sometimes even without any warning), but users with continual conduct issues can stay with no action taken for so long. IMO perhaps it’s time for us to have rules like “user who has been warned by different administrators for more than _ times within a certain period will be blocked automatically” (I think that can even be implemented by a bot). Or maybe we already have similar rule just that I don’t know about it? Thanks again anyway. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 08:58, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

To build on my point there, I suggest you get a stopwatch and then (yes really) go through the links of your ANI filing turning them into actual diffs of problem editing. It will take you a while, and sometimes the edit in question will not be clear. Say this activity take an hour. Then multiply that by the (dozens?) of editors who would need to repeat that activity to arrive at the same evidence as you, if that ANI report was to go anywhere. Considering that editor time is the most valuable resource on Wikipedia, can you see the issue? Bon courage (talk) 09:11, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. May I reiterate:

I suggest you or others get a stopwatch and then (yes really) go through the links of your my ANI filing turning them into actual diffs of problem editing. It will take you or others a while, and sometimes the edit in question will not be clear. Say this activity take an hour. Then multiply that by the (dozens?) of editors who would need to repeat that activity to arrive at the same evidence as you them, if that ANI report was to go anywhere. Considering that editor time is the most valuable resource on Wikipedia, can you see the issue? --Dustfreeworld (talk) 09:26, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

I believe WP is a collaborative project. BTW, I’m suggesting that a bot to to the work to save *everyone*’s time. Anyway, if you still can’t see the issue, no need to reply then, because I totally concur with you that “editor time is the most valuable resource on Wikipedia”. Respectfully, --Dustfreeworld (talk) 09:29, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

This is a volunteer Project. The work cannot be done by a bot (if you did the work, you'd know that). Bon courage (talk) 09:31, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

People warn other people all the time. For example, I estimate that there have been at least 10 warning templates added to my user-talk page in its last 500 edits (a bit over 2 years), as well as a number of non-templated messages that were similar in meaning. Many of these were meritless, others were well founded but concerned minor points, and a few reflect the genuine fact that I can be more abrasive or aggressive than is ideal (and this has resulted in my being blocked occasionally) -- but there is no way for anyone to judge that without the context of each warning and my broader editing behaviors.

If this person is genuinely a problematic editor, you should demonstrate that by producing evidence of their behavior being problematic (in the sort of chronic, intractible way that ANI is intended for), not by producing evidence that some people have complained about their behavior at some point. You can view this admonition a la Bon courage (that it is rude and time-wasting to expect other editors to do the work of providing evidence for your complaint) or as purely practical (that if you want people to act on your complaint, you should make it as easy as possible for them to see the validity of the complaint), but either way it is a description of a cultural/behavioral norm at ANI that I encourage you to respect. --JBL (talk) 18:10, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Partially disagree. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 20:52, 11 February 2024 (UTC); 19:36, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Consensus discussion

Sorry we got into conflict yesterday. I'm sure there are lots of things we agree on and both of us are here in good faith to improve the project. I was actually trying to help you yesterday, after I saw you'd started arguing with Bon Courage and SMcCandlish. I was hoping we could quickly extinguish this no-hoper of a disagreement and move onto trying to summarise the RFC as WAID wanted.

Some advice.. you were disagreeing with very experienced editors. Lecturing them, like you did to SMcCandlish, about what policies and essays they might like to read, in order to be as wise as yourself, is really going to piss people off. See Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars for a similar concept. Repeatedly linking to civility polices like WP:AGF or this link you pushed twice, can be interpreted as hostility and really best avoided unless you are absolutely certain the folk you are disagreeing with are heading for an ANI block. Doing that in a discussion where folk simply disagree firmly with each other can come across as game playing... it's the sort of tactic that POV pushers employ to threaten people rejecting their POV pushing. Yes SMcCandlish's post was too long, but replying with TLDR, unless clearly in jest or light hearted, is going to be interpreted as rude, hence the hostile reaction. Bon Courage spends much of his time deleting shit others have added. Your suggestion that a vital policy section used to achieve this was in fact saying the opposite was not likely to be well received. Again, telling people that longstanding policy actually means something else is such a frequent game by POV pushers, that you doing that just pressed buttons. Please, if nothing else, never link to Wikipedia:Avoiding difficult users to suggest the person you are firmly disagreeing with is such an editor. There are indeed trolls and vandals on the project, but I don't think anyone in that discussion is one, and posting that is equivalent of calling a colleague an asshole to their face. I don't think you meant that at all. Perhaps you thought linking to such civility essays might get others to cool off. It only ever has the opposite effect.

I'd have posted this by email but you don't seem to have this enabled. You are welcome to delete it if you want, I won't mind. -- Colin°^Talk 11:34, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

If you only wrote the first paragraph (without the rest), I may still think “Colin is a great person.”, even with the previous conflicts. But now ... sorry. All I can say is I’m really disappointed ...

You come here to suggest that I’m /can be interpreted as /am going to be interpreted as /... an editor who “piss people off, with hostility, game playing, threaten people, POV pushing, rude, POV pushers, ..equivalent of calling a colleague an asshole to their face”, etc. I see cause and effect (and right and wrong) are being confused to save face.

If linking to this with a notion that “I don’t believe you are one of those, Colin” and an edit summary of “Not as keen as you think. Pls AGF ...”), in response to your statement that “Dustfreeworld I think you misinterpreted ... you are so keen for policy to be otherwise that you thought it said differently”, is causing you such a reaction (as well as your escalating reactions in that discussion), I’m sorry about that. Perhaps I really shouldn’t have linked to that page, but besides that, IMO none of your accusations are valid (BTW, have you ever think that those accusations can apply to you?)

No, I don’t think I’ll delete your post. People who read it can judge by themselves (see this discussion for the conflict mentioned). Citing AGF again is obviously useless. I really can’t understand why asking people to assume good faith can be interpreted as bad as being “hostile”. You may want to read [2][3]. Thank you.

(N.B. I didn’t argue with B.C., we are understanding each other and building consensus; and you posted 26 hours after SMcCandlish had posted; I don’t know why you said you was trying to help after you saw I’d started arguing with them). --Dustfreeworld (talk) 15:28, 14 February 2024 (UTC); 02:51, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Let me try again. I am not saying you are trying to piss people off or game playing or POV pushing, etc. I'm saying you are unconsciously doing some of the things that people who do deliberately do that also do, and you are inadvertently doing things that will piss people off, like all your links to civility essays and policies in the RFC. Stop doing that.

You wrote "I really can’t understand why asking people to assume good faith can be interpreted as bad as being “hostile”" Don't take my word for it, see Wikipedia:Assume the assumption of good faith and WP:AOBF. I'm glad you've accepted my advice never to link to Wikipedia:Avoiding difficult users, especially the way you did it to SMcCandlish That's as explicit a personal attack as possible and doing that to the wrong person could have you dragged to ANI.

I see from your edits that you are really keen on helping newbies from being attacked by uncivil regulars. Do that by setting an example, not by lecturing the regulars and posting to civility policies during discussions. Yes, I'm not perfect, and maybe that helps me facepalm when I see others making mistakes I do to. Doesn't stop my advice from being right. -- Colin°^Talk 11:55, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

If people who have never had any conflicts with me come to offer advice as third person, I’d be more than happy to discuss with them further, but sorry, it seems you are not one of them.

I see you mentioned “personal attacks” and “ANI” (in addition to mentioning “rude ... etc.” in your post further above); I would like to reiterate your comment with some amendments: “I'm saying you are unconsciously doing some of the things that people who do deliberately do that also do, and you are inadvertently doing things that will piss people off, like all your links to civility essays and policies posts/links here and in the RFC. Stop doing that”

I still see cause and effect (and right and wrong) being confused.

I asked the other user in the RfC to assume good faith because they mentioned something like “bad-faith assumption” in the RfC discussion. I don’t see any problem with my request. I don’t think it’s appropriate to (repeatedly) discuss another user on my talk page (I don’t think they’re difficult though. At least they didn’t come to my talk page).

I see you are linking to civil policies in your post.

I never said I will never link to whatever links you mentioned. What I meant is “perhaps I shouldn’t have linked anything (in *that* particular post in reply to you) if I knew that people could be irritated *that* easily”.

No one in this world is perfect. If one wants to prove that one is right, that can be done on her/his talk page, but not here. Better yet, do so by setting an example as a long-term user, not by lecturing semi-newcomers and posting links to civility policies and mentioning ANI (… etc.) on user’s talk page or during discussions.

As I might have told you before, I really don’t enjoy time-consuming lengthy discussions. So no need to “try again” again. Thanks.

---

--Dustfreeworld (talk) 02:04, 16 February 2024 (UTC); 06:43, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

(Please do not reply to this discussion anymore. Thank you.)

---