Caliwing
Welcome edit
Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.
If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page – I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.
Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...
Finding your way around:
|
Need help?
|
|
How you can help:
|
|
Additional tips...
|
.svg){kind=logo}
|
Hi, Caliwing! Thank you for your contributions to articles related to free and open-source software. I'd like to invite you to become a part of WikiProject Free Software, a WikiProject aimed at improving the quality of articles about free and open-source software on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit WikiProject Free Software for more information. Feel free to sign your name under "Participants". Thanks! — Newslinger talk 15:20, 11 December 2018 (UTC) |
Welcome to Wikipedia: check out the Teahouse! edit
|
Hello! Caliwing,
you are invited to the Teahouse, a forum on Wikipedia for new editors to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, and get support from peers and experienced editors. Please join us! — Newslinger talk 15:20, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
|
Come play the Wikipedia Adventure! edit
|
Hi Caliwing!! You're invited: learn how to edit Wikipedia in under an hour. Hope to see you there! This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot |
September 2019 edit
Thank you for trying to keep Wikipedia free of vandalism. However, one or more edits you labeled as vandalism, such as the edit at Gaël Duval, are not considered vandalism under Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia has a stricter definition of the word "vandalism" than common usage, and mislabeling edits as vandalism can discourage editors. Please see what is not vandalism for more information on what is and is not considered vandalism. Thank you. Greyjoy talk 06:21, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
September 2019 edit
Hello Caliwing. The nature of your edits gives the impression you 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 egregious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat SEO.
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, 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:Caliwing. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Caliwing|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. 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. ) -- Yae4 (talk) 09:46, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
Answer: not affiliated in any way to the project, just a user and observer. However, you [User talk:Yae4|talk]] should be be banned from editing, because you are clearly not neutral to this project, and probably have interest with competitors. What you are doing here is only discredit and vandalism. Caliwing (talk) 15:30, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
- Firstly, shooting accusations at other users is not a way to rebut a COI claim. Second of all, your edit history shows a distinct bias towards the /e/ project and other projects related to /e/'s developer.
- Also, you have recently edited 2 other articles (Bluetooth Low Energy and LoRa after being accused of having a COI on the /e/ talk page, which seems like an attempt to add credibility to your case. However, your edit history is still distinctly biased towards the /e/ project. Oldosfan (talk) 01:03, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
- Regarding myself: my bias is that 1) I'm interested in open source software and various topics around privacy, low level development etc. Regarding Duval, I know about him since he created the Mandrake Linux distribution. And I discovered /e/ last year and started to use it. True I don't have a lot of time, so I'm editing about what I know, when I'm getting connected to wikipedia. What's wrong here? You claims really sound to me like a trial of intent. 2) There are clearly some people around the /e/ page who have decided to destroy this page, replacing balanced and neutral content by oriented content. In particular there is a user that 1) clearly has a bias against the project (his account is dedicated to this...). 2) is editing content against Wikipedia rules (non neutral). Why nobody is considering his case? I'm super upset about this, and I don't understand why Wikipedia moderators don't moderate this guy. Caliwing (talk) 07:05, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
- Hmm, I take back my COI claim. Sorry! However, since you admit you have bias, you still need to understand that neutral point of view means explaining both sides of a conflict clearly, in a way that both sides can agree with. I suggest you add your viewpoint to the article, and not blindly revert others edits, since that does not comply with NPOV and may be considered edit warring. Would (oldosfan) 10:57, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
- Also, I'd like to add that Wikipedia does not have a distinct user ranking system or moderators, and decisions are made by the community in discussions like this. In Wikipedia, the opinions of all editors are considered equal, and that the decisions are made not by voting, but a consensus based system. Once again, welcome to Wikipedia! Would (oldosfan) 10:59, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
- Regarding myself: my bias is that 1) I'm interested in open source software and various topics around privacy, low level development etc. Regarding Duval, I know about him since he created the Mandrake Linux distribution. And I discovered /e/ last year and started to use it. True I don't have a lot of time, so I'm editing about what I know, when I'm getting connected to wikipedia. What's wrong here? You claims really sound to me like a trial of intent. 2) There are clearly some people around the /e/ page who have decided to destroy this page, replacing balanced and neutral content by oriented content. In particular there is a user that 1) clearly has a bias against the project (his account is dedicated to this...). 2) is editing content against Wikipedia rules (non neutral). Why nobody is considering his case? I'm super upset about this, and I don't understand why Wikipedia moderators don't moderate this guy. Caliwing (talk) 07:05, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
Notify COI discussion edit
Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion edit
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. Thank you. Yae4 (talk) 11:11, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
Caliwing (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Hello, I noticed that I have been blocked following action from Yae4 user. I don't understand exactly why I'm blocked actually, and I didn't have any opportunity to defend myself in this case :-( Again, as I already explained here I'm not affiliated *at all* with the /e/ project. I'm interested in this project, and I'm a /e/ user. As I know the project quite well, I thought I could contribute some useful contents to the /e/ Wikipedia page. I've always tried to do it using appropriate sources. Also, I had a recent talk with editor Newslinger how I could improve my contributions, and I started to understand better the primary and secondary sources etc. But then I've been blocked. Also, it seems that I'm accused in some way to have contributed to the Gael Duval page on Wikipedia. This is surprising because that's true that I contributed to this page but I don't see why I don't have the right to do this. It's true that I'm a long-time follower of what he's been doing in the open source world, and that's the reason why I contributed some interesting information to his page, but what is the problem exactly here? I don't know him personally, and I'm not involved in his projects. Also I don't understand why I'm harassed by Yae4 this. He is very agressive and I don't think he's doing anything positive behaving this way. However I'm willing to improve, if I'm doing something wrong but being blocked this way, with just a notice, is a very brutal action, I really don't understand. Caliwing (talk) 9:37 am, 2 November 2019, last Saturday (6 days ago) (UTC−4) Comment Linking to the sockpuppet investigation because block log now goes to the wrong discussion, due to re-organizing: Indidea/Caliwing Sockpuppet Investigation. Also noting coincidence of Users Caliwing and 1984brave_new_world both editing in early September, doing nothing for most of September-October, and being active again around now, with writings (complaining and attacking) having similar style, and focused interest in same article: Caliwing contributions, 1984brave_new_world contributions. Lastly, noting re-activation of another possible single-purpose, English and French sleeper account (inactive since May). Asriario English contributions, Asriario French contributions. -- Yae4 (talk) 09:21, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
Decline reason:
The sockpuppet investigation definitively connected your two accounts. This violates Wikipedia policy so I'm declining your unblock request. Mark Ironie (talk) 02:34, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.