Open main menu
To add this button to your own talk page, you can use {{User new message large}}. It can easily be modified: Colorful examples are provided on the "Template:User new message large" page.
Please note that you are currently not logged in.
This is not a general problem – you can leave a message anyway, but your IP address might change during the discussion, and I might end up talking to a wall. Creating an account does not require an e-mail address; all you need is a password and a name. You are not required to do this, but please consider creating an account before starting long-term interactions with other users. Thank you very much in advance. Face-smile.svg



Note: This is not a recent discussion; the last message was written 12 months ago. However, I will keep it at the top of the talk page because I hope that might come back and see it one day. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:56, 16 July 2018 & 22:44, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Previous discussion; already read by

Main discussionEdit

This section has been moved to the bottom of the talk page and merged with an update created under a new heading. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:30, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

...Yes, the reason I edited the page was to "change the meaning of the words." I effectively did just that. Grammarians do not talk about modifying sentences, which you said I should have been doing. It is always words which are modified. Despite this, you found my edit wanting in some mysterious fashion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:33, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

(This specific message is probably about the following edit: [1] ) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:37, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
Before continuing to answer this question, it might be helpful to copy link to a possibly relevant discussion between you and another editor about a similar issue:
Talk:Gloria_Union#Japan_only Note by ToBeFree, 02:00, 11 May 2018 (UTC): I have removed the original quotes from this section, because I had a look at this conversation a week later, and directly quoting this discussion was not a nice thing to do. Both editors have been attacking each other, and it would be bad taste of me to actively mirror that in my talk page archive forever. I had originally quoted the messages from 16:11, 27 April 2018 (UTC) and 16:38, 27 April 2018 (UTC). Even when quoting the discussion here, taking that aggressive section out of its context is not a good idea.
This seems to be especially relevant because you declared yourself, literally, to be "Grammar police" "knocking" on other editors' "doors" to correct them. You do even "insist" native English speakers to "stop editing articles for grammar" because you say that they have a "very poor grasp of the English language".
The reason why I made this edit is that you have not simply fixed grammar errors. Instead, you have changed the meaning of the words without modifying the overall sentence, resulting in a logical error. This specific edit is not related to grammar, it is related to logic. If you believe this to be a grammatical correction, I am afraid that other editors' reactions to your other edits might not have been entirely made up out of thin air. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:37, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
Once again, you can't "modify a sentence" because no such thing is possible. You may as well speak of "modifying DNA to transform a human into an ape". That is the state of it. You must not edit Wikipedia for grammar if you are unaware of how grammar is to be constructed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:00, 1 May 2018‎ (UTC)

Bad tasteEdit

Note by ToBeFree, 14:59, 1 May 2018 (UTC): This seems to be about User talk:ToBeFree#Grammar and User talk:

I find it in bad taste for you to dredge up discussion that I've had with other people, and then make remarks about them on my talk page. Clearly this is something you're set on doing. When you remark that I said a user should stop editing, you are wrong. I said this user should stop editing for grammar. You PROBABLY should know better than this, but English may be a barrier here, because you admit on your page that you speak only "advanced" English, and not near-perfect or professional (the other categories). In any case, if you think that you have the right to correct me in the fashion that you have, then you are mistaken. You are not a moderator here.— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:55, 1 May 2018‎ (UTC)

Please sign your posts: "~~~~" ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:59, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
I hope I was able to address the quote problems pointed out by you. See diff.   ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:25, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Main discussion, continuedEdit

This does not seem to actually answer the problem; I'll try to explain it differently.
before your edit after your edit
considered to be "German" considered at the time to be not fully German
You say that this is a grammatical correction. This might be the case if the quotation marks around the word "German" are actually meant to say "not fully German". I do not believe this to be the intention behind these quotation marks. The quotation marks, in this sentence, are not implying incompleteness; they are used to quote a word. If you do not like this usage of the quotation marks, a grammatical fix would look like this:
before your edit after your edit
considered to be "German" considered to be German
Any other change can not be justified by grammar. It adds your personal interpretation to the article; it changes the meaning of the sentence, and you did so without providing a source. This, and only this, is why I have undone the edit. I have received a "Thank You" from another experienced editor* for this edit some hours later. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:05, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
*Clarification for later readers: I am not talking about Khajidha here, who has joined the discussion afterwards. The "Thank You" has been sent by an uninvolved editor who likely had the article on their watchlist. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:18, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
Hello, here is the quoted sentence from the article. It hints and suggests that some of the people weren't German enough, due to them not using the full black-red-gold colors. The Frankfurt Parliament had declared the black-red-gold as the official colours of the German Confederation, with the red in the tricolour most likely referencing the Hanseatic League, and the gold and black symbolizing Austria as its empire, considered to be "German", had an influence over (what would become) southern Germany. The person who wrote it (not sure who it was) probably thought "gosh, Austria isn't Germany, I should point out this fact" but he or she was not able to do it appropriately. As far as his or her view goes, I cannot defend a prejudiced view. I only know to correct the grammar where I see it lacking. It may require a citation needed tag. -- (talk) 18:42, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
For someone who claims to be a part of the "grammar police" and to have studied grammar, you have the most abysmal understanding of it. User:ToBeFree has explained it perfectly to you in the above post. The sentence you quoted means that the reason Austria used the gold and black was that they were German. German in the cultural and linguistic sense and not in the sense of a German nationality or citizenship. The quotation marks around German are to indicate that it is to be understood in that sense of "German, but not of Germany". It's another way of saying "ethnic German". And yes, you can modify a sentence. I have NO idea where you got that particular dictum of yours from. --Khajidha (talk) 19:22, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
Wait, let's not resort to attacks again. Since the last few hours, I'm researching about this, reading a lot about the historical circumstances and refreshing what we learned in our history school classes. From what I have read so far, simply removing the quotation marks is indeed a valid correction, and - whether the author has meant that or not - it is relatively likely that Austria has actually been considered to be German in this regard. Your point about it having been viewed as "ethnic German" is especially nice, because this might really be what it means, and I lacked the words to describe this. Please, at the very least on my own talk page, edit the source of this page and add <s> at the beginning of your previous message. Then add </s> after the first period, before "User:ToBeFree". Alternatively, you can re-word the sentence to be less aggressive. The rest of your statement seems to be very valid, and I thank you for taking the time to explain what I would have required more research for.   ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:32, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
Oh, and yes, a Citation Needed tag might be good to have there! The whole discussion might not have been needed if there had been a valid reference clarifying the meaning. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:38, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
I am a part of the grammar police. There's no need to put it in quotes, dubiously, and darkly, as the person who wrote German on the page did. You can see, from this, that indeed the purpose is to make the word German seem reprehensible, disreputable, and questionable. For all that he proved my point indirectly, you can safely ignore Khajidha. He is a resident troll on this website. -- (talk) 20:13, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
All of this is your personal interpretation, which I do not share. I have added a "citation needed" tag, as you had nicely suggested, and will completely remove the relevant sentence if no reliable citation is added in the next few weeks. Please do not personally attack other editors, and remove the last two sentences from your latest message on my talk page. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:08, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
You're free to be wrong about grammar, but you should not edit any pages for grammar. Thanks for nothing. -- (talk) 10:01, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
Apology to Please read this if you ever come back

Looking at this one month laterEdit

I'm sorry for my initial hostile reaction. I have been clearly uncivil here, and I should not have let this incident stress me out. I had originally quoted a personal attack towards you, which is definitely not okay, and I had even originally marked it in bold to emphasize which part of the quoted discussion I considered to be "relevant". Before you had read the text (I hope), I quickly removed the bold text from the quote and reworded it to be less aggressive. I have also added an explanation of my edit on this occassion -- something I should have done as the very first thing, and in a much more polite way.

About two weeks later, I decided to remove the insulting quote from my talk page. Especially as I had complained about personal attacks between you and Khajidha in the discussion, my quote casted an embarrassingly bad light on the otherwise very friendly atmosphere I'm trying to establish here. That was a good first step, I think, but I feel that it has not been enough.

I have noticed that you have not edited since this discussion, and that your last edit has been made one month ago to my talk page. This is worrying me, because I might have discouraged a well-intending user from editing, something which I had ironically been complaining about to you above. I hope that the sudden stop of editing from your IP address,, has only been caused by a change of IP address, or by registration of a username.

Today, I would like to invite you to give Wikipedia, a huge project that can only continue to exist because of contributions like yours, a second chance. Specifically, I sincerly hope that you would like to give me, personally, a second chance as well. I'm sorry for having been rude in our discussion, and I will honestly do my best to prevent something like this from happening ever again.

If you would like to come back, please take one of these cookies:


They're still warm while you're reading this. No matter when you're reading this. They'll be waiting here, they will not be archived, and it would make me happy to hear from you again whenever you see this message. I sadly can't reach you via e-mail by leaving a message on your talk page, but maybe you're still reading Wikipedia as, and maybe you'll be looking at my talk page one day again. When you do, please let me know, even if you choose to refuse my apology. I know that I have messed up. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:56, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Criminal Party pageEdit

I used the same translation for MTV and wikipedia both. I sent them the current translation before. But I created the biography, not them. What do I have to do ? Thanks for helping me. --Fab1966 (talk) 10:29, 3 May 2019 (UTC) Fabio 3/5/19

Hi Fab1966, have you given any "exclusive" rights to the website? Please carefully check your contract. Afterwards, if you did not give "exclusive" rights to anyone, wrote the text entirely yourself in your own words and would like to publish it on Wikipedia, please see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. Thanks   ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:41, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I wrote again the buography. What do you think about it ? Thanks --Fab1966 (talk) 16:56, 6 May 2019 (UTC) Fabio 6/5/19

Hi Fab1966, thank you for the notification. Is there any update about the copyright? Have you sent an e-mail, for example? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:16, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

I could do it, but I didn't because I wrote it again. please, could you check it ? Thanks --Fab1966 (talk) 15:34, 7 May 2019 (UTC) Fabio 7/5/19

Hmm. Fab1966, I am unsure about this. The changes can be found at Special:Diff/895808513. If you wrote the original text, we can ignore all "close paraphrasing" issues if you take a moment to send the e-mail.
If you really would like to submit the article for review without releasing any rights to the original text, you may use the blue "Submit your draft for review!" button. This way, another reviewer can have a look too. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:44, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Ok, I'll send the e mail. But in the declaration they need to mention a link. Which one need I to include, the MTV one ? Thanks --Fab1966 (talk) 15:46, 7 May 2019 (UTC) 7/5/19 Fabio

Thank you, that solves the whole problem.   Fab1966, for the text at Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries, the "URL of the content" is the website that you have submitted your text to. If you wrote your text for MTV, it is the MTV page, for example . The "Exact URL of the page or file on Wikipedia" is . ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:33, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I just the sent the declaration of the owner of the biography. What need I to publish it ? Thanks --Fab1966 (talk) 17:37, 8 May 2019 (UTC)Fabio 8/5/19

Fab1966: Sorry, I am not sure if I understand your message correctly. Have you sent the e-mail to permissions-en ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:23, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes --Fab1966 (talk) 19:25, 8 May 2019 (UTC) Fabio 8/7/19

Perfect, Fab1966, thank you very much for taking the time to do this. We need to wait for an answer now. This can take about 50 days. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:04, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
  Bumping thread for 60 days. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:04, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
@Fab1966: If you would like me to submit the draft for review as soon as the e-mail has been read, please tell me "I would like to submit the draft for review as soon as possible" below. I will then wait and later do this for you. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:06, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Of course yes, I would like to submit the draft for review as soon as possible Thanks --Fab1966 (talk) 14:45, 9 May 2019 (UTC) Fabio 9/5/19

  Bumping thread for 1000 days. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:11, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
Note to self: Do this when the OTRS ticket is resolved: Special:Diff/896292830 ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:14, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I sent the permission as you suggested. They asked for common license, that of course I sent, but the they answered in the following way: Dear Fabio Rapisarda, CC BY-SA 4.0 is not compatible with Wikipedia's license ( Additionally, I am still not able to verify that you are the copyright holder. (See directions in my previous message.)

Yours sincerely, [...] Of couse, now i don't know how to solve the problem. Please could you help me ? Thanks

fabio — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fab1966 (talkcontribs) 23:39, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

OTRS member's signature removed ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:58, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
Hi Fab1966, that's unfortunate.  
Per our legal disclaimer, I can't say "this is okay". I can only point out possible issues, like close paraphrasing, but I can not say "this is fine".
Special:Diff/895808513 seems to indicate that the new text is still based on the MTVROCK article, with the wording changed but the structure unchanged. This is not necessarily a problem, but also probably not ideal. If you hadn't written the MTVROCK article, I would probably suggest deleting the whole text, and writing it from scratch in your own words. As these are your own words, I am unsure how to continue. Is there really no way for you to ask the MTVROCK website owner to verify your authorship? Maybe the MTVROCK website owner can send a similar e-mail to Wikipedia? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:25, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

I wrote the biography with own words. I changed something. If you read the MTV biography and the wikipedia one, they are not the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fab1966 (talkcontribs) 22:32, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Fab1966, I do believe you.   However, the OTRS volunteer has expressed doubt. Can you ask the administrator of MTVROCK to add a sentence to the MTVROCK page? "This article has been written by Wikipedia user Fab1966 and is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike 3.0 license", or something similar? If I understand correctly, you have also received an e-mail with more detailled instructions. There does not seem to be anything I personally can do here at the moment. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:50, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
Pinging JJMC89 per Special:Diff/897865501, maybe he can confirm my interpretation. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:53, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
ticket:2019050810007489 does not contain an adequate statement of permission. The specified license is not compatible, and there is no evidence that the person who signed the statement is the copyright holder. Given that, I did not compare the source text vs Wikipedia. — JJMC89(T·C) 01:16, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi, if you read the new version of the biography, it's not same of the one published by MTV rock. I don't understand because I need a license. Thanks

Fabio — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fab1966 (talkcontribs) 14:03, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Fab1966, my original concern was close paraphrasing. When I expressed this concern, I did not know that you have written the MTVROCK article yourself.
If I understand correctly, Wikipedia has still not received verification for your authorship. For this reason, the original Wikipedia article text may be deleted as a suspected copyright violation.
In Special:Diff/895808513, you have modified the closely paraphrased text. It is now less closely paraphrased.
I do not know if this is sufficient. I would prefer clarity about this copyright issue.
I can not give legal advice. I can only point out potential problems. This may be a problem. I do not know. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:46, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

I sent them the Creatice Common license 4.0 (as they suggested), but they wrote me it wasn't fine. Now I don't really know what to do. I don't understand what they need. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fab1966 (talkcontribs) 19:14, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Fab1966, there are multiple different "Creative Commons" licenses. Please compare these four licenses:
You have likely been asked to use one of the green licenses ( ), not the red one ( ).
If you have questions about an e-mail sent to you, please respond to the e-mail to ask your questions. Please respond via e-mail that you do not understand what to do next. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:15, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, I attached the Creative common 4.0 link in the Criminal Party's page. Please, could you check if it's correct and maybe send it for the approval ? Thanks Fabio

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Fab1966 (talkcontribs) 08:57, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi Fab1966, that's sadly not what I meant. You do not need to add this text to the Wikipedia article. Wikipedia articles are automatically published under a free license.
I meant: Could you add the text "This article has been written by Wikipedia user Fab1966 and is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike 3.0 license"
to the following page?
Thank you very much in advance. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:46, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

I could try. It doesn't depends on me. Can you suggest an alternative ? Thanks Fabio

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Fab1966 (talkcontribs) 09:47, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Fab1966, I sadly can't think of a good alternative. Please do try. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:09, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

I contacted them, but the biography I wrote on wikipedia EN it's not completely the same. I mean, I don't understand because I need a copyright now I made changes to the one published on MTV !!! Thanks


— Preceding unsigned comment added by Fab1966 (talkcontribs) 09:12, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Fab1966, merely "making changes" to a potential copyright violation does not necessarily solve the problem. For example, the old version is still accessible in the revision history of the page. Normally, copyright violations are deleted from the history, but this is not a clear case. For the same reason, I am unsure how to continue here.
Thank you for contacting the website administrator. If they add the requested text to the website, we probably do not need to worry about copyright anymore. This is why I have asked you to solve the problem this way.
Let's wait for the website administrator's response. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:20, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I've inserted a new biography version. Please, could you check it ?

Fabio — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fab1966 (talkcontribs) 16:03, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi Fab1966, thank you very much for rewriting the article. I have submitted it for review. This may take about 2 months, since there are 3776 other submissions also waiting for review. However, your submission will be reviewed. You will receive a message on your talk page as soon as a reviewer had a look at it.
It may take multiple reviews until the article meets the English Wikipedia's standards. Please don't let this discourage you. Thank you very much for taking the time to write this article, and to deal with the complicated copyright concerns. If you'd like to continue contributing to Wikipedia, you may like to have a look at The Wikipedia Adventure and our community portal.   ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:52, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

As I wrote you in the other page too, I really don't undestand what I need do now. Are they asking me to resubmit the biography ? Why ?


Fabio — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fab1966 (talkcontribs) 01:13, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Fab1966, this is unrelated to copyright.
The reviewer seems to have the following concern: WP:42
A good next step could be adding links to independent, reliable newspapers or books that detailledly describe the band. Please ask Bkissin if something is unclear about his concerns. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:23, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi, please could you explain me why they aren't publishing on wikipedia EN the Criminal Party's page ? Thanks

Fabio — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fab1966 (talkcontribs) 15:54, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Fab1966, the English Wikipedia may have stricter guidelines and policies than other Wikipedias. The English Wikipedia also has a larger, more active community that notices potential issues more likely than on other Wikipedias. I am not involved in the review; please ask Bkissin if you have questions about it. Your message on Bkissin's talk page (Special:Diff/899638853) does not look like a question. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:04, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

I wrote in Blissin page that Criminal Party have at least first criteria. Infact i add some links. The band appears in magazine (ex. maximum r'n'r) and books too, but they are not on line. I asked for what I need to add more. Thanks

Fabio — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fab1966 (talkcontribs) 20:00, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, now let's wait for an answer on User talk:Bkissin#Criminal_Party_page. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:18, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. We'll wait for the answer.

Fabio — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fab1966 (talkcontribs) 09:35, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I resubmit again the page. I added some more links, one of a book too. Please, check if now it's allright. Thanks


— Preceding unsigned comment added by Fab1966 (talkcontribs) 18:50, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi Fab1966, thank you very much for your work. Your draft will be reviewed, but it may take about two months. Over 4000 other drafts are waiting, too.   ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:03, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I added the links with the references as requested. Please, could you check the page ? Thanks

Fabio — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fab1966 (talkcontribs) 09:51, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi Fab1966, to solve your help requests in Special:Diff/901202062 and Special:Diff/901530370, I have resubmitted the article for review. A third, uninvolved reviewer will have a look. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:38, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, very much. I hope now it's allright !

Fabio — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fab1966 (talkcontribs) 09:18, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Message by FurnitureswedenEdit

Hi, is there a problem with me editing the page about Arne Norell? :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Furnituresweden (talkcontribs) 15:31, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi Furnituresweden, yes, likely. Are you, for example, being paid for your contributions? Do you have a conflict of interest? Please carefully read the message on your talk page. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:37, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

No I'm not being paid, but Arne Norell was my grandfather and it makes me sad seeing his legacy being so poorly depicted with such a poor biography and bad photos. Why did you remove my work? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Furnituresweden (talkcontribs) 15:41, 2 June 2019 (UTC)


No I'm not being paid, but Arne Norell was my grandfather and it makes me sad seeing his legacy being so poorly depicted with such a poor biography and bad photos. The only thing I want is for a proper biography to be written (I have the best resource - his daughter Marie, who is my mother). Please let me know what I need to change in the edit I did for it to stay there. Was something wrong with the photos? I only want to carry on my grandfather's legacy and the designs and the company he established.


Hello? Can you please help me? :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blue46789 (talkcontribs) 16:06, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Blue46789, hi, please give me a moment. I'm currently trying to get help by experienced Wikimedia Commons users to determine the copyright status of your uploads. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:08, 2 June 2019 (UTC)


Thank you! :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blue46789 (talkcontribs) 16:09, 2 June 2019 (UTC)


There isn't even a photo of my grandfather Arne Norell in the current wikipedia page. If you need a resource for the photo I can resource our family photo-album or the company website? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blue46789 (talkcontribs) 16:12, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Blue46789, three pages you may like to skim while waiting for a proper response: WP:OR, commons:COM:PCP, commons:COM:Licensing. I'll need at least an hour for a response, perhaps days or a week for a deletion discussion if the status is unclear. You may like to request edits on the talk page of the article by using {{Request edit}}. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:17, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
Blue46789, there is now a discussion at commons:Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_User:Blue46789. Let's wait for it to come to a conclusion. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:47, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Response by ToBeFreeEdit

Blue46789, there seem to be multiple issues with the edits that I have undone in Special:Diff/899966538.
  • The removed text does not contain citations. Wikipedia requires information to be verifiable. Especially claims such as "he was known for" and about his "success" need to come from independent, reliable sources. Not from the company's website, not from a press release.
  • The removed text may be, at least partially, original research. Your above-mentioned "best resource" is not a published article or book. We must not base a Wikipedia article solely on her personal knowledge. Also, where do the "two examples of his influence" come from, and why is "Sirocco" one of these two? This, and the allegedly won award, would need to be reliably referenced.
  • The removed text does not appear to be neutral. Wikipedia articles should be written from a neutral point of view. As a family member of the article subject, you are very unlikely to include negative information, if there is any. You are relatively likely to, even unintentionally, cherry-pick the best things to say about your grandfather.
Per Wikipedia's conflict of interest guideline, you are strongly discouraged from editing the article directly. Instead, you may like to create a userspace draft to rewrite the article, and submit your revised version for review.
Regarding the images, even those which are currently part of the article, these may need to be deleted, at least temporarily. The designer of the depicted chairs has not died over 70 years ago, so his heirs may still own rights to the design. It may be necessary for all heirs to send a free license release to Wikimedia Commons's OTRS team. Before doing so, please wait for the deletion discussion to reach a conclusion. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:10, 2 June 2019 (UTC)


Thank you for your answer, but to be honest I find all of this somewhat ridiculous.

I agree that perhaps my text was too flattering having mentioned words such as "success", but then how do you measure success? Can a Wikipedia article claim Mozart was a success when he died penniless? I would say Mozart was a success and some would agree and some would not. Do you mean only the author of a book knows what success is and the rest of us have no clue? My grandfather built his own business from nothing. I would call that being somewhat successful and I don't think that's just my opinion.

You're also saying that my mother is not the best resource. You're claiming a better resource would be a book or an article? But where do you think this so-called "more reliable resource" received it's information about Arne Norell from? My mother and the people who knew him of course. My grandfather is for example mentioned in the Swedish National Encyclopedia. I can email you a photo of the encyclopedia and the article since I'm holding it my hand as I'm typing. They made an interview with my mother to write that article, and you're saying the article is more reliable than my mother who lived close to Arne Norell for all her young life? Went on trips together with him, talked with him and knew exactly what inspired him?

I'm also holding his award in my own hands and would love to send you a photo. Could we please continue this nonsense via email instead of out in the open?

I'm happy to remove everything I've written about his "success" and so on. I know you think you are making everyone a favor, but you have made me very sad today. I'm only a grandchild wanting to carry on my grandfather's legacy in the best way. And I don't see why you people seem to enjoy making that work more difficult? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blue46789 (talkcontribs) 22:49, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

I would also like to add one more thing,

You're saying that Wikipedia needs the information to be verifiable and that there are no citations in my removed text? But how can I (or anyone for that matter) quote something that has not yet been written? But to start writing a correct biography of a person when no books/articles are written, don't you start with the people who knew him the best? When there are no books or articles to turn to? Isn't that how all biographies start? Unfortunately, not so much has been written about my grandfather, but that is what I'm trying to change. None of the information I wrote is incorrect or false. But some of it I can only verify from my mother and grandmother or from articles based on interviews with my mother/grandmother.

Also, you're saying that a Wikipedia article about a person cannot be written by a family member? I also find this ridiculous because the text that has been on Wikipedia about Arne Norell for many, many years was written by my brother. And the source he is citing is the information they received from my mother. If it hasn't been a problem for so many years, why is it a problem now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blue46789 (talkcontribs) 23:14, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Blue46789, thank you very much for your detailled responses.
The Wikipedia community has had bad experiences such as the Wikipedia Seigenthaler biography incident. While that biography was about a living person, to which even stricter rules apply (WP:BLP), we do try to ensure neutrality and verifiability in all articles.
To ensure integrity, the Wikipedia community agrees to insist that:
  • Wikipedia articles should contain only verifiable information from published, reliable sources (WP:V),
  • Wikipedia does not publish original research (WP:OR), and
  • Wikipedia articles should be written from a neutral point of view (WP:NPOV).
These are our three core content policies, which complaining about to me as a single editor is unlikely to lead anywhere, so please don't. It is not for me to decide whether this is "ridiculous" or not.
The conflict of interest guideline exists for what I personally believe to be good reasons, but if that's not compelling, let's just accept that it exists.
That all said, you are welcome create an userspace draft. It will be reviewed by an experienced reviewer, giving you a third opinion about this matter. I will abstain from reviewing it, but I will happily help you with the technical steps if there are any technical questions about this process. I will also happily explain how the complex policies and guidelines work. I won't participate in an argument about their validity, however.
I do not intend to make anyone sad, and I sincerly hope that any sadness is not caused by me personally, but if at all by learning about fundamental principles of Wikipedia. These are not meant to make anyone sad either, but if that's the issue, that would relieve me and is likely to cease naturally over time.
A more positive experience may be editing articles without a conflict of interest. The following three pages may be a good starting point:
Despite all the frustration and disagreement, I hope that the community's position is at least somehow understandable. Please try to imagine an online encyclopedia of this size that does not take measures to ensure verifiability of its content; please try to imagine how the article about your grandfather could look like if we didn't deal with policy violations. In the end, it is you who benefits, and humanity as a whole. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:02, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to help me, which I think you should since you're the one who initiated this process.

You're right in some parts. Arguing about this isn't going to lead anywhere, and Wikipedia should have rules and principles. But I tend to respect rules that fulfill their intended purpose. Perhaps, in this case, the principles are not wrong but how you decided to implement them was not to "humanities best benefit." Right now the end result of you following these principles is a wikipedia-page about my grandfather with not even a picture of him, less information about his life and photos of his design taken by an unverifiable third-party. How can you be sure the photos in the current article actually depict my grandfather's true design? There are many fake copies out there and as a family member, I'm really good at pointing out the fake ones. But according to the principles of Wikipedia I should not be involved. Rather an anonymous person with an iPhone-camera is better to judge. Yes, I find this ridiculous.

I will upload the photos again because I can guarantee you they are his true design, and the photo of my grandfather is also correct. I hope referencing the company website for the photos will be enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blue46789 (talkcontribs) 06:45, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi again,

Several of the photos I uploaded have been requested for deletion. The photo of Arne Norell that I uploaded, for example, is the original photo I scanned into my computer. I have full permission from my family to use this photo however I wish. What can I do to avoid it being deleted? How can I reference this photo since it's not in any book/article?

Thank you for your help :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blue46789 (talkcontribs) 07:59, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

I've done some more editing. Before you remove all my work this time I would appreciate it if you could first try and tell me about any possible issues you might find in the text. And maybe we can work them out together. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blue46789 (talkcontribs) 10:30, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi Blue46789, thank you very much for your new messages. I am a bit negatively surprised about the undiscussed re-addition of unreferenced original research after all these explanations. To get a third opinion on the matter, instead of undoing your changes, I have started a discussion at WP:COIN#Arne Norell. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 11:12, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
This was incorrect, see below. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 11:47, 3 June 2019 (UTC)


Thank you for your reply.

Which information is unreferenced? Did you see the new resources I added including the Swedish National Encyclopedia? In there it is stated that Arne Norell was inspired by Danish design and that ‘sirocco’ is an example of it. As I see it all the information I’ve written is clearly sourced from the sources I’ve provided and the photos are taken by me personally of furniture designed by Arne Norell. The photo of Arne Norell is an original photo owned by me and my mother passed down from my grandmother. I don’t see what is the issue?

Kind regards, Philip — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blue46789 (talkcontribs) 11:24, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Blue46789, I'm sorry, that was my fault. I did not see the reference section nor its addition to the page on my phone. I'll have a closer look at the article content to see if there are any additional tips I can give, in, say, 5 hours or so. You did nicely add references that may very well be reliable enough to satisfy all above-mentioned requests for neutrality and verifiability. If you still would like to have a third opinion on the matter afterwards, there is a process at WP:3O that we can ask for if discussion comes to a standstill. I believed this to be the case, but it isn't. You have read the above concerns and made edits that are meant to solve the mentioned problems. This looks good. Thank you very much. :) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 11:42, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, that makes me so happy. I'm also sorry if I overreacted. Have a great day! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blue46789 (talkcontribs) 13:21, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

  Blue46789, I do have one request. Could you use the editor's "Cite" button to add inline references? This allows others to see which statement comes from which source, and is normally required if there have been concerns about verifiability (WP:BURDEN).
As I do not have access to the Swedish National Encyclopedia article, I can't verify the statements myself, but this is explicitly fine and allowed (WP:PAYWALL); it does not diminish the quality of your source.
Regarding the images, this isn't easy. It does not even seem to be clear if "your family" actually completely owns the copyright to the images. Your intended usage would, to my personal understanding (I am not a lawyer! This is not legal advice!), require that both the designer and the photographer (!) are both (or have both been) members of your family, did not have any other children who (partially?) inherited rights, and that all heirs explicitly agree to release the work under a free license by sending permission to Wikimedia Commons's OTRS team. If a company employee or friend made these images, your family may not actually possess the necessary rights. I think you should ask an experienced copyright lawyer about this before uploading these images. All we can do is being cautious and (temporarily) deleting images with an unclear copyright status. This deletion can be undone at any time, but you may need to seek professional legal advice to be able to argue convincingly in favor of undeletion. Trying to convince a cautious community in an argument about copyright without having experience in that legal area may be impossible; don't take this lightly, please. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:25, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Lickey InclineEdit

No, it wasn't a test, and I wasn't messing. It should say 'section' because the signal was at the summit of the incline, to the north of the station. Raising the calling-on arm allowed the bankers (only) to follow a train down the bank 'on visual' before it had reached Bromsgrove. Best Regards. Chris (talk) 22:49, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Hey Chris, thank you for your correction. The change undone in Special:Diff/900472494 seemed to append a number to a word, something that happens many times per day as a joke or test edit. I didn't realize that you wanted to correct the word, or I would simply have removed the "8". Sorry for interrupting you; I will now remove the incorrect notice from your talk page. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:05, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Message by Andyboy390Edit

Sadly, I am having terrible difficulties in finding 'a reliable source'.

Just what is that?

Wikipedia is too difficult for me to understand so I feel I must abandon my efforts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andyboy390 (talkcontribs) 08:23, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Hey Andyboy390, Special:Diff/837724845 was over a year ago!
But now that you're asking, where did you get your information from? What is your source? As you likely didn't just make that information up, you seem to have read it somewhere – all you need to do is to say where you did. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:31, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank You for the helpEdit

Thanks for the help. It seemed like a good idea to add his social accounts that he seems to manage. I'll look over the guidelines so I can minimize mistakes.

Thanks IdigiMan — Preceding unsigned comment added by IndigenousMan (talkcontribs) 19:33, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi IndigenousMan, no worries! The specific part of the guideline you may be looking for is WP:ELMIN.   ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:36, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!Edit

  The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
This is for your valuable efforts for countering Vandalism and protecting Wikipedia from it's threats. I appreciate your effort. You are a defender of Wikipedia. Thank you. PATH SLOPU 16:28, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Wow, thank you very much, Path slopu!  
That's a nice beginning of an editing session. I'll add the star to my userpage. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:31, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Help to save DJ Kelblizz articleEdit

Please administrators should do something about saving DJ Kelblizz article from getting deleted It's so unfair that a newly approved article be considered for deletion.please everyone should help save these article — Preceding unsigned comment added by KelblizzRecords (talkcontribs) 01:14, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

KelblizzRecords, please have a lool at the deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DJ Kelblizz. The issue seems to be a lack of notability, which is explained in an (over)simplified form at WP:42. In a nutshell, there is nothing a Wikipedia editor can do to save this article. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:48, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Editing Lori Gruen's PageEdit

Hi ToBeFree,

Thanks so much for the message you sent me. I am new to editing on Wikipedia, so it was really helpful to have your guidance and suggestions. Although I am working for Lori Gruen, the edits I want to make are factual, not opinion based. In addition to the edits I made today, there is a significant amount of information that I plan to add to Lori Gruen's page (all of which I have citations for) which is all factual merely to improve the current lack of information on her current page. However, I understand how, by working for her, even if my edits are factual and not opinion based, I could still have a conflict of interest.

As I mentioned, there are further edits that I want to make for Lori Gruen. If you would be willing, I'd really appreciate you proof reading for me. What is the best way for me to send you a draft of my proposed work?

You also mentioned that my work is likely to get deleted because of my conflict of interest. I have checked the page and as of now (over two hours since publication) the edits I made are still up. How can I find out if my edits will be deleted? Also is there anything I can do retroactively to make them more credible so they will not be removed?

Lastly, in your message you mentioned Wikipedia's policies on edits made for reimbursement. Lori Gruen will be paying me for these edits, so I want to make sure I am in full compliance with these policies. I understand that I have to disclose this information. How am I supposed to disclose this in order to be in compliance with the policy?

Thanks so much for all your help. I really appreciate it.

IndiaFDixon — Preceding unsigned comment added by Indiafdixon (talkcontribs) 01:22, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi Indiafdixon, thank you very much for the detailled explanation. Welcome to Wikipedia.
As the very first step, regarding the paid contributions, please carefully read WP:PAID. Afterwards, adding the template {{Paid}} to your user page at User:Indiafdixon may be the easiest way to ensure a proper disclosure for all edits on all pages.
Please note that a lack of information is perfectly fine. Incorrect information needs to be removed as soon as possible, and when carefully doing so (see Wikipedia:FAQ/Article subjects), you may do so yourself. Adding new information, however, requires reliable, published sources. Please carefully separate these two tasks: Removing incorrect text is fine, adding new text comes with a burden of verifiability.
To easily create a draft for proofreading, the page Help:Userspace_draft can be very helpful. After reading the instructions, simply add "Lori Gruen" to the field and click the blue button.
I'm not saying it is "likely", but it is possible for your edits to be undone if they do not meet, for example, Wikipedia's neutrality or verifiability standards. It may sound counterintuitive at first, but these policies exist to protect your client from defamation. Due to negative experiences such as the Wikipedia Seigenthaler biography incident, the community is now very careful in this regard. I'm sure that if you provide this explanation to your client, she will understand the community's prudence.
The addition of external links in the article body may be seen as advertisement and should probably be undone. It is important to maintain a neutral point of view; writing about websites is often done for promotion rather than improvement of the encyclopedia.
The removal of an entire section that (only looking at the page code) appeared to be well-referenced may be problematic. In accordance with WP:BURDEN, an editor may restore the section if it is verifiable and accurately referenced. I won't judge, I didn't re-add that section, I didn't undo your edits. I'm just saying it may happen – and to avoid this section from being re-inserted, you may like to explain its removal at Talk:Lori Gruen. If the information was factually wrong, do not quote it when explaining its removal. If it was factually correct, you'll need to provide good policy-based reasons for its removal. Hint: WP:UNDUE?
If someone disagrees with you, please do not directly edit the article to respond to their disagreement. Rather, use the talk page (Talk:Lori Gruen) to explain your point. This avoids edit warring.
One last to keep in mind may be WP:PAYTALK. Reviewers and other volunteers are more likely to help if they are able to do so easily and quickly.
Thank you very much in advance, and good luck. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:15, 15 June 2019 (UTC)


Hallo! Gibt es eine Möglichkeit des Halbschutzes des Artikels oder ähnliches? Der Name wird immer wieder eingefügt, so auch diese Nacht. Ich kenne mich in der englischsprachigen Wikipedia zu wenig aus. Danke und Gruss KurtR (talk) 17:16, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Hey KurtR, danke für die Nachfrage! Ja – normalerweise wird Seitenschutz auf WP:RFPP beantragt, aber in diesem Fall ging es um private Informationen, die (nach einiger Diskussion hinter den Kulissen) inzwischen tatsächlich mit Oversight aus den Logbüchern entfernt werden. Daher habe ich diese im IRC-Channel #wikipedia-en-revdel auf Freenode gemeldet und dabei Deine Nachfrage nach Seitenschutz erwähnt. Die wurde dann auch umgesetzt, war also sinnvoll und berechtigt.  
In hoffentlich nicht allzu ferner Zeit wird WP:RFPP vereinfacht; momentan benötigt man noch Twinkle, um dort einigermaßen komfortabel Seitenschutz beantragen zu können.
PS: Falls Du zur WikiCon 2019 kommen möchtest, gäbe es dort wenigstens eine Person, mit der ich in der Wikipedia zu tun hatte. Du bist herzlich eingeladen.
~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:51, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Danke für Deine Antwort und die Einleitung der Massnahmen, super. Ich möchte mich gar nicht zu sehr in die Wiki-Regeln der engl. Wikipedia einlesen, da ich nur wenig hier aktiv bin. Warum bist Du vorallem hier tätig und vernachlässigt die deutschsprachige? :-)
Wird leider nichts mit der WikiCon, sorry. Viele Grüsse KurtR (talk) 22:00, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Gerne :) In der deutschsprachigen Wikipedia gibt es zu wenig Arbeit für Vandalenjäger wie mich.   Es gibt dort zwar fast halb so viele Artikel wie hier, aber weniger als ein Viertel der Bearbeitungen. Rund um die Uhr wird hier über eine Bearbeitung pro Sekunde getätigt – auch dann, wenn in der deutschsprachigen Wikipedia gerade ein Großteil der Benutzer schläft.
Außerdem gefällt mir die offene, internationale Arbeitsatmosphäre hier besser. Alle Nicht-Muttersprachler, und davon gibt es hier deutlich mehr als auf dewiki, haben eine Fremdsprache erlernt und benutzen diese freiwillig. Das siebt, auch wenn das ein trauriges Qualitätskriterium ist, einige Menschen aus, mit denen ich auf dewiki nichts zu tun haben möchte.
Ich habe den Eindruck, dass enwiki mit Trollen, Halbwahrheiten und Theoriefindung besser klarkommt als dewiki. Richtlinien sind in "Policies" (streng) und "Guidelines" (weniger streng) unterteilt; erstere werden sehr gut durchgesetzt. Dagegen stolpere ich in dewiki gefühlsmäßig zu oft über persönliche Interpretationen von Primärquellen, die es auch dort eigentlich nicht geben dürfte. Vielleicht liegt auch das an der unterschiedlichen Zahl der Augen, die täglich über einen Artikel blicken, und an der kulturellen Diversität der Bearbeiter. Den Hinweis "Dieser Artikel stellt die Situation in Deutschland dar" lese ich in dewiki sehr häufig. Auf enwiki entstehen solche Probleme eher selten, da die Bearbeiter aus der ganzen Welt kommen.
Die sprachliche Unterscheidung zwischen "Du" und "Sie" scheint ebenfalls nicht ganz unproblematisch zu sein. Während "You" beides bedeuten kann, wird in der deutschsprachigen Wikipedia standardmäßig eine Anrede verwendet, die gerade bei der Begrüßung zuvor unbekannter Benutzer eigentlich unangemessen ist. Ich habe den Eindruck, dass das im ganzen Projekt die Hemmschwelle für ad-hominem-Argumente und persönliche Angriffe senkt. Andererseits wirkt die einzige Alternative, "Sie", viel zu distanzierend. Das gezielte Siezen bestimmter Benutzer wird auf dewiki als öffentliche Bekundung von Missgunst eingesetzt. Einen schönen Mittelweg scheint die deutsche Sprache nicht zu bieten. Durch Großschreibung des Wortes "Du", die ich mir momentan mit Schwierigkeiten angewöhne und in Deiner Nachricht bemerke, ist zumindest ein Schritt in die richtige Richtung möglich. Diese Schreibweise scheint aber auf Diskussionsseiten eher eine Seltenheit zu sein und von der Software überhaupt nicht genutzt zu werden.
Schade, dass es mit der WikiCon nichts wird. Mal gucken, ob ich zufällig doch noch jemanden treffe, den ich kenne. :) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:34, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "ToBeFree".