Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask at the help desk, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! JudgeRM(talk to me)21:33, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for experimenting with the page Michael Milken on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Because of a long history of paid editing at that article, edits which remove anything related to criminal activity are viewed skeptically. Please discuss on talk first. Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 20:13, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Nagle
I see that this "test1" wikipedia-link is an automated one. This is amusing at best. I don't amuse myself at conducting "tests" on wikipedia.
I also do not seek financial gain for my wikipedia hobbies either.
In the future, from now on, I will not get involved with your Milken concerns. I was not aware that the Milken page was such a touchy one for you.
I merely seek to correct false and misleading information. It is unfortunate that you may not agree with that.
I absolutely do not seek conflict towards any one that seeks to advance falsehoods, ...especially if, perhaps, someone is paying you to keep such falsehoods published.
BelAirWhale (talk) 09:11, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Slander:
the action or crime of making a false spoken statement damaging to a person's reputation.
Libel:
a published false statement that is damaging to a person's reputation; a written defamation.
Defamatory:
(of remarks, writing, etc.) damaging the good reputation of someone; slanderous or libellous.
Not defamatory.
True, read sources.
Research the truth.
BelAirWhale, we simply do not include content about charges that were dropped, unless they were very widely reported to have affected the person's career. This is a matter of policy and is not negotiable. So please "show it to all" so that people will know that Wikipedia enforces its policies. Otherwise, stop now. Thank you. Cullen328Let's discuss it04:39, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Cullen328
The charges were not dropped. He, instead, received a lesser charge in a plea deal. This means that he was charged with a conviction. Further, before the truthful and objective sources and information were made more widely known on wikipedia, there was already a photo of his mugshot. This decision on yours to try to conceal and cover-up the extent of the truth is disturbing.
I have saved all of your actions this morning and will collect and disseminate how you are in fact violating your own policies.
So lets document the record, first you and/or your colleagues wanted to conceal positive news about Michael Milken.
Second, you and/or your colleagues wanted to conceal negative news about Larry King.
He was working odd jobs for more than three years, this was a significant part of his career, as reported by Time, GQ, The Washington Post, et. al.
Defamatory=lies
An unbiased policy=Objective
You now are asking me to negotiate with you, by saying "not negotiable."
You actually brought up the word "negotiable."
When I decide to publish what you are doing, it will be widely disseminated.
If you want this dialogue about wikipedia's own policies to "stop" feel free to email me the names you want to protect, for your own prejudicial reasons.
These decisions that you and/or your colleagues are making are not due to your policies, which I have read and studied for many years, on an ongoing basis before I post anything.
This is my hobby and I rarely have posted on wikipedia, except to identify little known reported controversial, yet significantly important, truths in the world.
fun
If you examine my edit history, you will see that I have never edited Michael Milken, and as far as I know, have never discussed Milken here on Wikipedia. I have zero interest in Milken. So, your accusations of prejudice are baseless and without merit. My only interest is in upholding the policies and guidelines of this encyclopedia. If you persist in trying to add content that violates policy, you will be blocked. Cullen328Let's discuss it05:33, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The material was copied directly from another website, and thus was a copyright violation. Please don't add copyright material to this wiki. — Diannaa🍁 (talk) 10:36, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I speak the truth, I correct the grammar, I cite all requisite sources, I Always remain objective, I follow and obey all rules, I enforce all users to do the same here on wikipedia. I am a human. I operate so much like a bot that most humans like you may be offended on occasions.
The next time you have a personal subjective conflict with a subject I am correcting, citing correct sources about, or writing about, you may voice your intentions to conceal the truth publicly or else you can play manipulative games to try to hide the truth while such games are documented publicly on separate logged devices that record everything I write, see, hear, and monitor.
BelAirWhale
Please do not delete reliable sources, such as RT and BBC (even though both RT and BBC have each made false claims in the past).
I cited over 6 different sources all from international media companies.
You seem to have a personal paid interest in the matter, so I will leave you to it so your boss does not become frustrated with you.
I speak the truth, I correct the grammar, I cite all requisite sources, I Always remain objective, I follow and obey all rules, I enforce all users to do the same here on Wikipedia. I am a human. I operate so much like a bot that most humans like you may be offended on occasions. The next time you have a personal Subjective conflict with a subject I am correcting, citing correct sources about, and writing about, you may voice your true intentions to conceal the truth publicly or else you can play manipulative games to try to hide the truth while such games are documented publicly on separate logged devices that record everything I write, see, hear, and monitor.
Hello Marianna251
Thank you for your concerns and your interpretation.
All my edits have references and I do not use tabloids when providing controversial information, especially in regards to living (or recently deceased) persons.
If you are afraid or biased in any way in regards to this informative and widely known circumstance included in the recent edit, you may explain why on this public thread.
Otherwise, we can all accept the understanding that all of the references made from The Guardian,as well as other highly reputed news agencies in the recent edit are a conflict with an unwritten policy that you seem to be executing.
Have a good day/evening
BelAirWhale (talk) 21:25, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, BelAirWhale. You wrote "Authorities in Angola have recently taken action against and made criticism towards dos Santos in regards to the methods used by her to acquire her wealth and utilize her advantage in her business deals" in the Isabel dos Santos page and provided twosources to support your statement. However, neither of those sources say anything remotely approaching the content of your edit; they only say that dos Santos was recently fired. Please do not misrepresent sources in your edits. Thanks, Marianna251TALK21:50, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
1.) You reverted an edit causing a misspelled word, incorrect grammar in regards to the capitalization of the word, President, and your grave conjecture also falsely claims that her father is President today, when he is not.
Both articles from credible sources state:
A reference to the President in power. Yes, the one that has replaced the Father of dos Santos.
Actions taken against dos Santos: Both articles describe actions taken against
Do I have a personal interest in dos Santos?
No. I found the articles and provided an update to the page.
Now it seems you are very adamant about hiding this reality in your attempt to temporarily rewrite history?
An embarrassment to an encyclopedia is your obstinate need to carry on with grave conjectures, misspelled words, and mistakes of elementary grammar.
This overshadows the fact that, for some reason which we can almost conclude, you have this rage against obviously true information being published.
Finally, the fact that you reverted an entire edit and never bothered to see the full content of what you reverted shows that you clearly never bothered to read the content in the articles either, especially since the titles, the body, and the conclusion of the articles establish the basis for the articles inclusion as direct sources for the recent edit of dos Santos biography.
So, I will leave it up to another Wikipedia user to one day publish any relevant updates about dos Santos.
I am not her publicist and I am also not her investigative journalist.
Best of luck with your education, young lady.
Enjoy your day
BelAirWhale (talk) 22:06, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
“obstinate need to carry on with grave conjectures, misspelled words, and mistakes of elementary grammar.”
That Is an embarrassment
There is nothing personal about this statement (above)
There is nothing directed at a person in this statement (also above)
I welcome you to re-read.
Thank you for your time.
Since you have invested the time to criticise my words, would you be so kind to provide a relevant response to what is actually required here?:
A relevant and modern definition of a “minor edit”
-As well as a single rulebook, guide, policy that is on one single link?
I am certain that this many great minds on Wikipedia have such a rulebook, guide, reference about “minor edits” as well as the overall rules on Wikipedia.
This would be very helpful to avoid any future disagreements..if and when someone is available to do so?
Again: unbiased, unprejudiced, and objective please
(Sorry if I come off as confrontational. I don't mean to) Okay, first, you don't need to start a new section for every comment. See WP:INDENT for a general overview about how to properly reply to comments. The only time you would start a new section is if you were involved in an ArbCom case and replying there, which your talk page is not. Second, as you appear to be unhappy with my previous statement, I'll rephrase it; everyone makes mistakes, and some people aren't good with grammar or spelling. It's better to just fix it than to call it an embarrassment. And lastly, since you want an explanation of minor edits, see WP:MINOR#When to mark as minor edits. But a brief overview, a "minor edit" is something like fixing a typo, correcting grammar or formatting (ie, if an editor added useful information improperly formatted and you were fixing it) or taking material and moving it to the correct section. Reversion of blatant vandalism would also be considered minor. However, things such as adding content, deleting content, adding a date of death, tagging an article, commenting on a talk page, etc. would not be considered minor and should not be marked as such. And remember, it's always better to not tag a minor edit as minor than to tag a major edit as minor. A lad insanetalk16:04, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for providing these clarifications. Without this being misinterpreted again, I have no emotions in any context of Wikipedia learning, editing, and correcting. There is no value in happy or sad on Wikipedia. I am aware there is a possibility that calling a mistake an embarrassment may have been a harsh choice of words. I also agree there is more value in solving a problem than attacking an individual that caused a problem. This most recent message from you is not confrontational and is polite. I welcome any further clarifications from you or any polite individual .
Please do not add defamatory content to Wikipedia, as you did to Larry King, especially if it involves living persons. Thank you. Dr. K. 03:00, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add defamatory content, as you did at Larry King. Dr. K. 03:10, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, but we cannot accept original research. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:41, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
Welcome to this talk page. I do not send any original research.
Wikipedia does not accept conjectures so you may feel welcome to type such conjectures elsewhere. Every sentence I write is cited with credible media sources.
Good day to you!
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:15, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
