User talk:Tobeme free

Here's wishing you a welcome to Wikipedia, Tobeme free. Thank you for your contributions. Here are some useful links, which have information to help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! Jytdog (talk) 00:25, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced content[edit]

Hello, I'm Jytdog. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Ontario Civil Liberties Association, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on the article talk page. Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 00:25, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quick note on how Wikipedia works[edit]

Hi Tobeme free.

You are new here and you don't understand the "rules" very well, much less the spirit that informs them - please go slow and learn.. it takes some time.

I am sorry about this, but if you really want to get involved, it turns out that Wikipedia is a pretty complex place. Being an "encyclopedia that anyone can edit" means that over the years, the Wikipedia community - the people themselves - have developed lots of policies and guidelines (PAG) to help provide a "body of law" as it were, that form a foundation for rational discussion. Without that foundation, this place would be both a garbage dump of random content and a wild west - a truly ugly place. But with the foundation, there is guidance for generating excellent content and there are ways to rationally work things out - if, and only if, all the parties involved accept that foundation and work within it. One of the hardest things for new people, is to understand not only that this foundation exists, but what its letter and spirit is. (I keep emphasizing the spirit, because too often people fall prey to what we call "wikilawyering") The more I have learned about how things are set up here - not just the letter of PAG and the various "drama boards" and administrative tools, but their spirit - the more impressed I have become at how, well ... beautiful this place is. It takes time to learn both the spirit and the letter of PAG, and to really get aligned with Wikipedia's mission to crowdsource a reliable, NPOV source of information for the public (as "reliable" and "NPOV" are defined in PAG!). People come edit for many reasons, but one of the main ones is that they are passionate about something. That passion is a double-edged sword. It drives people to contribute which has the potential for productive construction, but it can also lead to WP:TENDENTIOUS editing, which is really destructive. WP:ADVOCACY is one of our biggest bedevilments. Anyway, I do hope you slow down and learn. There are lots of people here who are happy to teach, if you open up and listen and ask authentic questions, not rhetorical ones. And really, good luck.

PAG are described and discussed in a whole forest of documents within Wikipedia that are "behind the scenes" in a different "namespace", in which the documents start with "Wikipedia:" or in shorthand, "WP:" (for example, our policy on edit warring is here: WP:EDITWAR not here EDITWAR). You won't find these documents by using the simple search box above, which searches only in "main space" where the actual articles are. However if you search with the prefix, (for example if you search for "WP:EDITWAR") you will find policies and guidelines. Likewise if you do an advanced search with "wikipedia" or "help" selected you can also find things in "Wikipedia space". The link in the welcome message above the "Five Pillars" points you to our most important policies and I recommend that you read them all, if you have not already and if you intend to stick around! They guide everything that happens here.

With all that in mind, here are some things that I suggest you read (I know, I know, things to read... but like I said, Wikipedia can be complicated!)

WP:OR - no original research is allowed -instead...
WP:VERIFY - everything must be based on reliable sources (as we define them - see WP:RS for general content and WP:MEDRS for health-related content)
WP:NPOV - this does not mean what most people think it means. it means that you read the most recent and best reliable sources you can find, and figure out what the mainstream view is, and that is what gets the most WP:WEIGHT.

WP:CONSENSUS - Wikipedia has plenty of policies and guidelines, as I mentioned, but really at the end of the day this place is ... a democracy? an anarchy? something hard to define. But we figure things out by talking to one another based on the policies and guidelines and what reliable sources say. Not our own opinions about the world. CONSENSUS is the bedrock on which everything else rests. So please talk. If you make a change to an article and someone else reverts it, the right thing to do is to follow WP:BRD (please do read that) - but briefly, when you are reverted, open a discussion on the article's Talk page. Ask the reason under policy and guidelines why your change was reverted -- and really ask, and really listen to the answer, and go read whatever links you are pointed to. Think about it, and if there is something you don't understand, ask more questions. Please only start to actually argue once you understand the basis for the objection. If you and the other party or parties still disagree, there are many ways to resolve disputes (see WP:DR) - it never needs to become emotional - because we do have this whole "body of law" and procedures to resolve disputes.

Anyway, good luck! Jytdog (talk) 00:55, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quick note on the logistics of discussing things on Talk pages, which are essential for everything that happens here. In Talk page discussions, we "thread" comments by indenting - when you reply to someone, you put a colon ":" in front of your comment, and the Wikipedia software converts that into an indent; if the other person has indented once, then you indent twice by putting two colons "::" which the WP software converts into two indents, and when that gets ridiculous you reset back to the margin (or "outdent") by putting this {{od}} in front of your comment, which looks like...

this. This also allows you to make it clear if you are also responding to something that someone else responded to, if there are more than two people in the discussion; in that case you would indent the same amount as the person just above you in the thread. I hope that all makes sense. And at the end of the comment (not in the front), please "sign" by typing exactly four (not 3 or 5) tildas "~~~~" which the WP software converts into a date stamp and links to your talk and user pages. That is how we know who said what. You don't need to type your username. I have had to fix each of your posts on the Talk page of the article so far...Jytdog (talk) 16:50, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Assume good faith" - a pillar of Wikipedia[edit]

About your comment here - a first response...

The fact that everyone here is allowed to be anonymous (and this anonymity is fiercely protected by the out policy) ~can~ breed all kinds of bad thoughts, especially during disagreements over content. It is kind of natural for people to wonder at others' motivations, and especially when it comes to something you are passionate about and have strong ideas about, it is very easy to think that someone opposing you is doing so from some corrupt or bad motive. The anonymity of other editors can exacerbate that.

This is why WP:AGF is one of the pillars of this place (not just a policy - a pillar). It calls on editors to not personalize at all but rather to focus on "content, not contributor" -- to avoid filling the void that the privacy policy creates, and look at what people do, not who you think they are, nor why they might be doing whatever they are doing. It is hard for some people to get comfortable with that, and all the time, people fling accusations of COI or other bad faith motivations at other editors in the midst of content disputes. Now, there is COI editing here, and there are advocates of all stripes. If you suspect someone has a COI or other issue, you might be right. But AGF tells us not to hold off from "going there" and really try to work out content disputes based on the content policies and guidelines, while following the behavioral policies and guidelines, and to use the dispute resolution processes to work out the content dispute. The community does have ways of dealing with advocates (those who have a COI, and those who are POV-pushers) but it you need to use those carefully and thoughtfully, and not just "wham" go for the kill on talk page. Instead, assume good faith, focus on content not contributor, and work on content according to the content policies and guidelines, and behave according to the behavioral policies and guidelines, and you will have a pretty nice time here. I hope that makes sense.

But really - there is nothing new under the sun here. This place is a laboratory of human behavior; you can watch new people come and make the same kinds of mistakes people before them did, that other people are making now, and that people in the future will make. Some people figure this place out and become productive members of the community; some stick around but get miserable and leave, others yet, go out in fireballs. The choice is always, always, in their hands. Jytdog (talk) 17:36, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest in WIkipedia[edit]

About your comment here - a second response...

No, I have no relationship with any Canadian civil rights organization or anything to do with Canada. Along with my own editing work, I work on conflict of interest issues, and my attention was called to this article due to the involvement of an editor with a clear conflict of interest, as we define that in Wikipedia.

So I have answered you. Based on your work in Wikipedia so far (other than your additional engagement on the Dorothy Reitman article), all your edits have been about OCLA; on the Talk page you made claims based on your knowledge of OCLA, and you appear to be trying to "defend" the article even though you don't really know what you are doing. This is the kind of behavior that editors who are advocates enact... people can be advocates due to a conflict of interest (they work with or for the subject of the article), or they are "fans" of it. Would you please clarify your relationship with OCLA? I am not asking you to identify yourself (your identity is strictly protected by WP:OUTING, but if there is some relatinship, would you please disclose it? (please see the WP:COI guideline if you are interested in the background of this) Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 17:57, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jytdog, Appreciate your guidance here and thank you for your direct response. In response to your question, which is certainly a fair one, I do not have any formal relationship with OCLA.

I consider myself a Civil Rights activist although most of what I do, I do online in Social Media and as part of various online groups. So, I do have a relationship with Civil Rights.

I have been observing the recent developments in Canada in that area and have noted the recent creation of provincial level CLAs. Previous to this BCLA and CCLA were the best known and while CCLA was very good in it's early days, it has become very establishment-oriented and has stopped intervening on issues that many CLA activists in Canada consider critical.

This has resulted in the birth of many new provincial level CLAs which is a good thing and should be encouraged. I'm staying on top of these developments across Canada.

I noticed the OCLA Wiki and was surprised at the tone of the article. So, I acted to correct that and when I read the Talk section it seemed like there was a rather personal hostility there. I'm basing that opinion on both the conversations between the parties as well as the Edits that were being made by the various parties. IMO, the criticisms were exaggerated and the replacement content showed far more bias and in some cases outright hostility to OCLA than the original. IOW, the corrections were far worse than the original which was mostly fine with some minor corrections based on your explanations of Wiki policy. So, the initial edit may not have been perfect but it was far from being what the critics claimed it was.

Just my impression of course but I felt I had to intervene. I'm quite satisfied with your recent edits, understand why you removed what you did, understand the issues you raised with me and will address them if I decide to update anything in it or make any future changes to other articles.

So, yes I suppose I'm an advocate in a way but I'm an advocate for the cause rather than any specific group. I like OCLA because they are following the ACLU style of defending people based on Civil Rights issues and the Canadian Charter and not based on who those people are or their beliefs or opinions. An approach that many have criticized the CCLA for abandoning. I didn't know they had ever followed that approach but when I read their Wiki (after you made the changes) I noted that they actually had done so in their early years.

The criticisms and 'concerns' I saw being raised are deceptive IMO in that OCLA is being criticized for things which are perfectly normal. All of the new provincial level CLAs are unfunded to a large degree, most are 'side-projects' and many cannot afford legal representation so get advice where they can find it. None of these facts mean anything other than they are the reality faced by these newer organizations. They certainly aren't an indication that those groups are suspicious in any way.

I don't know if Kopyto is advising them or not but from the reading I've done, even if he is reviewing their papers and advising them based on his knowledge of the law there's nothing illegal in what he or they MIGHT be doing, as far as I know. And if there is, that is question for the powers that be in Ontario to address and not anyone in or on Wikipedia.

As a result, those criticisms, in my opinion, seemed more like an attempt to smear OCLA rather than an effort to improve the content and place it in line with Wiki Policy.

Apologies for the lengthy diatribe but I just think it's useful for us to educate each other ;)

Thanks for managing this entire thing so well though. IMO you really did a great job of handling this.

Much respect.

Tobeme free (talk) 11:38, 15 February 2016 (UTC)tobeme_free[reply]

Thanks for your gracious note. I asked if you had some connection, and you said "no" so that ends the COI inquiry. You say pretty clearly that you are an advocate for civil rights in the RW and about how you have carried that with you into Wikipedia, so I'd like to talk with you some about advocacy in Wikipedia. I'll open a new section for that, to save us scrolling. Jytdog (talk) 15:55, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Advocacy in Wikipedia[edit]

Based on what you have wrote above, I want to make sure are aware of issues with advocacy in Wikipedia.

There are a lot of things that Wikipedia is not (see What Wikipedia is not) and one of the things WP is not, is a platform for advocacy - please especially see the section, WP:NOTADVOCACY. "What Wikipedia is Not" is both a policy and a "pillar" - something very essential to the very guts of this place. People come edit for many reasons, but one of the main ones is that they are passionate about something. That passion is a double-edged sword. It drives people to contribute which has the potential for productive construction, but it can also lead people to abuse Wikipedia - to hijack it from its mission of providing the world with free access to "accepted knowledge" (as we define that in Wikipedia). Some people come here and try to create promotional content about their companies (classic "COI"), some come to tell everybody how bad it is to eat meat, some come to grind various political axes, or to "support" someone or some thing ... we get all kinds of advocacy (COI is just a subset of it). They generate the same kind of bad content that violates our content policies in similar ways. It all comes down to violations of NOTADVOCACY. A lot of times, people don't even understand this is not OK. I try to talk with folks, to make sure they are aware of these issues.

For non-COI advocacy issues, we have three very good essays offering advice - one is WP:ADVOCACY another is WP:SPA, and see also WP:TENDENTIOUS which describes how advocacy editors tend to behave.

So, while I hear you that you that advocate for civil rights and are sympathetic to OCLA and want to support it in the real world, but please do try to check that at the login page. And while you are free to edit about whatever the heck you want, please do consider broadening the scope of your editing. (I do realize that you are just getting started here, and everybody starts somewhere! Who knows where you will end up)

Changes to content (adding or deleting) need to be governed by the content policies and guidelines - namely WP:VERIFY, WP:OR, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOT and the sourcing guidelines WP:RS and WP:MEDRS.

In terms of behavior, the really key behavioral policies are WP:CONSENSUS, WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, WP:HARASSMENT, and WP:DR, and the key guideline is WP:TPG. If you can get all that (the content and behavior policies and guidelines) under your belt, you will become truly "clueful", as we say. If that is where you want to go, of course.

But do try to aim everything you do and write in Wikipedia to further Wikipedia's mission (not your mission) and base everything you do on the spirit (not just the letter) of the content and behavior policies and guidelines. Your passions will determine what you work on, but they shouldn't guide how you work here. I hope that makes sense.

If you have questions about working in WP at any time going forward, or about anything I wrote above, please ask me. I am happy to talk. Thanks again for your patience with me. Jytdog (talk) 15:55, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Jytdog, I will probably take you up on that offer in the future :) Tobeme free (talk) 13:04, 16 February 2016 (UTC)tobeme_free[reply]

Hello[edit]

Hello Tobeme free. I'm afraid you have just had the usual Wikipedia lecture: "Don't think for yourself, just do what you are told". Some of us are not happy about this. If you want to know more, please see User:QuackGuru/Reform of Wikipedia. Biscuittin (talk) 00:47, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Biscuittin, I'll check it out :). Tobeme free (talk) 11:49, 15 February 2016 (UTC)tobeme_free[reply]

Quick note to you, Tobeme free. Wikipedia is a human creation and like all human creations, it is far from perfect. This being a...democracy? an anarchy? (actually "cluocracy" is probably most apt) means that all the human imperfections are vividly on display here - as are the beautiful things that people can do). Besides everything else it is, WP is a laboratory of human behavior -- if you step back and really read what people write, you can see very easily when people are self-aware and clueful about Wikipedia, and it is also easy and very common to see people acting in the most self-deluded and clueless ways. And everything in between. This is a very human place.

Some people never really become clueful, but become convinced that they do understand WP and get all bent about what they see as the imperfections of Wikipedia; many of those folks are passionate about what they perceive as "justice" or "truth" in the real world (and you may or may not be surprised about the wide range of views that people are convinced Must Be True) and are angry that their efforts to advocate for their views within Wikipedia have been hampered. Most of those folks never understood this place and understand it less and less the more they dig into their unhappiness and protest. This too is human, all too human, behavior. Like everybody here, your path within Wikipedia will be very much your own. I wish you good luck! Jytdog (talk) 16:08, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's a veiled criticism of me and QuackGuru. Biscuittin (talk) 19:35, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It was direct criticism of you Biscuittin, just like your post above was criticism of me. I am sorry that you mistake orientation to the policies and guidelines, which were created by the community to govern itself, as some kind of sick "mind control" instead of providing the tools that facilitate people being able to function and think here, effectively (whatever they choose to work on) -- to have clue -- and I am sorry that you are so lost. Jytdog (talk) 08:23, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I'd like to thank Biscuittin for the support he gave a few years ago in correcting the other page I had initially corrected and where an editor, who I believe was simply a PR person, had included provable, factually incorrect content which they insisted on restoring. Your assistance was much appreciated in that case, Biscuittin. Respect to you for handling that so well.

I read the document and it is indeed interesting with some (based on my direct experience) valid criticisms and concerns raised. However, my experience is quite limited so I can't say I fully understand all the issues. Since I don't fully understand them, I really can't comment on whether I agree with it fully or not.

I will say that this kind of debate on Wikipedia is very healthy and I'm very happy to see it because that's how we as human beings and organizations like Wikipedia progress and evolve.

IMO, Wikipedia is a very important resource and one which has achieved respect because of the care taken by socially responsible people (irrespective of their belief systems) to produce sound content.

That is the light in which I have made my few, relatively minor contributions.

I probably won't be a regular editor or contribute content simply because of the time factor.

What I have done and will probably continue to do is correct content that I know is factually wrong or biased when I come across it.

I appreciate the education that Jytdog has provided on Wikipedia policy and the insight that Biscuittin has provided on the issues that Wikipedia faces and have complete confidence that these will be resolved to everyone's satisfaction, eventually, through consensus.

Thank you to both of you. ♥

Tobeme free (talk) 12:59, 16 February 2016 (UTC)tobeme_free[reply]

Thank you, Tobeme free. Biscuittin (talk) 14:34, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits[edit]

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 22:25, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ANI[edit]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. 192.235.252.195 (talk) 22:32, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TOOSOON[edit]

Hi there. We don't have a specific time limit before we start to include a person or charity to be on Wikipedia. However, unless an organization is well-established, it is unlikely to stay (at least for the time being). Some examples of things a CLU might be notable for would be filing amici briefs in notable cases, having two or more major settlements in the news, or having notable law professors on their board of directors and/or staff. A fairly new group - even for seven or ten years -- probably doesn't have those things. However, if you find evidence of such things from reliable sources, feel free to add them in. Bearian (talk) 20:00, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the insight, Bearian (talk). OCLA does have some briefs in cases which are notable in Ontario. I believe I posted one article related to one of those cases, possibly two. At least one (and possibly both) had an impact on the outcome (I think - but will have to check). I'll check further and ensure there are some specific to that though. Thank you again for the very helpful suggestion. Tobeme free (talk) 03:24, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]