User talk:Anne-Caroline~enwiki

Your account will be renamed

Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Anne-Caroline. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Anne-Caroline~enwiki that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name. If you think you might own all of the accounts with this name and this message is in error, please visit Special:MergeAccount to check and attach all of your accounts to prevent them from being renamed.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours,
Keegan Peterzell
Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation

21:59, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed

This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: Special:GlobalRenameRequest. -- Keegan (WMF) (talk)

10:31, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

January 2016

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page François Barrault has been reverted.
Your edit here to François Barrault was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJl550v4Hws) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. If the external link you inserted or changed was to a media file (e.g. a sound or video file) on an external server, then note that linking to such files may be subject to Wikipedia's copyright policy, as well as other parts of our external links guideline. If the information you linked to is indeed in violation of copyright, then such information should not be linked to. Please consider using our upload facility to upload a suitable media file, or consider linking to the original.
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 08:19, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Removal of negative information on François Barrault

Hi Anne-Caroline~enwiki, thank you for building the François Barrault biography, it is a good start to a page. I noticed you removed the recent addition of a sourced controversy with no edit summary, and as I wasn't sure as to your reasons for doing so, I have reverted your edit per WP:REMOVAL. I might recommend you read WP:REMOVAL in detail so other editors aren't thrown off by the lack of an edit summary in the future, especially as removal of negative information can easily be seen as a sign of bias or whitewashing. That said, if you think the content needs to be adjusted to meet WP:BLP, feel free to contact me on my talk page or the article talk page, and we can strive for a consensus on the matter. Yvarta (talk) 15:09, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello Anne-Caroline~enwiki, I notice you removed the information again with no explanation. I would like to direct you to the WP:3RR rule, so we can avoid edit warring, and work collaboratively. I will add the information one more time, and after that, to avoid 3 reverts, will be considering various alternative ways to protect the page from unexplained reversions. Thanks, looking forward to working together, Yvarta (talk) 18:13, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

François Barrault Bio: You send me a message regarding François Barrault's Bio where you are complaining about the fact that I am removing your negative comments about him. Indeed, I am doing so because what you post about his departure from BT does not reflect at all the reality. This is a high level case with a lot of implications you don't even know about. Therefore, this type of negative comments is totally inappropriate to be included in his bio. I wonder why you are posting this comment with such tenacity? Do you have specific reasons to harm his reputation? What is motivating your relentlessness? Is it personal or are you acting on behalf of someone? I am looking forward to your response. I hope you give up, let it go, I am sure you have more important things to deal with than posting again and again a controversial post on an executive's bio. Anne-Caroline~enwikiAnne-Caroline~enwiki (talk) 08:49, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello Anne-Caroline, thank you very much for replying. I have posted your reply from my talk page here to keep the conversation cohesive, I hope you don’t mind. I have several points in this comment I’d like to address. To answer your questions individually:

1. Indeed, I am doing so because what you post about his departure from BT does not reflect at all the reality.

Wikipedia does not reflect reality, unfortunate as that may be. Wikipedia only reflects reality as warped through the media and expert opinions, in particular and primarily through “reliable” news sources. There is quite a bit of criticism of Wikipedia over the issue. To see how to discern reliable sources, I would recommend you peruse this source here: WP:RS, with tips here on finding them, and if you need human help discerning a good source, you can always ask at the reliable sources noticeboard. So even if he was fired for other reasons than those stated in the articles, it is only our job to report what is in the articles, while avoiding rumor, trivia, or salacious TMI. If you have other sources stating other reasons for his departure, or perhaps an interview quote (see WP:INTERVIEW), you are very encouraged to bring those sources forward or add them to the page. The community can then assess if they need to be added to provide WP:BALANCE and avoid a WP:POV fork, which is very important for articles of living persons.

2. This is a high level case with a lot of implications you don't even know about.

This comment seems to insinuate that you know details of the situation that the public is not privy to. If by chance you are connected to the topic, I would warn you that not disclosing a conflict of interest can result in long-term problems, and often banning. I would recommend you read both Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and Wikipedia:No original research in great detail before contributing more to the page, and remember that if by chance you are paid, then disclosure is required per this guideline: WP:PAID. Note that editing with a conflict of interest is not inherently forbidden, but as COI edits are often prone to being biased in favor of the topic, or promotional in nature, disclosure helps ensure other editors can keep an eye on those contributions so to speak, to ensure the final result is neutral.

3. Therefore, this type of negative comments is totally inappropriate to be included in his bio.

I’m confused by this comment. Surely you’ve been to Wikipedia often enough to notice that many biographies include negative information? This is to ensure e A) Wikipedia is not censored, and B) WP:BLP balance is met (guideline reads "Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone.")

4. I wonder why you are posting this comment with such tenacity? Do you have specific reasons to harm his reputation?

I assume you are trying to insinuate my goal is harming this person. I would recommend you read WP:Aspersions in great detail, as casting aspersions on the goals of another editor can result in accusations of harassment, and at times banning. With WP:Assume good faith, Wikipedia only works if we all assume the best intentions of the other, until evidence to the contrary presents itself.

5. What is motivating your relentlessness? Is it personal or are you acting on behalf of someone?''

My "relentless" reversion results from that fact that what you were doing prior (removing sourced information for no explained reason), is seen as standard vandalism, and typically reverted on sight by any experienced editor. If you want your removals to be taken seriously as in-good-faith edits, you must give one of the reasons here: WP:INAPPROPRIATE or otherwise explain yourself. If you did this, you would have more success, as per WP:BLP, there is a precedent for removing information that could be seen as harmful until a consensus is met whether it is appropriate. There is no rush on Wikipedia, so as long as you are willing to engage in conversation to improve the section, editors can keep doing so on the article talk page until there is WP:Consensus that it is fair and balanced. And since you asked, I suppose my reasons are personal - as I encounter pages, I attempt to improve them, no matter how minor or unimportant that topic may be at first glance.

I would highly encourage you to take the time to read some of the guidelines I've cited above, as I believe it will make your editing experience more enjoyable, and your edits more inline with Wikipedia standards. As unfortunately I don't see many editors minding WP:BLPKINDNESS, it might also help ensure your account lasts longer without an incidental banning for mistaken vandalism or conflict of interest editing. Feel free to hit me up with any questions. Yvarta (talk) 17:39, 15 January 2017 (UTC)