User talk:Buzzy123

Nick Di Paolo did a lot of shows on FM and Sirius too. There is enough info in his stories to do a early life section too.

Infobox image change

You'll need to start a discussion on the article talk page and gain consensus to change that image. - FlightTime (open channel) 21:19, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I have no idea what an edit war is and no idea why you keep changing the image that was approved by WikiCommons permissions. It is cleared and has full permissions. I don't know what a talk page is or how or why one has to gain consensus to change an image of their own husband and client. I received full permission and the image was updated earlier today but you keep reverting to a photo that is 7 years old. Am I misunderstanding something here? Buzzy123 (talk) 21:39, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

April 2024

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Nick Di Paolo, you may be blocked from editing without further warnings. Thank you, - FlightTime (open channel) 21:29, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Nick Di Paolo. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. - FlightTime (open channel) 21:29, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Di Paolo image

Are you reading your talk page? like I stated above, if you want to change the image, you must start a discussion on the talk page, and gain consensus. Stop editwarring or you'll be indefinitely blocked from Wikipedia. - FlightTime (open channel) 21:34, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No I wasn't reading my talk page - I'm not even sure what that it. Am I on it right now? I don't know what you mean about an edit war. I was just trying to fix an old image that WikiCommons gave clearance for.

All I know is I got an email from Wikimedia that said I had to provide the copyright permission from the photographer and fill out a VRTS RELEASE form and the picture would be reinstated. I did what the email asked and connected the image in WikiCommons back to the Infobox picture on Nick's page and then it vanished again. I didn't even know it was a person changing it at first. I thought I just didn't save it correctly. I was told by Wiki Commons I only had to provide the VRTS Release and the permissions from the photographer and everything would be fine, just like I did in 2017 when I uploaded a new headshot. I received an email back from Wikimedia permissions saying

" Your permission has been added to the file page. Please check that the file description contains the correct author attribution you desire. If you have any concerns, please respond to this email.

Thank you for your contribution to Wikimedia Commons.

Yours sincerely,

Ed Sorensen

So I'm not sure why you keep reverting to that 7 year old image. I don't how to start a discussion and gain consensus. Who do I gain it from? Who would know better than me that THAT is a current image of Nick DiPaolo? I am his wife, manager and the person who received clearance from the photographer and Wiki Commons to update his pic.

It did not say in the original email for copyright clearance anything about gaining consensus. I just followed the exact directions to keep the image in place.

If you can help me I would greatly appreciate it. Buzzy123 (talk) 22:08, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Buzzy123 reported by User:FlightTime (Result: ). Thank you. - FlightTime (open channel) 22:41, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok? I don't even know what that means but I'm guessing it means an Administrator will see that I was not doing an Edit War thingy as I wasn't even aware I was in a War with an actual person and didn't even know that was a thing. I thought I was just bad at saving an upload properly. I'm not a profession editor - just a person trying to update an image per my instructions from the WikiMedia permissions email and thought my update wasn't saved right. If you'd like to report me instead of helping me understand what to do I will explain myself to an Admin. Maybe they can help me understand what I am supposed to do. Sorry I don't understand what you are asking of me. Buzzy123 (talk) 22:57, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, Buzzy123. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on the page Nick Di Paolo, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for article subjects for more information. We ask that you:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization, clients, or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{edit COI}} template)—don't forget to give details of reliable sources supporting your suggestions;
disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest § How to disclose a COI);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam § External link spamming);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. Bbb23 (talk) 22:52, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Roger that. I guess that old picture will just have to stay there. Buzzy123 (talk) 23:17, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

April 2024

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing certain pages (Nick Di Paolo) for edit warring.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 22:55, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I actually didn't even know I was "edit warring" with anyone. I've never even heard the term before. I thought my image update just wasn't sticking when I would connect the wikicommon image to the wikipedia page. I was only responding to an email sent to me by Wikimedia to get copyright permission for the current photo of Nick Di Paolo that was uploaded a while back. I got the permission they asked for, sent it and filled out the form and sent it back to the person at Wikimedia who requested it and I also emailed it to Permissions. They emailed back that everything was fine and I had Permission. I had no idea a person was actually reverting the infoblock image back to an old one after I reuploaded it today until I noticed a thing in the right hand corner of my screen where there were a bunch of notifications.

I emailed the guy at WikiCommons Permissions back who cleared the image and gave me permission to post it and told him I did not understand what was going on and why it kept being deleted. I guess they can deal with it from that end. I was just trying to make the image current as I thought that was the purpose of Wikipedia.

As I noted in my reason for reuploading the image - it was not taken from IMDB. It was uploaded directly from my hard drive and is also the main image on Nick DiPaolo's website and most of his socials. We hired the photographer specifically for a new image for the internet. Ok, that's it. Not Warring with anyone - just confused why it kept vanishing after I complied with the requirements.

Not sure why I was blocked for that, but that's my side of the story.

Take care Buzzy123 (talk) 23:13, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let me try to explain a bit. First, you need to understand that Wikipedia is a collaborative encyclopedia, not a social media website. No one "owns" any page, no one gets special treatment in editing any page. Every article, without exception, is created, changed, maintained and edited based on the consensus of all interested editors on that page, within the boundaries of our policies. The policies are plentiful, but the main ones that affect an article like this are WP:Biographies of Living Persons, WP:Reliable sources, WP:Verify, and in your particular instance, WP:Conflict of interest. There are 100 other policies, to be honest, which is why the learning curve is rather high here. One thing we don't allow is for editors to "edit war", meaning changing to their preferred version, back and forth multiple times. It is disruptive, and part of why you were blocked from editing this article. When there is a conflict between two or more editors as to what the live version of the article should look like, it is expected that they will use the article "Talk" page, specific to that article, and start a discussion, then seek consensus for changes. Sometimes things go your way, sometimes they don't, but everyone is expected to live with the existed consensus and not continue to introduce edits that are contrary to that consensus. It might seem cumbersome, but it is the only way to manage the content on a giant encyclopedia. You can still use the talk page to request changes to the article and discuss them.

Because you have a conflict of interest (COI) (ie: you have a close association with the subject of the article), it is generally requested you do not make major changes to the article, although it isn't forbidden as long as you don't edit war. In this case, you were edit warring (even if unintentional) so you were blocked from editing, but not from using the talk page. I recommend that you do two things: One, obviously, you should use the talk page of that article to request changes, but also you should change your user page here to state you have a conflict of interest for the subject. This can be done by adding this text when creating your user page: {{User COI|Nick Di Paolo}}, which I have taken the liberty of doing for you. When someone is editing with a COI, others have a right to know. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 03:16, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Dennis!!! I truly did not understand any of that or know any of those rules. I thought you just submit the image, the proof it is cleared and that was how it worked, based on how I did it last time in 2017. I thought I was doing a good thing by contributing the newest image. I appreciate you taking the time to explain it to me. I was clicking on highlighted words in the messages folks put in here trying to get a better understanding of what just happened and I ended up getting more confused. It took me almost an hour just to figure out how to even upload the image originally. Nobody has to worry about me Warring with anyone intentionally or unintentionally. Thank you again! Buzzy123 (talk) 14:28, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, you are supposed to use the unblock form above and request an unblock, which you still can do. I think at this point, it is better to just ping Bbb23, who made the original block for good cause, and get his input as to an unblock, as I think the likelihood of future problems has diminished, and the purpose of the block was simply to stop ongoing problems, not to punish you. You can "ping" me by adding {{u|Dennis Brown}} to a comment here and make sure you sign your post with four ~ marks, and it will notify me. I'm not looking to mentor, but if you have any doubt about an edit, it is better to ping me first and I will try to help. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 03:33, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I think I did it right. We shall see. I appreciate your help. Buzzy123 (talk) 15:28, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Buzzy123 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Sorry - did not edit war on purpose.Also my profile is fixed to show relation to the subject.Buzzy123 (talk) 15:27, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficient for any reviewing administrator to take action, or you have not responded to questions raised during that time. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yamla (talk) 18:28, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

@Bbb23:

Dennis Brown

I think I did this correctly. Thank you for helping me!

Buzzy123Buzzy123 (talk) 15:27, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) Sorry if this sounds snarky, but they seem annoyed at you for overpinging. thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 03:28, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is correct. I believe you, but I'm going to let another set of eyes look at this and decide. It might be helpful if you explain how you will use the talk page of the article for any contentious edits (ie: any edit that isn't reverting vandalism, or correcting spelling, etc) which isn't required per se, but strongly advised. Currently, you are only blocked from editing that one article. You can still edit the talk page and make edit requests. Admin might want to wait and see that you are being useful, and not just promoting, before they unblock, if they unblock. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 03:29, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]