User talk:Clinton1000

Welcome!

Hello, Clinton1000, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:

Introduction
The five pillars of Wikipedia
How to edit a page
How to write a great article
Simplified Manual of Style
Your first article
Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community
Feel free to make test edits in the sandbox
and check out the Task Center, for ideas about what to work on.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or place {{Help me}} on this page and someone will drop by to help. Again, welcome! Randykitty (talk) 08:26, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

April 2023

Hello, I'm Theroadislong. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Talk:Akhil Maheshwari that didn't seem very civil, so it may have been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Theroadislong (talk) 18:12, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at User talk:Randykitty. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Theroadislong (talk) 18:17, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Again, there is no battleground mentality. It is just your feelings of ownership of a community-shared resource. Clinton1000 (talk) 18:56, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. Wikipedia aims to provide a safe environment for its collaborators, and harassing other users, as you did on User talk:Randykitty, potentially compromises that safe environment. If you continue to harass other editors, you may be blocked from editing. Theroadislong (talk) 18:18, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Theroadislong, I am talking on behalf of the organization. If I get a person who is totally unaware of any medical needs in the world, to write here, you would consider that informed and enriching Wikipedia? I apologize for my "harassing" language, but it would be better to have reviwers who are experts in respective areas to edit rather than have a completely "democratic" setup. This democracy would be politically correct, but not an asset to the society. Clinton1000 (talk) 18:44, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at Akhil Maheshwari, you may be blocked from editing. Theroadislong (talk) 18:33, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that that as a contributor, I have some rights to information on accusations of financial impropriety in descriptions of our leader. Clinton1000 (talk) 18:46, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your increasingly battleground mentality here will only lead to a block. Any unconnected editor can add content to the article but it has to be supported by independent, reliable sources, not your own website. There is no suggestion of "financial impropriety" just that you have a conflict of interest, it being an organisation that you are a part of. Theroadislong (talk) 18:49, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am posting a request for intervention with the editors. There is no battleground mentality. It is just your feelings of ownership of a community-shared resource. Clinton1000 (talk) 18:55, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The feelings of concern are because in no other community resource, please note - no other community resource, there are accusations of incompleteness without defining the needs. Please tell us, pointwise, what needs to be done, and it will be done.

Let's not hide behind technical verbiage where the "definitions" can later be used to say that the answers were incomplete. This is a community resource, not owned by a select few. We are as much of contributors, be it material, data, or finance, to Wikipedia as you might be. Let's not insult this wonderful resource. Clinton1000 (talk) 19:03, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not try to use the possibilities of "punishment" as pressure for certain changes. As I said, let's not hide behind technical verbiage if "definitions" can later be used to say that the answers were incomplete. This is a community resource, not owned by a select few. We are as much of contributors, be it material, data, or finance, to Wikipedia as you might be. Let's not insult this wonderful resource. Clinton1000 (talk) 19:06, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It this a warning? Clinton1000 (talk) 19:54, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please define what information do we need to provide so that these accusations end once-for-all. We will do that. Clinton1000 (talk) 18:58, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You and other conflicted editors of which there are a number, need to stop editing the article directly and instead submit suggestions on the article's talk page with the {{request edit}} template and a reliable source. Theroadislong (talk) 19:06, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Again, an accusation - where is my conflict? Please join a global organization to work for humanity. Clinton1000 (talk) 19:07, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh see Wikipedia:NOTGETTINGIT. If you work for an organisation that the article's subject is a member of then you have a conflict of interest when you edit. Theroadislong (talk) 19:12, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Would that apply to the UNO/UNICEF and others? Clinton1000 (talk) 19:20, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely 100%. Theroadislong (talk) 19:21, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that I'll ask a member of the audience in one of our presentations, and that'll fix this issue. Clinton1000 (talk) 19:21, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That would be WP:MEATPUPPETRY and will get you blocked.

The right lingo would be "If a member of the audience in one of our presentations, that'll fix this issue." Clinton1000 (talk) 19:22, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What is the goal of this organization? Clinton1000 (talk) 19:30, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not clear what you are getting at here but does this help Wikipedia:Five pillars? Theroadislong (talk) 19:44, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just read the first paragraph:

Wikipedia combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, an advertising platform, a vanity press, an experiment in anarchy or democracy, an indiscriminate collection of information, nor a web directory. It is not a dictionary, a newspaper, nor a collection of source documents, although some of its fellow Wikimedia projects are.

How did this page violate any of these conditions?

The whole section on Global Newborn Society was deleted. Great! Clinton1000 (talk) 19:52, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it was deleted because it was unsourced and promotional I don't understand why you can't understand this simple fact Wikipedia is NOT a place for you to promote your organisation in any way shape or form. Theroadislong (talk) 19:55, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Does an organization that exists in 122 countries need advertizement? It deserves a place in all encyclopedias. Clinton1000 (talk) 19:53, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you use Wikipedia for promotion or advertising, as you did at Akhil Maheshwari. Theroadislong (talk) 21:55, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia: check out the Teahouse!

Hello! Clinton1000, you are invited to the Teahouse, a forum on Wikipedia for new editors to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, and get support from peers and experienced editors. Please join us! Theroadislong (talk) 19:57, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Randykitty

Please note that you are formally banned from posting on my talk page. Any comments or concerns you have can be voiced on the talk page of the article that you are fighting about. --Randykitty (talk) 21:35, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Let's agree to disagree. I do want to say that the page is now better. Just need one line about the Global Newborn Society, and to remove the need for reference to NIH/AHA - they do not publish a list of reviewers for a long time - it is confidential information. Clinton1000 (talk) 22:10, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

April 2023

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Ad Orientem (talk) 22:16, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]