User talk:Locksteel888

Welcome!

Hi Locksteel888! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 18:41, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A lengthy welcome

Hi Locksteel888. Welcome to Wikipedia. I hope you don't mind if I share some of my thoughts on starting out as a new editor on Wikipedia: If I could get editors in your situation to follow just one piece of advice, it would be this: Learn Wikipedia by working only on non-contentious topics until you have a feel for the normal editing process and the policies that usually come up when editing casually. You'll find editing to be fun, easy, and rewarding. The rare disputes are resolved quickly and easily in collaboration.

Working on biographical information about living persons is far more difficult. Wikipedia's Biographies of living persons policy requires strict adherence to multiple content policies, and applies to all information about living persons including talk pages.

If you have a relationship with the topics you want to edit, then you will need to review Wikipedia's Conflict of interest policy, which may require you to disclose your relationship and restrict your editing depending upon how you are affiliated with the subject matter. Regardless, editing in a manner that promotes an entity or viewpoint over others can appear to be detrimental to the purpose of Wikipedia and the neutrality required in articles.

Some topic areas within Wikipedia have special editing restrictions that apply to all editors. It's best to avoid these topics until you are extremely familiar with all relevant policies and guidelines.

If you work from reliable, independent sources, you shouldn't go far wrong. WP:RSP and WP:RSN are helpful in determining if a source is reliable.

I hope you find some useful information in all this, and welcome again. --Hipal (talk) 18:34, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please respond

Hello Locksteel888. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not, and is an especially serious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat search-engine optimization.

Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists. If the article does not exist, paid advocates are extremely strongly discouraged from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly.

Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:Locksteel888. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Locksteel888|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, do not edit further until you answer this message. --Hipal (talk) 21:54, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a paid user. I am literally just a 17 year old kid who loves learning about hedge funds and Ray Dalio is one of my idols. Yeah I'm a fan but I'm only doing this to bring justice to Ray's legacy. Before I came along, the wikipedia page was frankly blank and devoid of any substance. I am just trying to inform the public more about what Ray's life is and has been like. If it seems strange that I am editing this page so much, its because I have nothing to do in quarantine outside of school. Sincerely, Locksteel888

Hi Locksteel888. Thanks for responding. Glad to have any conflict of interest out of the way. --Hipal (talk) 22:24, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please stop deleting everything I write. I know that the last few sections on principles weren't of the highest quality, but there were some good parts to it, like you said. I also added a "role models" section and you just deleted all of it. There weren't any issues with the sources, and I spent a lot of time working on that. It is frustrating to spend so much time editing something just for it to get deleted. Could you suggest what exactly I am doing wrong according to you? I seem to be the only one who is contributing to the growth and quality of this page anyway. Everybody else is just deleting parts of the article instead of fueling its growth. -Locksteel888

Yes, it's frustrating working on articles like this. I strongly recommend you take some time away from the article to learn more about editing Wikipedia. As I've already indicated above, working on such articles is difficult, requiring strict adherence to Wikipedia's content and behavioral policies. Help:Introduction is a good place to start. --Hipal (talk) 22:34, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I looked over the guidelines and couldn't find anything specifically wrong with the edits published previously. Could you please explain to me what not to do so that I don't get my work deleted repeatedly and can contribute to the high quality of this page?

Have you noticed the edit summaries? In them I pointed out the use of poor sources: some completely unacceptable, others inappropriate. Overall, most of the information is more suited to a public relations campaign rather than an encyclopedia article. That's why I was concerned that there might be a conflict of interest. I can elaborate further, but it wasn't clear if you'd already seen the problems I'd already identified. --Hipal (talk) 01:03, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, maybe the information itself wasn't the most appropriate for this format of a page. However, the sources were as direct as you can get. Ray Dalio literally said the exact words and I just wrote them down. The so called inappropriate source was a transcript of an interview that he did. If you want to talk about accuracy, you can't get more accurate than the words that came out of his mouth.

WP:PROMO: Wikipedia is not a soapbox or venue for promotion. --Hipal (talk) 16:02, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see you're continuing to expand the article regardless. Will you please stop? --Hipal (talk) 16:20, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I SPENT 3 HOURS EDITING THAT AND YOU JUST DELETED IT FOR NO REASON. You never told met to stop. What's wrong with me editing this wikipedia article. You literally have nothing better to do than patrol on line like a little pseudo-cop. What went wrong in your childhood to make you such dislikeable scum. Such a great member of the "Wikipedia community" that supposedly supports a wide variety of opinions and want to encourage more people to edit. Deleting stuff without even reading it is careless. I am putting way more effort into expanding and growing this article and you are just deleting everything, not even keeping the good stuff. This is explained by 0 good reasons and citing some bullshit code that only R2D2 robots like you can read. I looked you up and you have so many edits, probably just from deleting things and preventing new users from trying to edit topics they are passionate about. You literally have no life. I bet you live in your mom's basement and do this all day. Probably don't have a job/life if you are so active in preventing people from in editing topics that they genuinely want others to learn from and enjoy. Because of your incessant deletions, I am never contributing to Wikipedia again. I know you are going to ban me after this, for "hurting your feelings" or some other bullshit because you can't handle anything that doesn't go your way. Just know that you are one of the reasons why Wikipedia has such bad growth prospects. The sad part was that I was really excited to join this community in the first place. Having autocrats like you dictate everything that is written down goes directly against the inclusive and open-sourced platform that the Wikipedia founders wanted to create. You probably didn't even know who Ray Dalio was or what he did until I filled in the blanks. If I were to cut your IQ in half, I would probably be in the single digits. Just know you are killing this community, one member at a time.

Courtesy notice - Sanctions for biographical articles

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

--Hipal (talk) 16:59, 10 April 2021

See I knew you were going to respond with some r2D2 bullshit corporate HR response. You are probably the most dim-witted person I have come across in a while. Really, you are probably only slightly above the squirrel when it comes to rankings based on species.

It's a standard notice that's required before certain actions can be taken.

If you'd like to work on addressing the dispute yourself, see WP:DR for options. --Hipal (talk) 17:45, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've reviewed all the references, removing poor sources and associated content. I'm hoping we can work from here in a collaborative manner. --Hipal (talk) 22:51, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Politely, go fuck yourself. Might as well delete everything I worked on for 15+ hours. I am sitting this one and all future wikipedia contributions out.

The part that aggravates me(listen up Hipal) is the ridiculous hierarchy within wikipedia. You guys pride yourselves on being open sourced but do not tolerate any edits. If you could explain to me what I did wrong PRECISELY, maybe I wouldn't be so pissed off. However, you guys are so inconsistent in what you remove. Hipal, earlier you removed all of my edits earlier today. The only reason why you kept some of them is because I undid the deletion. Then, you actually had to do your job and scour through the sources. You saw that some of my research was actually good. But prior to that you deleted all of it, assuming that the sources were bad without even checking. You claim to follow wikipedia guidelines but you are flip-flopping all over the place. At least be consistent and check the sources without deleting everything. You guys are so rigid and cling to the guidelines like a raft in a stormy sea. This stifles any progress and innovation that can be made by people who aren't crusty, cheeto fingered nerds like you. I have a strong feeling that you were the kid to remind the teacher that the class had homework after he/she forgot. Man I'd hate to have a life like you. Imagine being a middle-aged android who can't even express their opinions online in a normal way. R2D2 would be proud. I know you're pissed off at me. At least swear back instead of giving me that corporate bs.

P.S I am surprised that you haven't banned me yet. Good job, you're less of a snowflake than I thought. Keep building up that tolerance to other people's opinions. It might serve you well later on in life.

Wikipedia and copyright

Hello Locksteel888! While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.

You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
We have strict guidelines on the usage of copyrighted images. Fair use images must meet all ten of the non-free content criteria in order to be used in articles, or they will be deleted. All other images must be made available under a free and open license that allows commercial and derivative reuse to be used on Wikipedia.
If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into either the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Such a release must be done in a verifiable manner, so that the authority of the person purporting to release the copyright is evidenced. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps in Wikipedia:Translation#How to translate. See also Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 19:10, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- Okay, thanks for the clarification. As it is a draft, I was planning on rephrasing everything and adding more sources later.

Tuscany photo

Locksteel, just checking in to ask about the caption to the very nice photo of Tuscan countryside. Is it possible that things have gotten a bit crossed in your photography notes? The trees look like Mediterranean cypress, and the countryside seems more typical of southern Tuscany (maybe even below San Quirico) than northern. Cheers. Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 00:09, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I mean to type southern. Must have brain farted. Change it as you wish.

Okay, will do. First, though, can you identify the location? It looks like the Val d'Orcia, in which case a caption something like "Winding road lined with cypress trees in the Val d'Orcia" would give readers a somewhat less vague notion of where it is, and supply a name they can look up. I'm not saying it is Val d'Orcia; Crete senesi might be more accurate, or wherever it is. Just good to have it identified for readers. Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 15:32, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is near Montichiello, a village near Siena

I've found Monticchiello, somewhat distant from Siena, but near Pienza. Is that it? If so, I'll adjust the caption. Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 17:26, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is correct

Got it. Thanks. Friendly nudge: saves a lot of time to take care the first time. Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 17:51, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Now the photo has been removed, by a guy who seems obsessed about deleting images. Somehow I had gotten the impression that it was actually yours, i.e. no problems of ownership. It's a great photo, would be nice if it could be restored. Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 01:38, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

May 2021

Please do not use misleading edit summaries when making changes to Wikipedia pages. This behavior is viewed as disruptive, and continuation may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. [1] --Hipal (talk) 23:43, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately your information is wrong. No one is being disruptive or rude. Also, stalking seems like behaviour which could result in the removal of your editing privileges.

Who said "rude" other than you? Please strike it out, as it appears to be just more of the same from you. --Hipal (talk) 01:58, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do not test my patience. Cut it out, or I may have to report you and remove your editing privileges.

Let's get this over. Go ahead and report me. Most likely it will result in you being blocked or banned, or at least we'll be one step closer. --Hipal (talk) 15:38, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see you restored and expanded upon your past edits, without edit summaries or discussion. That should be enough. --Hipal (talk) 15:48, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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. --Hipal (talk) 15:48, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No one is editing in an untimely fashion. Please restrain yourself from any outbursts that may prove detrimental to your future on Wikipedia.

I'm afraid you're not making any sense at all, and your threats just make it look like you're unable to work here with others. --Hipal (talk) 16:03, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like you've made a number of bold edits to Ray Dalio, which have been challenged by other editors. The burden is on you to build consensus for the change. Please discuss the edits at Talk:Ray Dalio, but do not try to re-add the information until after clear consensus has been reached on the talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 17:22, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy notice

Your editing is being discussed at WP:ANEW (Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Locksteel888_reported_by_User:Hipal_(Result:_)). Please consider joining the discussion. --Hipal (talk) 16:54, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Ray Dalio Draft (May 25)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Tol was:

Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at Ray Dalio instead.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Ray Dalio Draft and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Ray Dalio Draft, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Tol | Talk | Contribs 18:35, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Locksteel888! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Tol | Talk | Contribs 18:35, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Ray Dalio Draft

Hello, Locksteel888. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Ray Dalio Draft, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 15:02, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise you didn't enjoy your experience, I hope you have found something more worthwhile since! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rubymza (talk • contribs) 19:51, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]