User talk:MariusPoenar

JBW Oh no, it was definitely lazy editing on my part, I messaged Diannaa on the notification for speedy deletion of the Wonderlust (organization) page which got deleted with all messages, and only messaged on their personal talk page after having my draft deleted for the second time.

I don't know what's a hat in the context of Wikipedia articles, I only know the word as an object you put on your head. If I see a link to a disambiguation page I refer to it as a link to a disambiguation page until I am introduced to different terminology.

So far Lee Vileski has answered most of my questions, and I have a lot to read up on, thank you for taking the time to write. MariusPoenar (talk) 23:10, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:Wonderlust (organization)

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Draft:Wonderlust (organization) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from http://www.wonderlust.fi/about. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:03, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I published the page because the sandbox refused to save my draft otherwise. It was left named as Draft intentionally to mark that the page isn't done, that I'm working on assembling it.

So now you've deleted my progress and I have to start again.

Can you please point me to some sort of sandbox or editor that allows me to actually write something complex over a period of multiple days without anyone just barging in and deleting everything for unnecessary reasons?

Also, I work for the organization whose page I am creating, and have produced the text on the About page. We also do not own a copyright for the text, it's free for everyone to use.

So you've just marked my own text for deletion for copyright infringement to myself, on a page especially labeled Draft to mark it as work in progress...

Thank you for the extra unnecessary work, I guess?

MariusPoenar (talk) 13:32, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:Wonderlust (organization)

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Draft:Wonderlust (organization), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 14:37, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Dreamy Jazz: Can you please stop deleting my drafts! I own the copyright for the text, have emailed permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org about it, and I have marked the draft VERY CLEARLY in ALL CAPS that it is placeholder while testing the page's visual layout.

MariusPoenar (talk) 15:25, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's guideline on conflict of interest, and related matters

Hello, MariusPoenar. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, 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 organizations for more information. We ask that you:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} template);
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 WP:Spam);
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. JBW (talk) Formerly JamesBWatson 15:43, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@JBW: I disclosed my conflict of interest, and the user Dreamy Jazz deleted all the contents on my user page, including the disclosure. I do not receive compensation for this work, we are a non-profit dedicated to teaching consent.

Wikipedia has no structures in place for sex festivals and associated organizations, despite their existance for many years, and since nobody is doing the work I will. And since I work for one such festival I'm starting with the one I know best, with the idea that other people can edit and modify it later. MariusPoenar (talk) 12:16, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

January 2020

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Wonderlust. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Please stop your reversions on this article. The page you link to does not exist. The link to Wanderlust's disambiguation page is correct - they're homophones in English. Cabayi (talk) 16:22, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Cabayi: I tried discussing with the user Diannaa both on her talk page and the Wonderlust talk page, and she refused to engage, instead only reverting my edits and reporting my username.

The link to Wanderlust's disambiguation page is NOT correct, Wanderlust means lust for wandering, applied to people who like to travel, while Wonderlust means lust for wonder, applied to people who like to experience the sense of wonder.

Please stop supporting lazy editing. MariusPoenar (talk) 12:20, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Further issues

Please don't post promotional material to Wikipedia. Doing so is contrary to Wikipedia policy, and editors who persist in doing so may be blocked from editing.
Let's get the copyright issue perfectly clear. As you have already have been told, when you post anything to Wikipedia you give permission for anyone to use it, as it is or modified, for any purpose whatever. Is that really what you wish to do? Do you wish, for example, to give me permission to take the text of your web page, change it to name another business instead of yours, and then use it to advertise that other business?
The editing you have done at Wonderlust makes no sense at all. What do you think it means to have a note at the top of the page saying "Not to be confused with Wonderlust (disambiguation)"? And what is the purpose of linking that note to a nonexistent page? The first time you did it may have been a typical newcomer's mistake, but since you have now twice reverted it after an experienced administrator corrected your apparent mistake, you must really think there is some good purpose in your change. Quite apart from adding an apparently meaningless note to the article Wonderlust, you have also three times removed content which is likely to be helpful to readers, namely a link to information about Wanderlust, which may easily be conused with Wonderlust.
Even if you believe there are good reasons for removing the link to the page Wanderlust (disambiguation) and replacing it with one to the nonexistent page Wonderlust (disambiguation), you should read Wikipedia's policy on edit-warring before you consider repeatedly making the same change to any page in the face of other editors reverting your edits. You wil see that doing so may lead to being blocked from editing. JBW (talk) Formerly JamesBWatson 16:30, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

fixed EW link. Cabayi (talk) 16:49, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@JBW:

the so-called promotional material was placeholder text which I wrote and own that I added to the Sandbox while I was testing the visual layout of the page

I didn't even know that anyone would have access to read it, doesn't make any sense to have something called a Draft marked repeatedly and clearly as a draft but which is publicly visible to random busybodies.

Second of all, there is no Wikipedia infrastructure for sex festivals, and since nobody else is doing it I have to. It's supposed to be the encyclopedia that anyone can edit.

Point me to some place on the Wikipedia website where I can build an article using the visual editor without anyone getting involved and I will go there until I am done with the article, it will take a long time to write anyway.

Your copyright use example is valid, and sure, please take the text and use it to advertise other businesses if you so wish. Post links, would be curious to see how you made text and media about sex work with other businesses, the result should be wonderful.
I didn't get to create the page "Wonderlust (disambiguation)" because instead of editing and creating the pages I need I've been busy for the past days arguing with random people who keep deleting what is clearly labeled as work in progress, and are shockingly unhelpful when asked how to do things somewhere that doesn't bother them.

It was supposed to link to an actual page. Wanderlust may not easily be confused with Wonderlust unless one is miopic or woefully uneducated, Wanderlust means lust for wandering, and Wonderlust means lust for the sense of wonder.

I made the second edit to the page to try and attract the attention of the so called experienced editor who reverted it in the first place.

I tried talking to her both on her own talk page and the Wonderlust talk page and she ignored my messages despite clearly being online to revert the edits.

What do you suggest that I am supposed to do when an editor abuses their power and refuses to engage in civil interaction? MariusPoenar (talk) 12:32, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ANI is the place to file a complaint if you're confident that you have a case. Beware, WP:BOOMERANG would probably be the outcome. Cabayi (talk) 14:03, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Cabayi:

I don't want to file a complaint or make a case, I want to get on with my work instead of being bogged down in squabbles with people I never met.

I did not know that drafts are publicly visible, and nobody bothered to tell me that they are, instead just deleting and threatening me.

This was so far a horrible first experience trying to edit something on Wikipedia, the people involved should really be ashamed of themselves. MariusPoenar (talk) 14:42, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright issues

Hi MariusPoenar,

I saw your comments on the helpdesk, but I see you have more here. I think you have a few misconceptions as to how wikipedia, and specifically copyright works. Wikipedia is a community encylopedia. You do not WP:OWN any article, nor text so it can be edited, nominated for deletion etc. on any page, even in a draft, userspace or sandbox.

Simply having been the person to write something on a website doesn't mean you own that information. The copyright is held with the organisation, which even if you own, wikipedia cannot copy (at any stage). Wikipedia has bots and scripts that looks specifically for unambiguous copyright violations and the such, which is why former drafts have been deleted (I would assume). Emailing to say you give the authority for the text to be used isn't helpful, as it's still a copyright infringement. You would have to release the website itself under CC-BY-SA, and then still arbritrate for this to work, and even at that point, it would be a promotional piece.

Is this organisation notable? Does it pass our notablity guidelines? If not, it wouldn't even be worth continuing. If it does, then why not simply gather the reliable sources needed to show notability and then create a stub article? That would be the best way forward, to avoid copyright, and the risk of immediate deletion.

I hope some of the above is helpful to you. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:54, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lee Vilenski, thank you for getting in touch here and on the Help page.

My intent was to set up an editing space where I could slowly add text and media, and check out the visual layout, while reading up about the rules of editing wikipedia, as it takes a lot of time to absorb the necessary information on how to do things properly, mainly since Wikipedia seems to use some terminology that means something completely different in common use.

The common use for the word Draft implies a work in progress that is not publicly visible, I have only now after 48 hours of threats and deletions from random editors been informed that it is not so.

Is a stub then where I can start working on an article without deletions and conflict while it's in progress?

I believe that the organization is notable, over the past six years we have had a noticeable presence in Finnish newspapers, radio, and TV (links to articles were in the draft that was deleted), with more organizations like ours existing all around the globe.

Since nobody is putting in the work of creating the Wikipedia infrastructure related to sex-positivity, sex festivals, and related organizations, apparently I have to do some of the work myself - couldn't find anyone to do it for me, can't afford to pay more than 50 euro, and most freelancers contacted dropped out when they heard it was to do with sexuality (they were religious). I would really rather that someone else does it, so if you volunteer or know anyone interested please let me know.

As for copyright, I understand better now the complexities of Wikipedia's policy, and will attempt to comply in the future when I would feel ready to submit an article.

As said before, I was not aware that saving a draft is synonymous to submitting an article for review, or I would not have pressed save. MariusPoenar (talk) 16:43, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, as soon as you start dealing with copyright violations, there are legal issues. That's why things were getting deleted. I'm sorry that you didn't get much help, but hopefully you can still be ok. You actually don't need an infrastructure, and I would suggest creating a small stub, with those references you mentioned that can be judged for notability. If it meets notability, and there's no copyright violation, it's very unlikely to be deleted. Here's my suggestion. Start an article at User:MariusPoenar/Wonderlust (company), do not copy any writing from elsewhere, and simply write a stub, an example would be:

Wonderlust is a type of organisation here, that was founded on date.add references here.

==References==

Do that, and drop me a {{ping}} and I'll take a look. I should warn you, WP:PAID editors, the ones that were asking for money are not only discouraged on wikipedia, it's usually a scam. I can't guarantee your article will ever be posted, but at least this way, you can show if it's suitibly notable. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:16, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Vilenski I'll try to follow your instructions and see where that leads. Thank you. MariusPoenar (talk) 16:43, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unresolved points...

I think most of your points have been responded to. The few things left hanging...

Assume good faith - you're right, it's a fundamental behavioural expectation on Wikipedia. But it is just that, a starting assumption. It does not mean "ignore all evidence to the contrary". When you uploaded copyright material, promotional material, reverted experienced editors without any explanation, and generally made it clear that you're not here to contribute to an encyclopedia but to promote your festival, you made any assumptions redundant.
You've complained about being unable to hire anybody to create your article for you because of its nature.

- Wikipedia has no problem with sexual articles. There are several projects devoted to the topic, Wikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies, Wikipedia:WikiProject Anthropology, Wikipedia:WikiProject Pornography... Generally, so long as they don’t do it in the streets and frighten the horses, and it's encyclopedic, anything goes.

- If you hire someone to write the article it'll be obvious they're doing it at your behest and they'll be blocked as a meatpuppet. If you act in good faith, for the good of the wiki, you'll be treated with good faith. If you threaten to behave in an underhanded way, expect to be treated as such.

That said, because your initial edits caused red flags, you didn't get the customary welcome and guidance. So here goes, and I hope you heed its pointers...

Welcome MariusPoenar!

Now that you've joined Wikipedia, there are 48,258,317 registered editors!

Hello MariusPoenar. Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions!

I'm Cabayi, one of the other editors here, and I hope you decide to stay and help contribute to this amazing repository of knowledge.

Some pages of helpful information to get you started:

Introduction to Wikipedia

The five pillars of Wikipedia

Editing tutorial

How to edit a page

Simplified Manual of Style

The basics of Wikicode

How to develop an article

How to create an article

Help pages

What Wikipedia is not

Some common sense Dos and Don'ts:

Do be bold

Do assume good faith

Do be civil

Do keep cool!

Do maintain a neutral point of view

Don't spam

Don't infringe copyright

Don't edit where you have a conflict of interest

Don't commit vandalism

Don't get blocked

If you need further help, you can:

Ask a question

or you can:

Get help at the Teahouse

or even:

Ask an experienced editor to "adopt" you

Alternatively, leave me a message at my talk page or type {{helpme}} here on your talk page and someone will try to help.

There are many ways you can contribute to Wikipedia. Here are a few ideas:

Fight vandalism

Be a WikiFairy or a WikiGnome

Help contribute to articles

Perform maintenance tasks

Become a member of a project that interests you

Help design new templates

Subscribe and contribute to The Signpost

To get some practice editing you can use a sandbox. You can create your own personal sandbox for use any time. It's perfect for working on bigger projects. Then for easy access in the future, you can put {{My sandbox}} on your userpage.

Please remember to:

Always sign your posts on talk pages. You can do this either by clicking on the button on the edit toolbar or by typing four tildes ~~~~ at the end of your post. This will automatically insert your signature, a link to your talk page, and a timestamp.
Leave descriptive edit summaries for your edits. Doing so helps other editors understand what changes you have made and why you made them.

The best way to learn about something is to experience it. Explore, learn, contribute, and don't forget to have some fun!

Sincerely, Cabayi (talk) 19:43, 12 January 2020 (UTC) (Leave me a message)[reply]

Cabayi, there you go again with negative assumptions and accusations, and even more egregiously continuing past the point of having received updated information.

- I have not reverted editors without explanation, you were already told that I made attempts to communicate about the edit I was asking for and was ignored, with my edit summarily reverted without any explanation or attempt to engage with my messages.

- I uploaded placeholder text in a sandbox marked as draft, and was only now informed that drafts are publicly visible. It's an obvious misunderstanding, not an attempt to vandalize wikipedia with copyrighted or promotional information, and that should have been obvious to any admin taking even a cursory glance to the draft I saved.

- "generally made it clear that you're not here to contribute to an encyclopedia but to promote your festival" - that's again your negative assumption. I'm here to contribute to the encyclopedia because it lacks information and infrastructure about an entire global industry of which the organization I volunteer for belongs to, and since nobody else is doing the work I have to learn how to do it myself.

- I'll check Wikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality and see if I can find someone to help from there, thank you for the link.

- "If you threaten to behave in an underhanded way, expect to be treated as such." - anything can look underhanded if you start by assuming underhanded behavior and bad intentions instead of good faith and mistakes made by a newbie.

As for unresolved points, there's still the issue of the Wonderlust music album page linking to the wrong disambiguation page, but I'll come back to that once a different Wonderlust wiki page exists and a Wonderlust (disambiguation) page can be created. MariusPoenar (talk) 17:03, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"there's still the issue of the Wonderlust music album page linking to the wrong disambiguation page" - it doesn't. Nobody objects to an additional link at the top of the page if you think there's scope for further clarification, but stripping out the link that's there, when you've already been reverted by multiple editors, is just disruptive. Cabayi (talk) 17:09, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"multiple editors" - I've edited that page a grand total of two times, after leaving messages trying to discuss the issue on the talk page, and immediately stopped editing it as soon as someone bothered to engage with my messages and explain what I was doing wrong. MariusPoenar (talk) 17:25, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am bewildered as to how, after all the discussion that has taken place, you can still totally fail to grasp the purpose of a hat note saying "Not to be confused with ..." It does not purport to link to another page related to the same word; it links to a page related to a different word that is sufficiently similar that someone might mistake the one for the other. JBW (talk) Formerly JamesBWatson 12:59, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bewilderment is a great starting point JBW, at least now after all the discussion that has taken place you have managed to notice that there is something to discuss, instead of just swinging admin privileges around and making ban threats.

I understood from the beginning that the link is made to Wanderlust because the word is similar and since there are no other wikipedia entries for Wonderlust someone might mistake one for the other.

I also understand that Wonderlust and Wanderlust mean different things, that there are other things named Wonderlust but not on Wikipedia yet, and that I need to work to make the other Wonderlust entry to then make a Wonderlust (disambiguation), and then either change the Wonderlust (music album) page to link only to Wonderlust (disambiguation) or both to Wonderlust and Wanderlust - I'm perfectly ok with having two disambiguation links, I just didn't see any page that has two such links before and didn't know it was allowed. MariusPoenar (talk) 14:38, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, here is one more attempt to help you, on various issues.

I have considerable sympathy for new editors who find a lack of help from established editors. When I started editing Wikipedia I found many aspects of it puzling, I found it very difficult to find information I wanted, and I encountered policies that did not seem to have any reason. Many new editors find problems, which they need help with, and many of them don't get the help they need. I also have considerable sympathy with the sense of frustration which you have evidently experienced with trying to do things that seem perfectly reasonable to you, but which you either are not allowed to do or else which you are allowed to do but which are far less straightforward than it seems to you they should be.

Having said that, in your case a number of editors, including myself, have put time and thought into writing messages for you to try to explain things. Unfortunately, a lot of what we have said you have interpreted as threats, bad faith, etc. I am certain that every one of the editors involved was in fact making good faith attempts to help you, and it is most unfortunate that it did not come across that way. It will help if you can assume good faith, and read other editors' comments with a view to seeing what helpful information they are trying to convey, even if your (understandable) sense of frustration predisposes you to see them in a negative light.

When you consider actions from other editors which seem less than ideal, it may help you to be more sympathetic to their point of view if you bear in mind that you too are capable of making mistakes, and it is worth bearing that in mind if others do things which are not always perfect. To give one example, at 12:20 on the 12 January on this page you said that you had tried discussing with Diannaa on her talk page but she had "refused to engage", and you referred to "lazy editing". In fact, at that time you had never posted to Diannaa's talk page: the first time you did so was 12:52 on the 12 January. I don't think that was "lazy editing" on your part; I think you just made a mistake, as we all do. Maybe you can make a point of taking a similar attitude to other editors when they do things you think are wrong. Sometimes they may have made mistakes, sometimes they may in good faith have done things that you reasonably disagree with but they have a point of view which is different but equally reasonable, sometimes they may have actually done something which is perfectly right for reasons that you don't know of, sometimes (as in the case of Diannaa "refusing to engage" with a nonexistent message on her talk page) they may not even have done what you think they did. In any of those situations, it is far more helpful to assume good faith and comment in a courteous way, even though it may look to you as though the editor in question has been unreasonable. Furthermore, even in those cases where another editor really has been unreasonable, if you can remain civil and treat them with more respect than you think they deserve, you will come across to others as more reasonable than the other editor, and you are therefore more likely to get support than if you are seen (whether rightly or wrongly) to be taking a belligerent and agressive stance.

In answer to my latest message regarding "Not to be confused with ..." hat links, you said "at least now after all the discussion that has taken place you have managed to notice that there is something to discuss, instead of just swinging admin privileges around and making ban threats". Actually, I have not noticed that there is anything to discuss. You had misunderstood the purpose of the hat link, confusing its purpose with a disambiguation link, evidently because in that particular case the page it linked to happened to be a disambiguation page. I thought that the distinction had been made clear to you, but it evidently hadn't, so I made another attempt to explain it to you. I don't see anything to discuss there: it was simply a matter of imparting information to you. If you now understand that information, then the problem is resolved, and there is no need to say anything more, and certainly not to discuss anything. If, on the other hand, you still don't understand the point, then I really can't think of any other way to clarify it, so there is nothing more that I can usefully say.

I have put a considerable amount of time into composing and editing this message. I have done so in the hope that some or all of what I have said my be helfpul to you. If even a little of it is helpful, then I will regard it as a constructive use of my time. JBW (talk) Formerly JamesBWatson 16:23, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]