User talk:Nadimir

December 2020

Hello Nadimir. The nature of your edits, such as the one you made to Freddy Will, 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:Nadimir. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Nadimir|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. GRINCHIDICAE🎄 12:26, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The reply to the first comment is indented one level. Nadimir (talk) 20:54, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Wikipedia team,

Thank you very much for your message and explanations that help me understand Wikipedia and its rules. I am a multilingual (French, German, Dutch, and English) academic who intends to improve Wikipedia articles. I have noticed some grammar, punctuation, and spelling errors. Using the Grammarly application, I plan to do everything I can to correct some of these errors. I have also checked some articles that did not have verifiable information. Let me state in advance that I have no conflict of interest. I do not know anyone on Wikipedia, and I am not directly or indirectly paid to add to Freddy Will's or any other Wikipedia page.

Having travelled a lot and worked for a long time in a multicultural environment, I am always curious about real issues that shape society, culture, innovation, and politics. I had no idea about hip hop and used it as a door to explore the black culture. I discovered Freddy Will as a fascinating contemporary artist with food for thought on his blog, which I started reading three years ago. Reading all kinds of Afropolitical literature, I came across and read his book on African history (The Dark Road from Romarong). I am currently using Freddy Will's entry as a learning case to edit Wikipedia. It's one way to thank Wikipedia for providing this open-source information platform to all Internet users. Depending on my schedule, I find myself contributing further to other articles on Wikipedia.NADIMIR 01:57 27 December 2020 (UTC+1)

No personal attacks

Don't assume bad faith and make personal attacks, as you did by by accusing User:Praxidicae of vandalism and personal grudges here. Wikipedia:No personal attacks is policy. You will be blocked next time. Bishonen | tålk 10:25, 8 January 2021 (UTC).[reply]

I just noticed you made some egregious personal attacks here also, and in edit summaries. If you think accusing Praxidicae of personal grudges and sock-puppetry will make you look better, you are mistaken. Such accusations are standard operating procedure for undisclosed paid editors. I'm not saying you are an UPE, but you are certainly making yourself look more and more like one. Bishonen | tålk 10:35, 8 January 2021 (UTC).[reply]

January 2021

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that 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. Java Hurricane 15:13, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:JavaHurricane, Thank you for providing a path to resolve this situation. Honestly, I never expected to be this involved with this matter. It was supposed to be a simple edit. As you can see, User:Praxidicae is not an administrator, he or she is clearly also in violation of engaging in the same edit war. Is it fair that he/she received a similar instruction and warning as you've shared with me? NADIMIR 17:05 8 January 2021 (UTC+1)

Please read WP:BLP. You can't introduce new information to a BLP without citing it properly with reliable sources. Prax is right in reverting you, as have other users. Java Hurricane 16:43, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You

Bishonen Thank you for the correction. I appreciate your politeness. Can you advise me on what to do in the circumstance where a user claimed the reliable sources provided are "fake" just because of their opinion? Or maybe as an administrator you could end this by kindly looking into the article in question to verify that the information is 100% accurate. Make a fair decision.

In my defence, I wrote that I attempted to resolve a dispute with Praxidicae, "who appeared to return to ------- of Freddy Will's updated article." I apologise for suggesting that this user who retired and swiftly returned uses other accounts. I was under that impression until seeing that he/she simply may or may not have other users who support him/her. I take that back.

Praxidicae has just made more accusations that the updates are "blatantly fake" without identifying the fake sources. He/she has reverted the page again, after another editor, overriding the reviewed edits that user made without such complaint. Are his or her accusations not personal attacks worthy of a warning? I wish you had warned the user: Praxidicae to stop making accusations as well as reverting the article over and over and again. I was hoping to work with fellow Wikipedians not fight with them.

It takes a long time to conduct the research required to update articles with factual information. Why is user: Praxidicae behaving as if they can do or say anything with impunity? Is he/she an administrator that I do not know about? It is best if you understood that it is frustrating to have researched the most reliable resources only for another user to accuse you and revert your work. Is there anything you can do to resolve this conflict in an amicable manner? NADIMIR 16:45 27 8 January 2021 (UTC+1)

I'm not going to make a source list for you, that's your job. The onus is on you when it comes to BLPs but if you can't see why Los Angeles Tribune isn't a reliable source, you shouldn't be editing mainspace. here's a hint, it's not a real newspaper and hasn't been in production for several decades. GRINCHIDICAE🎄 16:26, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Praxidicae Your statements are untrue. Your source list will not be for me. It will be your proof to show that you know what you are talking about. Just because you are free to tell me what you believe I can and can't see that does not give you the right to decide if I should be here or not? You're only gloating because I have not yet received an equal support on the matter. I have read articles about Freddy Will 's Foundation making generous donations to Wikipedia. I won't even bother to inform his fans or his people of this experience. You know you don't have any right to make the decisions you're making. Who gets to challenged well sourced information without providing any proof to back their claim? If you are all-knowing how come it's strange to you that many magazines and newspapers have transitioned from print to digital? Even if they are mainstream, digital publications are not real because you've said so? I have provided a source list. Its beeen picked apart using only opinion to dismiss each item. First, you accused of "undisclosed income," when that didn't work, you shifted to call the websites of established organisations "fake." When I showed that they are not fake you still reverted the page knowing that nobody else will get away with it. Your opinions are NOT facts. A simple investigation can prove you wrong. If not, verify your statements. The unrealistic part of this whole situation is that you don't even have the authority to make the decisions you have made. You're only getting away with that. In all fairness, you should also receive a warning from the administrator and be forced to reach a consensus before you can make further edits. NADIMIR 18:26 8 January 2021 (UTC+1)

It is a fact that the sources you used are inappropriate. It is a fact that Los Angeles Tribune is not reliable because it does not exist and has not for 50+ years. This is not an opinion. Your inability to differentiate is not the problem of Wikipedia nor other editors. GRINCHIDICAE🎄 17:30, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What is this then? [1] Until you show physical proof whenever you make a claim, it is an opinion NOT a fact. My sources are all legit. We can check them one by one, we can contact their hosts to verify or investigate. As I've said, you speak from a place of authority when you should not be able to do that. You haven't declared your educational background and yet you profess what you know against what I don't. Nothing you've said to be has been based on fact so far, all opinion. Just show one proof, I am begging. Show your tangible proof on when the Los Angeles Tribune went out of business and when this "fake" version came to being. I can almost guarantee that if you did that your credentials may not match this hype. NADIMIR 18:45 8 January 2021 (UTC+1)

Anyone can create a website with the name of someone or something notable. It does not make it the same entity. That is a black hat SEO site that has nothing to do with Los Angeles Tribune. Screaming "that's not true!" when faced with indisputable and uncontroversial fact only works on Fox News. GRINCHIDICAE🎄 17:49, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And here's your proof. Unless of course you'd like to believe a 9 month old website run by a PR agency is the same as the iconic African American newspaper that ceased publication 61 years ago, just to publish PR trash like this. GRINCHIDICAE🎄 18:01, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Did you just suggest that Fox News is the only credible source? I guess in comparison. These journalists are not legitimate? [2] LMAO. I will try to use Fox News in my future edits on other articles. Good Luck! NADIMIR 18:58 8 January 2021 (UTC+1)

I don't know if you're deliberately misconstruing my words or just missing the point. You have the tools to deal with this now, so I'd appreciate if you would stop casting aspersions about me. And no, those aren't "journalists" those are PR people from a PR firm. A 3 second search will reveal this. GRINCHIDICAE🎄 19:10, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nadimir: re "maybe as an administrator you could end this by kindly looking into the article in question to verify that the information is 100% accurate". No, it's not the role of admins to decide content questions; rather, they stay uninvolved in content, in order to be able to warn and sanction with credible neutrality. You had much better listen to Praxidicae, who is a highly experienced editor. Trying to lecture her about Wikipedia's rules, and informing us that Freddy Will's Foundation has made generous donations to Wikipedia, only makes one person look bad, and that person isn't Praxidicae. Alternatively, you can take this conflict to dispute resolution, such as either the reliable sources noticeboard (for input from experienced editors in general) or the Dispute resolution noticeboard (for assistance by a moderator). In my opinion you'd be wasting your time, but you're free to do that. Bishonen | tålk 17:56, 8 January 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Bishonen Thank you again. Your comments are informative. The administrators are neutral but may or may not back a favoured editor. I was under the impression that all editors received the same respect since we all belong to the same Wikipedia community as volunteers on equal footing. Thought the administrators led the editors. I misread the guidelines with a simple mind. Status may be well earned. Be that as it is, it was never my intention to engage in an edit war. Good luck! NADIMIR 19:44, 8 January 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Question

A further question, Nadimir. When you state above that you have no conflict of interest, you amplify that a little curiously: "I do not know anyone on Wikipedia, and I am not directly or indirectly paid to add to Freddy Will's or any other Wikipedia page". There has not been any question of you knowing anyone on Wikipedia — what was that about? What I'd like to know is whether you know Freddy Will. Do you have any relationship to him such as being a relative, a friend, or any other personal connection? If so, you don't have to say in what way; that's none of my business; but please

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, or friends;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (see the {{request edit}} template);
disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see WP:DISCLOSE);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

Bishonen | tålk 22:27, 8 January 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Bishonen No, but I do not mind to meet Freddy Will. I am a German woman who has worked for a long time in a multicultural environment and is always curious about the real issues that shape society. I discovered Freddy Will as a fascinating contemporary artist (from Canada) with food for thought on his blog, which I started reading three years ago. Later, I read two of his books. I saw his Wikipedia in a Google search. Visiting social media, youtube, and websites, I observed a charismatic black man's life.

I have also visited User:Praxidicae's Wikipedia User page. It shows interest in Black Lives Matter. Why get so angry at me that you publicly disgrace the credibility of a very ambitious man? I did not believe the fight, but now I do. Black men come under frequent attacks. If we maintained every Wikipedia article with the same templates that the User: Praxidicae applied to Freddy Will, we could delete more than 50% of existing entries. I regret that my involvement cause a fiery conflict that has affected him.

If nothing else, I feel partly responsible for his biography's mutilation on Wikipedia, the unintended negative attention coming from the editors involved. I'm thinking of contacting him to apologize for upsetting his Wikipedia page. I had no idea about hip hop and adopted Freddy Will as a door to explore the black culture. I do not believe any of us know him in person. In the last paragraph of the User: the first message from Praxidicae accusing or raising a conflict of interest, wrote: "If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message." I said I do not know (not just Freddy Will but) anyone on Wikipedia, and I am not paid directly or indirectly to add to Freddy Will's or any other Wikipedia page.

You saw a random edit war that I lost. I updated his article. By editing Freddy Will's page, I am causing its amputation. My intention in subscribing to Wikipedia was to contribute to various articles. I hoped to extend them in the interest of information exchange. I strongly support the fact that truthful and unbiased information must be freely available to all. I will not edit anymore. Good Luck! NADIMIR 05:10 9 January 2021 (UTC+1)

"I will not edit anymore." Really? It looks more like you will never stop. See block notice below. Bishonen | tålk 15:06, 16 January 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Blocked

Nadimir, I have blocked you indefinitely. There are a number of indications that you are either an undisclosed paid editor, or otherwise deeply involved with Freddy Will. You have edited nothing else in the two years you have been here. What looked at first glance like a handful of unconnected edits, to Literature of Sierra Leone, turned out to be also promotion of Freddy Will. Those facts make your statement that you're "currently [!] using Freddy Will's entry as a learning case to edit Wikipedia" hard to take in good faith. I've never seen a non-promotional editor edit in such a skewed manner — practising exclusively on material about one person, for two years, as a "learning case", and never getting round to correcting any grammar, punctuation, and spelling errors, which you say was your original purpose here. Another trait that suggests an undisclosed conflict of interest is the way you have attacked when you've been challenged on your poor sources. You dig down, and you cast aspersions at the accuser; according to you, it's not you that's promoting, it's your accuser who has some mysterious personal grudge against Freddy Will; she's "vandalising" your additions; she's most likely abusing multiple accounts (the only aspersion that you have had the common sense to withdraw). As I told you above, such attacks are standard operating procedure for undisclosed paid editors. And, the cherry on top, when an admin (me) attempts further explanation, you reach for passive-aggressive hints that I "favour" Praxidicae over you: "I was under the impression that all editors received the same respect... I misread the guidelines with a simple mind." Your long post at Talk:Freddy Will on 11 January, full of snide assumptions of bad faith as it is, is inappropriate in several ways. So is the post on Praxidicae's page on the same date. Everybody here is a volunteer, with multiple interests on Wikipedia; you can't expect us to read these huge texts from a single-purpose account such as yourself, let alone respond to them in detail. It's becoming increasingly clear that you're not interested in Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, preferring to hint at racism as the reason why people tell you about them, or to otherwise argue that our policies simply shouldn't be applied in the case of Freddy Will ("We can be restricted and sentence people according to guidelines and rules that block them, or we can be humanistic and negotiate with reverence", "Much of the information we know about entertainers come from their self", "Calling him a self publisher only confirms his brilliance. He is so keen to write and publish books and then distribute them to general bookstores worldwide."). Now you have posted again on Praxidicae's page, arguing the same things. This is approaching harassment. You have made your points, over and over. Obviously your only purpose on Wikipedia is to promote Freddy Will. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bishonen | tålk 15:06, 16 January 2021 (UTC).[reply]

In all due respect, I already knew you were going to block me. Any neutral person who reads our comments will see that. Remember, in this editing war I first thought it was the same person using different accounts? That's because they all sound similar. They use identical wording, tone, grammar, and cadence when they criticise. How can anyone tell me not to voice my opinion? I was surprised when you did not stop me the first time. The one-sided warning in the publishing war demonstrated your infinite power, and I don't remember you giving me a chance, so I knew this would be the unavoidable outcome. Is it allowed to profile inexperienced editors on Wikipedia? Once again, I have no conflict of interest. So far, I edited only one article on the English side of Wikipedia to avoid causing an editing fiasco. I am not a native English speaker, and I must first do proper research before editing critical articles. Can you imagine this excitement in more than one item? Research takes time, but I would do the same as I did for Freddy Will on any other topic. As for this Freddy Will, I was in a defensive position. My edits were reverted and marked as advertising. I was then ordered not to edit the article anymore. Therefore, I defended myself. We are editors, we read a lot, and we write a lot. I have shown that all my modifications were factual. As promised, I will not edit another article here. I came back to discuss the case of hiding my comments in the Talk section. "Read this wall of text at your own peril?" That was disrespectful. Good luck to you! NADIMIR 01:27 17 January 2021 (UTC+1)