Jump to content

User talk:Tonusamuel

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome

[edit]
Hello, Tonusamuel and Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking if shown; this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field with your edits. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Aboutmovies (talk) 07:22, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Getting started
Getting help
Policies and guidelines
The community
Writing articles
Miscellaneous

Mart Laar

[edit]

Hello, I'm Jeraphine Gryphon. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Mart Laar seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 16:31, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I sourced material and this is fact, not opinion or point of discussion about neutrality. Just one user pointed out that someone if trying to filter only positive material and removed anything less than positive and he is right. This IS neutral. Please restore this or dispute source of fact, not my 1:1 description. Tõnu Samuel (talk) 17:23, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, pressed wrong button while tried to write explanation under last edit~and commited again without explanation by mistake. Also if you look on your user page, you see more reason to dispute your decisions. I can show multiple users who agree of neutrality of this edit made by me. Tõnu Samuel (talk) 17:27, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Also if you look on your user page, you see more reason to dispute your decisions." What the hell is that supposed to mean? — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 17:59, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
From User:Jeraphine_Gryphon "This user is currently experiencing mental health issues, which may affect their Wikipedia editing in various ways. They may have difficulty with: altered perception when making editorial judgements, determining consensus, or reading Wikipedia discussions addressed to them;". About neutrality: You do not seem to understand Estonian language to understand topic. This thing is fact, not opinion of mine. Video of this available in http://www.delfi.ee/news/paevauudised/eesti/video-mart-laar-acta-kirjed-kadusid-sest-mul-sai-facebooki-ruum-otsa.d?id=63831002 plus Google for "Mart Laar ruum sai otsa" to see lot of other buzz he created. At moment this page is not neutral, looks like advertisement. All other thins are removed as "not neutral". Tõnu Samuel (talk) 18:04, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ma olengi eestlane. Your description of the issue is not neutral. (And there's no need to resort to personal attacks, just because I have that notice on my talk page doesn't mean I'm incapable of doing anything right.) I can't argue with you, I'll post about this on a noticeboard. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 18:14, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I did not attacked you anyhow, just your page states that you may have altered perception and it looked like this. Because you seem to understand language, then you can help and make it "neutral" but at moment this is just fact, not opinion. Facts are not less or more neutral, they are facts. I have not altered it anyhow to look less or more nice or bad. Seriously. Tõnu Samuel (talk) 18:19, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Facts can be presented/written about in different ways, your version seems deliberately biased to make him look bad. Yeah, everyone thought it was funny how he seemed to say that there's "not enough room" on Facebook, but here on Wikipedia we don't just laugh along with everyone else, we're supposed to be objective. It was just an unfortunate choice of words from him, the truth was probably that he had other people moderating his facebook page and he didn't really know why they deleted anything. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 18:27, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is your viewpoint, not fact. Fact is he told this and this is verifiable. I do not take position if this made him look good or bad. Just you can see it was notable event as it was picked up by mainstream media plus internet society. If it made look him as fool - maybe. But this is not reason to remove this notable event from wikipedia. I have own opinion on all this but did not included it anywhere in reasons you pointed out. Tõnu Samuel (talk) 18:41, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And now you seem to be bullying me with "I'm not sure right now what happened but it seems like the user replied to me on their talk page with a vague personal attack, and I don't have that kind of energy right now to continue to argue with him. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 18:14, 31 December 2012 (UTC)". Real bad from you to use your admin powers against me. Tõnu Samuel (talk) 18:24, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an admin. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 18:27, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am happy with your edits now. I think this is constructive way to work and thankful for help. Tõnu Samuel (talk) 04:48, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For me, the note on my talk page about mental health issues just means that I can't always get into arguments on Wikipedia or put in a full effort -- and that's what happened earlier, I wasn't ready to argue or to edit that paragraph to be more neutral. But I hope I've done the right thing by now. But I still felt personally attacked when you implied that anything I might ever say is invalid. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 16:57, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Without even specifically looking, I've found two instances of you being (overly) antagonistic towards Laar on the internet: once in a comment on an old blog post, and now in that very recent Wikipedia thread on his Facebook page. Of course you can do anything you want outside of Wikipedia and of course you're allowed to edit Wikipedia despite any opinions you might have, but -- I feel that you're primarily editing out of political motivation and you're overly biased (in that FB thread, you very directly accuse him of having paid editors on Wikipedia even though there's hardly any evidence for it). So please read this carefully: WP:BATTLEGROUND. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 16:57, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is my own rule to do anything under my real name. So what I do is public and you and anyone else can have big picture. In case of any questions or open topics I am also ready to explain more and also ready to take responsibility for my words. From political viewpoint IRL is one of my closest and Keskerakond is farmost. But I hate lies and crooks and love truth. I am known to fight well for my views and they are not for sale. My first commit to this Mart Laar page was actually copy-paste of someone's else older commit. He told me that there is some information you just cannot post there. I tried and yes, it really works as described. Wikipedia editors are not all neutral. It is tendency that current main troll uses some IP only. If somebody wants to clean up something really ugly, http://et.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valve_Kirsipuu is maybe good place to start but nobody cares. About psychical stuff etc I know more that most people but I did not want to intentionally insult, just I happen to be very straight in saying. Most of people do not understand your user page content anyway, better to delete it. Just it looked weird when someone just wiped out my edit and I tried to see who, page says "this person is sick and unstable". Actually this page does not change your personality in any way but reduces weight of your actions, including your edits. I do not know how to explain this better. No insult! Really.
On http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Mart_Laar I explained some points why I think here we may have orchestrated case. I am not sure too much about it yet but looks to much like it. Add http://www.ohtuleht.ee/102445 to readinglist and you get idea why I am suspicious.
I am going to read link you recommended me, I am not too deep in this topic, so many things are new. I think you may want to talk in direct with me, you find me in skype easily if interested to chat.
About first link you provided I think content is self explanatory. Mart Laar promised and broke his promise. I just try get answers. BTW, there is a "weird" change compared to some days ago. I see because I screenshot everything. Second link is Facebook. As you see again, question is highly liked by readers and ignored by Mart Laar. Comments include links to removals of any negative information. Positive is never censored like this on his page. This case got my attention and I work to restore balance and NPOV here. Seriously. Tõnu Samuel (talk) 19:02, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(post removed) — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 22:04, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I just want to say that we do not know but somehow some anonymous editors doing hard work protecting one and do not care about others. I come up with more info if and when I have this. All information I provided here is just to show why I have such question, this is not proof yet for anybody. Tõnu Samuel (talk) 02:01, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Skandaal?

[edit]

Deleting comments that you find inconvenient?[1] It's a big skandaal when comments disappear from Mart Laar's FB page but its okay for you? I find it seriously disturbing that someone would harass a person subject of a BLP like Mart Laar on his FB page because they do not like the state of his Wikipedia article. Jeraphine Gryphon summed it up perfectly:

"I think it's both inappropriate and paranoid. There's been no reason/cause/evidence to believe Laar is paying for WP edits, and it seems so out of line to randomly, directly accuse him of that, especially now. Didn't he have a stroke recently? Is he even politically active these days? Does he even check or care about his Facebook comments? To post about our editing issues here on WP to his FB seems like useless and embarrassing political dramamongering. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 22:04, 4 January 2013 (UTC)"

Please take a deep breath and please reconsider whether your motives in editing the Mart Laar article are sufficiently rational. Thank you and goodbye. 87.208.192.123 (talk) 07:55, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A87.208.192.123&diff=531349007&oldid=530889361 is exactly why your text was deleted by two users. Explained well I think. Jeraphine later deleted comment you quoted himself. Tõnu Samuel (talk) 08:24, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(herself*, if you're referring to me). I only deleted it because you deleted the post I replied to, I didn't want my post hanging there out of context. I still stand by what I said. But you're free to delete whatever you want from your talk page. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 15:27, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for confusion. I assumed you replied to me, not him and I did not saw context related to removed part. Sorry for he/she stuff too. Facebook meanwhile is not needed to be encyclopedic text. Actually two different people told me now "You shouldn't hurt Laar because Savisaar comes to power". I work on finding out roots of this issue and will publish results if they prove one, another or opposite case. Tõnu Samuel (talk) 15:35, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I hardly understand what you're talking about anymore. Please try to keep any political battling outside of Wikipedia. All we really do here is summarize what sources say, we don't make any decisions or cast judgements, we don't write our stuff with the purpose of changing anyone's opinions about anything/anyone. We're writing an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. Thank you. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 16:03, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I do not do any politics here at all. Never been in any party etc. I think I explained it before in detail and just say that people may be fighting for this reason without any direct influence from politics. I know my English is not good and also my main focus is on my job. I think I restored some NPOV in Mart Laar article with my action and got lot of data to analyse. I want to discover if, who and why try influence this content. Possibly will write some analysis tool for Wikipedia to discover such anomalies. BTW, thanks for trying to explain me stuff here providing links to rules. While I have been editing wikipedia from 2006 at least, I had no reason to read all this before. Tõnu Samuel (talk) 16:19, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, good, I understand. Also I'm sorry if I've been overly rude anywhere, it's nothing personal.
I think I've seen similar things before: some person (publicly) speculates that if he tries to add some material to a certain article then it will be removed because "censorship!", and then he goes and adds that material and it gets removed or edited -- but not because of attempts at censorship but only because the first editor didn't really understand Wikipedia's fundamental rules about verifiability and neutrality and so on. Example: Scott Adams wrote in his blog post here about a possible conspiracy and suppression of facts, and about how he made an edit to Wikipedia to test his theory. His account is here: Special:Contributions/Dilguy, and his edit was here. His contribution was significantly changed in subsequent edits, but not in a way that proved his theory. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 17:23, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you look this Mart Laar article, additions I made, comments from different people, you see that my input was accepted not only because I kept working but also people agreed that these topics have to be there. I agree that quality was not best, so more effort was needed to make it good. This data was put in multiple times before and each time reverted out. I took one old edit (which was reverted) but had proper content and reinserted it.
I am not against such cumular edit process at all. I even love opposition to me. Arguing with smart people is interesting. But here are definitely forces trying to push selected data out in any possible excuse and main property of them is mass-deleting of text. Less or more this Mart Laar page was censored and I actually worked to break censorship and prove that Wikipedia is independent. There are people we maybe do not agree but we can work with them and get consensus. We also see anonymous user who possibly has reason not to use his common Wikipedia username to do the job and pushing harder than anyone to remove anything negative. He claims to be experienced editor. Why he hides his wikipedia username? Possibly because then we could see something we should not see. Such users fight unlike usual editor and turn wikipedia pages into battleground. It does not make one war lover if war comes to one.
Our chat is bit out of bounds. I am ready to chat outside wiki if you like. Tõnu Samuel (talk) 18:10, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Each user can typically be emailed from a page like this if you ever need to. I think we're done here though, I'm not really that interested in politics. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 18:47, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Me too :) Tõnu Samuel (talk) 18:54, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think your claims of working to "break censorship" and alternately characterizing me as either a part of a conspiratorial effort or "a vandal and known POV pusher" is somewhat disingenuous. I have every right to edit as an IP and your constant attempts cast some dark motive on that right is a gross violation of WP:AGF. 87.208.192.123 (talk) 07:40, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You soon have covered all possible violation accusations on me while self violating these rules. Your edit history is all towards removing particlar data from Wikipedia, nothing else. In attempt to protect person you do more harm. Please stop, and lets work on improving article. Tõnu Samuel (talk) 08:17, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please be honest, I have never accused you of vandalism or claimed you were part of some conspiracy to "protect person". This isn't Nazi Germany, I am free edit any article I like. The problem is that you have come here apparently with a pre-conceived notion that censorship exits in Wikipedia and attempted to edit the Mart Laar article to test this. It seems inconceivable to you that the Mart Laar (or any other article) is the result of a long evolution of compromises amongst a large number of editors and to claim that particular articles are protected or censored is just an insult to these editors. In fact it has been observed that those who complain of "censorship" are in fact attempting to push their own strong POV into an article without compromise, which is disruptive. My concern is that biographies are upheld to a higher standard as expressed in WP:BLP. 87.208.192.123 (talk) 09:25, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good! My impression is shared by more people and one of best evidences is this case explained here too. So attempts to censorship exist I am sure. I explained my POV on talk pages but never pushed it into article more than stuff journalists publish and Mart Laar has done. Tõnu Samuel (talk) 09:57, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

[edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:53, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

[edit]

Hello, Tonusamuel. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Tonusamuel. You have new messages at Daylen's talk page.
Message added 04:43, 28 June 2017 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

[edit]

Hello, Tonusamuel. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Team Kuukulgur

[edit]

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 Team Kuukulgur requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a club, society, or group, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

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. DGG ( talk ) 06:03, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

[edit]

Hello, Tonusamuel. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tonusamuel&oldid=869712886"