User talk:VAndring

September 2018

Hello, I'm Luk. 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 Scott Wagner seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you.

Conflict of interest

Do you have an affiliation or relationship with the Scott Wagner campaign? Your name is similar to Vonne Andring of the consulting firm Andring Consulting, which is on the payroll of the Wagner campaign. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:18, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

I do have an affiliation. Does that mean I'm unable to edit the page? Seems someone with an affiliation to Tom Wolf has been permitted to edit this page significantly, much of it false. VAndring (talk) 21:27, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

==Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion==

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. Thank you. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:45, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

September 2018

Hello VAndring. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, such as the edit you made to Scott Wagner, and that 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 egregious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to Black hat SEO.

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, and if it does not, 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:VAndring. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=VAndring|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, please do not edit further until you answer this message. Bradv 22:57, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Once you have declared the precise nature of your relationship with Scott Wagner, you may raise concerns or make suggestions at Talk:Scott Wagner. All articles must conform to Wikipedia's policies on biographies of living persons, so if there is unsourced or inaccurate content there we will make every effort to correct it. Bradv 23:00, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

WP: PAID

You have not yet complied with our mandatory paid editing disclosure requirement, and yet you are continuing to edit. If you make another edit without complying, I will block you. Please take this warning seriously. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:40, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

I'll be honest. I don't like your tone -- and I sure don't like your accusations. I have not made an edit for three hours, and frankly I'm beyond offended by these conversations. I'm finding it difficult to imagine that Wikipedia is flat out calling me a liar. I don't have other accounts. Take a minute and look at the ip addresses and you'll see that. I'm not some 15 year old computer hacker. You are escalating an issue with me that doesn't belong to me.

I submitted suggested changes as you guys instructed. I haven't made edits since I was advised not to (some three hours ago), and I haven't created other accounts. If someone else is editing the page, they are not coordinating with me. Do you guys have any sort of protocol in place or do you just call everyone liars indiscriminately? I'm sure you've dealt with a lot of dishonesty -- so I don't blame you for wanting to sniff it out and connect dots. But I do blame you for leading with accusations. You're way off base, you're wrong and it's highly offensive. I could care less if you block me because I spend next to zero time on Wikipedia. And out here in the real world, I happen to be a decent person. I value integrity, and I think I'm pretty well respected. I think when others see these conversations they'll invite a pretty good laugh. Please. No more accusations. If I was trying to pull something on you, I'd have used one of those clever handles. Examine the discussions. Put it together -- but no more accusations.

VAndring (talk) 01:11, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

You're yelling at everyone for no reason. Just put {{paid|user=VAndring|employer=Andring Consulting|client=Scott Wagner}} on your user page as per the instructions above, and you can carry on contributing to the discussion on the talk page. Bradv 01:14, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

I have no evidence whether or not you are connected with that other editor and I have said nothing about that matter. My sole concern as an administrator here is your failure to comply with WP:PAID. You say that you are a "decent person" and that you "value integrity", and yet here you are trying to edit the #5 website in the world, and you are declining to comply with a very important policy here. You were excused initially because you did not know about the policy, but now you do. So, your choice is clear: Either comply with WP:PAID now in a complete and transparent way, or stop editing. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:22, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

A relevant quotation from the policy: "Users who are compensated for any publicity efforts related to the subject of their Wikipedia contributions are deemed to be paid editors, regardless of whether they were compensated specifically to edit Wikipedia." Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:30, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm yelling? LOL -- you guys have repeatedly accused me of conspiring with others -- of having multiple accounts -- of editing when I'm not -- and now of yelling. You've threatened to block me, and otherwise regarded me as some young kid trying to pull the wool over your eyes. I've been a "member" all of three or four hours. Thanks for the warm welcome guys. Look I apologize if I didn't or still don't quite get all the ins and outs of membership. But I'm operating honestly. The truth is, I've spent hours now, of my precious time trying to figure out the issue, and rectify what seems like a gross miscarriage. So let me ask you so I can be clear. Are you telling me that in order to suggest edits I need to have the disclaimer above associated with my account? My understanding was that I needed that disclaimer in order to make direct edits, and that without it, I could only suggest edits -- which is what I thought I was advised. Does "suggesting edits" equal editing? Because if you look at my account, you can see the last direct edit I made was hours ago, prior to a conversation advising me to stop. I don't understand why Cullen continues to accuse me of editing. Oh and Brad. When you suggest a more conciliatory tone...do you mean like Cullen? VAndring (talk) 01:36, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, you still need to make the disclosure on your user page even if you are only participating on talk pages. Bradv 01:38, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

I didn't realize that. Thank you, Brad. Can you tell me exactly where to post it? Preferences?

VAndring (talk) 01:41, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Disregard. I figured it out.

VAndring (talk) 01:42, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. You are welcome to continue to participate on article talk pages. Bradv 01:45, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your compliance. When experienced Wikipedia editors refer to "editing", we are referring to any edit whatsoever on this project, including talk pages. When you refer to me in the context of "conciliatory", you can check my history and you will see that I am quite conciliatory on many things. But I am an elected administrator responsible for enforcing our policies, and I am certainly not going to be conciliatory with a paid campaign consultant for a governor's campaign, 54 days before the election. No way under the sun. I am a volunteer and you are paid. If you want to edit here, we expect you be 100% competent from the very beginning. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:53, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

I understand you have a job to do -- paid or unpaid. But you don't know me. And I've been familiar with Wikipedia "membership" and "editing" for a matter of hours. Paid or unpaid I don't think it's appropriate to treat people with the regard you showed me. I mean clearly you can, and you did -- but you didn't have to. The truth is, I didn't understand. That, and only that, is what I'm guilty of. You demonstrated zero patience, and a few of you treated me like a liar. If you're a nice person you hid it from me -- and weren't the least bit concerned about whether I had a good -- let alone reasonable experience. "If you edit one more time, I'll block you" and "comply NOW" aren't my idea of conciliatory but I'm sure you felt it necessary -- what with me being a paid campaign consultant and all. I've always donated to Wikipedia. I thought it was a pretty good service. I admit, this experience has been disenchanting to say the least. But let's start over and just pretend I'm a human being -- not perfect -- maybe not even the smartest. Thank you.

VAndring (talk) 02:11, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi VAndring. Wikipedia is a weird place and you really should stop what you are doing, and get grounded on the fundamentals here, before you continue. Please read WP:Wikipedia is in the real world and please see Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia for examples of people getting media coverage for abuse of Wikipedia.

On top of that, you are obligated to learn and follow the policies and guidelines here. People will be happy to try to help you, but if you won't learn and follow the policies and guidelines, the community can and will remove or restrict your editing privileges.

You will learn very quickly, that the editing community has almost no patience for people who misrepresent what reliable sources say. They will call out that behavior, and if that continues, that is the kind of the behavior that will lead to restriction or loss of editing privileges.

If you like, have a read of user:Jytdog/How which I wrote to help new editors who are in a hurry understand what we do here, how we do it, and why we do it that way. Jytdog (talk) 02:31, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Now that the issue is resolved, I am more than happy to engage with you in a more friendly fashion. Please spend some time reading our Five pillars and our Core content policies. I am a human being too, and although I do not know you, your online presence is obvious. Similarly, I disclose my real world identity here, and I too have a website and a social media presence. Consider this: As I mentioned earlier, this is the #5 website in the world, and we have to deal with every single ugly, cruel, lying, murderous aspect of human behavior, as well as massive determined efforts by PR agents to turn neutral encyclopedia articles into whitewashed advertisements and glittering campaign brochures. It is like a fire hose of bad content, gushing 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Only dedicated volunteers help control it. So yes, administrators can be brusque but my reputation is as a fair and friendly administrator. If you expect highly experienced volunteer editors to embrace you as a campaign consultant, please be aware that we all know that 98% of paid editors cause nothing but problems here. I hope that you will join the ranks of the 2% who are productive. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:46, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Jytdog. Appreciate the note. I've been here a few hours. I don't claim to be the sharpest knife, and I'm not unwilling to comply, and didn't have issues with sources. Just didn't understand on the quick, and it became hard to decipher the issue when I began receiving threatening messages from a community I'd just met. Was pretty stunning. Cullen thank you for your follow up. I get it and can assure you. I'm a good egg. Crazy as it may sound, I came here as a human being, not an operative, and seeing the "edit" button believed I could make changes to information I knew to be factually inaccurate. Using my full last name -- hiding nothing, I created an account and got busy. Quicker than I could reload the page the Wiki Admins sniffed out that I was connected to the campaign and from that moment on regarded me as nefarious -- flatly accusing me of conspiring, coordinating and failing to comply. I mean, I still can't comprehend it completely but am starting to see the bigger picture. Truth is, I don't call myself a campaign consultant. Just a girl trying to use my super powers for good. Thanks again.

VAndring (talk) 02:58, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

I'll bow out here as you are good hands. Please though do be careful what you write in Wikipedia. Jytdog (talk) 03:26, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Notices of discretionary sanctions

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 recently shown interest in 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 any 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.

Jytdog (talk) 06:08, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

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 recently shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. 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 any 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.

Jytdog (talk) 06:09, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Making claims about living people, without citing sources

Please be aware that per our WP:BLP policy, you cannot make claims about living people anywhere in Wikipedia (including article talk pages) without citing reliable sources.

You have written on talk several times now things like this, and this and this and this about Walker and unions. You have brought no sources for that, and Bradv has brought several sources, including in this diff, this PennLive source which links to a transcript of Walker's full remarks. Which talk about all kinds of unions (here are the unions that were "in the rotunda") not just public sector unions. And Bradv cited several other sources in this diff.

We all fully appreciate that you have a job to do. But you cannot continue making claims about Walker that are a) not supported by reliable sources, and b) contradicted cited reliable sources. This is not acceptable behavior here in Wikipedia.

Please understand this. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 06:31, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

It's Wagner. And I've provided numerous sources. If you read through the thread you will see that. Have you read the entire thread? VAndring (talk) 06:44, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

What you have offered several times, is his quote about being mad at public sector unions. That does not even speak to other unions. You yourself said nice things about non-governmental unions, which is meaningless here. Even if you were to get him to say something nice about unions now and that would get into print, the things he has said and done in the past, as sourced in the diffs I cited above, and the new diff by Bradv, do not vanish in Wikipedia.

I have urged you to step more carefully here. You will lose your editing privileges here if you keep making claims not supported by reliable sources and ignoring what reliable sources say. This is not like other places. Please be mindful. Jytdog (talk) 06:54, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Logistics of using talking pages

Quick note on the logistics of discussing things on Talk pages, which are essential for everything that happens here.

In Talk page discussions, we "thread" comments by indenting - when you reply to someone, you put a colon in front of your comment, which the Wikipedia software will render into an indent when you save your edit; if the other person has indented once, then you indent twice by putting two colons in front of your comment, which the WP software converts into two indents, and so on, and when that gets ridiculous you reset back to the margin (or "outdent") by putting this {{od}} in front of your comment. Threading/indenting also allows you to make it clear if you are also responding to something that someone else responded to if there are more than two people in the discussion; in that case you would indent the same amount as the person just above you in the thread. I hope that all makes sense.

And you already have this part down, but at the end of the comment, please "sign" by typing exactly four (not 3 or 5) tildas "~~~~" which the WP software converts into a date stamp and links to your talk and user pages when you save your edit.

Indenting and signing, are how we know who said what to whom and when.

Please be aware that threading and signing are fundamental etiquette here, as basic as "please" and "thank you", and continually failing to thread and sign communicates rudeness, and eventually people may start to ignore you (see here).

I know this is unwieldy, but this is the software environment we have to work on. Sorry about that.

With regard to how to conduct yourself in talk page discussion, please see WP:TPG. Please pay special attention to the WP:TPNO section. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 06:47, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Jytdog, I know you're trying to help, and I appreciate that. But to be very honest, I didn't come here to be an editor, or to join the community -- though I'm sure it's worth being part. For that reason, I didn't spend time in advance contemplating, researching or reading up on how to become an editor. I was jumping through hoops to make edits. Didn't realize it didn't work like that.

I was alerted to the condition of Wagner's page, saw the misinformation, the edit button, thought I could simply edit the misinformation, cite it, and move on -- and yes, I know how to cite. I'm a former English teacher. But clearly I raised a flag and I've come to a better understanding about why. What I don't understand, is the practice of leaping to accusations, threats and hostility -- based on assumptions -- without apology -- with which I was met. That's not ok. The edits I tried to make would reveal a lot about my intentions but no one took the time to bear that out. And I'm a fighter. I don't take that kind of thing and not push back. Your approach is certainly noted and appreciated. If I've deviated from the standards, the etiquette and the culture I apologize. Wasn't my intention. Anyway, I think I'm done here. Thanks!

VAndring (talk) 07:40, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for partially doing the indenting thing. You have to do it on each paragraph. Jytdog (talk) 14:53, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

VAndring, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi VAndring! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like AmaryllisGardener (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:05, 14 September 2018 (UTC)