User talk:ToBeFree

To add this button to your own talk page, you can use {{User new message large}}. It can easily be modified: Colorful examples are provided on the "Template:User new message large" page.
Please note that you are currently not logged in.
This is not a general problem – you can leave a message anyway, but your IP address might change during the discussion, and I might end up talking to a wall. Creating an account does not require an e-mail address; all you need is a password and a name. You are not required to do this, but please consider creating an account before starting long-term interactions with other users. Thank you very much in advance.

About user who disrupt "Yukio Mishima"

[edit]

Hi. Thank you for letting me know about [1]. I think this User:CyberIdris violated the rule of multiple accounts. Where can I report multiple accounts? みしまるもも (talk) 01:21, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi みしまるもも, thanks for asking! Normally, you can report sockpuppetry at WP:SPI, but I have already seen and dealt with that specific situation. Unless it continues, the warning on their talk page and the already-placed block of the IP address showing the same behavior as the account should be sufficient. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:40, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dear ToBeFree, Thank you very much. みしまるもも (talk) 01:55, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dear ToBeFree, I would like to report this User:CyberIdris to WP:AIV because he is making the same mistake over again without providing any evidence for the edits I am making based on professional sources. Even in discussions, this person never gives a clear source.--みしまるもも (talk) 06:30, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ToBeFree, User:みしまるもも is very uncivil and aggressive. His userpage suggests that he possibly has a conflict of interest or some kind of heavy personal bias toward Yukio Mishima and another user pointed this out about him on the talk page. I think he is improperly weaponizing reports as a way to force his personal views. He seems to be interested in promoting a nationalist POV and not being neutral or helping the encyclopedia. I also want to point out his account appears to be named after Yukio Mishima (his account is Rumomo Mishima). CyberIdris (talk) 07:46, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it is you who has a personal prejudice against Yukio Mishima. Of course, I like Yukio Mishima, and I have read his works and all his literature, as well as the research of various researchers. That is why I can see where your perception is strange.
First of all, please tell me the clear source of the edit you made based on your personal assumption (restoring direct rule by the Emperor),(Even before the war, the Emperor did not rule directly, so this is illogical.), why I deleted the edit that established Mishima's position as a literary figure based on Donald Keene's source, and why I changed the official English titles of Mishima's works to incorrect ones.
Also, I don't really want to doubt you, but you remind me a little of Mr. Ash-Gaar. みしまるもも (talk) 08:00, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello CyberIdris and みしまるもも, in your article talk page discussion at Talk:Yukio Mishima, please focus on content rather than others' behavior. If someone is behaving in a problematic way, I recommend talking to them on their user talk page. For example, if the conduct of user X upsets you, go to User_talk:X and tell them why. And if this really really doesn't help, you can create a report at WP:ANI, where your own behavior will be scrutinized too, however. AIV is unsuitable for such disputes; use ANI please.
If possible, discuss the article content on the article's talk page without talking about user behavior, and without asking people directly to do or not to do something, and without criticizing anyone. Such topics don't belong to an article talk page discussion.
If the article talk page discussion starts running in circles, you can request a third opinion, but this is only an option if you both have really discussed the content rather than people's behavior.
If absolutely nothing helps, you'll need an RfC to find a consensus, but you're far away from this point. Far away. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:32, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia Foundation Bulletin November Issue 1

[edit]
Here is a quick overview of highlights from the Wikimedia Foundation over the first half of November 2024. Please help translate.
WikiCelebrate Mārtiņš Bruņenieks
WikiCelebrate Mārtiņš Bruņenieks

Upcoming and current events and conversations
Talking: 2024 continues


Annual Goals Progress on Infrastructure
See also newsletters: Wikimedia Apps · Growth · Research · Web · Wikifunctions & Abstract Wikipedia · Tech News · Language and Internationalization · other newsletters on MediaWiki.org


Annual Goals Progress on Equity
See also a list of all movement events: on Meta-Wiki


Annual Goals Progress on Safety & Integrity
See also blogs: Global Advocacy blog · Global Advocacy Newsletter · Policy blog

  • Global Advocacy: Reflecting on the anniversary of the EU’s Digital Service Act (DSA), Wikimedians share successes and public policy priorities at digital rights Global Gathering event, and more global advocacy updates.


Annual Goals Progress on Effectiveness
See also: quarterly Metrics Reports


Other Movement curated newsletters & news
See also: Diff blog · Goings-on · Planet Wikimedia · Signpost (en) · Kurier (de) · Actualités du Wiktionnaire (fr) · Regards sur l’actualité de la Wikimedia (fr) · Wikimag (fr) · other newsletters:

Subscribe or unsubscribe · Help translate

Previous editions of this bulletin are on Meta-Wiki. Let askcac(_AT_)wikimedia.org know if you have any feedback or suggestions for improvement!


MediaWiki message delivery 22:33, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10 November 2024

[edit]

@ToBeFree, Could you please check my talk page and the numerous edit warning notices I've received? Despite making constructive and good-faith edits to Rajput, Rajput clans, and Political marriages in India, I haven't engaged in any edit wars or disruptions on Wikipedia and calling my edit as "Shamaless attempt".[2] wich I believe was provoking®asteem Talk 11:25, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"numerous edit warning notices" - You have only received a single edit warring notice(softer wording) because you were in fact edit warring, see my latest reply on your talkpage. The other was a general note regarding marking non minor edits as minor, therefore not a warning. This is irrelevant now because that phrase was retracted [3], I also do not understand why are you forumshopping instead of responding to Abhishek. Ratnahastin (talk) 11:31, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to differ with Ratnahastin. I checked the page edited by Rasteem and found that their edits were genuine. Also, he is comparatively new to Wikipedia, hence the correct way to alert them is not by bombarding with notices rather than making him aware of policies if the need arises. But, as of now, I don't think they've done any blunder which necessitates such heavy warnings as done on the talk page of several articles and their own talk page. Adamantine123 (talk) 12:03, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@@ToBeFree: Please also consider this talk page discussion[4] I had with Adamantine123 in wich I shared by concerned that I, Adamantine123, @LukeEmily:, & Ekdalian all we have received some edit warning notices just after making constructive edits on Rajput, Rajput clans, Political marriages in India for no actual edit wars by & received edit warning or contenious topic notices from (Ratnahastin), (NXcrypto), (Dympies) and (Abhishek0831996) you may not mind keeping an eye on these articles. These are some notices I received within less then 10 or 12 hours[5][6] in addition I received same notice twice for the use of minor edit tag on [Rajput]] from Ratnahastin & Dympies.[7][8] ®asteem Talk 11:59, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Although here I differed with Ratnahastin, but, as an older editor compared to you I also have a piece of advice for you. Ratnahastin is a prolific editor in this area. I am noticing their edits for a long time and I have found that they have done good work to keep many contentious articles clean. Please note, that if you accuse a bunch of editors of colluding with each other, this is called violation of WP:AGF. Although, I agree with you that Dympies have been doing some problematic edits on Rajput caste related articles, which is being discussed here at User Talk: Ekdalian#pings by LukeEmily and Ekdalian, you should avoid commenting on motive of editors. Just point out at their edits with reliable source. Also, don't panic and take proper time in making comments and replying to others so that you can scrutinize your comment here. Adamantine123 (talk) 12:56, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Adamantine123 Thank you I'll consider your advise always in my mind before making comments regarding other editors. ®asteem Talk 13:04, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ToBeFree&oldid=1256548897"