Hello, EddieLeVisco. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there! Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by Heart(talk) 08:03, 9 October 2020 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((teahouse talkback)) template).Reply[reply]
Hi EddieLeVisco! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Seeking help to add content to my Wikipedia page, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days (usually at least two days, and sometimes four or more). You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please feel free to create a new thread.
It'll depend A bit what kind of images you're thinking about. The three basic principles are:
Copyright: Is it definitely alright to use here? This is generally down to if it's either old enough, or if someone (possibly you) had the right to release it, usually under some variant of ((Cc-by)).
Quality things like Picture of the Day require the image to pass WP:FPC, which is meant to select the best images on Wikipedia. So if the image is small, or taken with a low-quality camera (for the time), it probably can't pass FPC.
Encyclopedic Value Here (less so on commons:COM:FPC), it's important that the image is actually useful to articles. This means it's both used in an article and (for featured picture purposes) adds sufficient value to the article.
Happy to answer more, but probably best to get some idea what interests you first, because things really can vary a lot depending on the type of image. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 7.6% of all FPs 23:54, 12 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Adam CuerdenThank you very much for your help Adam, I appreciate your time. Very useful information.EddieLeVisco (talk) 15:07, 14 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I just realised I said one bit backwards - a "high-quality camera" is not a problem at FPC, obviously. I meant to say that lower-quality cameras were hard to get images to pass FPC with. Not impossible. There's two ways you can compensate: 1. If an image is truly iconic. If someone has a mobile phone image of a historic event go viral, and uploads it here, it might well pass FPC. 2. Use a tripod. Zoom in, and take whole grids of images, then use software to stitch 'em all together into a massive one, substituting the sheer number of images for a perfect camera. This is... tricky, and not really my field. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 7.6% of all FPs 07:37, 15 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Anyone can write and submit a draft to The Signpost. See the about page for information on contributing and the submissions desk where you can submit a draft. There is no guarantee that the piece will be published just because you've written it. You may want to reach out to Smallbones, the Editor-in-Chief with a proposal.
If you could write something about the prior history of your User Account, and the recent experience after posting at the Teahouse, I think that might make a splendid article that would help many people who find themselves in the same position as you did. Michael D. Turnbull (talk) 14:32, 14 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Thank you for your last message about keeping the confidentiality of editors. I promise I will not ever mention anything about you, anywhere and I will always abide by Wikipedia's rules and code of conduct." Quote, EddieLeVisco, on my Talk Page "here (there is an advantage to Wikipedia keeping every single edit)". So what happened? Within days and following (I estimate) 30 hours of my work, for which you think you paid £1, you started to reveal confidences about me within a Teahouse article. Specifically, that we had discussed, in private e-mails off-wiki, a possible commission that I had in mind for you and for which if you agreed to undertake that commission I would pay you a mutually yet-to-be-agreed sum. I am still willing to give you the benefit of now considerable doubt and meet as we planned, in the spirit of WP:AGF. I had hoped that your curiosity in knowing more about me and how we could collaborate off-wiki would prevail over your obsession that Wikipedia be altered to suit your view of what it "should" contain at Ed Gold. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:53, 20 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello, EddieLeVisco. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there! Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by Theroadislong (talk) 17:51, 22 October 2020 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((teahouse talkback)) template).Reply[reply]
Hi EddieLeVisco! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, To all Wikipedia editors, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days (usually at least two days, and sometimes four or more). You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please feel free to create a new thread.
Paid editing IS allowed. The person being paid must put a paid announcement on their User page. Equally required - rather than editing the article directly, paid editors are to use the Talk page of the article to propose specific changes (as in change ____ to ____ and in support of that, add ____ as a reference. A non-connected editor then evaluates the propose changes and implements or not. Undeclared paid editing (UPE) is a big no-no, and can lead to the editor being blocked. David notMD (talk) 00:14, 23 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please be careful about what you say to people. Some remarks, such as your addition to Wikipedia:Teahouse can easily be misinterpreted, or viewed as harassment. Wikipedia is a supportive environment, where contributors should feel comfortable and safe while editing. Wikipedia is a volunteer organisation with WP:NODEADLINE, sorry if that's inconvenient for your agenda. Please stop posting the same stuff there and accusing editors of being uselessJoseph2302 (talk) 08:30, 23 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You comment endlessly about how useless the volunteers at Wikipedia are but you have done nothing to help us, if there is content missing from the article please request for it to be added on the article’s talk page here Talk:Ed Gold, being sure to provide reliable secondary in-depth sources, it really is that simple. Theroadislong (talk) 09:10, 23 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The tone of your recent posts at the Teahouse (I am a host there) tells me that you are quite disgruntled about the state of the article about you. You seem to have been given bits and pieces of info as to why you are encountering numerous hurdles in correcting it [the article], but I figured I would explain it again here. Feel free to remove this message if you don't want it here or find it unhelpful.
On Wikipedia, we have five pillars. Most policies you will see around here are 'descendants' of the five pillars. (i.e. verifiability) and no original research come from the second pillar, no personal attacks from the fourth, etc.) In your instance, there is one policy that is preventing you from editing the article - WP:Conflict of interest. The reason that we don't let you edit the article if you have a conflict-of-interest is because the COI (intentionally or not) means that you can't write truly neutral content (a violation of the second pillar). To get around this, you can suggest changes on the article's talk page, and uninvolved editors can make a decision to add the info in or not. From what I can tell, they seem to be co-operative. You seem to have been working constructively to improve the article via edit requests, which is great to see.
What isn't great to see are your insults at other editors. This post is extremely counter productive and deeply unhelpful. We are all volunteers with absolutely zero obligation to help you, but we are doing it to improve Wikipedia. Going behind our backs and insulting us on very public forums on our own website is not going to inspire people to help you improve the article. Comment on content, not contributors, and don't insult people, especially not behind their backs.
Also, although we are a website that anyone can edit, that does not mean that anyone controls the content here. Decisions about deletion are made on Wikipedia by reaching consensus, not by one individual. Therefore is highly unlikely that your page will be deleted because you requested it. Other people have attempted similar things before. The article about you will most likely stay here until it satisfies one of our deletion criteria.
So I suggest you work with others to improve your article (I can help if you want), providing reliable information in a 'Change X to Y per [reliable source]' format. Don't comment on people, comment on content. If you do all of that, I can assure that the quality of the article will improve.
Hi EddieLeVisco! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Felix Vogel advertizing Wikipedia services & incomplete article, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days (usually at least two days, and sometimes four or more). You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please feel free to create a new thread.
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you purposefully and blatantly harass a fellow Wikipedian, as you did at Wikipedia:Teahouse. Asking for only female editors to help is sexism. And please stop spamming up the Teahouse with your incessant requestsJoseph2302 (talk) 11:21, 26 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Female editor here: Calling people 'ego-fueled' because they aren't doing what you want fast enough isn't getting you anywhere with anyone. You are insulting volunteers. No one owes you an article about yourself that is exactly what you want it to be NOW, and frankly you're making it less likely anyone wants to help you. No one is going to contact you on your website to discuss this; we discuss it on WP, preferably at the article talk, preferably in response to you making a COI edit request, which you can do using this form. But first I'd suggest you take a long step back and try to look at this from the perspective of people who have limited time to volunteer and are fully in charge of how they use that time, because that's exactly what every Wikipedia editor is. Also women can be just as ego-fueled as men lol —valereee (talk) 11:45, 26 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No more Teahouse posts, please!
Hello Eddie. I doubt you'll believe me, but I am not one of those 'ego-fueled' male editors you clearly despise. I am nevertheless, like Valereee above, an administrator here and a pretty fair-minded guy with a lot of experience of helping people, both in the real world and on Wikipedia. I'm afraid the consensus at the Teahouse is that you have become a disruptive element here. By choosing to ignore the advice you were given about making Edit requests to the article at Talk:Ed Gold, and by repeatedly insulting all and sundry, you are now highly unlikely to achieve your goal of being the only person on Wikipedia who has a perfectly crafted, fully finished article about them which meets all their personal expectations and requirements.
So, this is simply to tell you that we will not accept another post from you at the Teahouse, and that your editing privileges there may be withdrawn if you continue to try. You may, of course, still post at the talk page of the article about you to make suggestions/requests for changes, or you may delete factually incorrect content yourself if it is not substantiated by 'reliable sources'. Whatever you do, I must ask you to cease disparaging everyone here. It sounds like you think we're all a bunch of nerdy schoolkids with nothing better to do than embark on power-crazed trips messing with the heads of worthy people, like your good self. Nothing could be further from the truth. I am truly sorry it has come to this, because it could have been a really productive relationship between an excellent photographer and our Wikipedia editors. Sadly, that has not worked out, and your actions have become sufficiently disruptive at the Teahouse that they fit more with someone who is NOTHERE. With well over 6 million articles to maintain and protect, and tens of thousands of active editors, we cannot afford to spend the time bending over backwards to deal with the disruption that your combination of demands and complaints have brought here. Someone has just pointed out to me that, until your recent complaint about all those who have ever tried to work with you, your article was receiving, on average, three views a day. So I'm sure your time and effort could be better spent focussing on other online platforms to showcase your amazing photographic talents and real-world achievements. Kind regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 16:36, 26 October 2020 (UTC) Reply[reply]
What part of "no more Teahouse posts" is unclear? This has been explained multiple times. Also, "NOTE that I am not reading any messages from anyone via Wikipedia, disgruntled editors and the like"- if you aren't reading any messages, then that's why you keep coming back with the same annoying questions. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:14, 24 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi EddieLeVisco! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, WP article less than half complete - either delete it or make it correct!, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days (usually at least two days, and sometimes four or more). You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please feel free to create a new thread.
Hi EddieLeVisco! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Wikipedia page pasted to my website so WP article can now be deleted., has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days (usually at least two days, and sometimes four or more). You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please feel free to create a new thread.
Hi EddieLeVisco! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Wikipedia has been criticized for its uneven accuracy [source: Wikipedia]., has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days (usually at least two days, and sometimes four or more). You can still find the archived discussion [[Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1081#Wikipedia_has_been_criticized_for_its_uneven_accuracy_[source:_Wikipedia].|here]]. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please feel free to create a new thread.
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: ((unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~)). NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:32, 24 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You seem to be using Wikipedia exclusively to complain about an article about you. Navigating Wikipedia's bureaucracy can be frustrating and confusing, but you've been instructed several times on how to get your article updated. Please read through Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide. Once you've done that, make an unblock request, as above, and tell us what you'll do differently when you're unblocked. Hint: if you tell us that you'll stop posting rants in inappropriate places, that will go pretty far toward getting you unblocked all by itself. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:40, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
That took long... You Got A Friend In Yee (talk) 19:14, 29 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
Dear Sir/Ma’am. I am here to request that I am unblocked from editing the article about me on Wikipedia and will not cause damage or disruption. The block is no longer necessary because I understand what I was blocked for, I will not do it again, and I will make productive contributions instead. I will not make repeated invalid or offensive unblock requests and also I would like to add that the reviewing administrator(s) may not have read my whole talk page and all of my contributions. This is because editors have blocked me from editing the article about me many times in the past, for reasons like they, the editors, wrongly accusing me of paid editing when that is not true, and for saying I am friends with a WP editor (Mike Turnbull) which is also not true, and which affects the integrity of the edited article. Also that my photos are not allowed to be published in my article because it amounts to self-promotion, even though one photo has been allowed to be used (of Donetsk hunger striking pensioners). [It is not self-promotion, my work is ‘documentary’ which is about providing information to explain a situation]. I simply need to be able to easily update true content of the WP article about me, without any trouble from editors. I promise not to post to the Teahouse again about my dissatisfaction and hope to amend the article as it is still less than 30% complete, after 4 years of it being live. If you need more details please contact me. I would be grateful if you can suggest a WP volunteer editor to me who can help me edit and add content to the article and who, like Mike Turnbull, does not want to get involved personally, and who doesn’t want me to do jobs for them. I simply need to work on a very basic, impersonal level with a WP editor and not get involved with their own business. I wish to be very transparent about my conflict of interest here and make sure that the block is removed. I will not get upset or annoyed any longer. I understand your requirements now and will promise to have patience. I wish to be friends with you and have read your Plain and simple conflict of interest guide. EddieLeVisco (talk) 13:58, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
Decline reason:
None of this shows an understanding of WP:COI and frankly, you won't be unblocked to write about yourself. Yamla (talk) 14:15, 1 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the ((unblock)) template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
This is precisely the problem I have been having all along with Wikipedia. I say one thing, it gets put into a Chinese Whisper machine, and then is interpreted as something entirely different. Firstly 'Yamla' writes that "None of this shows an understanding of WP:COI" when I have not only read the WP:COI completely but also I have copied the key points you write about, and pasted them word for word into my request to be unblocked. And then 'Yamla' writes "you won't be unblocked to write about yourself." when I have said, until I am blue in the face, THAT I DO NOT WANT TO WRITE ABOUT MYSELF AT ALL! and this is what I have been saying all along. The article about me is incomplete and needs to be brought up to date. I do NOT WANT to edit the article about me. I would like to find a WP volunteer editor who can bring the WP article about me up to date because the article is not factually correct because it is incomplete. So, what I propose is that a WP editor step forward who can decide how best to go about, on their own or working with other editors, to best get the article looking as truthful as possible. If the article is not correct then what is the point of it existing in the first place? Can you answer me that?
Therefore, again, to address your WP:COI I acknowledge:
• I am being transparent about my conflict of interest, and
• I DO NOT Yamla want to edit articles about myself, my family or friends, my organization (not applicable), my clients (not applicable), or my competitors (not applicable), and
• Nor do I wish to post suggestions and sources on the article's talk page, or in my userspace. (Even though yes, I would like to find an editor to bring the article up to date),
• and obviously the role of editors is to summarize, inform, and reference, not promote, whitewash, or sell, obviously. If I am to have an article about my work I would like it to be complete, whole, honest, truthful and factual. Is that too much to expect? If yes, please explain why.
• Article subjects require significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Well, I have over 120 independent reliable sources on my website that prove my article subjects. BUT I notice you don't need just proof, you require TRIPLE authentication. In some instance I cannot provide this but if the BBC News publishes a story, does the BBC News need to be questioned and checked for its authenticity?
• State facts and statistics; don't be vague or general. I hope I am not being vague here. Am I? I do not think so. But what do you mean about what facts and statistics? The facts and statistics in the article about me? Those facts are not for me to decide on as I am not able to edit them. Whatever facts and statistics are included in the article are decided upon by the WP editor and not me at all. I am obviously not able to suggest anything to the editor, so this opens up another set of problems that your WP:COI does not address - IF I CANNOT ENGAGE WITH AN EDITOR AND MAKE SUGGESTIONS ABOUT WHAT TO INCLUDE TO THE ARTICLE, HOW DOES THE EDITOR DECIDE WHAT TO DO AND WHERE DOES THE EDITOR FIND THE FACTS AND STATISTICS ABOUT ME IF I WIKIPEDIA DOES NOT ALLOW ME TO TELL THEM?
• Take time to get sources and policy right. Well obviously, I will take the time and it isn't that hard because all the facts and statistics that are about me have been published publicly by national and international media. If those fatcs cannot be corroborated for the truth then who can anyone turn to for the truth? I do not think the BBC News are liars? And if they publish my photo essays, are they lying? How does WP make sure facts and statistics that are published about me, are truthful and real? Just because a newspaper article is printed with ink, doesn't mean it is real does it? Now you've got me questioning the very logic behind atoms and molecules and what exists and doesn't.
• YES! I would simply adore to have neutral, uninvolved, disinterested editors to review your suggestions. BUT am I even allowed to make suggestions? I would love it if a neutral, uninvolved, disinterested editor would update the article about me. I repeat 'Yamla' that I do not want to edit articles myself, AT ALL, I would like to have a neutral, uninvolved, disinterested editor edit the article about me, but how? Can an editor step forward that can actually help because the last editor, Mike Turnbull, wanted me to go to London to take photos for him and I don't want to get involved personally with any editor at all. Is that OK?
• I will certainly respect the volunteer community's time; but if the volunteers like Yamla do not read what I have written correctly then I will have to make repeated requests until someone realizes that, frankly, I am very honest and very truthful and want to respect volunteers and don't want to edit my own article or anybody elses. I just want a quiet life with no stress. EddieLeVisco (talk) 16:01, 1 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Decline reason:
Only one open unblock request at a time, please. SQLQuery me! 23:56, 4 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the ((unblock)) template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
I am here to be unblocked so that I can very simply communicate with a volunteer editor so that they can bring the article up to date. I am not here to edit my own article or the article of anybody else. Please explain to me in very simple terms how I can make myself understood because everything I write is misinterpreted. FOR EXAMPLE - If I do not contact an editor, my page will not be updated, so the way to update the article is to contact an editor, but to find an editor I have to go to the Teahouse page to find one. Is this correct? If I am blocked and cannot go to the Teahouse page, how then can I have the article updated. It seems like an extremely simple question...unless I have missed something? If so, please tell me. Thank you. EddieLeVisco (talk) 16:13, 1 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Decline reason:
Only one open unblock request at a time, please. SQLQuery me! 23:57, 4 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the ((unblock)) template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Ed, no, that is not correct. The Teahouse is a place where newer editors can go to find help learning how to edit. It is not intended to be a place for article subjects to find someone to update the article or to complain about the current article. It is not a complaint department. It's a help desk for editing. The place for an article subject to ask for updates to the article is at the article's talk page, by using a well-prepared edit request.
Otherwise, the article about you will get updated when someone becomes interested in updating it.
Which brings me to the unblock request. Have you read the advice at Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks? Because making multiple bad unblock requests one after another can result in loss of access to your talk page, which means you won't even be able to complain here any more. And all three of today's unblock requests are bad unblock requests. I'm willing to help you figure out how to improve your situation, but only on the condition that you from now on not make any rude comments to any other editor anywhere on wikipedia. Can you make that commitment? —valereee (talk) 17:00, 1 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
EddieLeVisco I have been making a few minor edits to the article in order to reduce it's reliance on primary sources. Wikipedia is a work in progress, articles are rarely "completed" and if you want complete "updated" content about yourself then your own website is the best location, here we just report on what reliable, independent sources say about you, if they don't say anything, then we don't include that content and to be honest your input really isn't required. Theroadislong (talk) 17:12, 1 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
Thank you User:Valereee and User:Theroadislong OK. I will come to a deal with you both and all. If you unblock me I won't ask to do anything at all anymore. I give up. I have decided that I should be grateful for having an article about my work and that it is better left alone. I realize today that the article will never be as good as I imagine it should be. I have found that it is impossible to do anything at all in Wikipedia and the article will have to stay mostly incomplete about all that I have achieved in my career. I would like to be unblocked so that in the future I have the option to contact any one of you again in the case I need to e.g. something life-changing happens in my career and that it needs to be added to the article. I am now done with trying to do anything here anymore. Or, if you wish to keep me blocked, give me an email address I can contact Wikipedia editors for help in the future. I realize today that I don't have the energy for any of these games anymore.
Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficient for any reviewing administrator to take action. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that
the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
understand what you have been blocked for,
will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the ((unblock)) template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
The gazette-news.co.uk article is already used as a reference in the article, The Guardian piece is just a paid for listing and of no interest to Wikipedia. Theroadislong (talk) 18:35, 1 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The gazette-news.co.uk article is already used as a reference in the article[edit]
Theroadislong - The gazette-news.co.uk article is already used as a reference in the article? Please can I ask where? Because the Gazette has done MANY stories over the years about my photography and I am sure that this particular story has not been mentioned at all in the WP article about my work. I hope you don't mind that I say I am very embarrassed by the article about my work on Wikipedia. That isn't being rude is it? As I keep on saying it is incomplete and I cannot bring myself to look at it anymore. It's a very poor reflection of Ed Gold, the documentary photographer.EddieLeVisco (talk) 18:56, 1 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Reference 23 is that article from the gazette, The magazine is self published and is not mentioned in the article because it hasn't received in-depth coverage in any reliable sources, meaning Wikipedia will not consider that it is notable enough to mention, you may be embarrassed by the article, but there is nothing we can do about that, the article is "about you" NOT "for you". It will NEVER be a complete record of your career, that is what your own website is for, Wikipedia merely reports what reliable independent sources have said about you, nothing else. Theroadislong (talk) 19:17, 1 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Now I understand. Thank you for your time Theroadislong. I notice somebody added the Gazette story today. I won't bother anyone here again if I can help it. It now doesn't matter if I am blocked or not. I'd prefer not to be as it feels like I've done something wrong. But these are your rules.EddieLeVisco (talk) 19:33, 1 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Eddie, I've offered to help you. Let me know if you want the help. —valereee (talk) 20:03, 1 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Valereee, thank you very much. After communicating here with :Theroadislong I don't know what help can be given now? :Theroadislong stated that the article is about me and not for me, which I already know. But if the article is not allowed to be edited by anyone, there is little point in offering help. This is the most counter-productive situation I have ever been in. How would you be able to help me :Valereee?
Ed, the world's entire population of humans can edit the article. You and your own circle are the only ones who are asked not to. Theroadislong is correct, the article is about you and not for you, but that doesn't mean you aren't welcome to offer input. I have worked with multiple COI editors before, and I'll help you if you want. If you would rather just walk away, that's fine, but if you actually want to contribute productively to the article about you, I can show you how that can be accomplished. I can show you how to request changes/additions that are likely to be made.
I understand you're frustrated, and I'm really sorry you're embarrassed. Wikipedia has a very steep learning curve. Most new editors move from correcting a typo to rewording an awkward sentence to discovering talk pages, and they learn policy mostly-painlessly along the way before they start trying to make any major change to an article. Article subjects like you typically come in completely unfamiliar with policy and are looking for large changes, and it can feel overwhelming, especially when they run up against behavioral guidelines like you have. —valereee (talk) 20:43, 1 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
—valereee I am grateful for your writing. I won't walk away if you are offering input. I have to sign off here as it is late in the UK, but please let me know tomorrow (2nd) or a day that suits you. I do of course want to positively contribute productively to the article about me, this has always been my intention. But I have to add that the last time an editor helped me, another editor said that we had a friendship, which was the weirdest thing to say as I didn't know the person at all, and that the friendship would affect the integrity of the article. (A 'friendship' just because we had emailed a number of times about the article). So it almost feels as though it is impossible to do anything in Wikipedia and at every turn this is a problem, or multiple problems. It is strange that Wikipedia is so well respected for information, but that information is not 100% complete. I am even wary now of asking you to write to my email address as this again will start a witch hunt. So please provide help in the open for all to read.EddieLeVisco (talk) 21:19, 1 January 2021 (UTC)))Reply[reply]
I don't think anyone's going to claim we have a friendship. We will interact only here on your talk and/or at the article talk, and we won't interact offline at all, so everyone will be able to see all of our interactions. I will not email with you unless there are privacy issues that require it. We prefer to conduct all conversations publicly unless there's a reason not to.
Wikipedia articles are never 100% complete. Even for articles about centuries-old subjects, there's always something else that needs to be considered, new scholarly research or whatever. In this case we're talking about a living person who has an active career; of course the article is not complete. It likely won't be anywhere near complete until decades after you've died, if scholars decide you're important enough to write about. If they are still discussing your work c.2453, we'll (assuming the world as we know it still exists) still be updating the article. The article on Pythagoras got an edit in the past week. :) That is true of all WP articles. We don't claim to be complete. We are your best starting place for answering a question. That is all. —valereee (talk) 21:38, 1 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ignore the article, other than to check it occasionally to make sure there’s no actual libel.
Use edit requests to suggest updates and corrections.
Unless someone becomes interested in the article and decides to work on it, There really is nothing else you can do. The article is not in your control. The only thing I can promise you is that it will never be exactly what you want it to be. If that's going to bother you, choice #1 is your best option.
Choice #2 means doing the work. It means deciding what is the one most important change you think needs to be made, finding a reliable source for that change, and making an edit request at the article talk. Another editor will come in and take a look and decide whether they agree with you that the change is an improvement. If they do, they'll make the change. Then you repeat that process with the next most important change.
If you tell me what one single addition or change seems like it's the most important to you, and give me a URL for the source for the change, we can talk about how to format an edit request in a way that makes it easy for another editor to help you. —valereee (talk) 19:27, 2 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
—valereee Thank you very much for writing and for offering such useful help. I will definitely take you up on your kind assistance and will let you know the most important change(s) that I think needs to be made. Forgive me for not writing more here this evening but I am living outdoors and it is minus degrees celsius so not conducive to being able to work properly. I will be in contact soon when (if) I can be comfortable.EddieLeVisco (talk) 19:46, 2 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No worries, we have no deadlines here. Stay warm, you crazy artist person, you! :D —valereee (talk) 20:19, 2 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
—valereee Hello Valeree, I hope you are well. At risk of contacting you for the first time, and being labelled 'friends' now by other WP editors, which would disable your help as it goes against WP Policy, I write to kindly ask for your help please. You had offered to help make additions or change to the article about me, if it is allowable. I note on the article page that I have 4 books listed as being published. I find this embarrassing because in fact I have made 58 books. 3 have been published commercially and the rest have been produced by myself and published via Blurb.com. Most of the 55 have ISBN numbers, so does that make them legitimate and validate them being included in the WP article? Also, I launched my own commercial quarterly magazine on 01 November 2020 and 2 issues have been published so far. It is for sale in 36 shops in the UK and in 10 shops overseas. The magazine 'Positive Futures' has been mentioned in a newspaper article that has been included on the WP article (Reference #23), but also it was recently reviewed in 'The Land' magazine in the UK. I can send you a URL of a PDF of the review which was a whole page in The Land magazine. The review is not available online but only in print. I wonder if it is eligible for inclusion as the last time we communicated I learnt that due to the nature of Wikipedia, articles can never be complete or 100%. Thank you for your time.185.60.5.17 (talk) 11:05, 27 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hey, Eddie! Nah, you still have a user name, you just got logged out -- the system logs you out after a year, I believe. So your books that are self-published, we generally won't list unless they've received coverage somewhere. If you can find someone somewhere mentioning that you have other self-published books, we can mention the fact, but we wouldn't list them all. Actually we typically don't list any book that hasn't been mentioned somewhere; we probably need to get some citations for those books.
Now, here's the problem: I can't respond to edit requests from a blocked user. You'll need to address the block, I'm afraid. I'd recommend reading WP:GAB, as it's got helpful information. —valereee (talk) 14:49, 27 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
—valereee Thank you Valeree. I have requested an unblock and posted as such. I won't contact you again as I now see it is not necessary to update the article about me. Wishing you a good day.EddieLeVisco (talk) 16:55, 27 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Dear Sirs and Madams, I have read all of 'Wikipedia:Appealing a block' and 'Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks' and would like to be unblocked please. I understand that in the past I have been vandalistic with my talk entries, due to my frustration at the difficulties encountered when trying to edit the WP article about me. I recognize, understand and accept I have acted wrongly and apologize and wish to have access to editors in the future. I solemnly promise not to write anything unfit again and, now that I have learned so much more from editors about your etiquette, will not contact you unless it is essential. I realize in fact there is no benefit to continually wanting to update the article and accept that it is alright as it is. Thank you. EddieLeVisco (talk) 16:52, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Accept reason:
Between the improvements in the editor's interaction, and the very beneficial involvement of Valereee, I think an unblock is worthwhile at this time. I should note for clarity that I'm not placing any formal editing restrictions, but I would advise Eddie not to have more than one editing request open on any given topic (though I also advise that for anyone making edit requests). Please do ask Val, or other users, for help if you have concerns - waiting until it is "essential" is not always the best strategy. Best of luck with your future editing, both in text and pictures. Nosebagbear (talk) 20:39, 2 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@EddieLeVisco:, I am willing to at least start considering this. To start, would you be okay with two specific editing restrictions: an absolute restriction from editing the article and a limit to a single open edit request related to yourself anywhere on the site (preferably that would be the Talk Page, but it would also apply to requests made to an individual user, such as Valereee, or a Help Desk)?
Please note, I'm still considering aspects related to your comments regarding editors at the Teahouse etc, but will consider it further.
Yuendumu Gold 01Nosebagbear, I think Ed's understanding of how Wikipedia works is still evolving, but it is evolving. In my opinion, his contributions at Photographs by Ed Gold alone, like this one, are enough to try to get him the whole way there. We aren't yet using this image anywhere, but wow. It's beautiful. If I could figure out where best to use it, I'd nominate it for Picture of the Day. But I digress. I am willing to try to keep working with this person. —valereee (talk) 19:02, 2 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Valereee: :@Nosebagbear: Thank you very much Valereee, you are a good person. My understanding is indeed still evolving and thank you very much for your help getting me there. Last year I was asked by the editor for The Signpost to write for the newsletter about the problems I have faced navigating Wikipedia editors and I did indeed write an article. But my article was then edited so much, and in such a way, that the whole exercise became counter productive and an exact example of what I was writing about. So the article was never published, which I regret as it would have been illuminating. The first editor who wished to help me 'Mike Turnbull' proposed I submit this same photo for 'Photo of the Day' and at that time Mike uploaded many hundreds of my images to Wikimedia Commons and I do not know what became of those images, which I voluntarily donated. Thank you for your kind thoughts to help Valereee. I would like to be unblocked obviously but I feel it isn't worth my effort. Keep up the good work Valereee, you are a star in a dark void.EddieLeVisco (talk) 19:27, 2 March 2021 (UTC)EddieLeVisco (talk) 19:26, 2 March 2021 (UTC)185.60.5.17 (talk) 19:23, 2 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To be honest, I don't think EddieLeVisco needs formal restrictions – just to recognize that we're unpaid volunteers who are editing Wikipedia in our spare time. Yelling at unpaid volunteers doesn't make them work harder – it just makes them want to stop volunteering. I worked kind of hard to get Compassion in World Farming to at least a presentable state. I never heard of it before, and (obviously) I have no connection to it. The article was nominated for deletion, but it seemed like an encyclopedic topic to me. Nobody else has touched that article in years, really. Pretty much everything that you see in that article was written by me in February 2014 – a little more than 7 years ago! But that's the downside of Wikipedia; it's not staffed by professional researchers, so if some random dude on the internet thinks your article is "good enough" once it's no longer in danger of being deleted, that could very well be where it stays for the next 10 years. If someone wants to update it, they can. Or, if they have a conflict of interest, they can post to the article's talk page and make it very easy for me to address their concerns ("Please add this BBC article to the article, which details our major activities in 2021 so far. The proposed wording is: 'In 2021, CIWF protested 3 things and won 2 major awards.' Thank you." NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:23, 2 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hmm, if NRP doesn't feel formal editing restrictions are needed then I will instead ask Eddie whether you think you are confident of your ability to "drop the stick" in circumstances that you can't either improve an article at the pace you desire (either yourself or by readily willing others)? I'm actually looking for a serious answer with self-insight here, and don't require (or want) oaths to an impossible standard - none of us are perfect when handling issues like this, because they're not ideal circumstances. But as an unblocked editor, taking care early on is all the more useful. To note - this is more on whether it would be safer for all involved to unblock with editing limits, rather than whether to unblock at all. Nosebagbear (talk) 19:52, 2 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for your time :@Nosebagbear: I will seriously "drop the stick". The self-insight you seek from me is that I will not disrespect editors, nor call on them to change or edit the article page about me. I have learnt my lessons here, communicating with the editors, and now have a fairly good grasp of what you do and can/cannot edit. I now also understand, more or less, what the function of Wikipedia is, and that it is not important, necessary or always possible to have the article constantly and factually, brought up to date. Originally it was important to me to have the article complete, and include every one of my achievements. Now I have come to accept that it will never be complete and that in fact, it shouldn't matter so much to me. For example, only 4 of my books have been mentioned in the article, out of 58, but now I realize, as with every aspect of Wikipedia, that every fact has to be verified and at least a third or fourth party source needed. My frustrations have revolved around, approximately, 8 out of 10 editors making more problems when taking it upon themselves to 'edit' and I felt the entire situation to be counter productive and defeatist. But now I put this down to the editors commitment to achieving the very best result they can, and what I saw as pedantic behaviour, is in fact professionalism and upholding WP's very high level of quality. In the future I will only write here, to either contest an addition to the article that I feel is incorrect or to ask an editor if they can edit the article to include any recent facts that are significant and even then, I will only make one 'ask' at any one time and no more than that. I hope this is transparent enough of me for you to see that I am apologetic and will not need any rope to hang myself with as the lessons have been learned. EddieLeVisco (talk) 20:25, 2 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For the record, I uploaded 140 pictures, which thanks to them being categorised on Commons, are now visible in one place, already linked above by valereee, namely ALL the available photographs by Ed Gold. It would be a trivial matter to use the existing OTRS ticket to upload more images through my account and I would be prepared to do so if other editors wanted them for articles. Sadly, hardly any of these have been used despite my drawing them to the attention of some Projects. Yuendumu Gold 01.jpg could simply go in Yuendumu if anyone were bothered to put it there. Note that I had a disagreement with some editors at Talk:Ed Gold. I said there that as he is a photographer and these images illustrate his work it is natural that readers would expect to see some in that article. For example, Karimeh Abbud has a whole gallery of out-of-copyright images. Unusually for a BLP, we have correctly licensed images of the work and could include them in a gallery like this, say at the bottom of the article, with a suitable title such as "Portraiture by Gold*.
Others disagreed and stated that each individual photograph would have to be notable, which I found ridiculous since all agree that Gold himself is notable, or there would be no article! Mike Turnbull (talk) 18:41, 3 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think they're saying that they have to be notable - there isn't a photo notability rule, for example. However, usually photos do have to be "tied" to something in the article (in content terms), though there's certainly exceptions. If you're willing to do some textual work, one possibility would be to look for secondary source reviews of some of the photoexhibitions. Where they exist, you could write a few lines about it, then add an applicable photo. Nosebagbear (talk) 19:20, 3 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(talk page watcher) @Michael D. Turnbull: I wouldn't cite the Karimeh Abbud as an example of what to do here because things like WP:OTHERIMAGE, WP:OTHERCONTENT, and WP:OTHERSTUFF. The nature of Wikipedia means that lots of edits are made over the years that probably shouldn't have been made in the first place. The editors making those edits are for the most part doing so in good faith, but in many cases the edits aren't improvements. The nature of Wikipedia also means that sometimes many of these edits can go unnoticed for years without being properly assessed. Going unnoticed for so long doesn't make them "good edits", it just means that nobody noticed them. Many times these articles only get noticed when someone (like you did above) tries to use an article in an "other stuff" type of argument. The Abbud article has a number of problems that need to be addressed, and one of these (at least in my opinion) is that big image gallery; not only is it out of place layout wise, it's also not really in accordance (again in my opinion) with WP:NOTGALLERY.Ideally, there should be a contextual connection between image and article content that just goes beyond the image being something created by the subject of the article. The image should support what's written in the article and this can be done either directly (with content specifically about the image itself) or indirectly (with content about a special technique, style, event, etc. that the image illustrates). The problem with image galleries (like the one in the Abbud articles and the one you seem to be describing above that was in the Gold article), particularly large image galleries, is that the relationship between article content and image is almost never clear and the gallery has almost a photo album feel to it. It is much better (again in my opinion) to select a few significant images from the subjects career that correspond (more or less) directly to what's written in the article and place those images near the relevant article content. Any images which are not used can be then linked to using a link like Template:Commons category because the role of Commons is actually to be sort of a giant photo album. When dealing with images and before adding them to any Wikipedia articles, the first thing to figure out is whether the image is licensed as non-free content or free content. Non-free content has it's own separate policy that goes beyond WP:IUP and this makes such images much harder to use; it's still possible to use non-free images, but there are more restrictions placed on their use than there are placed on free ones. So, it's much easier to work with freely licensed images for licensing reasons, but that fact that something is freely licensed doesn't mean (again in my opinion) that it's OK to automatically assume that it can and should be added to as many articles as possible in as many ways as possible.Perhaps some of Gold's images have been particularly acclaimed (i.e. won awards) or otherwise have received coverage in the reliable sources. If there are any of those, then they would be the ones I'd first consider for inclusion. Perhaps there are some that help illustrate any specific technique or style he's known for and these could also be considered for inclusion. There might even be some images that cover both "types", which would kill two birds with one stone, and these might be worth discussing. Images are like textual content in that when any disagreements over their use in article usually needs to be resolved via WP:DR and it's the WP:ONUS of the person wanting to add the image to establish a consensus for doing so. Except for copyright related issues like non-free content, disagreements over image use is not too different from a disagreement over article text. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:12, 3 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you so much to Mike Turnbull and Valereee for your humanity and support. Mike Turbull's line: "Others disagreed and stated that each individual photograph would have to be notable, which I found ridiculous since all agree that Gold himself is notable, or there would be no article!" is why I got myself blocked in the first place. Because of my frustration at the ridiculous. I don't want to say too much here now as I have promised to drop the stick, but since this is still an ongoing subject I would like to point out that it is because of conflicting editor's objections and (seemingly) intentional problem making that caused me to be vandalistic. Now, all I can say is that you must collectively do what you think is best. I have over 120 newspaper stories on my website that citate most of the work I have made, that has yet to be mentioned on the WP article about my work. This is why I am frustrated and why I now publish a commercial quarterly magazine for sale in the UK and overseas, so that I can get my work seen, as it isn't being seen here at WP/WM Commons. But I have learned that it is no longer important that I have been deemed to be 'notable', despite there being a lack still of proof of why I am considered notable. Why notable? Because of the meaningful images I have taken? What images? I rest my case. Please don't block me again for saying this, I am not being rude or disrespectful. I understand that to type into the article that I have done something, you need verifiable proof, well, I have that proof, and also all of my work has reasoning behind it, maybe not academic reasoning, but nonetheless still notable. So why not use it for others to gain something from? I am happy for all of my work to go to Wikimedia Commons as it is worthwhile.EddieLeVisco (talk) 23:14, 3 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Valereee: Dear Valereee, I hope you are well. It has been such a long time since I have written here that I am not sure if I am doing this correctly. I have since been unblocked and I am no longer an angry man but working very hard at my quarterly magazine, that is now on Issue 07. I am here to ask you for some help please. Issue 07 of Positive Futures magazine: https://www.mmslondon.co.uk/shop/p/positive-futures-magazine will be a special issue about Ukraine. Usually this commercial magazine, which is utterly beautiful and worthy of collection and mention on the Wikipedia article about me, documents living 'off-grid' but Issue 07 will use photos I took in Ukraine in 2011 when I was invited by 'Weekly UA' media to document the Welsh heritage of Donetsk. I am using photos from Kyiv and Donetsk, from 2011, but right now am interviewing people in Kyiv, Lyiv and Donetsk about what is happening there and it is now being revealed to me that the mainstream media is not reporting the truth about what is happening and why Putin invaded. I can give more details if you wish but that is not why I am here, it is not to kick the hornets nest, but instead to ask you for help as I am trying to track down a man in Donetsk, a famous blacksmith, to further interview him following me taking photos of him in 2011. A search of his name Sergey Fedorovich Kaspruk brings up a Wikipedia Commons page: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Sergey_Kaspruk which shows, to my sadness, that he died only recently on 07 February 2022. I am writing because 1) his death is recorded on Wikipedia Commons so 2) I ask all of you good and thoughtful editors to help me find out if this is really true, and what his cause of death is. Please help me, because if this news is recorded on Wikipedia Commons, then it must be true, and of course I am saddened to hear of his passing. Not only was he a lovely man, but he gave me an entire afternoon in 2011, to be photographed and show me his work, explain his Cossack heritage, and drive me and my translator out into the countryside around Donetsk. I was really hoping to find him online and interview him for Issue 07 of Positive Futures, so need confirmation of his passing, so I need not search for him any further. Even though I knew him only for an afternoon, such was our meeting that it left a profound memory and I will be happy to share my photos of him with you. Also, I am concerned that the truths I am uncovering about the war may well put others in danger and perhaps even myself? The British Library is now collecting my magazine, and I have newspaper proof of its existence, so wonder if you might mention it in the Wiki article about me yet? And please know that I am truly repentant about my earlier rantings that almost got me blocked. Life now finds me grey, aching and feeling old living out of a tent all year round, which I do not complain about, as it is my choice to be an artist. Enough of my waffle, what of Sergey Fedorovich Kaspruk please anyone? EddieLeVisco (talk) 17:04, 28 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Mike Turnbull (talk) and other good editors, thanks for your continued kind help and input. I am about to go to Europe for 2 months to get more material for my quarterly magazine 'Positive Futures': www.newsstand.co.uk/positivefutures. It has been going since 01 November 2020 and I am still regularly publishing it on time every 3 months (7 issues have now been published with No.8 out on 01 August).
I am writing to ask if anything else can be added to the article of my work about this magazine please? Many people comment that there is no proper mention of 'Positive Futures' magazine on the Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ed_Gold
The magazine is now a registered limited company - Company number: 13565544 and obviously it is a serious and professional publication, now with 120 pages and the most recent issue is about Ukraine with 9 current interviews which are most compelling.
Please can you suggest how Positive Futures magazine can be integrated into the Wikipedia page article of my work because each issue has its own ISBN, and now ISSN number and is collected by The British Library. (Also, on my website I have some 60 publications that have been officially published with ISBN's. Why are only 4 of my books mentioned on the Wikipedia article about my work please? As I have 60 professional publications. The first 3 publications on the Wikipedia article about my work are commercially published but the others here: www.edgold.co.uk/shop are equally relevant).
Please help and thank you so much, all of you. EdEddieLeVisco (talk) 08:51, 8 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've added a brief mention of the magazine for starters. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:21, 8 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you very much Cordless Larry. Would it be possible to put a blue hypertext link for 'Positive Futures' to https://store.magalleria.co.uk/products/positive-futures?variant=37125952733351 ? This is the ONE and only shop that the magazine is available from anywhere. It's a reliable specialist magazine shop in the city of Bath, UK and they really support the magazine. It should be for sale via Magalleria for a long time in the future. I will publish Issue No.8 on 01 August, so I am still working hard at producing it. Thank you. EddieLeVisco (talk) 13:44, 29 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Dear Sirs/Ma'am. I hope you are all well. I am writing to kindly ask how a person can get a Wikipedia page please. Today I met at a corporate meeting a gentleman who has an 'Everipedia' page: https://everipedia.org/wiki/lang_en/daniel-shakhani and he would like to have a Wikipedia page for himself. I said I would ask you what is involved. Does a third party who is unknown to him have to put forward his name as a person whose work is 'notable'? Thank you for your time EddieLeVisco (talk) 17:17, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
He has to be notable per WP:N, WP:NPERSON, etc. I looked at the Everipedia page, and none of the references there helps at all, they seem to be pictures and his social media. And something my virus program don't think I should look at. This [1] gets no hits, of course Google doesn't know all, but it's a hint. Per WP:GNG, what are the 3 best sources you can think of? Also, he should consider Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing, perhaps take a look at the Steve Kirsch article (he's not that happy about it). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:43, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Inclusion of more published books to article[edit]
Dear Sirs/Ma'am, 4 of my published books are listed on the WP page about me, Ed Gold. I have published many more books than this, with ISBN / ISSN numbers, so the list is at present, incomplete. Is there anyway please, to include more publications so the books named (and also magazines) are up to date. Thank you EddieLeVisco (talk) 06:43, 12 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hey, Eddie. What we like to see is discussions of the books in reliable sources, such as reviews. If you can find them, you can add them to the article talk in a new section at Talk:Ed Gold. Valereee (talk) 13:20, 12 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Dear Sirs/Ma'am, in 2011 I was invited to Ukraine by media company 'Weekly UA' to document Welsh business man John Hughes' legacy in Donetsk (see Wikipedia article about my work which mentions about my visit to Donetsk) [John Hughes has a posthumous Wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Hughes_(businessman)].
and 3) I just published to YouTube a 3 minute trailer about the Australian man who has been in Ukraine for 30 years, and who has started up a circular economy and pyrolysis plant in Kaharlyk. If you would like to view the trailer, see here: [5]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZLG6QywbeTM
Are you able to include all of the above 3 points to the Wikipedia article about my work please? Also, I am trying to get national and international press interested in this story, despite the powers that be, not wanting to publish positive stories, with answers to the world's plastic waste problems (The oil companies control everything). The Colchester Gazette will do a follow up story soon about my visit to Ukraine, even though British Citizens are advized by the UK Foreign Commonwealth Office not to travel to Ukraine due to the Russian invasion. Do any of you have contacts in the press at all? This is a worthwhile story and deserves publicity.
Hello —valereee and Nosebagbear and other helpful editors. Are you there please - and can you respond to my query, above, from 21 June 2023? (The Colchester Gazette will be doing a follow up story soon about the pyrolysis project here in Kaharlyk, Ukraine. I am leaving Kaharlyk tomorrow, 30 June for a meeting in Kyiv, and then will ride back to the UK this Saturday. In August 'Suspilne Media', Ukraine's Public Broadcasting company want me to return so they can film me hosting a TV documentary about the Kramatorsk shellings)EddieLeVisco (talk) 07:00, 29 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hey, Eddie! I'll take a look. For future reference, it's best to post this at the talk page of the article. Sorry, no contacts in the press. Valereee (talk) 09:58, 29 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Valereee Thank you Valeree, it's been a while since I wrote here, please tell me how to post at the Talk page (I thought this was the talk page?). Thanks for taking a look. To re-cap. I have 2 media stories about Ukraine and a 3 minute trailer. One more paper story will be written soon by The Colchester Gazette, as a follow-up. I'm leaving Ukraine this Saturday for the UK and should be back in a month to be on camera for a documentary TV program by Suspilne Media about the Kramatorsk shellings which killed children EddieLeVisco (talk) 11:37, 29 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You can post at Talk:Ed Gold using this template (Just copy the whole thing, paste it into a new section there, and replace the stuff in ALL CAPS with whatever you're suggesting we add or change, the reason for the change, the references supporting the changes):
((request edit))
Specific text to be added or removed: ADD TEXT HERE
Reason for the change: ADD TEXT HERE
References supporting change: ADD URL AT LEAST
The stuff between the brackets is a template that automatically adds your post to the list of requested edits, which means many other editors will see it. When you simply post a request without the template, your request may or may not ever be even noticed. And using the suggested format makes it easy for other editors to see exactly what you are asking to have done. Valereee (talk) 13:07, 29 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please not I have deleted my website and my domain name (www.edgold.co.uk) now links to my Facebook page where all of my work has been posted: www.facebook.com/ed.gold.5621 EddieLeVisco (talk) 11:28, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hey, Ed! That was written by you, so we'd only be able to use it for noncontroversial biographical facts about you. Birth year or place, etcetera. Valereee (talk) 14:02, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please in future make requests at the article talk. We need to keep such discussion in a single place. Valereee (talk) 14:04, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Valereee Thank you for your replies Valeree. I am sorry, where is the 'article talk' page, please can you direct me, I have looked around and it isn't obvious to me. Also, and I apologize again, I don't follow how the 'Bike magazine' story cannot be published by Wikipedia since it was written by me. Almost all of the stories under 'References' on the article page have been written by me, and just edited by an editor, like at BBC News. Thank you for your help. Ed82.153.27.162 (talk) 06:57, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The talk page for the article is at Talk:Ed Gold. And any articles by you in the article about you should only be used for supplementary noncontroversial biographical facts. If we're using them in other ways, we shouldn't. Valereee (talk) 12:09, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In the Ed Gold article it is written that I rode my motorcycle to Ukraine to document a 'pyrolysis' project. I did, but in fact I rode my motorcycle to Ukraine twice in 3 months in 2023. (It took 6 days riding each way, from UK to Ukraine, so 24 days of riding). The 2nd time I rode back to Ukraine was to star in a movie about the Russian genocide of Ukrainian children. I have online news links here as proof, please can you include to the Wikipedia article? (If you use Google Chrome browser, it should translate the page automatically to English).
Please be careful about what you say to people. Some remarks, such as your addition to Wikipedia:Teahouse can easily be misinterpreted, or viewed as harassment. Wikipedia is a supportive environment, where contributors should feel comfortable and safe while editing. Wikipedia is a volunteer organisation with WP:NODEADLINE, sorry if that's inconvenient for your agenda. Please stop posting the same stuff there and accusing editors of being useless Joseph2302 (talk) 08:30, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you purposefully and blatantly harass a fellow Wikipedian, as you did at Wikipedia:Teahouse. Asking for only female editors to help is sexism. And please stop spamming up the Teahouse with your incessant requests Joseph2302 (talk) 11:21, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Joseph2302 (talk) 09:21, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
