User talk:Francewhoa/Archived 2016

July 2016

2016 Democratic National Committee email leak

Hello, I'm FallingGravity. I wanted to let you know that one or more external links you added to 2016 Democratic National Committee email leak have been removed because they seemed to be inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page, or take a look at our guidelines about links. Thank you. FallingGravity (talk) 01:24, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your contribution & the notice FallingGravity. Appreciated :) --Francewhoa (talk) 01:53, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

For future reference, remember that links to people's personal information should generally be avoided. If you find a source that reports on the leaked info you can add that source. FallingGravity (talk) 03:26, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. Make sense. It's more appropriate for an encyclopedia. I was assuming that specific information was appropriate in Wikipedia because it comes from public servants during the delivery of their public services. Thus publicly owned information and appropriate in an encyclopedia. But in that case, after reconsideration I realized I was wrong. I missed the parts of that information which includes personal information from non-public servants. Which is more appropriate outside an encyclopedia. Good reporters or others sources external to Wikipedia might have options to both protect such information while keeping publicly owned information accessible and free. Thanks FallingGravity for the suggested workaround :) Francewhoa (talk) 05:40, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Guccifer 2.0 and Democratic National Committee cyber attacks

The opening statement of the lead in this article have turned out to be very confusing and inaccurate. I changed the lead to chronological order to separate out the facts. Here is the lead as it was: In 2015 and 2016, computer hackers compromised the Democratic National Committee (DNC) computer network, leading to a data breach. The source(s) was attributed to various individuals and or groups. Including but not limited to the hacker "Guccifer 2.0", and two competing, yet affiliated, Russian intelligence hacking groups. The American cybersecurity firm that removed the hacking programs had already encountered and named each group, called them Cozy Bear and the other Fancy Bear.

First, the attack has not been attributed to Guccifer 2.0 - he attributed the attack to himself. Evidence shows the attack by the two Russian intell groups is strongly supported. Much less so is Guccifer 2.0's contention. In any case, the two Russoian itelligence groups were discovered first and Guccifer 2.0's claims followed after that. It is not accurate to conflate Guccifer 2.0 with the two Intell groups at this time. And the way the lead is written above it is not clear that Cozy Bear and Fancy Bear are attributed to the two Russian Intell groups - not Guccifer 2.0. So the above lead mixes everything up (or conflates everything) in such a way to give Guciffer 2.0 the first chronological event and indicates that he is one or both of the bears - and so on.

It seems to me that because you have created an article for Guccifer 2.0 that you are trying to give this hacker prominence in this article before he actually shows up in the timeline. If this is the case then please do not do this. He now has a prominent place in the lead, and this is more appropriate factually and chronologically. If you are intending to change the lead in such a way as it is similar to the above then please discuss it first here or on the article talk page. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 21:32, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Just so you know, there are other behaviors as well, that lead me to think you may be trying to give this person prominence in this article, so more notice can be given to the article you created - Guccifer 2.0.---Steve Quinn (talk)

Hi Steve Quinn :) Thanks for your wiki contributions and expressing your concerns

Good idea about sorting in chronological order :) I agree is would further clarify the information. As you know Guccifer 2.0 self-claimed the hack on June 30, 2016. Which The Hill (newspaper) confirmed. Would you like to resume this discussion on that article talk? Other volunteers might be interested to contribute.

As for my intent. When creating the "Guccifer 2.0" wiki page my intent was to add some disambiguation between "Guccifer 2.0" "Guccifer". I noticed lots of confusion about that in the corporate mass media. As you know there are allegedly two different hackers or group of hacker(s). This was my intent. My second intent was and still is to try to contribute accurate and balanced information. Notice the "balanced" or "re-balanced" comments in my edits. Those are my two main intents. Nothing more or less than that. Feel really free to interpret my intents any other way though.

BTW if someone else has any concerns about my intents. I invite them to visit my Wikipedia user page were I listed my main intents and interests back in October 2015. For convenience here is an extract:

• Community owned and supported projects
• Free-access
• Free-content
• Governments
• Agencies
• Organizations
• Not-for-profit
• NGOs
• Unions
• Volunteers

With Infinite Wikipedia Love :) Francewhoa (talk) 22:13, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

@Francewhoa: Yes I think nmoving this discussion to the article talk page is best. If you want to open with anything - feel free to do so. Unfortunately, I ill not be able to participate any more on this article today. I have spent four or more hours involved with this article already today. So, probably tomorrow. And since we are on Wikipedia - tomorrow could be today - depending on the time zone . We don't need to know each other's time zone - I am saying I'll probably return in 24 or more hours if that is OK. I hope you keep going with the Guciffer 2.0 article - I have a couple of soures that could really help you expand that article. I can post those "tomorrow". ---Steve Quinn (talk) 23:16, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

OK I opened general discussion over on the talk page - just click this link: [1]. Steve Quinn (talk) 23:32, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

August 2016

Wikipedia and copyright

Hello Francewhoa. All or some of your addition(s) to William Binney (U.S. intelligence official) has had to be removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material without permission from the copyright holder. While we appreciate your contributing to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from your sources to avoid copyright or plagiarism issues here.

• You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
• Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
• Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Wikipedia:Copyrights. You may also want to review Wikipedia:Copy-paste.
• If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. However, there are steps that must be taken to verify that license before you do. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
• In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are public domain or compatibly licensed), it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at the help desk before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Wikipedia:Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
• Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you can, but please follow the steps in Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 20:33, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Diannaa :) Thanks for your message and your numerous Wikipedia contributions. I'm new to many of those agreements. I'll read those with great interest. I value those and understand their importance. I agree with the copyrighted material agreement. I'm happy to try to comply with those agreements in my future edits :) Francewhoa (talk) 21:51, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

October 2016

1RR

Please keep in mind that all subjects related to US politics are generally under 1RR restriction according to discretionary sanctions by Arbcom. If in doubt, please ask one of admins. Thanks, My very best wishes (talk) 03:13, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi My very best wishes :) Thanks for your message and your contributions to Wikipedia.

I'm assuming you're a volunteer and Wikipedia contributor like me? Could you please clarify your message? I'm assuming you have a concern? This is news to me. Would you like to discuss it? I would be happy to discuss with you any issue toward a potential consensus or resolution. If you have a concern, could you please include link(s) to the Wikipedia content you're referring to? Such as documentation, edit version history, or article(s). If you want to.

Your message came across as a warning but without your invitation to discuss your concern if any and if you want to. Was that your intention?

You wrote "all subjects related to US politics are generally under 1RR restriction according to discretionary sanctions by Arbcom"

No worry I will not try to bully into silence your contributions. How about you, are you going to try to bully others Wikipedia contributors contributions into silence? In other words, I hope you feel really free to contribute to Wikipedia. Within the community Wikipedia agreements.

If you will go on the road toward bullying into silence others' contributions I'll let you go there alone. Sorry.

For those not familiar with "bullying into silence" there is some information at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullying

For those not familiar with 1RR, here is a related Wikipedia page:

• "It is better to seek help in addressing the issue than to engage in edit warring. When disagreement becomes apparent, one, both, or all participants should cease warring and discuss the issue on the talk page, or seek help at appropriate venues." [2].

For those not familiar with ArbCom and "topic-ban and page-ban procedure", here is a related Wikipedia page:

• "The proposed policy, Wikipedia:Discretionary sanctions, was discussed but has not received community consensus as it is felt that a system whereby an Admin imposes a ban without consulting the community is open to abuse" [3].

With infinite Wikipedia-Love ♥

Francewhoa (talk) 22:07, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I did not wait for your response on article talk page [4]. But it appears that you are already familiar with all that matters, which is a good. My very best wishes (talk) 13:08, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

My very best wishes :) Apology accepted sir/ma'am. Thanks for clarifying and for the link to that talk page. I'll try to read it when I'm free. As you know I'm volunteer contributor so my response time varies widely from days to months depending on my current workload. Francewhoa (talk) 20:51, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

November 2016

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

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

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

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

Thanks for the invite MediaWiki :) Sounds great but my volunteer time is currently full. I'll keep that in mind for future voting. Francewhoa (talk) 00:45, 22 November 2016 (UTC)