User talk:ReidLark1n

Welcome!

Hi ReidLark1n! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:56, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:56, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Biographies of living persons

ReidLark1n, please have a look at the biographies of living persons policy, especially the section about restoring deleted content.

You are required to find a consensus on the article's talk page, Talk:Jamie Margolin, instead of restoring the material yourself. If you continue restoring the disputed material without having found a clear consensus for inclusion, you may be blocked from editing and/or topic banned from editing biographical articles, without further warning.

Please additionally note that the biographies of living persons policy applies to all pages including talk pages.

Best regards,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:00, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there. Thank you for the threat of blocking me from editing pages. I believe I made a prima facie case about why that section is accurate (see the source(s)) and several users have undone and restored the article. I believe instead of threatening me, as an experienced Wikipedia user, you now have the burden to explain why that section is "contentious." It is verifiably accurate that they were "accused," not they they "committed" and act. I hope you like Wikipedia and decide to stay too! ReidLark1n (talk) 23:09, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLPCRIME seems relevant. I don't judge in this regard; all I see is an edit war about a crime accusation, so I keep it out of the article until a consensus is found. I do not (need to) contribute to that consensus, and the burden to find one is on you. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:14, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Accused does not mean convicted. Do you believe that the topic is not a public figure? That seems to be the dispositive question. I agree that I need to form a consensus, but I only reverted the edit once. However, threatening someone seems to place the burden on you. Here are some sources, reliable or not, that at least prove the "accusation."

https://nyunews.com/news/2021/10/20/jamie-margolin-emma-tang-sexual-assault-allegations/

https://www.yahoo.com/video/aapi-activist-climate-activist-accuse-230055269.html

https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/nyscef/ViewDocument?docIndex=kkKx9zgobOECUysUF5dmfA== ReidLark1n (talk) 23:22, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The content-related discussion including the list of sources is probably best discussed at Talk:Jamie Margolin; thanks for creating a section there. Regarding threats, I was more concerned about taking action without a clear warning than providing unnecessary warnings, so I have provided a clear warning. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:30, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - the tone was just unclear of your message. I am slightly just annoyed this page hasn't been protected yet due to all the vandalism. ReidLark1n (talk) 23:32, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The tone was, probably completely unnecessarily, stern, as I seemed to deal with an account created for the sole purpose of damaging the public view of a living person. Regarding page protection, the page is currently semi-protected and had been extended-confirmed protected a few years ago (protection log). ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:35, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Topic alert

You have recently made edits related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. This is a standard message to inform you that post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. O3000, Ret. (talk) 13:49, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright of photos

Hi I notice that it’s often stated my photos don’t comply with the copyright policy I was wondering because I am in a Facebook group with Tanya and she provided me a highly publicized family photo to use for Wikipedia how can I prove that I have the brown family’s permission to use said photo of Nicole it isn’t the one previously uploaded Thatoneguy519 (talk) 00:30, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The image passed the bot check because it was a blurry picture of a picture. If you can get the original image uploaded on Creative Commons then it can be used. ReidLark1n (talk) 00:14, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]