Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Janessian (talk | contribs) at 02:45, 18 January 2025 (→Some advice: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

January 2025

Your recent edits could give Misplaced Pages contributors the impression that you may consider legal or other "off-wiki" action against them, or against Misplaced Pages itself. Please note that making such threats on Misplaced Pages is strictly prohibited under Misplaced Pages's policies on legal threats and civility. Users who make such threats may be blocked. If you have a dispute with the content of any page on Misplaced Pages, please follow the proper channels for dispute resolution. Please be sure to comment on content, not contributors, and where possible make specific suggestions for changes supported by reliable independent sources and focusing especially on verifiable errors of fact. Thank you. Skywatcher68 (talk) 19:37, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Knitsey. I noticed that you recently removed content from Murder of Wong Chik Yeok without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Misplaced Pages with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Knitsey (talk) 19:52, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 19:59, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Insanityclown1 (talk) 20:19, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Please do not remove information from articles, as you did to Killing_of_Wong_Chik_Yeok. Misplaced Pages is not censored, and content is not removed on the sole grounds of perceived offensiveness. Please discuss this issue on the article's talk page to reach consensus rather than continuing to remove the disputed material. If the content in question involves images, you also have the option to configure Misplaced Pages to hide the images that you may find offensive. Thank you. Insanityclown1 (talk) 17:01, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, Janessian. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on the page Murder of Wong Chik Yeok, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for article subjects for more information. We ask that you:

• avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization, clients, or competitors;
• propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{edit COI}} template), including links or details of reliable sources that support your suggestions;
• disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest § How to disclose a COI);
• avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Misplaced Pages:Spam § External link spamming);
• do your best to comply with Misplaced Pages's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Misplaced Pages:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicizing, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. Skywatcher68 (talk) 19:39, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Consent is not required for images

Contrary to your statements, consent is not required for images. Copyright law is relevant, of course. See Misplaced Pages:Image_use_policy#Privacy_rights for policy on this. PhilKnight (talk) 20:06, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

I was about to ask the same question - is there a copyright issue with these images? Because otherwise consent isn't really an issue. Simonm223 (talk) 20:08, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

I believe the content is nonfree, but it looks to comply with wp:nfcc. Insanityclown1 (talk) 20:18, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

of course you need consent to copy and paste from news articles and then disseminate this article on a global platforms, dragging the names of family members through the mud again. Any form of dissemination that tarnishes the reputation of any individual is not right. It is up to the person who disseminate the information to prove to court that ALL the information is correct, and that it is for the public good that U publish it or U can defend it by saying it is your opinion or you can don't name names. Unless you are just circulating crime articles U came up with within a private email group, no intention of tarnishing the reputation of the persons U have named in all the articles. People can lose jobs during interview over your articles. Janessian (talk) 13:50, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Collaboration with other editors

I do not know what may be the merits or demerits of your campaign to remove images from articles. I do know, however, that Misplaced Pages works by collaboration and cooperation, not by individual editors angrily turning against any other editors that they disagree with. If, for example, you think that Skywatcher68 has done something which you think would have been better not done, then explain on their talk page, in a friendly and civil way, why you think that; don't indulge in harassing them by posting a whole string of similar angry messages to their talk page, one after another. Similar considerations apply to the messages you have posted to other editors, but you seem to have gone overboard with Skywatcher68. I offer you the following advice. My experience over the years is that editors who cooperate with other editors and are civil to them, even when they disagree, are likely to achieve at least a significant part of what they set out to achieve; editors who treat any disagreements as things over which to fight, very often achieve none of what they set out to achieve, and before long get blocked from editing by administrators, to put an end to their disruption. I suggest that you think carefully about that, as the way you are going a block may not be far off. JBW (talk) 20:24, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi I am not interested in news reporting. I am not interested in working with editors. I only want the right thing to be done, which is to take down the photos of all the deceased in the crime articles which you guys have been circulating - half truths because a lot of if is copy and paste without due investigation. This is not fair to the deceased and not fair to the readers. A global reader will read it, not knowing that it is not the complete truth. Janessian (talk) 13:45, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Misplaced Pages's policy on edit warring. The thread is Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Janessian reported by User:Insanityclown1 (Result: ). Thank you. Insanityclown1 (talk) 20:28, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Misplaced Pages's policy on edit warring. The thread is Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Janessian reported by User:Insanityclown1 (Result: ). Thank you. Insanityclown1 (talk) 19:18, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

January 2025

January 2025

There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Insanityclown1 (talk) 05:44, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Some advice

Thank you for your posts at Talk:Killing of Wong Chik Yeok. As you will know if you have followed the discussion on the administrators' noticeboard, I was intending to extend the block to a wider one, but since you now seem to be prepared to discuss matters in a civil way, I have held back on blocking.

I fully understand your reasons for concern about the photographs, and I can see a good case for preferring to remove them, but your only chance of possibly achieving that is to get other editors to see your point of view and agree with it, which you would not have achieved by the means you were using, which was merely antagonising editors.

I very strongly urge you not to make personal comments about editors, including making statements about what you think are their reasons for what they have done or said. There are several reasons for that, including the following two. (1) Doing so is likely to turn editors' attention onto your behaviour, rather than the issues you are trying to raise. That means that people are less likely to think about and take on board the points you are trying to make about the article content. (2) Posting negative personal comments about editors may lead to your being totally blocked from editing for "personal attacks". That is so whether you personally regard "attacks" as an appropriate description of you comments or not.

By all means continue to discuss the issues involved, and try to persuade editors to your point of view, but please bear in mind this advice on how to do so. JBW (talk) 12:13, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi, I never attacked your characters. In fact, I applaud your effort in cutting and pasting from different avenues. If it is your coping strategy, I respect it. But a friend from Germany has alerted me that it is illegal to post images of deceased without permission..in legal terms, it is called copyright. Furthermore, the way you are reporting crime which is merely copy and pasting from newspaper articles is very childish, is not beneficial to your readers because it is not the whole truth. A good crime reporter will get his or her hands dirty in order to cover the whole truth. I am sure true crime shows from police will be willing to take you in. Your circle of friends kept going on and on about people making threats and is aggressive. No one is aggressive. No one is threatening you. A threat is if you do not comply, I am going to harm you. No one is harming you. I am merely pointing out that such manners of crime reporting is not right especially in my country where we are protected by false news reporting and defamation claims. The families of the deceased could choose to sue the person who spread the news on a global platform instead of the original sources, usually a reporter. Go check out famous cases if U r from my country. You are so young. You don't want to land yourself in such trouble by helping people in other countries write crime. Go and be a police inspector after army. I know this is out of line but this is the only way I can communicate with you to tell you how I feel for you. At the very least, removed all the pictures of the crime stories. Janessian (talk) 13:32, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

If you continue to comment on other editor's background or motives, you will find yourself blocked from editing the encyclopedia very soon. I've partially blocked you from the article so that you could discuss the changes you want to apply in the talk page. Please familiarize yourself to our policies and guidelines. Isabelle Belato 14:04, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Like I have mentioned earlier, I have no interest in editing but I want to see the right things being done. If you guys are interested in crime reporting, you have to conduct interviews with people. You cannot simply cut and paste from other sources without verifying if it is true. After reading your edition and also from the sources, I noticed that the original author also added his own nuances in order to make the article more compelling. This misleads readers into thinking that this is the whole truth which in actual fact, not verified. Janessian (talk) 14:15, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

I am expecting this to be my last attempt to help you. I hope that it will be my last attempt because it succeeds, rather than because it fails.

In answer to my message above, which offered you advice, you said various things addressed to "you". It is clear in the context that that was a plural "you", intended to refer to a number of people, but it is also clear that it was intended to include me. In fact I have not done any of the things you mentioned, nor do I hold the views which you ascribe to me (among others). The people you call "your circle of friends" are not my friends; as far as I recall I had never encountered either of the two people most involved here before, and now that I have encountered them, I significantly disagree with the opinions of at least one of them on the issues involved. If you had chosen to concentrate on discussing the issues involved, you might well have found me supporting at least part of your case. Instead, any time or effort I might have put into that is devoted to dealing not with the issues concerning the article, but with the issues concerning you and your approach to other editors.

I don't know what country you are in, nor do I care. However, the Misplaced Pages servers are in the United States, and subject to United States copyright law. I personally do not approve of United States copyright law; it allows use of material subject to copyright in many circumstances where I think it shouldn't. I am also not a lover of Misplaced Pages's copyright policy; although it is more restrictive than United States copyright law, it is still far more liberal than I would like. However, whatever you and I may think, we have to work in accordance with how things are, and the laws both in your country (wherever that is) and in Germany are irrelevant. (Incidentally, is your friend in Germany a lawyer? If not, you should bear in mind that there are many millions of people who think they know what copyright is, but actually don't. We get them on Misplaced Pages all the time.)

As I said above, I don't know what country you are in, nor do I care. However, you have made a statement about where you think another editor is. As far as I know, that editor has never said on Misplaced Pages what country they are in. Misplaced Pages has a policy of confidentiality for editors, and unless that editor has posted information about their whereabouts, it is not permitted to reveal such information. If in fact they have said so then state here when and where on Misplaced Pages they have done so, and if not then don't post such information again. For the present I have removed your claim, but it can be restored if you can show that the editor has made the information available.

You will not encourage anyone to support your case by posting claims which anyone who spends one minute checking your editing history can see are false. For example, "Do it again, I will seek the help from police to stop you" is a threat to have action taken against the person it is addressed to, and claiming that you have not threatened anyone us absurd.

If you are to have any chance at all of getting any success at all in what you are trying to achieve, you need to stop commenting on the editors concerned, and instead comment only on the issues.

I have put a significant amount of time writing this message. I could have much more quickly and easily just blocked you outright. I have chosen instead to post this message, in one final attempt to help you to continue to edit. It is very likely that what I have said won't be welcome to you, but I offer it in the hope that you will take note of it, and change your ways, so that you can continue to edit. If you do so, as I have tried to explain above, it is possible that you may manage to achieve at least part of what you are hoping for. If you continue in the same way as before, it is virtually certain that all you will achieve is a total block from editing anywhere on Misplaced Pages. It's up to you to choose. JBW (talk) 17:07, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

I have already done what the Wikimedia foundation suggested and also what U guys suggested but my discussion on talk page ended up being deleted instead of receiving replies for a robust discussion. How do you think I will perceive this group of people who are into writing crime? They cannot accept the differing views and their only solution is to delete, revert and the cycle goes on forever. I have also avoided writing your name and your country. Anyway, I believe although you are young, you fully understand my reasons. In this case, please delete the pictures. These victims do not deserve to have their mugshots published, tagged to a sensational story that is not the whole truth. These pictures are offending especially to their families. Janessian (talk) 01:06, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

the mere fact that an image is "offensive" does not constitute sufficient grounds for a deletion of the image. I take issue with what you are saying, as we have told you repeatedly that you need to discuss the changes on the article talk page, not unilaterally delete the images that you don't like. Insanityclown1 (talk) 01:10, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

That's not quite right. The user must "discuss the changes on the article talk page" in a constructive manner. I reverted their last posts to the Talk page because they continued their personal attacks and nonsensical arguments about what should be done. The only reason I haven't converted their block to a sitewide block is because of the last post by JBW. Personally, I see no reason to let this user continue to edit Misplaced Pages.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:33, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi Bbb23, I do not treat Nelson like an enemy. I know he has just entered NS and might be feeling stressed about it. It came from a place of concern. I do not want him to get into a huge mountain of trouble so I am telling him to stop reporting crime citing from news articles because sometimes their content is wrong. When families contact them to correct the error, they will then publish an apology. Most of the time, family of homicide survivors are in so much grief that they would rather let the matter rest than to contact the news agents to inform them it is wrong. But now there is a group of editors from Misplaced Pages, taking reference and placing mugshots of victims, this behaviour is not honourable of a true editor. It is behaving like a tabloid, producing harming content for the sake of sensation. Crime reporting is of extremely sensitive nature. Families of such deceased might be suffering from depression and even commit suicide after finding out that their loved ones are once again put on a global limelight instead of letting the matter rest. Janessian (talk) 02:45, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

My lawyer has used the word "offending" portion. He advised me to contact Wikimedia to remove the offending portion before taking any further action. So I used the same word. His exact words were "offending portions". Janessian (talk) 02:38, 18 January 2025 (UTC)