Benutzer Diskussion:Operdave10025

Herzlich willkommen in der Wikipedia, Operdave10025!

Ich habe gesehen, dass du dich kürzlich hier angemeldet hast, und möchte dir ein paar Tipps geben, damit du dich in der Wikipedia möglichst schnell zurechtfindest:

Starthilfe • Tutorial für neue Autoren • Hilfe zum Bearbeiten • Häufige Fragen • Alle Hilfeseiten • Fragen stellen • Persönliche Betreuung • Telefonberatung • Wie beteiligen? • Richtlinien

• Sei mutig, aber vergiss bitte nicht, dass andere Benutzer auch Menschen sind. Daher wahre bitte immer einen freundlichen Umgangston, auch wenn du dich mal über andere ärgerst.
• Bitte gib bei Artikelbearbeitungen immer eine Quelle an (am besten als Einzelnachweis).
• Begründe deine Bearbeitung kurz in der Zusammenfassungszeile, sofern du damit vorhandenen Text löschst oder abänderst. Damit vermeidest du, dass andere Benutzer deine Änderung rückgängig machen, weil sie diese nicht nachvollziehen können.
• Nicht alle Themen und Texte sind für eine Enzyklopädie wie die Wikipedia geeignet. Enttäuschungen beim Schreiben von Artikeln kannst du vermeiden, wenn du dir zuvor Wikipedia:Was Wikipedia nicht ist und Wikipedia:Relevanzkriterien anschaust.

Schön, dass du zu uns gestoßen bist – und: Lass dich nicht stressen.

Einen guten Start wünscht dir Dirk Lenke (Diskussion) 17:25, 19. Feb. 2024 (CET)

Wichtige Informationen für mögliche Marketing- oder PR-Konten

Liebe/-r „Operdave10025“,

die Wikipedia ist ein Freiwilligen-Projekt zur Erstellung einer Enzyklopädie. Deine Bearbeitungen als Benutzer:Operdave10025 haben Fragen aufgeworfen: Möglicherweise stellst Du Dich bzw. Dinge Deines Umfeldes mit Werbeabsicht dar oder es gibt Anhaltspunkte, dass du im Auftrag Dritter „bezahlt“ arbeitest (was das genau ist, siehe unten).

Bitte beachte, dass werbliche Texte oder Linkspam gegen die Grundprinzipien der Wikipedia verstoßen. Diese werden schnell gelöscht, was auch in Deinem Fall geschehen sein kann oder soll. Fehlende Relevanz oder nicht ausreichende Artikelqualität können dazukommen.

• Falls es sich um bezahltes Schreiben handelt, musst Du das gemäß der Nutzungsbedingungen dieser Website offenlegen. Ein Auftrag und entweder eine Vergütung (auch immateriell) oder die Ausführung als Arbeitsaufgabe (z. B. in einer Funktion) gehören dazu. Hinter dem Link findest Du, was das genau ist und wie man dies tut.
• Wenn Dein Benutzername nach Punkt 7.1 hier anderen lebender Menschen, Städtenamen, Unternehmen, Organisationen und Vergleichbarem (ggf. in Verbindung mit einem Zusatz, der eine offizielle Funktion suggeriert) entspricht, musst Du dein Benutzerkonto verifizieren (Erklärung dort), um Missbrauch vorzubeugen. Benutzerverifizierung bedeutet nicht, dass Du im Auftrag gegen Vergütung schreibst. Du belegst, dass Du über eine der entsprechenden Einrichtung oder Person zuordenbare E-Mailadresse verfügst.

Die Benutzerverifizierung kann zusätzlich zur oder unabhängig von der Offenlegung notwendig sein.

Danke, wenn Du Offenlegung und/oder Benutzerverifizierung zeitnah vornimmst. Falls das Deiner Meinung für Dich nicht zutrifft, solltest Du das zur Vermeidung von Missverständnissen nachfolgend begründen. Wird gar nicht reagiert, kann dies gemäß Nutzungsbedingungen auch zu einer Sperre führen.

Du solltest Dich mit den Regeln für enzyklopädische Artikel vertraut machen und eine Verbesserung vornehmen, wenn dies angemerkt wurde. Offenlegung oder Benutzerverifizierung entbinden nicht davon, die Qualitätsmängel zu beheben.

Falls ein Artikel insgesamt als problematisch angesehen wird:

• was Wikipedia nicht ist, insbesondere #3: Keine Plattform für Werbung

Falls Probleme mit der „Perspektive“ gesehen werden, aus welcher der Artikel geschrieben wurde (auch bei sogenannter „Selbstdarstellung“):

• das Grundprinzip der neutralen Darstellung
• wichtige Hinweise zu Interessenkonflikten und dem Umgang damit

Falls ein fehlender enzyklopädischer Stil bemängelt wurde:

• Wie schreibe ich gute Artikel?

Nicht alles von diesem allgemeinen Text muss für Dich zutreffen, für unzutreffende Teile bitte ich um Entschuldigung. Bitte lösche diesen Text nicht, bis die Fragen geklärt sind. Falls unklar ist, was in Deinem Fall gemeint ist, frage bitte beim unterzeichnenden Benutzer nach.

Mit freundlichen Grüßen -- Xneb²⁰ Disk • Beiträge 17:51, 19. Feb. 2024 (CET)

I need help. I have joined this platform for one reason only. some years ago my wife had a stalker who became dangerous. During that period, this talker created a Wikipedia site with her name and information - (Valentina Farcas) - and on this site he listed her birthdate. She is a professional opera singer and she has NO social media world and prefers to NOT have any personal data about herself listed online, This stalker lister her birthdate and she wishes that to be removed from the article. I have not tried at least 5 times to removed only her birthdate from the article and each time it gets reversed. What do I need to do to 1)prove that I am legally her husband so that you believe that I am asking this on her behalf, 2) get that birthdate removed from the site as it affects her professional career?

At every move I make, either another editor or a bot blocks me and reverses it. We are very happy to involve legal help in having it removed as it was never approved by my wife and it is a violation of her personal rights - it is listed NO WHERE ELSE online except this page and we have repeatedly asked it to be removed.

If you please explain to me how I can do that permanently, I will do it. Whatever documentation you need from us, government ID to prove who she is etc, we will provide it. But our next step its to involve legal action as this site violates her rights via the EU GDPR as it shares personal information about her without her consent.

I hope that somehow THIS message reaches a human who can help me finalize this issue as soon as possible.

David Blackburn - husband of Valentina Farcas. --Operdave10025 (Diskussion) 10:26, 24. Feb. 2024 (CET)

First of all: The threat of legal action can lead to the user account being blocked. Then: The date of birth is now provided with a receipt, so it is rightly there and remains there. (Info @LexICon) Greeting --Dirk Lenke (Diskussion) 11:32, 24. Feb. 2024 (CET)

Dirk, thank you for your very proper caring response to a situation that has started to affect my wife’s career as birthdate information has a great deal to do with ongoing engagements.

this morning she wrote directly to the info-de@wikimedia.org address explaining that a stalker had created her site without her consent, therefore breaching her rights as per the EU-GDPR laws, requesting g that either they remove her birthdate as per her request or remove the page in its entirety , allowing her and her professional team to recreate a site that she herself has access over.

I understand that you feel the information should be there because of whatever reason, however it is not your life being effected it is hers. This is a Page of a Living Person and therefore that living person has privacy rights. Whether you feel she does or not.

Have a wonderful day and I hope the Wikipedia team resolves this, since it seems to have become an issue that you wish to remain “right” on. If you wished to be “right”, perhaps track the user who created the site and find out what caused that person to infringe on my wife’s privacy in such ways that caused her to need to seek protection against him. That would be a better use of your time, in my humble opinion.

Best, David --Operdave10025 (Diskussion) 11:58, 24. Feb. 2024 (CET)

Hello David. Wikipedia publishes known, public information that can be verified with sources. Contrary to your statements, your wife's birthday is listed publicly on various websites: [1], [2], [3], [4], making it publicly available information. Anybody can find this with a simple five-minute Google search.

We have a policy regarding articles about living individuals, especially about those less known. The policy dictates that information will be removed after a complain if it can be assumed that „it is an unjustified invasion of privacy or that the affected person suffers not only insignificant damage“. Neither seems to apply here.

While I do understand that you want to keep as much information private as possible because of a situation with a stalker, your wife's birthday is already publicly available. It is not the place of residence or any other information where it could be assumed that your wife could potentially face consequences.

I hope this explains it a little bit better. --Xneb²⁰ Disk • Beiträge 12:51, 24. Feb. 2024 (CET)

As I stated before, she wrote directly to have it removed or to close the page itself as she did not authorize its creation. Additionally, all of those sites you link here got the information FROM this Wikipedia site as none of her professional materials have ever listed it. The only place that has ever listed it is this site that, again, was not created by her nor ever authorized any of the information. It takes moments to realize the wording is exactly the same as the Wikipedia site. Therefore you sources are creating a loop and you claim that it is public information yet it is only public since your site made it so without her authorization. Do you see the circular logic here? However, I suppose we will wait to see what is written back from her direct connection. However, it is not acceptable that the information is made public by Wikipedia, without authorization if the person referenced, and then others cite that unauthorized information from Wikipedia and when circling back, Wikipedia uses those sources (taken from wikipedia) as the proof that the information is in the public domain. --Operdave10025 (Diskussion) 13:04, 24. Feb. 2024 (CET)

I'm not here to argue with you – I'm not the one who created this policy nor do I get to decide single-handedly whether the information remains in the article. All I'm saying is that at this very moment, her birth date is publicly available and can be cited from trustworthy sources, including big pages like Apple Music.

Wikipedia's policy on this is pretty clear: as long as it's not considered an unjustified invasion of her privacy (which it's not) or she suffers from not only insignificant damages (which also doesn't seem to be the case), the information will normally remain in the article.

Also, on a side note, keep in mind that nobody is legally or policy-wise required to get permission from a person to create a Wikipedia article about them. --Xneb²⁰ Disk • Beiträge 17:17, 24. Feb. 2024 (CET)

But do you not realize that those places - even Apple Music - got that information from your Wikipedia page, which I have been trying to have removed for the past several years! You created the Sources you are using to prove it is in the public domain! So once the top secret information is leaked to the world (as per your logic) then the fact that it has been leaked means it is public and therefore since it is already out there, it must have ALWAYS been there and we are in the right. It is ridiculous - you disallowed removing it long ago and many times since - others search it on your page where it was NEVER supposed to have been - and then you say, well, it is public knowledge therefore we can't remove it! If you had done as requested at the very start instead of blocking it for no good reason every time - then those other sources WOULD NOT HAVE IT - you created the problem and are using the problem you created as the sources to justify perpetuating the problem!!!!! This is like a stupid math trick - --Operdave10025 (Diskussion) 19:14, 24. Feb. 2024 (CET)

If you look at each of them - they are LITERALLY COPYING the first line of the page:

"Valentina Farcas (* 14. Oktober 1975 in Bukarest) ist eine rumänische Opernsängerin (Sopran)."

LITERALLY even the punctuation - this is a problem CREATED by Wikipedia that now Wikipedia refuses to allow changed BECAUSE Wikip[edia put this information wrongfully into the world!!! INSANITY --Operdave10025 (Diskussion) 19:27, 24. Feb. 2024 (CET)

Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (General Data Protection Regulation) in the current version of the OJ L 119, 04.05.2016

Art. 17 GDPR Right to erasure - The data subject shall have the right to obtain from the controller the erasure of personal data concerning him or her without undue delay and the controller shall have the obligation to erase personal data without undue delay where one of the following grounds applies:

2) the data subject withdraws consent on which the processing is based according to point (a) of Article 6(1), or point (a) of Article 9(2), and where there is no other legal ground for the processing

This is very clear. The EU GDPR law states that the data subject (Valentina Farcas) has to right to have this erased without undue delay (several YEARS of requests should qualify as undue delay, I would imagine) as she has clearly withdrawn consent. Any acceptance of policies and [procedures of Wikipedia have never been agreed to by Ms Farcas. Therefore, please remove the information requested immediately. As it is in violation of her rights as laid out CLEARLY by the EU GDPR regulations. --Operdave10025 (Diskussion) 10:41, 25. Feb. 2024 (CET)

1. Valentina Farcas has never once tried to delete her date of birth!

2. Only she (and no one else) can contact the support team (via WP:MAIL). --Dirk Lenke (Diskussion) 11:01, 25. Feb. 2024 (CET)

Thank you again for your reply, Dirk. As of yesterday, SHE has sent an email to the support team. --Operdave10025 (Diskussion) 11:39, 25. Feb. 2024 (CET)

Okay --Dirk Lenke (Diskussion) 11:42, 25. Feb. 2024 (CET)