User talk:Titikaka3456

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, Titikaka3456. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on the page Daniele Compatangelo, 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 Request Wizard), including links or details of reliable sources that support your suggestions;
• disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest § How to disclose a COI);
• avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam § External link spamming);
• do your best to comply with Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicizing, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 21:31, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

September 2025

Hello, Titikaka3456, welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. Your editing pattern indicates that you may be using multiple accounts or coordinating editing with people outside Wikipedia, such as TikitakaDA (talk · contribs). Our policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow this, and users who misuse multiple accounts may be blocked from editing. If you operate multiple accounts directly or with the help of another person, please disclose these connections. Thank you.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 21:31, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war, according to the reverts you've made to Daniele Compatangelo. This means that you are repeatedly reverting content back to how you think it should be, despite knowing that other editors disagree. Once it is known that there is a disagreement, users are expected to collaborate with others, avoid editing disruptively, and try to reach a consensus – rather than repeatedly reverting the changes made by other users.

Important points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive behavior – regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not engage in edit warring – even if you believe that you are right.

You need to discuss the disagreement on the article's talk page and work towards a revision that represents consensus among everyone involved. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution if discussions reach an impasse. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to engage in edit warring, you may be blocked from editing. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:21, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. Thank you.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 19:37, 28 September 2025 (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 is a brief 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 an expanded level of powers and discretion 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 practices;
• 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) 20:20, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Titikaka3456, biographies of living persons are a bit special on Wikipedia. You may not restore content about living people, if others have objected to it in good faith, unless you found a consensus for inclusion (cf. WP:BLPRESTORE). Feel free to create a section on the article's talk page, Talk:Daniele Compatangelo, arguing for the inclusion of the material and why it's not promotional. Please invite me and other disagreeing editors to the discussion when you create one. Simply restoring the content without discussion may lead to a block from editing or a topic ban from editing biographical articles. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:23, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Dear TobeFree,

It appears that you have repeatedly removed well-sourced and verifiable information from the article in question, possibly due to political bias, personal views, or perhaps without thoroughly checking the references. I am not related to the subject of the article, but I do follow the reporter on social media.

The content that was removed has been part of the page since 2017 and is supported by credible references. Accusing editors of being connected to the subject, without any evidence, is a serious allegation and violates Wikipedia’s policy on assuming good faith.

This reporter works primarily for an Italian audience, and a review of the sources should make that clear.

I was only trying to fix the page after noticing that a significant amount of information had been unilaterally removed. Thank you for your attention, and I hope you will kindly assist, given your experience as an admin.

Best regards, Titikaka3456 (talk) 21:21, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"violates multiple Wikipedia content policies": Which?

Hi Titikaka3456, you've claimed in the edit summary of Special:Diff/1313883515 that my removal "violates multiple Wikipedia content policies". Please tell me at least two examples of policies the removal of promotional content allegedly violates, to support your claim about multiple policy violations. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:27, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Admin,

Sorry — what I meant is that, since I follow Italian politics and news, I didn’t think it was correct to delete the information on that page, as I found it credible and real when I checked it.

Maybe this reporter doesn't mean much to you, but for Italian speakers like me who follow him, he’s more relevant.

I didn’t mean to be rude — my apologies. I'm here to learn. Titikaka3456 (talk) 21:41, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's all good, I'm not acting as an administrator despite having been referred to as one, and no offense taken either. I thought I'd learn about new policies but it's relieving to see that I probably didn't unknowingly violate multiple of them. No problem. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:12, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Robrob7578? Andrewikilover?

Have you been editing as "Robrob7578" or "Andrewikilover" in the past? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:37, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello dear admin,

I’m just starting to edit topics related to Italy. I follow various reporters, politicians, and other sources, and I try to help by adding verified information that I research online and through Italian networks, which I watch from the US.

Thank you for your support — I’m here to learn. Titikaka3456 (talk) 21:38, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion invitation

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Daniele Compatangelo § Promotion / résumé. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:55, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dear User and Admin,

I kindly invite you to review the links, which are in Italian, rather than repeatedly removing the page unilaterally—especially considering that the content has been available since 2017. I speak Italian and have been following this reporter online for years. If you are not familiar with him, that should not be a reason to simply delete information from the page without providing evidence that the information is incorrect.

It’s important to approach this matter with fairness and understanding. There doesn’t seem to be any clear reason to take such action against a reporter who works from the White House. I hope we can work together to ensure that all information is treated respectfully and objectively.

Thank you for your attention and cooperation. Titikaka3456 (talk) 21:58, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above reply was identified as AI-generated by the Hive AI-generated content detector. Are you relying on some chatbot because English is not your first language?   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 23:56, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Titikaka3456 reported by User:ToBeFree (Result: ). Thank you. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:58, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To Skywatcher68 andAdmin

I’m reaching out to express serious concern regarding your repeated and unilateral deletion of a well-documented Wikipedia page that has been live since 2017, supported by reliable sources and references.

The page in question concerns a foreign correspondent covering the White House. Your continued efforts to remove it appear to go beyond normal editorial oversight and instead reflect a clear political bias. It’s troubling that you seem to be using your position to suppress the work of a fellow journalist—particularly one who is part of the foreign press.

From what I’ve observed, you are also a reporter affiliated with a different White House foreign press group. If that’s the case, your actions raise serious questions about conflict of interest. It appears you are targeting and discrediting colleagues simply because they hold different views or belong to a different press association. That’s not only unprofessional, it’s harmful to press freedom and international journalistic cooperation.

Wikipedia is a public platform built on transparency, neutrality, and verifiability—not personal agendas. Deleting an entire article without consensus or proper discussion violates those principles.

I strongly urge you to reconsider your approach and respect both Wikipedia's editorial guidelines and the integrity of the global press community. Titikaka3456 (talk) 13:51, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have been a civilian employee of the United States Government since the Clinton Administration and have nothing to do with the White House. Also, "since 2017" is obviously wrong.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 14:25, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]