User talk:Toure

If you know Toure's last name please do not add it to his page. It is his wish to be known by just one name. Please respect that.

Hi there Toure, as per your request, I am the person who will mediate your case. It seems relitivley straight forward to me, and I don't image to many problems (which might ease your tension about this situation ;). The discussion will take place at the Toure talk page, in the attempt of gaining more consensus within the wikipedia community. Thank you for your time, and I hope that we can reslove this issue soon. Yours, Thε Halo ^Θ 14:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that someone else has fixed the problem now, but sorry that I wasn't around to do it.

Sorry about the shortness of this message, but my computer, and wikipedia for that matter, keeps messing me about, so my editing has be ot what it should.

I will certainly take a closer look at this matter when everything has settled down with my computer.

Best wishes, Thε Halo ^Θ 18:21, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Sorry for the wait, I had to nip out to York.

Yeah, I wrote that as part of a wider question. Personally I know of no site which has your last name, though I haven't looked. I added that as a possible compromise if there was a debate about wheather it should be left in or kept out. However, it seems that there is a consensus for keeping your last name out, as I hoped and suspected, so the external link thing shouldn't even be an issue.

I'll wait a while longer before putting anything final on the Toure talkpage, just to see if there is anymore comment, but I don't forsee this being an issue.

By the way, you can sign your name on wikipedia by typing four ~, like this: ~~~~. Doing this both shows other how has said what, and it also brings up the time it was said, which is obviously helpful when conversing with fellow editors :)

Hope this clears its self up soon, and all the best until then, Thε Halo ^Θ 15:46, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Toure. If you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Touré, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

1. editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
2. participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors; and
3. linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. Nightscream (talk) 10:04, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding unsourced material to your own article, as you did here. People who have articles about themselves on Wikipedia are not supposed to edit their own articles, as I indicated above. In addition, Wikipedia cannot accept unsourced material or original research. This includes material lacking cited sources, or obtained through personal knowledge or unpublished syntheses of previously published material. Wikipedia requires that all material added to articles be accompanied by reliable, verifiable sources explicitly cited in the text in the form of an inline citation, which you can learn to make here. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 02:05, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I read the page but still don't understand how I should cite the easily verifiable fact that I am now a faculty member at CUNY. Should I link to the CUNY website bio page? Please help me follow the guidelines. When I go to the page of professors I don't see any special citation around their professorships so I don't understand how to cite my teaching position in accordance with the rules. I want to follow the rules so please help me.

Would it be sufficient to add a link to a page on the CUNY website where I am listed as an adjunct faculty member? Would that suffice as text-source integrity? I'm trying to understand. Elsewhere it says "In practice you do not need to attribute everything. This policy requires that all quotations and anything challenged or likely to be challenged be attributed in the form of an inline citation that directly supports the material" and the publicly-known fact that I am teaching at a given school is not something I think is likely to be challenged and is not original reporting. When I go to the web pages of people who are professors there is no special citation backing up the fact that they teach at a given school so I'm not sure how this new fact that is publicly known is supposed to be introduced and properly cited. I am trying to follow the rules. Toure 13:47, May 24, 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Toure. Sorry for the apparent equivocation on this. Jimmy Wales last words to us on the article's talk page was to request a respectful delay, in which he said that we take this ["slowly"]. When he last posted on the talk page last October "There's no deadline. Let's have a reflective and thoughtful conversation about it for awhile, and I'll keep talking to Touré." Since then, I don't know that he's come to any binding resolution on the matter, and that's why it seems that there's still an editorial conflict over this, as seen in the recent edit reverts:

• User:98.92.79.145:

"His birth name is widely documented and there is no reason for it not be included on the page. Jimmy W. said he would get back to us months ago but hasnt so unless he says otherwise its time to change it. this is an encyclopedic site, not a marketing"

• Herostratus:

"Sorry, I don't see consensus for this. Make your case and get consensus on the talk page."

• User:74.232.11.127:

"First of all, consensus swings both ways. I don't see consensus for leaving the name out, either. Second of all, the burden lies with people who want to hide the truth on an encyclopedia, not people who want to include it."

What I'll do is, I'll try to start a consensus discussion to see if we can come to a final decision on this. Nightscream (talk) 15:43, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you remove it for the interim? There's many valid reasons to leave it off (for one because it's not part of who I am as a public person) and that has been the WIki default for the entirety of my time here. News articles have been written about me in NY Times and the Washington Post that don't use or reference my last name so there is a clear decision by the journalistic community to not include it at all. (I'm not talking about stories I've written, but ones written about me).

I'm not certain if that's appropriate, or if I could provide a policy-based rationale for doing so. I would suggest you ask Jimmy Wales about doing so, since he has previously exhibited a willingness to impose temporary wait-and-see measures regarding this issue. In the meantime, another editor considering his/her position in the current consensus discussion emailed me to ask me some questions about you, so I thought I'd pass along the questions to you here:

1. Has Touré changed his name legally?

2. Are the surnames of his children Neblett?

I am in the very beginning of the process of changing my name legally but it takes a lot of time and money. My wife did not take my last name. I think that's relevant. My children are not relevant to this discussion. Toure

Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 19:10, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This, as you know, is like the 7th time in as many years that we've had a massive go round about whether or not my last name should be on this page. Every time it has been decided that it should not be affixed and that's the settled law until someone comes around and decides to stir up the debate again, even though no new information is added to the discussion. It's just the same debate over and over. The last discussion concluded with Jimmy Wales asking for calm, patient deliberation and moving slowly so as to not cause harm if unnecessary. That edict has been broken by someone adding my name while ignoring the ongoing discussion. I would think that that course of events—and the fact that adding the name on a "temporary" basis does the harm that the discussion was trying to move slowly in order to avoid—is reason enough to take the name off of the page for the interim while the discussion is being had. This is an issue that is ultimately a minor quibble for Wiki and of great pain for me and I think the edict of avoiding significant pain would hold. This is not about marketing. My last name is not part of any facet of my life. My close friends don't know it. The vast majority of my mail comes addressed to one name. It's not part of my personal or private life just the same as it's not part of my public life. I am trying to avoid having my slave name attached to my life. It's that deep to me.

First, could you please sign your talk page posts? It's easier for others to know who they're talking to, especially in discussions in which multiple editors are participating. You can do this by typing four tildes (~~~~) at the end of them.

You mention that Jimmy Wales last asked for calm, patient deliberation. We had that. There was a discussion on the article's talk page, where you can read everyone's arguments. That discussion (or the most recent reignition of it) lasted from October 6 to November 10 of last year. After that, nothing else was said on the matter, so someone added the name two days ago on March 30. A month-long discussion following over four months of silence, and then the reintroduction of that information after those four months sounds fairly "patient and calm" to me, so nothing was "broken" by re-adding the name, as the discussion was not ongoing at the time he/she added it; the discussion began anew after he/she re-added the surname recently. You seem to be speaking as if the phrase "calm, patient deliberation" is the same thing as "it has been resolved not to have that surname in the article", but obviously, that's not what that phrase means, and not what Jimmy was asking for. There's a difference between moving slowly and not at all. How is a total of five months on the matter not slow or patient enough?

You don't have to convince me about the "branding" or "marketing" angle, because I never bought into that article in the first place. That argument came across as just ad hominem rhetoric to me, so you don't have to argue that point; I understand that the matter is a personal one, and not a business one.

That said, I was under the impression that the article's opening sentence referred to you with that surname. I now see that it doesn't; rather it initially refers to you by your given name, and then merely mentions that what your birth name was. That's not the same thing as addressing you or referring to you in the present tense with that surname, nor implying that it's a facet of your life. It's merely the notation of a historical fact, and I while I generally favor giving some consideration to biographical subjects' feelings, I also feel that some modicum of reason and rationality has to be factored into it. If, for example, Malcolm X were still alive, and I addressed him or referred to him as "Mr. Little", then that would certainly be disrespectful. But it is not disrespectful for his article to state what his slave name was, and indeed, his article does do so. Why would it be painful to merely note a prior historical fact? If noting a prior historical fact that occurred as a consequence of slavery were disrespectful, then by that logic, wouldn't we have to censor all articles dealing with slavery? I just don't see how mentioning in a brief parenthetical "Touré (born Toure [surname] on March 20, 1971)..." has to be seen as something negative. Should we remove Malcolm X's birth name from his article?

While omitting some information for reasons like identity theft or privacy is sometimes done here, encyclopedias are not about omitting key information in order to put forward a narrative that a biographical article's subject considers more ideologically or personally positive. Built into their mission is the inclusion of salient information. If that name is no longer your surname, how would it be a problem to merely state that it was at one time? It seems that this position of yours constitutes a desire to deny facts or to deny history, and that seems antithetical to the very role of an encyclopedia. When we start removing information because it conjures up painful histories, then we're no longer a neutral, formal, dispassionate encyclopedia, we're just a tool for sociological propaganda.

I think you have every right, if you wish, to deny or ignore aspects of your past you don't like in the course of your day-to-day life. But I don't think it's reasonable for you to obligate others to, especially institutions whose mission is scholarly, academic or encyclopedic. Nightscream (talk) 20:41, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The RfC still has a while to run. But if consensus cannot be found to omit the surname, there are two possible compromises that occur to me:

1. To omit the slave name in the lead sentence, but add a footnote number after the name Touré to explain, in a footnote at the bottom of the page, what the slave name was, and to note its rejection.
2. To omit the slave name in the lead sentence, but include a couple of sentences in the Biography section to address it.

• Either of these would ensure that the slave name is not present in bold in the lead sentence. Would it be worth pursuing either of these solutions on the article talk page? Regards, --JN466 10:48, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 01:59, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Me In Hendrix.jpeg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 18:24, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 17:21, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Toure med.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to [email protected], stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to [email protected].

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 23:22, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]