User talk:JShark/Archive 1

You undo all my edits yet go ahead and put all the same information back....
You undo all my edits yet go ahead and put all the same information back....You do understand that you don't own articles on wikipedia right?--SeminoleNation (talk) 04:19, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

False

Example: (71.2 years for males and 78.4 years for females). --JShark (talk) 04:25, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Sources from the World Bank, UNESCO and the World Health Organization are more credible. You must not add false information.

Example:

1. Colombia's armed forces are the largest in Latin America, and it is also the largest spender on its military. -> False information

2. Colombia is the second largest spender on its military in Latin America. The armed forces of Brazil are the second largest in Latin America by active personnel and the largest in terms of military equipment. -> True information  --JShark (talk) 04:26, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires proper attribution
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Transport in Colombia into Tourism in Colombia. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g.,. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted copied template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was moved, attribution is not required. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 17:09, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

I see you are still not adding the required attribution, as required under the terms of the CC-by-SA license. Please have a look at as an example of how it is done. Please leave a message on my talk page if you still don't understand what to do or why we have to do it. Thanks, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 16:53, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

FARC listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect FARC. Since you had some involvement with the FARC redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ᐐT₳LKᐬ  12:59, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Colombia edit war
Your recent editing history at Colombia shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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. See BRD for 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 your being blocked from editing&mdash;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&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:50, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to join WikiProject Visual arts
Hi JShark,

Welcome! You are receiving this message because we've noticed your great edits related to our project WikiProject Visual arts!. We are a group of editors working on improving articles in the scope of this project, and we need your help to meet the project goals. Please come over to our project page to take a look!


 * You will see a list of articles that need most improvement.
 * You will find a group of editors who share similar interest with you.
 * Overall, this is a friendly place to discuss any issues related to Visual arts, ask questions, and collaborate on improving articles on Visual arts!

Feel free to put your name on the project member list. Hope you will have fun here, let us know if you need any help! Bobo.03 (talk) 15:55, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Columbia
what is your most important measure of a country? JCJC777 (talk) 20:41, 28 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Ways to explain things more effectively? --JShark (talk) 20:15, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Note:It's Colombia, NOT Columbia --JShark (talk) 20:17, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution (third notice)
I see by your addition to Juan Manuel Santos you are still not adding the required attribution, as required under the terms of the CC-by-SA license. Copying from one article another without providing the required attribution is a violation of the terms of our license. Please begin fulfilling this mandatory legal requirement, or you risk being blocked from editing or having your additions removed without warning. Thanks, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 10:22, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

RO
Hey there. Was wondering what seems to be not neutral or "typical of certain political positions" in here that prompted you to remove it? Appreciate it if you elaborate on that. KREOH (talk) 20:25, 22 February 2020 (UTC)


 * It is common for certain political or ideological parties to disagree with more conservative governments such as those in Poland or Hungary. Something like what happens when Democrats and Republicans have heavy friction in America. To accuse countries of lack of judicial independence without an adequate legal process where all countries have space to express their concerns or to defend themselves lacks reliability. When editorial bias towards one particular point of view can be detected the article needs to be fixed.

All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.

NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects. It is also one of Wikipedia's three core content policies; the other two are "Verifiability" and "No original research". These policies jointly determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles, and, because they work in harmony, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another. Editors are strongly encouraged to familiarize themselves with all three.

This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus.


 * Why bring America, Poland or Hungary into this considering I'm asking specifically about Romania here. The source looks at the integrity of public institutions. Did you check out the report and see what it's all about? KREOH (talk) 23:53, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * quote=Several countries, including Hungary, Poland and Romania. The phrase includes Hungary and Poland. Moreover, such sensitive issues as judicial independence or the integrity of public institutions cannot be viewed from a single point of view. There is an ideological bias and that makes us doubt the veracity of the report. --JShark (talk) 22:29, 23 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Yeah, it does highlight those particular countries for this region. Considering the methodology used, I don't really see how you can draw the conclusion that it is a single point of view. So what is the ideological bias? KREOH (talk) 01:37, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * According to the newspaper Le Monde : "In its main surveys, Transparency International does not measure the weight of corruption in economic terms for each country. It develops a Corruption Perception Index (CPI) based on surveys conducted by private structures or other NGOs. The IPC ignores corruption cases that concern the business world. So, the collapse of [Lehman Brothers] (2008) or the manipulation of the money market reference rate (Libor) by major British banks revealed in 2011 did not affect the ratings of the United States or United Kingdom." The organization also receives funding from companies that are themselves convicted of corruption offences. Certain groups generally try to make certain countries look bad with the intention of promoting only certain policies in all countries of the world. It is good not to be naive, it is good not to see these reports as the absolute truth. In addition Germany also has its own interests in Eastern European countries. A German organization may be corrupt. --JShark (talk) 04:12, 26 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Wouldn't know about situations prior to 2012 because that is when they modified the CPI methodology. Now scores are comparable over time, which apparently wasn't possible to do before 2012. It does use representative surveys from business persons from the private sector. In this link here you can see who has donated over €1,000 and supports the organization. It includes government agencies from Denmark and Estonia and this apparently didn't stop Transparency from reporting and criticizing the whole Danske Bank scandal.
 * Still not really sure what or who these "certain political positions" or "certain groups" are. KREOH (talk) 19:13, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Explanation of the neutral point of view
Achieving what the Wikipedia community understands as neutrality means carefully and critically analyzing a variety of reliable sources and then attempting to convey to the reader the information contained in them fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without editorial bias. Wikipedia aims to describe disputes, but not engage in them. Editors, while naturally having their own points of view, should strive in good faith to provide complete information, and not to promote one particular point of view over another.


 * Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc. For example, an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action", but it may state that "genocide has been described by John So-and-so as the epitome of human evil."
 * Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements.
 * Avoid stating facts as opinions. Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice. Unless a topic specifically deals with a disagreement over otherwise uncontested information, there is no need for specific attribution for the assertion, although it is helpful to add a reference link to the source in support of verifiability. Further, the passage should not be worded in any way that makes it appear to be contested.
 * Prefer nonjudgmental language. A neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject (or what reliable sources say about the subject), although this must sometimes be balanced against clarity. Present opinions and conflicting findings in a disinterested tone. Do not editorialize. When editorial bias towards one particular point of view can be detected the article needs to be fixed.
 * Indicate the relative prominence of opposing views. Ensure that the reporting of different views on a subject adequately reflects the relative levels of support for those views, and that it does not give a false impression of parity, or give undue weight to a particular view. For example, to state that "According to Simon Wiesenthal, the Holocaust was a program of extermination of the Jewish people in Germany, but David Irving disputes this analysis" would be to give apparent parity between the supermajority view and a tiny minority view by assigning each to a single activist in the field. JShark (talk) 21:44, 22 February 2020 (UTC)