User talk:Jaeminsung

Sexual Assault Survivors’ Rights Act
Hi, there is an existing page on this piece of legislation on Wikipedia already at Sexual Assault Survivors’ Rights Act. It predates this article, so we put in a redirect to the existing one. It does appear to be exactly the same legislation judging from the information. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 02:57, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * You should feel free to expand upon the existing article though. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 03:03, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Talkback
Mr. Vernon (talk) 03:09, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

COI reminder
Hi, please remember to follow the instructions given in WP:COI since you have a declared conflict of interest with the subject of the article. Also read WP:PAID if this you are being paid since you claim to work for RAIN and more importantly for one of the legislation's proponents. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 18:02, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay. I declared my COI on the talk page of the article Sexual Assault Survivors’ Rights Act. I'm actually not affiliated with RAIN, but I do work pro bono with Rise instead. Also, I have submitted a rename request on the article. What do I need to do, to make sure that this request goes through? Right now, I see 1 Agree, 1 Support, and 1 Oppose.. --Jaeminsung (talk) 18:49, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
 * So, we don't work by votes. We actually go by WP:CONSENSUS following Wikipedia's policy. It does look like we go by the common name rather than the official name of the legislation - think Patriot Act. The bill says "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001" but our article is Patriot Act because that's the common name. Policy always wins out over votes. Second, make sure you use the instructions in the COI page if you want to do a major restructuring of the article. Just from experience, the article will probably not be what you would like it to be - it's going to be encyclopedic in tone, not promotional because that would violate our WP:NPOV policy. Just the other day I was helping a new editor with creating a page for a company whose products he liked, and it went from being a bit enthusiastic about the company to being a fairly dry summary of the company and their products. Encyclopedic in tone. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 18:55, 25 November 2016 (UTC)