User talk:Jmhunter

Tae Yun Kim and WP:BLP
Hi Jmhunter, and welcome to Wikipedia! I noticed your note on User talk:Kateshortforbob and wanted to stop by.

First off, you'll notice that I just removed a large amount of information from the Tae Yun Kim article. This was done in line with Wikipeida's policy on biographies of living persons, which states that "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons — whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable — should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion, from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space." In other words, the content was not removed for the purposes of censorship or what have you--I simply took out everything that seemed contentious and was not properly sourced. As you know, what you wrote remains in the page history, and I would encourage you to add it back in citing reliable sources while you do so. I suspect this is what the blanking user was trying to do--if you look at the policy on living persons, you'll notice that the removal of content is generally allowed in instances where that content is unsourced and potentially defamatory. A good rule of thumb moving forward is to do no harm.

Now, that being said, there is absolutely nothing wrong with writing what you did about Tae Yun Kim provided that you provide proper citations and present the information in a neutral manner (i.e., let the events speak for themselves). As it stands, the blanking by User:SarahSmile516 is borderline allowable under the BLP policy--if it continues after the addition of reliable sources, then it becomes vandalism and can be dealt with appropriately.

Thanks, and please don't hesitate to let me know if you have any questions! -- jonny - m t  08:43, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you much for the help! I appreciate the input, and the subsequent edits.. weasel words.. lol

also food for thought on who that editor SarahSmile516 is http://youtube.com/user/sarahsmile516 Jmhunter (talk) 10:12, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Tae Yun Kim
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Tae Yun Kim, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add  to the top of Tae Yun Kim. Jmhunter (talk) 22:56, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

A friendly notice
Having seen your edits on Tae Yun Kim, it's obvious that parties involved in the article have entered into editing it, causing arguments as to what 'should and shouldn't' be included. I'm going to speedy-delete the article, obviously the woman involved falls into the same category as Scientology with the split feelings she stirs up. Feel free to recreate it as a stub, and I'll lock the article or watch it closely. Chase me ladies, I&#39;m the Cavalry (talk) 23:34, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * As a side, if you find reliable sources for the information, I'll support you all the way, including blocks on users who remove it. I've placed the text of the article here, so feel free to add sources to what you can, and remove the rest. Get in touch with me if you need it double-checking! Chase me ladies, I&#39;m the Cavalry (talk) 23:38, 22 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I hope you're watching this. :) I created a concept of the stub article here. Does that work?  Or would it be contested by other admins?
 * I've played with it a bit. because it's about a living person, everything negative needs to be proven - you noted that there was controversy - find an online news article about the controversy, or even a print one, to use as a source to prove the fact - see WP:RS for what counts as one! Chase me ladies, I&#39;m the Cavalry (talk) 00:34, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Have a look again. I referenced a YouTube video from Inside Edition that chronicled several families that were 'broken up' by Kim, and even has an interview with kim herself.  Contentious? Jmhunter (talk) 00:48, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Youtube is not really a reliable source, but the program is. it's Inside Edition, so I've put that down as a reference. have a look at WP:RS to see what you can use as a reliable source. Chase me ladies, I&#39;m the Cavalry (talk) 01:46, 23 March 2008 (UTC)