User talk:Richwales/Archives/2013-02

Jung Myung Seok
Thank you for pointing out about the BLP board. I was unaware that it existed and I thought my postings on the talk page were sufficient. Having said this I still take issue with the veracity and authenticity of Shii sources. I have extensively investigated each citation one by one and have found them to be not verifiable. Many of the articles have no listed author. Many of the articles were written on May 15, 2007. The prose and grammatical errors also cause me to be very suspicious of their autheticity. I have posted my findings up 3-4 paragraphs in the talk page dated October 9, 2012. Given your work on the Mormon article, I would hope that you have a heightened awareness and sensitivity to what is really going on with this article. I am sure you can appreciate what it is like trying to undo the damage done by an individual that has a clear cut anti- Providence agenda. Please be patient with me as I am new to this editing and posting process.MrTownCar (talk) 04:53, 30 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you for pointing out the BLP noticeboard. I am new to wikipedia and thought my talk page postings were adequate.  Based on your comments about edit warring, it seems you missed my postings earlier in the talk page up about 3-4 sections.  I have posted my grievances with the citations included in Shii's version one by one.


 * Given your work on the Georgian Mormon article I would anticipate your heightened awareness and sensitivity to this article. I am trying to undo the damage by the anti-Providence people and set the record straight regarding Jung Myung Seok and his teachings.MrTownCar (talk) 05:21, 30 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comments. I am certainly in favour of seeing this article become even-handed and neutral — it needs to neither be pro-Providence nor anti-Providence.  Further, since a specific living person (Jung) is involved, any contentious material (either pro or con) must be very well sourced or else removed.  That will require careful study of sources on both sides, to make sure they are reliable, not self-published by either side, and properly used.  Even if you believe Shii is trying to engage in slander or smear tactics, the important thing here is to focus on the sources, not the motivations of other editors.  And even if Shii is refusing to discuss his work or respond to your comments, that still does not entitle you or others to try dealing with the matter by revert-warring his edits; it needs to be handled via the dispute resolution procedures.  Edit warring is not OK, even if you really are right and the other person is wrong.  —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 07:16, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Jung Myung seok article-- next step

Now that you locked the article what is the next step in the dispute resolution procedures?MrTownCar (talk) 17:50, 30 January 2013 (UTC)


 * There needs to be some genuine "meeting of the minds" here — preferably on the article's talk page, but if that isn't happening, then on noticeboards such as WP:BLPN (general BLP policy), WP:RSN (reliability of sources), and/or WP:NPOVN (neutral point of view). I would strongly urge you to immediately stop making suggestions that editors who disagree with you are pursuing some sort of sinister agenda; you are doing yourself and your cause no favours by pushing such allegations, even if they are in fact true.  Instead of doing this, concentrate on the quality of the sources.


 * Per WP:SPS, so-called "self-published" sources are usually not acceptable on Wikipedia. Web sites such as providencetrial.com are going to be presumed to fall into this category.  Self-published sources may be used in certain narrowly delineated situations as sources on themselves, but an article which relies heavily on this kind of source is not acceptable.  I currently see problems with the sources being offered by both sides; I would much prefer to see widely respected English-language news sources used here if possible; for example, I would ask if the BBC, the CBC, or the New York Times have ever said anything about Providence or Jung Myung-seok.


 * A neutral point of view on a controversial topic is almost always going to involve a careful use of both "pro" and "anti" sources. Read (or re-read) the NPOV policy carefully; we are not trying to identify "the truth" about a subject, but instead, we need to give fair and balanced representation of all significant mainstream views that appear in reliable sources.  Since you mentioned my ties to Mormonism, I will note here that I sometimes need to bite my lip and allow properly sourced material that is hostile to my beliefs to appear in an article; in fact, I have sometimes reverted pro-Mormon "missionary tract" editing if it strays too far from our requirement here to work toward encyclopedic neutrality.  —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 18:20, 30 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I posted at the BLPN as you suggested.  The only response I get is from SHii stating that there is an "entertaining history" on the talk page and UKexpat stating that he has reverted my whitewashed version.  Neither of these comments give me the impression of NPOV, civility or any desire to have a meeting of the minds. I am not sure what else can be done.   It is also curious that UKexpat started the sentence with the the word "And" giving me the impression UKexpat and Shii are the same person.MrTownCar (talk) 18:43, 30 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Shii has been around since 2002 (with 17,000 edits). Ukexpat has been around since 2005 (with 90,000 edits).  The likelihood of these accounts both belonging to the same person is infinitesimal.


 * On the surface at least, the version which Ukexpat restored cites numerous mainstream sources which would normally be seen as being reliable for Wikipedia purposes — such as The Australian, Fox News, Agence France-Presse (AFP),  the French National Centre for Scientific Research (CNRS), Asahi Shimbun, Radio Australia, the International Herald Tribune, Reuters, Yonhap, and the Associated Press Television News.  The version you prefer, on the other hand, contains none of these sources, but instead appears to rely almost exclusively on self-published material from the Providence organization — material which, as I've already tried to explain, is not generally acceptable per Wikipedia's reliable source policy.


 * It may be possible to incorporate material from both sets of sources, but the self-published Providence material can probably (per WP:SPS) be used only to support claims made by Providence about itself or about Jung (but not in support of claims of objective fact). Where the mainstream sources and the Providence material disagree, it may be possible to include both conflicting claims with wording saying that this source claims this, whereas that source claims that.  If you need more guidance on how (if at all) both sets of sources can or should be combined, you might want to ask at WP:NPOVN — but please understand that you are almost certainly going to have to agree to some sort of compromise here; simply going to the NPOV noticeboard and trying to get someone to agree to your preferred version as it currently stands (without acknowledging contrary material from any of the mainstream media) is not at all likely to work.  —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 19:18, 30 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Appreciate the intervention. Hopefully the article can be turned into something decent (which with the providence sourcing it's really not).  Ravensfire ( talk ) 19:50, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Point well taken about language that states this sources claims A and that source claims B.  I have a bigger issue to resolve and I will utilize a very specific example. One of the citations quotes an article from the International Herald Tribune February 20, 2008 with the title "South Korean religious sect leader extradited from China to face rape charges"  When one clicks the link you see todays edition of the IHT but not the actual article referred to in the citation. When I independently went to the IHT archives and searched for the article by title and date it can not be found. I combed hundreds of titles written for the whole month of February in 2008 in case the date was off a bit but to no avail. The article can not be found at all and is not verifiable despite being linked to a bonafide media outlet in the wikipedia article. In fact I also searched the AP archives and the article could not be found there either. This is in violation of the wikiepdia policies regarding BLP and quality verifiable sources containing contentious material.MrTownCar (talk) 23:39, 30 January 2013 (UTC)


 * An extended discussion about this content dispute really belongs on the article's talk page. Unless people object, I would like to copy the contents of this and the previous section over there, with a view toward having people continue the discussion there.  OK?


 * MrTownCar may (I repeat, may) have a legitimate point here regarding verifiability of source material. The supplier of a source bears the burden of proof that the source really does say what it is claimed to say — and while it is not absolutely necessary for sources to be easily accessible online, it is certainly preferable (if possible) for sources to be online — especially when contentious material is involved.  We should still assume good faith if a source doesn't seem to be were someone else says it is; while this could indicate deception, it's more likely to be either a clerical error (typo) or a change in archival location on the part of the publisher.  —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 00:54, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

no objection here please cut and pasteMrTownCar (talk) 03:19, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Just for the record and specifically regarding this IHT citation. The link could have a typo in the date and that is why I covered the whole month of February and even January and March 2008. I have independent knowledge that Mr Jung returned to s. korea in February 2008 so I know the year is correct. The AP archives go back to 1985 as stated on the opening page so there is no archival relocation. For these two reasons it is very hard for me to "assume good faith " in view of all that I have presented.MrTownCar (talk) 04:38, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Shii proved my point on the talk page

After you moved the text from your talk page SHii posted a link to highbeam.com with a fake AP article. He obviously did not read the part that I checked both the IHT AND AP archives to find that article and was not successful including variants of the title.

Please feel free to read the material below the blue archived text on the talk page, it is rather revealing as to what is really going on with Shii and his agenda.MrTownCar (talk) 05:57, 31 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Please read [ my response] on the article's talk page. —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 06:28, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Handles

I made an observation about Shii handle which I cant explain and have seen with no other user. after the name SHii the word tock appears in parenthesis instead of talk like most other users. why is that?MrTownCar (talk) 02:07, 1 February 2013 (UTC)


 * He customized his signature. Anyone can customize their signature on their account's "user preferences" page.  As long as a signature is not misleading, hopelessly confusing, or otherwise disruptive, this sort of thing is permitted.  See WP:SIG for more information about signatures.  —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 02:49, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

much obliged.MrTownCar (talk) 04:23, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Aćif Hadžiahmetović
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Aćif Hadžiahmetović. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 18:15, 2 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Note to self: I responded to this request and made a comment (see [ here]).  —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 19:02, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Eastern Orthodox Church
Hi. Your [ recent changes] to the Eastern Orthodox Church article had to be reverted (undone) because Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy demands that we must discuss controversial topics in a balanced and neutral fashion, without taking sides. If you feel the current text is unacceptably biased in an anti-Orthodox manner, please discuss your concerns on the article's talk page (Talk:Eastern Orthodox Church), or — if that doesn't achieve any results — at WP:NPOVN (the "noticeboard" for requesting help with neutral viewpoint problems). It is very important that you do not simply try to impose your preferred text again and again, because that would be edit warring and would most likely get you blocked from editing. — Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 00:20, 3 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi, thank you for explaining the policy to me. However, The Eastern Orthodox Church has never been officially called "The Orthodox Catholic Church", if you go up to any of millions of Orthdox people in the world they would tell you the same thing. So, I understand it needs to be neutral viewpoint completely, but it also needs to not have false information as well. --Pejacccc (talk) 00:28, 3 February 2013 (UTC)


 * (Stalking around) The first sentence of the article says: "The Orthodox Church is the one Church founded by Jesus Christ and his apostles, begun at the day of Pentecost with the descent of the Holy Spirit in the year 33 A.D." Is this encyclopedic language? I could ask the question at the article's TP but as I am a total ignorant in religion I was afraid to be embarrassed before too many people. Also I missed my appreciated admin, colleague editor and Wikifriend RichWales (no relation to Jimbo) and took the opportunity for a chat with him. All the best. --E4024 (talk) 00:56, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry; I was reading an old version!.. :-) --E4024 (talk) 01:17, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Re: Yes and no in French
(copied from Kbh3rd's user talk page)

Hi. I reverted your [ change] at Russian grammar, in the section comparing the Russian ways of answering yes/no questions to various other languages. In French, when one disagrees with a negative question/statement, the proper word is si, not oui. I've found a source for this fact and will be putting it in the article soon. This entire section (really, the entire article) is badly in need of more and better sourcing, but at least I (who do know French, though not Russian) can help a little with this thing about French. — Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 01:37, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I know some Russian but very little French. I hesitated reverting that, but it ultimately had the unannotated appearance of an anonymous jokester changing French oui to Spanish si.  Thanks for the explanation.  --Kbh3rd talk  17:59, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I fully understand why you might have thought that. And a major reason why I added a source right away, rather than simply saying in the edit summary that si really is the correct French word, is that some other editor would otherwise have surely come along and "fixed" the same "mistake" again.  —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 18:08, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

prior to DRN
I want use challenge and remove option of Wikipedia to challenge some of the content in Sri Lankan Tamil people. I have challenged unreferenced content in |here. Also I questioned the different facts in links in |here. But since I can't go alone to the DRN I tried to start an edit warrying with someone. But they are reverting my edits after logged out. Seems like they using dynamic IPs. How can I act on these situations ? Do I needs to asked to protect the page so no IP can edit the page ? Himesh84 (talk) 18:06, 4 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I want to be sure I understand exactly what the problem is here. The sentence in question (I assume you're referring to [ this edit] from January 30) cites two sources (from books by McGilvray and Karthigesu).  Normally, that would be sufficient — are you saying these sources are incorrect or unreliable?  Or that the sources are being misused — that is, whether by accident or by malicious intention, they don't support the claim to which they are attached?


 * I note that an [ earlier removal] (on January 17) of this same "citation needed" tag has an edit summary saying "already cited", but I can't easily find which earlier citation might be referred to. If there are in fact sources cited elsewhere in the article that would be relevant here, it is certainly appropriate to repeat the cite (by giving a name= parameter in the   tag and then using only that name in the additional cite).  But again, I wonder if you are really saying you disagree with the sources cited already for the sentence in question (or with the way these sources are being used).


 * As for how to deal with the problem, I think it's way, way too early right now to escalate this to the DR noticeboard — people will say the dispute is way too slow and low-key to be an edit war. Also, I would strongly recommend you not use the term "edit war" to refer to any legitimate editing activity; a much more correct model here is WP:BRD (boldly edit, revert, discuss).  Since it still looks like it could be a legitimate, good-faith content dispute, there would not be any question at this point of doing something drastic like blocking an IP user or semi-protecting the page — those remedies are used only when there is a lot of edit-warring or vandalism involving one or more logged-out IP users within a short span of time.


 * If the issue here is that you believe the currently cited sources don't say what the text claims they say, I think the best next step might be to change the text to match more closely what is said in the existing sources. Also, edit the source cites so that relevant, brief quotations from the sources appear in the footnotes (so that readers can easily see what the sources are saying and that the article text is consistent with the sources).  If you get reverted again, try to get people to discuss the matter on the article's talk page — and whatever you do, do not get mired in an edit war, because all that's likely to accomplish is to get you blocked, and people will lose sight of the content dispute because they'll think it was obviously just an edit war.  —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 19:19, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for information. Sorry for my bad English. Edit war is not the appropriate term. Yes. The issue is currently cited sources don't say what the text claims they say. Himesh84 (talk) 05:00, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.

We have added information about the readership of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High.

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 02:08, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

The legal threat gentleman
Just so that you are aware, if you trawl through this history of his page he has also purported to be a police officer with a name and badge number. There was a flurry of legal threats, diffs for which I sent to the legal@ email address

Judging by the web site for Tastic, the threatening editor is a 16 year old young man who became carried away. I have some sympathy for the impetuosity of youth, but the whole experience was less than wonderful, and a lesson is most assuredly required. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 19:00, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka
There was a dispute between Tamils and me regarding above topic. They wanted to insert few things and after consensus I inserted them to Major disputed areas of Ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka. But it seems like really stupid reasons resorting to militancy. Audience who don't know about consensus may feel I inserted these details with angry on Tamils and they will definetly suspect the neutrality of the rest of the article. Is there anyway I can link the claims in the article with ANI discussion (consensus). Himesh84 (talk) 04:56, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

SPI Clerking
Are you still interested? If so I will probably be able to take you on as my (first) trainee. NativeForeigner Talk 00:25, 11 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Yes, please.  —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 01:43, 11 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I'll get you up to speed in probably a week or so. I am currently quite busy but I just wanted to know who I would be working with. It would be ideal if we could talk on irc at that point, and get you started on clerking, which is largely based on experience. NativeForeigner Talk 22:03, 11 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I haven't been using IRC up till now. I am set up with IM (AOL, Yahoo, and Google); if that's acceptable to you, let me know and I'll e-mail you my ID.  —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 22:09, 11 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Yeah, any of those are amenable. NativeForeigner Talk 23:17, 11 February 2013 (UTC)


 * OK, I'll e-mail you my IM info. —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 23:26, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

WP U.S. Supreme Court Cases in the Signpost
The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court Cases for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to SCOTUS cases and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. –Mabeenot (talk) 13:26, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Blær (Stúlka) Bjarkardóttir 2011 passport.png
Thank you for uploading File:Blær (Stúlka) Bjarkardóttir 2011 passport.png. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright and licensing status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can verify that it has an acceptable license status and a verifiable source. Please add this information by editing the image description page. You may refer to the image use policy to learn what files you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. The page on copyright tags may help you to find the correct tag to use for your file. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please also check any other files you may have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is [ a list of your uploads].

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Stefan2 (talk) 09:34, 15 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Note to self: This concern appears to have been resolved by the [ addition of a fair use justification tag] to the image page. —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 15:21, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.

We have added information about the readership of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High.

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 19:16, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

SPI script
Hi! Thought you might find User:Timotheus Canens/spihelper.js helpful - it's a lot better than doing things manually. --Rschen7754 04:46, 21 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Actually, I already am.  I had to do that one (Mikemikev) by hand because the script was confused by an earlier notation on the page and wouldn't give me the options I needed.  —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 04:54, 21 February 2013 (UTC)