User talk:Richwales/Archives/2013-03

Hi
You noted "SPI/Guidance says to consider notifying a..." - Yes, it does now; it was changed after I pointed out the inconsistency on the Talk page. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 20:20, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

IRC cloak request
Requesting an IRC cloak. — Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 03:55, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Traditional marriage
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Traditional marriage. 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, 4 March 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) 02:35, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Codetruth
Hiya Rich,

Just letting you know that I've unarchived the Codetruth SPI case, as it appears that sanctions on the master account have not been fully considered (although it may be that none are necessary, some eyes-on are needed). Remember to fully review a case before archiving. Cheers! :) SpitfireTally-ho! 15:39, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

North Londoner
Hi Rich. As you'll see from my records, over the past few years I was a regular Wikipedia editor, using the name NorthLondoner. Then I wanted to start editing Wikipedia, but under my real name, so sent a Username Change Request to that end. It changed my 'Talk' name, but not my username. So, I figured it was no big deal and just kept posting under NorthLondoner, as my username showed as that.

But, I only want one account, and one under my real name - Graham Phillips. So I'm happy if you've deleted the other and thanks for that. Best, GrahamWPhillips GrahamWPhillips (talk) 00:34, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

As soon as I saw my username had changed at the top, to GrahamWPhillips, I started using that tag. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GrahamWPhillips (talk • contribs) 00:35, 16 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for letting me know you understand the situation. (Note to self:  See [ this comment] on GrahamWPhillips' talk page for background.)  —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 00:45, 16 March 2013 (UTC)


 * You're welcome Rich, it's nice to be dealt with by such a high profile editor. Could you help me take things forward with the Barry Pring case in terms of a decision on its remaining. I am a journalist who has written a book on it, but objectively, the case has attracted enough media attention and online comment, plus has sufficient impact on several spheres, to warrant inclusion. Best, Graham User:GrahamWPhillips GrahamWPhillips (talk) 01:04, 16 March 2013 (UTC)


 * The most appropriate thing for you (or anyone) to do here would be to very carefully read our guidelines regarding notability of subjects. In addition to the general notability guideline page, you should also study the specific pages regarding notability for people and events, as well as the significance of people notable for only one event.  The main point that seems to be at issue in this case is whether Barry Pring may be notable solely by reason of his having been the victim of a criminal act — such a person would generally not qualify for their own article, but should instead be included as part of a broader article if possible.


 * A couple of examples I'm aware of where a person's notability was (or might have been) challenged on this sort of basis would be Guy Paul Morin (a Canadian man who was wrongly convicted of raping and murdering a young girl, but who was later exonerated via DNA evidence) and Sandra Fluke (a woman who spoke last year in favour of the contraceptive provisions of Obamacare, and who was subsequently ridiculed by Rush Limbaugh). Fluke's article was initially deleted, then restored several months later.  Morin's article doesn't appear to have ever been nominated for deletion; if it were, I imagine a case could be made either way.  There was originally a stub article about Christine Jessop (the girl Morin was wrongly convicted of murdering, and whose murder is now considered unsolved), but that article was merged into the Guy Paul Morin article.


 * Also, be aware that our policies on biographies of living persons applies to material about living persons appearing in articles that are, themselves, not biographies of living persons. Thus, for example, contentious comments about Anna Ziuzina must not appear in the Barry Pring article (or anywhere else on Wikipedia) unless said comments are supported by high-quality reliable sources; this is why I removed some material about Ziuzina last night from the Pring article.


 * Since I am a "clerk" working on sockpuppet investigation cases — and since there is currently an open SPI case involving you — I don't feel it would be appropriate at this time for me to take any more active role regarding the Barry Pring article (or its associated AfD) beyond the above general advice on notability. Please understand that I am not taking a position, one way or the other, as to whether the user "Cliffope" is your sockpuppet.  I will say that if you do happen to have been engaging in covert sockpuppetry (and I'm not counting the NorthLondoner issue here), the only acceptable thing for you to do would be to come clean ASAP by admitting your misdeed and giving credible assurances that you understand the sockpuppetry policy and will not do such things ever again.  —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 01:33, 16 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you, that's very insightful Rich. Firstly, as for "Cliffope" - that is absolutely not me. I'm not going to say that I haven't made some Wikipedia mistakes in the past, I started editing wikipedia in 2006 as GWP (my initials), you can see a couple of articles I started here - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=J%C4%81zeps_Grosvalds&action=history
 * and here - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Uga_Skulme&action=history, also here - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=J%C4%93kabs_Kazaks&action=history - and there are more.


 * Then, down the line, I got involved in an 'edit war', got blocked, and stepped away from wikipedia for a while. I came back, having learned some lessons, and started casually uploading, as NorthLondoner. Then, over the past couple of years, I've developed a career as a journalist. So, coming back to wikipedia more meaningfully, and editing about a case I've been involved with, the Barry Pring case (http://www.thisisexeter.co.uk/Search-truth-Barry-Pring-s-murder/story-18136796-detail/story.html#axzz2Nem5NHjJ), I wanted to be sure I was being transparent so write under my own name.


 * I would hope to have an understanding of the tenets of wikipedia, although there are certainly lessons to take from this. I did think that demonstrating the importance of Barry Pring's story through adding content on other articles relating to that was an acceptable way to substantiate the importance of the article. However, if this amounts to coatracking then I've been mistaken.


 * I read over Guy Paul Morin and Sandra Fluke, they would both seem pretty important subjects to me. I am open about how to proceed with the Barry Pring article. Perhaps, as you suggest, given that his life is represented here through the context of Anna Ziuzina, a combined article would be better.


 * About Anna Ziuzina, I do give you my word on that. I did undertake an investigation in Ukraine into the Barry Pring situation. And I did come to the conclusion that he was murdered by Anna Ziuzina. However, on your guidance, I resolve to edit wikipedia only when such edits are supported by high-quality sources.


 * I do think that the Barry Pring story will be contentious to some. Anna Ziuzina is still free and given to actively defending herself via the internet. Also, naturally there was the content about Leigh Turner, who I'm sure would not be happy to see it there.


 * I have been worried that Barry's article would be sabotaged by those in the Ziuzina camp, so to this end I have told certain connections that there is a Barry Pring article on wikipedia, and their feedback would be appreciated. Although, I have myself only ever edited from my own account. If this is a form of sockpuppetry, by my doing so, then I apologise for that and won't do it again.


 * In terms of my book, if you send an email to me - gwplondon@gmail.com, I will send you a copy. It is written as a balanced, investigative piece of work which presents clear evidence for the conclusion. http://www.amazon.co.uk/Ukraine-Men-women-murder-ebook/dp/B00BH26KCW/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1361618231&sr=8-1


 * Ok, thank you for now Rich, I am hugely appreciative of your time and effort, talk GrahamWPhillips (talk) 02:27, 16 March 2013 (UTC)


 * The only "sockpuppetry" currently at issue is the allegation that you might have created the "Cliffope" account and used it to edit the AfD page (to make there appear to be more support for keeping the article). If you didn't do this, I'm not sure if there is any effective way to disprove it; people who work in sockpuppet investigation are understandably skeptical of editors who deny they are engaging in sockpuppetry (since most people will deny this regardless of whether they really did it or not).


 * Regardless of how much personal research you may have done on the Barry Pring case, we can only use material that can be verified via reliable sources. I'd recommend you read (or re-read) the policy pages on verifiability, reliable sources, avoiding original research, and neutrality — and also the policy page on biographies of living persons.


 * Adding mention of Barry Pring to other articles, where it might seem strained or contrived, may be seen as a misguided or underhanded attempt to sidetrack the subject of an article or to make some subject appear more important than it really is. The question of whether the Barry Pring article belongs as an article unto itself, or whether the material might be better off merged into another article about mail-order brides or Internet brides, should really be settled by itself, without getting other articles involved.  You would also need to be careful to respect the requirements of the BLP policy — anything possibly contentious said about Leigh Turner, Anna Ziuzina, or others absolutely must cite high-quality reliable sources, and unsourced contentious material must not be included even if you are personally convinced that it is factually true.


 * There may also be a fundamental problem with your writing this article, given that you have spent so much time writing a book on it and such. This is not absolutely forbidden, but it may easily be seen as suspect.  Read the conflict-of-interest policy, and also make very sure that you are citing secondary sources that discuss and interpret any primary sources.  If you are writing an article in which you are citing mainly your own work for sources, this is likely to be seen as a red flag.


 * In my view, right now, the most important thing for you to do right now is to try (if at all possible) to clear the air regarding the allegations that you may have been using multiple accounts for purposes of deception (specifically, the "Cliffope" account). I can't really advise you regarding that; the only thing I can recommend is that you tell the truth and hope people believe you.  —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 02:49, 16 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you for that Rich. With the Cliffope - can you check IP addresses or something? You would find that any edits coming from Cliffope come from an IP address I've never used. What about email addresses - perhaps you could also check those? And I 100% give my word that Cliffope is not me.


 * Let's do, as you say, resolve the sockpuppet issue and then we can move on from there. I 100% give my word that I have only ever used my own account. Actually, if you go right back to 2006, you will find that I did get accused of 'edit war' back then, but I've never been accused of sock-puppetry before, nor would I indulge in such practice.


 * My way of working for the Barry Pring article was to add content on other pages I believed was of relevance to, and in support of, the Barry Pring article. And also to participate in dialogue saying why I believe it important and worthy of inclusion.


 * I accept what you say, going forward I should necessarily have limited involvement in the Barry Pring article due to my activities in the sphere. And, to be open, Anna Ziuzina and her acquaintances, and myself, do not enjoy the best of relationships. So anything I add is liable to being held under a microscope, or even attacked.


 * To that end if the article is allowed to remain, I do agree to take a step back from it. I've always tried to be a good editor to wikipedia, and not to conflict with other areas. And I've started many articles which were first-starts, and worked on many articles to add good content (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Osborne&offset=20100912135409&action=history).


 * What got me involved in writing about Barry Pring in the first instance was a belief it was important. And, being as objective as I can, I do feel it is such a high-profile case, with such wide ramifications and cross-involvement, as to warrant wikipedia inclusion.


 * About the Cliffope issue, I'd like to do whatever possible to prove that's not me. Best, Graham GrahamWPhillips (talk) 03:13, 16 March 2013 (UTC)


 * English Wikipedia policy forbids the use of the CheckUser tool at a suspect's own request to prove his innocence. As far as other possible ways for you to establish your innocence (assuming you are in fact innocent), the most I can do is to bring our discussion here to the attention of the SPI team.  —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 04:43, 16 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I thank you for all your assistance Rich, User:GrahamWPhillips GrahamWPhillips (talk) 11:56, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Early history of Jaffna kingdom
Hi, I want to rename this article to Early history of Jaffna. Current article title have big syntax issue.

Kingdom doesn't mean only land. It includes land(area),king(dynasty ),people(ethnic). We can individually talk about early history of about 3 before establishment of the kingdom. But can't talk about early history of the kingdom before establishment of the kingdom. If someone says early history of a kingdom, actually it can't go beyond the establishment of the kingdom.

Other thing is the land, people lived in Jaffna was under kingdom of Anuradhapura and kingdom of Pollonnaruwa before 1215. Can you please tell me what is the process of renaming ?

--Himesh84 (talk) 17:45, 19 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I think the best thing to do right now would be to get some discussion going on the question. I do note that you started a discussion on the Talk:Jaffna kingdom page; no one else has spoken up yet, but that's OK, since you started the discussion less than an hour ago, and these things take time.


 * Although you do, in fact, have the technical capability of renaming the page yourself (without needing an admin to do it), I would strongly recommend against doing this until/unless a clear consensus materializes in favour of doing a rename. If you were to simply go ahead and "boldly" rename the page without a consensus, that might be seen as a disruptive move, even if you were acting in good faith.


 * The entire Early history of Jaffna kingdom article is badly in need of copy-editing and proofreading by native English speakers with strong writing skills. Unfortunately, I don't have the time to do this right now — and given my past experiences with the general topic of Sri Lanka, I don't believe I should get involved with this or any related article.  —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 19:01, 19 March 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) 15:02, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

advice on Sri Lanka
I included details about Hill country Tamils to the SL page since they had not been mentioned in that page but they comprise 5% of total population. No one objected to including details about that group since every one know they contribute to total population of SL. Then obinicanibe renamed the Hill country Tamils to Indian Tamils of SL. I and 2 other (cossede,hillcountries) prefer the first name (HillCountry Tamils).

I am surprised about consensus process in WP. Who is needs to make consensus here. I think it is obinicanibe since he is the one who want to rename the first mentioned name to other name. What do you think on this.Also how we feel we made consensus. how many votes are needed ? --Himesh84 (talk) 10:30, 24 March 2013 (UTC)