User talk:WV NYC

Comment
Hi. I'm very much a novice when it comes to navigating when and how to use Wikipedia's 'talk' pages and 'sandbox', so if you would cut me some slack in terms of formatting my explanations of the primary sources that we are providing to support our entries on the Pearl S Buck page that would be great.

1. Regarding deletions of well-referenced information placed on the Pearl S Buck page, why is that information being deleted? The weight and quality of the references that we provide to support that information that describes Pearl S Buck involvement/integral role in placing Canada Scoops/60's Scoops victims in USA include the following:

1. National Archives of Canada, in courts of law that is considered a primary source, but Wikipedia doesn't consider it good enough? and 2. documentary done by Aboriginal People's Television Network.

And, The information that you are letting stand that blames someone else - a deceased dance instructor - for the Pearl S Buck involvement in Canadian Scoops is not as well referenced as the information that we provide.

It seems like you are letting Pearl S Bucks public relations machine make the editorial decisions regarding this page.

Please advise on what more we can do - other than hiring a firm to keep the information on Wikipedia which is something that I have been approached about. Thank you. WV NYC (talk) 12:02, 24 May 2015 (UTC) WV NYC (talk) 12:08, 24 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Hello, I have no idea what the "Pearl S Bucks public relations machine" is and they have nothing to do with me. The problem is that no sources satisfying the rules have been cited yet.  Where can the documentary be found, so that the content can be verified and its reliability judged?  Something broadcast and then lost can't be used.  Is there a transcript?  Also, every file in the National Archives of Canada has a file number; what is it?  Do you have the text so that you can quote it for us? I can't find it mentioned in the summaries published by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission; why not?  Please respond to my questions and suggestions on the Pearl S Bucks talk page. Zerotalk 14:34, 24 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Incidentally, "hiring a firm to keep the information on Wikipedia" would be treated as an attack on the encyclopaedia and is exactly the wrong way to go about it. The only way you can get this information to stick is to provide sources that fit our policy requirements. If you have the money, hire someone to produce the documents. Convince a respectable newspaper to run the story and show it to us.  There are lots of ways. So far no source has been mentioned that I, and several other people, can even verify to exist. Zerotalk 14:47, 24 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Regarding your questions to me: I really can't say. I've been involved in some categorization of the page, but I really haven't been editing it beyond that. I would, however, note the two comments above and take them under advisement...looking for sources to support what you wish to write is the best way to go about doing things, absolutely. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 15:01, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Official warning
"201100009" is not an archive file number. If you add this material again without satisfying the requirements I have outlined, I will block you from editing. Zerotalk 12:14, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Pearl S Buck
@Zero0000

I can actually upload and send you the Canada Truth & Reconciliation Form that gives us that file number that you are claiming is not accurate, as well as correspondence from commissioner from TRC-Canada in regard to the authenticity of the victim statement that I cite. It's really alarming that Wikipedia would think to ban this information, I mean you don't get more thorough and reliable sources for this than I am offering. I'm actually offering the images of the documentation along with the citations. WV NYC (talk) 12:33, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Help Me
Please help me with...a wikipedia administrator, a.k.a., 'Zero0000', sent me a message that seemed a bit threatening, as if to scare me off of posting well-referenced information. Meanwhile, as he seemingly tries to deter me from adding accurate and well-referenced information to a page for 'Pearl S Buck' he is allowing non-referenced public relations, marketing material like information to stay on the page. The page is 'Pearl S Buck'

Is it possible to assign another administrator to my edits for the Pearl S Buck page? I don't mind - not at all - having to provide evidence to support my edits but once I have done so to a level that has satisfied courts, judges and a truth and reconciliation commission, doesn't it also make sense that it would satisfy Wikipedia standards?

Aside from the very unprofessional and a little bit threatening message he did separately send me a message stating that I had given a false Truth & Reconciliation Commission - Canada file number and for that reason he was again deleting information that I had provided on Pearl S Buck page. I have now offered to send images of the actual TRC-Canada victim statement pages with the file number on them (that it's clear from the documentation TRC-Canada put on the form) as well as offer statements from a TRC-Canada commissioner and 2 staff members who were integral in the processing of that particular victims statement that this Wikipedia Administrator is claiming is false.

Hopefully we can remedy this problem without further inconvenience to anyone. I really had no idea anyone within Wikipedia would be so adamant about denying this information. It's giving me a very different perception of Wikipedia - what makes it onto Wikipedia and why - than I had prior to this experience. WV NYC (talk) 13:15, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

WV NYC (talk) 13:15, 25 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Anyone is allowed to make edits to a page, and most of your edit here is unsourced. If you disagree, you should discuss it at the talkpage, Talk:Pearl S. Buck. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:20, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Also accusing other users of threatening you without actual evidence is not assuming good faith. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:21, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Reply

 * If you upload what you have to a server like dropbox, icloud, or sharefile and then email the url to me, I will read it. There is an "email this user" link beside my home page which will work if you have set up an email address with your account.  (Your mail to me will reveal your email address to me, so make a new email account if that would be a problem.)  If the material you want to put on Wikipedia only comes from one victim statement, it probably won't be allowed.  It seems to me that you misunderstand the purpose of Wikipedia.  Please read WP:GREATWRONGS. Shaming the guilty, exposing scandals, supporting victims, and all things like that are laudable pursuits, but they are not our function. Zerotalk 13:41, 25 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I notice that the TRC website has a large amount of material including many victim statements. I viewed some of them and found them quite shocking. (Not being Canadian, I was not aware of these things before.) Does the material you want to include appear there? If not, why not?  If TRC made a decision to not publish something, it doesn't help your case. Zerotalk 13:41, 25 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Also, if you want to complain about my work as an administrator, the place is WP:AN. Zerotalk 13:42, 25 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Also, if you want to complain, please read WP:BOOMERANG before posting there. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:45, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

The Edits Not Made By WV NYC Are WRONG, MISLEADING
You should have kept my exact edits in as I provided them because your edits of my edits are misleading, i.e., your edits of my edits are actually not correct and as a result it makes my original edits look as though they were incorrect.

Clarifying: Pearl S Buck's Welcome House adoption agency did not itself remove the Canadian Indian Children, a.k.a., aboriginal children, from their birth homes. As the source I originally cited and as I originally described, the children were 'scooped' from their birth homes by Canadian Government along with elites of their indian bands, Pearl S Buck and her Welcome House adoption agency were not at the 'scoopings'. Pearl S Buck and her Welcome House adoption agency enter the equation as traffickers, i.e., they were instrumental, essential actually, in the trafficking/the transit of the children, already 'scooped', from Canada to USA and then to various states within the USA. Who should make this correction, a wiki editor or me? If we leave it to Pearl S Buck people they will whitewash it to point that she was not involved at all which also is a gross misrepresentation and contradicts all available relevant periodical references. WV NYC (talk) 13:24, 3 June 2015 (UTC)


 * If you have a problem with the edits on the Pearl S. Buck page, you should raise them at Talk:Pearl S. Buck, not here. You are right that the sentence was inaccurately worded. I've tried to correct it. However, there is no way we would use terms like "trafficking" to refer to adoption agencies working with government social services. We could only use that kind of terminology if it were attributed to an appropriate source - say an academic or notable public figure who who had called it that. Paul B (talk) 13:00, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

This Page 'Sixties Scoops' Needs Additional Section USA Placed Victims
To be complete, this page Sixties Scoops needs an additional section titled something to effect 'USA Placed Victims-Survivors of Canadian Scoops' WV NYC (talk) 12:19, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

June 2015
Hello, I'm Liz. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight), but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 20:13, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Pearl S Buck Humanitarian Efforts Section
Why are Wikipedia Editors allowing 'Pearl S Buck People', in particular the Chinese ISP addresses, to add to the Pearl S Buck page defamatory statements about other people? The single purpose of those statements seems only to be to serve to provide scapegoats for Pearl S Buck's role in the Canada Scoops, in bringing Canada Scoops victims to USA.

Of particular concern is the entry they provided on an NYC Arthur Murray Dance School instructor, Theodore Harris. This Information that may/may not be true that they provided about Theodore Harris, the NYC Arthur Murray Dance School instructor, was only entered onto the Pearl S Buck Wikipedia page afterBold text our well cited information was provided describing Pearl S Buck's own unique and integral role in bringing Canada Scoop Victims to USA, i.e., it seems like they are using him as a scapegoat and - given that they also only very recently announced the NYC Lincoln Center August 2015 premiere of Pearl: The Musical, using a dance instructor, and an Arthur Murray School dance instructor as a scape goat, while it may be true, seems more like a story line made up especially for this musical premiere. WV NYC (talk) 11:14, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for raising the question, even though you did not do me the courtesy of letting me know. I was the one who added the information, and I do not have a Chinese ISP (even if edits coming from another race were somehow automatically suspect). Unless you have superhuman powers of mindreading, why do you assume that my motives were to make someone a "scapegoat"? If, as you allege, my purpose is to protect Buck's reputation, why would I add information that makes her look so much less than perfect? And to add to the absurdity of this accusation, how can a book published twenty years ago have a "story line made up especially for this musical premiere." Get a grip!


 * I would very much appreciate an apology from you for your discourteous, untrue, and unhelpful allegation.ch (talk) 16:54, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

DivaNtrainin - Residential Schools Truth & Reconciliation Commission
DivaNtrainin,

you are exactly why people/companies pay thousands of dollars per month to get and maintain/keep editors like you from senselessly deleting good information, i.e., good meaning, correct. EVERYONE who knows anything about TRC-Canada knows that the mandate was edited from it's original, text that you are allowing to stay there, even says so. But yet YOU keep deleting my inputs.

Do I have to be 'sneaky' and use some other ISP address and sign in information to get around you? Is Wikipedia a source of information or a power play? Hard to tell. I am though looking into the services that one can pay for to get and keep information on Wikipedia because, because of editors like you, I am spending an ENORMOUS amount of time on this. Your edits are unprofessional and some unconscionable. WV NYC (talk) 14:34, 14 June 2015 (UTC)


 * The following message was left on User talk:DivaNtrainin's page. I have placed it here to continue the discussion.


 * Everyone who is familiar with the TRC-Canada knows that the mandate was edited throughout the life of the truth and reconciliation commission; do you really think that you should be editing this page when you aren't familiar with it? WV NYC (talk) 10:33, 18 June 2015 (UTC)


 * As mentioned to you multiple times on multiple talk pages, you need to provide reliable sources for edits. The statement that "everyone who is familiar with" anything is not a reliable source. Here is a | link to the mandate. Your assertion that the mandate was changed is not supported and frankly, I don't believe it is true. Until you provide any evidence to support your statement, there is no reason to discuss this further.DivaNtrainin (talk) 12:23, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Please follow policies
Dear WV NYC, please follow basic WP policies like WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NPOV. I suggest you read those links. If you learn the basics, you will be able to contribute in a way which will mean your edits will be more more likely to remain in the text. You need to cite sources. Apart from your website, is there any suggestion that Buck's completely marginal connection to "Sixties Scoops" has been a matter of contention regarding this musical (which seems to be barely notable in itself)? Also, there is really very little point in leaving messages on your talk page addressed to DivaNtrainin, for example. If you wish to talk to him/her write on their talk page. Otherwise you should use the talk page of the article under discussion to get responses from interested editors. Another way to get wider interest is to post messages on relevant project pages (e.g. those at Category:WikiProject History of Canada) or relevant discussion boards such as WP:NPOVN. Paul B (talk) 13:23, 15 June 2015 (UTC)


 * People would normally be included as notable residents if they are sufficiently notable to have their own Wikipedia page, which Gregory is not. Frankly, beyond your website I can find almost no mention of him, except the report of a divorce (assuming that's the same Taber Gregory). Again you can raise this at the discussion page, or at Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. Paul B (talk) 14:11, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

June 2015
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Pearl S. Buck. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Fortuna  Imperatrix Mundi  14:38, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

Pearl S. Buck
Hi, WV NYC, Regarding this edit you made, information like this requires a source or reference to verify it. Have you seen this news appear in a reliable source like a newspaper or magazine? Then you can add the citation and the information is much more likely to be included in the article. For information on formatting references, check out Help:Referencing for beginners or Inline citation. Liz Read! Talk! 18:29, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Blocked
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit-warring, as you did at Pearl Buck. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice:. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Zerotalk 11:45, 20 June 2015 (UTC)