User talk:Alleongto

Discuss Jane Shin

Hello & Welcome to wikipedia. You have identified some concerns with MLA Jane Shin's bio, including some based on a direct conversation with the subject. Rather than make several changes that may not meet editorial requirements, please raise the topics of concern and discuss with other editors on the article's Talk page Talk:Jane Shin. Canuckle (talk) 23:28, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Assume Good Faith + No Legal Threats

I suggested that if you have questions or concerns about the content of Jane Shin that you raise them (respectfully) on the article's Talk page Talk:Jane Shin so that editors could discuss how to best improve the article. Wikipedia is a collaborative encyclopedia. If you are a sincere contributor, you should follow that advice rather than repeatedly accuse other editors of negative or partisan biases for rather routine edits.

Assuming good faith WP:GOODFAITH is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia.

Your threats of legal action are also against Wikipedia policy: Wikipedia:LEGAL. This could lead to you being blocked from editing. Also, since your allegations are false and unsupported, your accusations of libellous behaviour is actually slanderous themselves.

You may disagree with neutral and critical editing but you should not confuse those with partisan, negative or libellous edits. Her bio was a meagre 2 sentences until I authored the content that described Jane Shin as a medical doctor, her being 1st Korean-Canadian BC MLA, her childhood illness, a direct quote of her legislature speech about her parents. It is nonsensical for you to describe those as negative and libellous.

Canuckle (talk) 04:58, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Canuckle is correct, you can in fact be editblocked for making legal threats against another Wikipedia editor. Speaking as an administrator, this is your only warning — you will be blocked if I ever hear another instance of you threatening legal action against anybody.

If you have concerns about the accuracy of Jane Shin's article, you may raise them for discussion at Talk:Jane Shin, so that we know what you're actually taking issue with and can properly evaluate what's correct and what isn't. However, you may not simply assert that people are making false or defamatory edits without actually providing any substantive proof of that.

Feel free to discuss your concerns as I've suggested. But stop flinging around unsubstantiated allegations, and don't you dare make another legal threat against anybody. Bearcat (talk) 17:26, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did not make any legal threats to Canuckle. In fact, I merely referred to reiterating Canadian law in the rights of the subject (defamed/libeled) and the remedies available to the subject. Blocking one's rights to legal remedy, should they be legal, is tantamount to obstruction of justice and interference (and is illegal by Canadian law). Again, I made no threats. The language and content used by Canuckle in my edits and the refusal to admit new entries surmounted to a consistent negative bias towards Jane Shin. I have no intent to dispute facts that are not true but fairly represent all facts, positive and negative in a fair manner.Alleongto (talk) 17:40, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, even using veiled allusions to the possibility of legal action still counts as a "legal threat", as does posting the entire text of the law that a Wikipedia editor is alleged, but still has not been adequately proven, to have broken. You still are not properly substantiating your claims that Canuckle has libelled Ms. Shin at all — which you do by actually pointing out the specific wording that you're taking issue with, not by repeatedly asserting that he's committing libel without providing any actual evidence of that. Just as an example, you keep asserting that he's misrepresented her educational credentials — but you have yet to provide a single actual example of how he's "misrepresented" her educational credentials. (And, for the record, I've never known Canuckle to be the kind of editor who commits libel or NPOV violations on here; I've always known him to be quite fair and neutral.)

And, as I pointed out, you need to make your case on the article's talk page — posting the entire text of the Criminal Code to my personal talk page is not within your range of options here.

So, one more time: you need to provide specific and detailed examples of the exact problems you have with the article's text, on the article's talk page — you may not simply assert that it's biased or libellous without providing actual proof of how it is so. And you need to stop making any reference at all to legal remedies — since any problems with the article would be quite easily fixed if you were actually clear and explicit about what the problems actually are, you're not even allowed to imply, let alone directly assert, that anyone might take the matter to court. Bearcat (talk) 18:19, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I raise these issues:

1. inclusion of expenses spent and dismissal by Canuck of the funds "raised" by both parties

2. leukemia is an error in reporting and a misdiagnosis by the doctor that needs to be corrected, this has not been corrected and media reporting is erroneous. (She did not have Leukemia)--my attempt to remove this factual error was rejected and dismissed by Canuckle.

3. her internship rotation was concluded in the UK, however the language used paints that she did not complete her degree, this is incorrect. she is not licensed to practice in Canada and that has not been a bone of contention. Ms. Shin's Doctor title remains legal and valid, but there is no correction from the insinuation and negativity caused by the media reporting of any intent for Ms Shin to misrepresent herself. She did not. Canuckle has a bias for uncorrected media reporting that does not have any follow-up reports or corrections on the matter. Ms. Shin has done nothing wrong in intent or in procedure. Canuckle is using language that appears to continue to be biased in favouring published media reports that may be uncorrected.

4. I am not harmed, I am not the subject of this article. I do not provide veiled threats. There is no need. I have not been wronged.

5. Ms. shin has legal rights if there is misrepresentation in tone, style or context of the information given. That is her legal right. Her rights cannot be diminished. there is a separation between the editor and the subject of this wiki page.Alleongto (talk) 18:56, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What part of article's talk page did you have trouble understanding? If you post anything about this matter to my talk page again I'm just going to remove it. The correct place for discussion of any issues with the content of the article is Talk:Jane Shin — not my personal talk page, not your personal talk page and not Canuckle's personal talk page, but the article's talk page. Bearcat (talk) 19:20, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And also, just for the record, interviews that you personally conducted with the article subject in private do not count as valid sources for our articles, if you haven't published those interviews in a book or newspaper or magazine so that we can properly verify the content of those interviews. Even if you have personal knowledge that an existing source got one or more things wrong, changes to our article still have to be properly sourced to either (a) a correction in that original source, or (b) another reliable source which publishes the corrected or updated information instead of the wrong stuff, because we cannot privilege unsourced claims of inside knowledge by an anonymous editor over what the actual published sources say. If those sources got it wrong, you need to take it up with them and get them to correct their errors, so that we have a verifiable source to correct our article with — but until we have a properly verifiable source for the updated or corrected information, you don't get to attack us for what they said about her. We have actually had many cases in the past where people have claimed to be acting on the article subject's behalf by insisting that the published sources were wrong and replacing it with unsourced assertions of inside knowledge, when in reality they were the ones trying to consciously misrepresent or libel the subject by replacing correct information with lies, and it was their updates that got us into the article subject's line of fire rather than the original content. And I once even had to arbitrate a case where two different people both claimed to be acting on the article subject's behalf while introducing unsourced claims that contradicted each other. So like it or not, we cannot trust unsourced assertions if they aren't backed up by published and verifiable sources — even if the information in the article is wrong, the correction still has to be properly sourced. Bearcat (talk) 19:43, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just as an update, I have reviewed the article with an eye to your concerns. I agree that her campaign spending isn't worthy of note at all. If there were allegations of fundraising or spending impropriety, then that would be worthy of mention — but if all that happens is that she spends more than another candidate within legal fundraising and spending limits, then that's not particularly worthy of note in an encyclopedia. And based on what the sources actually say about her childhood illness, I can accept your contention that the leukemia was an early misdiagnosis. I'm still not sure what your issue is about her educational credentials, however — you still need to explain, clearly and with real examples, what's actually wrong with them as written. Bearcat (talk) 20:51, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bearcat, thank you for your edits. There are no further disputes with her education to the point that it is now. I have corrected some improper grammar use. All is well. Thanks again.Alleongto (talk) 22:27, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of Interest

It is important to note that you have been making edits on behalf of Jane Shin. HummingbirdShimmer (talk) 17:30, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you haven't seen it already, I've addressed your concerns regarding my editing on my talk page. HummingbirdShimmer (talk) 17:42, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest guidelines require that I am employed by Shin. I am not. I am acting as a citizen and a volunteer. When I see egregious errors of intent to defame an individual, those corrections in fact must be modified and copy written in a neutral tone. I stand by my neutrality and abide by all conflict of interest rules. Since I am not employed by Shin, therefore, there is no conflict. My facts are based on two interviews I have had with her. Notwithstanding, any accidental bias, conflict of interest also requires a work, political or other bias. I had been registered as an NDP and also as a Conservative, and get emails from Liberals in Ontario. I am technically Canadian and neutral. The editor HummingbirdShimmer is registered green party - self-described and added content. I restate my neutrality in copy editing. I request conversely, that HummingbirdShimmer and Canuckle give evidence of neutrality and editorial integrity as required by Wikipedia and a disclosure of potential conflicts of interest.Alleongto (talk) 19:06, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not registered with the greens or any other party. Where are you getting that from? Did you read my response on my talk page? HummingbirdShimmer (talk) 19:32, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Alleongto - Including links when referencing policies/guidelines or user's edits is good practice. It permits you and others to check in on the source material. For instance, WP:COI, the Conflict of Interest guidelines, do not "require" your employment by the article subject as you said in this edit: (diff). They also cover your personal interests and external relationships, including friends. When you said you were acting as a "volunteer", my first take was you meant as a volunteer wikipedia editor like the rest of us. If you meant volunteering for a political office or campaign (something I have never done myself), that could be problematic given the one-sided nature of your past edits to one article. "It risks causing public embarrassment to the individuals and groups being promoted" (WP:COI) as shown by this list of incidents: COI incidents on Wikipedia Canuckle (talk) 18:09, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

COI (section copied from other user's talk page)

Thanks for your concern and pointing out COI.

I am not paid by Jane Shin to edit this page, it is done voluntarily. There is no conflict of interest. My edits have been clear to fairly represent Jane Shin in the material presented by press, correction of inaccuracies in press and subsequent editing by editors who have not contacted the source for information. Reporters may or may have incorrectly reported on specific facts. I have also counted the positive, neutral and negative portrayals in press and this Wikipedia page. It appears that some press are not required to abide by any NPOV guidelines. However, on Wiki, I maintain that in counting the negative vs positive comments, there were substantially more negative items previously reported and republished than positive comments, including, for example, volunteer work.

My task is to provide a realignment to neutrality by adding as many positive facts that had been available to media and editors to ensure fair representation of Ms. Shin. I do this as a Canadian Citizen and BC resident, voluntarily.Alleongto (talk) 19:10, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will copy your response to your talk page as your learnings about how to best contribute to wikipedia and your COI response are much more pertinent to your own page than mine. I also request that you post future responses on your talk page so as to not crowd my page with content. Given your past comments supporting accuracy and avoiding defamation, I hope you agree that continuing to post unsupported allegations of bias on my page is not appropriate. Canuckle (talk) 00:57, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: User:Alleongto/sandbox (November 23)

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit if you feel they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Alleongto/sandbox.
To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the reviewer's talk page. Please remember to link to the submission!
You can also get real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! TKK! bark with me if you're my dog! 08:20, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Jenica Rayne (December 30)

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit if you feel they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jenica Rayne.
To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the reviewer's talk page. Please remember to link to the submission!
You can also get real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 23:56, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Alleongto, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering or curious about why your article submission was declined please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there!

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 15:58, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Non-neutral sources

Hi, you raised a couple of times that you regard some mainstream media sources as biased and question should they be used as references in a neutral article. Here is some relevant information WP:BIASED from guidelines on identifying reliable sources:

Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject. While a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context. When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control and a reputation for fact-checking

Canuckle (talk) 01:26, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jenica Rayne concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jenica Rayne, a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:30, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jenica Rayne

Hello Alleongto. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled "Jenica Rayne".

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jenica Rayne}}, paste it in the edit box at this link, click "Save page", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. JMHamo (talk) 14:18, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (February 26)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Legacypac was:

This submission provides insufficient context for those unfamiliar with the subject matter. Please see the guide to writing better articles for information on how to better format your submission.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Is there an existing page on this company? This is not an article

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to User:Alleongto/sandbox and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to User:Alleongto/sandbox, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Legacypac (talk) 11:52, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Alleongto/sandbox

Hello, Alleongto. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, User:Alleongto/sandbox.

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:52, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]