User talk:Danh108/Archive 2

Thanks for your message

Danh, thanks for your message. Its still quite busy, a lot of travel for work. Have a good time Changeisconstant (talk) 22:25, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Brahma Kumaris article

If you disagree with another editor's changes to an article, the best place to raise that is on the talk page of the article. (In fact, the user you a referring to has already opened a thread there.) Using multiple accounts is broadly only a problem if the edits overlap, or if the user is deliberately creating a false impression of support in a discussion - people have been known to forget their passwords and start new accounts. --McGeddon (talk) 08:28, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Conflict of interest

Can I ask whether you're familiar with Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines? You say on your user page that "I do some volunteer work in the kitchen at the Brahma Kumaris (BK) retreat centre in Melbourne Australia and I enjoy/benefit a lot from their form of meditation" and explain that your main motivation for joining Wikipedia was to make the Brahma Kumaris article match up to your "real life experience". Improving bad articles is always appreciated, but it can be very difficult for somebody close to a subject to edit its article neutrally, and if an editor is writing based on their personal experiences rather than published sources, the article can easily drift away from WP:V. --McGeddon (talk) 08:50, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome to reply in either place, I'm watching both pages. Wikipedia:COI#Non-controversial_edits is worth focusing on - as you say here, the Brahma Kumaris article is being edited back and forth by SPAs with different viewpoints, and you are one of those SPAs. Since this makes these edits "controversial", you should not be making them directly, as an editor with a COI, and should instead be discussing potential changes on the talk page, and relying on uninvolved editors to implement them on your behalf. (The removal reliably-sourced content is not out-and-out vandalism, so it is inappropriate for you to revert it yourself.)

Your honesty in mentioning the connection is appreciated, and the potential COIs of any other editors will be taken into account equally strongly by any uninvolved editor joining the discussion. I haven't got time to comb through the edits myself right now, but will keep the article on my watchlist. --McGeddon (talk) 09:22, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry mate, but you've really jumped the gun here and I disagree with you. While I do only have about 3 or 4 editing interests, I think your comment is bordering on offensive. If you did look at the history of this article, I've been very diligent with RS. So what you can legitimately say is there is an openly disclosed potential conflict of interest. But I hold the interests of building a high quality Wikipedia very close to me and am not here representing any organisation. Like you, I have my own views on life that can bias my mind. But for you to say my single purpose is to make edits representing this group goes against the evidence in the page history and is crossing the line - please be careful with your assumptions in future. RegardsDanh108 (talk) 09:57, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

That's WP:COI having a clear, bright line about this, not me. COI editors are welcome to diligently add reliable references to an article they have a connection to, but they should not add content without going through the talk page first, however strong its references.

And apologies, I assumed your "ongoing skirmishes between WP:SPA editors" comment was referring to yourself. Of the 289 edits you've made to Wikipedia articles since joining last September, 263 have been to Brahma Kumaris related articles. --McGeddon (talk) 10:19, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi McGeddon, apology accepted. I think you have still missed the main point. The admins I have interacted with earlier about this page didn't feel the need to add the tag you have, probably because having some "real life" contact with the subject matter of an article doesn't mean that I automatically have an interest that over rides my interest in Wikipedia. It's a possibility that people could perceive one, so in the interests of openness I have declared that from the beginning. If you went back to the actual date when I joined (January not September) the edit ratio is probably even "worse". However I don't accept the label of being a COI editor, nor the strictures that you think apply as a result of this. As earlier stated, if you have any evidence that I'm editing in a biased way, then please do raise it with me or re-instate the tags. But baseless assumptions are not good faith, and tend to make me regret being so open as the information is getting misused. RegardsDanh108 (talk) 16:59, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Having a COI isn't about being deceptive or malicious, it's just about how hard it is for even the most well-meaning editor to remain neutral and work only from sources, when writing about a subject that they have a connection to. A person is defined as having an actual conflict of interest every time that they're deciding how to write about a subject they have a connection to. Full disclosure is a great first step, and it's appreciated, but WP:COISELF also advises us to "refrain from editing those articles directly". Just today I've seen you revert my own and another editor's work on an article to your preferred version, and undo my merge of a Brahma Kumaris article, which is a very long way from that.

I think you have a conflict of interest and shouldn't be editing these articles in this way. If you disagree, would it help to get some outside input at WP:COIN? --McGeddon (talk) 17:45, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

I think you are pigeon holing me as a COI without any evidence - my disclosure is of a connection, not a direct conflict. I didn't re-instate my 'preferred version' - that other editor work was dubious as you are hopefully well aware. I don't think I reverted any content you added - correct me if I'm wrong. I simply did a broader revert of that editor than the couple of bits you reverted. You may not be aware, but a merger had been proposed long ago by an admin for that page - as you can see it was just a stub of a thing at that time. Then through dialogue with that admin quite a bit of work was put in which was hard to research and get RS's on. Then the merger proposal was dropped. So naturally, when you turn up and merge it without any discussion, it's going to get reverted. Wouldn't you be the one at fault there for skipping the discussion process? Not really fair to try and use this as evidence of inappropriate editing....btw, I do appreciate your civil tone for this discussion - really appreciated! RegardsDanh108 (talk) 18:05, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Looks like that merger was never formally closed; it should have had a template added to the talk page of the article. I'll do that now.

You have a connection to a religious group, which is fine and unremarkable in itself, but it becomes a conflict as soon as you are required to exercise judgement about an article related to that group, and it looks like you have been exercising such judgement very strongly. I think I'll bring this up at WP:COIN to get some wider input. --McGeddon (talk) 18:31, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Okay, here is the COI/N thread I've raised. --McGeddon (talk) 18:59, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Cool, thanks for sharing the thread McGeddon. I will direct some comments there. But I note that you introduce the words "really strong". I agree that I am strongly advocating the position that there is no basis for you transforming a 'free thinking casual consumer' into 'cloistered clergy' (yes, I like poetry and alliteration too). And where is there any evidence that all of a sudden this relates to my editing the Brahma Kumaris page? Again you have erred, transferring my disagreement with you about how COI applies over to views about an article. I haven't even really edited the article during the period we've been having this discussion, just a simple revert of the latest random SPA edits and of your hasty merger. Yet now I'm "exercising such judgement very strongly" - clearly you have based this on my disagreement with you over COI NOT on my editing the BK article. Will you retract your comment please?. You seem a very good natured fellow, so I'm grateful for that - sorry to be so disagreeable. As a Melbourne lawyer I have a working understanding of COI, so naturally I'm going have clear views about it here on Wiki too. Best wishesDanh108 (talk) 20:17, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Your edits to the article are bound up with the COI problem, and I'm not sure what distinction you're trying to draw between them here, or what you're specifically asking me to retract. I'm happy with "strong" as an adjective for your behaviour; you seem robust and active on the article and its talk page - you certainly aren't making "weak" edits. --McGeddon (talk) 21:18, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

My point was that the article hasn't really been edited during this period - it stands as it was last week. I don't think the COI is bound up with the article, so that will why we don't agree - you may think I'm taking a stance on COI to protect some sort of poorly concealed religious agenda, when the actual intent is just because I think you are incorrectly applying policy based on assumptions you have made and may not be conscious of. There are edits where editors have been reverting me because my edits weren't favourable to the BKs - it will be a drag to sift the archive, but the one I remember was the one raised just now on the talk page about the founders date of birth. Last year I found a birth certificate on one of the hyper-critical websites, so changed the date of birth. I was then reverted because it's primary source and all the third party RS I could find has the "wrong date" (IMHO), so I had to let it go. So like i say, your assertion is inconsistent with the editing history, just jumping to conclusions and if you don't mind be saying, taking a bit of unfair advantage of my open-ness about my entry point into Wikipedia editing. Anyways, I'm off to work. Nice to meet you. RegardsDanh108 (talk) 22:09, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Citing a case

Depending on what you're trying to say, you should usually be citing secondary news coverage of the case, rather than the case itself. Per WP:PRIMARY we can only take "straightforward, descriptive statements of facts" from primary court documents and must be extremely careful not to interpret them. --McGeddon (talk) 17:58, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

It related to this edit. So it's not a comment directed towards the case before the judge, but judicial comment about the prominence VCAT is now taking Victoria Australia. Regards Danh108 (talk) 22:01, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Brahma Kumaris connection

There was no consensus on my COI/N post because it didn't get any response at all, but two editors on the Brahma Kumaris talk page have expressed concern that the article shows some bias, and User:Truth is the only religion added a COI tag which you removed - since I agree that there may be a problem here, I put it back, and {{coi}} recommends that editors "also tag the talk page with {{Connected contributor}} so that other users know what the conflict of interest is". So far as I'm aware you're the only editor to have announced a direct connection to the group.

You're welcome to change or blank your user page and talk page, but it's worth considering keeping a clear declaration in place for the sake of other editors. Your call, though. --McGeddon (talk) 17:25, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

The discussions on the talk page include the suggestions that "This page reads like it has be written by Brahma Kumari followers to promote the religion", that it reads like a "puff piece" and that "BK followers have littered the topic with factual inaccuracies and misleading content" - this is very much a COI issue and it seems reasonable for the article to be tagged as such. The talk page banner stating that you have "declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article" seems accurate - it's not saying that you've exercised bad judgment or made promotional edits yourself, simply that you have declared a connection - and as {{coi}} says, such talk page tags should be present where possible.

We can't infer anything from the fact that nobody was visibly "alarmed" by my COIN post; nobody rejected the concern either. If you can get a response on WP:COIN yourself, I'd gladly respect whatever conclusion was reached there. --McGeddon (talk) 18:43, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

No misrepresentation intended there, I just took your "enjoy/benefit a lot from their form of meditation" statement as meaning that you performed that meditation - perhaps "follow" is the wrong word. All the best with any COIN or ANI threads you start, and with your work on other articles. --McGeddon (talk) 20:23, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm treating your contributions in good faith, I just disagree with your apparent reasoning that although you have a clear personal connection to an organisation and have concerns about the work of a "negative advocacy group", your edits and reverts to the article don't count as a conflict of interest because you mean well and love the truth. WP:COI offers no such exceptions. --McGeddon (talk) 09:28, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Do you not think that performing volunteer work for an organisation counts having as a "personal connection" to it? --McGeddon (talk) 10:39, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Is that a "no", if you're blanket reverting the article again and removing the COI tag? --McGeddon (talk) 18:36, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

A COI arises when an editor with a personal connection to a subject is in a position where they are required to exercise judgement about that subject. You are exercising judgment when deciding whether or not to revert an article to your preferred version, or to remove an "advert" tag from it. I've raised this issue on COIN again rather more succinctly, to hopefully get some clear third party feedback this time. --McGeddon (talk) 17:56, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not voicing COI concerns because I feel I have the "support" of User:Truth is the only religion, I'm just mentioning your reverts of that user's edits because they goes against Wikipedia's WP:COIADVICE, which only allows editors with a conflict of interest to revert "unambiguous vandalism" on an article. Making a more nuanced judgement call about the nature of an edit or editor is inappropriate.

And sure, we're both acting without consensus here, and I was disappointed that the COI noticeboard didn't get any response. Hopefully the admin you pinged will have something to say. --McGeddon (talk) 08:26, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Complete information for this article of the company

Hello sir. There is a missing Infobox something got attention of Gaijin Entertainment company. So add this infobox for complete information and expand it. Thank you. Bryancyriel (talk) 08:51, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Questions

No thoughts on that article, perhaps raise it on a related talk page. WP:YFA should tell you everything you need to know about creating an article. --McGeddon (talk) 08:58, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Your reputation

You say on your talk page "Now that I actually know what a SPA is and what it means in this community, it's probably going to be years for my "reputation" to recover. There is nothing I can do about this." - this really isn't something to worry about! Any editor is free to make a WP:CLEANSTART whenever they like (new name, new editing area and nobody minds), and in practice a similarly fresh start of openly acknowledging a conflict of interest, sticking around on the talk page to keep an eye on things but broadly moving on to other articles instead would have the same effect. Genuine apologies and amends always earn respect. --McGeddon (talk) 20:47, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Tag teams

Not aware of any specific etiquette essays on this, but I'd say it was obvious that if there's a formal discussion about a problematic behaviour and the accused editor's defence is largely to talk about something (maybe bad, but unrelated) that a third party has done, the third party shouldn't rise to the bait, and is certainly under no obligation to respond. --McGeddon (talk) 08:37, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

IP address check

I think this was probably covered by the SPI investigation, if you missed it - TITOR's IP address was checkusered and found to be in the same city as Marriage of Convenience, with no other accounts using similar IPs. Both editors were blocked indefinitely today, and I've reverted a lot of their talk page posts per WP:BLOCKEVASION. --McGeddon (talk) 17:20, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh...(embarrassed face)...I tend to miss quite a few things and can't figure out how other editors are so fast to follow events...I will slowly figure it out :-). Thank you for the link! Danh108 (talk) 17:25, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles need all kinds of help - have a look at Wikipedia:Community portal and see if anything takes your interest. Your mileage may vary, but most of the edits I make (apart from vandal and spammer reverting) are just a result of reading around random articles and noticing things that need fixing. --McGeddon (talk) 17:37, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Edit scrutiny

Hello. I agree the article would benefit from some neutral eyes on it at this point, I'll make a post over at WikiProject Religion. --McGeddon (talk) 09:50, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

A couple of queries relating to your recent editing

I was somewhat surprised to see this edit, both because of what it does and because of what the edit summary says.

1. You have stated that you have a connection to the "Brahma Kumaris" organisation, and you are one of the major recent contributors to the article (24% of the last 50 edits were by you) so. It therefore seems to me that you are not the person to make the judgement that the conflict of interest tag should be removed, as you clearly have a conflict of interest in making that judgement.
2. It is also clear from the recent editing history that the content of the article is still in dispute, which you are certainly aware of, as you have been reverting there. It therefore seems to me that (1) at least one major contributor to the article has a connection to its subject which suggests a conflict of interest, and (2) the neutrality of the article is disputed. I therefore find it difficult to see how anyone can reasonably disagree with the conflict of interest tag.

However, perhaps I am missing something: if so, perhaps you can clarify things for me. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:54, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Since posting the above, I have seen you comment at Talk:Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University beginning "Should be clear - you reverted my edit. I have explained significance based on numbers..." You also go on to say " If you want me to somehow find RS about what proportion of the movement can be defined as part of their NGO capacity, vs their NRM capacity, I have not found anything" and "I don't agree with your unevidenced assertion 'Certainly BK is a NRM much more than an NGO'. Says who?" I don't understand that. You appear to be stating that you don't have a reliable source for content you wish to include in an article on the basis of what you call "significance based on numbers", and at the same time denying the right of another editor to express an opinion on a talk page because they don't provide a source. If that is the right understanding of your comments, then you have it backwards: article content which is disputed or questioned by one or more editors must not be included without a reliable source, while talk page discussions can contain statements of what assessments editors make, without having to be sourced. Again, though, I may be missing something, as I am very much an outsider, and don't have the detailed knowledge of the history of the article and its talk page that you have, so please do tell me if I have misunderstood. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 21:15, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Just one more thing I have noticed, and then I will leave you for now. When you made this edit you could not possibly have been unaware that the content you were adding was controversial, and that there is doubt about such issues as the weight to be given to the information. You must also have been aware that the description as "Bald factual content" is open to debate. Also, the source you cite does not, as far as I can see, say anything about a "general consultative status": it merely states that the organisation is taking part in "Civil Society Participation". Can you explain why you made that edit? Also, in view of your involvement with the organisation, Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines should dissuade you from making such edits as that, where you are aware from talk page discussions that the editing is controversial. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 21:31, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi James. Thank you heaps for messaging - I have messaged you before but never received any response....I understand your busy, so I just appreciate you taking the time now to write this. In so many ways I agree with you - that's why posts were made on COI, I messaged Adjwilley and you for opinions on the COI. Every single time there was just total silence. I have stated I volunteer for a range of organisations all of which I contribute to, yet people only focus on this one. I find that interesting. I have some built up knowledge of the RS and believe that I exercise impartial judgement. As far as has been brought to my attention, the few crumby edits I've made have been due to lack of experience on Wikipedia rather than any problem with the way I exercise my judgement. As you know, a huge range of editors have a connection to their subject matter - COI isn't automatic, and I really appreciate the humble way you've phrased your comments to me....you didn't have to do that, particularly as we both know I'm not that conversant in Wikipedia.

If the neutrality of the article is still disputed, I think someone should indicate what text. It seemed to me that quite of bit of RS got cut out just to appease banned editor, and quite a few facts got stuffed up in the process, which I'm doing my best (albeit slowly and pedantically) to repair.

If you think I'm a problem here I'm happy to voluntarily wander off for a while - I find it really hard to make time for Wikipedia and generally just get dragged in when that troll turns up (I think I hardly edited Dec - May/June and am dropping off again, then with xmas coming up...I don't mind holidaying to next year). The other editors do understand a lot of things better than I do.

Regarding your second point - you are right.Iit can be seen differently to the way you have expressed it and there is a credible alternative. But I have to go do mundane things offline and will get back to you as soon as possible....thanks again for taking the time though. Much appreciated. Danh108 (talk) 22:47, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Section draft

Hello again. I'll take a look when I've got a moment. Would suggest raising the proposed rewrite on the article talk page so that the conversation takes place somewhere central and can be seen by other editors. --McGeddon (talk) 08:39, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

The comments on this section have been lying on the talk page for some months. Perhaps the 'atmosphere' created around this page isn't particularly encouraging for editors, so nothing happens. It's not the whole article, just the expansion section which was quite thin. Cheers Danh108 (talk) 09:18, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Didn't realise it was related to an old talk thread. If your rewrite is just fixing that date contradiction and rewording something that sounded a "bit weird", per your concerns at Talk:Brahma_Kumaris_World_Spiritual_University#Expansion_section, you should say exactly that, and say it on the article talk page. --McGeddon (talk) 13:52, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Conflict of interest edits

You must follow WP:COIADVICE when editing articles with which you have a conflict of interest, and should generally not edit such articles directly - the edits you made to the Brahma Kumaris article yesterday go far beyond the basic sourcing, de-vandalising, typo correction and implementation of well-discussed consensus outlined as acceptable COI edits by WP:COI. --McGeddon (talk) 09:48, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

WP:COI allows an editor with a conflict of interest to make direct, non-trivial edits "where there is clear consensus on the talk page". Proposing a redraft, getting two questions and no other feedback in response does not amount to a consensus. You also made several changes unrelated to the redraft; that you personally consider them to be "minor improves with rational explanations" is not enough for WP:COI. I've added back the note about the founder's piety, if you say the source supports it.

WP:COIADVICE recommends that "If the article you want to edit has few involved editors, consider asking someone at the talk page of a related Wikiproject for someone to make the change.", and I'd second that. --McGeddon (talk) 16:10, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I'd have said that consensus would be, at the minimum, another editor explicitly saying "yes that all looks fine". If you want someone to check the edit closely and the talk page isn't getting any response, asking at a Wikiproject is the way to go. --McGeddon (talk) 16:44, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Good luck! The "what BK think about God" section seemed like the best place for an anecdote about somebody talking to God at the BK headquarters, but if you think it'd fit better somewhere else, raise it on the article talk page. --McGeddon (talk) 08:09, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Directory/Culture/Philosophy and religion has a list of religion-related Wikiprojects - take your pick. --McGeddon (talk) 19:46, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

It was an oversight that I missed your last message. No, I wouldn't say I'd given your edit enough scrutiny to be able to say that it was entirely acceptable. COI policy is to ensure that nontrivial edits by involved parties go through uninvolved parties, so yes, this can cause editing to pause if the COI editor is unable to find an involved party willing to make the edits. Perhaps try some other wikiprojects if you aren't having any luck on the article talk page. --McGeddon (talk) 16:14, 23 March 2015 (UTC)