User talk:MacPraughan/Archive 1

Archive 1

Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (March 25)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Onel5969 was: 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:Sean M Jones/sandbox and 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.
• You can also get real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Onel5969 (talk) 14:20, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello! MacPraughan, 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 submission at Articles for creation: Barry Kerzin has been accepted

Barry Kerzin, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Onel5969 (talk) 19:58, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Barry Kerzin wearing electrodes on his cranium.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Barry Kerzin wearing electrodes on his cranium.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Eeekster (talk) 18:07, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi there, Eekster. Eek! I have been scrabbling to get to the source/copyright holder of this portrait and the subject informs me it would probably be the Waisman Center for Investigating Healthy Minds at Wisconsin Uni. He has therefore sent his contact there a note asking them to kindly email you the requisite permission to publish it. I sent all the necessary details and there is no reason why they should say no (I suppose). I hope you receive this permission before your deadline runs out (on Easter Monday!!!) - but if not, considering it is a long holiday weekend I hope you will extend the deadline by another week perhaps? Many thanks, Sean M Jones (talk) 15:46, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Altruism in Medicine Institute (April 25)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Yash! was: 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 Draft:Altruism in Medicine Institute and 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.
• You can also get real-time chat help from experienced editors.

— Yash! ^[talk] 06:17, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I made a new talk section

Um so because you expressed an interest in moving on in our discussion on Talk:Dalai Lama, I created a new section. I intend no disrespect, so if you object, please feel free to remove the new section head. However, I created it in order to make the comments easier to read: in fact, I'd like to change the indent structure as well. Feel free to do it yourself; I'll wait to make sure you're okay with the new section though. It was already kind of "comments everywhere" and it'd be better to keep things easy to read chronologically.

I also appreciate your apology; if I seemed cross it was because there is endless disrespect on this encyclopedia from editors who are here only to troll or to push some frustrating goal of making everything accord to their personal vision of the universe. I found your anger unexpected in what was, I thought, simply two people discussing a topic in order to figure out how to edit a page, but I gather you saw my long-winded discussions as somehow dismissive of you. I really was just chewing the fat; you'll note I often corrected myself when you observed I was wrong. I'm not an angry mastodon, I assure you. If I was abrupt, it was because I was just stating facts as I understood them - it is easier to just say what I am thinking in response directly. So when I say "no but X", if you have information challenging that, I figure you'll just say, "yeah but no, y", which is in fact mostly what you were already doing. Ogress _smash! 20:32, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

I hope we can improve this article Ogress, which is all I want to do. I’d like to see a fair portrait of the Dalai Lama(s) here, both individually and collectively. I have no problem with valid criticism to get a well rounded picture and appreciate the Wikipedia habit of giving space to include controversy and negative criticism of the subject. #14 has certain detractors who aim to disparage and malign, the shugdenites and the CCP for two. I have no problem to apologise if I happen to annoy people. My interest in Buddhism goes back 50 years when I started reading Buddhist books and it’s 40 years since I took refuge. So here I try to maintain a healthy scepticism. I’m glad we’ve reached an understanding, on the basis of which I hope we can collaborate to improve this article and who knows, maybe others. I don’t mind your opening a new section at all, I appreciate it and if you want to improve the indent system on the comments that is great, go ahead. I am here to learn, to improve and to help and I think this DL History section is important and the talk discussion about it should be accessible on the record.MacPraughan (talk) 20:33, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 12 June

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Dalai Lama page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:23, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Dalai Lama, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dzungar. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:05, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:Altruism in Medicine Institute

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Draft:Altruism in Medicine Institute, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. DGG ( talk ) 08:20, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks talk for your attention to my Draft 'Altruism in Medicine Institute' and for so speedily deleting it for the good reasons you have given! However I wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement; the organisation is already in the course of growing and becoming more notable and acceptable. Would you please therefore be so kind as to make the work I have done available to me again to be saved for eventual improvement and resubmission at a future date. Sorry if I have made a mistake, I am new to Wikipedia and very much on a learning curve. MacPraughan (talk) 16:14, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello, MacPraughan. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Professor_Barry_Michael_Kerzin,_2013.gif

A tag has been placed on File:Professor_Barry_Michael_Kerzin,_2013.gif requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted images or text borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Jytdog (talk) 14:49, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Conflict of interest in Wikipedia

Hi MacPraughan. I am a member of WP:MED and also work on conflict of interest issues here in Wikipedia. Your account is what we call a WP:SPA - pretty much all your edits to date are about Barry Kerzin and are somewhat promotional. I'm giving you notice of our Conflict of Interest guideline and Terms of Use, and will have some comments and questions for you below.

Hello, MacPraughan. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you have an external relationship with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:

• Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
• Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
• Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies. Note that Wikipedia's terms of use require disclosure of your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you.

Comments and question

Wikipedia is a widely-used reference work and managing conflict of interest is essential for ensuring the integrity of Wikipedia and retaining the public's trust in it. As in academia, COI is managed here in two steps - disclosure and a form of peer review. Please note that there is no bar to being part of the Wikipedia community if you have a conflict of interest; there are just some things we ask you to do (and if you are paid, some things you need to do).

Disclosure is the most important, and first, step. While I am not asking you to disclose your identity (anonymity is strictly protecting by out WP:OUTING policy) would you please disclose if you have some connection with Kerzin or any of the institutes with which he is associated? You can answer how ever you wish (giving personally identifying information or not), but if there is a connection, with please disclose it. After you respond (and you can just reply below), perhaps we can talk a bit about editing Wikipedia, to give you some more orientation to how this place works. Thanks!

You can reply here - I am watching this page. Once you do, we can take it from there. Thanks in advance for talking! Jytdog (talk) 15:01, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Responses and explanations

Thanks for your notice, I am glad to see you are on the case of hunting down inappropriate conflicts of interest in Wikipedia contributors. My relationship with Barry Kerzin is in a way professional, he is a kind of distant colleague in that he is currently one of the medical doctors of the 14th Dalai Lama and I have known the same Dalai Lama for many years since I was his personal chauffeur in the UK from 1982 to 1993. Therefore I am an acquaintance of the subject, I got to know him attending and organising events around the Dalai Lama and his activities and I have seen what he has done and felt inspired to write about him on Wikipedia since it seems notable to me and I feel people who are interested in him and there are many should have the chance to learn more about his background if they wished (he has some 25,000 "followers" on Facebook).

Is this a conflict of interest? I have no financial or other interest in promoting his work, I am simply a retired professional who is working on Wikipedia which has become my new hobby this year. My interests cover Buddhism and Tibet and the history of Tibet; I have not only worked on Barry Kerzin's BLP (as you appear to be suggesting!) but I've also done a lot of work (a lot for me - hundreds of edits) on the pages of the Dalai Lama, especially the 'History' section, and the 14th Dalai Lama along with associated subjects such ar the Ganden Tripa, Mind and Life Institute amongst others and so forth. I am also preparing a BLP for the main founder of Mind and Life Institute, Adam Engle, and I am preparing to revise the entire article on Mind and Life Institute since I consider it way out of date, uninformative and badly designed as it stands.

Another connection with Kerzin and Engle is that we are all of us to some extent in principle friends and students of the 14th Dalai Lama (of which there must be millions around the world) as regards his Buddhist and philosophical teachings. So I hope this does not represent conflict of interest either. It is one of the few things I know anything about to the extent of being able to research or write about these subjects in Wikipedia - I have a scores if not hundreds of text and history books on Buddhism, Tibet, the History of Tibet, India, Pakistan and Afghanistan - a region where I have lived, travelled and worked in various occupations for many years of my career. My profession is accountant and administrator, my main business has been that of specialist travel agent in London from the 1970s to the 1990s and my regional speciality is in the history and culture of central and south Asia. I speak Pashto (the language of the Taliban and eastern/southern Afghanistan), Urdu (Pakistani), Hindustani (Indian), a little Tibetan and Nepali, plus French and Italian, I am married to a Swiss and I live retired in the south France since 2001; my mother Irish, my father Welsh, myself English by birth.

I am certainly not being paid for any of these efforts in Wikipedia! Neither do I have any position whatsoever in any of the institutes and foundations I have mentioned. I am, however, still on the Board of Advisors of the Tibet Foundation, London, an unpaid position, and I wonder whether that would preclude me from writing an article eventually on that foundation, which I am considering doing in future? As a supporter of the Foundation as well as longterm personal friend of the founder and director there, a Tibetan, would that also preclude me from writing a BLP about his extraordinary life? Please let me know and feel free to throw any further questions at me as I fully believe in transparency and accountability and am more than willing to be examined over my motivation for anything I have ever written on Wikipedia or elsewhere. Looking forward to hearing from you and learning more. As this is all quite new to me I feel very much a newcomer and sadly ignorant as regards expertise, just learning how to do things bit by bit from scratch since I'm not very tech-savvy and don't even have a mobile phone. Any advice you can give me to improve my work and gain approval would be very much appreciated. How about you? Feel free to tell me about yourself and your work. Do you come up against a lot of tricky people? MacPraughan (talk) 15:55, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for that very complete disclosure! My work on conflict of interest is not about "hunting" - it is about identifying people who may have a COI and educating them so that they understand what WP is about and can better serve WP's mission, and do what they can within to, to satisfy whatever their outside interest is (which is sometimes not much).

I don't see that you have any COI here. You are clearly an advocate - please do not make sure that you mind WP:NOTADVOCACY (which is policy) and reading Reading WP:ADVOCACY and WP:EXPERT and taking the advice there on board, would do you good as well.

The Kerzin article has lots of problems. There is a bunch of promotional language in it, things not supported by the sources, etc. I will probably take another hour to clean it up so that it is truly WP:NPOV and well sourced. I'll be happy to discuss any specific changes at its Talk page. Good luck! Jytdog (talk) 16:45, 9 August 2015 (UTC) (correct bad drafting that I saved with striking and underlined added content Jytdog (talk) 17:11, 9 August 2015 (UTC))

Thanks for lifting the COI notice Jytdog and thanks especially for taking the trouble to edit the queried article to make it more acceptable and from a NPOV. I look forward to reviewing your changes and learning. It was my first article and I hope my susequent efforts on the Dalai Lama History section and the sections I wrote on the 14th Dalai Lama are more neutral and better-cited.

I could not follow your advice "please do not make sure that you mind WP:NOTADVOCACY (which is policy) and reading WP:ADVOCACY and WP:EXPERT", however I get the gist and shall read it and take it all on board.

I am sorry if writing on subjects that I know about due to my life experience and studies is considered inappropriate advocacy. I can see how this appears to be the case when one writes about people and activities that one approves of: although it might seem self-evidently beneficial and praiseworthy to me there will always be others who would condemn it all as harmful hocus-pocus, I suppose. Anyway, thanks for your advice and patience. MacPraughan (talk) 17:07, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

writing about what you know, is not advocacy. Using flowery, praising language and doing things like describing seminars as "keynote talks" is advocacy. Jytdog (talk) 17:13, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

The "rules" here are really simple. The actual sentences you write should be neutral. (See WP:NPOV) Every sentence you add to WP should be supportable with a reliable source (please read WP:VERIFY and WP:RS) The content you add should also be something that people might care about in 5 years. We are not a newspaper or anybody's personal website. (see WP:NOT) Along those lines, avoid language like "currently" -(please see WP:RELTIME - if you find yourself writing "now" or "currently" you have very likely slipped away from writing an encyclopedia article to writing a blog posting. That's it. What experts and advocates tend to do, is just add stuff they know to WP, regardless of whether they have a source for it or not, and they really want other people to think the Subject of the article is really great too, so they write in a promotional way. That stuff is not good. The way an article looks after a "fan" or advocate gets done with it, and the way it looks after someone with a financial COI gets done with it, is the same. It will be promotional. Financial COI is just a subset of advocacy. Jytdog (talk) 17:33, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much Jytdog, you have done a tremendous job editing this article and making it much more encyclopaedic in no time at all; it looks so much better and I have also learned a great deal in the process. Very much appreciated!

I am beginning to think that the article I've drafted for the 'Altruism in Medicine Institute' will not stand up to scrutiny since there are few independent refs. Are you willing to have a look and say whether there is anything worth salvaging? It is under item 2 in my sandbox. MacPraughan (talk) 18:51, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

There was a lot of stuff I wanted to do yesterday but I ended up giving almost my whole day to fixing the article on Kerzin. I did that because he is really interesting and the article was really awful, and was in main space. I don't intend to get drawn further into this stuff. Please learn what you can from what I did to the Kerzin article. Neutral language, and everything sourced. I should tell you, that based on what I read yesterday, there are not enough independent sources on the 'Altruism in Medicine Institute' to satisfy WP:ORG, which is the guideline that applies the WP:NOTABILITY policy to organizations. You should read both of those carefully (NOTABILITY first, then ORG), a couple of times. Please also read WP:Golden rule, which is a humorous, high level summary of NOTABILITY. You are of course free to keep trying to create the article on 'Altruism in Medicine Institute', but in my view it will not pass AfC at this time. Jytdog (talk) 12:04, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Once again I can only thank you for your patience and your time, Jytdog, no problem, I shall take your advice and study the pages indicated again. I shall also check every edit you made and note the reasons given. If 'Altruism in Medicine Institute' becomes notable according to the guidelines and there are independent citations to substantiate this I shall try again in future, meanwhile I clearly see that it is nowhere. Once again, thanks for your help.MacPraughan (talk) 14:22, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

You are welcome! Good luck. Jytdog (talk) 14:25, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mind and Life Institute, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Symposia. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:05, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

August 2015

Hello, I'm Sundayclose. I noticed that you made a change to an article, 14th Dalai Lama, 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. Sundayclose (talk) 21:15, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, MacPraughan. You have new messages at Sundayclose's talk page.
Message added 22:25, 16 August 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Sundayclose (talk) 22:25, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, MacPraughan. You have new messages at Sundayclose's talk page.
Message added 13:30, 17 August 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Sundayclose (talk) 13:30, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Deletion pending for File:R Adam Engle receiving ceremonial scarf from Dalai Lama, Dharamsala, India, 1987.jpg

Hello, MacPraughan. Some time ago, a file you uploaded — File:R Adam Engle receiving ceremonial scarf from Dalai Lama, Dharamsala, India, 1987.jpg — was tagged with {{OTRS pending}}, indicating that you (or perhaps the copyright holder if you did not create this image) submitted a statement of permission to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. Though there is often a backlog processing messages received at this address, we should have received your message by now.

• If you have not submitted (or forwarded) a statement of permission, please send it immediately to permissions-en@wikimedia.org and let us know at the OTRS noticeboard that you have done so.

• If you have already sent this message, it is possible that there was a problem receiving it. Please re-send it to permissions-en@wikimedia.org and let us know at the OTRS noticeboard that you have done so.

If we don't hear from you within one week, the file will be deleted. If we can help you, please feel free to ask at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 14:41, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Deletion pending for File:First 'Mind and Life' dialogue between Dalai Lama and western scientists, 1987, Dharamsala, India.jpg

Hello, MacPraughan. Some time ago, a file you uploaded — File:First 'Mind and Life' dialogue between Dalai Lama and western scientists, 1987, Dharamsala, India.jpg — was tagged with {{OTRS pending}}, indicating that you (or perhaps the copyright holder if you did not create this image) submitted a statement of permission to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. Though there is often a backlog processing messages received at this address, we should have received your message by now.

• If you have not submitted (or forwarded) a statement of permission, please send it immediately to permissions-en@wikimedia.org and let us know at the OTRS noticeboard that you have done so.

• If you have already sent this message, it is possible that there was a problem receiving it. Please re-send it to permissions-en@wikimedia.org and let us know at the OTRS noticeboard that you have done so.

If we don't hear from you within one week, the file will be deleted. If we can help you, please feel free to ask at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 14:43, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

14th Dalai Lama article

The article describes 14th Dalai Lama as merely an important Gelug lama. But then it says he had full political control of Tibet. This is contradictory.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 16:34, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi VictoriaGrayson, good to hear from you after a long while. As usual, you have posed a good and interesting question and I am happy to address it, even though I am not the keeper of this article and I am not even sure it was myself who posted either of these statements, although I might well have been party to discussions which resulted in these wordings being commonly agreed upon. Nevertheless, I feel happy and flattered that you feel it appropriate to take it up with myself.

So, I have checked the article. I could not find anywhere that it says, as you wrote, "The 14th Dalai Lama is merely an important Gelug Lama". What I did find was a vaguely similar-sounding (but different) assertion in the first paragraph, that says "Dalai Lamas are important monks of the Gelug school". That is a generalisation, referring to all the Dalai Lamas, and I see nothing demeaning or belittling about it to justify the additional word "merely" as you have presumed to insert. Now, surveying the history of all the various Dalai Lamas, we find that some of them could be said to have had 'full political control over Tibet', while other Dalai Lamas wielded no political power over anything. That they were all important monks of the Gelug school, however, this is self-evident, and, indeed, fairly incontrovertible, would you agree? This is the one thing that all the Dalai Lamas do all have in common, apart from being male; they are not even all Tibetans, since the fourth was Mongolian by birth; neither did he wield political power, in Tibet or elsewhere. So, that the 14th, like all his predecessors, is definitely an "important Gelugpa monk" - in the sense that, though very, even extremely important, he still is not by definition the head of the Gelugpa lineage (a position held by the Ganden Tripa) - can be taken as a given, right?

Then I looked for where it says "he had full political control over Tibet" and in the following paragraph I found another similar-sounding assertion where it says he "assumed full temporal (political) power over Tibet on 17 November 1950, at the age of 15, after China's invasion of Tibet" (is this the one you refer to?). Come to think of it, this assertion in itself sounds somewhat contradictory to me: how could he have had 'full political power over Tibet', if China had gone and invaded it? Obviously, the Chinese were not under his power if they had just invaded his country, therefore his political power could not be described as "full", could it? Perhaps we should correct that.

But this is not your question, is it? You are asking whether assertion #2 contradicts the fact that like all Dalai Lamas he is "an important Gelugpa monk". Well, taking it one word at a time, he is evidently very important; he is certainly a member of the Gelugpa; and he is by all accounts a monk. In view of the above I do not see how whether that fact that he has political power or not over all or part of Tibet, or anywhere else, invalidates any part of this assertion, nor the assertion as a whole. In other words, if he held power over Tibet, it would not stop him being an important Gelugpa monk, and vice-versa.

This being the case, if you would kindly wish to clarify your statement as to how, exactly, you feel that the two assertions in the text (not your rendition of them in Talk) are contradictory, taking on board the above analysis, and, if you can kindly show how that it is indeed the case, then what kind of revision you would propose in order to remove the supposed contradiction, I would be very grateful and appreciative. I look forward to reading your response after due consideration, and further detailed discussion of the issue; if warranted.MacPraughan (talk) 18:44, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

If the Dalai Lama is not even head of Gelug school, why does he control Tibet?VictoriaGrayson^Talk 23:59, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Are you serious, VictoriaGrayson? We already had a humungous discussion about this with several other editors, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:14th_Dalai_Lama#.22Dalai_Lamas_are_amongst_the_head_monks_of_the_Gelug_school.22, and you ended up acknowledging in your edit of 12 May that the Ganden Tripa was only 'nominally the head of the Gelugpa sect' - this non-political position being merit-based on the holder's scholarly and religious status as the chief Gelugpa lineage holder, right? Please study the history of the Dalai Lamas and the history of Tibet in the 14th-17th centuries to see how the Dalai Lamas' rule and their position in the Gelugpa sect evolved the way it did.MacPraughan (talk) 10:13, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Then Ganden Tripa should control Tibet.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 16:40, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Ha, ha, ha! Good joke, you are making my day. And I'm sure the Ganden Tripa might well try to control Tibet, knowing Tibetans, if he were still in Tibet, which he is definitely not, and if the post had any political role, which it certainly does not, and if the Chinese would allow him, which they most certainly would not! On the other hand, I suspect the Dalai Lama probably has to defer to the Ganden Tripa on doctrinal matters regarding the Gelugpa lineage of Tsongkhapa, so perhaps insofar as anything doctrinal might impinge upon political issues it is not entirely outside the bounds of possibility that the Ganden Tripa could bear some influence on the Dalai Lama's political policies - IF the Dalai Lama still clung to any political role, which, as I am sure you are fully aware (maybe not?), he does not! So, quite a lot of "ifs" and "certainly nots" there, but, in theory at least, your proposition is still within the realms of possibility, though I would not go so far as to say it has merit! And I guess you would be the only person in the world that would think that. Any more bright ideas? MacPraughan (talk) 19:12, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

The point is that for the average reader, it doesn't make sense why the lead says 14th Dalai Lama had control over Tibet.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 22:35, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

So that's your point! Why didn't you say so in the first place? It would have saved me all that time-waste, trying to discuss it with you, VictoriaGrayson. MacPraughan (talk) 15:45, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:10, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Dalai Lama, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Phagspa. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:10, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors!

please help translate this message into the local language

The Cure Award

In 2015 you were one of the top 300 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you from Wiki Project Med Foundation for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date health information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do! Wiki Project Med Foundation is a user group whose mission is to improve our health content. Consider joining here, there are no associated costs, and we would love to collaborate further.

Thanks again :) -- Doc James along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 03:59, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Please add this source

See HERE.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 14:33, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Done with great pleasure, on Dalai Lama article and Dorje Shugden Controversy article too, VictoriaGrayson. Anything else? MacPraughan (talk) 18:59, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Shorten the rambling lead/intro of the 14th Dalai Lama article.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 20:11, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Alright, I'll put it on my list. But this was urgent!.MacPraughan (talk) 05:55, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

I cleaned up 14th Dalai Lama articleVictoriaGrayson^Talk 19:31, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for saving me the trouble, you seem to have done a great job, VictoriaGrayson. But are we sure they closed down "as a result of the Reuters article"? Is there any evidence that this is the case, or is it an assumption on your part? The Reuters report itself says they did not give any explanation. MacPraughan (talk) 22:39, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

I made some changes per the source.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 23:10, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Perfect, VictoriaGrayson^Talk!MacPraughan (talk) 06:34, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Deletion pending for File:Mr R. Adam Engle, American lawyer and social entrepreneur.jpg

Hello, MacPraughan. Some time ago, a file you uploaded — File:Mr R. Adam Engle, American lawyer and social entrepreneur.jpg — was tagged with {{OTRS pending}}, indicating that you (or perhaps the copyright holder if you did not create this image) submitted a statement of permission to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. Though there is often a backlog processing messages received at this address, we should have received your message by now.

• If you have not submitted (or forwarded) a statement of permission, please send it immediately to permissions-en@wikimedia.org and let us know at the OTRS noticeboard that you have done so.

• If you have already sent this message, it is possible that there was a problem receiving it. Please re-send it to permissions-en@wikimedia.org and let us know at the OTRS noticeboard that you have done so.

If we don't hear from you within one week, the file will be deleted. If we can help you, please feel free to ask at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 14:48, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi there,B-bot (talk, the permission was already sent last October to permissions. It is being sent again. Do not delete.MacPraughan (talk) 21:57, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Certification of Barry Kerzin MD by the American Board of Family Medicine, 2014.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Certification of Barry Kerzin MD by the American Board of Family Medicine, 2014.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 16:06, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Alexander Berzin (scholar)

Hello, I noticed that you made a comment on the page Talk:Alexander Berzin (scholar) that didn't seem very civil. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. Please comment on content, not on contributors when you contribute to article talk pages. If you want to discuss the behaviour of a fellow editor you can do this on his personal talk page or at WP:ANI (however, see WP:BOOMERANG). Walls of text are not really helpful. Please see WP:TALK and WP:DR for more info. Thank you JimRenge (talk) 19:22, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, much appreciated. I will think about it, endeavour to take it all on board and adjust my ... evidently failed attempt to be polite and civil. I did apologise for ribbing him a bit. Evidently, not enough. But how do you evaluate my fellow editor's mocking attacks on the subject of the article, his contorted reasoning and vindictive critique, his deletion of the entire text, substituting it with a deletion notice? I suppose this is perfectly civil of him, and that he has been impeccable in his attacks? Are you sympathetic to his attitudes to the subject? I am evidently to be held guilty of not meekly submitting to his superior judgment and accepting the summary deletion of Dr Berzin's article without discussion. I thought I mentioned exactly how the content appeared to me. How very uplifting this WP education in ettiquette is turning out to be. I stand corrected. Let him have his way and delete the entire article, it must deserve it if he says so. So be it. Thus Wikipedia strides one forward and its ethos of whatever you are trying to teach me is vindicated. How very illuminating. Also, must not write wall of text so end here. MacPraughan (talk) 21:21, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, MacPraughan. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Russ Baker

Please do not add self-published Amazon reader reviews to articles. That is forbidden in biographical articles. Also please note that the Rutten article makes no reference to his Baker review, which contains no correction of any factual error, which makes its inclusion in the article a form of original research. Coretheapple (talk) 14:35, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Coming back to this point, Coretheapple, could you please clarify how the Amazon reader reviews as a SPS do not comply with conditions permitting such use as given under WP:ABOUTSELF? I am interested in gaining more understanding about how these rules are applicable, allowing their inclusion, or otherwise. Many thanks, MacPraughan (talk) 10:11, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

ABOUTSELF does not allow Amazon reviews because the reviewers are not writing about themselves but about a third party, in this case a book. True they are writing about their feelings, but that's not quite the same thing. Under certain circumstances people's own websites are allowed as sources, but there are strictures on that set forth in the rule. Hope this helps, Coretheapple (talk) 17:17, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes it's very helpful. Would it be permissible, then, to refer to Amazon reader reviews on the article about the book, in the same way that articles on movies refer to the Rotten Tomatoes ratings? I guess not. MacPraughan (talk) 11:46, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, Rotten Tomato ratings are only used as a gauge of critical reaction. User reaction is not utilized (and if it ever is, it needs to go). Coretheapple (talk) 16:28, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Apologies, Coretheapple. Thanks for the advice. Having just very carefully read this particular book myself and found it one of the most impressive and best-documented works of investigative journalism I have ever seen, I was absolutely horrified and unbelieving to find in Wikipedia the wall of scathing and disparaging reviews. Looking further into the reviews, inluding those on the article on the book itself, I was further saddened to note that reviews which were generally neutral and had both good and bad things to say were cherry-picked for the worst possible phrases to be quoted on WP, leaving all the rest. This cherry-picking the worst phrases to be quoted gives an exaggeratedly negative impression. Does that not concern you at all, NPOV-enforcer?

So anyay, I merely wished to try to redress the balance a bit to make the WP article a bit more neutral and realistic. I can now see how Amazon reader reviews can be 'forbidden' as 'self-published'. Without proper reflection, I thought inclusion of such reviews coming from members of the public would provide a more realistic assessment of this particular work than might be expected from the 'establishment' MSM, which may be (and is being) quoted and cherry-piked here without restraint.

It seems a little unfair in these days when MSM is under such attack for fake news and toeing the party line (vide. WMD/Iraq war 2003, and all the Russophobia and Trumpophobia that is currently raging) that they have the exclusive right to be quoted here, but I do see that, according to the rules, they are the only sources that we can consider 'reliable'. Apart from well-reseached, well-documented and impeccably annotated books like Russ Baker's.

It is no wonder that people look more to social media for their information these days. But what was that advice I read somewhere on WP - to ignore the rules? I guess you are also a part of it. Sad. But I am learning more about WP's policy and methodology to repress on grounds of source information that is potentially inconvenient to the establishment, so thanks for impressing that on me. I am learning. MacPraughan (talk) 16:47, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

It's odd that the reader reviews on Amazon diverge so far from the professional reviews in the print media. But I see a number of plausible explanations for this, only one of which is that the mainstream media is wrong/close-minded/out of touch as you suggest. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:42, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

It's also true that Amazon reviews reflect political beliefs as much as content. That BLP rule serves to protect subjects from being trashed for the same reason, which is why we have to rely on reliable sources. Anyway, thanks for understanding. Coretheapple (talk) 18:25, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Interesting. Thank you both for your additional helpful comments. "It's also true that Amazon reviews reflect political beliefs as much as content". Coretheapple, your implication is not clear to me. Are you suggesting here that unlike Amazon reader reviews, newspaper reviews reflect content, but not political views - or what?

And DrFleischman, would you agree that other plausible explanations might include that the MSM is, in this instance at least, to any extent out of touch with public opinion, politically biased, establishment-controlled or [as alleged in 2003], self-censoring? MacPraughan (talk) 19:08, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Sure, that's plausible. Well, to an extent, since I don't think the mainstream media should be viewed as monolithic the way you do. There's a tremendous diversity of thought and perspective among the mainstream media. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:12, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your valued opinion DrFleischman. I'd just add that if I generalised about MSM, it was to mirror the way that you did. So, if you see my view of MSM as 'monolithic', it's only because you presented that view first. MacPraughan (talk) 23:20, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Well you know, MacPraughan, one of the dilemmas that we face, and which has apparently haunted Wikipedia since its beginning, is the struggle between "truth" and "verifiability," with the former taking a back seat to the latter. The reason is that my truth is different than your truth, whereas verifiability can be ascertained by objective criteria. In the case of this article it was an easy call. No, we don't include Amazon reviews and no, we don't include an article questioning the integrity and professionalism of a Los Angeles Times reviewer, certainly not when it makes no mention of this particular book. I would argue that rules like this inure to the benefit of the subject more often than not. Whether or not Amazon reviews are more reliable than professional reviews is not a judgment we have to make, and no matter what we think, they just aren't allowed and for very good reasons. Coretheapple (talk) 20:43, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Coretheapple, thanks for that. I got all that the first time around. What I requested was not about truth and verifiability, it was for you to kindly clarify the implication of your above-stated comment about political views/content, with regard to Amazon reader reviews/newspaper reviews.

Also I don't know about 'your truth being different from my truth'. I read the book with a completely open mind. The text meets the WP criteria of having verifiable, independent and reliable sources for every statement in it and I found it just as all the other readers evidently have, with 90% approval rating - apart, of course, from that handful of MSM 'experts' who are paid to write the 'scathing' reviews to accord with editorial policies. They definitely have a truth that seems different from everyone else's [no wonder newspapers - and journalists - are dying out] - especially when supposedly 'neutral' WP editors quote only the worst possible phrase they can find in the reviews, giving the worst possible impression to WP readers (like me), that the entire reviews are fairly represented by those choice phrases. I am not particularly impressed with that, or with your defence of it on whatever grounds. Nevertheless, I have to say that WP is 'good in parts'. MacPraughan (talk) 23:20, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Your references to "MSM 'experts' who are paid to write the 'scathing' reviews to accord with editorial policies" and "supposedly 'neutral' WP editors" seem neither knowledgeable nor open-minded. No matter. You're welcome to your beliefs, just as those you criticize are welcome to theirs. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:25, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I welcome your personal criticism, DrFleischman. I do aspire to learn more here, to become knowledgeable and to keep always an open mind so I gladly take your criticisms to heart. Let me examine the basis of your criticism, as stated by yourself.

Your critical remarks are evidently based on what you call “my references” to “scathing reviews” written by “MSM experts to accord with editorial policies” and “supposedly neutral WP editors”.

In response, first of all, the phrase “scathing reviews” is not mine but has been used by a WP editor in the section about the book in the Russ Baker article, with reference to "the reviews". I simply quoted it from the article.

Secondly, if we actually read the full reviews of the book in MSM, with the possible exception of that in the LAT they all contain praise and appreciation of Baker’s work, as well as criticism, in variable proportions. Some, like that in TIME, are more positive than negative. Therefore, I have called into question the use by WP editors of the phrase “scathing reviews” to characterise the general tone of the book’s major reviews. On this basis, I have suggested that words used by the WP editor responsible for the characterisation lack NPOV. Would you not agree with that? If not, why not?

Thirdly, it is clear to me after carefully reading and comparing the content of the major reviews that the least complimentary one of all is certainly that published in the LAT. However, rather than selecting a more representative review as an example, it is this one that has been chosen by the WP editor(s) concerned to justify his/her use of the word "scathing", and to quote from. Furthermore, s/he also chose to quote the most damning excerpt possible out of that worst review, thus, in my view, misrepresenting it to WP readers as a typical observation from the critics. On this basis also, I say this characterisation, deliberately created by a WP editor, lacks NPOV. Would you not agree with that? If not, why not?

That leaves my reference to MSM experts who are paid to write reviews to accord with editorial policies. For 60 years I have been reading newspapers on the understanding that each one has its own editorial policy, in accord with which it hires suitable journalists, critics etc., part of whose job it is to reflect those policies in order to please its readership, whether of the left, the right or centrist. Are you saying this betrays my lack of knowledge and open mind?

Assuming I must have missed your point or otherwise understood I look forward to your further clarification of your criticism that I lack knowledge as well as an open mind.

Finally, since this whole discussion concerns the content of the Russ Baker article, I propose to move it to its proper place where other interested parties might like to offer insights - its talk page. I trust you would have no objection. Many thanks, MacPraughan (talk) 11:13, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

I think that's a great idea. Your concern that our text misrepresents the diversity of the reviews published in reliable sources is perfectly legitimate and deserves an examination on the article talk page. I want to note a couple of points here related to editor conduct however. The first is that, like the mainstream media, the the Wikipedia editorial community isn't monolithic and there's great diversity of thought here. We all come here with our own biases, and there's nothing wrong here. The goal is that through the consensus-building process we'll end up with an unbiased product. This works best when editors focus primarily on discussing the content and not condemning fellow contributors for their personal foibles, e.g. for being part of some sort of establishmentarian cabal (whether accurate or not). Second, if you are going to point the finger for some offending content, it's most constructive to dig back through the edit history and figure out who added it and why. Sometimes offending content is the result of a talk page consensus, and often there's little benefit to rehashing old arguments. In this case I noticed that the reference to "scathing reviews" doesn't appear to be supported by the cited Boston Magazine source and might be improper synthesis. I tracked down that content was added by Coretheapple on July 14, 2016. When you raise the issue on the article talk page, you might want to ping them and ask for their explanation.

I'm giving you this advice because I think you could make a great Wikipedia editor, and I've seen too many smart, out-of-the-box thinkers like yourself misunderstand how Wikipedia works and disappear with a "fuck you all" attitude. That would be unfortunate. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:21, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

You flatter me! I think I'm a bit old for becoming a 'great' WP editor. But why? I have no intention of saying "fuck you all" to anybody, on the contrary, I am intrigued by the subject, respect you both enormously and only wish to learn more from our discussion.

As for WP editor conduct, why do you feel obliged to lecture me about the diversity of the WP editorial community and the process? Do I sound that wet behind the ears? Have I condemned someone? My only criticism as you have noted is based on content ("our text" as you call it - does that mean yours and Core's?), that the comments about reviews appear somewhat biased, as you say a case of WP:SYNTH; and as you also say my suggestion to do something to redress the balance is a 'great idea' (thanks).

And who said anything about WP editors 'being part of an establishment cabal'? Not me, I trow. MacPraughan (talk) 11:46, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Well the article said "trounced by the mainstream media," but I have no problem changing that to that language. Coretheapple (talk) 17:36, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Ah, I was having trouble finding the language you were citing, so thanks Core. There's also a reference to "the widespread dismissal" of the book. I now think the sentence, "The book received scathing reviews," is reliably sourced and appropriate paraphrasing. I could see us changing it to something like "The book received scathing criticism from the mainstream media and was widely dismissed," if MacPraughan prefers that. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:54, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, only I fear your suggestion might give the book and its author even more credibility in the eyes of those who see 'scathing etc.' criticism in MSM as a plus - being by default a sign of genuine investigative journalism. In the eyes of the well-informed, independent and free-thinking public (i.e. those who give F.o.S. its 90% approval rating on Amazon), there is little more suspicious and even damning than MSM praise for a political investigation, is there not? Anyway, go ahead if you like, I have no objection, thanks for the courtesy of running it past me. MacPraughan (talk) 11:46, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

It's not our job to gauge reader reaction, only whether the phraseology is most accurate. I'm OK either way. We're not supposed to have a "stake" in how an article comes across. I recent created an article about a movie I just happened to catch on TCM the other night. I hated it! I thought it was so terrible that I turned it off after a few minutes. I noticed that it didn't have an article, and I quickly realized that it was notable. The article is largely favorable because the critics, for some reason, adore it. I hate it, but my feelings are not consequential. Coretheapple (talk) 16:28, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Of course, then I suppose one might validly ask, "why write an article about a movie you don't like?" Well the process is interesting, as is doing the research, so I do create articles when I have a bit of idle time. I generally write articles on people who are admirable in some way, but not always. I created an article on a brutal NYC cop who I found detestable, and a mediocre choreographer. The process is interesting. But the aim is to create an article in which no one can validly say, "gee this reads like an attack piece" or "gee this reads like a fan magazine article." That was the problem with the Baker article at one point, and it is true with many, many articles about people in the media, entertainment and public relations. The amount of "fancruft" in those articles is mind-boggling. You just have to cruise the categories, as I have done in the past until it proved simply overwhelming. On occasion, though, one finds articles on people in the media that do indeed are unbalanced negatively. I've found that, for instance, some list of actor awards include the "razzies," which are intended to humiliate, not to award. Just some further thoughts, don't mean to clog your talk page. Coretheapple (talk) 18:35, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Portrait of Sonam Rapten 1595-1658, Regent of Tibet.jpg

For your information, I have transferred this file to Wikimedia Commons. We do this routinely with free media because it'll get a wider audience at Commons and other projects will have access too. De728631 (talk) 17:29, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Are you able to tell me, please, how I should instruct the copyright holder to give permission to free that image? I need a standard sentence for her to send in an email, I guess I need a ticket number and I need the email address to which she should send it. Many thanks, if you know. MacPraughan (talk) 18:08, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

As I wrote at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions, this image is already free because there is no creative act in making a faithful photographic reproduction of a 2-dimensional painting that is itself out of copyright due to old age. But we would still appreciate an email notice from Mme Pommaret to confirm that she asked you to upload the image. Please ask her to write an email to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. It should contain the file name "Portrait of Sonam Rapten 1595-1658, Regent of Tibet.jpg" and just an informal statement that she, Francoise Pommaret, asked you, i.e. User:MacPraughan at the English Wikipedia, to upload the file because she took the photograph and released it into the public domain. The id number will then be sent back to her automatically and it is only needed for further inquiries (you might want to keep the number). I have already placed all required tags on the file page, so apart from the email there is nothing that needs to be done. By the way, the voluntary email staff at Commons will also accept emails in French if that is more convenient for her. De728631 (talk) 17:52, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks, I have done as you suggest. MacPraughan (talk) 22:58, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Mural at Samye Monastery, Tibet, showing the 5th Dalai Lama flanked by Gushri Khan and Sonam Chopel, aka Rapten.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Mural at Samye Monastery, Tibet, showing the 5th Dalai Lama flanked by Gushri Khan and Sonam Chopel, aka Rapten.jpg, which you've attributed to Francoise Pommaret. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:21, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Please see above exchange regarding permission of a detail of this image, Diannaa. De728631, when I asked him how to get permission to use the detail of the photo you are threatening to delete, wrote "this image is already free because there is no creative act in making a faithful photographic reproduction of a 2-dimensional painting that is itself out of copyright due to old age." Obviously, the artist who painted the mural would have died in the 18th century at the latest. I imagined the same consideration would apply to the whole photograph! Anyway, without discussion I have duly forwarded Mme Pommaret's kind written permission to permissions-en@wikimedia.org (I copied and pasted this account so it can't be a typo), "for the kind attention of Dianaa", but it bounced straight back, undeliverable, with the following message:

     Your message did not reach some or all of the intended recipients.
     Subject:	Kind attention of Dianaa
     Sent:	27/02/2017 14:57
     The following recipient(s) cannot be reached:
     'permissions-en@wikimedia.org.' on 27/02/2017 14:57
           Invalid recipient

Now what would you like me to do next? Thanks for your patience - and diligence. MacPraughan (talk) 14:13, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

New requested move

Have you seen this new requested move? — Preceding unsigned comment added by A ri gi bod (talk • contribs) 01:29, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Dalai Lama

Your imput in this discussion will be very much welcome. --TV Guy (talk) 00:40, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Talk page cleanup

Regarding your recent edit. Please be aware that users can remove notices from their own user talk, with very few exceptions. If you think they aren't being responsive to your concerns you can post about the issue elsewhere and leave them a ping. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 16:31, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the advice, EdJohnston, I take you at your word and stand corrected. My feelings about it were evidently wrong: please excuse my ignorance about this. But can you also please indicate where this policy is stated in the guidelines as I would like to check it up, and how it relates to this particular editor, who repeatedly refers other editors like Tiger Chair and Farang Rak Tham to post their criticisms and comments on his User talk page intead of on the relevant article talk page, and then simply deletes whatever they advise. It does not seem right. Many thanks, MacPraughan (talk) 20:09, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

See WP:OWNTALK. Any article concerns should be addressed on article talk. If the problem is that an editor is not willing to follow consensus, then the steps of WP:Dispute resolution should be tried. EdJohnston (talk) 20:48, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

As EdJohnston said: "Personal talk page cleanup: Although archiving is preferred, users may freely remove comments from their own talk pages. Users may also remove some content in archiving. The removal of a warning is taken as evidence that the warning has been read by the user." I would therefore suggest that you undo the change you made on his talk page. However, I would consider the fact fact this user is simply deleting comments (after specifically asking other users to bring certain concerns on his talk page) as an additional evidence that he is not willing to engage in collaborative editing and consensus building. I believe sufficient evidences have accumulated over the past few days to bring his case to administrator attention.--Tiger Chair (talk) 08:31, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Tiger Chair for showing the way forward. I shall certainly revert my reversion and apologise for my lack of knowledge about this particulr rule. MacPraughan (talk) 12:40, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Comment: Apart from the dispute resolution, which is usually more focused on making compromises and creating unity rather than what is correct content-wise, we can also deal with this as a disciplinarian, by simply adding up the notices for fringe opinion and nor properly cited material until you reach level 5, after which the user will be blocked quite easily. Right now we are at level 2, and I am guessing that the user in question will back off and find other strategies once we reach notice level 4. In fairness to him, about 10-20 % of his edits have proven constructive, and he has been using a few reliable sources now and then, as well as one or two notable primary sources. So there is something to build upon. If not, once we reach notice 5, he will be blocked anyway.

Oh, and notices for misbehavior and violations can add up, even if previous ones have been deleted.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 08:55, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, Farang Rak Tham, I am glad there is a clear procedure to deal with this. Can you please direct me to the description of the various levels leading to notice 5, which I hope will not be necessary. MacPraughan (talk) 12:40, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

You are welcome, MacPraughan. These levels can be found at WP:WARN.

With regard to reporting the user concerned to a noticeboard, this is possible, but since there have been aggressive responses by several people, the problems will most likely be forwarded to an arbitrator. If you want to start a formal discussion regarding content which is managed by an uninvolved moderator, you can do so through the WP:RFC format. But if you want my opinion, there is clarity on all sides on what the policies are, but whether they are observed is another matter.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 15:04, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For this; absolutely outstanding! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:46, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much, that is very kind! MacPraughan (talk) 18:37, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Archive

I've taken the liberty to add the archive-bot; it will archive old threads automatically. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:15, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, MacPraughan. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

"Public domain"

Just letting you know that I nominated File:Masa Gedrih (cr) standing with President Borut Pahor of Slovenia (c) and others, 16.3.2015.png that you uploaded for deletion. Being published on Facebook does not mean that a work has been placed in public domain, so republishing it here would constitute copyright violation. Feel free to ping me if you have additional questions about copyright. — Yerpo ^Eh? 10:03, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

OK, but if putting something "Public" on Facebook, so that everyone in the world can see it and everyone in the world can freely share it with anyone else in the world, is not putting it in the Public Domain, then what is? If that is not the Public Domain, then what IS the Public Domain?!? --MacPraughan (talk) 12:10, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Putting it somewhere public means that everybody can look at it, but that's pretty much the extent of the rights the public is given. Sharing it is a different story. Facebook's rules state that the uploader gives Facebook the right to republish ("share") within the website, which does mean that anybody can share it on Facebook, but doesn't cover anything outside facebook.com. Public domain, on the other hand, refers to explicit waiving of any and all intelectual property rights, which can be done e.g. by uploading to Commons and selecting "public domain" for own work, but it is only automatic 70 years after the author has died. — Yerpo ^Eh? 12:18, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

All that is also assuming that the person who uploaded the picture to FaceBook had the right to do so. There is no evidence that that is so. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:38, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

OK fair enough, if you put it like that! Thanks for the advice. I stand corrected, and the image stands deleted. --MacPraughan (talk) 13:59, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Editing other user pages

Hi MacPraughan. User pages should be created only by the corresponding user or an admin in case of a block ([1]). They should not be used as talk pages. Thanks. --MarioGom (talk) 07:16, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Understood. Thanks. MacPraughan (talk) 07:26, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Pattern of editing at Shenphen Rinpoche

I find it incredulous that you think he is a notable religious figure (your !Keep vote at his AfD) when you have edited his article in a manner that casts doubt on everything and anything he has ever done, portrayed him in a negative light, and going so far as to add a photograph of him taken in handcuffs after an arrest in 2012. Evidence in the form of diffs as to your pattern of editing this article: diff 1, diff 2, diff 3, diff 4, diff 5, diff 6, diff 7, diff 8, diff 9, diff 10, diff 11, diff 12, diff 13, diff 14.

In one of your edit summaries (diff 8), you wrote - There is no evidence to be found in independent 3rd party sources that anyone has ever requested him to teach anything - so wouldn't the same be true for this statement you wrote at the AfD - Chatellier is the only known example of the recognition of the incarnation of a Tibetan lama who was a 'Rinpoche', 'tulku' or 'Living Buddha' in his previous life - where's your third party source that verifies that statement? In diff 11 you added this to his article - Chatellier also provides his completely different background as a medical assistant and security guard, in an advertisement on a security personnel employment site. Dated 2012, his detailed CV, apparently posted by himself in search of employment, makes no reference to any kind of training or interest in Buddhism, nor to his role as Lama Shenphen Rinpoche as described above and elsewhere. On the contrary, according to his CV the only kind of traceable and formal training he has received since 1990 appears to be as a doorman ("Door Supervisor") and security guard at S.I.A. in London, in April 2011 - implying that he received training to be a Bouncer (doorman). So I have to ask, do you know this guy, do you have a grudge against him, have you ever interacted with him? I'm trying to figure out why you would !vote Keep at his AfD, when your pattern of editing at his article seems to indicate that you really don't think he's a notable religious leader, if one at all.

In addition, there is an editor who has the same username as you, MacPraughan, who has edited the following wikis in the same pattern in the same timeframe (is this you?). - French Wiki, Slovenian Wiki, Hungarian Wiki, German Wiki Isaidnoway (talk) 19:35, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for yor comments, Isaidnoway! I will try to respond to your incredulous questions to the best of my ability as a junior-type editor with a narrow specialisation in matters Tibetan, which have been a major hobby of mine for the last 40 years - whereas my limited and amateurish WP editing career only goes back to 2015 so I am still very much on a learning curve as regards this and beg your indulgence in that regard.

First of all, disclosure: I have never seen, met or communicated or even heard about this person till last month and I have zero personal connection with him so I have no grudge, beef or personal bone to pick with him. I have disclosed my personal interest clearly at the very beginning when I realised that Balazs38 must be either Chatellier himself or someone under his instructions and working closely together with him in his editing. My disclosure can be read in the opening paragraphs of my 12th August post on the Shenphen Rinpoche COI discussion: I had simply stumbled across the article and saw it was in urgent need of improvement.

To enlarge a little on that statement, my interest being Tibet, I admit to being a fan of the Dalai Lama and have researched and edited a lot of articles about him and his history, especially in the 17th century. He currently advises, by the way, that when people acting as Tibetan Buddhist Lamas or teachers are not behaving well, they should be exposed rather than protected through silence.

I therefore decided to improve the article and started adding 'citation needed' tags where appropriate and any new material which I could find about the subject that had independent 3rd party citations from reliable sources such as major newspapers. Unfortunately, whether I could help it or not, once I established his real name was Ronan Chatellier (this was hidden from the article) all the material that I could find worth citing has turned out to be of a negative nature. I have appealed to Balazs38, when he criticised me, to kindly point me towards some sources with material of a more positive nature but he failed to provide any. For this reason my additions have unfortunately proved nearly all more or less negative.

One positive fact that I have managed to accentuate is the nature of his status as the only westerner recognised as a tulku by Chinese officials. I have therefore presented this along with available citations and having seen Yerpo's today comment about source-validity I am currently researching additional citations, non-OR, from reliable, independent 3rd party sources to substantiate his unique status in the world of Tibetan Buddhism. These will be added to the article as very correctly demanded by you as well today, in the near future.

Yes I have also tried to edit the French, German and Slovenian versions in a similar vein. Is this permitted or am I breaking some rules? Please let me know. I just thought of doing it and went ahead.

I hope my efforts now seems a little less incredulous to you after reading my explanations. Best wishes and thanks for your advice, your interest in the subject and in my meagre efforts is much appreciated. Please let me know if you have any further questions, or would like any further clarifications to the above, I shall be delighted to respond. -MacPraughan (talk) 20:34, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. Thank you. Skywalker976 (talk) 22:55, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

I've just moved this from WP:COIN . Smallbones_(smalltalk) 23:05, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have recently shown interest in living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect: any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or any page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

JimRenge (talk) 23:53, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Shenphen Rinpoche

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living (or recently deceased) persons, as you did to Shenphen Rinpoche. Allegations of a criminal conviction require reliable sources. Wikipedia's sourcing policy, Verifiability, says that any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation; material not meeting this standard may be removed. This allegation is poorly sourced and has been challenged and has been removed. Please do not add this material back without reliable sourcing. Thanks. Isaidnoway (talk) 05:18, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

But Isaidnoway , the formation of this Association is according to the French law of Associations established in 1901, for a non-profit purpose. It is based on exactly the same principal as the registration of a corporation, or a non-profit 501(c)(3) body in the USA, or a limited company in the UK at Companies House, or registering a charity with the UK Charities Commission. Here are the French government regulations governing the formation of these kinds of Associations: https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=fr&u=https://www.associations.gouv.fr/kitgratuit.html&prev=search. It is strictly regulated according to law and the association that is referred to was registered and is listed in the offical journal of associations. Its existence is a fact, duly registered with the French government for the stated purpose. It cannot be invented or forged, and is fully reliable. So, please advise, in what respect can this document be considered to be unreliable or poorly referenced? Thanks for clarification, I am on a learning curve here and I appreciate your input (and your nom-de-plume). -MacPraughan (talk) 12:45, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm not saying the association is not real or doesn't exist. What I'm saying is that according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines we can't include this allegation of a criminal conviction based on a committee that was established to support Ronan Chatellier. We need secondary reliable sources that report and discuss the alleged conviction, and to verify where, how, why and what the conviction is for. Do you know of any such sources? Isaidnoway (talk) 14:06, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

OK, here is the Slovenian newspaper Dnevnik referring twice to his conviction in France - in 1997 - for "sexual violence against minors": https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=sl&u=https://www.dnevnik.si/1042523978&prev=search. Apologies for the poor google translation but at least that snippet is clear. Not reliable?

Here is a similar report in Slovenske Novice, the biggest newspaper in Slovenia: The paragraph relating to his conviction for pedophilia in France says "»Zdravilno« masiranje intimnih delov. Francoz, od katerega se je sicer uradna pisarna dalajlame po izbruhu škandalov distancirala, je bil po nekaterih podatkih pred leti v domovini že v težavah zaradi spolnega napada na dva otroka – izvajal naj bi nekakšno »zdravilno« masiranje golih otrok, tudi po intimnih delih telesa." Translation (by google): "Healing" massage of intimate parts. The Frenchman, who was distanced from the official Dalai Lama office after the outbreak of scandals, was, according to some data, in his homeland years already in difficulty because of a sexual assault on two children - he was supposed to perform some kind of "healing" massage of naked children, even through intimate parts of the body." Perhaps not specific enough?

Other evidence, but from a Slovenian blog: "He was also reported to the police because of pedophilia suspect. In 1999 Ronan Chattelier was sentenced with penalty because of sexual harrasment of children in France". Source (to find it, please scroll down to the last item, 'Afterword': https://buddhadharmaobfinternational.wordpress.com/2010/08/01/universal-education-negative-karma-of-cyber-bullying-social-responsibility-prevention/

There appear to be multiple references to his convictions for pedophilia in France in the 1990s which appear in almost all the newspaper reports about him in Slovenia (at least half a dozen). However all I can find about them in France is this Association set up to contest his conviction. It's a bit of a mystery. - MacPraughan (talk) 16:37, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Actually Slovenske novice is a tabloid and doesn't qualify at all as reliable source of information. And for the Slovenian blog you have yourself said "personally I don't regard this source as reliable enough", and yet you provided it as a source on several occasions. 46.123.255.5 (talk) 22:34, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Reply to 46.123.255.5: this is false. I never used that blog as an edit source at any stage. Please show where I have done, or retract.

In addition, Slovenske novice may be a tabloid but please note that Dnevnik which has also covered his cases is a broadsheet. -MacPraughan (talk) 17:59, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

September 2018

Hello, I'm JimRenge. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Shenphen Rinpoche that didn't seem very civil. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Allegations of vandalism ([2] edit summary) without evidence are regarded as personal attacks. Please see WP:VANDALISM for more info. JimRenge (talk) 15:20, 9 September 2018 (UTC) corr. JimRenge (talk) 17:03, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

@JimRenge: Sorry about this. I looked at your two edits today on the page you indicate and could not see any comments of mine that you have deleted. Pls clarify, thanks, -MacPraughan (talk) 16:55, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, corrected. JimRenge (talk) 17:03, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

@JimRenge: Ah, my edit summary on 6 Sept. I thought deletion of paragraphs of cited text - which had already severely pared down by Collect - without an edit summary, without discussion on 'talk' would be reasonably characterised as "apparent vandalism". If not, in future I'll use an alternative term. What do you suggest? I'm considered reinstating the deleted text, as the same editor removed it again, still without any explanation; would that be OK, do you think? Thanks, -MacPraughan (talk) 17:40, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

WP:VANDALISM explains what counts as vandalism and what is WP:NOTVANDALISM. I try to give policy conform reasons for reverts. If you are thinking of Collects sentence: "From 2012 onwards .." that was a short and cautious summary of the Slovenian newspaper reports. However, you need a better source than Slovenske novice; tabloid sources are not allowed per WP:BLP. Please take care BLP´s and corresponding talk pages are a very dangerous terrain. JimRenge (talk) 18:23, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

@JimRenge: OK thanks I have made an edit accordingly. -MacPraughan (talk) 21:01, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Also, @JimRenge:, please note that I have established with the help of Yerpo who is knowledgeable about Slovenian media, that Dnevnik (Slovenia) is a broadsheet newspaper, not a tabloid, therefore according to my understanding it can fairly be used as a source in Blp, e.g. concerning Chatellier's activities in Slovenia. Slovenske novice, on the other hand, is confirmed as a tabloid which cannot be used on Blp according to WP:Blp.

Unfortunately I have been blocked from editing for the moment because I inducted my wife as a WP editor recently and WP:OS concluded that she is a sockpuppet of mine. Trying to get it lifted but reading the guidelines they may not believe me! So I will be missing from discussions/edits on other pages - only allowed to edit here. -MacPraughan (talk) 18:12, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Why has my response to an Accusation of CoI been deleted?

Earlier today Skywalker976 filed an accusation of Conflict of Interest againt me on WP:COIN. Seeing it was spurious I wrote a rebuttal and posted it there, see 1. Thirty minutes later, my rebuttal was deleted en bloc by Oshwah who gave no reason for this action in his edit summary, just that he was reverting it. I immediately tried to query this, but found I was now blocked. Now I cannot defend myself against this accusation, and what I did post has been deleted. I can only wonder, is there some kind of conspiracy going on? Is it true, or am I just getting paranoid? Help! Can someone please explain what is going on here. Thanks. JimRenge, MarioGom, Yerpo, Simonm223, Bbb23 -MacPraughan (talk) 21:07, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Your edit at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard was removed because you were subsequently checkuser-blocked and hence it seemed moot to leave it there at that point... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:09, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

@Oshwah: "It seemed moot to leave it there at that point"? What does that mean, exactly, please? You did not leave it there, you deleted it. But on what basis? Surely, I have the right of reply to such accusations and the reply was published before I was blocked. Please explain and say clearly what right you have to delete anything I publish if it is not abusive etc. Are you Admin? Please also state your interest in the matter. Thank you. -MacPraughan (talk) 21:35, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

P.S. Dear Oshwah I know you're young and doing your best. But please revert your reversion of my rebuttal of the unfair accusations made against me. Now! It will be much appreciated by an old man with terminal cancer. Thanks. -MacPraughan (talk) 21:44, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

@Oshwah Still waiting for your clarification and to reinstate my reply to the CoI allegation made against me. Otherwise my block will expire on Monday and I shall do it myself, hopefully in good time. Thanks, MacPraughan (talk) 11:59, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

To say something is "moot" means it is no longer relevant, has been superseded by other developments, etc. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:17, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Really, Boing! said Zebedee and Oshwah? My dictionary says 'moot' means "subject to debate, dispute, or uncertainty".

I think Oshwah thought I was checkuser-blocked for having a CoI, so therefore (he thought) my reply was irrelevant, right? But my temporary block (7 days) had nothing to do with the CoI allegation, it's a completely separate matter. So, the CoI allegation has not been accepted or rejected, I still retain the right of reply, and my response was made, correctly, before I was blocked. So please allow it, and revert Oshwah's deletion of it. Or explain. I'm sure he did it in good faith...? MacPraughan (talk) 14:40, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

See definition 2 at https://www.google.com/search?q=moot - "having little or no practical relevance". Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:45, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

@Boing! said Zebedee: Yes, OK, but you haven't explained why not, which is what I just asked you. Blimey. MacPraughan (talk) 21:19, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

All I was doing was answering your question of what the word means, which I thought was being helpful. As for the COI thing, I suggest you take it up when the current block is lifted or expires. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:01, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, Boing! said Zebedee, I know you were trying to be helpful but I already took the secondary meaning into account, above, and said even that did not explain why my response was deleted by Oshwah, perhaps you didn't understand what I wrote.

No matter, and yes, I have every intention of reversing Oshwah's intrusive deletion of my rebuttal of the CoI allegation as soon as the block expires - on Monday. It will be the first thing I do. Thank you for yor good suggestion which also shows good faith; on your part, at least; despite your slowness to understand the point. MacPraughan (talk) 07:14, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

No slowness, just a deliberate choice of only answering the one specific question. But thanks for your acknowledgment of my attempted assistance (even if it was a touch condescending). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:19, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Sorry for appearing condescending, Boing! said Zebedee, and I'm sure you explained the meaning of the word to me in good faith, even though that was a touch condescending, and even though you only gave the secondary meaning of the word while ignoring the usual meaning of which I am well aware and which the dictionary has confirmed. MacPraughan (talk) 09:21, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Well, I was pointing out what I thought Oshwah meant by it, as that did seem to be what you were asking. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:26, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Well, yes, Boing! said Zebedee, but he also said he thought he'd leave it there, but he went and deleted it instead. What I was asking, was for him to restore it. I can see I'm not going to get anywhere talking with you or him. I'll wait till Monday. Just forget it, brother. Or sister. Sorry for wasting your time. Further correspondence will not be entered into. MacPraughan (talk) 09:51, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

How can one’s Spouse register without one being accused of Sockpuppetry?

@Bbb23: I have now read up on sockpuppetry and can understand your concerns, and why you sanctioned me with a 7-day block. However, my wife still aspires to edit WP on her own account. How can she do that, and register, in good faith, without you accusing me of sockpuppetry? Should she declare a CoI, or what? Thanks for your advice. MacPraughan (talk) 09:16, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Read WP:FAMILY and then tell me what you think should be done to comply with policy.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:32, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer, Bbb23, I was not aware of that guideline, will do as you suggest and report back here. MacPraughan (talk) 18:18, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Perfect, Bbb23, and very clear. We shall go over this and ensure this misunderstanding will not happen again, using userboxes and following the guidelines. We both try to practice transparency and accountability so neither of us have any problem with declaring our connection. I wish I was aware of this beforehand. We live and learn! I also wish you or someone else might have assumed good faith, got in touch and advised me/her of this beforehand. But what is done is done and I will serve the rest of my sentence for my lack of knowledge about it. Would it be possible to unfreeze my wife's Freewasp user account, or will she have to open a new one? Thanks again for your help with this. MacPraughan (talk) 18:36, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

If Freewasp wants to be unblocked, she should request it on her Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:49, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

@Bbb23: Thanks. I shall pass it on and she can do it in her own words. MacPraughan (talk) 19:48, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Connected contributor

Hi, just wanted to let you know that I have added the connected contributor template to the talk pages of the following articles: Barry Kerzin, 14th Dalai Lama and Alexander Berzin (scholar). This is to let other editor's know that there is an external relationship (personal, religious, professional) between you and the subject of the article, and is merely a description of the situation, not a judgement about your opinions, integrity, or good faith.

• At Alexander Berzin you declared a conflict of interest - diff, diff, diff.
• At 14th Dalai Lama you advised that you were the Dalai Lama's personal chauffeur in the UK from 1982 to 1993 and that you knew the present Dalai Lama personally and worked many years ago, for the Office of the Dalai Lama. diff, diff, diff, diff, diff.
• At Barry Kerzin you acknowledged that your relationship with Kerzin is in a way professional and that you have known Kerzin as a colleague and are an acquaintance of the subject. diff, diff, diff.

You should also make a public declaration (WP has small user boxes) on your user page indicating that you are personally/professionally connected to the subjects of those articles, so there is no ambiguity about your relationship and to provide transparency, especially if you continue to edit those affected articles and/or talk pages of those articles. You stated above, when asked, that you are not connected to Shenphen Rinpoche, and I will take you at your word that you are not connected to the subject of that article. Please feel free to ping me if you have any questions or comments. Thanks. Isaidnoway (talk) 13:30, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

@Isaidnoway: Thank you very much for your interest and helpful advice. I will be happy to add Userboxes you have indicated to my User page when I have been deblocked. I did not know till now that one was obliged to do so.

Does this also apply to institutions like Mind & Life Institute to which, at the request of its CEO, I have contributed extensively while following its work and development and supporting it? I should also do the same for its cofounder and former CEO R. Adam Engle whose personal article I also created and with whom I also have a personal connection. And what about the institution of the Dalai Lama, to which I have contributed extensively, should I declare my connection? Needless to say, all my efforts both within and without WP for these people and institutions has been done on a voluntary basis, on the contrary I have financially supported some of them, do I need to declare that too?

Perhaps you should ping our colleagues Balazs38 and Skywalker976 to do likewise as well regarding their close connections with Chatellier?

In any case I very much appreciate your taking the trouble to put my past efforts under such close and detailed scrutiny and advising where my work has been lacking which is very helpful.

I am more than happy to confirm once again that I have no connection whatsoever with Ronan Chatellier and never even heard of him until very recently. To explain again, my interest was first sparked by his unique claim to be a western tulku recognised by officials in China. I know many tulkus personally and it is a phenomenon that interests me greatly. When I saw his article first, see diff, completely lacking in independent sources, and evidently created by himself (under the username Dharmaling, which is also the name of his personal, professedly Buddhist organisation) I thought I would try to improve it. However all that I discovered when I searched for independent citations about him was disappointing, to put it mildly.

In the process of removing uncited, flattering content, and adding independently cited material the article has morphed into what others have characterised as an attack page; more recently another of his supporters (or apologists, or students, or proxies?), CalyptoAletheia has been trying to revert it to a more flattering article, but with (currently) one poor source, one uncited claim and one dead link; I wonder, why is this tolerated? Why has nobody objected to his real name, Ronan Chatellier, doubtless used in his passport and his French administrative papers and record, being excised from the article by CalyptoAletheia without giving any reason? Could it be a move to prevent readers from searching for information about "Ronan Chatellier" and finding out what I found out? I also wonder why this user has not been subjected to a checkuser when others, particularly myself, have been so stringently scrutinised, sanctioned and blocked even though consistently acting in good faith?

I have cordially invited my critics and maligners both here and on the relevant CoI and AfD articles, namely Balazs38 and Skywalker976, to provide some positive material about Chatellier on several occasions, without result.

So, in conclusion, I repeat, without the slightest reservation that I have no connection whatsoever to declare with Chatellier except as an interested and well-meaning WP user who tried, in good faith, to improve his article, at least in terms of the quality of its content, and hopefully succeeding along with with contributions from other editors more expert than myself. MacPraughan (talk) 17:50, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

@Balazs38:

I am sorry that your challenge to me as to why I don’t meet you face to face seems to have disappeared and must have been suppressed as WP:Harassment. Just as your attack lawyer Skywalker976’s publication of my FB a/c link was suppressed as WP:Harassment, recently. That’s two serious infringements of my WP privacy rights from your side, and two warnings not to do it again. See Warning Balazs38 and Outing.

You will also note that after some double-checking by admin, my own WP blocking for alleged sockpuppetry has now been reversed and lifted, as has the WP blocking of my good wife Freewasp. So please, no more gloating over this from your side.

As regards your ill-couched invitation, or should I say challenge, for us to meet face-to-face, if you would kindly issue an appropriate invitation, cordially-worded, without cynical asides and through a proper channel I would be more than happy to give it every consideration. I have no problem to meet you on neutral ground. I have no grudge against you and try to practice equanimity to all sentient beings, no matter how they might behave. I recognise that persons of ill-repute are suffering beings and deserve compassion, and that any irritation caused should be directed at the act rather than at the person. I am sure that if you have really absorbed any of the teachings you will have to agree. MacPraughan (talk) 16:03, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

September 2018

You have been blocked from editing for a period of one week for abusing multiple accounts. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Bbb23 (talk) 13:40, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

MacPraughan (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I understand that I have been blocked for Sock puppetry/abusing multiple accounts. This is absolutely untrue. I have had this single account to edit since I registered in March 2015. Please unblock me as soon as possible, thank you. MacPraughan (talk) 17:06, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Accept reason:

Procedural accept; already unblocked. Yamla (talk) 20:59, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

My wife now tells me that she has been blocked as well, as an alleged sock-puppet of mine. The editing name she chose is 'Freewasp'. We had been discussing the Shenphen Rinpoche article, and I have kept her informed of what is going on with him. Last week when the proposal to delete it came up, she was expressing her considered opinion that the article should not be deleted. I told her to register herself as an editor and say so herself, and she did so - I assisted her in the logging in and editing process as she was not familiar with it. Please check, if you can, that her email account and her computer ID are different to mine. I have been encouraging her to become an editor for some time as she is capable and experienced in various fields and we are both retired. Please unblock both of us since there was no intention on our part to open multiple accounts - we have one each. I will suggest to her that she also requests to be unblocked as she is a complete beginner and understands even less than me about WP. If any further details are required please email us. I can send you a photo of us both sitting at our computers, if you like! Many thanks -MacPraughan (talk)

You say "Last week when the proposal to delete it came up, she was expressing her considered opinion that the article should not be deleted. I told her to register herself as an editor and say so herself, and she did so" But actually, your wife(?) has been active already several weeks before the delete proposal (which was on 6th September 2018). Namely, on 11th August 2018‎ at 10:04 this user has reverted an article to one previous version. At the same time this user commented: "Too much wholesale deletion at one time, including practically all independently cited content in the article and other content quoting the subject's own statements, leaving only uncited content and content from sources too close to the subject. Please deal with bits of independently cited content one at a time, giving acceptable reasons for each bit deleted. Thank you." I find it very difficult to believe that a "complete beginner" would be able to do a revert, and write such a comment which uses very Wikipedia-specific vocabulary. Btw, you have commented on this action when you opened COI for the Balazs38: "This edit was undone, correctly in my view, within a few hours, by Freewasp." And forgive me for stating the obvious, but the photo of two people sitting behind the computers proves just that these two people were sitting behind their computers at the time, when it was taken. I will not say that you are lying, but just wanted to state these facts and people will make their own conclusions.Balazs38 (talk) 18:51, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

You may be right, Balazs38, it was probably before that when she wanted to get involved. Thank you for correcting me. I am quite an old man with incurable/terminal cancer so my short-term memory is not that good these days, and the treatment does not help, but I do my best. In principal, what I have said is true. I have assisted my wife to get started and coached her first edits because I think she would make a valuable editor if she gets into it. She is a retired professional with better knowledge than me about these specialities around Tibet and its history and culture - and politics.

I can see you are keen to keep us both blocked from editing. We must have been doing something right. However, I must be too naive and evidently lack your cynical mind if you see my offer to send a photo of us together would be faked. I guess that reveals and confirms exactly how you think and how you operate yourself. I will pray for you. -MacPraughan (talk) 19:54, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

@MacPraughan:Sorry to hear about your illness, I wish the best in your treatment. However, even such an illness doesn't justify the attacks, slander etc. WP has rules, and they apply to everyone.Balazs38 (talk) 21:51, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

@Balazs38: Thank you for your good wishes, I am sure they are sincere. ;-). Don't you know the difference between slander and defamation? I thought not.

If there was any case of slander to answer in Slovenia, your lawyer, Skywalker976 would have sued the sources like a flash, seeking - and getting - punitive damages. Can you explain why this has not happened yet? I can: it's because it's not slander but defamation, for which you simply can't get a conviction when it is patently the truth. What do you think? Thanks, -MacPraughan (talk) 14:27, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Very interesting to see this on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Balazs38:

I think the sock account was created by Balazs38 to attack perceived enemies of the subject of their mutual single-page interest. A lot of the evidence is in diffs that are locked because of doxxing concerns but this page history shows how both accounts seem to have been created to protect this religious figure, with one doing the heavy lifting on the attacks.Both are effectively single purpose accounts with the majority of their edits being on the same articles, the sock master always edits first. It's clear that Skywalker976 is an attack account against another user.The sock account was created the day after this conversation on Balazs38's talk page which pointed to their CoI. So what we have is an attack account created to dox MacPraughan as payback for their own CoI being revealed. I'm bringing this here because the problem is very much a sock puppetry problem; and considering the socks are both single purpose accouunts and one is obviously with the single purpose of harassing a Wikipedia editor, I'd recommend indefs for both. Simonm223 (talk) 12:30, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

This is a very good and perceptive analysis by Simonm223 of the situation, as I have observed it developing in recent weeks. However, it turns out that it is me who has been blocked and Skywalker976 and Balazs38 have not been sanctioned! Something wrong here! -MacPraughan (talk) 20:12, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

I refer to simonm223's analysis on 1 which in my view is an accurate analysis of the situation. It has, however, apparently been decided by Bbb23 to block me and not sanction Balazs38 or Skywalker976 (if my understanding is correct). At the same time, Balazs38's sockpuppet Skywalker976 has filed a spurious accusation of CoI against me on WP:COIN, and I am now unable to give my response there because of the block. I feel really stitched up. How can this be allowed? My faith in WP built up over 3+ years is evaporating rapidly and unless the situation is righted PDQ I will be quitting WP editing altogether, not that anyone will miss it. -MacPraughan (talk) 20:40, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

• And I suppose it's just a coincidence that an IP account also happened to find their way to the French Wiki article on Shenphen on the same date and left the exact same edit summary with Wikipedia specific vocabulary: - Too much wholesale deletion at one time, including practically all independently cited content in the article and other content quoting the subject's own statements, leaving only uncited content and content from sources too close to the subject. Please deal with bits of independently cited content one at a time, giving acceptable reasons for each bit deleted. - You know, when I first saw the request at WP:BLPN for someone to take a look at the article for BLP concerns, I didn't realize what I was getting myself into. You had turned his article into a textbook example of an attack page (see difs above). I like to think of myself as an inclusionist and don't like to see articles deleted that can be rescued, but when I searched for references to support those unsourced statements in his article, I found nothing of substance to establish his notability, and since Wikipedia is not the place for unfounded allegations, sensationalism, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives, and you had turned his article into an attack page, I nominated it for deletion giving those reasons. And after looking into the matter further, it seems to me that you and a few other editor's are more interested in documenting his allegations of bad conduct, and are here to set the record straight and right great wrongs. I have really tried to assume good faith here, but it's wearing thin. Perhaps you should think about just sitting out your week long block and then return to productive editing, and walk away from the Shenphen article. That's my advice anyway. Good luck! Isaidnoway (talk) 20:20, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Totally agree with what you say, Isaidnoway. Already decided this, and have already done it; this is my last post and I am then logging out. I leave things in your capable hands. I learned a lot and many people taught me many lessons for which I am very grateful. I am fully satisfied with the result, and would now like to change my vote from "Keep" to "Delete": as instigator of the deletion proposal, can you please convey that to the AfD page vote-count, since I can't edit except here. There is nothing left in it worth keeping, he is a nonentity as everyone agrees, and naturally WP places notability far above notoriety. Thank you for your blandishments and admonishments. -MacPraughan (talk) 22:02, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

My Shared IP address with Freewasp

This user may sometimes share an IP address with Freewasp.

As advised above by Administrator Bbb23 I am pleased to declare that I have a shared IP address with Freewasp, who is a family member. I shall post this userbox and information on my User page, as required by WP:FAMILY, as soon as my block for "sockpuppetry" (for allegedly using Freewasp as a "sockpuppet" since neither of us were aware of the necessity of this notification procedure) is lifted; and as in the meantime I am unable to add anything anywhere on WP except on this page. Apologies to all concerned for my culpable lack of knowledge, now corrected.

I have passed details of the same WP:FAMILY requirements to apprise Freewasp who will hopefully do the necessary likewise soon. MacPraughan (talk) 10:12, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

MacPraughn, I'm going to unblock you just as I unblocked your wife. Please note that WP:FAMILY doesn't just require the userbox on your userpage. It is also ill-advised for you and Freewasp to edit the same articles (or closely related articles) or discussions without declaring your relationship each time you do. To avoid future blocks, I strongly advise you not to edit in the same areas as Freewasp. Some editors may watch what you and Freewasp do, so it pays to err on the side of total independence from each other when you're on Wikipedia. Good luck.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:55, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

@Bbb23: Thank you very much for your confidence in me and my wife. Very much appreciated. I have learned something new and will take every care not to transgress the rules which I have now seen and understood thanks to your intervention. Apologies, again, for my lapse due to ignorance. Wikipedia is a vast and complex organism and we only learn by using it. MacPraughan (talk) 15:31, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Also, Bbb23, I wonder if you would kindly consider removing your comment about me here, diff, since it would seem redundant now? Thanks, MacPraughan (talk) 21:02, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

I struck my CU note with a comment.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:07, 16 September 2018 (UTC)