User talk:Opressed Serf

August 2011

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Barrick Gold‎. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Calistemon (talk) 05:50, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Calistemon. Told you so :D

-Jordan Lopehandia

ByeByeBarrick — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.155.144.22 (talk) 00:10, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, sorry you misconstrued my comments as vandalism, but the facts are true and all I was trying to do was correct the current inaccuracies on Wikipedia regarding the Pascua Llama Mine. Was there something I did wrong? If so please tell me how to update the information correctly, thanks!

-Jordan Lopehandia, legal owner of Pascua

For a start, there is a conflict of interest there, as you claim to be the leagal owner of the deposit and are therefore at odds with Barrick. Secondly, you removed a large part (about 10%) of the article, which was well-refereced through reliable sources without an edit summary. Thirdly you replaced this section with a claim that is only backed up by a link to a website that is apparently your own. If your claim was true it would still be no reason to delete the existing text. Either discuss the changes you perceive necessary on the talk page or add a new pharagraph, supported by reliable third party sources, like newspapers, English speaking if possible, but other languages are quite alright, too. Your own website is not a reliable source and not acceptable. Hope this helps, Calistemon (talk) 08:00, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This may help you to understand what a reliable source is and what not: Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. I think, the section about Self-published sources (online and paper) is especially of interest here. Calistemon (talk) 08:43, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I read what you suggested but I don't think I understand? The sources I'm using to verify my claims are the official court orders from the Supreme Court of Chile, which is the jurisdiction that Pascua falls under. Jorge Lopehandia has since sold Pascua to a company registered on the Toronto Stock Exchange (TSX) which of course could not be possible if Barrick owned Pascua... so why are you removing my corrections to the erroneous information? I'm just trying to ensure accuracy so people aren't mislead by the false data. Keep in mind, all this information is incorrect as Barrick never actually owned the mining rights to Pascua, ever.

How do you suggest I update this correctly? I mean, you cant get much more official than the Supreme Court Decision, can you?

I have not seen you place any links to those court orders as references in the article and I can not find a single reliable source saying that your statements are true. Surely, if what you are saying was correct it would have had a major impact on Barrick and therefore be picked up by, the very least, the Canadian newspapers. Reliable sources is whats needed. Calistemon (talk) 23:56, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ooooh, I get it. I'll add those little link thingies so they are blue as I guess is required. Just so I know though, are you suggesting that the Supreme Court of Chile is somehow less credible than a privately owned Canadian media company?

I'm saying you have not produced a link to these supreme court rulings, suggesting to me, they might not exist or not support your claim. Calistemon (talk) 00:04, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Court documents are primary sources, and their use in Wikipedia is discouraged. Please see WP:SECONDARY. I hope this helps. Drmies (talk) 00:06, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see I see. I'll get my Wikipedia literate and web savvy friends make it nice and neat for you then, be back shortly. Also, the links I provided in my first post allowed you to download scanned original copies of the most recent supreme court decisions. They were available for all to download in PDF format before you removed them. But I understand your reasons. This information will be back in the requested format shortly. And I stick to my belief that the best proof is the proof from the courts, which is public information. Wikipedia shouldn't have any problem with that, right? The sharing of public information?

www.minapascuachile.com

Also, I read up on primary sources, thanks for the tip! Looks like court documents are acceptable, as they require no outside interpretation :)

"Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source."

Lastly, for the real information as to what's going on, google this: mountain west inc jorge lopehandia pascua