User talk:Smmary

Welcome!

Welcome to Wikipedia, Smmary! I am SarekOfVulcan and have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time. Thank you for your contributions. I just wanted to say hi and welcome you to Wikipedia! If you have any questions check out Wikipedia:Questions, or feel free to leave me a message on my talk page or type {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. I love to help new users, so don't be afraid to leave a message! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post. Again, welcome!

SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:28, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Editing your article

Hi, Mary! For the moment, I'll assume that you are Mary Fualaau -- if you could substantiate that to WP:OTRS, as I suggested in my note to the IP editor, it would be most useful. One of the biggest problems with your previous edit was that you were editorializing in the article text with your corrections in brackets -- that's a big no-no here. If there's something inaccurate that isn't cited to a WP:Reliable source, just take it out altogether. If the RS that "supports" a statement got it wrong, replace it with one that got it right. If a negative statement that someone else put in that's accurate and properly cited, you may have to just grit your teeth and ignore it. You can always editorialize on your userpage about it. :-) Let me know if I can do anything else to help you get up to speed here.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:34, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SarekOfVulcan, several years ago you offered to help me with edits, I saw you wrote to leave you a message; I went to your page and couldn’t find where to leave a message. Recently I attempted to edit again, I took errors out, added verified facts, I’m not sure how to notate references. I wonder if there’s a video tutorial on how to edit. Also I was notified that I am under review for “conflict of interest”, have rules changed over the years, one editor Flyer told me it’s not a good idea for me to edit at all, and while I don’t really care to be the actual editor, I’m also not going to keep opening Wikipedia every so many years and see errors in facts, facts that previously were corrected by editors and properly referenced, then reverted back to errors. And I’ve read discussions between editors, eventually seems some correct editored are bullied down and just give up, well I saw this in a few discussions. I also wonder how references can be accepted when the so called “reliable source” isn’t corroborated itself, the quote or fact used, or the fact is used out of context, out of context in time, and/or general context skewing. In other words, statements made in media or by an individual are placed together in the Wikipedia article and with conjecture, showing an agenda brought to the article. I would have to study the discussions to see if it’s one person doing this over the years. That is quite time consuming, I started to go backwards through the edits to see if I could see that pattern, a tedious task. I’d rather just fight the present and get the article to bare bone facts. The one question I have, can the reliable sources be actual court documented? Or does Wikipedia rely on media and book/magazine published material only? Thank you, I hope you’ll be able to help me, or at least help me understand. Mary Smmary (talk) 09:06, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a place here for attachments? Smmary (talk) 09:56, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, there's no place for attachments. The Reliable Source doctrine is rather tricky in many places. The Biography of Living Persons doctrine is perhaps trickier. It's true that you probably shouldn't edit the page about you. But you continue revealing faults in the article to me. Court documents might seem a sensible source... but court verdicts are what's called NPOV-primary sources. Wikipedia must rely on NPOV-secondary sources. So while it would seem a court verdict is a good source, only when it's reported in the press can that verdict be referenced. Once introduced, it can then be possible to refer to the verdict for clarity if necessary, but that raises questions about authenticity and hosting, unless the courts have the verdict online. Does that answer your question? Mcfnord (talk) 04:08, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome

Welcome to Wikipedia!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:46, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ebay?

Do you have a link for whatever is being sold on EBay that is Wikipedia based? That may violate the free content license and TOS. Ebay may take it down if the article for sale is not owned by the person selling it. --DHeyward (talk) 19:48, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to attach you a screenshot of the EBAY item and the credit given to Wikipedia, even on the cover it has a big Wikipedia seal/award posted saying "High Quality Content by Wikipedia articles", while also on the cover citing parts of my Wikipedia article (as if facts), but actually incorrect facts that I attempted to correct today. You saw my edits were reversed (at least in part). Important to navigate to "Publisher Details" - and Wikipedia is named and credited as "Publisher": along with a synopsis of my Wikipedia article. On Ebay- search: "Mary Letourneau"- scroll down til you see a close up of female eyes with a royal blew face-mask, light green title "Mary Kay Letourneau" Frederick Miller, author.

Calling on Dheyward,Smmary I wrote more on this COI page but it won't save. I need a Wikipedia editor to work with me so there is no COI accusation. I am only asking for facts to be checked and citations to be added and/or faulty citations/references to be removed. I was careful not to add my opinion, although I did take opinion away from the article, which one example is that I appropriately added Strict Liability and took out the other link, since it was incorrect and bias link, at least it does not apply in the State of WA. My conviction was in WA, and is classified as a strict liability statute. If sexual abuse was intended in my charges, there are statutes/charges that the State could have added; those statutes were not added to my charges. Strict liability reference is factually correct and case specific correct. Re other editing: the age 12/13 "debate". There are news articles that printed age 12. The more reliable articles printed the correctly, age 13. In addition, he WAS a student of mine, but at the time of our "intimate" relationship, he was a FORMER student. That is a fact, and the citation can simply be the civil suit (which is already a citation), where Vili himself testified to his exact age at the time. RE other editing: I appreciate the discernment of editors who took my children's names out. Also the editors who knew to take private info about my parents out of the article. I tried to correct the facts but it still was too personal. I hope I can help further. --talk

Thank you for explaining the strict liability statute. Mcfnord (talk) 04:15, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Kay Letourneau article and your WP:COI

As stated by SarekOfVulcan, you need to watch your WP:COI. Read WP:COI. It is not a good idea for you to edit the Mary Kay Letourneau article. At all. And beyond WP:COI concerns, we go by what the WP:Reliable sources state, not your "facts." That's just the way Wikipedia is. You shouldn't be removing text like "having sex with" as though you were simply found in the car with the boy. If you are stating that you were simply found in the car with the boy and no sex occurred, what WP:Reliable sources do you have for that? You removed the following: "Although the death was ruled accidental and no one held responsible, Mary Kay often blamed herself as she promised to look after her brother, and was the first to report to her parents the boy was not breathing." The source, which consists four pages, states, "On a warm August afternoon in 1973, the summer before Mary Katherine Schmitz started sixth grade, her little brother Phillip drowned in the pool behind the family's home in Corona del Mar's exclusive Spyglass Hill. [...] 'There is no question that her brother's death, combined with other traumas Mary Kay suffered later, contributed to the tragedy of her life today,' says Dr. Julia Moore, the psychiatrist who evaluated the once-beloved Seattle teacher and diagnosed manic depression before she was jailed as a sex offender last November." I'll reword the text on this in the Wikipedia article. We can also use WP:In-text attribution for the psychiatrist part. And as for the "While incarcerated for child rape in May 1999" part, you may not like the "child rape" part and/or you may feel that it's redundant, but the law clearly does not view your sexual interaction with Fualaau as having been legally consensual. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:06, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In states with different criminal codes, would you accept their differing legal descriptions? For example, statutory rape? And why does Wikipedia define the crime using those words? Should this Wikipedia page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutory_rape be re-titled as "Child rape" in your view? Mcfnord (talk) 04:46, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1) the LATimes article does not fit the reliable source definition, and I will elaborate on each point of reliable source definition if I need to, 2) Dr. Julia Moore was impeached by the State’s expert, and further, Julia Moore did not do a formal evaluation on me. Additionally the material is outdated by 20 years. Also, Julia Moore’s statement Is not specific and to the made up sensationalism of Warwick’s unverified words, Julia Moore only opinionated that my “brothers death, ..., contributed to the tragedy of my life today.” So no, you will not assume that Julia Moore’s opinion supports what Warwick wrote, unverified, essentially tabloid writing. And if Julia Moore is reference, then she should be referenced in the context that she existed. There were eight evaluations done back around 20 years ago, Judge Lau was privy to 5 of those, the other 3 were for civil cases. Julia Moore was not one of the eight evaluations completed, she admitted at the sentencing that she met me for approximately one hour, and it was an opinion, not a full evaluation with diagnostics given. Additionally Julia Moore was paid to give her words in front of the cameras there that day, an opinion, and so her words constitute as paid-for words of one person. And probably most important in referencing Julia Moore or anything from the public sentencing hearing that sentencing material, written or spoken, is not guided by the Rules of Evidence (as trial evidence and witnesses used do have to follow the Rules of Evidence, your legal consultants there at Wikipedia can verify that fact. What is relevant here in what I just wrote: so no, it would not be within Wikipedia reliable source or living person article to “reword the text” as you suggested. And regarding the term “child rape”, I didn’t plead guilty to “child rape”, I plead guilty to the three elements of a Washington State statute titled Rape of a Child in the second degree, so how about properly cite the statute and the elements I plead guilty to. 1) sexual intercourse happened, 2) he was between the ages of 12 and 14, 3) they were not married. Those are the three elements. And a direct link to the statute would be appropriate. You don’t get to subjectively turn a title of a statute into a verb, and tell me that that term simply means our sexual relationship wasn’t consensual, the term is without question inflammatory. To use the term once is inflammatory, to use it more than once in the article can be argued as deliberate abuses to your own rules. So cut it out with your telling me to just accept it. How about you review your own rules, and consult with the legal authorities you have there at Wikipedia, and also it is appropriate to include the term “strict liability statute”, the statute I plead guilty of is exactly that in the law, and it has to do with legal consensent. Additionally, I will argue that the legislative history on the choosing of the title Rape of a Child as the title for that statute should be public interest of highest value, and it should be referenced, the legislature specifically decided to insert the word rape into the title as a deterrrent for the behavior of sexual intercourse with those who cannnot legally consent, the legislator who supports the word use spoke specifically knowing those convicted under that title were not being accused of rape in any manner of intent or of customary meaning of the term, it was decided that the term would though serve as a deterrent value. Other states still title the same elements with Statutory Rape. And in some states it is titled Unlawful Sex With a Minor, other states title the same as Sexual Misconduct. And certain countries wouldn’t even have it as a crime code at all. You’re not doing any public interest service or educating the public on the law, it appears rather to be a tricky way to essentially name call, and it looks to be opinion and bandwagoning, rather than fact. I can say that objectively; I can say that simply by being versed on debate rules regarding presentation of facts with reliable sources, adding to that the debate rules regarding statements used that are defined as a known fallacy. See, I dont even have to read What Wikipedia is Not, nor do I have to read Reliable Sources, but I have, it’s all the same as court rules and debate rules. Also, I can successfully prove that some of your referencing with Reliable Sources is actual circular, yes, some of the referenced articles you’ve noted as a reliable source have taken their base information from Wikipedia. I’ve talked one on one with producers and Authors of articles and other pieces of writing, and I’ve directly asked, “where did you get that information?”, their answer, “Wikipedia”. Also, I’ve read in the Wikipedia rules for living people that you can’t reject a fact just because the reference costly and that extra care and scrutiny has to be given to facts regarding living people. The debating and rationalizing and commentary and discussions on editing debates that I’ve traced back so far, hundreds on this article of mine, I see very little care for the rules of Reliable Sources. And the more rules I read on Wikipedia, the more positive I am that Inhave every right and reason to stand my ground to see that the corrections Inam asking to be made on the facts be done, and expedited, and you can leave me out as “editor”, that part does not matter, I shouldn’t have to be the one to correct this article, you all have rules to follow, and always have had rules to follow. I appreciate the watching and stopping of flagrant hacking in as editing by those who deliberately chose to add derogatory remarks. Still I see hidden slipping in of subtle fallacy insertions, and some are backed by obvious activist group people. Also, I think Greg Olson has referenced his own book into this Wikipedia article, and he or someone said I took part in his book, I did not, and if he is saying I did, then he owes me some money for misrepresenting and using me in advertising, and for using my named Wikipedia article to advertise, sell. And finally, inresponse to the above note, Flyer22 Reborn, there is no legal source that said Vili and I were found having sex in a car, not then, not ever. The media entirely made that up. If you want me to get a copy of the police report from that night, I will, there wasn’t even a questionable or compromising position we were found in. You’re asking me to prove it, I don’t think I should have to prove it, the records are the proof, I’m putting this back on you, show me that your Reliable Source is actually reliable. I’m telling you, it can’t be a Reliable Source, because the statement if flatly false, there isn’t a possibility that your source is reliable. So why should I have to prove it, how about you prove that your source is reliable. We should start with that. Okay, I don’t really feel good talking like this, I’m just asking you to follow the rules, I’m not even asking to edit, but as long as I see false facts, I will edit. I want the fact there, relevant facts only, and backed by Reliable Sources, and I’ll be checking each source, and I’ll be checking each sources source, which is not even my job to do, but it is the source inserteter’s job. Those would be the particular extra steps and care an editor takes when editing and making statements of fact, placing things in context, consideration given to relevance of certain facts to even be in an article, considering the article is on a living person. So, I’m not shy to dialogue on any of this Flyer22 Reborn, please let me know if I misunderstood your message to me, or if you’d like some help with direction to where to acquire the reliable sources and to which presently there are circular. Smmary (talk) 13:24, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All good points in favor of conservative writing in this and every BLP. And you're quite right that context and relevance are essential considerations. Mcfnord (talk) 04:25, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Kay Letourneau

I’ll read, COI, and if I have to get help from someone within Wikipedia if I need to. I am only working here to help retain the integrity of the article, and by keeping the article to verified facts and without conjecture. You refer to “reliable sources”, and yet Wikipedia has used sources that themself are not cooroborated in a manner that would qualify as a “reliable source”. And I suggest actual government document sources be used as references, and that those government references themself not be from a time period of disputed facts, and if so, then named as that, “disputed at the time”, or placed in time context and named as “disputed”. Regarding “Fall from Spyglass Hill”, LA Times article, this article is not corroborated or backed up at all with reliable referencing. Additionally, Julia Moore psychiatrist was impeached as an expert witness, and yet you recommend using her words in conjunction to the Spyglass Hill article (not cooroborate to count as “reliable source”). So I’m certain that is not a solution that works to qualify keeping that section of my brother’s drowning in this article as relevant, except that it is part of my childhood history, one deceased sibling. To add, the details referenced to my brother’s death are flatly false, and I am telling you that, and if I should have to right now go into the media formally and bring attention to the continuation of false facts related to my brothers death, related to a family’s sacred history regarding the death of a sibling, and to being attention to how those false facts are being played out in Wikipedia as if verified, I really can not see that that should be necessary means to correct this in Wikipedia. The sources used in Wikipedia to verify are not reliable sources, and the statements in Wikipedia have caused harm. Oddly, it seems the way Wikipedia qualifies “reliable sources”, perhaps a press release I put out would be added to the Wikipedia article and referenced, my press release would then become a reference to the Wikipedia article. I’m not choosing a press release route of bringing attention to Wikipedia false facts, this bring into the media spotlight actually would defeat the purpose of keeping family death sacred in detail. Wikipedia relies on media though it seems as for their fact checking, so do I really need to create a media base of correction of facts? If I did do this, my experience has been that unless it is a direct press release of a formal statements, mainstream media sources themself skew, cut, edit and editorialized, and tabloid-like corroboration of whatever is put out, and especially in my situation in the media spotlight where it involves sex, among other activist running topics that my life history, legal case, is used for in and by the media. I am only working here to keep the article clean, facts only. I don’t mind discussions on my situation in conflict with the law, and but those discussion should be based on the facts only, and then the discussions can be productive, and yet Wikipedia is not the platform for for those discussions, Wikipedia though should though be a base of reliable facts so that good discussion can come from. I have replaced word us in places, and such as “child rape”, I have replaced it properly with the title of the statues that I plead guilty to, I don’t see that as not following correct editing, nor should there need to be a reference there in those spots, our statutes here in Washington are self verified, it is what it is. If the specific code needs be named and linked to our RCW, then okay. And with regard to the car incident of violating the conditions of release on my sentence, there is ablsolutely no place in any document from the police that sated Vili and I we cought having sex in a vehicle, nor was there any indication that we had sex in a vehicle, that vehicle or any vehicle. The facts are clear and undisputed by the State, and yet media wished to sensationalize that incident, and because that is what they do, sensationalize and add false material for selling purposes. Yet to the State, law enforcement, where the facts are known, Law enforcement did not put out anything but the facts, and the facts are as simple as I corrected this article to contain, “they found in a car parked in front of the residence where Mary resided”. The details can be reference from tha actual records themself. And what details from that incident are deemed to be appropriately placed in Wikipedia should be without agenda leading conjecture. The officer who came to the car was forthright in his testimony at the hearing and he did not state anything but the facts, the truth, those records are available, and would count as the only “reliable source”. I can go further on helping correct conjecture and misplaced information in this Wikipedia article. I don’t consider Wikipedia to be a platform for activists to insert their opinions with out of context unreliable fact referencing. And that is what I see in this article. I intent to bring this article clean and as a base of facts, stated in context. You can allow me to assist, and although I am the subject of the article, I have worked in the legal field for 15 years, and I know well what is considered a reliable source and substantiated properly. True I am not familiar with the specifics of how to edit here in Wikipedia, I apologize for that, it’s just that over the years the Wikipedia article has caused harm to my family due to presentation of material that purports as “fact”, and at closer look, the articles relied on are skewed on facts and not cooroborated. I consider it neglect and in places clear insertion of conjecture, agenda based leading, not fact. If you look closely at my edits, you can see I am not taking facts out, I am naming facts properly in context, facts that are undisputed. Smmary (talk) 18:01, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Kay Letourneau article edits

I’ll read, COI, and if I have to get help from someone within Wikipedia if I need to. I am only working here to help retain the integrity of the article, and by keeping the article to verified facts and without conjecture. You refer to “reliable sources”, and yet Wikipedia has used sources that themself are not cooroborated in a manner that would qualify as a “reliable source”. And I suggest actual government document sources be used as references, and that those government references themself not be from a time period of disputed facts, and if so, then named as that, “disputed at the time”, or placed in time context and named as “disputed”. Regarding “Fall from Spyglass Hill”, LA Times article, this article is not corroborated or backed up at all with reliable referencing. Additionally, Julia Moore psychiatrist was impeached as an expert witness, and yet you recommend using her words in conjunction to the Spyglass Hill article (not cooroborate to count as “reliable source”). So I’m certain that is not a solution that works to qualify keeping that section of my brother’s drowning in this article as relevant, except that it is part of my childhood history, one deceased sibling. To add, the details referenced to my brother’s death are flatly false, and I am telling you that, and if I should have to right now go into the media formally and bring attention to the continuation of false facts related to my brothers death, related to a family’s sacred history regarding the death of a sibling, and to being attention to how those false facts are being played out in Wikipedia as if verified, I really can not see that that should be necessary means to correct this in Wikipedia. The sources used in Wikipedia to verify are not reliable sources, and the statements in Wikipedia have caused harm. Oddly, it seems the way Wikipedia qualifies “reliable sources”, perhaps a press release I put out would be added to the Wikipedia article and referenced, my press release would then become a reference to the Wikipedia article. I’m not choosing a press release route of bringing attention to Wikipedia false facts, this bring into the media spotlight actually would defeat the purpose of keeping family death sacred in detail. Wikipedia relies on media though it seems as for their fact checking, so do I really need to create a media base of correction of facts? If I did do this, my experience has been that unless it is a direct press release of a formal statements, mainstream media sources themself skew, cut, edit and editorialized, and tabloid-like corroboration of whatever is put out, and especially in my situation in the media spotlight where it involves sex, among other activist running topics that my life history, legal case, is used for in and by the media. I am only working here to keep the article clean, facts only. I don’t mind discussions on my situation in conflict with the law, and but those discussion should be based on the facts only, and then the discussions can be productive, and yet Wikipedia is not the platform for for those discussions, Wikipedia though should though be a base of reliable facts so that good discussion can come from. I have replaced word us in places, and such as “child rape”, I have replaced it properly with the title of the statues that I plead guilty to, I don’t see that as not following correct editing, nor should there need to be a reference there in those spots, our statutes here in Washington are self verified, it is what it is. If the specific code needs be named and linked to our RCW, then okay. And with regard to the car incident of violating the conditions of release on my sentence, there is ablsolutely no place in any document from the police that sated Vili and I we cought having sex in a vehicle, nor was there any indication that we had sex in a vehicle, that vehicle or any vehicle. The facts are clear and undisputed by the State, and yet media wished to sensationalize that incident, and because that is what they do, sensationalize and add false material for selling purposes. Yet to the State, law enforcement, where the facts are known, Law enforcement did not put out anything but the facts, and the facts are as simple as I corrected this article to contain, “they found in a car parked in front of the residence where Mary resided”. The details can be reference from tha actual records themself. And what details from that incident are deemed to be appropriately placed in Wikipedia should be without agenda leading conjecture. The officer who came to the car was forthright in his testimony at the hearing and he did not state anything but the facts, the truth, those records are available, and would count as the only “reliable source”. I can go further on helping correct conjecture and misplaced information in this Wikipedia article. I don’t consider Wikipedia to be a platform for activists to insert their opinions with out of context unreliable fact referencing. And that is what I see in this article. I intent to bring this article clean and as a base of facts, stated in context. You can allow me to assist, and although I am the subject of the article, I have worked in the legal field for 15 years, and I know well what is considered a reliable source and substantiated properly. True I am not familiar with the specifics of how to edit here in Wikipedia, I apologize for that, it’s just that over the years the Wikipedia article has caused harm to my family due to presentation of material that purports as “fact”, and at closer look, the articles relied on are skewed on facts and not cooroborated. I consider it neglect and in places clear insertion of conjecture, agenda based leading, not fact. If you look closely at my edits, you can see I am not taking facts out, I am naming facts properly in context, facts that are undisputed. Smmary (talk) 18:08, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mary Kay. What you put up with sounds quite frustrating. One frustrating facet of Wikipedia is that it cannot rely on police reports or court testimony. Instead, we must rely on press accounts. For example, People Magazine reported that "police spotted Letourneau having sex with Fualaau in her car." This might not be true, and I understand how it would frustrate you if it's untrue. I'm also sure it's so hard to be reminded the loss of your precious brother so long ago. I'm also shocked and saddened to her that you were held in solitary confinement. Nobody deserves that! I don't know if I can help fix all of your concerns about this article, but have tried a bit, and will continue trying to improve its necessary encyclopedic tone. You have been in the tabloids, which must be quite upsetting, but Wikipedia mustn't be a tabloid, I totally agree with you there. I personally understand why you want to improve the article, especially to correct factual errors it may contain. I'm not sure you should focus too much on doing that, because it might be quite frustrating, but I certainly understand where you're coming from. Mcfnord (talk) 15:54, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:14, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I received your message about present reviewing status.

Regardless, I hope you read my concerns, and I can be available to assist someone else with proper resources/references. With regard to conflict of interest, I have seen conflict of interest myself in the editing history, by and from others, activist groups using my name, and inserting references that tie to their cause, and also with regard to author, Greg Olson, advertising on my page, and with claims I was involved in authoring his book, I was not. Additionally, years ago I reported to publishing company a book Mass With Mary, as fraud, and I see it referenced in this article. Further, the book supposedly publised in France, has had a legal injunction on it since two month past it’s original publishing in France, December 1998 legal injunction, the reason the book was released to the U.S. is because it was fraud. We could not retrieve books that had already sold in Europe, the book though was published in fraud, it is not mine and Vili’s authorship, although it was supposed to be, the actual initial published book is not our authorship, and injunction placed on its distribution, and a book of our authorship has not ever been published. Your references to that Laffont Publishing company book in Wikipedia are misleading, without context, missing information, and harmful. I am here to help, and the references I can provide to you are solid, I am just not familiar with your editing formatting. I suggest as a solution that someone there work with me on references, check out the references yourself, and do the editing properly and without conflict of interest interfere if with correcting his article. Smmary (talk) 21:00, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Help me!

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Please help me with...I need to be “verified” here on Wikipedia, and I’m not sure what that entails, but is there a place to upload my driver’s lisence? Smmary (talk) 21:16, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Smmary (talk) 21:16, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You can provide proof of your identity via email to info-en

wikimedia.org. See WP:IMPERSONATE for details (that page is about usernames, but the principle holds for other cases where someone claims to be a specific person). Please note that the purpose of such identification is merely to protect you from being impersonated (because right now we can't tell that you are who you say you are); it does not allow you to add content without reliable published sources or give you any special privileges regarding topics you have personal knowledge and/or a conflict of interest about. Huon (talk) 22:19, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a wikipedia editor who values your last edit

Hello. I saw your last edit. I noticed someone reverted it. I matched every change you made to excellent sources. I'm sure there may be changes i can't allow, but can confirm you made helpful changes that improved the article aboul you. I understand how frustrating this must be. I myself have been depicted in journalism (tabloid and legit), jailed (briefly), and tried. But your experience must entail vastly more sorrow. I've reviewed your many inquiries about assistance. I've assisted you with your last edit, and think i will stick around. You will always be a COI on that page about the noteworthy details of your life, and it might never say exactly what you think it should say. But you have made the article much clearer to me, and your view that the facts matter is well-taken. Mcfnord (talk) 17:51, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I’ve been asking for help, and I see COI is showing for those who have reverted my edits.

Thank you. Smmary (talk) 20:03, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be getting the wrong impression from Mcfnord. When it comes to WP:NPOV or WP:Due weight (an aspect of WP:NPOV) specifically, Mcfnord's edits are not exactly how this site works. I'm not sure what COI you think I or another editor has regarding you, but I have no COI when it comes to you. Also keep in mind what JzG stated. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:43, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Flyer, no I’m not getting it wrong, or you misunderstood the points. And if I am to understand what you meant by getting it wrong, please be specific on what you might think I’ve gotten wrong. Also, I didn’t say you were the editor who had a COI, but you might have been, I haven’t fully studied the edit history. I’ve seen clear COI, and it’s still present in the article, whoever added certain information, misrepresentations, and biased, not balanced. I’ll see if there’s a certain pattern though in the edits, added material that is disjointed, and relevant material, clarifying, then the reverting, and who is responsible for the pattern. I’ve gotten clear on Wikipedia NPOV and weight. Also it’s a skill/art, editing, tone can be disguised by the order facts are entered, etc. Editing is also and needs to be a discipline. The rules on Wikipedia are good, and yet the task of policing the editing rules, I’m imagining, it is overwhelming. I apologize I wrote such a missive in first responding a week ago, then I copied it to a different place, twice, repeated, that’s embarrassing. I still am getting used to navigating on “talk”, not even sure I’m responding here in the correct place, yes, a dreaded “newly”. I saw you wrote that you didn’t read what I wrote, well fantastic, I’ll try to keep it shorter. Hopefully over time you’ll get it, in shorter pieces. And I’m not specifically speaking about you Flyer, with the COI I see in the article editing process. And but someone, perhaps you, commented in discussions in the past about “whitewashing” the article, and interestesting, before I saw that caution about whitewashing noted by one editor’s comments, that’s exactly what I saw the article was, biased and whitewashed. And that I am the living person of that article, and with a family of interest who are also living, and subject to the article, and then to read the Wikipedia rules, and see that NPOV has not been watched, corrected, just left, whitewashed and biased, hmmm, well I am verified now, so there doesn’t need to be wondering by editors joining in, and there doesn’t need to be delays on corrections either, in compliance with NPOV and weighing. Also, I edit as a profession, for the court system. I know the NPOV rules quite well, I just needed to see that Wikipedia has the same principles in their rules, and they do. I’m going to get archived articles in view for historical facts, so I have read that court documents and government document records are not allowed to be cited, so I’ll get the first release from reliable sources on original facts, before those facts went through the rumor mill and regurgitated twenty years later in publications and news articles. It’s odd to see a historic fact from twenty years ago with a reference from ten years after the fact, or fifteen. Or what are supposed to be reliable sources, but it’s just one person’s comment, and that person’s is unnamed as tabloid journalism does, but mainstream sensationalism liked the comment for their use, and now it’s an article considered as a reliable source, well some of then thenartle is reliable, and some parts of the same article are clearly tabloidism backed. Since when is “anonymous friend said...she was a party animal in college.” I don’t even care so much about that comment, it’s just what is the purpose of it being in the Wikipedia article, and yet it was edited out that Inwas in Phi Beta Phi sorority. I was, and It’s just biographical truth. Instead, someone inserted that I was a “party animal” in college. Oh is that not a bias in editing to leave it out of biographical information, why?, because Phi Beta Phi is known nationally for philanthropy outreach by sorority members. And the example I just gave isn’t even that important of an issue, but it shows bias editing and whitewashing with an agenda. There is no source noted when you go to the link where it says I was a “party animal” in college, “a college buddy said.. she was a party animal.” Maybe I was a party animal in one anonomous person’s opinion. So what, what is the relevance? I’m bringing it up because there is no reliable source to that statement, the article referenced might have some reliable information, clearly some information is not reliable in that article, so how does an editor discern a reliable source, when it the article is only part reliables? And how about the leading and conjecture that whole section is painting, whose painting the picture there. I’ll see myself when I finish going back through the editing over the years. So why did Wikipedia editors keep the statement there? And even though I can personally chuckle, and wonder who thought I was a party animal, I’m more concerned with some editor(s) lacing a series of inflammatory terms and out of context statements together, with an agenda, and not in compliance with NPOV or weighing, the vast majority of articles used as reliable sources are agenda based and I wrote already a few days ago about certain books being referenced. I don’t wish to take this time to go through the editing history and get to the root of whose skewing and selectively choosing so called reliable sources to back their own agenda or opinions or theories, but somebody has to though.Smmary (talk) 06:02, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I had no trouble reading this. :) Mcfnord (talk) 07:59, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome MKF

Hi, Mary. I've noticed you provided verification of your identity to the OTRS system. Congratulations on your verified status. This change means you should not modify the topic about you, but I am happy to continue listening to your claims and helping as I'm able. You have raised an interesting point with me: If an honest expert says only X occurred, it should be exceedingly rare that Wikipedia coverage exceeds X. Each time it does, I get concerned that the prose in the biography of a living person (BLPs) is not conservative. I specialize in BLPs, and do not see this specialization among your harshest critics here, who I think are frequently mistaken about the nature of BLPs and conservative prose. I myself work in technical writing in the software field, and frequently encounter scenarios in my work where I have an expert on one hand, and customers who deserve conservative claims on the other. I hope you know you're a welcome voice on the Talk page where most of the debate on this subject occurs: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mary_Kay_Letourneau Mcfnord (talk) 18:35, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. appreciation to the conservative focus on editing.

I never intended or thought I would have to edit, I actually had initially trusted encyclopedia information would not be laced with agenda bias info, or referencing of info with tabloid like verification, unless there is a subtitle under my article that shows the facts compared to how tabloids ran the story, that in itself would be illuminating and should be of public interest, educational. I never expected to see the tabloid facts in this article, as if, facts, and yes, I am a real person, living. I didn’t even get to the case facts yet, it is so convoluted, inaccurate, I started to clean it up. So with being verified, I suppose I’ll pass case facts through editor filtering. That’s fine. Simple things, but relevant and paint a very wrong picture, I did not have a “trial”, I plead guilty to the statute I was charged under, there was no plea bargaining whatsoever ever. What I was televised was a “sentencing hearing”, not a trial. Also, I was not arrested when I was questioned. I was questioned in Feb 1997, and I was sent charges in the mail. The visual to the public that I was arrested and charged, that is all the way tabloid-ism, sensationalism. I did go in for an arraignment in March 1997 on the charges I got in the mail, and I plead not guilty. The case was set for trial and set many months out in time. On August 8, 1997, I changed my not guilty plea to guilty at recommendation of Attorney David Gehrke, he told me it was a strict liability statute, which means no “mens rea” in the statute, meaning no criminal intent or intent to harm, statutory rape laws are u iquely separate from all other Criminal statutes, where intent to harm is an element, the statute I plead guilty to has 3 elements, clear and simple: 1) sexual intercourse happened, 2) he/she is between 12 & 14 years of age, and 3) we were not married. = Rape of a Child 2nd Degree. No, it’s not ‘child rape’, that term is inflammatory, and purposefully used by editors. It is proper to link the charges I plead guilty to with the WP article “Statutory Rape”. Additionally I see the entire section under my case is laced with an agenda group reference, which would account for quite a bit of the order the facts are in, and also for the word choice, and I haven’t gone back yet into the editing history to see who is responsible for this clear lacing of bias off balalance political agenda, not even majority view, it is activist minority loud few, and using my name and article for a spot. It is wrong, I shouldn’t have to be the subject to have noticed this. Now on the other hand, a separate subtitle such as “activist groups that use Letourneau case to push their cause”, sure, that is something my case has generated, activist movements. My case facts should not be skewed though in order to “match better” to the activists cause they’d like to use my name to platform what might be a even a valid cause. 1) Vili was not a student of mine when we came together in any intimate “unlawful” way. And so there is no teacher student “abuse” rally group that should be permitted to lobby themself through my case article, nor was I charged or convicted of under the area of law that we in Washington have here for “abuse of authority”, ask the question why not, why was I not charged with that, well because that wast our situation, there was no teacher student relationship at the time. Nearly the entire Case/Crime section needs to just be drafted cleanly over. Additionally I was originally sentenced in Nov 1997, my sentence was 89 months, all was suspended except for 6 months. I served 5 of the six months in jail, and I was released to serve 3 years on community supervision in a treatment program. It was not a plea bargain at all. That is the standard “first time offender statute”, titled “SOSSA” sex offender suspended sentencing alternative. I refused the program once I was released from jail. There are news articles here in Washington. National News though went tabloid on information about my sentencing and then being Re sentenced, skewed facts, called my sentencing a trial,and People Magazine is right there in sensationalism, tabloidism, they don’t corroborate their information, saying similar things as “a friend said”, or a buddy of the family said...,and then whatever sensational comment that mystery fiend or buddy said then spreadto other magazines, then getting to Wikipedia as a fact. I don’t mind if there’s a section on the phenomenon of fact changing/making up and fake new that resulted due to international media frenzi aspect of my situation/case. That aspect of my case/story actually has been reported on. For sure the skewed facts do not belong under a title of Case & Crime. And isn’t interesting that my sentencing is all skewed up, and called a trial, and one witness is metioned only Moore, and why was she only mentioned. Next issue with that section is that the civil trial is metioned, a civil suit, a lost Law suit, Vili was formally dropped out of the case at one point, not mentioned, and due to having been perjured in depositions testimony, and so he was impeached as a witness. But more interesting and not balanced, and in the news but not representative here at all under “Cases” section I filed an appeal on all of my sentencing conditions, and I won the whole appeal, it was pretty big in the news here in Washington, also I also filed a suit against my attorney David Gehrke, that was in the news here too, it was filed about the same time as the Civil suit that is showing here in Wikipedia on me. So what is interesting is that related to my case, the case with my name on it, the criminal case, there are two cases of appeal attached to my case, one at the court of appeals (news), and one appeal at Superior Court, I requested to take back my guilty plea (news) charging my attorney with in effective assistance of counsel, and conflict of interest (his dealings with the media). How is it that the only other case mentioned under the section “Crime/case”, of course my criminal case is there, albeit factually misrepresented, and but where are the other two cases with my name on it, my two appeals, instead there’s the civil case (School District & Des Moines Police) and my name isn’t even on that case. And so here too, perhaps a separate section, or a subsection, “Offspring Related Case”. Just some ideas of fair balance, also not to confuse the general public. Really, I need to really look at the editing history, there was definitely an agenda in what to include, how to phrase it, and what order to put the statements of the supposed fact present there in the article. Most telling is what was left out, and as if personally selected as to not fit the political activist agenda rendition of this section, Case/Crime. Word choice is pretty glaring of inflammatory, obvious to common reader. Smmary (talk)Smmary

Hi, Mary.

There's a saying that you don't wanna know how laws and sausages are made. Seems to apply here at Wikipedia.

I understand the impulse to reference government documents, such as verdicts and testimony, but this can be the trickiest part, because those NPOV-primary sources are not adequate here. Usually we need NPOV-secondary sources to report on the NPOV-primary sources before we can consider an NPOV-primary source. I understand why you feel NPOV-primary sources could settle a few open matters, but the best we can do with them is know what they say and examine the NPOV-secondary sources for evidence of unconservative claims.
I don't recommend using Dr. Moore as a source, and am generally skeptical about one-off quotes that seek to explain complex situations, especially psychologically. So while the article mentions your young brother's drowning, it does not speculate as to that sad day's impact or non-impact. Moore is commonly quoted and it might be hard to eliminate her entirely, regardless of impeachments at trail. We'll see.
Your point about a "trial" is well-taken! The word has been removed.
The article says you had a "plea agreement". Thanks for clarifying. I'll look into this.
The article states you were arrested in March 1997. You're saying you were not arrested, but just charged via mail and showed up for arraignment? Is that right?
I understand and agree that calling this crime "child rape" is misleading for readers. I have begun the examination of this on the topic Talk page. I also found a previous draft that called the crime "statutory rape" which is the Wikipedia preferred language. I also understand your points about strict liability and mens rea, and think they're important here. I consider the current description misleading. I plan to examine the 2010 debate further, and find out where things were changed along the way.
I have been examining the claim that Vili was not your student when the intimacy began. Your point about "abuse of authority" makes sense.
The matter about 3 months with 6 suspended has confused me, and it may take some time to iron it out. Sources may have gotten it wrong. I am trying to nail down proof that you were down for 5 months, rather than the 3 we report now.
I introduced language today that separates the news claims of "sex in the car upon arrest" with the police testimony that contradicts that claim. I expect resistence, but am myself persuaded that it's a strong example of tabloidism. I have thought about additional elements of tabloidism at work. But try to understand: In most cases, newspapers are valid sources. In tabloid cases, they kind of lose their minds, and that's a big challenge for Wikipedia to separate fact from fiction.
You may notice claims about you from unnamed college strangers are gone. Even if accurate, they are probably inappropriate here. The impulse to play armchair psychologist probably doesn't belong in this article, except perhaps the most factual statements from the best sources (and not from Random Joe From College).
I would like to learn more about your successful appeal of sentencing conditions. Can you find a news article that mentions it? And what was the resolution of your conflict with Gehrke? I believe the civil case involving the school district is related closely enough to you that it should appear on this page. A case that was dropped for whatever reason and didn't result in a verdict is a much harder matter to cover here.

Hope this helps.

Mcfnord (talk) 22:47, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ACTUALCOI Flyer22 Reborn

Hi, Smmary. I have mentioned you in an ongoing discussion about the Mary Kay Letourneau article. You can see my comments here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Mary_Kay_Letourneau

Briefly, I believe the other editor has a conflict of interest based on a bias they hold. You may have noticed the other editor speaking rudely to you on this talk page, saying your comments are too hard to read, and such. They hold a view that you should not be active here. Perhaps you've heard this kind of exclusion nonsense before. I wanted to provide that link to the place where I mentioned you and described the bias and abuse I think you've been subjected to. Regards Mcfnord (talk) 20:35, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No WP:COI on my part at all. And I don't think Smmary appreciates you pretty much calling her a pedophile. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:43, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]