User talk:Richwales: Difference between revisions

This is a Wikipedia user talk page. This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia. The original talk page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Richwales.		My current time is:    10:05, July 12, 2024 PDT [refresh] Click here to view my PGP public key — or download it here from the OpenPGP key server. Committed identity: 98ff1499f50a4f54a908cf45fb26a145 670488c80b7b71f4428ffb4bab0e10ee d9da583e11201548825b5bb727249a3a 708f032ed8674d9a434f7c23232fa6ca is a SHA-512 commitment to this user's real-life identity. I have an alternative account for insecure environments: Rich Wales sans superpowers The purpose of user talk pages is to draw the attention or discuss the edits of a user. Wikipedia is not a social networking site, and all discussion should ultimately be directed solely toward the improvement of the encyclopedia. — from WP:OWNTALK Editors should always treat each other with consideration and respect. In order to keep the focus on improving the encyclopedia and to help maintain a pleasant editing environment, editors should behave politely, calmly and reasonably, even during heated debates. This policy ... applies to all editors and all interaction on Wikipedia, including on user and article talk pages, in edit summaries, and in any other discussion with or about fellow Wikipedians. — from WP:CIVIL		Archives Archive index 2005 • 2006 • 2007 • 2008 • 2009 • 2010 2011: January, February, March, April, May, June, July, August, September, October, November, December 2012: January, February, March, April, May, June, July, August, September, October, November, December 2013: January, February, March, April, May, June, July, August, September, October, November, December 2014: January, February, March, April, May, June, July, August, September, October, November, December 2015: January, February, March, April, May, June, July, August, September, October, November, December 2016: January, February, March, April, May, June, July, August, September, October, November, December 2017: January, February, March, April, May, June, July, August, September, October, November, December 2018: January, February, March, April, May, June, July, August, September, October, November, December 2019: January, February, March, April, May, June, July, August, September, October, November, December 2020: January, February, March, April, May, June, July, August, September, October, November, December 2021: January, February, March, April, May, June, July, August, September, October, November, December 2022: January, February, March, April, May, June, July, August, September, October, November, December 2023: January, February, March, April, May, June, July, August, September, October, November, December 2024: January, February, March, April, May, June, July, August, September, October, November, December This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present.
userboxes my work about me barnstars miscellaneous status info talk page

Hi Richwales. Your user page seems to indicate a faith-oriented background which may provide good editing experience for related articles. I am thinking of recommending a page upgrade for a GA article to FA article status which may involve the reading of one book review if this might be possible for you. The book is the popularly received "Evil and the God of Love". Any possible interest? AutoJellinek (talk) 18:04, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I might be. At least, I'm willing to look at the book review. Do I understand (from your similar postings on other people's talk pages) that this book review is online somewhere? — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 18:40, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Richwales. With appreciation for your quick response. If you have JSTOR available at your library then there are two book reviews available on-line: http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/40021034.pdf?&acceptTC=true&jpdConfirm=true This is for Prof. Puccetti's essay titled "The Loving God" in the journal titled "Religious Studies", Vol 2, No. 2, Apr, 1967, p255. A second book review is also on JSTOR and is by Stanley Kane titled "The Failure of Soul-Making" in the Int'l Journal of Philos, Spr. 1975, p1. Also, I noticed that Amazon books currently has a free twenty page preview available of the book itself and that might be easily accessible as well. Possibly you could let me know what you think? AutoJellinek (talk) 14:56, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I've been tied up with other things, but I'll see to this soon. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 14:35, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Richwales. Only a short update from last week. If you have had a chance to look at the review above, then maybe the FA review for the wikipage "Ireneaen theodicy" can start. Of the two choices now, if you think its ready to nominate it for FA status, then i will put {{subst:FAC}} on the top of the article's talk page, fill out the "initiate this review" form, then i'll put {{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/name of nominated article/archiveNumber}} (with the appropriate name and number filled in) at the top of the list on WP:FAC. You can then put your reviewer/edit comments there. Otherwise, if you'd prefer to see a "formal" peer review first, WP:PR is the place i will go first. Any preference for option one or option two? AutoJellinek (talk) 17:47, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I did have a chance just now to skim through the Stanley Kane review, and I think this topic is going to require more intensive study than I have time for. I'm sorry that I'm not going to be able to give you much in the way of detailed feedback after all. As for whether the Irenaean theodicy article is ready for Featured Article nomination at this time, my superficial reaction is that the article seems to devote much more space to later developments inspired by, and other philosophers' reactions to, Irenaeus' work, whereas I would want a comprehensive article on this subject to concentrate primarily on Irenaeus' work itself and the processes in his life which led him to take his stance on the subject. But, in any case, I'm not an expert in this area of philosophy, so I think you would be better off at this point getting feedback (via a peer review) from people who are better read in this subject area. Sorry this probably isn't what you were hoping for, but I think it's the best I can honestly offer. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 18:44, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Richwales. Your comment-feedback above was actually quite useful to the review process. After reading it, i realized that i did not mention that this wikipage is actually a companion page to another wikipage which is already at FA status called "Augustinian theodicy". To me it looked like this was a type of parity issue of putting in a good effort to get the GA "Ireneaus theodicy" page into an assessment comparable to the FA "Augustine theodicy" version. Everyone seems to think that a Talk Page version of the peer review evaluation with invited comments might be preferable at this time. If of interest, it would be interesting to hear if you can guess why the "Augustine theodicy" held up to FA criticism, even though "Irenaeus theodicy" only got to GA status, especially since your comments above are convincing in their statement to me. A short comment is fine if your other projects will not allow you the extra time to glance at the "Augustine theodicy" page. Thanks for the feedback already given above! AutoJellinek (talk) 21:14, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot's suggestions. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information on the SuggestBot study page.

IMPORTANT CHANGES: We have modified the selection of articles SuggestBot suggests and altered the design to incorporate more information about the articles, as described in this explanation.

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information.

Views/Day	Quality	Title	Content	Headings	Images	Links	Sources	Tagged with…
89		Law of chastity (talk)						Add sources
436		Freedom of religion in the United States (talk)						Add sources
30		Law of consecration (talk)						Add sources
134		Superhero fiction (talk)						Add sources
646		Multiple citizenship (talk)						Add sources
14		Georgian verb paradigm (talk)						Add sources
45		Gunless (talk)						Cleanup
14		Mkhedrioni (talk)						Cleanup
516		Southern Europe (talk)						Cleanup
3		Mingrelian grammar (talk)						Expand
9		Logudorese dialect (talk)						Expand
2		Yuri Dmitrievich Petukhov (talk)						Expand
18		Righteous Branch of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (talk)						Unencyclopaedic
114		Great Apostasy (talk)						Unencyclopaedic
224		Macedonia (region) (talk)						Unencyclopaedic
116		Temple (LDS Church) (talk)						Merge
232		Women in Refrigerators (talk)						Merge
19		Outline of Georgia (country) (talk)						Merge
12		Joseph White Musser (talk)						Wikify
52		Ruma (talk)						Wikify
11		Wangu Pavilion (talk)						Wikify
1		Harvey G. Whitlock (talk)						Orphan
1		El limon de papatzindan (talk)						Orphan
1		Political positions of Republican candidates, 2008 (talk)						Orphan
18		Sport in Georgia (talk)						Stub
66		Kill Haole Day (talk)						Stub
4		Bernal v. Fainter (talk)						Stub
2		Bactromantis virga (talk)						Stub
8		Georgian keyboard layout (talk)						Stub
5		Hubley, Nova Scotia (talk)						Stub

Changes to SuggestBot's suggestions

We have changed the number of suggested articles and which categories they are selected from. The number of stubs has been greatly reduced, the number of articles needing sources doubled, and two new categories added (orphans and unencyclopaedic articles). We have also modified the layout of the suggestions and added sortable columns with various types of information about each article. The first two columns are:

Views/Day

Daily average number of views an article's had over the past 14 days.

Quality

Predicted article quality on a 1- to 3-star scale. Placing your cursor over the stars should give you a pop-up describing the article's quality (Low/Medium/High), current assessment class, and predicted assessment class.

The method we use to predict article quality also allows us to assess whether an article might need specific types of work in order to improve its quality. The work needed might not correspond to cleanup tags added to the article, since our method is not based on those. We have added five columns reflecting this work assessment, where a red X indicates improvement is needed. Placing your cursor over an X should give you a pop-up with a short description of the work needed. The five columns seek to answer the following five questions:

Content

Is more content needed?

Headings

Does this article have an appropriate section structure?

Images

Is the number of illustrative images about right?

Links

Does this article link to enough other Wikipedia articles?

Sources

For its length, is there an appropriate number of citations to sources in this article?

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 11:40, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Previously you stated the burden of proof is on the posting editor. If the australian is a dead link and cant be found by three powerful search engines why not remove the citation and the information until the citation is verifiable. My understanding of BLP rules state that all sources have to be verifiable.MrTownCar (talk) 18:33, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've managed to find the 2007 article from The Australian on LexisNexis, and it does say most of the things for which it is cited as a source. I will update the citation of this source to include relevant quotations therefrom. I will note that the article from The Australian does not say that JMS's group "is seen as a serious problem in Korea and Japan"; and although the article does call Jung "the founder of one of Asia's most notorious cults", this statement is pretty obviously an expression of opinion and not an objectively factual statement. Hence, I believe the last sentence currently in the article ought to be removed.

When you add or modify material in an article, you need to be careful to avoid starting a line of wikitext with a space. The change you made in the "Jung's teaching" section is mostly unreadable because when you took out a phrase you didn't like, you left a space at the start of the line.

You cannot remove a paragraph (the one stating that Jung was involved with the Unification Church from 1975 to 1978) simply because you disagree with it, especially if that paragraph is substantiated by a source that can be presumed to be reliable. It might be reasonable to qualify the Unification Church claim by mentioning the author of the cited paper in the article's text — possibly something like this: "According to Yoshihide Sakurai, a professor of sociology at Hokkaido University, ...." And it may also be appropriate to seek a quotation from Sakurai's paper substantiating the statement that Jung was raised a Christian (since this point is not covered in the existing quotation). But simply removing the paragraph plus its source, with no justification other than an edit summary saying "Jung was never part of Unification Church", is (in my opinion) not acceptable, even per the BLP policy. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 19:05, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have added more material about the article from The Australian. I also fixed the extra space you inadvertently left on one line. I would strongly encourage you, by the way, to use the "Show preview" button while editing; this will let you see what the article is going to look like before you actually go ahead and save your changes.

I will also mention that changing the lead section to say that Jung left South Korea "for a prolonged missions trip" is, IMO, not supported by the sources, which strongly indicate that Jung fled South Korea to escape prosecution. I will be changing this back. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 19:17, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

THere is a MAJOR inconsitency which is being glossed over. In the current version it says Jung fled in 1999 implying he was a fugitive at that time. elsewhere it says formal charges were brought in 2001. How can he "flee" two years before charges are brought?MrTownCar (talk) 02:11, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know the details of South Korea's judicial procedures, but I see no inherent contradiction here because I assume someone could easily be under suspicion, could be the object of investigations, etc., before the official laying of formal charges. I do not see this as a sufficient reason to discount all the sources which are saying that Jung went underground, moving from one country to another, etc. for the purpose of avoiding prosecution. If you want the article to say there is a contradiction here, or to dismiss sources that otherwise would appear reliable because you think this point is a fatal flaw, then you need to find (and discuss) a reliable source which proposes the contradiction — you can't draw that conclusion yourself and force the article to assert a contradiction on your say-so, that's a violation of the No Synthesis part of the No Original Research policy. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 02:39, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to request, again, that discussions about Jung Myung Seok or Providence should take place on the article's talk page. If you post more comments about this subject here (on my talk page), I will consider that you have given me permission to copy those comments to the article's talk page. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 05:29, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MR WALES I published the information on the min jung publisher/address on the talk page for Jung Myung Seok article. Can you tell me who was involved in the concensus process and where that is recorded so I may review it? I dont see it on the talk page. MrTownCar (talk) 20:54, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MR WALES

PLEASE FIND LINK ABOVE YOUR LAST POST ON TALK PAGE.

THANK YOU FOR KEEPING AN OPEN MIND AND GETTING OUTSIDE HELP FROM AN APPARENT NEUTRAL KOREAN SPEAKING INDIVIDUAL.MrTownCar (talk) 01:27, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As Sam Sailor suggested I will provide the translation for the Civil Goverment article as soon as I can get to it with help from a native speaker.MrTownCar (talk) 03:59, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Rich. How are you?

Just wanted to say hi. I've changed my username to Jaqeli and wanted to let you know also about this. GJ. Jaqeli (talk) 23:48, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Wales

In the JMS article citations 26 and 36 quote an anonymous victim and lawyer respectively to make a specific claim or analysis. These statements are not properly vetted. As I understand BLP rules statements have to be verifiable. If the statement made is only traceable to an unnamed person in a citation albeit a bonfide media outlet than it is not reliable and not verifiable and should not be included in the wikipedia article. I would value your input.MrTownCar (talk) 03:51, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Banned user maintaining ArbCom election guide. Thank you. equazcion → 23:22, 11 Nov 2013 (UTC)

The Arbitration Committee is considering a request for clarification which involves you.[1] Please act accordingly.—John Cline (talk) 10:42, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]