User talk:StephenBuxton

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Not to be confused with User:Stephen.

Nuvola apps important.svgHere because I deleted your article? Read through this first to find out why.

If you do leave me a message I will generally respond here, unless you want me to reply elsewhere.

Providence(religious movement)[edit]

Hi Stephen! This is Gios, sorry to bug you again! Just had a short question in regards to the Providence(religious movement) page. Btw thank you for your help in recent months, several of the authors of the page have been helpful and engaging in meaningful discussions!

Short question: I know that we are supposed to use care when dealing with primary sources... in the case of this article, the subject has published several books himself that detail some of his spiritual teachings. I was wondering if we can use these and if you have any advice for doing so in a way that remains unbiased and neutral.

Again thank you!!

GIOSCali (talk) 19:46, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Don't worry, keep bugging :-)
The quick answer is that you can quote from Primary Sources, but you cannot make any conclusions from what was said. If you want to do that, you need to find a notable secondary source that made the same conclusions, and reference them too.
For example. John Doe's autobiography might have said: "I was informed by the Illuminati's Head Lizard that I was the most important person on the planet".
What you can state in the article: "John Doe claimed that the Illuminati's Head Lizard stated that Doe was the most important person on the planet".
What you cannot state in the article: "John Doe has delusions of fantasy""
However, suppose a notable newspaper (let's say the Daily Rubbish) has reviewed it, and made this statement: "John Doe and lizards??? He has clearly lost his mind!"
Your article can now state this: "John Doe claimed that the Illuminati's Head Lizard stated that Doe was the most important person on the planet. This prompted the Daily Rubbish to write 'John Doe and lizards??? He has clearly lost his mind!'"
For a more thorough explanation, have a read of the Primary Sources section of Original Research. Also, please note that there are limits as to what can be used as a primary source for a living person - see WP:BLPPRIMARY. Hope that helps. Stephen! Coming... 09:26, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Haha very helpful example thank you!

Also wanted to trouble you for another piece of advice... on the Providence(religious movement) article I have been attempting to post an edit that says that Jung Myeong Seok--the subject of the article-- was included recently in the 2011 Encyclopedia of Korean Poems(which covers 100 years of history of poetry in Korea.) I know that this individual was accused and convicted of horrendous crimes, but I thought the information was notable and should be included on the page.

Shortly after, the edit was removed by a few authors expressing concern over: 1) whether or not the Encyclopedia itself was legitimate, and 2) whether or not the sources for the edit were reliable. I did some research and provided the following information on the talk page: 1) one of the sources I had provided for the edit, Yonhap news, is on Wikipedia's approved list of Korean Sources. 2) I provided publication and compilation information on the Encyclopedia of Korea Poems: that it was compiled by three significant figures in the Korean literary community(I provided names and achievements), and that the company that originally published the Dictionary has published anthologies and compilations on a variety of academic subjects including architecture, children's education, etc.

After a few days and no response I posted the edit. It was reverted and shortly after I was blocked from editing(the block was only three days and has already expired). So I was wondering... what is your advice going forward on this article? It seems to have a tumultuous history, but I truly did not want to cause any discord in the community. Editors and admins have a hard job, and I really just want to work with the other authors to make this and other articles on Christian groups in Asia the best they can be. I thought maybe personal apology notes to the other authors might be a good place to start.

What do you think? GIOSCali (talk) 02:32, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

From reading through the article talk page, it appears that the issue is that the article is about the religious movement, but you keep adding (and repeatedly adding) a section which has no real place within the article. If you have a read of the article on the Nazi Party, there isn't a section about reviews of the paintings of Adolf Hitler.
WP:PUFFERY has been mentioned at least once with regards to the section you keep adding. I can see their point: "Cultural Impact" appears to be a rather over-the-top and fancy way of describing that he is a poet. "Cultural impact" is implying that his work has had some significant influence (whether large or small) on what people do, where the reality is he has written some works that had some good reviews. So even if the section you keep adding was relevant to the article, the way it is presented definitely isn't.
This brings me on to the next point: this section you keep wanting to add, and that you keep adding it. By repeatedly adding it, you are breaking the Three Revert Rule. It is good that you are discussing it on the talk page, but from what I can see, what was said by others has had no real influence on what you keep trying to do. The general concensus is that the section you want to add is not relevant to the article, so as you keep adding it, it sadly became inevitable that you would get blocked. Now that the block is expired, let's see what you can do to prevent that happening again.
First off, the section you want to add would be more suited as part of a balanced article about Jung Myung Seok. I would Might I suggest you write a draft of the article, and invite the other editors of the Providence (religious movement) to have a look at it to check that the article is balanced, and adjust it accordingly. If it is acceptable, we can see about having it moved to mainspace.
In the meantime, I'll approach the blocking administrator to see if there is anything else that they can add about why you were blocked, and what you can do to avoid being blocked again; I've only had a brief read through of the talk page, so it is possible that I have missed something.
Hope this helps. Stephen! Coming... 08:00, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
  • The amount of primary material one can or should cite is often a matter of editorial judgment. The best rule of thumb is that basically one shouldn't, lest an article turn into nothing more than a summary (or extensive listing) of things the subject has said about the subject--if we simply go by primary sources, you end up with articles like this one. So secondary sourcing is really the name of the game, since it also works as a kind of filter to help determine what is worth including. A helpful analogy is with novels. A plot summary is essentially original research/primary, but a short summary is acceptable. Keyword: short, and not on anything controversial or requiring interpretation. Hope this helps. Drmies (talk) 15:39, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Stephen! and Drmies for your responses--again I sincerely apologize for any violations of policy or etiquette..still a bit new to Wikipedia and I truly want to pursue the interests of the community. I will do better moving forward. If I may trouble you both with some questions on how to proceed:

In looking at the article's history, there did exist an article on Jung Myeong Seok, however it was merged with the Providence(religious movement) article some time ago.. perhaps this is why the edit I was trying to post seemed out of place? (also I can see that "cultural impact" was not the most appropriate title).

This brings me to my primary concern with the Providence article. If you read other articles on New Religious Movements (generally considered to be cults), they follow a basic format in which the beliefs of members are cited, followed by a controversy section which lists the critics' perspective as well as allegations/convictions of crimes, if applicable. Here are some examples.

However, in the Providence(religious movement) article, there is a slight but crucial difference--the statements made by critics(albeit in reports through reliable secondary sources) are cited as an accurate representation of the theology of members of the movement. It would be like citing the beliefs of Scientology from the perspective of critics.. it would look very different from what members themselves claim to believe. For this reason, it would seem a balanced article relating to NRMs would need both?

A significant amount of material, both primary and secondary, references the beliefs of Providence and Jung Myeong Seok from the perspective of its members... to Stephens suggestion, maybe it would be good to write up a draft with all changes, explain the reasoning, and invite collaboration?

What do you both think? GIOSCali (talk) 00:51, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I say go for it. Write out a draft, and invite the others to come and modify it for neutrality and tone afterwards. You can state what you're going to do in the talk page of Providence before you get started. If people do start critiquing your work and removing things you've added, please don't keep adding it, but ask as to why it was being removed or edited out. Always remember the maxim Assume Good Faith. Good luck! Stephen! Coming... 12:55, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 03 December 2014[edit]

Candidate for deletion: Habit Burger[edit]

The article looks to be little more than a paid advertisement for a minor hamburger franchise. I can't imagine another encyclopedia seriously including it. I thought I would call it to your attention because you have great judgment in these matters. Thanks. (talk) 22:50, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Please ignore this user, they are just targeting an article I created because I opposed edits that they made and I reported them for 3RR violations that led to them being blocked. This is part of their MO, they find a user that isn't familiar with them and their edits and they try and trick them into helping their cause in some way and in this it is deleting this article but I am absolutely positive you won't fall for their tricks. That article was reviewed by other editors and this editor has continuously accused anyone who opposes them of being a paid editor. - SantiLak (talk) 23:10, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Well, I've reviewed the article. Whilst it is teetering on promotional, the tone is more-or-less neutral: it is reporting in a matter-of-fact manner about the company, it just so happens that what has been reported in the media has been positive, so it is only natural that the article sounds promotional. As far as notability is concerned, it does include sufficient justification to remain on that front.
As for the other matter, I'll be keeping an eye on the edits of all those concerned, but I'll only wade in if I think my assistance is needed, or if someone asks me to take a more active role. Stephen! Coming... 07:45, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 December 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 17 December 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 24 December 2014[edit]