User talk:MacPraughan

A page you started (R. Adam Engle) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating R. Adam Engle, MacPraughan!

Wikipedia editor Animalparty just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Try to avoid promotional,flowery language like "ground-breaking", "best-selling", and what exactly is a "social entrepreneur and innovator"? More info is at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch.

To reply, leave a comment on Animalparty's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

"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)

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)

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)

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)