User talk:WakayamaY

Welcome!

Hello, WakayamaY, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your recent edits did not conform to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may have been removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations verified in reliable, reputable print or online sources or in other reliable media. Always provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to The Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Introduction tutorial
Contributing to Wikipedia
How to edit a page
Introduction to referencing
Help pages
Simplified Manual of Style
Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Go here.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need personal help ask me on my talk page, or ask a question on your talk page. Again, welcome. --VViking_TalkEdits 15:52, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

September 2023

Hello, I'm LuK3. I noticed that you recently removed content from Japan Air Lines Flight 123 without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. -- LuK3 (Talk) 16:39, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edits at Japan Air Lines Flight 123

In your version of the article:

Japanese banker Akihisa Yukawa, tried to cancel his flight but Sumitomo head office insisted he must attend a meeting in Osaka. After he died in the crash, his British partner Susanne Bayly-Yukawa...

Unfortunately, no source talks about Yukawa trying to cancel his flight. Nor does any source refer to Susanne Bayly as Susanne Bayly-Yukawa because she and Yukawa were not married. Please do not attempt to introduce facts into the article that are not supported by the sources. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:52, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Would you like to a copy of my passport/driving licence which proves my legal name is BAYLY-YUKAWA WakayamaY (talk) 18:16, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also how is it possible that you previusly allowed misinformation - incorrect information to be published about my life story and yet you refuse to recognise the fact I have provided you with, this is really unacceptable. WakayamaY (talk) 18:20, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I provide you with another article:

https://www.japansubculture.com/british-widow-fights-to-know-the-truth-on-34th-anniversary-of-the-japan-airlines-flight-123-crash/ WakayamaY (talk) 18:29, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That new article was written by Susanne Bayly herself. I presume by your comments above that you are claiming to be Susanne Bayly. In that case, you have a clear conflict of interest regarding this topic and should stop editing the article altogether. Instead, you should request edits at the article's talk page. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:12, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is ridiculous - my name is Susanne Bayly-Yukawa. Would you like to see my ID? WakayamaY (talk) 22:05, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:WakayamaY reported by User:Notrealname1234 (Result: ). Thank you. Notrealname1234 (talk) 18:08, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Hello there, my name is Aoidh and I am an administrator on the English Wikipedia. I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of Japan Air Lines Flight 123 several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable, particularly the WP:3RR rule, which says that an editor may not perform more than 3 reverts within a 24 hour period. You have made more than 3 reverts and were reported to the edit warring noticeboard for this, however it not appear you were aware of this rule so I will not block so as long as you do not make any further reverts to the article. It looks like you're trying to correct some information that you believe is inaccurate, and so my advice would be to start a discussion at Talk:Japan Air Lines Flight 123 and include reliable sources that verify the changes you want to make so that the article can be improved. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask either myself or at WP:Teahouse. Thank you. - Aoidh (talk) 18:34, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was unaware of you editing policies as I am new user. However I am extremely distressed that the summary I have been trying to remove is factually INCORRECT. While I understand the need to verify information - which I strongly support, you have failed to verify information about my real life. How is this possible? The Guardian article was very poor and factually wrong, it was disputed long ago. As a result you are maintainling the wrong information about my late partner, myself and my daughters. If you refuse to recognise the real facts about my family, I must ask you to please remove all the information Akihisa's British family - As all the nformation I tried to publish has already been recognised in the High Court. I intend to obtain legal advice. WakayamaY (talk) 18:51, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What I would recommend is to explain on the talk page the reason why you would like the content removed, along with any reliable sources that support those changes. If you have evidence that the Guardian article has been retracted or is otherwise contradicted by another reliable source, for example, that would be something to include, because the information you're removing does have a reliable source supporting the content. You may also take a look at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Help. As far as you intending to obtain legal advice, per the Wikipedia:No legal threats policy, Users who post legal threats on Wikipedia are typically blocked from editing while the threats are outstanding. This does not mean you may not pursue legal advice, but you may not edit Wikipedia while legal actions or threats of legal actions are ongoing or outstanding. - Aoidh (talk) 19:34, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I will escalate this complaint. I Have already provided you with various articles to prove my facts - what more do you require. Your response is unacceptable. I must ask you again, did you verify the summary about my family bofore you published it? The journalist you have cited I have never met or spoke to!

As you have a No legal threats policy - I now understand how you manage to publish unreliable informatiom and escape accountability.

Please inform me of your com-plaint process. WakayamaY (talk) 19:44, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am simply giving you advice and information on how to proceed after seeing a report made at WP:ANEW, I am otherwise not involved with the disputed content. The four bullet points at the beginning of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Help can provide various routes that you can pursue to help resolve the issue with the content of the article. - Aoidh (talk) 20:00, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But you still fail to answer my question, how is that wikipedia already published unreliable information about my family??? and I am forced to do much to prove my facts!

Please provide me with your complaints process. WakayamaY (talk) 20:14, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Guardian is a reliable source according to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, so if you're saying that the information in the article from The Guardian is unreliable, there needs to be evidence of why a generally reliable source would be unreliable in this instance. This website you posted in a section above is a blog post, which per WP:SPS is not a reliable source. The Forbes article that you included in this edit is from a Forbes contributor, which per WP:FORBESCON is not a reliable source. If you're saying that The Guardian article is unreliable, you need to explain at Talk:Japan Air Lines Flight 123 why it would be unreliable. As for a complaints process, I will again point you to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Help. Explaining on the article's talk page the issue with the content and why the source used is unreliable would be a good first step. - Aoidh (talk) 20:25, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your management need to address how you deal with bereaved in relastion to their living facts.

I do not have to justify that the Guardian article was unreliable because it was.

My complaint will be based on how you have responded to me and all that you have asked me to do.

Really poor experience. WakayamaY (talk) 20:33, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WakayamaY, Wikipedia is made by volunteers (see also: WP:General disclaimer). Wikipedia is also administrated by volunteers. There is no "management" of the type you may expect there to be, and any complaint to what you perceive as a "management" will hopefully be answered with a message essentially saying the same as me here.

Wikipedia is a tertiary source relying on secondary sources (see WP:PSTS for the relevant Wikipedia policy if you're interested in the details). If a source Wikipedia relies on provides misinformation, then Wikipedia may sometimes display the same misinformation and the community may insist in doing so until the source is corrected. Please contact The Guardian or whichever source you are concerned about first. If Wikipedia's source is changed, Wikipedia can be updated. To inform volunteers about this need for an update after the source has been corrected, you can click the text "request corrections or suggest content" in the orange warning box at the top of Talk:Japan Air Lines Flight 123. Again, this will be pointless if there is a generally reliable source like The Guardian that has not been corrected yet first. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:49, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I will NOT contact the Guardian about an unreliable 25 year old article by a journalist I never met. I am NOT going to "suggest" facts that are facts about my family.

I will contact your CEO and share my bad experience.

Please refrain from further comments. WakayamaY (talk) 20:54, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For the record I note you have published a summary with morwee lies about me.

I have NEVER tried to collect survivor benefits from Japan Airlines.

I NEVER collected a token payment of £34,000

My name is Bayly-Yukawa by law.

I am seeking an apology for misinformation. WakayamaY (talk) 21:01, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WakaymaY, I will try to clarify a few points, in the hope that doing so may be helpful to you.

The way that Wikipedia "already published unreliable information" (if it did) is that someone came along and edited the article with that information, just as you came along and edited in a different way. Obviously, in a situation where anyone can edit, we get people making edits that are subject to criticism, and we have various mechanisms in place to minimise any damage which may be done. One of those mechanisms is requiring citations to reliable sources. Obviously, we can't assume that something is true just because someone who has chosen to make a Wikipedia account says so, because anyone can create an account and make any claim they like, so we try to use reliable sources. Unfortunately, the question "what constitutes a reliable source?" does not have a simple answer, and there are countless pages of discussions and arguments about what sources are reliable in the editing history of Wikipedia over the years. however, the general principles are reasonably straightforward, and include the following. Somewhere where anyone, or almost anyone, can post more or whatever they like is not a reliable source. That means that, for example, blogs, Twitter, FaceBook, online forums, Wikipedia pages, etc, are generally not reliable. Sources which clearly set out to promote or support a particular point of view, or to campaign on a particular issue, are not reliable. News media vary considerably in how reliable they are. Obviously even the best can make mistakes, but on the whole there is a reasonably visible distinction between those with a concern for accuracy and those without.
Perhaps one of the simplest and most unambiguous issues about reliability of sources is that the fact that someone comes along to Wikipedia and says something is true is not reliable evidence that it is true. Obviously, you agree with that, or you wouldn't be criticising the content of the article in question. Well, your statement "I do not have to justify that the Guardian article was unreliable because it was" amounts to asking us to believe that the Guardian article was unreliable because someone has come to Wikipedia and said so. If you have good reasons for believing that the report in question was inaccurate, then please tell us what those reasons are, so that we can assess whether you are right, and if so make the necessary changes to the Wikipedia article. If you don't tell us what the reasons are, then how are we to know whether your word is more reliable than that of the editors who posted the information to which you object? You saying "because it was" is not evidence that the Guardian article was unreliable; it is merely evidence that you think it was unreliable, and evidently other people think otherwise.

As I said above, I have gone to the time and trouble of writing this message in the hope that it may be helpful to you. If you wish to have any clarification of any of the points I have mentioned, then please feel very welcome to ask me. JBW (talk) 21:06, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will complain to the Guardian - this is simply ridiculous and void of integrity. WakayamaY (talk) 22:03, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It took me some time and trouble to compose and edit the above message. Perhaps you can imagine how I feel about finding that the result of my giving up my time to do that is that you contemptuously dismiss my attempt to help you, and accuse me of being "void of integrity". Since it seems that, no matter what anyone says to you, you either cannot or will not understand the points at issue, I will waste no more of my time in trying to help you, apart from advising you this once to avoid personally attacking any editors again, no matter how low an opinion you may have of their actions, because if you do then you are likely to be blocked from editing by an administrator. JBW (talk) 10:34, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]