User talk:Zhanzhao/Archive 2

CHC

Hey Zhanzhao, not sure if you noticed my attempt at rewording the Benny Hinn controversy bit at the CHC talk page. Here's the diff. SQGibbon (talk) 04:23, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Zhanzhao (talk) 23:41, 18 April 2010 (UTC) Hi there, just saw it, sorry was on a Wiki(-weekend-)break. I've commented on it on the talk page. Cheers.Zhanzhao (talk) 23:41, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Plagiarism section on Kong Hee article

Hey Zhanzhao, thanks for the note. My issue with the plagiarism was not if it had happened but with the line "Since early June 2010, the blogger has stopped posting on his blog about Kong's plagiarism, citing threats and possible account hacking into his blog". The implication is clear that someone connected to Kong Hee or the church was threatening or had hacked into the blogger's account. In order for that to be included in the article I wanted to make sure that the newspaper verified that the blogger had been threatened and hacked and all this had been done by Kong Hee or his supporters. I suspected that the newspaper was just reporting what the blogger had claimed and had not vetted his evidence thus making it unsuitable for inclusion in the Wikipedia article. But it looks like you deleted that part anyway, so thanks! SQGibbon (talk) 15:52, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Protected talk page.

I see that SlimVirgin (talk · contribs) has protected your talk page, as you requested. Per WP:PP#User pages, "Users whose talk page is semi-protected for lengthy or indefinite periods of time should have an unprotected user talk subpage linked conspicuously from their main talk page to allow good faith comments from non-autoconfirmed users." Please take a few minutes to set up such a subpage. Thank you. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 01:01, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Created, hope thats hope its done.Zhanzhao (talk) 09:36, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your subpage

Please understand that you cannot use your talk pages to attack other editors. Please find some area of this project that you can constructively help with. Thanks Tiderolls 01:24, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse the ring. Another user clued me in on the spoofer. Regards Tiderolls 01:31, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No worries ;) Zhanzhao (talk) 02:03, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1Malaysia

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Akbar Bugti

Please refer to the Talk page for this article. I've raised the issue of your deletion of a large amount of unsourced content about numerous human rights violations allegedly committed by Bugti. Rubywine (talk) 08:54, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

i've replied in the talk page, i was concerned with the lack of references and quantity of text added which may make it a COATRACK as well as possibly violating WP:Summary, WP:INDISCRIMINATE nor WP:NOT#STATS. Hope that clears it up. The content basically needs to be referenced and summarized for easier reading. Zhanzhao (talk) 02:10, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied there too. I do understand why you took that action. It was the nature of the content that pushed me to say something. I seriously believe that all Wikipedians would be better advised to tag and edit under-par material with such substantial content, than to delete it silently because it's not Wikipedia-pristine. We're talking here about allegations of major crimes against humanity. Hundreds of people murdered. Silent deletion of this material guarantees that the necessary referencing and summarisation you mention will never happen. Rubywine (talk) 00:42, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suzuki cup

The damned article looks like a honey pot for flies and nuisance - I think big problem is the eternal issues - it is a bit like why I avoid the Spratley Islands on my watch list :( Satu Suro 02:20, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

can you please change it back. purrty please.

The link isn't dead for me, as I can access it! http://www.straitstimes.com/Free/Story/STIStory_142321.html Besides, even if the link was dead the print article still exists and if you google the event, respected news sources call it a "controversy" or use the adjective "controversial". I'm not an edit warring person but I do think my edit was reasonable. Plus "elitism views" just sounds really silly -- it was at least on the order of two incidents. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 03:53, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Another controversial case involved the daughter of Ang Mo Kio GRC MP Wee Siew Kim. Miss Wee Shu Min, 19, posted a comment on her blog last year denigrating the unemployment worries of a 35-year-old worker." Why else would people be so interested in her views if it weren't so controversial? People weren't certainly praising her. Respectfully, Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 03:57, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

sorry have been away for a while. As mentioned, such words should be avoided where possible as it puts a sensational spin to the article and in a non neutral manner. I would actually welcome other parties to discuss the suitability of this name change but it serms that not many are interested so far.... Zhanzhao (talk) 14:48, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The only reason why the article exists was because of sensationalism, though. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 22:36, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken. In that case "controversy" should be used instead of "scandal" so that we can at least keep the article respectable so to speak. I note that the article was actually a spin off from the subject's father's article, and she would not have been notable otherwise, but that Coatrack issues were raised regarding this content in the past, so effort should be made to keep the article neutral. Zhanzhao (talk) 06:18, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kong Hee's degree mills

While I must object to anon editors' edit warring and lack of discussion, I must point out my alarm that his "theological qualifications" are from non-notable institutions with little reputation, and the "certifying institution" is probably a degree mill accrediting institution as well. (It calls it "certifying" just to avoid legal trouble.) I have thus added a little detail (or lack thereof) about those schools. Don't you find the fact that most of the major sources about those institutions are self-published a little suspicious? We have a Wikipedia article for New England Bible College, a small little school held in the basement of a community church in a town of 26000 in Maine. And even then it has decent newspaper sources. We don't have an article for New Covenant or whatever -- I suspect that school has no rigour at all. Do these schools have any independent neutral sources about them? We should not allow people to put up fake qualifications about themselves, living people or not. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 03:19, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

to call it a degree mill however is quite a jump of an accusation though, as BLP is always an issue. I also question the need for such a lengthy disclaimer on that page. As stated in the CPCA page, "A former executive director of the Association for Biblical Higher Education (an accrediting agency recognized by the USDE), stated that "There are hundreds of Bible Colleges and Seminaries in the United States and Canada that are offering good solid theological training, yet they are not accredited. This would be the case with our Affiliate institutions that take advantage of the programs and services that we offer."" Zhanzhao (talk) 06:44, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, questions of the legitimacy of the qualification should come under the article's page, rather than here.Zhanzhao (talk) 06:46, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The schools are not notable enough to ever have an article to put the objections on. I am simply commenting out the entirely problematic section for now. I note examples like Houston Graduate School of Theology (or New England Bible College) -- generally, schools which are not degree mills (accredited or not) tend to have external sources about them. New England Bible College, the archetypical small religious school, which is essentially held in a small parish church (the complete opposite of CEC) even has faculty on ratemyprofessors.com. It is cited in local newspapers and the like. I cannot find any similar material for Kong Hee's "institution", plus the fact that it was distance learning makes one suspicious. Furthermore, Kong Hee's suspicious school likes to "shout" its non-profit status, in the same way that American infomercials will cite their products "patents". This is already widely commented on online, although the observation has yet to make it into the mainstream press. I wonder why The New Paper has yet to sensationalise it yet. Maybe I'll call their tip hotline and see what their journalists have to say. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 08:19, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also I do not think it is a coatrack issue; the focus is on the fact that Kong Hee claims degrees from such non-notable institutions, not about the institutions themselves. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 08:21, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

COATRACK was inferred due to the proportionate length of the explanation given to explain why it was uncredited, when a simple one liner would have sufficed. Plus it had specific elements of OR and NPOV by pullying out specific lines from the page when the whole page in context had a disclaimer to that same line. Tagging it would have been preferable to removing it outright, but guess it will have to do for now. Zhanzhao (talk) 12:00, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

accusation versus question

I believe saying that he made an accusation is not OR; if someone asked in a press conference or a trial, "At what times of the day do you beat your children, Mr X?", that's not really a question, is it? Besides other sources use the word "accusation". [1] It was near the top of google results. It's a courtesy to try to google stuff before deleting statements or articles. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 13:25, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then its up to you to provide a reliable source. Especially where BLP is involved, provide reliable sources. Since you say its google-able, that should not be hard.Zhanzhao (talk) 22:19, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Geneva2011

I am quite puzzled about this user. I really like some of the photos, but you must notice his earlier pattern of editing [2] and also his tendency to upload photos that he may have took but are probably copyrighted by the Singaporean government. It seems likely that he is employed in an official capacity (a probable conflict of interest), and we need OTRS tickets from the Singapore government to verify that they have indeed, consented to release the images under appropriate licences. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 02:39, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that unnecessary wording is unnecessary (especially if it adds nothing to the article) and shold be avoided/removed, and if the pictures are indeed copyright, we should highlight this. That being the case, even if the editor was from an official capacity, I would drawn the line against closing off all edits from official sources though. There is potential COI, but if the edits are informative without using self-serving language or self-glorifying they can be allowed. Thats my official stance on this at least. Zhanzhao (talk) 02:49, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, but the edits do appear to have some sort of COI, specifically by the way the user edited the Vincent Wijeysingha article and the article at Vivian Balakrishnan (do take a look!). What I am most concerned is that the user seems rather intent of ensuring that the discussion of the "gay agenda issue" remained on Vincent Wijeysingha's page rather than on Vivian Balakrishnan, who may be linked to his possible employer. Don't you consider this behaviour weird? The user is enthusiastic about adding unreferenced material to the issue on his employer's opponents, but reverts constantly to ensure that his probable employer and "gay agenda" do not appear in the same sentence.

To try to ensure that the words of accusation only end up on the page of the accused, with references to the accusation removed on the page of the accuser, seems like a rather large COI -- this is the reason why I was so motivated to counter government-bias installed by editors in the first place. It was very bad in April and May and basically went un-noticed. You will notice that all unfavourable-looking issues had been removed by editors, with a large resume left in their place, before I salvaged the content. To send a message that rampant COI-editing will be very difficult has been the basis of why I have been rather involved with these editors; but if they start playing by the rules then there will be no need to be "vigilant" and I can relax my stance. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 03:07, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm I will take a look at VW's article. Right now I am editing on my Ipad which is pretty inconvenient and am only sticking to whats on my watchlist at the moment, so it may take a while, thanks for higlighhting it. But in the mean time, you may wish to higlhight it to the noticeboards if its getting out of hand too fast. Zhanzhao (talk)

The WV changes are almost 2 months old, as he was a new editor back then we could exercise AFG on it. Anyway he does not seem to be active there now. As for the photos, I see that a ANI has been raised on it, hopefully it gets resolved there.Zhanzhao (talk) 12:54, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am considering an SPI investigation on the matter -- in the very least to identify how big the parties are, since I do not accept "my IP jumps across different /4 subnets" as an acceptable excuse. I would like your advice on which IP ranges and users I should exclude. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 03:19, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:La goutte de pluie

She is pursuing a biased point of view and abusing her rights as an admin. If she is so obsessed by the "gay issue" she should fork this out to another article instead of placing undue weight on this matter. The entire "Electoral Issues" section was written by her after she deleted whole chunks of the original Wikipedia BLP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eggsauto99 (talk • contribs) 03:50, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IIRC that was due to a copyvio issues. I don't know how much of the information (rather than wording) still remains after the deletion, but if you wish the information to be re-entered into the article, you could do some copyediting of the source so that the information can be reintroduced without violating copyright. Plus I don't think forking it into a separate article is a good idea, as it was only notable to the persons and that one specific election and is already mentioned in these places. International post-mortem coverage of the election don't even cover it. Current and temporal news don't make good wikipedia articles. Seeing the current state of events where NPOV must already be maintained across multiple articles for this one issue, adding another article to the plate won't help matters at all. Zhanzhao (talk) 13:01, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Hotel

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on The Hotel. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:24, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]