User talk:Aidayoung

Welcome!

Hello, Aidayoung, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially your edits to Gang Il-sun. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Fences&Windows 10:47, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I have posted a question on your talk page Aidayoung (talk) 15:31, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I checked your draft, made a few edits, and moved it live: Weixin Shengjiao. It would be eligible - as a substantive and well-sourced new article - to appear on the main page in the WP:DYK section. If you're interested, pick one or two short and interesting facts to suggest as a "hook" and I'll help you submit it. Fences&Windows 18:32, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, very useful work, and please explain how you managed to put the image in the center. Weixin Shengjiao is one among several religious movements that in my personal opinion are under-represented in Wikipedia - this is the reason I also made some edit to the page about Gang Il-sun, whose posterity is extremely complicated (around one hundred religious movements derived from him) but, by the estimate of leading scholar of Korean religion Donald Baker, today may well have some ten million followers when you add up the various movements. What I mean is Gang Il-sun is an important character and deserved a more detailed entry. It is of course not Wikipedia's but our fault as religious scholars. For many years, both I and others found writing in Wikipedia difficult - and it doesn't go in the list of publications for academic advancement... As evidence of our Wiki-ignorance, I never heard before of WP:DYK. I believe the "hooks" can be that "a Taiwanese religious movement teaching I Ching and Feng Shui gathered from 1984 to 2016 some 300,000 followers" (I prefer to stay with the conservative estimate) and "ceremonies honoring the ancestors in Taiwan organized by the religious movement Weixin Shengjiao attract every year on January 1 more than 30,000, including the island's top political authorities." Best regards and thank you again

Aidayoung (talk) 19:34, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Aida, conversations can go back and forth or stay on one page, there's no fixed rules. To "ping" a user you're talking to or about you just put their name in wiki format - [[User:Aidayoung|Aidayoung]] - so it appears as Aidayoung. To thread conversations, you use colons - : - at the start of the line to indent the comment. The first comment has none, the second one, the third two etc.

To fix the image I made this edit. I changed the markup from:

| image = [[File:Hsien Fo Temple, Taiwan.jpg|thumb|Hsien Fo Temple, Taiwan]]

to

| image = [[File:Hsien Fo Temple, Taiwan.jpg|200px]]

| caption = Hsien Fo Temple, Taiwan

In that edit I also bolded the name of the page at first mention in the lead by putting three ' either side of it.

I agree Gang Il-sun is an important figure. A limitation for such topics is often free online sources in English, so scholars who have access to offline or paywalled sources and/or can read another language are very helpful in improving articles! You might be interested in joining Wikiproject Religion. I'll submit those hooks to the DYK page and see if they accept the entry - I hope so! I had two thoughts about the article: 1. Has the religion received any criticism or commentary? How outsiders perceive it would be useful to know; 2. Is there an official English translation (vs transliteration) of the name? Google Translate says "idealistic holy church"

About Daesun Jinrihoe, the first version was written by me from Sept-Nov 2010 and I'm a native English speaker! The sources are probably somewhat out of date now as you suggest. The article has since been edited by others who appear to be followers of the religion and non-native English speakers, which probably shows now. I've tried to keep in critical content and not allow the page to be whitewashed and written from the point of view of devotees. Fences&Windows 20:30, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Fences and windows, I will work on Daesun Jinrihoe as soon as possible. Yes, the page shows different hands. I believe criticism should of course be kept but Jorgensen wrote his article sixteen years ago, in the immediate aftermath of the fights between the two factions, which generated a lot of hostile attention in the Korean media. The problems have not been completely eliminated, but a Council held in Yeoju in 2013 allowed the two factions to coexist more or least peacefully. DJ also tried to address the other criticism that surfaced in the media and I would say its public image is better than in 2001. Answering your questions on Weixin Shengjiao, I have mentioned in the entry that it translates "Sacred Teachings of the Mind Only." The problem however is that the Chinese notion of "mind" is not equivalent to the Western one. As far as I know, as it has received very little scholarly attention (in addition to what I quoted there are only three unpublished conference papers), WS has also eluded the radars of critics of fringe religions. Did you write the article on Daejongism as well? If yes, what is a deliberate decision to exclude the controversial matter of the relationship between Daejongism and Dahn Yoga, the organization of Ilchi Lee?Aidayoung (talk) 18:48, 21 February 2017 (UTC) Fences and windows, I have finally worked on Daesun Jinrihoe. I have reorganized, updated, and expanded the entry, and restored the parts on "criticism" that had been deleted (presumably by members of the movement) but, when updated, are informative. I have maintained where consistent with the reorganization the previous material, and have included missing page numbers in already existing references.Aidayoung (talk) 13:38, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Did You Know nomination

I've nominated the page at Template:Did you know nominations/Weixin Shengjiao. There may be a long wait until we hear. Fences&Windows 21:32, 20 February 2017 (UTC) Many thanksAidayoung (talk) 21:38, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's now on the main page and rated C-class. Congratulations on writing an effective article! You can see how it appeared via http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know&oldid=770595506. Fences&Windows 12:17, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Fences and windows Thank you very much for the nominationAidayoung (talk) 08:01, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Article name

Hello! I moved the page Weixin Shengjiao → Weixinism per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:ENGLISH since "Weixinism" is the name they employ on their official websites for presenting themselves to Western audience.--Aethelwolf Emsworth (talk) 23:26, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And thank you for having written the article! It is an important addition to the picture of Chinese religiosity.--Aethelwolf Emsworth (talk) 23:32, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aethelwolf Emsworth thank you. However in the recent books they published in English they use only "Weixin Shengjiao". I wrote a mail to them in Taiwanand here is the answer: " About "Weixinism", it was a translation before 2010 at a time when we declared ourself as a denomination called "Weixinzong". But there were many people get confused and see us as the branch sect of Buddhism ("zong"宗 means a branch) so we announced that we are an independent new religion called Weixin Shengjiao ("Shengjiao" 聖教 means holy teaching, also a religion). After 2010 our official publications no longer use "Weixinism" or "Weixinzong."" Unfortunately, I do not know how to change the title of the page but recommend you simply eliminate your changes. Also, in all the most recent books of the movement mentioned in the bibliography "Weixin Shengjiao" is translated as "Sacred Teachings of the Mind Only". Please also correct back the French, I believe you can do this by simply eliminating your changes. Thank you, AidaAidayoung (talk) 21:08, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Aida. They clearly referred to their official name in Chinese, Weixin Shengjiao instead of Weixinzong (Weixin Tradition), not to the English translation. Besides, zong, "tradition", is not generally translated as "ism", while jiao is. The current official name of the church is Weixin Shengjiao, for short Weixinjiao, and "Weixinism" in English. They consistently publish under the name "Weixinism" through their English-laguage official websites and English-language media. See the English pages of Hun Yuan's website, the official website of their Global Info Centre ("Weixinism Zen-Ji Mountain Global Information Center), their YT news channels and their official YT channel. This establishes "Weixinism" as WP:COMMONNAME and WP:ENGLISH.--Aethelwolf Emsworth (talk) 21:36, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aethelwolf Emsworth This is an interesting question. In the US, they use the name Weixin Shengjiao. They do not have a Web page but this is the name written outside their Flushing Headquarters in New York, where I am conducting my research. The main book they use for introducing themselves in English and give to interested English-speaking parties, i.e."The New Religion of the World Taiwan Weixin Shengjiao," never uses "Weixinism," and, from the title on, consistently refers to "Weixin Shengjiao." The existing (and admittedly scarce) recent academic scholarship in English, by both Taiwanese (Chang) and Western scholars, uses "Weixin Shengjiao " or "Weixinshengjiao" and does not even mention "Weixinism." The authoritative online encyclopedia World Religions and Spiritualities Project at Virginia Commonwealth University also uses "Weixin Shengjiao" (no references to "Weixinisn" there either). On the other hand, you are right in raising the question of their Websites. I will ask them why exactly they keep the use of Weixinism there through my Taiwanese scholar contact and will come back to youAidayoung (talk) 22:04, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To me, it is not really a problematic issue. They simply use an alternation of English translations and original Chinese names, both of which carry the same meaning. They refer to the same thing by different names, and this is the standard in Chinese language (and not only Chinese). However, here on Wikipeda, per policies, English terms should be preferred in the title and body of the text.--Aethelwolf Emsworth (talk) 22:32, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For the sake of completeness, I have found a further one of their official websites, this one, whose copyright registration reads "Weixinism 2016 ©".--Aethelwolf Emsworth (talk) 23:13, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I will ask them. You are a Sinologist and I am a religious studies scholar. My study is mostly of the movement in the West and their groups in US and Spain go under the name Weixin Shengjiao. But I do agree with you that they should clarify themselves the name issue as they expand internationally and perhaps amend their Web sites (as they seem to have amended their most recent English-language literature. (talk)Aidayoung (talk) 04:10, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aethelwolf Emsworth On Weixinism I agree we should leave the title as it is until they clarify why their Web sites are not consistent with their printed matter. I have another question. You changed the translation 八卦 from "Eight Trigrams" to "Eight Symbols." It is certainly a more literal translation but, when talking about I Ching, one normally speaks of "trigrams." It is a minor point, just curious to understand the reasons of the change.Aidayoung (talk) 20:29, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New article

User:Aethelwolf Emsworth and User:Fences and windows since you helped edit Weixinism/Weixin Shengjiao you may want to have a look at the new page I created on the founder of Weixinism, Grand Master Hun Yuan. User: Fences and windows, I am still working on Daesun Jinrihoe and will later edit the page. Aidayoung (talk) 16:30, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have two issues:

Did you take the photo at File:Hun Yuan.jpg? This looks professional and would mean you met Hua Yuan. If you did take it, you need to declare your association. If you did not, the license for the image is incorrect. See WP:COPYRIGHT for more information. You did not paint File:Stable Nation of the Golden Dragon.jpg so that license is wrong. See WP:NONFREE for guidance on whether this image can be included in the article. Both images may need to be deleted from Wikimedia Commons.
Some of the wording is too glowing, see WP:PEACOCK. Please tone down the praise and make clear when information is only sourced to Yuan or his religion and not independently verified. See the advice at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. The article reads as a hagiography at the moment. Fences&Windows 08:25, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Fences and windows Thank you for your advise. I am "associated" with Weixin Shengjiao in the same way I am associated with dozen religious movements (and artists, as I also study religious art) I have studied or am currently studying. I did interview Hun Yuan as I interviewed several other religious leaders and artists throughout the world, as well as opponents of religious leaders, critics of religion, etc. I believe this is a common situation for scholars of religion (and art). This obviously does not make us non-neutral. I personally took the pictures others than Huan Yuan.jpg while studying Weixin Shengjiao in Taiwan. I got permission to use Hun Yuan.jpg for an article I am working at, but I see I uploaded it incorrectly as my own work. I will try to determine what permission I would need to upload or simply change the picture with one I took.Aidayoung (talk) 14:18, 8 March 2017 (UTC) User:Fences and windows I just changed image Hun Yuan.jpg to Hun Yuan 2.jpg. I took Hun Yuan 2.jpg during my fieldwork in Taiwan. On further consideration, I agreed that the picture was taken by a professional photographer and we can run into copyright problems. I am not an administrator and cannot delete Hun Yuan.jpg from Wikicommons but please do it and thank you in advance for your cooperation. I also deleted the reference to File:Stable Nation of the Golden Dragon.jpg from the article. Please also delete it from Wikicommons. Perhaps in the future the copyright owners can upload themselves some of these pictures to WikicommonsAidayoung (talk) 14:40, 8 March 2017 (UTC) User:Fences and windows Finally, I edited the articles placing sentences such as "According to the movement" or similar where claims come from literature produced by Weixin Shengjiao itself rather than peer-reviewed academic sources. Notwithstanding this, I have also "toned down" certain sentences as you recommendedAidayoung (talk) 14:56, 8 March 2017 (UTC) User:Fences and windows if you have five minutes to spare, please also have a look at my edits in the entries on Diego Rivera and AMORC. I did take a picture of Diego Rivera's Quetzalcoatl but obviously the rights belong to Rivera's heirs, and I did not upload it. Please check that I phrased the sentences correctly.Aidayoung (talk) 15:45, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I like the replacement picture! It's great to see him in the middle of a ceremony. I've tagged the two images on Commons, easy mistake to make. The rules on what images are allowed can be confusing. Thanks for making the textual tweaks. I'll look at the other articles tomorrow. Fences&Windows 22:00, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Fences and windows Thank you. I believe the "Dragon" image was useful for explaining the painting style, and I wrote to Weixin Shengjiao seeking authorization from the Grand Master/painter. Let'see whether they would answerAidayoung (talk) 23:38, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You may be able to upload the painting onto Wikipedia rather than Commons - Commons takes only free license images, i.e. public domain or Creative Commons license. This is the policy for use of non-free images on Wikipedia: Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. If the article includes commentary on the image, fair use is easier to demonstrate. To see an example, I included sone non-free images in Story of Marie and Julien. Fences&Windows 08:04, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Fences and windows this looks interesting and I confess I had never heard of it: but where do I exactly upload the picture onto Wikipedia? Is there a guide or Wizard? BestAidayoung (talk) 19:35, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard. Fences&Windows 19:46, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I like your edits about Rivera and AMORC, quite amusing. Fences&Windows 22:14, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Fences and windows Done, using the Wizard, thank you very muchAidayoung (talk) 16:23, 10 March 2017 (UTC) User:Fences and windows Thank you very much for the nominationAidayoung (talk) 08:00, 18 March 2017 (UTC) User:Fences and windows I have re-uploaded the deleted Dragon image to Wikicommons since the movement finally answered and claimed Hun Yuan will send the email authorizing this soon and are happy to make it available to everybodyAidayoung (talk) 10:22, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Weixinism

On 16 March 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Weixinism, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that a Taiwanese religious movement teaching feng shui and I Ching since 1984 now has around 300,000 members? You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Weixinism), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Mifter (talk) 12:02, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 18:04, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Aidayoung (talk) 17:57, 6 June 2017 (UTC) Aidayoung (talk) 17:57, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SPI

I've mentioned you at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Juliano202. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:05, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image without license

Unspecified source/license for File:McDonald Murder in Zhaoyuan, 2014.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:McDonald Murder in Zhaoyuan, 2014.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)} 10:01, 27 October 2017 (UTC) Thank you will try to take care of itAidayoung (talk) 10:14, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:McDonald Murder in Zhaoyuan, 2014.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:McDonald Murder in Zhaoyuan, 2014.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. – Train2104 (t • c) 12:38, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Messia Cho.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:Messia Cho.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the file appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use it — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:57, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if it is a "blatant copyright violation". I took the picture myself with an iPhone at the Korean headquarters of Victory Altar. The poster is obviously copyrightable but I took an angle of the entrance displaying the poster. I am seeking your kind guidance: I have updated again the image as Wikipedia rather than Wikicommons (http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/File:Messia_Cho.jpg) and I believe that it serves the purpose of illustrating important points of the article and its use would be fair use, but would not put it back in the article until I hear from you. I can also require authorization from the Victory Altar, if you kindly explain to me which form the authorization should have. Thank you in advance Aidayoung (talk) 00:02, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Aidayoung. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Oleg Viktorovich Maltsev for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Oleg Viktorovich Maltsev is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oleg Viktorovich Maltsev until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.--Russians Don`t give up (talk) 23:27, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

September 2018

I'm sorry for all the disruption, aspersions and harassment you've received by actual sockpuppets (such irony; they are blocked now). I've closed the deletion discussion, and I hope you continue to enjoy editing Wikipedia :-) wumbolo ^^^ 08:25, 10 September 2018 (UTC) Thank you very much. My field of study is by its nature very contentious. There are some who believe that those they regard as disseminating unorthodox teachings should be "punished" by cancelling articles about them in Wikipedia. I think that they would offer a much more positive contribution by editing the articles and include reference to critical literature (where it exists).Aidayoung (talk) 22:16, 10 September 2018 (UTC) What the heck is going on again? Aidayoung (talk) 06:27, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Oleg Viktorovich Maltsev for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Oleg Viktorovich Maltsev is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oleg Viktorovich Maltsev (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Marsellus W (talk) 23:33, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Last sock is blocked

I hope you can now resume editing comfortably. wumbolo ^^^ 09:55, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Oleg Viktorovich Maltsev for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Oleg Viktorovich Maltsev is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oleg Viktorovich Maltsev (3rd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Retorno Pul (talk) 13:04, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Aidayoung. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 2 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Aidayoung. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your mass reverts on Oleg Maltsev (psychologist)

Hello. User:Drmies explained why the material was removed in their edit summaries, while you just reverted their edits with no explanation. That's not how things should be done here, so discuss it on the talk page of the article, with a good and valid reason for why you want to re-add material that has been removed for being insufficiently/improperly sourced. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 21:36, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to discuss but it was not “improperly sourced.” The main sources were an entry in the encyclopedia World Religions and Spirituality Project, which is published by Virginia Commonwealth University in Richmond, Virginia, and is the leading academic encyclopedia in the field, and articles from “The Journal of CESNUR.” It was claimed that this journal is associated with Mr Maltsev but a simple look at the indexes shows that the leading world scholars in the field of new religious movements publish there and sit in its board, and that apart in that specific issue Maltsev was never even mentioned. Aidayoung (talk) 22:23, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A hagiography on Maltsev written by his friend Massimo Introvigne (who according to multiple sources does have a close connection to Maltsev) is not a reliable source, especially not when it's used to support most of the article, and Introvigne's organisation CESNUR is, again according to multiple sources, uncomfortably close to the cults it is supposed to watch. A look at which editors are doing what here, and when, also confirms that there are uncomfortably strong ties between Maltsev, Introvigne and CESNUR, not only on the English language Wikipedia but also on other language versions. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 22:58, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is a little bit bizarre. Massimo Introvigne has written hundreds of articles and dozens of books, some published by leading academic presses such as Oxford University Press and Brill, on a wide variety of subjects. He has “strong ties” with several hundred new religious movements, in the sense that he has written about them after having observed them, inter alia by interviewing their leaders and debated with them in public events, which is typical of academic scholars of new religious movements, most of whom do not agree with the characterization of new religious movements as “cults” and are critical of the so-called anti-cult movements. CESNUR in turn, which is not “supposed to watch cults” but is an academic organization for the scholarly study of new religious movements, has organized dozens of conferences and published hundreds of texts on all sort of religions. As far as I know, Introvigne wrote only two articles on Maltsev (as opposite to several hundreds he wrote on other subjects) and The Journal of CESNUR devoted one single issue to Maltsev’s movement, without ever mentioning it in any other issue or article. The entry on Maltsev’s Institute Introvigne wrote was published in a peer-reviewed academic encyclopedia, the World Religions and Spirituality Project, based at Virginia Commonwealth University and edited by David G. Bromley. See https://wrldrels.org/about-us/. I have never seen the academic integrity of this encyclopedia questioned. I believe there is a confusion here between disagreeing with certain position of academic scholars and recognizing their work as scholarly sources. If one disagrees, he or she is free to add other sources. Simply canceling entire paragraphs is not editingAidayoung (talk) 06:58, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of content on CESNUR with a misleading edit summary

Hello. Edits such as this are not acceptable, removing properly sourced material with a false claim of it being unsourced; removal that seems like an attempt to whitewash the article. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 08:13, 28 October 2019 (UTC) I removed false information. There is no evidence that (a) CESNUR defended the Order of the Solar Temple; (b) CESNUR as n organizations defended Aum Shinri-Kyo (c) Jim Lewis was ever a member of CESNUR. A single hostile article of twenty years ago in the French Communist newspaper L’Humanite’ is hardly sufficient evidence. Aidayoung (talk) 08:17, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Possible conflict of interest regarding Massimo Introvigne, CESNUR and Oleg Maltsev (psychologist)

Hello, Aidayoung. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} template);
disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:Spam);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 12:22, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Thomas, I believe I answered this before but let’s repeat myself. I regard as offensive the idea that I edit for money. It is obvious from my contribution history that I study new religious movements but I am not “affiliated” with any of these, nor with CESNUR (in the sense that “affiliates” are its members and directors, not those who attend its conferences, which would disqualify most scholars of new religious movements in the world). I am certainly not affiliated with Oleg Maltsev: indeed, one should have recognized from my article that I do not agree with his theories on religion (but represented them as I believe they are). Another interesting question is whether you yourself are affiliated with one of anti-cult organizations. But of course “affiliations” may be constructed in many different waysAidayoung (talk) 12:29, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

a) As I have previously hinted the editing history of certain editors here, you included, show very strong ties between Massimo Introvigne, CESNUR and Oleg Maltsev, and between certain editors here, you included, and those three. As for you, you created the article about Oleg Maltsev, and have continued to maintain it, including through adding ever more badly sourced promotional material, and reverting attempts to clean it up, and even though you didn't create the articles about CESNUR and Introvigne, you made the first edits on those articles in 2007, and are still active on them (on multiple language versions of Wikipedia), including by removing material you see as criticising the subjects of the articles; the majority of your other edits here also appear to be on articles with a connection to Introvigne and CESNUR, most recently plugging CESNUR's "Bitter Winter" on multiple language versions of Wikipedia. Making it look as if you work for Introvigne/CESNUR.

b) I have no connection what so ever to either cults or anti-cult movements, and have in fact never edited in that subject area before I saw the discussion about DrPoglum and their edits on Wikipedia:Administrator's noticeboard/Incidents. All I do is try to make sure articles, edits and editors here comply with the rules. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 13:22, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I believe Bitter Winter is a valuable resource for understanding Chinese religion and Asian religion is my main field (not CESNUR’s, by the way: look at my edits). If you Google Bitter Winter, you will see it is used as a resource by many mainline media. The entry on Maltsev is a very small part of what I wrote for Wikipedia (which obviously is not my main activity). I defended it as a matter of principle because it took me some time to make sense of his quite idiosyncratic belief system, and I believe I did a good work there. As somebody studying new religions, I am obviously familiar + with Massimo Introvigne, CESNUR, Gordon Melton etc. I am also aware that anti-cultists have a negative opinion of them and of scholars of new religious movements in general. I do not believe that the opinion of anti-cultists should be censored or excluded from Wikipedia but that balanced articles should (a) take both sets of opinions into account; and (2) do not report unconfirmed rumors. There is no reason to quarrel and I certainly do not plan to start a war. In fact, I believe that contrasts of opinion sometimes make for better entries.Aidayoung (talk) 14:40, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Feoffer (talk) 00:06, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Hun Yuan, The Stable Nation of the Golden Dragon.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Hun Yuan, The Stable Nation of the Golden Dragon.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:43, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:10, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Scientology discretionary sanctions notification

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in Scientology. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Nil Einne (talk) 09:51, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise if you already meet the awareness criteria. I didn't see any recent notifications on your talk page, nor any other obvious sign you were aware including using the mandatory and suggested tools. Nil Einne (talk) 09:51, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Zhang Fan, one of the McDonald's murderers executed in 2015.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Zhang Fan, one of the McDonald's murderers executed in 2015.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:53, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

December 2019

Please learn how to indent your talk page posts so that they are easier to read. Wikipedia:Indentation. Tiderolls 14:57, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Aidayoung (talk) 15:00, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Talk pages

Hello AidaYoung, you may think that the length of your talk page or noticeboard comments is helpful but it is not. Please take your time to read WP:TALK and WP:TLDR. ANI is a place to ask administrators to consider editing restrictions (blocks, topic bans etc) for editors who violate wikipedia policies and guidelines. Generally such restrictions will be placed on editors who have already received four specific warnings (specify article, edit, policy, add diff=link as evidence) but insist to continue. Examples are: unexplained (no edit summary, no discussion on the talk page) removal of reliably sourced content, addition of unsourced or inappropiately sourced (not in source, source is a blog or otherwise inacceptable) content, clear violations of our WP:NPOV policy etc. I don´t see multiple examples of unambiguous violations of wikipedia policies in your ANI complaint (I remember faintly, I saw some but was too lazy to warn the user). As it is, your complaint will result in nothing but a fruitless discussion. ANI is the wrong place for content disputes, discussion of the reliability of sources etc - its exclusively about verifiable persistent or very serious violations of wp rules. Consider to avoid ANI, unless you can present evidence (links) of misbehaviour and are sure you understand how it works. JimRenge (talk) 05:23, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks but I believe systematically removing reliably sourced material is material for ANI complaint. Aidayoung (talk) 05:45, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

December 2019

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Massimo Introvigne; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
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 and 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 engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.

I strongly recommend you self-revert. Grayfell (talk) 05:53, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Grayfell, please consider to revert this edit It is against WP:BRD and WP:ONUS policy. You need consensus on the talk page. Your are very close to a block. JimRenge (talk) 05:58, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have opened a dispute resolution. Aidayoung (talk) 06:01, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

December 2019

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31h for edit-warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. User:Ymblanter (talk) 06:57, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

--Ymblanter (talk) 06:49, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]