Talk:Ahn Sahng-hong/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Moved from User talk:Jim1138 - About your WP:BRD

Moved from my talk page. I presume that Nellyhan (talk · contribs) is referring to this edit Jim1138 (talk) 08:38, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Jim1138. I have read what you've left on my talkpage. I have done my edits in Ahn Sahng-hong with definite reasons, I even stated my reason why I deleted a specific reference that I mentioned in the article's talkpage:

a. There were NO proper references to support the article (dead link, questionable sources, the Korean references were wrongly translated, the reference rather had an opposing information).

b. Had absolutely NO references to prove that some information were factual.

Suddenly Sam Sailor reverted my edit without even stating the reason why he disagreed, nor did he left anything in my talkpage or the article's talkpage. He just said "Restoring tons of deleted material."

Uh.. Is this a good reason to revert my edits? Without even telling me why my edits were unreasonable? I can see you're one of the members of the Subtle Vandalism Taskforce Team WP:SVT, and are a recent changes patroller WP:RCP. I'm perplexed seeing you reverting my edits with WP:BRD, which clearly states "BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes. Don't invoke BRD as your reason for reverting someone else's work or for edit warring: instead, provide a reason that is based on policies, guidelines, or common sense," at an instant without stating the reason why my edits were unreasonable (you just said "this is reliably sourced") and agreed with Sam Sailor(who just reverted without stating any reason)'s edits. Why was it necessary for you to revert also the past edits and add new references which neither SamSailor or I were even involved, without stating the reasons of your edits? I don't think your revert engages in consensus building (See WP:Consensus), since you don't explain anything about reverting my edits and also restoring the past edits that none of us were involved in. This also applies with Sam Sailor. We need to be neutral. Please respect others' edits. Did you not realize that Sam Sailor reverted my edit without providing any reason? Leave the message, please. Thanks -Nellyhan (talk) 06:28, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

@Nellyhan: I don't see your edit as an improvement, so WP:BRD. As you can see in the article's history, that was my first edit for at least a year, so I am not "edit warring". Sam Sailor (talk · contribs)'s one group of three edits with no other edits in seven months do not appear to me to be WP:OWN. Removing large sections of sourced text without discussion should not be done. Regarding deleting text with a dead link, See WP:PRESERVE. First, try to find a working source. If one is not found, add {{Dead link}} to the dead cite. Don't just delete the text and citation. If you find a questionable source or translation, add {{dubious}} to that cite and bring it here. As my statement in the section above, the Refworld citation is valid for what it cites and the reference should stay. Jim1138 (talk) 08:38, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

@Jim1138: - What does improvement mean to you? Does "improvement" mean to leave the wrong info.? It is quite difficult to understand your concept of "improvement." Doesn't "improvement" mean to edit by correcting the wrong content? If no one corrects, Wikipedia will be full of articles that are unreliable. Is this what Wikipedia is aiming for? Where are you in the history a year ago? I can't find you nowhere. Besides, you didn't answer my question. Did you realize that Sam Sailor reverted without stating his reason? Please reply. All of the users are stating out their reasons of their edits. Did you revert all of their edits? Does this meet the requirements of WP:POLICY?Of course we can discuss before, but what you're saying is irrelevant; that is off the point from this present situation. And if you see WP:BRD, it says, "BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes. Don't invoke BRD as your reason for reverting someone else's work or for edit warring: instead, provide a reason that is based on policies, guidelines, or common sense." Can you elucidate about this? To elucidate about this, you must be clear with what you have said:

"that was my first edit for at least a year"

If you can't explain validly, I think you must revert your edit to identify yourself as a trustful recent changes patroller WP:RCP, someone who stops vandalism, as a member of the Subtle Vandalism Taskforce Team WP:SVT. If you can't deal with this properly, you are the one who is committing vandalism abusing your authority to moderate users. I need answers for my questions. Since you are one of the WP:SVT and the WP:RCP, this is one of your requirements. I know that users have rights; freedom to edit articles with grounds - that is, with reliable sources. And I am well aware of that this is the policy that all users must keep.

And the name has been wrongly translated in the reference, The Church of God World Gospel Association v. Ji Won Tak (Northern Seoul Regional Court Civil Section Number 11 2005-07-08). Korean word 선교 is not translated properly "Society."

Please explain if Sam Sailor did was OKAY, to delete and revert without any reason, and YOU, agreeing to his action was "fair enough" to meet the requirements of WP:POLICY. Thanks. -Nellyhan (talk) 11:52, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

You removed text that I see is important to the article without proper explanation. Therefore, BRD. I don't need to justify it further.

You have not addressed my concern with wholesale removal of text "because the link is dead".

If you have questions on policy, please ask at the WP:TEAHOUSE.

You removed well sourced information. You haven't explained why you believe it to be unreliable. Your explanation for your removal of the Refworld cite demonstrates the problem with your removals.

If you wish to make a change, please add the original version, the new version, and the rationale for changing. Thank you Jim1138 (talk) 16:15, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Why don't you open a ticket on WP:DR? Get some more eyes on this? Jim1138 (talk) 16:17, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

@Jim1138: - First of all, you have supported Sam Sailor and reverted my edits without stating any reason. I'll ask you again. Did you realize that Sam Sailor reverted my edits without stating any reason? I haven't received any answer for this question.

And again, I asked you to elucidate about the BRD:

And if you see WP:BRD, it says, "BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes. Don't invoke BRD as your reason for reverting someone else's work or for edit warring: instead, provide a reason that is based on policies, guidelines, or common sense."

"that was my first edit for at least a year" - Can't find any records of you editing this article in the history.

You said you've reviewed what I edited but you didn't and just reverted the whole thing.

If you can't clarify what you've said, you're just "LYING" to "COVER UP YOUR MISTAKE." You just say "Therefore, BRD."

Don't try to ignore the guts of the problem and admit your mistake if you have made a mistake, and revert it. I can't see your Username in the history that you've edited a year ago. This is a matter of great concern. Don't give me an evasive answer. Thanks -Nellyhan (talk) 04:38, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I have given you several reasons and policy to go with them. That's all I need to do. BTW: "Never" is a subset of "at least a year". I only checked back a year. Please see WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA: "Discuss content, not contributors". May I suggest WP:3O or WP:RFC to resolve this? Jim1138 (talk) 06:07, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Invalid WP:3O; one side doesn't "pick" the 3rd person, plus the opinion itself is pretty seriously misinformed. Suggest you go to WP:DRN or file a request for a actual, independent WP:3O. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:00, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

@Jim1138: I think the first thing you should do is apologize for falsely stating misrepresentative facts about your history. You lied and you should admit it. You clearly said with your own words that this edit was your first “for at least a year.” Yet even a new user can clearly see that you did not edit this article a year ago or even since this article was created. This is what we call a ‘lie.’ It disappoints me that Wikipedia has actually granted you the authority as a WP:RCP and a member of the WP:SVT. With power comes responsibility but you have not shown this through your actions. On the contrary, it would seem you are taking advantage of the authority imparted on you. And that is a very serious matter. Reviewing the article it almost seems like you want to own this article and edit it in a negative way. Even though you say it is your first edit “for at least a year.” However after verifying the edit log, there is no record of you editing this article and you even brought in other materials that weren’t there before! This begs the question about what your actual intent is on having this authority in Wikipedia. I think Wikipedia has enough problems with people trying to ‘change history’ if you will, and without a doubt this is an example of that. I believe that Wikipedia has put several mechanisms in place to guard against that kind of behavior and someone with the authority to patrol as well as a member of the WP:SVT is part of that mechanism. So has the good cop crossed the line or was it always bad cop and now your true colors are showing? I reviewed the article and the overall vibe I do get is that there's more negative information about this person than positive. And seeing all the editing going on as well as the way Nellyhan is defending her edits, any normal person can see that there must be a discrepancy with the information being posted otherwise why are these changes happening in the first place? Forest for the trees Jim1138. Wikipedia articles must be neutral and nonbiased, WP:NPOV nondiscriminative. You can't just include references that are solely created to insult someone's reputation or an organization. I think this is a given and something that you should’ve learned with all your 6 years of experience. If you're not lying about editing a year ago, then provide the evidence so that you can justify your actions otherwise you saying that you know these edits and that this is your first edit for “at least a year” feels like you're editing with a WP:SOCK and that's a very serious issue. One that would require the Wikipedia foundation to get involved! -Mischief7 (talk) 04:25, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

What Jim did was overstep his authority and yet the Admins never even looked into what he did and just sided with him. How is that being fair? Wikipedia has policies in place so that no one can ‘change history’ so let’s start with answers before accusations. Can what Jim1138 did be considered acceptable? Mischief7 (talk) 08:00, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Ahn Sahng-hong. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://english.watv.org/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:08, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Edited

I have done massive research on this so called "messiah" during these few days! What I have found from reliable sources was that this WMSCOG church had all the rights for this messiah's books and info. Added some details about the doctrines and his claims, and made a table to compare how this messiah's doctrines differ from previous religious bodies, and some of his quotes that he claimed. I couldn't find valid sources to support about his family so I deleted for now.Wikipedia:Verifiability I am still digging in to find the right sources to support about that information. Wikipedia:No original research If you have found some reliable sources please let me know. I edited in a way that the article wouldn't sound negative nor sound like an advertisementWikipedia:Neutral point of view Wikipedia:POV and OR from editors, sources, and fields. Since I know that his church believes in something about God the mother or heavenly mother, still searching for his claims (reliable sources) about her. Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines I still haven't got his picture that doesn't violate the copyright.

There is a law suit in Korean Supreme Court between the NCPCOG and WMSCOG proving the copy rights belong to the NCPCOG and Ahn Sang Hong son Ahn Sang Hong Fong now runs the first church the NCPOG. that is why the WMS does not have ASH pictures and voice recording on the watv.org web site or anywhere else for that fact this matter was settled in court documents that also disproves the WMS history in there own words to the court by General pastor Kim and Zhang Gil Ja there spiritual mother.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.168.144.105 (talk) 17:57, 13 April 2016 (UTC) 

I have done background and family checks on Korean members and Daniel LEE NY WMS and John Lee LA WMS are direct family to Zhang Gil Ja there spiritual mother.In fact many Korean members coming from Korea are Physical family members and it runs all the was to there non prophets. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.168.144.105 (talk) 18:08, 13 April 2016 (UTC)