User talk:Efkeathley

Archivist Survey.jpg

Hello, Efkeathley. I would like to add the image (Image:Archivist Survey.jpg) to a Japanese Wikipedia article ja:アーキビスト(archivist). Since the Japanese version is very strict about copy rights, I cannot just "save & paste" your image. It needs to be uploaded to Wikipedia Commons. Public domain images of archivists are hard to find. The photo you uploaded is too good quality to waste. Could you consider uploading it to Commons or give me the permission to upload on behalf of you? Thank you. --Chiew 19:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Processing

Thanks for the kudos on Manuscript processing :) I'm a manuscripts processor/librarian so I've been trying to enhance Wikipedia's coverage here and there in related articles. Couldn't believe there wasn't one for this! I also beefed up the Encoded Archival Description article considerably. I thought the Archivist one was pretty good already but I'll be happy to take a look and see if I can contribute anything. --Bookgrrl ^holler/looksee 14:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Gwen Shamblin page

(Copied from User Talk:DESiegel)

Hello, I've been working on the Gwen Shamblin page. I noticed you had worked there in the past.

-I want to get the 'articles with unsourced statements" tag off of this article. Could you give me some pointers on whipping this page into shape? I have annotated everything I could think of today. Efkeathley March 29, 2007

• A reference is needed for the statement that the "Remnant Fellowship Church currently has over 120 locations" and a timestamp (as of) link needs to be provided to indicate when 'currently" refers to.

• the link http://www.ctlibrary.com/ct/2000/october23/14.15.html goes to a site which requires a paid subscription before a user can read the citation. This makes it not a good reference. it should be replaced with a better reference for "Shamblin's advocacy of a specific religious belief led Thomas Nelson Publishers to cancel the publication of Exodus, her next work. Many churches who advocate Trinity also dropped her program."

• The link http://www.usnews.com/usnews/culture/articles/970505/archive_006847.htm is broken and should be replaced with a valid citation for "According to Ms. Shamblin, people should only eat when they feel real, physical hunger and stop when full, and should use prayer and Bible reading to fill emotional needs. Overeating is equated with gluttony and is a sin."

Still i think the article is fairly well referenced at this time, and would be quite well referenced if these issues are dealt with. DES ^(talk) 20:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Looks like your edits have removed the immeidate issues with citations. i could wish for an outside source on the size of her church, but that is not major. Note that blogs are not always considered to be reliable sources, see WP:RS for more on this. Still, very good work, IMO. DES ^(talk) 21:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Rants from SqwikiKlean

The following are rants from SqwikiKlean. I'm preserving them even though the argument is ended b/c in my experience, when a person like this shows up in one fight, they eventually show up in another.

Why can't anyone else edit this area? May I speak with the "owner"?

--Just the facts mam... 23:49, 25 May 2007 (UTC) Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to Wikipedia. However, please know that editors do not own articles and should respect the work of their fellow contributors on Gwen Shamblin. If you create or edit an article, know that others are free to change its content. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. {{#if:

I have read but do not agree with your very "polite" but rather unmerrited warning that seemed to suggest that the edits I made "blanked" or "deleted" content. On the surface at least, this does not appear to be correct. Please take at least a little bit closer look at my edits, the references I used, and the editorial comments (or reasons) that were very relevantly included with each edit that was made.

Not a single reference or paragraph was deleted or "blanked" but simply edited. What was there before seemed to be somewhat disorganized and at least one paragraph was less than an accurate representation of the article or articles referenced. I may be new to "editing" on Wiki, but I am "old" (if there is such a thing) to using Wiki for research. I am also very accustomed to using accurate and unbiased reference materials.

You could not have a more willing ear to someone who despises wanton deletion of information (vandalism), but, having reviewed my edits in the edit history several times now, I do not believe that I made any significant mistakes or Wiki policy infringements by my edits, and have not been provided with a shred of evidence to the contrary - only a "WARNING".

The suggestion that my "recent contribution removed content", removed content from Wikipedia "without a good reason" and that the edits were not clearly "specified in the edit summary" seems completely unsupported by the warning as well as your editorial reversion comments.

The references and quotes I provided in the edits were fully accurate (if not "exact" to the original source(s) YOU had provided), and for that reason alone they surely qualified as NPOV. The implication that "restoring section information - this read like PR web" (from your reversion comments) along with the repeated assertion that information was "blanked", seems a bit of a slap. But, an old salt like me can, on occasion, take a small bit of criticism however undeserved.

What got my attention: the simple realization that nearly every single correction made to this wiki entry, regardless of how well referenced or neutral it may be, seems to be summarily removed and/or reverted repeatedly by you. Again I'm not supporting unreasoning deletions or removals or vandalism.

It may be very beneficial to all others (not just myself) who would like to (possibly) be "allowed to add to or edit" content in this article, if you would carefully review each of my edits (that you reverted) and help everyone a bit by citing (individually) exactly which edit was non-NPOV (and why) and which edits you are referring to as "blanking" or deletion of "your" information (and why). If you don't mind my saying so, it certainly appears by the available history that you have claimed ownership of this entry since late March of 2007. The discussion is now - "all yours".

Just the facts mam... 23:49, 25 May 2007 (UTC) |

Thank you for your input on my talk page, but I never claimed to own the article. Your edits removed information regarding the Josef Smith case and allegations of child abuse at Remnant Church. This is all part of media information regarding Gwen Shamblin. If you'll notice, I kept your additions that added to the article, and only corrected where you had removed important citations and information. It is part of NPOV to include all information on a subject, not just the information that shows the subject in the best light. Please apply for arbitration in order to correct any perceived slights. Thank you for restoring the picture removed by vandalism. What I did by restoring the child sbuse allegations was much the same sort of restoration.Efkeathley 20:26, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Gwen Shamblin page - OWNERSHIP QUESTION

You do not have to make a "claim to own" when your actions stake a claim on the content. I would rather NOT seek arbitration when someone is fully capable of reading and should be able to simply respond with factual statements (this is not too much to ask). Again, PLEASE review the edits I made. I DID NOT delete ONE BIT of the information regarding the allegations as you have accused me of doing.

If you will not take time to review the edits of others before deleting them, and will so quickly accuse them of mass deletions, then it doesn't matter how careful, accurate, or well documented anyone elses edits are. Given the swift and overwhelming nature of your response to delete or UNDO well documented and reasonable "edits" (without accurate and well thought out reasons), is careless at best. It may not be your intention, but your unchecked and seemingly arbitrary removal of edits without correct or sound reasoning, shows that you are the defacto "owner" of the content on the Gwen_Shamblin page.

SEGMENT HEADINGS or "HEADLINES"

The heading titles had (and still have) redundant information that is also sufficiently contained in the articles you reference and quote. After reviewing well over 100 highly controversial people in wiki pages, these headings are significantly different in that they are "favoring the exceptional over the ordinary" (see Wiki:NPOV and I don't see why this needs to be done here. Encyclopedias use headings rather than "headlines" to categorize topics neutrally. Please take some time to look at how other controversial people's wiki areas are more neutrally handled and take some lessons from them. You don't have to "HYPE" or re-iterate details of controversial information about this topic within segment headings to make it sizzle like a "headline". Let the facts speak for themselves. See WP:Undue weight

DELETIONS - NOT ONE - ONLY ORGANIZATION

I DID organize the page into a logical and orderly groupings with normalized section headings. Once again, if you would actually look, not a single controversial article "deletion" or reference "deletion" was done. I only re-organized and grouped the information that was already there in a logical manner, consistent with other wiki entrys of arguably controversial living people. The page HISTORY is all there if you will simply look. PLEASE, no matter how "politely" you want to connect me to an act of "vandalism", I COMPLETELY AND SINCERELY REJECT YOUR REPEATED ASSERTIONS THAT I REMOVED A SINGLE SOLITARY ARTICLE OR PARAGRAPH FROM THIS ENTRY. Since I can't go back and change the history, just look closely at my edits and you will CLEARLY see this.

NPOV - "all information" (So why remove a more precise quote from your reference?)

Although I don't think this is an accurate summary of the NPOV guidelines, my edit of the paragraph in question actually fits your definition of NPOV more than your own revision. My edit was only intended to accurately match "more" of the reference by using the author's quote rather than anyone's interpretation of the interview (that you had provided). That edit certainly seemed more in line with the NPOV "all information on a subject," standard than the paraphrased version that originally was there (and now is there still). That is exactly why I included MORE of the referenced article information.

SUMMARY

Your assertion that I "removed information regarding the Josef Smith case and allegations of child abuse" IS ABSOLUTELY INCORRECT. Maybe you did not like my groupings, headings, or the much needed organization of the information, but please DO NOT accuse me of doing something I did NOT do. You did not even give my edits a chance witout completely obliterating them under an unfounded claim of "removing deletions" or "undoing blanking". This is why I asked if you "OWNED" this article (or at least it's format). Your actions demonstrate a reckless and hasty removal of almost every edit I (and most others) have carefully and thoughtfully made. IT SEEMS THAT ALL EXCEPTIONS ARE MADE FOR YOU HERE, AND NO ONE ELSE SEEMS TO BE ALLOWED TO EDIT TO THIS ARTICLE WITHOUT GOING THROUGH "YOUR" FILTER. That filter seems anything BUT neutral at this point. Try not to let your "obsession" with protecting this particular topic make you paranoid of other editors edits. Not everyone 'else' who edit's this article is "out to get your article".

I still want you to respond properly to my challenge of your "deletion" statements so, in the future, you will more careful that your warnings are appropriate and much more accurate to what was done to "your article".

SqwikiKlean

Response to SquikiKlean

I'm sorry, but the logs show that you did delete information; you deleted all reference to the glue stick issue, which is why I went back in and added another citation there. I agree that it is possible that we *both* may have NPOV issues here - you obviously feel very, very strongly about this page. In this light, I have put our current problems up at -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Biographies

-in order to request a third opinion in the matter. Please notice that after your edits I did not simply "undo" all your work, but rather took it, section by section, and worked your information into what had been here previously. All the cites you've added in the past week are still here. What was removed were some statements you made that you didn't back up. For instance, you can't say that Gwen tells people God loves chocolate without a citation to back that up. I think your edits are in good faith, but at this point it's best to ask a third party to mediate the page.Efkeathley 18:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

request not to edit and the unsourced sentence restored - interesting.

Thank you for your concern. Making sure an entry is properly cited does not cause frustration. It is disappointing to see what seems to be potentially controversial AND in this instance, "original" information put forth as factual without a valid reference source. Until now, this has not even been questioned. I know it is a large resource to manage properly but his surely can't be what Jimmy Wales would want.

Defending removal of "verifiably sourced" information is understandable, but the edits and defense of them must be factual and accurate to the cited source(s). And UTMOST care should surely be used in dealing with biographies of living persons. According to the WP:VERIFY "Any material that is challenged and for which no source is provided may be removed by any editor."

Please take time to read the edits: The statement about the "raid on the church" was still in the paragraph after removing the sentence that has no valid citation. This is a minor and very reasonable correction.

Potentially controversial information asserted as factual, published, verified, or referenced, at a bare minimum needs to have a verifiable source cited, otherwise it is simply a non-NPOV. Specifically (as noted in my edit), none of the sources cited said anything about "tapes" (plural) or any other materials confiscated in the raid that were "used against the Smiths in trial". If the information in the sentence is not mentioned in the source(s) cited, then this sentence should be removed at least until a source can be accurately cited.

The real issue regarding the sentence in question, could be that it "added" new and possibly misleading information as "source-referenced" facts. The sentence that was removed was in not referenced in the cited source in any fashion. The assertions in the sentence were (and still are) completely unreferenced.

Without a cited (and verifiable) source, wiki article elements about a living person, must be corrected quickly to accurately match the cited source, especially when the information in question is could be viewed as controversial or even libelous.

SqwikiKlean

RfC on Gwen Shamblin

I would love to try to help resolve this issue, but I'm not sure where to begin. Can you post on the talk page a proposal for what the text should be? Novalis 17:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)