User talk:Phoenix0316

Unhelpful

This edit in Talk:Providence (religious movement) was not helpful. There are good reasons as stated in my previous edit summary to set a higher interval than 90. Sixty days is unjustified. It'd be good if you have some noonchi - in a wider sense of the word - while you're working here. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 14:05, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Notice of Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 16:18, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Anti-JMS orgs demand for money.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Anti-JMS orgs demand for money.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. Stefan2 (talk) 08:38, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Kim Do Hyung Demands Money from JMS.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Kim Do Hyung Demands Money from JMS.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. Stefan2 (talk) 08:39, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Kim Do Hyung Apology Letter 1999.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Kim Do Hyung Apology Letter 1999.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. Stefan2 (talk) 08:39, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Kim Do Hyung Apology for slander.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Kim Do Hyung Apology for slander.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. Stefan2 (talk) 08:39, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Ruling on SBS JMS biased coverage.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Ruling on SBS JMS biased coverage.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. Stefan2 (talk) 08:39, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, Phoenix0316. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places, or things you have written about in the article Providence (religious movement), you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic, and it is important when editing Wikipedia articles that such connections be completely transparent. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. In particular, we ask that you please:

• avoid editing or creating articles related to you and your family, friends, school, company, club, or organization, as well as any competing companies' projects or products;
• instead, you are encouraged to propose changes on the Talk pages of affected article(s) (see the {{request edit}} template);
• when discussing affected articles, disclose your COI (see WP:DISCLOSE);
• avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or to the website of your organization in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
• exercise great caution so that you do not violate Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Please take a few moments to read and review Wikipedia's policies regarding conflicts of interest, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, sourcing and autobiographies. Thank you. — Sam Sailor ^Talk! 06:50, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Edit warring notice

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Providence (religious movement). 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.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. 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 engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Jim1138 (talk) 06:46, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

August 2016

Please stop making disruptive edits, as you did at Providence (religious movement).

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. — Sam Sailor ^Talk! 02:28, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Warning

"Properly removed, sorry." and "formally taken down" are not a valid reason for removing citations. Even if the link is dead. Jim1138 (talk) 06:49, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions alert

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.  Bishonen | talk 13:34, 15 August 2016 (UTC).

• Hello Phoenix0316. Please stop adding promotional material to Providence (religious movement), or you may be blocked or topic banned per the discretionary sanctions described above. Also, please read the section "Managing a conflict of interest" higher up on this page. Click on the links and familiarize yourself with the relevant policies and guidelines. Please disclose any conflict of interest you may have, such as any connection with the Providence movement. Conflict of interest editing is taken seriously on Wikipedia. Bishonen | talk 13:45, 15 August 2016 (UTC).

@Bishonen: I have spent time familiarizing myself with Wikipedia policy in various areas, including Conflicts of Interest and have nothing to disclose. I do have questions about what you are requesting of me in this post though. In particular, I cannot understand what you mean by "promotional." The edits I am making to this page seem to me to be following Wikipedia policy. The sources are reliable, verifiable, and notable from my understanding. So what problem is there with these edits? Is this is not enough in the eyes of Wikipedia and isn't it what Wikipedia is about? If there is a problem with my sources or how I am using them, then why haven't other editors brought up their grief on the talk page? Phoenix0316 (talk!) 04:29, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

This is not so much about any sources you may have added, as the way you have persistently removed well-sourced negative content, and/or simply removed sources, as demonstrated in the diffs Sam Sailor has given here. I put it badly above; I should have said please stop your tendentious editing, rather than stop adding promotional material. I don't understand what you mean by saying other editors haven't brought up their grief on the talk page. You obviously read Sam Sailor's post, since you replied to it (not very responsively, it must be said). Bishonen | talk 07:39, 16 August 2016 (UTC).

@Bishonen: I apologize for this pinging if it seems like spam, I would imagine you are paying attention to many things so your attention here is at your own convenience.

I believe you, as well as Sam Sailor, are mistakenly attributing edits from user CollinsBK to me. The linked diffs from the post on the talk page from Sam Sailor are not actually as described. At one instance, I repaired dead links. Another, I likely reverted because talks were not going anywhere for some time. Still another, I removed a source after legitimately studying many of them and finding that some of them have literally the same exact text. Which is terrible journalism, but from what I understand, we're not trying to discern between good and bad journalism here. Anyway, it was not an attempt to remove this kind of material. If it was that kind of attempt, it was not really a good one being that that material already existed.

Yes, I believe other editors have brought up their grief in general on the talk page as well as other noticeboards. However, the more recent edits that I have made are not addressed in the talk page, talk page archives, or other noticeboards to my knowledge. Rather, I am getting nearly blind reverts, heated responses on the talk page, and threatened to be topic banned over attempts at adding legitimate material? Is that itself not tendentious editing? If what I am attempting to put on the article is against Wikipedia policy, then it does not need to be added. At least there should be discussion about whether it is legitimate, right? However, if it is legitimate, how can these kinds of things be tendentious editing when these kinds of material really should be included? In the past, other editors claimed that sources I added were not notable given the plethora of sources to the contrary. However, the material I am adding is not related to many of the events spoken about in the article. Phoenix0316 (talk!) 05:27, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

It's not legitimate material, and the diffs that SS provided (recent, and definitely by you, not CollinsBK) are highly tendentious IMO. Do you have any interest in any other article than this? You said you did in this sockpuppet investigation in July 2015 ("I can assure you that with time, it will become clear that my interest does not lie solely with influencing this article"), but I haven't seen any sign of it. You have remained an SPA, unless you count fixing a few spelling errors in March 2016. I ask because I think you might gather a more reasonable understanding of NPOV editing if you worked with a few articles on other subjects. Bishonen | talk 10:14, 17 August 2016 (UTC).

Edit war warning

Your recent editing history at Providence (religious movement) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Jytdog (talk) 14:02, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Violence in Providence?

The thread Oct 2003: Father of EXODUS (Anti-JMS NGO) Founder Bashed With Steel Pipe links to several newspaper articles and TV documentaries concerning what would appear to be multiple violent attacks by JMS members against former members speaking out against the organization.

Relevant links include:

• ""정명석씨, 죄없다면 '그런적없다' 밝히면 될일"". 2006-04-21. Retrieved 5 December 2016.
• "LiveLeak.com - 2004 Korean Doco on the cult of Jung Myung-seok with English translation". Retrieved 5 December 2016.
• "JMS신도들, 반JMS '집단구타'". ChristianToday. Retrieved 5 December 2016.
• "[ 단독 ] 기독교복음선교회 집단, 미행·테러 기도…위협 행보 이어져 :: 맑은 사회와 밝은 미래를 창조하는 시사타임즈". Retrieved 5 December 2016.

Now, since you both speak Korean and have a keen and constant interest in editing Providence (religious movement), could you please provide us with translations so we could discuss if a new section regarding this should be made in the article? Thanks, — Sam Sailor 16:38, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi there, and welcome back. I see you made your first edit since 13 December 2016 today in AFD:Media Allegations, Criminal Charges, and Conviction of Jung Myung Seok just a few hours after Media Allegations, Criminal Charges, and Conviction of Jung Myung Seok was nominated for deletion. Could you find time to reply to the above? Thanks, Sam Sailor 17:57, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi there. Sorry, I don't have enough time to do formal translation for these resources.