Jump to content

User talk:Sokoreq

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

January 2025

[edit]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Cambial foliar❧ 00:24, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey@Cambial Yellowing can you explain, why do you think this edit is disruptive ? Sokoreq (talk) 00:29, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's been adequately explained to you by the numerous editors who responded to the thread you started at WP:ANI. Cambial foliar❧ 13:34, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Cambial Yellowing Finally, thank you for your reply. I would like to understand your arguments for why you reverted this edit.? I was just trying to improve the SIF article by moving the criticism out of the theology section to a separate criticism section, as per WP:CRITS, where it is clearly mentioned.
"In some situations the term "criticism" may be appropriate in an article or section title, for example, if there is a large body of critical material, and if independent secondary sources comment, analyze or discuss the critical material."
Theology and criticism are not the same thing, this is common sense! Sokoreq (talk) 16:30, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There’s no “finally” about my reply: it’s less than 17 hours later even though we are evidently in different time zones. I’ll reply once here, but then I’m unwatchlisting your talk page as this is a discussion that is for the article talk page, not for user talk. Please do not repeatedly ping me in the same conversation – I will just make it so that your pings do not reach me.
WP:CRITS is an essay: it gives the opinion of one or more editors, nothing more. That particular essay has some useful points, but it is not a policy that editors must follow. The relevant policy is WP:STRUCTURE, part of the non-negotiable obligation to maintain a neutral point of view. Discussion of a topic within the article subject is not to be separated according to its point of view. Nor should sections create a hierarchy of fact. Criticism of elements of a given theology does indeed fit within the topic of “theology”. Again, if you wish to discuss further, continue at article talk. Cambial foliar❧ 16:51, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for "finally" word . And I didn't mean that you should instantly reply, and I will avoid pinging you.
Yes, WP:CRITS is an essay, and it does compliment WP:STRUCTURE to reduce conflict and help to understand that is why it exists,
Articles should include significant criticisms of the subject while avoiding undue weight and POV forking so keeping criticism within theology don't maintain a neutral point of view.
And i disagree with you because this is your personal point of view. You must follow the policy. There are many similar articles where the discussion of a topic within the article subject is separated according to policy guidelines still maintain NPOV. See this one Minjung theology , for example, because, as per your logic, you are suggesting that we should remove the criticism section from this article and from all articles. ?
I would prefer to discuss this small structural issue here, as I believe it doesn't require months of discussion. Additionally, the article's talk page is extremely messy. Sokoreq (talk) 17:55, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I said I will reply once here so I will. Here is my reply:
You claim "this is your [my] personal point of view". It's not my personal point of view. It's the site-wide consensus policy of this website. The section I paraphrased, pasted for your benefit:

Segregation of text or other content into different regions or subsections, based solely on the apparent POV of the content itself, may result in an unencyclopedic structure, such as a back-and-forth dialogue between proponents and opponents. It may also create an apparent hierarchy of fact where details in the main passage appear true and undisputed, whereas other segregated material is deemed controversial and therefore more likely to be false. Try to achieve a more neutral text by folding debates into the narrative, rather than isolating them into sections that ignore or fight against each other.

Further discussion will need to be on article talk, whether you think the talk page messy or not. Cambial foliar❧ 23:14, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Could you address two questions?

[edit]

Hi Sokoreq. I'm sorry our discussions have not gone smoother. I hope you'll consider responding to two questions I have:

First, I hope you'll not take offense in my asking, but have you been using auto-translation or an AI to help you communicate and edit here on Wikipedia?

Second, so you have a relationship with Shailendra Pandya?

Thank you. - Hipal (talk) 17:39, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I attended a few photo exhibitions at the French Embassy focused on social - cultural issues, where I had the opportunity to learn about Kiran Vya and Shailendra Pandya. If you have some time, could you review the draft for Francis Dore? I published it a month ago, but it’s still pending. Also, I've lost interest in the SIF article for now, please don't go after me.
I'll be a bit tied up over the next couple of weeks due to semester exams, so I may not be able to respond right away. Sokoreq (talk) 05:21, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for persisting, but how did you obtain the image of Shailendra Pandya? --Hipal (talk) 18:00, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All images of these three and other heroes of social work are still displayed in the exhibition area at the embassy, where you can take pictures or get a digital copy. With respect, do not come after me. Sokoreq (talk) 10:28, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So it's a digital copy without a copyright? --Hipal (talk) 20:47, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I took this photo from another image at the exhibition without realizing it was copyrighted and was unaware of the original author. I have requested its removal. Sokoreq (talk) 06:42, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hipal, Did you review the draft for Francis Dore? I published it a month ago. Sokoreq (talk) 06:47, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Francis Dore (February 5)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Drmies was:  The comment the reviewer left was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.
Drmies (talk) 21:07, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Teahouse logo
Hello, Sokoreq! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Drmies (talk) 21:07, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]