Who-knows-nose

Great referenced and researched edits, one mild note on edit type

Excellent work on recent well-cited and referenced contributions, which show a great depth of research. As detailed as these contributions are, one mild aspect to point out. Any edit that includes substantial text content should not be marked a minor edit (explanation is on WP:ME). A minor edit is only edits that do not change meaning, no matter how short a phrase they are. Examples of minor edits are citation fixes or punctuation. Major edits can be as simple as adding the word "not". Along those lines, if you make a lot of incremental edits that add a phrase at a time, those are actually major edits even if each concerns a single word -- just a side note for the future. Keep up the great work! -- Rauisuchian (talk) 06:30, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Well, that would be correct if I sort of knew what I were doing, but it is incremental and since your last post, or talk to me, the changes I have made were in my opinion small, so "sorry." What was small for me, is probably large for you since you are overseeing the page.

I will try to mark any further changes as "major" but it looks like I am done here. Thanks for the notes and encouragement. Who-knows-nose (talk) 16:28, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

June 2022

Hello, I'm Kpddg. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Deportation of Koreans in the Soviet Union, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Kpddg ^(talk) 14:23, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Have a look at Chang's Burnt by the Sun, pp. 18-19. I will add citation and re-add it. Thanks. Who-knows-nose (talk) 15:06, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Identity and image uploads to Commons

I notice that in the images you have uploaded to Commons and added to Maki Mirage, such as File:Operation Maki Mirage- 1930s, Blagoveshchensk, Russia.jpg, you identify yourself as Jon K. Chang. Jon K. Chang is also a historian cited somewhat extensively in that article. Can you please confirm on-wiki that you are Jon K. Chang? If so, I would ask that you clearly self-identify as such on your enwiki user page if you intend to continue editing the page, and please take note of our guidelines about citing yourself and original research. (While I recognize that many of the references to Chang's work were present before you arrived at the article, it is best to be upfront about your identity in case disputes arise about the content).

I should also note that most of your images have incorrect licensing stating they are your own work when they are not (simply scanning something does not make it your work under your copyright). Some of these images, including book scans, may be copyright violations. Commons:First steps/License selection may be helpful to you with correctly licensing your images, and if you need further assistance, the people at the Commons:Help desk can help as well. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:28, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

I am Jon K. Chang, I have been using the moniker Who Knows Nose. How is it that I should reveal or prove to you that I am Jon K. Chang?

Jon Who-knows-nose (talk) 03:12, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm not asking you to prove your identity with ID documents. I asked you to self-identify clearly on your user page for transparency's sake, particularly since you've been editing on an article where your work is significantly cited. Imagine if you became involved in a dispute that centers around something on that page sourced to a work by Jon K. Chang. Obviously being Jon K. Chang is going to significantly color your opinion of content cited to Jon. K Chang, right? Other editors have a right to know that you have a conflict of interest about your own research. Continuing to edit without an obvious self-disclosure would be deceptive and unfair to other editors. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:22, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

To Premeditated Chaos:

Thank you for stating your reasoning. I totally agree that possible conflict of interest is something we should be cautious of and open about. I want to be as neutral and historical and academic as possible, which I focus on in my research. This is a historical topic, not about myself, so I disagree that there's any COI. How could I personally benefit from shedding light on historical Soviet history from decades ago? Besides the sources that were already cited before I started editing. I potentially get what you're saying on the parts about interviews with Soviet Koreans performed by Chang. Still, I identify myself as Jon K. Chang, a major researcher of this topic, so everyone can know my edits are from myself, which also means they are based on the latest, published and citable, research. I very much appreciate you taking an interest in the topic, and coming to my talk page so that we can make everything understandable, reliable, and double checked. I'd like to bring up the essays WP:NOTOR and WP:NOTFALSE. True information that is in multiple sources is not original research. Information that is both verifiable and true should also be included in any encyclopedic overview. A wide coverage of the topic is not original research unless it's found in no publication... numerous reliable sources are cited to back everything up and every point in the article is connected to Maki Mirage in a way that is WP:V. Many of the estimates and potentially contentious statements are cited to multiple sources at once, where no stretch or synthesis is made and I checked as much. (Primary sources being cited next to secondary sources is also commonplace in many historical articles, even very widely covered ones like World War I or Russo-Japanese War.) As for Commons files, please highlight any specific concerns you have. Who-knows-nose (talk) 08:41, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Conflict of interest isn't only about money or tangible benefit, but any external relationship that might color our presentation of an article. In this case, the conflict of interest isn't with the topic, it's with your own research being extensively cited in the article. For comparison, if let's say there was some other historian off-wiki who had publicly disagreed with all your research for some reason. If they decided to come edit this article on Wikipedia, that would be a conflict of interest and I would expect them to disclose so that their edits could be evaluated with full clarity.

I understand that you didn't make the citations. At no point have I suggested you are engaging in original research or misusing primary sources. Finally, I'm not trying to stop you from editing the topic. However, the point remains that if a dispute arises on the article, now or in the future, it would not be fair to other editors to not know that you're the same person whose work is heavily cited as the basis of the article. I respect that you don't seem to wish to self-ID on your userpage, but I am going to place a connected contributor banner on the talk page.

As for your Commons images, my concern is that they are not correctly licensed and may be in violation of copyright. CC-self is not the correct license for historical photographs, as they are not your own work. As much detail as possible should be provided about original authorship information so that copyright status can be correctly determined (it can be quite finicky especially with US copyright as it pertains to foreign works; the Hirtle chart gives you some indication of the complexity). ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:36, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Ok, I can begin to do that.

July 2023

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, please note that there is a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Deviating from this style, as you did in Chinese in the Russian Revolution and in the Russian Civil War, disturbs uniformity among articles and may cause readability or accessibility problems. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. - Sumanuil. _{(talk to me)} 02:02, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:54, 28 November 2023 (UTC)