User talk:Cjhanley

It looks like we're editing on different shifts so-to-speak, which is unfortunate, but just wanted to touch base. I know that it is easy to get frustrated when offline you are seen as a subject matter expert and you work with professionals who defer to your expertise. I'm no Pulitzer winner, but I've done a meager bit of writing in my own right. Wikipedia takes a bit of adjustment.

I think we can do a good thorough evaluation of this article; we're just going to have it a piece at a time. Just so we're clear, this the kind of thing that can help this be productive. You can "edit" this section of your talk page to see the syntax I use to separate everything and make it appear like it is a cut-out section of an article. This kind of thing ensures that we're focused on individual edits and keeps us from rabbit-trailing. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 06:13, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

I propose that we change the following line:

One study by Smith showed that 151,228 golf balls can fit in a school bus. ^[1]

References

1. [1]

   Smith, J. (2010) Bored man fills school bus with golf balls. Journal of Things 4(9) pp. 277-285

Instead it should read:

One study by Smith showed that 151,228 golf balls can fit in a 40 ft. school bus.^[1] However, Jayce and Widget's research suggest that this number on average is 185,789, and contend that "It's well accepted that Smith was quite drunk throughout the course of his study, and lost count several times."^[2][3]

References

1. [1]

   Smith, J. (2010) Bored man fills school bus with golf balls. Journal of Things 4(9) pp. 277-285
2. [2]

   Jayce, J. & Widget, W. (2012) A meta-analysis of filling things with golf balls. International Journal of Stuff 33(7). pp. 7-356
3. [3]

   Garcia, E. (2012) We've literally run out of things to write about, so here's a study about golf balls. The New York Times. Retrieved 28 May 2015 from http://www.nyt.com/god_help_my_career.html

We all know Smith was groundbreaking in the field of school bus stuffing. JSTOR and google.scholar show he's been cited over 300 times in each database. But Jayce and Widget's meta-analysis was much more comprehensive and compares Smith to a number of similar studies. Also, their research was notable enough to be the source for a piece in the New York Times. We should also specify that Smith is working with a 40 ft. bus. Stuffing short busses (20-25 ft.) is a completely different field. GolfballZRule 19:55, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 22:15, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Your addition to User:Cjhanley/KC Star Tinkler article has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Binksternet (talk) 23:39, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

As suggested once before, it may be beneficial for your mental health if you and WeldNeck simply didn't talk to one another. I think it's safe to say that after two years, no one is doing any convincing between you two. It may be healthier to simply discuss improvement of the article with me and GAB. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 03:36, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Cjhanley. I hope I'm doing this properly, I don't really spend any time in the innards of Wikipedia. The blog that I believe User:WeldNeck is associated with (by whatever degree) is at http://destoryculturalmarxism.blogspot.com/. I found said blog just doing some general online research, and found it so repulsive that I spent some additional time trying to learn more about the blog's authors (as posted on its page) and some of the sources it cites (e.g. the psychologist, Kevin MacDonald). Within a minute or two it led me directly to User:WeldNeck's CM page, which I found to be nearly identical to the text found at http://destoryculturalmarxism.blogspot.com/. I cannot say for certain that it is WeldNeck's blog, but WeldNeck was obviously using it and endorsing it, and in one case even cited it as evidence (this citation I deliberately deleted, but you could easily find it in the CM page's history). Once I saw User:WeldNeck's well-established history of editing wars and complaining about the evidence that others were using, I wasted no time in removing the http://destoryculturalmarxism.blogspot.com/ citation. I also found other talk pages within Wikipedia in which WeldNeck specifically complained about things like "white genocide" and "political correctness", which is exactly what the authors complain about at http://destoryculturalmarxism.blogspot.com/. Oilyguy (talk) 18:02, 1 June 2015 (UTC)Oilyguy

I copied the text from the now defunct CM article because I was going to work on it before things IRL distracted me. I figured the deleted page would be a good place to start. And for the recod, where the fuck did I complain about "white genocide"? WeldNeck (talk) 20:00, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

@WeldNeck, "White genocide" is a term that you have associated with "cultural marxism" and the "far left." Perhaps you did not utter that exact phrase here in Wikipedia, but I do associate the following excerpt, taken from "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft_talk:Cultural_Marxism#Cultural_Marxism_articles_on_foreign_language_Wikipedia" with you: "It is not amazing that an American political philosophy that criticizes Europe's drowning in Cultural Marxism and Europe's downfall and current has been status that are only a shadows of what they once were does not want to talk about it. Europe's downfall is illustrated as what happens when countries are greatly influenced by the far left (Cultural Marxists} and what America will become as the yoke of political correctness (Cultural Marxism) suppresses the people. 172.56.7.197 (talk) 23:00, 21 February 2015 (UTC)." You seem to have a history of ghost-editing behind an IP address, so I banked on this being you. But even if this wasn't you, it is your ilk. It echoes the very sentiments -- i.e. not objective views -- of a right-wing agenda against this perceived "Cultural Marxism," and as is very clear and documented, it echoes the views expressed in the "destroyculturalmarxism" blog that YOU cited as fact (rather hypocritically) in your CM write-up. Why don't you just copy/paste your paranoia into conservapedia, go preach to that choir, and drop this nonsense? Otherwise, if you want to talk to me, go to my talk page as I don't want to populate Cjhanley's page unnecessarily. Oilyguy (talk) 22:10, 1 June 2015 (UTC)Oilyguy

Please read WP:OUTING. As discussed on the ANI, "digging" for incriminating information on WeldNeck is not taken lightly. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 18:55, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Understood, and I apologize for this aspect. My intention was only to edit WeldNeck's actual CM page, but then realized some of the history behind it. I only raised this flag, or "outed" WeldNeck, because WeldNeck's CM page was practically identical to the aforementioned blog and because WeldNeck cited that blog as a valid reference. It was solely out of suspicion concerning the hypocritical nature of that parity (between the blog and WeldNeck's CM page) and that citation, given WeldNeck's history of challenging other editors' sources. So again, please understand that this wasn't meant to be an outing per se. You can suspend or delete my account or do whatever you all need to do to maintain the sanctity of the wiki, I only created it in order to address this Cultural Marxism issue. Oilyguy (talk) 05:09, 18 June 2015 (UTC)Oilyguy

I'm not going to ban you, and that was never my intention. No worries. Just a word of advice: admins could conceivably see it as a personal attack. I would advise against it. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 17:04, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

What dont you understand ... Its not my blog and I'm not the IP. Now kindly end this line of questioning. WeldNeck (talk) 21:49, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand a lot of things. One thing I don't understand, for example, is why you challenge so many other editors' sources while you found it perfectly reasonable to cite (if not copy/paste) a blog titled "Destroy Cultural Marxism." You clearly have no neutral stance on any of this, whether or not it's your blog. I'm not outing *you* so much as your hypocrisy. Oilyguy (talk) 05:09, 18 June 2015 (UTC)Oilyguy

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 22:29, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Just to be clear in case you are not following the discussion over at WP:ANI. There are some things you should be informed about.

• WP:NPA: Even if you are right (and I'm not saying you are), making personal attacks makes you the bad guy. Especially if you are right, making personal attacks hurts WP because it means that what you are arguing for will be discounted by the community based on your conduct.
• WP:OUTING: You and I are the exception. We use our real names as our online pseudonyms. In my case I've just accepted the fact that I'm probably on several government watch lists anyway. There's no way you submit an (obviously rejected) op ed to Salon entitled "Why ISIS is a good thing" and don't get watched by the NSA (I have no idea why I have a security clearance). In your case, you understandably want to be seen as a subject matter expert. But most people want to remain pseudo-anonymous online and attempts to break that anonymity are seen as treacherous.
• WP:CANVASSING: Think of it as WP gerrymandering. If there is a dispute, the correct solution is to draw uninvolved editors to the page to weigh in. Trying to attract only editors who have agreed with you is kindof vote-rigging, and is frowned upon.

There are reasons why these are policies. These are all issues that have come up in the past. It's like the way lawsuits determine policy for government agencies. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 05:27, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 20:23, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello,

I've just enabled my Wikipedia email feature, after a bit of head-scratching. So if you are interested in exchanging sources this way (PDF format is ideal), this is likely the best method. The function is on the left side of the screen, under "Tools," where it says, "Email this user."

Best,

GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 14:05, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 21:01, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Warning: Signatures must include at least one direct internal link to your user page

The bot is sending you these message because you have changed you signature so that it does not include links to you user name or talk page.

Signatures must include at least one direct internal link to your user page, user talk page, or contributions page; this allows other editors easy access to your talk page and contributions log. The lack of such a link is widely viewed as obstructive.(WP:SIGLINK)

	You must alter your signature to include a link as described in WP:SIGLINK. To include a link with your current signature look at the top of the page if you see your user id followed by "Talk Sandbox Preference ..." you are using the default skin. Click on preferences and then look for the check box before "Treat the above as" and uncheck it (more details in WP:SIG#CustomSig)
	If any of this is confusing then leave a message on my talk page. But you must make this change before you post another message to any other talk page.

-- PBS (talk) 15:55, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Done, PBS. Thank you. Charles J. Hanley (talk) 17:44, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

-- PBS (talk) 19:49, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

An FYI: You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#CJHanley and No Gun Ri Article and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted in most arbitration pages please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks,. It'll be live soon enough. A note for all other interested parties: Timothyjosephwood, GeneralizationsAreBad, Irondome. WeldNeck (talk) 21:24, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello, my apologies for not being on subject for a few weeks. Real life pressures interposed. Is this really necessary? It appears a straightforward content dispute, and I also lean towards non-inclusion. It is really not worth an arbcom. I shall comment on the relevant section on the NGR talkpage. Irondome (talk) 21:41, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry that I ever suggested this. It is an extreme measure, and I believe that ANI or formal mediation is the right step. GAB^Hello! 21:54, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Timothyjosephwood, GeneralizationsAreBad, Irondome The dispute's not the purpose Arbcom .. I actually think you guys have done a great job with the mediation and I thank you both for stepping into this thankless and grinding task. The arbcom is to deal with the abuse hurled at me with every interaction I have with Hanley. Its inexcusable that its gone on so long. He could have played ball with me a long time ago when I first proposed it but his "I'm the expert so its my way or the highway" approach really rubbed me the wrong way and he just dont get it. WeldNeck (talk) 22:10, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Please, WeldNeck, anyone with the stomach to read back in the article and Talk history, beginning in August 2013, will see very clearly who hasn't "played ball." Scores of edits and reverts without a nod of respect to others or a word of discussion: It's a shame for WP's future that it allows this kind of behavior to go unchecked, similar to your behavior at more than 20 other articles. Charles J. Hanley (talk) 22:37, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

@Cjhanley: You might want to comment on the page. Just a heads-up. GAB^Hello! 22:33, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Cjhanley. I'm an arbitration clerk, which means I help manage and administer the arbitration process (on behalf of the committee). Thank you for making a statement in an arbitration request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Cjhanley and No Gun Ri Article. However, we ask all participants and commentators to limit the size of their initial statements to 500 words. Your statement significantly exceeds this limit. Please reduce the length of your statement when you are next online. If the case is accepted, you will have the opportunity to present more evidence; and concise, factual statements are much more likely to be understood and to influence the decisions of the Arbitrators.

For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 19:34, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

For your information (to gauge how much to change), your word count is 1086 or 1093, using separate tools. I would also like to note that I covered this almost 48 hours ago in clerk notes, which you were pinged to. L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 19:34, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Done. Thanks, L235. Charles J. Hanley (talk) 20:45, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much - it's much appreciated. L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 20:47, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand why admins, when confronted with anecdotal evidence like this, don't look deeper themselves

Most admins lack critical thinking skills and are chosen as admins because they excel in promoting groupthink and conformism to Wikipedia culture. They don't look deeper into things because they generally lack the ability to care, empathize, and identify the problem. Instead, they blindly follow well-traveled paths of least resistance, walking in the footsteps of others before them instead of asking the right questions and pursuing the right answers. In short, it's a bureaucracy par excellence, run to the tune of a military hierarchy where information is tightly controlled and presented for mass consumption. Viriditas (talk) 00:17, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

The Cjhanley and No Gun Ri Article arbitration case request has been declined and removed. For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 01:25, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Anthony Horowitz wrote about No Gun Ri? Wow! I'd better pick that up. I quite like his books. GAB^Hello! 22:07, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

TJW and GAB, I appreciated your approach to NGR Massacre from the beginning -- slow and steady and keeping a critical mass of contributors on board, to build some consensus and durability into the final product. But our collocutors seem to be drifting away. If you can find a way to draw them back, the article would benefit in the long run. Meanwhile, I'll just have to move ahead fixing the mess and updating as needed, and hope you continue to comment. Thanks. Charles J. Hanley (talk) 15:41, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately this is a core issue with how WP works, and the fact that there is no WP:DEADLINE. It is inherent in the system. Active users often have multiple projects going on at any given time in addition to real-life work and real-life life. Many are aware that the article is undergoing a renovation, and I'm sure they will return from time to time to see how things are progressing. In the meantime, I don't see why we cannot continue, and reach out for fourth and fifth opinions if anything particularly contentious arises. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 19:30, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi,

I noticed that you used this link to back up a sentence in the NGR article that the AP rebutted Bateman's assertions. As the article in question does not mention Bateman (and was published before his book came out), I'd appreciate if you could perhaps clarify this statement in the article, since it might confuse the reader.

Best,

GAB^Hello! 22:34, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi, GAB. It does get a little convoluted. Bateman was the chief source for the Galloway article in USN&WR (the WP article says he "collaborated" on it). Bateman reports the same in his book. (He also said the same long ago in the NGR Massacre Talk page: "I was Joe Galloway's source for his original articles. ... Long story short: Joe is one of my best friends, and indeed, we were housemates here in DC just two years after my book came out.") The central elements of the Bateman book are the same as those of the earlier magazine article, and the WP article therefore says book "repeated" the criticisms. Hence, "The Bateman attacks were rebuffed" by the lengthy AP article. We could cite the Bateman book for the WP statement that he collaborated on the magazine article. And-or, simply say, "The attacks were rebuffed" by the AP, dropping "Bateman." What think? Good point. Thanks. Charles J. Hanley (talk) 23:09, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Sure, I guess we could just leave it "the attacks were rebutted by the AP," although we might need to clarify the link. GAB^Hello! 23:12, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:52, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you - I enjoyed reading it through a few times over the past few days, and look forward to delving into the sources next week.--Concertmusic (talk) 19:20, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

This user helped promote No Gun Ri Massacre to good article status.

Thanks, GAB^Hello! 02:34, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Your username, Cjhanley, suggests a connection with Charles J. Hanley, whose Wikipedia article you created. You should give a read to Wikipedia:Autobiography. Regards, TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 19:00, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, TryKid. I did read WP guidance on this matter, and noted the "autobiographical" nature of the article in its Talk page. The reviewing editor did a good job of policing any seeming bias, and, if I may say so, I think I did a good job of straightforward exposition to begin with, after 40 years of writing news. Thanks again. Charles J. Hanley (talk)

I somehow managed to miss the talk page of the article. I came to expect the COI declarations (usually using a template) on the user page of the concerned user, maybe that's why. But there's nothing wrong with talk page declaration only. Thanks for pointing it out and sorry for the inconvenience. Regards, TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 21:16, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on File:Untitled, from Ed Clark's "Taos series" (1982); dry pigment on paper.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is an unused duplicate or lower-quality copy of another file on Wikipedia having the same file format, and all inward links have been updated.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 08:56, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for uploading File:0217181435d-crop3.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator seven days after the file was tagged in accordance with section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 09:00, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

I do not understand. The "Comment" section under "File History" includes a non-free-use rationale Charles J. Hanley (talk) 20:41, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Untitled, from Ed Clark's "Taos series" (1981); dry pigment on paper.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.

This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 09:00, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

As noted at the "Files for discussion" page, the artwork in question is illustrative of the technique of the artist who is the subject of the article. Providing a visual example of what is discussed in the text is hardly "decorative." It's essential. A newly revised caption now makes this explicitly clear, I believe. Charles J. Hanley (talk) 17:33, 20 September 2022 (UTC) Charles J. Hanley (talk) 20:44, 20 September 2022 (UTC)