User talk:Wjhonson/Archive6

I noticed you've been contribuating on Wikipedia for an eternity, compared to other editors I come into contact with. So I don't need to qoute policy to you. WP:IAR is the only policy being followed in Sexuality of Abraham Lincoln. First time reading of the article I was convinced Lincoln was in fact gay or bi-sexual. Further research, I found that the topic was extremly controversial (not my opinion). Depending on what website I was at, the opinion veried from a left-wing conspiracy to the absolute truth. Which brings me to my point and question. The article represents WP:Undue weight. It weighs heavily on the absolute truth side. Balance needs to be brought to the article. What could you contribute to bring balance to this article? --ⅮⅭⅭⅬⅩⅩⅤⅠⅠ 15:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Over 1600 words clearly claiming him to be a gay or bi-sexual man, compared to only 52 words stating this may be only a opinion and not factually true. There are clear facts that he shared his bed with men, which was not uncommon at the time. Its clear he had close relationships with men. He had serious trouble with the ladies. Elizabeth Woodbury Fox got bent out shape about it. What was her agenda? It is not clear. Was she jealous? Did she want to bang the president? And he said no way. Look at Bill Clinton the man has off pissed off alot of women Hillary, Willey, Broaddrick, Jones, Flowers to name a few. Yet he has a great relationship with the elder Bush. They have traveled together, shared hotel rooms, had intimate discussions about family, friends. To draw a conclusion that every man who has trouble with women, and enjoys being with his most intimate friends does not make one gay. 9 out 10 times I would rather be with my life long male companions than my wife. I can assure you there is nothing gay about that. I would bet most men feel the same way. Common sense lacks in this article and needs to be applied. The old, walks like a duck, sounds like duck, so it must be a duck, is not a course of reasoning. --ⅮⅭⅭⅬⅩⅩⅤⅠⅠ 19:04, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I also want to point out, that I almost fell out of my chair when you refered to the below mentioned as scholarly.

• Capital Times of Madison, WI -- Political Bias: Liberal.

• The New Yorker does not explicitly identify itself as a liberal magazine, though its political leanings have long been clear.

• Jonathan Ned Katz -- Founding Member, Gay Academic Union, 1973.

• Carl Sandburg -- Social Democratic Party (United States).

• C. A. Tripp -- Intentional action to bring about gay social and political change.

• Martin Bauml Duberman -- founder and first director of the Center for Lesbian and Gay Studies.

Do you see a theme? It not a scholarly one. --ⅮⅭⅭⅬⅩⅩⅤⅠⅠ 20:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

The 1600 words (your statement) present the facts of the case and the arguments of the case. Your edits, if they actually represent the arguments of some person, should cite who they represent. By the way, the above is really politically motivated. To call Tripp essentially an activist not a serious historian is basically to state that you yourself are a convervative activist determined to paint "with a broad brush" anyone who disagrees with your position. I have to leave it to you to see why this approach will not be productive. If you want to now start citing sources, that would be productive. Wjhonson 21:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Dude no way! Read Wikipedia's article on C. A. Tripp thats not my words. I did not essentially call him an activist. I called him activist. Activist is not a dirty word. Activisim is your civil duty as an American. Dont turn this into politics. I just want to improve the article. I have no bias. I voted to delete based on how the article read at the time. The article is in its infancy and needs to be improved. Once again, what could you contribute to bring balance to this article? --ⅮⅭⅭⅬⅩⅩⅤⅠⅠ 23:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Speaking for myself only, when I add controversial statements I cite my sources. I forced the editor who wanted to keep stating that "sleeping with men *on the frontier* was a common practice" (which I personally think is probably complete rubbish) to at least cite the source from where he aledgedly got this quote. Equally if someone wants to call his "most intimate friend" his "best friend" they have to be prepared to cite the source that uses this exact quote. The point being, that controversial statements need quotes and citations. That's how I do it myself, and I expect others to follow that procedure.

Now, as to your point that the article itself has many uncited statements, I don't disagree with you on that point. I disagree on the approach that to *fix* it we need even MORE uncited statements. That doesn't *fix* anything, it makes the edit warring even worse. We fix it by reading and citing the sources. You state that you've read many sources, so start citing them so we can *all* review what they do and don't say. That's how I'd improve it, were I you, or did I have the time to devote to it as you may. Wjhonson 00:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Wjhonson, I'm not trying to attack you or the article. However, as I stated on the talk page, the article is biased, has a lack of references and, in my opinion, does a very bad job of paraphrasing certain sources. Therefore I have added the {{totallydisputed}} tag to it. I have not done this to "win" an argument, as on Wikipedia this is really not my modus operandi. I would like a more neutral, well-crafted article so that we can all be better informed about the topic at hand. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

As I have stated before, adding {{totallydisputed}} was not a means of disparaging anyone. It's a totally valid and acceptable way to flag to the reader that an article has problems. It would be far better to fix the problems than feel that I was deliberately trying to insult anyone. A spot of calm, a general assumption of good faith and a bit less defensiveness would be appreciated. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:23, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

• Re: If you think there are statements in the article that need citations then add a {{fact}} tag to those statements. That is what we all do. Changing the language however to say something completely different is not research, it's your opinion. Doesn't have a place in the article. Wjhonson 07:17, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Certainly there are, but that doesn't mean that {{totallydisputed}} should not be added. It's a way of flagging to readers that there are problems that are being worked on at the moment. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:23, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Well now you know that no, it isn't "valid and acceptable". It's offensive and antagonistic. Wjhonson 07:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

If you feel that strongly about it, I invite you to put the tag on WP:TFD. I will make sure that noone pings you for being disruptive, as you would be doing it in good faith. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:41, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

That's doesn't make any sense. The template is useful in those cases where you feel the editors of an article have been complete bozos and idiots. The article in question however is an accurate paraphrase of the sources cited. Do you imagine you are the *first* editor to review it? Those of use who've actually read the sources, even if we disagree with their opinions, have to acknowledge that the sources do, actually state, what they actually state. You seem to feel, without checking, that the article must be wrong, simply because you don't like what it says. That's very insulting to others. If you want to add more sources, ADD THEM. Add ten a hundred a thousand. But to insult the rest of us as if we have no idea what we're doing is completely out-of-line. Wjhonson 07:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Ummm... wjhonson? That's ridiculous. The template has never been for "where you feel the editors of an article have been complete bozos and idiots". That would be insulting and divisive, not to mention a slap on the face of another Wikipedian or group of Wikipedians! The template is for where the neutrality and factual accuracy of an article is disputed. Nothing more, nothing less. Please stop making things personal. Any template that makes a personal attack or comment about an editor will be summarily deleted by one admin or another. That's not what we're about! - Ta bu shi da yu 08:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I've ask you now four billion times to post a source. Will you stop talking about the tag? Thank you. Wjhonson 08:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

In case you haven't noticed, I did this already on the talk page of Sexuality of Abraham Lincoln. I think it's about time I ceased chatting on your talk page and go back to the talk page of the disputed article. For the record, though, you are the one who is making a stink about the totallydisputed tag, not me. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:17, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that these opinions are completely unsupported. By the way do you have ever read Wikipedia:Consensus. It might be interesting for you. Greetings ~~ Phoe _talk 20:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC) ~~

As said already, we write for the 21st century and not for the 16th or 17th and we also must therefore use the official styles of today's time, for which sources were provided. In my opinion this is approved by a clear majority. ~~ Phoe _talk 17:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC) ~~

It's corrected now. This is why it's best not to do unobjectionable edits in the midst of edits you know are probably going to be reverted. john k 20:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I fully acknowledge that I made a mistake. My apologies. john k 21:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

It's been a long while since I talked to you last, but I'd like to invite you to join WikiProject LGBT studies. Would you be interested? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Wjhonson, welcome to WikiProject LGBT Studies! We are a growing community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to identifying, categorizing, and improving articles of interest to the LGBT community. Some points that may be helpful: Our main aim is to help improve LGBT-related articles, so if someone asks for help with an article, please try your hardest to help them if you are able. Most important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you watchlist it. The project has several ongoing and developing activities, such as article quality assessment, peer review and a project-wide article collaboration, all of which you are welcome to take part in. We also have a unique program to improve our lower quality articles, Jumpaclass, so please consider signing up there. If you have another language besides English, please consider adding yourself to our translation section, to help us improve our foreign LGBT topics. If you're planning to stay, have a square in our quilt! You can put anything you want in it. If you have any questions, feel free to ask on the talk page, and we will be happy to help you. And once again - Welcome!

-- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 07:22, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to thank you for the trouble you took to find a reliable source for the claim that MLK's quote is questioned.

In my few weeks here at Wikipedia I've been able to see that the system generally works, but that bullying and flaming do occur. When I reported Jayjg's uncivil behavior at the Incidents page, I was practically lynched by an admin mob that, with an esprit de corps worthy of a better cause, tried to subdue me into compliance with a "consensus" that had never been arrived at in the first place.

In another article I'm contributing to, the Spanish language article, I've seen how a few wrong but extremely obstinate zealots can put the whole article's credibility in jeopardy.

Another problem is the things that are obvious but, however, not written into the rules. Because nowhere in the NOR policy does it explicitly say that O.R. is permitted at the Talk pages, many of my arguments have been flatly rejected on the grounds that they were O.R.-based.

I wonder how many possible contributors are scared away from Wikipedia because of the stubbornness and bigotry of some.

Anyhow, thank you again for siding with me -- and with truth. --Abenyosef 19:31, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I'm asking you this because you show up in the recent History of the Bios of Living Persons policy page. Since that policy indicates a respect for the subject's privacy and possible damage that their WP article can be done to them, is it really appropriate for the Stephen King article to feature a pic of his house, even if there are no copyright issues? Nightscream 09:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's my question. Do you think that it doesn't present the potential to harm his privacy? Do you think he would object to it? Nightscream 18:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Sure someone might say that it invades their privacy. That doesn't mean however that it does, or that it does sufficiently for us to remove it. I'd say take this question to the BLP page and ask there as well. Wjhonson 18:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, another editor informed me that King's house is a local tourist attraction, and opined that having a pic of it in the article is okay. Thanks. Nightscream 19:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the message concerning the sheriffs of Westmorland. I was more expecting to be asked why I still haven't put in the new ones from the last mail on the Rootsweb list! For more about me perhaps start with my contributions and see http://users.skynet.be/lancaster/index.htm --Andrew Lancaster 22:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

The duration of the block is 48 hours. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 08:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I have asked the blocking administrator for a response. In the meantime, the report on the 3RR noticeboard does appear to list a series reverts that violated the rule. You might want to expand your unblock request to explain why you think you did not violate the letter or spirit of 3RR. Newyorkbrad 00:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Wjhonson (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log) • SI)

---

Request reason:

Did not violate 3RR, the page in question has these timestamps on "reverting" edits by me 7:36 17 Feb, 18:29 16 Feb, 7:57 16 Feb, 18:43 15 Feb, 18:01 15 Feb, 19:10 14 Feb. As can be plainly seen, there are no series of four within any 24-hour period. Therefore I respectfully submit I did not violate the 3RR rule.

Decline reason:

From WP:3RR, "The rule does not convey an entitlement to revert three times each day, nor does it endorse reverting as an editing technique rather, the rule is an "electric fence". Editors may still be blocked even if they haven't made more than three edits in any given 24 hour period, if their behaviour is clearly disruptive.", sorry you will just have to wait the 48 hours and try to avoid excessive reverting in the future. We work by communication, not stubbornness. If you have a reason other than "it was more than 24 hours", feel free to post another unblock request with that information. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 14:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I added the ability to cite succession boxes via the succession box. See Template:S-cite for the code and William I of England for an example. I am glad you brought up the issue as it has been bothering me a little since you brought it up.
–Whaleyland ( Talk • Contributions ) 08:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Seeing that you are an active member of the WikiBiography Project, I was wondering if you would help lend a hand in helping us clear out the amount of unassessed articles tagged with {{WPBiography}}. Many of them are of stub and start class, but a few are of B or A caliber. Getting a simple assessment rating can help us start moving many of these biographies to a higher quality article. Thank you! --Ozgod 23:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

the simple fact is, there is no cite and there doesnt need to be one. there is no cited or even rumored instance of JK participating as a member of Theosophical Society activities after the speech at Ommen. it doesnt need to be proven bc its an obivous fact, try and disprove it. its impossible. its like not needing a cite for the sky being blue. I am being obstinate bc despite the cites from Lutyens about JK's private statements; in public writings and lectures for the majority of his life he was absolutely anti-organised religion (which includes the TS). Those of you who are trying to water down the veracity of his rejection of the Theosophical Society are doing the facts a disservice. I dont doubt JK may have privately still thought of himself as a World Teacher. it makes no difference to me. But dont try and distort what he said and did. VanTucky 08:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sorry, I saw I was archiving recent things, but the page was getting very long and hard to edit, and those discussions seemed closed. Feel free to restore any thread you think is still open. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair point. I'll try to be more careful in future. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:04, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

your comment from the Eustace Mullins page:

"Sorry we don't use firm words, with single-source, *self* sourced material."
I didn't quite grasp the meaning here, could you elaborate on this? use my Talk page if you wish. John Smith (nom de guerre) 11:12, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

You said at Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Archive 9

I would however note that the common citation practice *even were you to* research the underlying references, is to give credit to the overlying reference as to the fact that it provided you with the list of sources or was the overarching means by which you were able to collect the research. So you could say "The Diary of Ben Johnson, pg 10, reference provided by The personal web site of John Brown." or something of that nature. Although this is, of course not required, it is generally considered a form of "bad citation referencing" to not note the original reference. Wjhonson 21:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

That's interesting and I think I agree with you. Here's what happened to me: I read a scientific source which mentioned a scientific study, giving some information about the study. I didn't have easy access to the text of the study, which was published in a scientific journal. I added the information to a Wikipedia article and put two footnotes, referring both to the source I read, and to the study referred to. I think I wrote "as cited in", with one footnote referring to the other footnote. (I forget some of the details.) Someone said this was "disingenuous" because the two footnotes made it look as if there were two different studies. Any advice on how to handle similar situations? --Coppertwig 19:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Is there a way to write the footnote so it's clear it's the same study?

• "Chromium and Silicon spontaneously combine at 2000K" according to Dr John Brown www.johnbrown.com/Silicon, citing "Surprises in metallurgy", Bill Hope and Kathy Waters, Metal Symposium Papers, Vol 96, pg 102
• "Chromium appears to be a better base for lithium catalysts" according to Dr John Brown www.johnbrown.com/Lithium, citing "Surprises in metallurgy", Bill Hope and Kathy Waters, Metal Symposium Papers, Vol 96, pg 109

As is apparent in the above, the underlying source for two seperate quotes and site pages, citing two seperate Journal pages is the same article

Thanks for archiving the page! It's much easier to navigate now. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I've explained on the article talk why the link should not be included. ThuranX 01:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

could you point to me the quotes you're refering to? i don't think i added any, i did enclose in quotes statements attributed to 3rd parties (leadbeater etc) as i think is proper. these statements are also properly quoted in the 1st volume of lutyens' biography. i suppose i could cite the page numbers. other than that, the article is still one huge mess with many irrelevant details, a slant towards particular positions (the inclusion of the theosophy box is especially egregious - theosophy and the society are linked in numerous places), and undue weight in the period up to 1929.Mr.e-i-b 15:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

i will add the refs shortly. he was not a "central figure" in theosophy. he was made out to be one, by the leadership of the theosophical society at the time and those close to them. the conclusive proof was his disassociation with all the theosophical business as soon as he matured into a position to understand what was expected of him, the world around him, and was able to take unencumbered, a stock of his life up to that point. the theosophical society is being linked throughout the article. the existence of the box is a travesty, and misrepresents who k really was.Mr.e-i-b 18:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

i never said he was not a member of the theosophical society. that's not the same as being a dyed-in-the-wool advocate, especially in his case, where he was literally drafted into it. read the above closely. he was also a sports car enthusiast, and fond of driving. would you please add numerous links, and a box regarding that. he had also a lifelong interest in golf, in fact he would occasionally spout about golf to journalists who came to interview the so-called "world teacher". i think a box re:golf is also needed, or at least, several links (not joking at all). you also seem to be fixated on the fact that he was 30+ when he abandoned theosophy. well, it's not like puberty. he understood when he understood. you can't put a biological marker on that. it was a gradual process that lasted many years, slowly building to a complete end. it was not an emotional, momentary rush into judgement. the article is really a disgrace, the more i read.Mr.e-i-b 18:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

well that's the thing. i don't really want to "balance" the life of jk. i have no right. so when he makes clear that theosophy for him is over, then it's over, unless i have the evidence that proves him a liar. so first, the erroneous info and misplaced emphasis has to be corrected before any serious effort at a good article is made. i'd like it to be as lean, brief and strictly factual as possible. i don't really want to balance the theosophy box with another one, and so on and so forth, these are editorial decisions. i just want undue emphasis removed. i've noticed that most users of wikipedia are too fond of categorizing and overindulge in the adding of templates. so here we have a subject that among other things warned against just that. sources are plentiful; after all, the subject himself couldn't keep his mouth shut.Mr.e-i-b 18:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

thank you for your words, but again, i only want to correct/remove things that do not belong in an encyclopedic entry, and to mark original research explicitly as such. after this is done, we'll see about completing the article properly. i don't want to give legitimacy to what i think is a flawed article by adding information. for example, the section "leadbeater's influence" is superfluous and does not deserve such prominence. this is about jk, not cwl's wards and various youth groups. leadbeater's reputation (which is relevant) can be included in the "youth" section or the "separation from father" section (since it was part of the litigation). above all, nothing new will be added by me as long as the theosophy box remains. this alone immediately disqualifies the article as far as i'm concerned.

I don't understand what your concern is. The policy has been moved to WP:ATT, and therefore the new talk page is WT:ATT. The page you keep posting to is no longer in use for discussions about the policy, and it was never in use for anything else. See Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The page was only for discussing the policy, and the policy is now being discussed at WP:ATT. That page shouldn't be used for anything else. If you want to discuss the meta-issue of how to handle old talk pages, you should ask at Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines. I have to be honest with you: this looks like a WP:POINT on your part and a waste of everyone's time, because I can't see, and you won't say, what you're hoping to achieve. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Wjhonson, it seems to me that posting to a Talk page of a policy that has been merged and redirected elsewhere, despite several warnings not to do do from various users and admins, is disrupting Wikipedia. We are here to build an encyclopedia. Posting to a page that is no longer active, and is in fact historical, creates confusion and disrupts our normal constructive activities. If you have pertinent points to make, this can be done in the WT:ATT page or on the village pump, but continuing to do so in the historical area is disruptive. Thank you for your understanding. Crum375 02:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Per your request, here are some places where you were informed that editing a mothballed historical Talk page is disruptive:

• See various edit summaries, e.g. "please do not edit mothballed pages"
• See SlimVirgin's note to you above, e.g. "I have to be honest with you: this looks like a WP:POINT on your part and a waste of everyone's time, because I can't see, and you won't say, what you're hoping to achieve"
• See Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research/archive16#Inappropriate_editing more comments to you here

If I may add, this discussion, which has no clear indication of being in any way useful for Wikipedia's encyclopedia building effort, is bordering on WP:POINT. Please try to invest your resources in helping us improve the encyclopedia. Many thanks, Crum375 03:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Please see my comments on WT:ATT. Crum375 03:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The policy you want to see quoted is WP:Consensus. It seems you're a bit too late to join the discussion that ended when Wikipedia:Attribution was adopted. And yes, you could edit the WT:NOR talk page against that consensus. But apparently there are plenty of editors around who will revert you when you do, which in itself demonstrates a renewed consensus that this talk page is no longer to be edited. If you don't agree with the adoption of ATT or with the requests to stop editing this talk page, you have lots of other options though; you're a veteran editor so I don't have to point them out to you. I hope this helps. AvB ÷ talk 09:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I have several thousand edits. Wjhonson 08:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Please don't revert changes by other users and describe them as vandalism in the edit summary unless the edit is actually vandalism . I removed the {{sprotect}} template as the article was no longer semi-protected. The amount of vandalism by IP accounts taking place should have easily confirmed for you that the edit was correct. WjBscribe 02:33, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

You don't know how long I have wished someone would do what you have done for the emerging church movement article! I am an old goat who is not at all tech-savvy (so what in the world am I doing on Wikipedia?). I tried and gave up long ago. No one else would heed my cries for help. If you want to be nominated for sainthood, you might visit us again and adress other tech needs, the most important of which is the importation and pasting of relevant photos and/or artwork. Thanks again!Will3935 07:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Why yes, I do in fact want to be nominated for sainthood. You must be psychic! Wjhonson 08:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

It's good to see someone else realizes satire and parody can be a good thing. I think you might enjoy the "Eight Steps to Becoming a Postmodern Scholar" which I have posted on my userpage.Will3935 01:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

thanks for the correction.i naively thought it was ok to copy and paste as long as you cite the source. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Grandia01 (talk • contribs) 18:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC).