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? --ⅮⅭⅭⅬⅩⅩⅤⅠⅠ15:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. --ⅮⅭⅭⅬⅩⅩⅤⅠⅠ19:04, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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. Wjhonson21:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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? --ⅮⅭⅭⅬⅩⅩⅤⅠⅠ23:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. Wjhonson00:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 yu07:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 yu07:23, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. Wjhonson07:17, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 yu07:23, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 yu07:41, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. Wjhonson07:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 yu08:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 yu08:17, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. ~~ Phoetalk17:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC) ~~ [reply]
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 k20:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.
This is just a quick, automated note to let you know that there is an election being conducted over the next 7 days for the position of "Coordinator" for the LGBT WikiProject. Your participation is requested. -- SatyrTN (talk·contribs)
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.
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? Nightscream09:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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? Nightscream18:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. Wjhonson18:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. Nightscream19:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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. Newyorkbrad00:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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).
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)[reply]
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.
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! --Ozgod23:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Monthly Challenge: Find 5 editors to LGBT articles and invite them to the project! Check out our recruitment tips if you need them. Good luck!
Project News
With such rapid development of the project, it was decided that a Coordinator was needed to ensure all the fiddly maintenence was kept up. Elections were held and Dev920 (talk·contribs) has been elected Coordinator for the next three months. She said "I am honoured and proud to be at the helm of such a fantastic WikiProject and look forward to our future". Congratulations Dev!
The assessment system continues to be a great success, we have tagged over 5200 articles! Please tag any LGBT related articles you come across by adding ((LGBTProject | class=)) to the talkpage. Please see the Assessment Department for how to assess an article according to the grading system.
Jumpaclass is proving to be quite successful! The winner at the end of the year gets to pick the January collaboration, so sign up and get going! Or challenge another user to see how far you can jump a stub!
A new Community department has been set up to foster community amongst our members. It mostly acts as other WikiProjects' Outreach department, but also has a Quilt to which every member is entitled to add a square containing anything of their choice.
The peer review is not getting much custom - please notice you can cross-list other peer reviews from different projects that also fall within our scope.
Many people still seem to be unaware that the Deletion sorting subpage exists for XfDs to be listed: please use and watch that page instead of issuing "alerts" for ordinary AfDs on the project talkpage.
WP:FILM has a current drive to give every film article an infobox. WP:LGBT successfully gave all 105 LGBT infoboxless films infoboxes, so a big thank you to everyone who participated.
A new template, LGBT, has been created for articles which are becoming to cluttered with infoboxes. Thanks to WJBscribe and SatyrTN for creating it.
A very basic resources page has been started. Please add to it as you come across useful sites.
A promotional poster for the project has been created: http://wplgbt.tripod.com/Wikipedianeedsyou.doc (you have to directly cut and paste the url, or it won't let you download it). Please distribute anywhere and everywhere you desire, such as gay libraries, cybercafes, community centres and so on. Also, please let Dev920 know where you have put it up, so she can keep track of our coverage.
An LGBT Publications Taskforce has been proposed. Please sign up here if you are interested in being involved.
An LGBT WikiProject has been set up on the Spanish Wikipedia! Set up by Raystorm, it has already gained six members and is developing an assessment system. If you speak any Spanish, please consider going up and lending a hand if you can!
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please drop me a line. If you have any news or any announcements to be broadcast, do let Dev920 know.
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. VanTucky08:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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? --Coppertwig19:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.
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)[reply]
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. Crum37502:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Per your request, here are some places where you were informed that editing a mothballed historical Talk page is disruptive:
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"
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, Crum37503:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 ÷ talk09:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't revert changes by other users and describe them as vandalism in the edit summary unless the edit is actually vandalism [2]. 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. WjBscribe02:33, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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!Will393507:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.Will393501:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
dear mr wjhonson
thats the same emila i sent to nescott.but i would still appreciate any comments you may have.here's my revised entry after citing it with attributable sources as nescott suggested:
According to some scholars, vague hints of Muhammad's upcoming prophecy are foretold in the Christian Bible. Among those scholars is Ahmed Deedat[3][4]. A more detailed mention of Muhammad can be found in the Gospel of Barnabas, the earliest version of which has been traced to the late 16th Century.[1]
as you can see i omitted the didache gospel part because i found no attributable source for it in English.about ahmed deedat,in case you didn't know he is a very respected islamic scholar that is well known primarily in muslim countries.i included a wikipedia link for him so that readers can know more about him.
again,thank you for your reply and kindness in assisting me with this entry wjohnson.hope that i'm able to post it on wikipedia without any problems.
Dear Wjhonson
can you please provide me with any suggestions on how to re-edit my gospel of barnabas entry??also,you have taught me many things that benefitted me on wikipedia.you have my thanks and gratitude...Grandia0107:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that for the Brian McLaren article to become unblocked we have to come to some kind of consensus on the discussion page. I have put a couple of proposals on the page. Virgil seems MIA for now and "Frank" was indefinitely blocked for being a meatpuppet. If you might take time to briefly respond to my proposals I think it might help us to get unblocked and get back on track. Thanks!Will393508:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm running the bot in manual oversight mode, so I'm judging each article that's in an LGBT cat, but hasn't had the banner added. I read (most) of the articles to see if there's a reason for the banner. Most of the ones where I've removed the cat are because there's no reference to the subject being LGBT related. Especially with respect to living people, it's required. And often the cat has been added as vandalism. If there's a particular article that I removed the cat for that belongs, feel free to add it back, but check to make sure it's accurate.
Sorry if it seems annoying, but I've gotten a ton of feedback that people think we're "claiming" too many articles, so I'm tending in the other direction. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs)04:38, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The bot I wrote doesn't have anything to do with it. I read each article and make the decision on whether or not the person (or place or event) actually is LGBT-related. I would do the same thing for Category:People from Spain except I'm not as interested in that topic. Removing the LGBT cat doesn't say they are straight, it doesn't even say they aren't LGBT. It just says the article as written doesn't include information supporting the claim that they are LGBT. To be honest, the heteronormative part of this is the assumption that they're straight if they aren't labeled with the LGBT cat. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs)13:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it seems that basically your energy is devoted toward *removing* any mention of gays and lesbians as much as you can. Perhaps you could devote your energy toward *adding* more gays and lesbians. That's seems to me much more productive. Wjhonson07:16, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be under a misapprehension somehow. I've removed cats from several pages that didn't need them. For example, Smokin' Aces is hardly an LGBT-related movie. And I had to search a long time to find a reliable source that said that Scott Mills was gay. But the main activity I've been involved with has been to add the LGBTProject banner and to add an assessment rating to something like 4,000 articles. I'm sorry if the three or for that you disagreed with were annoying to you.
And yes, if I were dealing with Category:Straight people, I would require a citation for those articles as well. Simply adding the word "straight" to an article, without a citation, would not constitute a verifiable fact. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs)13:37, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if it seems harsh. I'm really just requiring each article to live up to it's best potential - if an article states something, it should be backed up with research and a citation. And just as important to me is to have all the LGBT project's articles be correctly labeled and categorized. I certainly don't mean to "attack" you or any particular article. If it helps, I've only got about 100 articles left to run through, so I'm not likely to need to remove many more categories :) -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs)01:16, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of eating your own flesh, do you have to keep chastising me for doing something productive? Why don't you spend the time finding sources for claims rather than making me feel bad? I'm trying to *help*. What you're doing is attacking other project members - something I've never done. Please drop it. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs)03:43, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did discuss it on talk last time you added the section and you did not respond. Lostcaesar 08:57, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dear wjohnson
can you please help me write the gospel of barnabas entry of muhammad??i would really appreciate any comments or entry guidelines you may have.and i sincerely thank you for joining us in our discussions so far...
I am sorry if my reaction was too "knee-jerk", and I agree there is much to work on in the article. Frankly, I should spend more time on the anglo-saxon material than on the more contentious pages - I'd be less "knee-jeri-ish" if I did. I hope you can help me in this. Lostcaesar 07:37, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
wjohnson,
i must say i really appreciate all the wiki teachings and support you provided for me so far.i have provided a suggestion that goes by saying i will write a new article where all editors can include as many views of muhammad as possible.please see the discussion's last thread.please let us know what you think.thank you...Grandia0109:33, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We still need your help in this article if you can drop in from time to time. Virgil and I have patched things up but there is now a new, anonymous editor who is barging in like a bull in a china shop. What frustrates me is this editor shares my general perspective on McLaren and the emerging church movement but he/she seems to be lacking in tact at a very sensitive time. Maybe you can help if you stop by.Will393521:14, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An RFC on the mention of child care and youth programming in the Starwood Festival article has been opened[5]. If you are interested, please read the information there and the discussion that led to it immediately above it[6] on the Starwood Festival discussion page. Your input would be appreciated. Rosencomet19:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In your about me section #8 you state "Is you disagree with me" I think you possibly meant to write "If you disagree with me" but I'll leave that up to you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nowonline (talk • contribs) 16:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
The above-named arbitration case has closed and the decision may be found at the link above. Rosencomet is cautioned to avoid aggressive editing of articles when there is a question of conflict of interest. If edit warring or other conflict arises, it may be best to limit editing to talk pages. This notice is given by a clerk on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad17:01, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Wjhonson, for coming to the 'rescue.' Matt Sanchez continues to change his story. Please continue to recruit more evidence and editors, as Sanchez thinks that he can use this article for self-promotion. For example, he is a 'movie producer' because he produced a 'YouTube' video? Please!→ RYoung {yakłtalk} 05:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wjohnson, off-topic rants, religious debates, flaming and trolling have marred Talk:Muhammad for as long as I can remember. The talk page is the place for editors to discuss the artice, but this functionality is eroded when the page is flooded by unproductive off-topic discussions. For Zazaban to have removed them was not vandalism, but a service.Proabivouac17:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DavidShankBone deserves kudos for his current drive to provide quality LGBT photos from the NYC area. One of the more recent photos is posted on Michael Musto, and you can check out the gallery on David's user page.
Project News
There is now the beginning of a list of core topics to possibly be included in the Wikipedia 1.0 release. Your suggestions are welcome; there may be many core LGBT topics still missing.
We have a list of people categorized as LGBT whose articles need to be checked for reliable sourcing. This effort is necessary and urgent, to comply with Wikipedia's policy on living persons. Please take a few moments to source one article; if you've got time, do another.
SatyrTN identified all the articles that were in subcategories of Category:LGBT but not yet tagged with the project's banner, about 1,400 articles. These have been completed, though SatyrBot will make periodic runs through the cats to find any new entries. Thanks Satyr!
The number of articles within our project's spectrum (6,667 currently) should now be relatively stable and only grow with article creation. However, if you find a category that should be included, please let SatyrTN know so it can be included in the bots runs.
Work is underway to improve the LGBT Portal. Please add any good quality (free) photos you come across on LGBT articles to the gallery here. Also if anyone would like to volunteer to help in maintaining the portal, please make yourselves known on the Portal's talkpage.
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please drop me a line. If you have any news or any announcements to be broadcast, do let Dev920 know.
Well, the title says it all, really. As the talk page of the WikiProject Succession blah blah is a rather quiet place, I have decided to post the link in each individual member's talk page.
What link, you ask? Oh, right, you mean this link.
What I mean is that I am not going to argue with you. If the OFFICE, an administrator, or the subject believes it is defamatory, it will be removed and you may be blocked per the WP:BLP. Cbrown1023talk01:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Look at the last version of the page you edited. Count the number of lines you contributed with ((fact)) on them. That is not using reliable sources. Cbrown1023talk01:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The WikiProject Biography Newsletter: Issue II - April 2007
The April 2007 issue of the WikiProject Biography newsletter has been published.You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. BetacommandBot20:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A taskforce dealing with LGBT publications has been proposed. If you are interested in getting involved, consider signing up at the projects' page.
Our core topics list is looking good. It's still a bit slim on LGBT history articles, non-American LGBT media, and important LGBT biographies. Do you have suggestions?
David Shankbone has done an amazing job taking photographs of LGBT celebrities. Thanks David! People interested in collaborating with him and setting up a photography taskforce should contact him or drop a note at the project's talkpage.
The LGBT Portal still needs a bit of love and attention :-). Again, any good quality (free) photos you come across on LGBT articles can be added to the gallery here. Volunteers to help out with the Portal are extremely welcome- make yourselves known on the Portal's talkpage. Updates to the current news items are helpful.
Deputy coordinator elections
WikiProject LGBT studies is looking for new Deputy Coordinators to help out with various essential tasks in organising the project. To nominate yourself or contribute to the discussion, please go to: Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies/Coordinator/May 2007. The deadline for nominations is May 5 and the elections will last a week after that.
The elections will be pretty simple- everyone just endorses their favourite candidate(s). The three with the most votes at the end of the week are the new deputy coordinators, who will assist Dev920 in keeping the project running.
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, just ask Dev920. If you have any news or any announcements to be broadcast, do let her know.
I understand that, but I'm not going to sit back and let Pwok pour gasoline on the fire. If you can convince him to start playing by WP:NPA, if he'll read it and agree to it, I'll unblock him. Otherwise I'm going to let the current block expire. And this is a personal attack against me, so please don't restore it again. Pwok's email is not enabled. I don't know if he's watching his talk page. His IP's talk page is probably more likely to be read by him. Good luck getting through. ··coelacan03:48, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am very glad that we were able to reach a compromise on the Matt Sanchez article. :) For what it's worth, I'm a firm believer that even when people disagree, that if they can continue working together with a mutual assumption of good faith, that they can actually end up with a stronger article than might have resulted if only one point-of-view was working on things. So thank you, and I look forward to working with you on future projects, even if we disagree! :) --Elonka23:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Wjhonson. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image (Image:Threepointsymbol digitalindustry.jpg) was found at the following location: User:Wjhonson. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk09:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Wjhonson. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image (Image:Threepointsymbol digitalindustry.jpg) was found at the following location: User talk:Wjhonson/Archive5. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk09:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hiya, I removed your statement from the Matt Sanchez article. But please, don't assume that I'm reverting you out-of-hand. We may indeed end up with your wording, but in order to avoid edit-warring, I'd like to ensure that we have a firm consensus on the talkpage first? Thanks, --Elonka22:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If the motives by which I add the tag are "groundless", an administrator will appropriately review the situation. --Iamunknown01:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The edit history is not a requirement of the GFDL and the "five greatest contributors" is also not a requirement of the GFDL. If the GFDL actually states this, please point to where it states it. Wjhonson 02:39, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
As that that debate has been archived, I've chosen to respond here. Your statement is incorrect. From section 4 of the WP:GFDL:
In addition, you must do these things in the Modified Version: ...
B. List on the Title Page, as authors, one or more persons or entities responsible for authorship of the modifications in the Modified Version, together with at least five of the principal authors of the Document (all of its principal authors, if it has fewer than five), unless they release you from this requirement.
Wikipedia treats each article as a separate document & uses the history page as the "title page". One can argue if that's the best approach, but its all we have. Please note, I have no opinion on the topic actually under discussion at WP/ANI. I haven't bothered to look into it. Your comment simply caught my eye. Thanks. -- JLaTondre14:24, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct under section 4 for Modified Versions. However, the article I was saving Verbatim falls under Section 2 "Verbatim Copying", not section 4. Wjhonson02:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is if you ever changes it after copying it (even for something as simple as a spelling correction), then it would become a modified version. In addition, if you make a verbatim copy, you must also copy the title page. You cannot copy the document without the title page and claim it complies with the GFDL. The history forms part of that title page as it fulfills the requirement to define the authors. Copying an article without the history is not making a verbatim copy. -- JLaTondre11:43, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I pointed out there is no requirement to define the authors. The license does not specify that at all. There is no "title page", there is a title. The history is not part of any "title page" and no such item is defined in the GFDL. If it is, point out the exact language and quote exactly that language and section. Verbatim copies fall under Section 2, not Section 4. Wjhonson16:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The GFDL most certainly does define a title page (see section 1). It's definition does not, however, match up very well to a wiki as it's language is based on a document. I will not wikilayer with you anymore. The GFDL (along with all GNU licenses) includes the requirement to properly attribute work to those who created it. If the original document defines the authors, then any copies need to define the authors as well. You can argue that Wikipdia page does not include any definition of the authors as the history is on a separate page, but that is clearly against the spirit of the GFDL (even if you wish to argue it's not against the letter which I disagree). It's easy to copy the history with an article. We do it all the time by copy-n-pasting it to a talk page. -- JLaTondre17:56, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whether it's *easy* is not the issue. The issue is whether it's *required*. The requirement is a matter of opinion and interpretation. The WikiMedia Foundation has not stated one way or the other what it's own views are. So any Wikipedian trying to compel other's to believe one way or the other, isn't going to fly. Wjhonson18:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The WikiMedia Foundation doesn't control the GFDL. Their lawyer(s) can interpret how it applies, but they have already signed themselves up to abide by it. I thought we were having a discussion regarding differing opinions. I don't believe I have written anything that can be interpreted as trying to "compel" you. -- JLaTondre18:22, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And there is no "Title Page", there is a Title, it doesn't have a page. It appears on the same page as the Article. The license was meant for material which would have a seperate title page. To assume that for Wikiuse the Title page is the history is not a supported view.Wjhonson18:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Finally, if you copy the history "all the time", then give me any example, at all, anywhere in Wikiland of this. Please be specific. Wjhonson18:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On my watchlist I saw that you were putting your essay on administration abuse up on DRV, but when I checked the DRV page it is not listed. I think you may have made a typo or something in listing the entry. If you want the DRV to proceed you should go back and fix the listing. Regards, Newyorkbrad19:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You can see more about this here. The vote is not expected to be a thriller or anything; the Project only wishes to get rid of a redundant template.
Basically, I am afraid you should visit the Project's talk page more often; there are several issues that need to be dealt with. Right now it seems to be forgotten by almost all members of the Project.
Also, there is a working version of the /Guidelines subpage at User:The Duke of Waltham/SBS and any input, either a good idea or a simple comment, would be greatly appreciated.
Monthly Challenge: June Stub Review! Take a moment and sift through the roughly 3,600 Stub-class LGBT articles. Are they still stubs? If not, make an assessment change. Even better, do you see anything you can add/edit to increase the rating? Let's see if the project can lower the number of stubs down below 3,000!
Project News
WP:LGBT Exceeds 200 Members!!
Two editors have been selected by project members as co-coordinators. Their duties are still a bit unclear, but having a few more janitors around the project will help keep us running smoothly. Please feel free to message Fireplace or SatyrTN if you have any project questions or concerns.
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, just ask Dev920. If you have any news or any announcements to be broadcast, do let her know.
Monthly Challenge: Submit an article to our Jumpaclass competition! Languishing unloved, it is a great way to improving that article you always meant to improve but never got round to. Challenge someone else to go head to head and see who can improve their article most!
Our Deputy Coordinators have been doing a fabulous job so far. Well done!
The portal is now looking very snazzy, well done to Fireplace for all his hard work.
The list of LGBT people to be sorted has now beed reduced by 20%. Please help us with it, all of us adding just one person a day would have a dramatic effect!
The Core Topics is now largely complete. The original aim of getting some kind of publication out of it is extremely long term - any short term uses we can make of it are welcome on the project talkpage.
A suggestion was made this month that we start our own wiki. Although the conclusion was that we felt we were a part of Wikipedia rather than a stand alone organisation, it seems there is an LGBT wiki already, at http://lgbt.wikia.com/wiki/Main_page . Members may be interested in getting involved there.
The Collaboration is now getting rather short on suggestions. Article nominations for August through December would be welcome on the talkpage.
There is now a list of Missing LGBT Topics. Help is needed to work out which topics can be made redirects or need to be created. Please contribute is you can.
An LGBT banner that was created for Wikipedia's internal ads system has now been adapted so it can be placed on blogs and websites. The html is <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:LGBT"><img src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/76/Qxz-ad48.gif" height="53" width="445"></a> Please credit Miranda and link to her userpage: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Miranda">Miranda</a>. The banner can be seen in action here. If you have a blog or a website, please consider adding the banner, either in a post or as part of your profile.
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please let us know here. If you have any news or any announcements to be broadcast, do let Dev920 know.