User talk:Activist

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search



Hello, Activist, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Aboutmovies (talk) 21:50, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Private prisons[edit]

I reverted your change to the private prisons article because the source you used,, does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for a reliable secondary source (see WP:RSS). It appears to be a political organization, which means it is not going to be neutral. What they say may be true, and if they can provide links to mainstream, trusted media to support their stories we might be able to use those as sources instead. I support what you're trying to do -- add information about other countries -- but if we use sources like this it weakens the general trustworthiness of Wikipedia. Thundermaker (talk) 13:29, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Cato Instute[edit]

Please see Talk:Cato Institute#Founding information. Your source has neither the indicia of reliablility nor, without a page number, can I confirm that it actually says what you say it does. If the 1974 information is to be included, so must the 1977 information from the Cato Institute web page and the fact that the Charles Koch Foundation says it was founded in 1980. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:11, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I cut & pasted the material you added to my talk page onto the Cato Inst talk page. --S. Rich (talk) 18:41, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

As did I. This is getting very frustrating and aggravating.Activist (talk) 18:47, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Charles Koch issued a statement this month that confirmed the correctness of my edits with respect to the Cato founding and name change. [1]

Charles Koch’s Recent Statement on the Cato v. Koch Conflict

By Ilya Somin • Volokh Conspiracy - March 9, 2012 2:00 pm

My objective is for Cato to continually increase its effectiveness in advancing a truly free society over the long term. This was my objective when, in 1976, I came up with the idea of converting the Charles Koch Foundation to a public policy institute and recruited Ed Crane to run it.

March 2012[edit]

Activist (talk) 07:36, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

The stuff you added is original research. You are not allowed to come to your own conclusions about what the video was showing. Unless you have reliable third party sources that talk about the incident you cannot include it as it is undue weight. Also, who says it is a controversy? You? Reverting my removal of your original research and calling it Vandalism is a serious breach of WP:CIVIL. I realize you don't like Breitbart, but you should probably go somewhere else to complain about him. Arzel (talk) 14:31, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Both sources I quoted, Campus Progress and WND (World Net Daily) contain graphic descriptions and characterizations of Breitbart's behavior and come to conclusions. Both videos amply document his behavior. Are you suggesting that other intermediaries are needed to verify what your own or anyone else's eyes will have to acknowledge when reading the reports or watching the videos? If you need to defend or praise Breitbart, "you should probably go somewhere else to" do it. Wikipedia's definition of the word "controversy" is Controversy is a state of prolonged public dispute or debate, usually concerning a matter of opinion. The word was coined from the Latin controversia, as a composite of controversus – "turned in an opposite direction," from contra – "against" – and vertere – to turn, or versus (see verse), hence, "to turn against." The title of the section is not mine but is of long standing on the Breitbart page. Activist (talk) 15:50, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
WND is not accepted as a RS and Campus Progress doesn't look any better. Best to deal with it on the Talk. Consensus is clearly against your edits. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 07:00, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Andrew Breitbart shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Kelly hi! 06:54, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Time for time out[edit]

I don't see any evidence at all of attempts to achieve consensus by any of the editors who removed the CPAC section of "Controversies." The removals seem to violate NPOV. Activist (talk) 07:22, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Forget the quasi-legalities: consensus is manifest, not subject to strict protocols and procedures. If we say there is consensus, and no one besides yourself agrees with whether by reverts or comments. That is one of the many ways we "achieve" consensus" You're entitled to your views but you're not entitled to rule the process, or to force your views on us. You could also take some time to find out why WND and Campus Progress are crummy sources. If you can't, then you just don't get WP. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 00:21, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Tiptoety talk 07:28, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit help for the CCA talk page[edit]

Hi there. Very nice work at the CCA article and its talk page. I did want to let you know that I slightly reformatted your comments on that talk page, in this edit because some parts were left unreadable by this previous edit of yours.

Also, since this message is quite long, I've posted it here in "collapsed" form, to avoid using quite so much real estate on your talk page. Cheers, --OhioStandard (talk) 23:37, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

You know, I think I'll just add that new editors are often surprised to discover that Wikipedia is a highly "political" environment. I know when I was just starting out, that I was very surprised to discover, for example, that the opinions one receives at the various notice boards are often very far from unbiased. And of course, as I see you've discovered as I read your talk page, you've had a couple of "tangles" with other editors already. I think you've handled them as well as could be expected, but if you ever feel like you need any advice or counsel or whatever, to know how to deal with a problem, I'd be glad to help.
I can't jump into a conflict on your side since doing so would violate our rule about what we call canvassing, but I'm pretty experienced here, and can probably help you figure out the best way to deal with disputes and conflicts, if that would be of any use to you in the future. Just drop me a note on my talk, if some problem should arise that you're puzzled over how to handle. For the short-term, though, I've temporarily placed this talk page on my "watch list", so I won't miss any reply you might like to make immediately below. Cheers, --OhioStandard (talk) 23:48, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your offer. I'm up to my butt in alligators this morning but if I can get free sometime today from some rather intense work, I'll get back with you in detail. I left those older comments on my Talk page as I felt I'd get around to dealing with them at some point, including the Breitbart thing where I think I was sandbagged. I didn't have time to deal with the undos, but I think the material was finally added by others through the consensus process. The book thing was blatant self-promotion done by the son-in-law of the author and the book was written to exonerate himself for having been paid for wearing a wire on his co-conspirators. Activist (talk) 15:07, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

You're quite welcome. I'll be offline for pretty much the rest of the day, myself. Not the least criticism intended re any of the previous material on your talk page, by the way. Drop in at my talk any time if I can help you navigate; I don't like to see long-established editors use of their knowledge of the rules and political process here unfairly to gain advantage over new editors, or to see new editors snookered or intimidated on that basis. Wikipedia isn't supposed to be competitive in that way, but political articles are very often competitive between opposing points of view, and the "playing field" should be level, in my opinion, whether someone is a new editor or not. Cheers, --OhioStandard (talk) 15:38, 23 May 2012 (UTC)


I'm not sure exactly what you're asking here. I recall reading before the election of the courts deciding that there were problems with the redistricting plan, that the plan in place was only temporary for this election, and that there would be changes needed before the next election. The only media account I've had time to notice was a brief mention on the local television news (KTVF), so I'm not that familiar with what's been said this time around. I can't see where there's any new ground here, however.

There are other issues which come to mind, though. I just didn't have time to follow the redistricting process like I wanted to. From what meetings I did attend, however, it seemed all too obvious that the Republicans (Brodie, Holm and Torgerson) walked in carrying an agenda already and considered dealing with the public to be a necessary evil, but otherwise loathsome. Of far more interest to me was hearing of "Senior Justice Warren Matthews" in that one report. It appears to me that Supreme Court appointments are being timed (more like stalled) so that new members face retention four or five years after being initially appointed. To me, this flaunts the constitutional intent of having the justices face their first retention after three years. Having pro tem justices such as Matthews occupy the vacant seat for lengthy periods of time would also appear to flaunt the constitutional intent of retiring judges at age 70.

Here in Fairbanks, Bob Miller, Joe Paskvan and Joe Thomas spent more time and energy campaigning against HB 110 than against their actual opponents, and all lost. David Guttenberg would have in all likelihood also lost if not for the chicanery of an "independent" sockpuppet candidate, which to me recalls Tom Moyer's reelection to the House in 1990 and Georgianna Lincoln's initial election to the Senate in 1992. Despite the excessive spin put on explaining their losses by their supporters (who have mostly placed redistricting at fault), methinks more attention will be given to the losses Albert Kookesh and Bill Thomas faced in Southeast. APRN reported that this leaves Southeast without any Native representation in the Legislature for the first time in perhaps decades (I didn't notice exactly how long). There's very little support amongst the average Alaskan for maintaining the status quo WRT the Voting Rights Act, but that hasn't appeared to faze the Redistricting Board. I'm sure it will be an issue in the next round. RadioKAOS  – Talk to me, Billy 15:27, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

GEO Group[edit]

Hello! While checking to make sure that the recent GEO Group problem wasn't more widespread, I noticed that you have edited several articles related with GEO Group. I'll be direct and say that while I'm weary that your username may imply that you're here to advocate a cause, you obviously have some experience with articles related to GEO Group, but I see no evidence that you're in any way associated with the organization. There's a conversation here at COIN attempting to determine if this is a larger issue. You're invited to comment there if you'd like. OlYeller21Talktome 21:31, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Your misreading of Wikipedia policy[edit]

I did not add the source in question to Efraín Ríos Montt.

I hadn't suggested that you had added it. In fact I left it specifically so that the source could be checked and restored if it proved accurate. I didn't realize that CurtisNaito had included the quote or would have been more reluctant to remove the contention. My following responses are quite complex so I hope you would read to the bottom before responding.

CurtisNaito did, and he quoted the book as follows: "When the Lucas cabal was overthrown in the March 23 golpe de estado, the United States was not involved and, in fact, had not even seen the coup coming. The embassy did not at first grasp the origins or the implications of the coup, incorrectly concluding the Movimiento de Liberacion Nacional had instigated it and that the coup leaders, Rios Montt in particular, were nothing more than figureheads representing the interests of the Far Right."

Now here's the problem. We're dealing with "Russell's (cosmic) Teapot." It's not possible to prove that the U.S. was not involved nor had it seen the coup coming. Part of the problem is that a number of different elements and agencies (i.e., State, DEA, CIA, NSA, etc.) of U.S. policy have sometimes operated within the same theater, at times likely at cross purposes with each other. It's confounded more by relatively crude attempts to cover up political initiatives and their history (i.e., Ollie North's night of shredding tens of thousands of documents), to more use of more sophisticated covers, to use of "back channels" (such as the Heritage Foundation) for expressing support, or through use of personal connections to achieve goals (i.e. developed through mutual participation in programs at the "School of the Americas" involving such actors as SOA graduate Colonel Francisco Luis Gordillo Martinez, who was a prime participant in the '82 coup ).
Your behavior is inexcusable. First, you concocted a ludicrous original research argument to the effect that the CIA is a secret agency and therefore no-one can disprove any conspiracy theory about the CIA.
That's not what I argued at all. Certainly, it's a secret agency which expends considerable energy covering its tracks. But many conspiracy theories of the right or left are easily disprovable. In fact, in the specific instance of various initiatives involving U.S. political involvement in Central America, the proliferation of conspiracy theories are sometimes bewildering.

Then, you made a threatening post on my talk page, which you placed under a previous threatening post by a banned vandal.

I was looking for an appropriate place to post it, without opening a new title. That seems the place most appropriate though it was far from ideal. I did go to your talk page to try to sort out the conflict, though, rather than simply stating an argument as fact in the subject line in an edit, as you'd done. As far as the previous poster on your Talk page being a vandal, I had no idea that was the case and you could have deleted his or her post at any time. I've done something similar, a few times, leaving posts by others on my talk page that criticized a variety of my own edits as I felt the discussion might become useful at some point. My objection was that the question regarding our disagreement should have been discussed and resolved on the talk page, rather than dismissed with a cursory interjection in a subject line.

You even claimed to "confirm" that the cited source failed verification--without reading it!

In fact I tried to read it but wasn't willing to spend both time and money to buy access to the text so that I might read both the statement(s) on which the contention was based, and hopefully, the sourcing of the contention if it existed.

This is why "activists" shouldn't edit Wikipedia.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 19:01, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Now you're making an argument without substance. You're claiming that because my "handle" can be construed as somehow prejudicing my edits, that me, or anyone whom you feel is like me, whatever that is, is/are incapable of being objective. That's really not fair.
In order to find out what the book contended, I contacted the author. Then I checked the NSA Archives at GWU to seek possible clarity. She responded with a note that seemed to clearly refute the contention that she had made the claim that was the basis of the deleted phrase. She said she was leaving shortly for Guatemala and would pursue the question I'd raised (regarding U.S. involvement) while there. I wrote back to say she needn't do that, as I was just trying to verify if that was in her book, and (from her answer I gathered) it wasn't. Then I posted my comment to you. Later she wrote back and gave me the impression that seemed to contradict her first communication, so I quickly wrote to ask for further clarification. I did not hear back (as of last night...I haven't checked my mail yet this a.m.) but my intent was to contact you and restore my deletion as you had done, upon receipt of that confirmation. It's obvious that you and I have both have labored under some misapprehensions, but please don't imply pernicious intent where none exists. I hope we can take a deep breath and give each other the benefit of the doubt, that in fact we were both acting in good faith. In fact, thanks to the quote you supplied here and the last response I received from the author, my opinion is that even if it is not a provable contention, you (and she) are probably right, that the U.S. (not solely the CIA, which I didn't contend) was truly surprised by the coup. Lastly, when I heard of the Wikileaks dump of Kissinger documents, I'd hoped I might find come clarification there, but was disappointed to find it only covered his communications from '73 to '76. There is evidence of Reagan's assurances of support to the far right in Guatemala that occurred even before he took office in 1981. As far as what we know about CIA operations, the subject is always murky. I was surprised, for instance, that word has just leaked that the ISI in Pakistan recruited the U.S. to kill an operative on their behalf, the apparent beginning of the "drone war" in that country. That must have been an enormous embarrassment to that agency, just as was the revelation that the Yemeni government took full credit for drone strikes in that country when the US was actually carrying them out on their behalf. I have a huge amount of work to do in the next week so won't have the time to deal with this further until at least then. Thanks for all your input. Activist (talk) 14:49, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Altamont 1969[edit]

Just read your comments on the TP there. Fantastic stuff- a really powerfully written little piece! It's a shame there's no room for 'personal recollections' in the article. Many many thanks for that mate. Basket Feudalist 18:25, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

PS- "Can we have an ambulance to the scaffolding, please?!" Face-wink.svg Cheers!

Many thanks-Beverly Masek[edit]

Many thanks-for the notication. I came across a redirect about Beverly Masek who had served in the Alaska House of Representatives and started an article about her. Feel free to make any improvements. Thanks-RFD (talk) 18:54, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

also I started an article Jerry Ward (politician) who was also in the Alaska Legislature-thanks-RFD (talk) 21:31, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

BLP Process[edit]

Left this at the page.

I've left extensive explanations on the article's TALK page about the impropriety of posting non-factual material, removing legitimate requests for cites, attacks on living persons, and posting cites that do not nearly satisfy sourcing requirements, i.e., referring to home pages of PACER, the federal court (pay) site, the Alaska Department of Law, rather than referring to specific documents. It would be next to impossible to locate materials that ostensibly substantiate the claims and allegations the poster has inserted into the article. More importantly, perhaps, is that the perseverating poster(s?) seems to be on a vendetta against individuals and organizations that have literally nothing to do with the article in question, the AK probe. In my frustration I finally at one point referred to it as "graffiti." Responses to my efforts have been numerous reverts and personal attacks on myself and others including persons with whom I am not familiar. If you have a moment to look at the TALK page and tell me what you, as a dispassionate person, think should be done , I would greatly appreciate it. I should add that this weekend I reverted a brief comment, word salad really, on another, wholly unrelated page (regarding the estate of "H.C.", if you look at my contributions), because the poster obviously had serious mental problems. Activist (talk) 21:48, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

A newly-minted IP (sock?) made unsourced edits to the article lede tonight (pp removed earlier today today), seemingly intended to improve the reputation of one Bill Bobrick (but also quite OPEDish. Reverted for lack of RS and cautioned. Dwpaul (talk) 03:24, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
I really appreciate your vigilance with regard to this page. I was surprised to see that references to Bobrick might have been changed somehow. He was truly a very minor player in the affair, the only one who took full responsibility for his involvement and did so very rapidly, the only one who did not fight the charges. The only other defendant whose indictment surprised me by his or her involvement was Bruce Weyhrauch, who was in my opinion, a pretty decent guy, a good legislator, who did not appear to have any larcenous or corrupt tendencies. Weyhrauch, an attorney, in fact challenged his indictment on technical grounds, took it all the way to the Supreme Court and won. I didn't agree with the SC's ruling in the case, which was associated with a couple of real scoundrels, Conrad Black and especially Jeff Skilling, in their challenges to the "honest services fraud" statute under which their cases (and some others in the Polar Pen scandal) had been brought. Anyway, I went to the Bobrick changes, expecting the worst, and I found I didn't disagree with the changes the editor made. They seems to be nothing like those of the two (unless there had been just one, w/a sock puppet) who were adamant about shoehorning their unrelated, obviously personal grievances and poorly sourced edits into the article despite at least one of them having a COI plus their inappropriate and possibly libelous edits not being remotely related to the subject of the article. If the new editor can provide sourcing for his or her edit regarding Bobrick, I think they could restore as much as can be verified by reliable sources. I was unaware of the 52 (or any) letters of reference to the judge in Bobrick's case, but that might be hard to establish, given that the court record itself is insufficient as a primary source. I'll drop that editor a note on his or her talk page. I don't think legitimate contributions should be discouraged, and I think that edit was indeed germane to the context of the broader investigation. The Bobrick material also I think helps establish some missing balance or gives a broader perspective to the case. All the defendants were certainly not equally culpable by a long shot, but a wide net had been cast (and some fairly odious creatures slipped through) that snared some minor players. Lastly, thanks for catching the out of date tense reference to the then-anticipated sentencing of Stevens that never happened, given the inquiry which eventually voided the seven Stevens' convictions. Again, thanks for your vigilance. This has been a thorny mess and your input is greatly appreciated and respected. Activist (talk) 20:09, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Replying to you[edit]

Hi, responding to your message. I'm taking advantage of a lull in business right now to hope to get a few things done, but I haven't exactly made any progress. Between dividends and the fact that the AFN convention will once again be held here, I expect to be very busy out in the real world before too long.

This whole thing has been quite silly. Even a bit lame. What can be done? Beeblebrox would probably have been a better person to ask, as he's an admin, but it appears that he is off trying to get some camping done before the snow flies.

I would recommend the BLP noticeboard and the RS noticeboard, for starters. At least it will garner the attention of others outside of this discussion. The existing discussion between only two or three people is already circular enough to where it's quickly approaching being pointless.

In general, I still see nothing which ties this whole matter into the actual subject of the article. Sheila Toomey reported several years back that Nelson Cohen was the first-ever non-resident to be appointed U.S. Attorney for Alaska. Cohen was placed in that position specifically due to his role within the Public Integrity Section. This was happening at the same time that the PIS were actively investigating other state governments, particularly Illinois. Therefore, it could be argued that Rod Blagojevich has more to do with this than Jim Duncan does, even though it would constitute quite a stretch to arrive at that conclusion through RS, also.

Funny, though, this has attracted attention away from another, years-long issue with the article: the "Murkowski legacy of corruption", that somehow Frank's appointment of Lisa to his Senate seat is tied into this, which hasn't exactly been corroborated through RS, either. If you haven't noticed, Theresa Obermeyer has recently discovered Wikipedia, but evidently hasn't progressed through it far enough to understand WP:NOTAFORUM. John Lindauer tried to do the same thing maybe two or three years ago. You would think that people who have earned PhDs would be capable of understanding what an encyclopedia is.

Anyway, Theresa appears to have her own Murkowski-related grudges, although from what I've read, it's limited to the hypothesis that Eileen Van Wyhe's service on the board of directors of First Bank is further evidence of a conspiracy related to the Alaska Permanent Fund Corporation. Yeah, just as silly as all of this about Jim Duncan and Donn Liston. First Bank is the lineal descendant of the First National Bank of Ketchikan. Both of Eileen Van Wyhe's grandparents were rival bankers is Ketchikan; her paternal grandfather, Frank M. Murkowski, was with the same First National Bank of Ketchikan, while her maternal grandfather, Lester Gore, was with the Miners & Merchants Bank. Could it be that the bank felt that she had experiences and perspective which could serve the bank well? It could very well have been cronyism and/or favoritism, too. RadioKAOS  – Talk to me, Billy 01:31, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for all your input.

I posted prior text to the BLP Noticeboard last night. Got some good feedback from one editor. I think there's been more but I've just gotten back on line after being off since the wee hours this a.m. so I'll look for that in a minute.

You don't see anything that ties the whole matter into the actual subject of the article because there isn't anything. In the case of Duncan and ASEA, there's no connection, of course.

I thought that Frank M. tanked the Bank of the North, only. Were there other banks involved?

There was actually a connection between Polar Pen and Ketchikan. Prewitt, Weimar and Cornell wanted to build a rent-a-pen on Gravina Island, with the feds pitching in a quarter of a billion to build the necessary bridge and an intertie. It didn't go anywhere because the Borough Assembly knew better and Bill W. and Frank P. turned their attention to where they thought they had better action: In Wrangell, where Robin Taylor was involved, and Whittier, where the mayor, the city administrator (for a "city" of 182 people), and the harbormaster all had their fingers in the pie. I don't think the schemers ever wanted to build in Whittier, where there's no labor force, the tunnel problem, tsunamis, avalanche and probably a potential Superfund problem, but it was the mechanism they were using to get the state to change the law to favor their various schemes. If they were able to do that, they could have built anywhere. Knowles wasn't going for it, as were many legislators who gave it the fish eye. In addition to the above grifters, Jerry Ward, Loren Leman and Eldon Mulder were also looking to score big with Cornell or whomever. Frank M. wasn't enthusiastic about the various Cornell/Prewitt/Weimar schemes that included Sitka, Nome (!), and Mat Su as well as those others. There was some talk about Fairbanks, too, but legislators such as Bud Fate put the kibosh on that notion. Uncle Ted got the dough, almost, for the Gravina bridge, but Coburn put a stop to it. Activist (talk) 05:32, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I posted at BLPN, the article talk page, and now here. You are doing a good job on the article. If you still are having trouble, post a request at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection, which can prevent the IPs from posting to the article while allowing you to continue editing it (e.g., semi-protected or feedback protected). -- Jreferee (talk) 06:20, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback. I requested temporary protection and will follow through on further steps. Activist (talk) 22:02, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
I protected the page and gave you reviewer and rollbacker rights. If you need more to help you maintain the Alaska political corruption probe page, etc. please let me know. -- Jreferee (talk) 11:12, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks so much for your assistance. If I do need help I'll give you a heads up. Activist (talk) 06:31, 2 October 2013 (UTC)


I added Juneau Empire and ADN articles that are accessible and back up the Department of Law documents as one editor asked. Perhaps removing "probe" from the title would resolve the issues with a union which has a BM that is not allowed to represent dues payers. Calling the page "Alaska Corruption" sounds good to me. Obviously 223-03-0342 is a quid -pro -quo as it were, and clearly the Department of Law suggests revisit of such ethics problems may take a different direction in the courts.(As documented in AG opinion.) The sex for job hiring policies under Duncan's stipulation that replaced the merit system the state is supposed to have, another quid-pro-quo. (talk) 00:27, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with the title. It actually and precisely describes an important series of events in Alaska political history. Duncan was hired by ASEA, per your documents and references, 11 years ago, well before the completely unrelated probe began. He engaged in a one-year stipulation that is common among those who change jobs that he would not involve himself those issues in which he had been involved as Commissioner of Administration. That expired a decade ago and so there have been no restrictions on his representation since. Your personal feelings about Duncan, whatever they are, don't permit you to shoehorn your opinions about him or others into an article on another subject entirely. The statement by the AG's office about revisiting an opinion had absolutely nothing to do with Duncan. If you need a forum to air your ancient grievances about someone who had nothing to do with the subject of this page in any way, you need to remove them to another more appropriate venue. You've been informed by numerous editors that you need to abide by Wikipedia policies, including avoiding WP:COI. I'm hoping that you also don't restore or renew your unprovoked personal attacks and diatribes against me that also violate those policies. None of this should be too difficult for you to understand. Activist (talk) 01:15, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Response about GEO, etc.[edit]

Thanks for your comments on my talk page. I have no problem with Slate, Salon, Motherjones, or for that matter DemocracyNow or RealNews, in fact I think all of these do great journalism. But the way I understand Wikipedia, most of what appears in these venues would be considered primary sources (investigative journalism) or opinion pieces and hence not appropriate as references for encyclopedia articles, especially controversial ones. If there is a fact that is worth mentioning in an encyclopedia article, it should probably have a secondary source at least somewhere in the news media, or at least an official primary source (like a court document or something). I'm sure I don't have to remind you about WP:PRIMARY and that Wikipedia itself is an encyclopedia, a tertiary source, and hence relies on secondary sources for credibility.

If the "fact" is a mere claim made in a venue such as those above without any other confirming source, it is not appropriate as a reference on Wikipedia. In some venues such as those, there are plenty of cited sources for a story that would be fine references. Other times, referencing links are internal, dead, or missing. This does not mean that there is anything necessarily wrong with the original story; it could be investigative, the sources could be anonymous, etc. But it does mean, in the view of this editor, that it is not an encyclopedia source. For instance, your motherjones link you're pushing on the GEO article is turning up next to nothing. Nevertheless I'm keeping track of a few leads that may be able to make their way into the article in some relevant form. Speaking of this, I'm going to take the rest of this issue to the talk page at the GEO article, where most of this should be voiced anyway. Eflatmajor7th (talk) 00:33, 30 November 2013 (UTC)


As a wikipedia editor, I'm not really interested in your knowledge and analysis of world politics and propaganda systems. I happen to agree with most of it, but that doesn't matter here, so there's no reason to keep laying down paragraphs on my talk page. I'm not going to talk further about motherjones and whether or not it should be used as a source and where, because that is really a matter for a community discussion. What we're talking about here is encyclopedia articles, their content, and the references for that content. You were trying to use the motherjones article as a reference that a particular facility exists. That, as I said, is pointless. Instead I used "some GEO Group corporate boiler plate"; of course I did, because that's the easiest reference to use for a trivial fact. What is not trivial is WHETHER that fact belongs in the article. This was the relevant discussion to have, which I had, with Niteshift on the talk page, while you were busy composing a summary of geopolitics for me. The Reeves facility is now mentioned in the article in case you hadn't noticed.
While Niteshift and I of course have many disagreements (which is often a kind of collaboration that contributes to a good article), I think he and I are both stumped as to what actual content, facts, you want to put in the article. You need to go to the talk page and say what content you want to include, where, why, and what the references are. Then there will likely be a bunch of disagreements and caveats. That's life. But it's how to make an article. You might have noticed, if you went through the history of the GEO article, that if it weren't for me and one or two other editors, the entire "controversies" would probably have been wiped in the wake of the stupid FAU stadium scandal. And the reason, had that happened, would not have been because anything in there was false, it would have been because the sources were shitty or missing, the writing was sloppy, and maybe most importantly, the content in there had not been justified as "controversial". So I argued that, rather than diffusing the section into the history section, we should find better sources and rewrite most of the section. So we, mostly I, did that. The article is still not very good, but it's better now than before.
If, for instance, you want to include a mention of the riot at Reeves, you'll first have to justify including that on the talk page (I probably wouldn't object, but the conversation should be had). And if you think the motherjones piece is a good source for that, then it would be interesting to see you try to convince other editors besides me, on my talk page, that that's a good source. Again, I probably wouldn't have an objection, but the conversation should be had. You might also look at the sources I put on the talk page. And wikipedia doesn't necessarily run on the precedent of other articles; it would be hard to evolve that way. Just because the article for private prisons cites all kinds of left-leaning media and aclu stuff, doesn't mean anything for another article. That's because groups of editors achieve consensus about specific articles they work on, and one article could have completely different approaches than another, and both could still be within WP policy. The relevant policy that was frequently brought up in the context of wiping the controversies section, not using certain types of sources, etc., was WP:UNDUE. I don't necessarily agree that it applies everywhere it's invoked, but again, that's life. Eflatmajor7th (talk) 00:40, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments, again. I don't doubt what you've said about GEO, etc. But if you want to include something in the article, you shouldn't be discouraged by Niteshift's "tirades" or "purges", neither of which accurately characterizes his behavior, I think. He is a long-time WP editor who is understandably guarding his territory (and who, of course, is of a particular political disposition), and he needs to be convinced of the legitimacy of edits. Nothing extremely surprising here. You said "I want to insert content that legitimately and importantly reflects on the actuality of GEO's operation." What is it? I ask again, what is that content? Don't talk about it here, and don't talk about it on my talk page, put it on the GEO talk page, right now, if you think it's important. There we'll discuss it, not here. Eflatmajor7th (talk) 11:27, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Barbara Buono comments[edit]

I think Barbara Buono's comments on the Fort Lee lane closures may be best placed in Would appreciate your thoughts. -Bernardwoodpecker (talk) 14:56, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Notice of RfC 2 and request for participation[edit]

There is an RfC on the Gun politics in the U.S. talk page which may be of interest to editors who participated in "RfC: Remove Nazi gun control argument?" on the Gun control talk page.

Thank you. --Lightbreather (talk) 00:14, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Undid Meldrum revert[edit]

I undid your revert of the link to the Times Denver chief because she has no Wikipedia page. The only person with her family name who does have a page is a musician and the page is a stub. I hope you can create a page for her, if you think she is sufficiently notable. The Times closed the Denver bureau, I believe, and its staff may have been working from their homes for some time. Thanks for your interest in tidying up these pages. Activist (talk) 23:18, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your helpfulness in directing me to the extensive red link page, which I read in its entirety. I actually had been looking for info on contacting a reporter at the NYT Denver bureau when I discovered that the bureau had been closed for over three years. There were also two Denver bureau chiefs named in the list, both Ms. Meldrum and Jack Healy. I found the name of a former Denver chief in this post:

April 01, 2011 Denver loses another national media office Just got word that the New York Times is shutting down its Denver bureau this week. National correspondent and former bureau chief Kirk Johnson tells us that “working from home is the new order of the day.”

So I delinked both, given that there didn't seem to be a Denver bureau at all, and there even appeared to be some question about whom the chief of the bureau might have been. So now I'm wondering if both Meldrum's and Healy's names should be deleted. I don't have any investment in this, one way or the other, and leave it to your judgment. What do you think? Activist (talk) 01:54, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
Let's keep this on your talk page. Though your question is approaching one that should be asked on the article's talk page, not here. In my opinion, trying to maintain a list of bureau chiefs for the NYT is a fools errand anyhow, and it is not really published information and mostly not worth doing. I see the article, instead, as a set of links to Times reporters, primarily those with Wikipedia pages. But it is woefully inadequate at that, too. I would not recommend removing any names.
Also, whether there is a physical bureau has no bearing on whether there is a "bureau chief." For instance, Katharine Q. Seelye is the Boston Bureau Chief (well, formally the "New England Bureau Chief"). But there is no physical Boston Bureau. She's still the bureau chief.
Pretty much all of these questions are unrelated to each other. I would suggest the thing to do is to make edits that make the article better, but understand that it is not a strong article and probably never will be. Don't remove redlinks. Don't remove names. If you know someone is no longer a bureau chief, move them to "Other notable personnel." jhawkinson (talk) 02:06, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the helpful input. I'll leave it to you, however, to make those changes if you're up to it. I expect identifying who is the actual Denver bureau chief would be useful. Does the NYT make a page available to make reporter contacts possible? Activist (talk) 10:17, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
Incidently, I don't see any indication that Ms. Meldrum works at the Times, or even any historical bylines from her. That's rather odd if she really was the bureau chief. The Times has a list of people (which oddly includes both Times writers and prominent people who the Times writes about), and there is a link to a page for each reporter. Some of them have biographies, some do not. Healy's does not have a bio. But you can try something like…/people chief. jhawkinson (talk) 21:07, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Response to question[edit]

Thanks. That did help. I've replied at User talk:RadioKAOS. CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 22:11, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

You know far more about this than me. My info is very sketchy compared to yours. Activist (talk) 05:53, 17 May 2014 (UTC)


There's also Sylvia Sullivan, who grew up in adjacent Perry Township and was the AIPs gubernatorial nominee in 1998, proving how quickly the honeymoon was over for that party following the Hickel/Coghill victory and subsequent schism, coupled with Joe Vogler's murder. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 09:00, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. Part of your assessment appears to refer to Sylvia Sullivan. There was also Sybil Skelton. She lived in Fairbanks, had one eye and talked as though she was the victim of a conspiracy on the part of some alphabet soup agency to drug her corn flakes. At least that's how I interpreted it based on the words which came from her mouth. She was ancient a quarter century ago, and last I heard was still alive, though in convalescent care. Some of what you wrote makes me believe that you may have confused the two.

I certainly did confuse the two. I had remembered that "Sylvia" was a nutcase who ran for statewide office, and I thought she was from Fairbanks, but when I read about Sylvia Sullivan I thought I'd just misremembered her home town. Who would have guessed that two different Sylvias fit that description? Activist (talk) 06:59, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Michaelh2001 should be involved in this discussion as well, considering that he's not only the one who initiated the page move, but most of the editing activity pertaining to the merger in general. Requested moves are frequently struck down when a change in official name is involved. Usually, deference is given to the common name, which certainly is the Anchorage Daily News. I dunno if there's case-by-case circumstances which negate that stance here, however. As for the Press article, methinks there's possible WP:COPYVIO and WP:NOTWEBHOST issues involved in posting the article in full. As long as there's a properly formatted citation, only pendants will fret about a lack of a URL for what admittedly is a contentious source. The Brown and Fanning years and the conclusion of the newspaper war was far more interesting/notable. The only real notability I see here is in how well they've adapted in the face of the slow death of the newspaper industry in general. I've mentioned elsewhere that the amount of attention given amounts to giving free advertising to Alice Rogoff. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 04:48, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

The new, official name of the paper is the "Alaska Dispatch News" This is an official name change, and I included a reference. Not sure about the controversy sections, etc. I don't like that section either but I left it alone, assuming good faith. The article needs work to be sure, my only edits today were to make sure it is properly named. Granted, the common name has only changed one day ago, but it has indeed changed. Whisper back and let me know how I can help. Thanks.Juneau Mike (talk) 05:47, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Activist (talk) 06:59, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Governorship of Chris Christie[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Governorship of Chris Christie. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:05, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Mitch McConnell[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Mitch McConnell. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:03, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Article One of the United States Bill of Rights[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Article One of the United States Bill of Rights. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:04, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Lucy Burns Institute[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Lucy Burns Institute. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:03, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Whitehouse Institute of Design[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Whitehouse Institute of Design. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:2014 Israeli raids on UNRWA schools[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:2014 Israeli raids on UNRWA schools. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:07, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

  1. ^