User talk:Evansjack1

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

August 2014[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm TheQ Editor. I wanted to let you know that I undid one of your recent contributions, such as the one you made with this edit to Jack Evans (D.C. politician), because it didn’t appear constructive to me. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. TheQ Editor (Talk) 19:34, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Information icon Please refrain from making nonconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Jack Evans (D.C. politician) with this edit. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism. Thank you. TheQ Editor (Talk) 19:39, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Warning icon Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Jack Evans (D.C. politician) with this edit, you may be blocked from editing. TheQ Editor (Talk) 19:45, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Managing a conflict of interest[edit]

Information icon Hello, Evansjack1. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Jack Evans (D.C. politician), you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:

  • Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
  • Be cautious about deletion discussions. Everyone is welcome to provide information about independent sources in deletion discussions, but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors.
  • Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
  • Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. —Largo Plazo (talk) 20:14, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but I've reverted your changes. Please see Talk:Jack Evans (D.C. politician)#COI edits before taking any further action. Thank you. —Largo Plazo (talk) 20:48, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
You are continuing to edit despite the warnings and explanations of how you should handle your concerns. This is not how this is done. Please stop or you may be blocked from editing. —Largo Plazo (talk) 21:07, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

August 2014[edit]

Stop icon You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did at Jack Evans (D.C. politician). —Largo Plazo (talk) 21:08, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Regarding this edit: the Washington Post includes a live-in nanny among the household. Wikipedia articles are based on reliable sources like the Post. —C.Fred (talk) 21:25, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Admittedly, the information in he article, based as it is on an eight-year-old source, is likely out of date, and is not highly relevant at this point. Since the article speaks in the present, the present state of affairs must be allowed to change. However, given your very real conflict of interest regarding this article, you should avoid editing it at all. If there are facts that are out of date, then address he matter by requesting the required updates at Talk:Jack Evans (D.C. politician). Other editors can evaluate your request and decide if the updates can be made while keeping a neutral and verifiable article. I'm not opposed to removing information about your nanny (that source is 8 years out of date). Regarding the name of your law firm, a reliable source for that name change would be nice. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 22:25, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
I've fixed the problem that is a genuine problem that prevails throughout Wikipedia: the present tense. I've restored the nanny phrase and changed "currently" to reflect that this was the state of affairs reported in 2006. To replace this with up-to-date information, find and cite a reliable source for it. —Largo Plazo (talk) 22:32, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia: check out the Teahouse![edit]

Teahouse logo
Hello! Evansjack1, you are invited to the Teahouse, a forum on Wikipedia for new editors to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, and get support from peers and experienced editors. Please join us! BarsofGold (talk) 22:39, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Evansjack1 reported by User:Largoplazo (Result: ). Thank you. —Largo Plazo (talk) 03:29, 14 August 2014 (UTC)


The Washington Post said you had a live-in nanny. A Wikipedia editor does not have the right to remove an assertion supported by a valid source based on the editor's own say-so. You really need to pay attention when you are told how matters like these are handled on Wikipedia, and start discussing your concerns here rather than making your own changes to the article. Even politicians (if you really are Jack Evans) aren't exempt from the policies and guidelines of this website. —Largo Plazo (talk) 14:05, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion[edit]

Information icon This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident in which you may be involved. Thank you. —Largo Plazo (talk) 14:12, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

August 2014[edit]

Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

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.  CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 21:49, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

About your real identity[edit]

If by some chance you aren't the D.C. Council member Jack Evans, you really should read this. You can be blocked for impersonating a real person. You might want to read it either way. —Largo Plazo (talk) 22:16, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

And if you are the real Jack Evans, you would be well-advised to read Wikipedia's guidelines on autobiographies. Someone who is the subject of an article should not make extensive edits to it except in specific circumstances. Regardless, you should clearly disclose whether you are or are not the real person who is the subject of the article. Thanks. --Drm310 (talk) 20:43, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Regarding Jack Evans (D.C. politician)[edit]

That biography does look unduly negative to me. I've left a note at the discussion board devoted to biography issues here. Hopefully some fresh eyes will help. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 02:39, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Stop icon You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Jack Evans (D.C. politician). Despite the temporary block that has now ended, you continue to ignore all advice to bring your concerns to the Talk page and let disinterested editors sort them out rather than editing the page yourself. Your changes will continue to be reverted as often as necessary, for as long as you disregard the WP:POINT to which your attention has now already been drawn twice —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:29, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

It may be upsetting if there is content that you do not like in an article about you, but there are proper ways to deal with it. There is good advice in the autobiography guidelines, entitled "If Wikipedia already has an article about you" and "Problems in an article about you". I urge you to read and heed these sections, as you are on the brink of a lengthier block if your editing behaviour doesn't improve. Remember that no one owns an article and no single user can dictate its content. Article content is formed by consensus within the core policies and guidelines. --Drm310 (talk) 20:45, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
I agree with the foregoing and in all sincerity urge you to read up on that advice and follow it. The article has come to the attention of additional editors, who are working on bringing it better into line with Wikipedia's tone and policies. The odds are good that they will continue to be responsive going forward. That being said, at some point you may just have to reconcile yourself to the presence of some material in the article that you'd rather not see there; but if it is well sourced and appropriately weighted it may just have to stay. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 02:11, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I think that you should review that material again, as well as the policies on assuming good faith. It is not a good idea to point fingers at particular editors and blame them for "problems" when it all may boil down to differing views of how Wikipedia is supposed to work. Reasonable people can disagree. And I reiterate what I said at the Jack Evans page - you really should refrain from editing it. There are at least three editors working to make the article a bit more evenhanded, and it will be better if you let the process play out. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 22:30, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Evansjack1 (talk) 15:20, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

August 2014[edit]

Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 60 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

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.  — MusikAnimal talk 21:53, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

you need to delete the constituent services fund reference. Also that I received the third highest rating from gala. Actually you should include that I received the highest in the last 6 election cycles.

Even after you've been blocked, you're dictating to others what they "need to" and "should" do? Whom are you addressing? Councilmember Evans, is another one of the editors working on the article editing at your direction? See WP:Sockpuppet and, particularly, WP:Meatpuppet about that. Using others as a subterfuge to evade Wikipedia policy is prohibited. —Largo Plazo (talk) 03:13, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't think that's an issue. The article is much, much better than it had been before, and, while I might not have cut the thing quite as far down as it has been now, I have no fundamental problem with any of what's been removed. (I have stated my concerns about removing this "constituent fund issue" at the article Talk page.) I am however also troubled by the imperative tone, as well as the seeming expectation that the subject of an article can vet the thing and have it pared down to his or her liking. As I have said previously here, there may come a point where he's just going to have to live with something there that he doesn't like. JohnInDC (talk) 03:43, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Evansjack1, I'll repeat here what I posted on the article's talk page about the constituent fund issue, in case you'd like to respond here. We don't usually report unsubstantiated insinuations of impropriety unless the claims reached a very high level of visibility. Then we report them only so readers who are aware of the innuendos are left in no doubt that there was no formal finding of impropriety or illegality. It's a question of walking the fine line between compounding the harm by repeating the innuendo and setting the record straight. Was this a massive scandal that most DC readers are likely to have heard about? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 10:56, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

no. The Washington post ran one story about everyone's constituent services funds. That's it. These entries we're put on my page during the mayors race in an attempt to embarrass me. You all can see that. There was no scandal. The same is true of the gala rating. Vince gray got a 10, tommy wells a 9.5 and I got a 9. It was the first time in 20 years I didn't get a 10. It is like the rest of the stuff in the mayors race. Please eliminate it or add that I have gotten a perfect score for 20 years. Thank you.
As I've indicated on the article Talk page, I have concerns about removing the constituent fund issue, which seems to be of a different nature than most of the other junk that was previously in the article. Discussion continues. But I do agree that if - if - that one GLAA (not gala) rating was anomalous, the description in the article is misleading and the discussion should either be expanded or eliminated (I'm tending to favor the latter). Even the cited source (here) indicates that Evans ( with an 8, not 9) was rated fairly harshly in that go-round. JohnInDC (talk) 12:16, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
as far as the gala rating, it was later increased to a 9. Even they realized they had made a mistake. Therefore I would delete the reference. Second, I am not operating thru anyone else. Third. The constituent services fund reference is like saying a plane took off and landed safely. So what. There was nothing there. Your reference makes it seem like it was a big issue. Let me say this. When i looked at this page on vacation last week I was astonished. I always thought Wikipedia was an encyclopedia. In my case it had become a gossip column In essence every snarky city paper mention ended up on my page. I never delt with Wikipedia before and it has been a challenge as you have seen. I do appreciate all you have done. But at the same time, how did you let it get so bad. You all have set yourselves up as the guardians of the word. Yet you get annoyed when someone like myself points out such gross misuse. In any event, it has been a learning event for me. I would appreciate your addressing the last 2 issues not to placate me but to remain true to your mission of being an encyclopedia and not a gossip page. Thanks
It can get bad because there are thousands and thousands of pages in Wikipedia, overseen by editors who are all volunteers, and who by and large work on things that interest them. There is no one that looks at everything, and conversely there may be articles that don't get much editorial attention from but one or two editors, who may - mm, struggle - with maintaining a neutral point of view. When such concerns are raised more broadly, I think - by and large - the response is responsible and sound. In your case the problem wasn't that you were pointing out the problems but that you persisted in making the edits yourself; and indeed once you raised the matter where it might draw the attention of disinterested editors (WP:EAR), the concerns were taken up quickly. (it's a common thing for the subjects of articles to try to spin things in a way that favors them and, while your concerns were bona fide and correct, when editors are confronted with a contentious editor with COI issues, they tend at first not to look beyond the COI and behavioral issues.) To be clear, I am explaining, not blaming, and how things came to this place is all water under the bridge. As for the substantive issues, discussion continues on the article Talk page and eventually the editors (who I think it's clear have no particular interest in besmirching your reputation) will arrive at a consensus. JohnInDC (talk) 13:39, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi Evansjack1. I endorse John's above comment, and add that in my opinion Wikipedia's policy on biographies is woefully inadequate. However, turning our policies toward better care for our subjects is like turning an oil tanker with a paddle. Here I tried to add that we should take into account the basic human dignity of our biography subjects but was opposed by a few horses asses and - since there was no consensus favoring the change - the proposal failed. While an undoubted boon (on balance) some aspects of Wikipedia are morally indefensible. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 17:12, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for you recent comments. I have had the opportunity to read other comment on a site I stumbled on. A discussion among editors. Johns dc. You have been helpful but I disagree with you constituent services analysis. Just because the post did the story doesn't mean it is credible. The reporters Nikita Stuart and Tim whatever are both gone. They acknowledged that they found nothing. There was no investigation by the Ocf. Ask them. It was a routine audit which came out fine. There are so many other things to include if you want to be fair. Secondly, the GLAA sentence should be expande or deleted. I have gotten a perfect 10 for 20 years. Print that. As I previously stated, this has been quite an experience dealing with Wikipedia. Thanks again for your efforts. Question, how do I find that editors page again?

Probably here, but until your block expires you won't be able to edit there. JohnInDC (talk) 23:54, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Evansjack1, if you paste here the GLAA text you'd like removed and follow it with what you'd like to replace it with, I'll consider doing it for you. (When you're chatting on talk pages like this, your post won't be automatically signed and dated. So, on talk pages, sign off with four tildes like this ~~~~ and your post will be signed and dated.)
Welcome to Wikipedia, by the way! Face-smile.svg. I hope you like it here and decide to stay. It can be a very satisfying hobby/public service and we need help in all domains - vandal patrol, article-writing, article-polishing, administration, governance and policy development. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 11:20, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Anthonyhcole. Thanks for your offer. I would recommend just deleting the last sentence and not adding anything. I have been the leading advocate for LGBT rights on the council for 23 years, long before it was popular. I was the first to call for gay marriage in 1998. But people know that. Just deleting the sentence as johnindc advocates would be great. Also, please read the wash post article on the constituent services fund sports tickets. The statement in my bio is just wrong. The amounts mentioned only cover the past 10 years. The posting says 22 years. When you go back 22 years sports tickets are only 13 per cent of the spending. That is why the article got no attention. Whoever posted it selectively took information to embarrass me during the election. Again thanks for you help. I think I finally have mastered this. And johnindc thanks for the link. I can finally find these things. Finally, I can't find the 4 Tilden on my I pad. Where do I look?

Hit the numbers modifier, then the little one with the crosshatch etc. - it's on that screen, about where the 'e' key would be. JohnInDC (talk) 14:39, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
I took out the GLAA sentence; I think that Anthony and I are in agreement on that one. JohnInDC (talk) 14:58, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

John, now that Anthony took out the puff stuff, let's get rid of the constituent services paragraph and be done. This has been an interesting week and I have really learned about Wikipedia. Evansjack1 (talk) 00:49, 24 August 2014 (UTC) I can even sign now!!! (Yay! Anthonyhcole.)

Evansjack1, you can set your preferences (behind a link at the top of the page) so that whenever anyone edits Jack Evans (D.C. politician) you'll be notified by email. If you'd like to set that up, I can talk you through it. It's very easy. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 11:07, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes. That would be great. Any word from johnindc?Evansjack1 (talk) 11:20, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
No. Things happen slowly on Wikipedia - time zones, day jobs, etc.
  • Click "preferences" at the top of the page
  • Click "user profile"
  • Tick the box next to: "Email me when a page or file on my watchlist is changed"
Make sure Jack Evans (D.C. politician) is on your watchlist. Go to the article and if there is a "watch" tab at the top, click it. If the tab says "unwatch", leave it be - it's already on your watchlist.
The watchlist is a list of pages you're interested in. Clicking the "watchlist" link at the top of a page generates a report listing all recent changes to pages on your list. Your talk page and Jack Evans (D.C. politician) are both on my list, so when I click "watchlist" 2 or 3 times a day, I'll notice if there has been any activity on those pages. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 12:34, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
It's likely that I'll be keeping the page on my watchlist henceforth, to make sure that it stays stationed down the middle and doesn't become captive to either advocates or opponents. While it is quite easy for articles to get out of hand on Wikipedia, once an editor or two has taken the time to clean an article up, further mischief is usually noticed very quickly. If in the future you see something that troubles you, Jack, the very best thing would be to raise the issue on the article Talk page rather than take things into your own hands - I emphasize that there is almost a presumption against changes made by persons who are editing an article about themselves. And with me, and probably Anthony too, keeping an eye on things here, matters are unlikely to get far out of hand going forward. I would also like to encourage you to find things on Wikipedia that might interest you for editing, or cleaning up; it's a good way to learn the rules of the road. JohnInDC (talk) 13:15, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't remove the section on constituent services. It wasn't reported only in the Post. The Washington Times reported on it: "When D.C. Council member Jack Evans gathered supporters earlier this year to raise money for his constituent-services fund, he spoke of how donations helped people struggling to pay their rent and helped send local children to camps. But the majority of the donations went for tickets to sporting events, public records show."[1] Given that tickets to sporting events don't help people pay their rent or send local children to camps, it seems that the use to buy tickets is significant enough that Evans obfuscated the matter then just as he wants to obfuscate it now. Going by later reports, it was significant enough that it was the sort of activity that led to consideration of a tightening of the ethics rules.[2]. It doesn't matter that the reason someone placed the information here might have been to embarrass Evans if Evans' activity was, in and of itself, embarrassing, as well as significant. As for the justification "other people were doing it too", I'm imagining each of the Congressmen caught in the Abscam scandal asking to have any mention of Abscam removed from their articles on the grounds that "others did it too". —Largo Plazo (talk) 13:34, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Anthony, johnindc agrees with you to take out the constituent services reference. Largoplaza is from the past and is probably one of those creating mischief. For example to compare it to Abscam where congressmen went to jail makes my point. And I have never tried. To obscure that we purchase tickets for constituents. And as the post article points out it is 13 per cent of the total spending. Also thanks for the directions. I'm about to try. Evansjack1 (talk) 14:03, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Anthony, which page do I look for preferences. I can't find it on this page or the bio page
Jack, Largo raises a fair point. Although the episode didn't amount to much finally, and the broader view you supply paints a more favorable picture of the numbers, the matter received specific and pointed coverage in both the Washington DC daily papers. The Times's coverage only underscores the point I was making earlier, which is that this was, however briefly, a legitimate area of concern (vs some of that City Paper nonsense); and, the fact that you believe you can explain or justify it, and that no one went to jail, does not make it a nullity. Ancient history is still history. Really the only issue is whether it is appropriate to include it in this article. I have said all along that it is, but, with the article now stripped down to essentials, I am content to let it go, but really only because the article is now as slender as it is (and I suppose so this can be laid to rest). Perhaps as Anthony suggested at the article Talk page, we should ask for additional eyes from the BLP project. As for your preferences - if you're editing off an iPad, you may be dealing with the mobile app, which omits all of that. Go to the bottom of any page and look for the option to select the Desktop version. You should see all the prefs etc. (in now pretty small type) at the top of any page, so long as you're logged in. JohnInDC (talk) 15:01, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

John, I agree one can make arguments on both sides. But a lot of compromises were made to get to where we are. And you are right. Given how slender it is, does it make sense to highlight this one piece of history. Why not then pick out all of my other accomplishments. And then we are back where we started. I agree. Let's put this to bed. I just noticed that Anthony took out the tax parity act. That w as a significant piece of legislation which changed our tax structure. I authored it with David Catania. It is clearly more relevant than the constituent services fund and got broad coverage in the post and the times and even the wsj. Why not put it back. Because we compromised on having a barebones article. Evansjack1 (talk) 15:59, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm disappointed that it is still there. Now the bond rating info that I played a key role in is gone. Evansjack1 (talk) 17:35, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

@Evansjack1:"Largoplaza [sic] is from the past ..." Are you suggesting I came here via time travel? Or are you trying to wave away my comments with a vague comment in the absence of a substantive response to my remark?
"... and is probably one of those creating mischief." Please go back and read what JohnInDC wrote to you a few days ago: "I think that you should review that material again, as well as the policies on assuming good faith. It is not a good idea to point fingers at particular editors and blame them for "problems" when it all may boil down to differing views of how Wikipedia is supposed to work." Your comment is quite reckless, given that the entire history of the article is right there for you to look at, leaving no room for speculation and, ironically, innuendo, a thing that up till now you've professed to hate. I had nothing to do with the article until April, at which point I replaced material that spoke of your mayoral campaign in the future tense with updated material that summarized it in the past tense. After that, I reverted someone's removal of properly sourced content several times. And then you came along. You, sir, are off base.
As for Abscam, I was not likening your use of funds to that scandal, I was likening your "others did it too, therefore it's unfair to mention my having done it" logic.
"And I have never tried. To obscure that we purchase tickets for constituents." I think one can make a good argument that "spoke of how donations helped people struggling to pay their rent and helped send local children to camps" involves a significant omission. And you say 13% but the Times article says the majority. And both Times articles as well as the Post article attach a higher degree of significance to the event than you do. I can't speak for the others participating in this discussion, but I'm more inclined to go by the newspapers' evaluation than by yours. —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:11, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

No slight was intended. You came to the discussion at the last moment. You acknowledge making edits as far back as April. And you feel very passionate about keeping a negative inference to me in the bio. For the record, I have never in these discussions stated that it's ok because everyone else does it. Secondly, you are dead wrong. The Washington post acknowledges in their article that it was 13 per cent of the total over 22 years. But more importantly for everyone, since the bio is so short, is the constituent services fund purchase of sports tickets the main issue that defines my 23 years of service. Bond ratings, financial recovery, bring baseball back, etc. this is why I don't want any part of Wikipedia. So my suggestion is to delete the constituent services paragraph or add back the mayor Williams stuff and the tax parity act. Just please make it balanced. As for largo, I am very suspicious given my experience with Wikipedia. Anthony and John have been fair. If largo wants to identify himself or herself, I may be less suspicious. Thank you all for your involvement. Now let's settle this one way or the other. Evansjack1 (talk) 20:56, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

No, what I feel strongly about is leaving in the article something that seems significant (for the reasons I've already given) despite the fact that it bothers you. Don't you go calling me unfair: I have been fair all along, in that the reason I was trying to get you to stop improperly editing the article yourself over and over and over and over and express your concerns on the Talk page was exactly so that exactly the kind of conversation could be had that you finally did have once you'd been blocked. Because that's what it took to finally get you there. By then, Anthonyhcole and JohnInDC had matters well in hand and I agreed pretty much with everything they said, so I had no reason to contribute. But now, with you complaining about this one negative thing that they've left in the article, I decided to chime in with my opinion. So, seriously, kindly dispense with the drama and the accusations.
And it was the Washington Times article said that the majority of your funds were going to the sports tickets, so if it's false, don't go pinning it on me. —Largo Plazo (talk) 21:11, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
If you need evidence of me acknowledging that you had reasonable points to make, see here. —Largo Plazo (talk) 21:20, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Jack, please assume the good faith of other editors. A check of the records shows that Largo has been editing here since 2006 and has more than 32,000 edits to his credit. (I assume "his" because of the ending vowels.) In any event it is not good form to ask editors who they are; their edits and comments should be evaluated on their own merits absent really compelling (i.e. well nigh inescapable) evidence that they're advancing some unstated agenda. Largo is correct, further, to press the point that this episode may be a bigger deal than you portray (or even as Anthony and I have described it) - he has supplied another reliable source, and more context, and is in my view advancing the debate even as he slows resolution. Anthony, Largo and I are all arrayed along a continuum, and not really that far apart when you come down to it. (Largo has not complained about any of the other edits up to this point.) In the larger context of the way Wikipedia operates, this is a legitimate discussion. For my part, I'm still right where I said I was - content to remove this one bit, in light of the other edits to the article - but Largo has every right to be heard, and to have his concerns assuaged (if possible). If finally he is unconvinced, but the decision is made to remove the material anyhow, it will go down a lot more easily for him if he knows that all points of view were aired. (I know this from having been on the losing end of lots of discussions!) JohnInDC (talk) 21:49, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Also, while it will likely pain you to read it, check out WP:VERIFIABILITYNOTTRUTH, which explains why the touchstone here is not what various editors perceive - or even know - to be the "truth", but what can be tied back to reliable, verifiable sources. From the point of view of Largo, and me, and I bet Anthony too, what you know or believe about the constituent fund issue, even by virtue of having lived through it, is not the point. Rather the point is what editors who don't know anything about the underlying facts can sensibly write up based on what reliable sources say. So to say (and I'm paraphrasing), "the Post / Times was wrong" is almost meaningless, unless the Post or Times printed a retraction, or some other reliable source went on record as making that point. Anyhow, I mention this not to be snarky but to help you understand a bit better where others are coming from, so that discussions can focus on things that are likely to make a difference in the outcome. JohnInDC (talk) 22:07, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Ok I have heard everyone. Largo, I apologize. I ask you Anthony and John to take one last shot at this. It is obviously important to me that it be fair and accurate. As far as the percentages are concerned, go to footnote 14 and read the wash post article. They did the research. For 10 years it was 31per cent. For 20 years it was 13 per cent. It is right there. I don't even remember a wash times article. But as I said before, I just want a fair balanced bio. What happened during the mayors race and up to 10 days ago is not so. And forgive my earlier transgressions. I am brand new to Wikipedia and did the best I could. I did not know a talk page existed and still have trouble finding one I can type on. Thanks again. Evansjack1 (talk) 23:09, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

To john Anthony and Largo, I haven't heard anything in 24 hours. Please let me know where we stand concerning the constituent services paragraph. Thanks Evansjack1 (talk) 23:57, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Anthony? Largo? Should we enlist a editor or two to break the logjam? JohnInDC (talk) 11:34, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
As far as the specific facts are concerned (a majority of the funds? 13%? 31%?), I have no problem with fresh eyes coming in and creating a fair representation of what was reported in the press. As for the fact that there was an inquiry, I've already expressed my feeling, for the reasons I've given, that it is quite relevant, significant, and appropriate to include it, and I'm concerned about us being wheedled into acting as proxies in a forum shopping expedition. —Largo Plazo (talk) 13:48, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Setting up email alerts[edit]

Evansjack1, I've asked at the Technical Village Pump (where we discuss technical issues) how to set up email alerts using an iPad. I'll let you know when we get a response. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 14:44, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

They gave me the same advice that John gave you above [3]: If you're using Safari browser (you probably are) click "Desktop" or "Desktop view" at the bottom of the page. Then you should find the "Preferences" tab at the top. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 00:24, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Anthony. I tried it. Hope it works. Any thoughts on the final edits to my bio? I would still appreciate your deleting the constituent services paragraph. Thanks. Evansjack1 (talk) 00:39, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
I did that yesterday, per the article's talk page discussion. [4] I've just made another minor edit to the article, so you should get an email alert soon. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 01:02, 28 August 2014 (UTC)I
Thanks. How do we keep anyone from adding things? Thank you all for your time and efforts. I have learned how to use Wikipedia and thank you all. Evansjack1 (talk) 01:23, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
You can't. You can only see when they do. Whether the edits are appropriate or not is something that you had probably better leave up to the disinterested editors, and not try to amend yourself. Wikipedia articles are not static, anyone can edit them, and truth be told after a while a different consensus about what is appropriate here could emerge. JohnInDC (talk) 01:31, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
(While I was writing this, John posted the above - I've tagged my comment with "edit conflict", so everyone knows my comment doesn't take into account his comment. Anthonyhcole)
(edit conflict) We don't. They may, and we'll argue/discuss in light of the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy and others. Now, while other editors are watching the article, it's probably best (though not obligatory) that you just watch from the sidelines, rather than jumping into the fray. Dispassion is a virtue in these discussions, and that's hard to achieve when you're the subject. Face-smile.svg I'm watching this page (your talk page) and will notice if you leave a comment here. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 01:35, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Ok thanks. I'll keep watching my page for any changes as well. Those who added all the negative info are still out there. Evansjack1 (talk) 02:03, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
In this recent BBC interview, User:Jimmy Wales (about 3 minutes in) points out that scurrilous defamation can be removed immediately with an email to, but the vast majority of biography problems are not blatant libel, they involve undue weight given to negative or positive trivia, and these grey-area disputes can often take months of full-time arguing to resolve.
By the way, when you're responding to another's comment in a thread, add one more colon (:) before your post than they have put before their post. Each colon indents your comment by one space, so related comments go in an elegant left-to-right sweep. Above, where both John and I were replying to you, we both just added one colon, so it was clear I was addressing you, not John. When you want to change the subject within a thread or address everyone, start your comment without any colons and it will begin on the left margin. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 03:00, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
At some point you should give Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons a good read. It is the policy defining what is appropriate for a biography on Wikipedia. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:46, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Page view statistics[edit]

Evansjack1, if you go to "Desktop" mode and click "View history" at the top of an article, you'll find on the next page a link, "Page view statistics". That will show you how many people visited the article on any given day, with monthly totals. Select a month in the box under the graph that presently says "201409" (September, 2014). --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 15:57, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I I cant believe you are editing my page again after all we went through

Editing the enemy[edit]

Hi, Evensjack1. This story might interest you. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 12:01, 8 October 2014 (UTC)Thanks. Maybe largo and bang are republicans!!! Which does bring up an interesting point. Who did add to my page all the comments that were deleted. Was it bang or someone else? How can one find out?Evansjack1 (talk) 02:43, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

To create a new paragraph: either indent with one or more colons (:::) or create a 2 line break (hit "enter" twice).
To see who's been doing what to your biography: select "Desktop" at the bottom of any page. Go to Jack Evans (D.C. politician) and select the "View history" tab at the top of the page. That will show you a list of the 50 most recent changes to your article, and who made them. Using these buttons above the list
(newest | oldest) View (newer 50 | older 50) (20 | 50 | 100 | 250 | 500)
you can view a longer list and view the whole history of your article.
The top entry is currently a log of my last edit and it looks like this:
If you click prev you'll see the change I made in that edit. If you click contribs you'll see my most recent edits to Wikipedia (and can look at all the edits I've ever made).
If you go back in your article's history to the lead-up to the primaries, you can see who added what. Whoever turned your article into a hatchet job may have been a paid PR person working either for your political opponents or (sorry, but it needs to be considered) your political rivals. But, equally, it could just have been some obsessive homophobe, Republican or sports-hater. Or someone you annoyed at school. Anybody.
If you're curious, you may get some sense of their motivations, interests or character - and sometimes even who they are, if they've been careless - by looking at their contributions to other Wikipedia articles, or - if they use the same nickname elsewhere - a Google search might tell you something about what would lead them to do such a thing.
This might interest you. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 23:49, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Anthony. This is very helpful. It may take me awhile to get through this. Evansjack1 (talk) 17:53, 13 October 2014 (UTC)