User talk:Verklempt

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

Welcome!

Hello, Verklempt, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Wikipedia Boot Camp, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  Stifle 12:08, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Robideau[edit]

In the above deletion discussion, you recommended a speedy delete. Can you please specify which of the criteria for speedy deletion that the page meets, and ideally also tag the page with the appropriate {{db}} tag? If you find that the page does not meet the criteria, please change your vote. Stifle 12:08, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Churchill,DenverPost1987article.gif[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Churchill,DenverPost1987article.gif. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 06:32, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Good changes to Churchill[edit]

Thanks for the good quality of changes you've made in the last day or two. We were slightly at loggerheads over some earlier edits (though those seem to get resolved OK); but the additions you've made recently are definitely NPOV and good quality, and I appreciate that. I definitely think the findings of the CU subcommittee are very notable for inclusion. In summary for the main bio, but where they dispute/refute claims by Churchill or his proponents on the child article, we should point that out clearly.

Mind you, I don't think the subcommittee is the "voice of god" either... they could be wrong also (for example, Churchill made a statement in Counterpunch right after the release of the findings that continued to dispute the process and outcome). On the other hand, I know personally the subcommittee chair, Mimi Wesson, well enough to know that her part in it, at least was conducted in good faith and with integrity. I'm pretty sure she's one of those recommending the lesser suspension; but the fact she recommended suspension at all means quite a bit. Of course, my personal feelings about Dr. Wesson aren't encyclopedic either. Anyway, where something specific in the findings contradicts something that Churchill (or other parties) had stated previously, we should make a point of presenting the committee opinion as well... which is exactly what you've done.

Oh, I saw that the copyright clearance on the old Post article you scanned was questioned. It might have been OK if you had tagged it as fair use or the like. But that might have been iffy too; as much as I think it's worth letting readers see, I suspect the Post really does have a legal right to disallow it. I guess what I'll do is upload the scan to my own website, and change the image link to point there. If the Post complains at me, I'm not going to fight about taking it down... but most likely I can just do that "under the radar". LotLE×talk 01:33, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Verklempt, You've added some somewhat incomplete citations to the Churchil articles that I've tried to complete. In particular, you generally do not give URL links for readers to follow, nor complete author and title information. As well, I'd like to move all the articles towards using the m:Cite.php "<ref>" citation style, since it allows complete citation details (as well as annotations, where appropriate). The main bio and the misconduct allegations are mostly there, other than your additions; the essay controversy one still needs to be converted, but I made a small first step. I'd appreciate it if you'd try to give more full citations... look at the examples elsewhere in the article (they're not all perfect, but you can find some good ones among them).
FWIW, I think your wording changes to the LaVelle/citation index point is good, and the annotations you added about subcommittee findings are also helpful. I'm not sure why MONGO took those out. I had expressed a concern to him about the anonymous editor who was blanking stuff, and I think possibly MONGO got confused about which edits I was referring to. Though I obviously agree with MONGO on the need for citing the second investigation matter. LotLE×talk 19:54, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

WP:3RR[edit]

Please read over Wikipedias three revert rule. Your latest edit to Ward Churchill misconduct allegations is essentially the same as others you keep reverting to. I have reverted your latest edit since it took out information that enhanced the article. Discuss appropriate changes in the discussion page. Thanks.--MONGO 04:51, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Lumbee[edit]

Hey, I started an RfC for the Lumbee article, which I know you have edited. Your input would be appreciated.--Cúchullain t/c 20:15, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Please do not continue reverting SCV artcle[edit]

Will Beback had the courtesy to move the "factionalization" section into a draft page, so that we could discuss and re-edit. I object to your mulish and aggravated refusal to cooperate with these efforts, and consider same to be a violation of Wikipedia good faith policies. --Black Flag 21:45, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

What a bullshit complaint. You have refused to negotiate for five days, have never offered a single substantive criticism, alternative edit, or new piece of evidence for this subsection. I authored most of the draft section. You have yet to propose or make a single edit to it. I submit that you are the one who is refusing to cooperate in good faith.Verklempt 21:54, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

SCV[edit]

The Atlanta Journal Constitution source you added to the article is excellent. After this stuff blows over, it should be readded to the subsection. We should take it one step at a time, though, and I might have to file another RFC on it (obviously, it will be supported). · j e r s y k o talk · 22:54, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Afterall, the AJC is a well-known non-biased source, with exemplars of “neutrality” such as Cynthia Tucker. [hysterical laughing heard in the background]--Black Flag 23:30, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:3RR[edit]

Please read over Wikipedias three revert rule. Your latest edit to Talk:Sons of Confederate Veterans/factionalization is in contravention of the agreement posted at the SCV article Talk page. Thanks.

Moreover, you had asked for my contibutions ON THE ABOVE DRAFT PAGE and then immediately reverted same. The purpose of the DRAFT page is for discussion, not INSTANT REVERTS. I also noted that you have violated the WP:3RR rule. Please do not force me to submit this issue to an Administrator.--Black Flag 00:15, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

It's a different page, silly. Furthermore, you're in the same boat. Finally, your edits are not in good faith. You know that yoru scources don't meet WP policy, even if your links weren't broken.Verklempt 00:17, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

User conduct rfc[edit]

Hi Verklempt. I invite you to comment on User:Fix Bayonets! user conduct rfc, which I started today. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Fix Bayonets!. Thanks for any input you have. · j e r s y k o talk · 05:00, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Verifiability as to the creator of the Rosa Luxemburg drawing[edit]

In preparation for an RFC at [WP:RFC/BIO] on the verifiability of the attribution of the the Rosa Luxemburg drawing to Ward Churchill, I have placed the appropriate section on the [1] page. There is a location available for Statements by editors previously involved in dispute. I have placed this notice on the talk page of the editors previously involved in the dispute to allow time for supplying these comments prior to requesting broad input from the Wikipedia community.

Does the source provided for [2] satisfy the Wikipedia policies and guidelines [WP:RS], [WP:V], and [WP:CITE] to support the claim that the drawing was created by Ward Churchill? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Uncle uncle uncle (talkcontribs) 23:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC).

Denver Post[edit]

By the way the post doesn't refer to the documents, It only refers to newmans supposed investigation. So whose the illiterate one. I guess it doesn't matter now that Jaygy has blocked the article.annoynmous 03:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Blocked[edit]

File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked 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). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Verklempt (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsabuse filter logcreation logchange block settingsunblock)


Request reason:

possible miscount? I did one initial edit, and then three reverts. In the initial edit, I removed material that I myself had inserted, once I realized that it violated policy. So I thought I was within the limit by only reverting three times. You are counting the initial edit as a revert? Why? Thanks, Verklempt.Verklempt 18:33, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Decline reason:

all 4 edits involved your removing links so all count towards the 3RR — Spartaz Humbug! 18:38, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first and 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.

WP:3RR states in the "exceptions" section: "Since reverting in this context means undoing the actions of another editor or editors, reverting your own actions ("self-reverting") will not violate the rule." My initial edit was to undo my own actions (adding and then editing an external link that violates policy). A glance at the History will substantiate this. Thus my first edit would seem to fall squarely under the Exception according to my reading.Verklempt 18:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Technically you don't need to commit 4 reverts to be blocked. At the end of the day you revert warred, whether its 3 or 4 its still not on. Spartaz Humbug! 18:53, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your response. I don't want to beat this into the ground -- I can take the suspension and sit out the 24 hours. However, I feel dishonored to have this block on my record, when according to my good faith reading I did not violate the 3R rule. Furthermore, I made a good faith effort to comply with the rule. There are additional exceptions in WP:3RR regarding BLP that I believe apply here, beyond the definitional exception I mentioned above. Finally, I attempted to engage my disputant in negotiation on the Talk page. I only reverted three times, and then gave up and walked away rather than violate the rule. I thought I was safely within the rule, and yet I was sanctioned anyway. Because of this sanction, it is no longer clear to me what constitutes "edit-warring." Either the admin should follow the rules specified on the WP:3RR page, or that policy should be rewritten to square with the way administrators are policing editors. While I am perfectly willing to sit out the block period, I would like to know if there is some way to remove this blot from my record. Thanks again for your response.Verklempt 19:18, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
If you check my block log you will see that I was blocked 9 months ago for a 3RR. On that occasion I only reverted 3 times but was tagged for an IP edit that I didn't do. Unfortunately, life isn't fair and sometimes even the best faithed user gets caught up in a situation in the heat of the moment. Policy is what we do, not what's written down and this does mean that what's written is not always 100% congruent with practise. I have always felt that 3RR is too punitive and enforced too strictly but I also see the logic that users (in general not you) would be revert warring left, right and centre if there wasn't an absolute consequence for starting up. If you had stopped at 2 there would have been no sanction applied. Unfortunately, the log is permanent unless you can persuade a dev to manually remove it was the database and I doubt that anyone would be interested. I think you just have to put this down to experience but (to paraphrase Dmcdevit's comment to me after my block) wikipedia is very tolerant and there will be no long term consequences from this. Please don't get too upset about this (I was ready to leave after my block) just remember that its not the end of the world and the 'pedia will be waiting for when the block expires. If I unblock you now, will you categorically assure me that you won't edit that article for at least 24 hours? Spartaz Humbug! 19:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for the reassuring words. No need to unblock me. I should probably take the break.Verklempt 19:51, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
OK then, take care. Spartaz Humbug! 19:55, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Albion moonlight & False Allegations[edit]

Verkempt: Albion moonlight has started the process of having you, Verkempt, and myself, Getaway, investigated as either sockpuppets or meatpuppets of each other. Of course, this is wrong and it is merely an attempt to intimidate us into agreeing with any and all changes that Albion moonlight wants to make to the Ward Churchill articles. I just wanted to make you aware of this form of intimidation. We need to be cognizant of this attempt to intimidate and censor opinion.--Getaway 19:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

It's hard for me to get too concerned about folks who come onto the intellectual battlefield totally unarmed.Verklempt 20:42, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

TDC AND THE BLOG[edit]

Those 2 guys took it took there complaints about the 2 external links in question and inadvertently got the whole article deleted. I made the suggestion that TDC should do so but I didn't think he would play it that way. But I am very glad that he did. Albion moonlight 09:50, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I most certainly did not agree with the deletion of the whole article, and will try and get it restored. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 16:09, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

The reason I am glad is because it serves as a wakeup call. Albion moonlight 21:17, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

It is a wake up call, to inappropriate and heavy handed editing tactics by folks who have refused to follow the editing history and take it upon themselves to remove full articles without consulting with the other editors.--Getaway 01:29, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Misconduct issues[edit]

Please re-read this section as a whole. The time-sequence appears to be out of order. Note also that the first sentence isn't supported anywhere else in the section. Rklawton 21:06, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


Request for comment[edit]

I wish to open a 'request for comment' on your uncivil and abuse behaviour. -maxrspct ping me 00:37, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

RFC/USER discussion concerning you (Verklempt)[edit]

Hello, Verklempt. Please be aware that a request for comments has been filed concerning your conduct on Wikipedia. The RFC entry can be found by your name in this list, and the actual discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Verklempt, where you may want to participate.-- maxrspct ping me 00:36, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that Wiki politicking substitutes for reason and evidence. This project would be better served if you addressed substantive issues and made constructive edits on topics that you have some expertise in, instead of trying to get your way by means of ad hominem tactics.Verklempt 07:35, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh i can open one or expand this to include your POving if you want. This is mostly about your talkpage and edit summary conduct .. used to sidetrack and befuddle those who catch you out. --maxrspct ping me 12:40, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Good rewrite.[edit]

You defused a potential edit war pursuant to the Peltier article. Good rewrite: A very neutralizing move on you part. Thanx. Albion moonlight 08:58, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Nuvola apps important.svg Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages by deliberately introducing incorrect information, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Technopat 19:51, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I actually deleted incorrect information that was not sourced whatsoever. This is not vandalism, my friend. It is editing.Verklempt 23:14, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Please accept my apologies for the hasty reprimand - I was too trigger-happy after having come across several bad cases of vandalism that day. Sorry. Regards, Technopat 10:06, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Racial IDs[edit]

Sorry I haven't got back to you on this. Don't think I am ignoring it - I should have time to research it in the next few days. Vizjim 20:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

RFC[edit]

I'm writing to let you know that Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Commodore Sloat has been resolved and archived. Thanks for participating. Bigglove 23:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

[[3]]

Jazz[edit]

Good, helpful - and sober and well-written - stuff in "Jazz" Verklempt: keep on going/improving, don/t be shouted-so-stupidly [& sadly] down217.42.99.130 16:58, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Ward Churchill, conspiracy theorist category[edit]

Yes, I think it's worth revisiting this issue. Unfortunately, I cannot do much about it right now -- I'm taking a wikibreak of sorts -- but I may be able to help in a few weeks, if you can wait till then. If not, please do go ahead and make the case, I think it's quite solid. Turgidson 13:09, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Jazz[edit]

Please try to take the time to engage in constructive dialog rather than reverting the edits of other users. You have done it twice. Please do not break 3RR. futurebird 22:27, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Jazz[edit]

A really GREAT 4 hours work on 'Jazz' on Oct 20, Verklempt. At last someone is starting to properly sort out, prioritise and clarify "Jazz" from being an all-over-the-place mess to, finally, a the beginnings of a good article: everyone should say 'Thank You' but, sadly, I can imagine all sorts of [boring & irrelevant] stuff to come.... !81.156.1.40 11:35, 20 October 2007 (UTC)..... & it came: what a sad pity this would seem to be for "Jazz".... hope I'm POV free?

Ramapough Mountain Indians[edit]

What is your problem? The posts I added are not opinion, This is documented in the BIA findings thru the FOIA.. This is fact and I have a copy of it. Cohen's work was discredited by everyone with a degree. His work is flawed. This is also documented within the BIA. Joslyn has done his work 'pro bono' over 15 years and along with other notable Genealogists, proved his work is flawed. Unless you can prove a college thesis holds more merit that years of experience and it's verifiable, leave it alone. Ramapoughnative 23:04, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Warning[edit]

I'm really just waring you as formality, but don't let this thing at blackface turn in to an edit war. You've reverted the same material twice, so please stop by the talk page so we can sort this out. I feel that with proper attribution the text should be OK, and don't know why you're so keen on removing it. futurebird (talk) 03:42, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Ramapough Mountain Indians[edit]

Thanks for fixing the vandalism on 12/5. Ramapoughnative (talk) 13:50, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

MOWA Band of Choctaw Indians[edit]

I think you're going to need an RfC, after all. Corvus cornixtalk 19:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Verklempt. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.

Warning[edit]

You were asked a very simple question and you refused to answer it - fine. But don't engage in personal attacks. --ElKevbo (talk) 03:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I characterized your rhetoric, not your person. Learn to tell the difference.Verklempt (talk) 22:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Stop hand nuvola.svg This is your only warning.
The next time you make a personal attack as you did at Talk:Plagiarism#Dershowtitz, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Groupthink (talk) 21:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the "warning", but such nonsense still doesn't substitute for reason and evidence. Try to learn to construct an argument, and perhaps you'll do better in school.Verklempt (talk)

Lumbee[edit]

I am not sure why you deleted the information about McMillan first offering the Lost Colony theory in 1885 when I sourced it with his bio from the North Carolina Dictionary of Biography. His bio states that he offered the theory on the 300th anniversary of the founding of the colony and the year of his election to the General Assembly.BIAIntern (talk) 15:45, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

That source is incorrect. McMillan did not publish the pamphlet until 1888.Verklempt (talk) 20:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Blackface[edit]

I've made some edits in the article. Who knows, we might actually be able to get it back up to FA level after all.

Could you take a look at Talk:Blackface#Legacy section & respond there? Thanks. - Jmabel | Talk 05:12, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Tri-racial isolate[edit]

Someone has redirected this to Mestee, which seems rather strange for a contemporary encyclopedia. I seem to remember reading somewhere that the "Mestee" article is mostly one person's work who is trying to convert the world to that term and promote his own book. Is there a way to have "tri-racial isolate" stand alone, or be the first article, rather than a redirect? It means something to anthropologists and the issues of the term relate to Melungeon, Lumbee and other groups.--Parkwells (talk) 21:13, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree, but I don't know how to do this.Verklempt (talk) 20:08, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


Cease the edit war on the Choctaw article, now, or you'll get blocked. RlevseTalk 02:19, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Assata Shakur[edit]

You recently took issue with some sourced content in the article, referring to it as POV, speculative, and incorrect. I was wondering if you know of any source which backs up your claim and contradicts the current article wording. Thanks, Savidan 13:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

American Indian Movement[edit]

If you have a question about why I am putting books onto pages you should question me rather than accuse of spamming. This book happens to be a very good reference for anybody looking to learn more about the American Indian Movement. If I wanted to spam, I would add all of our books to wp. Please, if you have a problem with this again, go through the correct means of discussing the issue rather then editing. If you know nothing about the book than you have no room to justifiably remove it. TTUP (talk) 21:26, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

You're violating the Conflict of Interest policy. I will continue to remove your advertising edits.Verklempt (talk) 21:39, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Ward Churchill categorization[edit]

Hi Verkempt. Is there a reason you reverted my addition of Ward Churchill to Category:Living anarchists? I'm hoping that having such a category will make it easier to distinguish historical thinking in anarchism from current trends. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 12:46, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Please see new proposed language on terrorism at Talk:Weatherman (organization)#New proposal[edit]

I've redone somewhat my original proposal, something I think can get consensus support. I think it's important that we have a section about the group being referred to as terrorist. You had mentioned that Google Scholar has a lot of sources, and I'd prevously looked at a lot of sources calling the group terrorist via Google Books. I think the designation "terrorist" is either the consensus among scholars or at least the most widespread view, and I think the proposed language, while it doesn't say that, reflects it well enough. It can be tweaked a thousand times, of course, but I think it's a start that is ready to go into the article and can always be improved later. Please help me reach consensus on this, because I'd like to get it settled. I'm having a very hard time with Wikidemon on other, related pages, but settling this one will be a start toward settling our differences on those other pages. Please take a look here. And thanks for your interest so far. -- Noroton (talk) 16:20, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikidemon has refused to accept the consensus of three editors to his one. I've reported his actions at See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Wikidemon being disruptive after refusing to recognize consensus. -- Noroton (talk) 19:02, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I think you just removed Wikidemo's comment by mistake on the AN/I page[edit]

I appreciate your comments there. I think you got confused with this edit though: [4] -- Noroton (talk) 00:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

RfC on Weathermen, Ayers, Dohrm, Obama, and "terrorism"[edit]

Please note that I have created an RfC to discuss the matter of whether, how, and where we should use and cover the designation "terrorist" describe the Weathermen and their former leaders. It is located here: Talk:Weatherman (organization)/Terrorism RfC. The intent is to decide as a content matter (and not as a behavioral issue regarding the editors involved) how to deal with this question. I am notifying you because you appear to have participated in or commented about this issue before. Feel free to participate. Thank you. Wikidemon (talk) 20:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Please take another look at Weatherman/Terrorism RfC[edit]

This is a message sent to a number of editors, and following WP:CANVASS requirements: Please take another look at Talk:Weatherman (organization)/Terrorism RfC and consider new information added near the top of the article and several new proposals at the bottom. If you haven't looked at the RfC in some time, you may find reason in the new information and new proposals to rethink the matter. -- Noroton (talk) 02:32, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Stop the vandalism[edit]

Blanking massive sections of the WC Investigation article against the consensus of the every other editor than you has become vandalism, pure and simple. Any more of this crap, and I guess I'll run it up to a user conduct RfC. The fact is, your partisan personal position has no support from any other editors, and asinine comments about your "consensus of one" don't substitute for seeking consensus. LotLE×talk 22:07, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Repeating your bogus allegations does not make them any more true.Verklempt (talk) 22:37, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Lulu. You need put your personal feelings about WC behind you. :Albion moonlight (talk) 08:35, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Try to focus on the issues. Also look up "ad hominem fallacy".Verklempt (talk) 16:46, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Barry Goldwater[edit]

I only noticed today you added the Controversy section to his article, thanks for writing it. His article unfortunately was completely unbalanced without it. Cheers. --Maarten1963 (talk) 22:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

MOWA Band of Choctaw Indians[edit]

Hi, Verklempt, are you off Wikipedia altogether? Sorry if that's the case, as you always added substance to the articles. I've worked on this article to correct inaccuracies, and would appreciate your viewpoint. --Parkwells (talk) 14:11, 3 November 2009 (UTC)