User talk:Wjhonson

"The people I distrust most are those who want to improve our lives but have only one course of action." - Frank Herbert

Welcome to my Talk Page. Please read this very Special Note before you proceed: On this page we will assume good faith about each other. I am a very firm believer in WP:Honesty and that neutral point of view applies to you, even in disputes. If you don't believe these three things, then I'm sorry but we won't be able to deal together. That you have a strong belief that I might be a dick, is not evidence that I actually am. I don't happen to be one of those warm-and-fuzzy types. I'm more the Spock type with a bit of McCoy. There is the possibility, however bizarre it might at first appear, that although I don't happen to agree with you, I am in actuality a sensible person just as you feel you are. If you are under the impression that I'm violating policy in some way, you should be prepared to quote the exact wording of that part of that policy. I feel that I am quite aware of what our policies do and don't state, having myself spent many hours working on those same policies you're now throwing at me. If you don't feel that you have the sufficient dialectic tools to discuss things with me sensibly as adults, you might want to consider first having a good stiff drink. If you feel the pressing need to talk down to me, instruct me in etiquette, or impugn my intelligence or motivations, during your discussion, you are quite unlikely to be successful in your goal of correcting the Evil I'm allegedly unleashing upon the world.

---

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal Case Page

Some essays I happen to like, and which you might want to read:

Ethics, Don't smother conflict,Advice for new administrators,Honesty, Don't call a spade a spade, Inertia Don't Beat a Dead Horse Don't spite your face Don't template the regulars Charitableness Editors matter Expert retention Five pillars of evil Negotiation

ARCHIVING NOTICE: I reserve the right to archive any discussion older then 15 days. And I reserve the right to archive whatever I feel like archiving, and delete whatever I feel like deleting. For older discussions see

Expert editors

I am a professional biographer, specializing in biographies of obscure persons of local historical note, as such I claim qualification as an Expert Editor on matters of Local History and Biography. Let me quote the No original research page: '"No original research" does not prohibit experts on a specific topic from adding their knowledge to Wikipedia. On the contrary, Wikipedia welcomes the contributions of experts, as long as their knowledge is verifiable. We assume, however, that someone is an expert not only because of their personal and direct knowledge of a topic, but also because of their knowledge of published sources on a topic. This policy prohibits expert editors from drawing on their personal and direct knowledge if such knowledge is unverifiable. If an expert editor has published the results of his or her research elsewhere, in a reputable publication, the editor can cite that source while writing in the third person and complying with our NPOV policy. They must cite reliable, third-party publications and may not use their unpublished knowledge, which would be impossible to verify. We hope expert editors will draw on their knowledge of published sources to enrich our articles, bearing in mind that specialists do not occupy a privileged position within Wikipedia.' Wjhonson 17:57, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

A user can blank their own talk page, see: Vandalism? from which I quote: " It is generally recognized that the user of a talk page has the right to blank it. (Deliberate repeated deletion of requests, such as of requests to be civil, is not vandalism. It is only WP:DICK.) "

And furthermore this: User Talk is Not Article Talk from which I quote: "Many users, including admins and at least two arbitrators, routinely remove comments from their Talk pages, and advertise this." At this point he quotes User talk:Neutrality which states "I archive when I feel like it. Depending on my whim, your comments may or may not be archived. The odds of not being archived are inversely proportional to the amount you annoy me. Please do not annoy me."

And again this: xxx

Per these statements, I am removing any "outside comment" from my talk page that I don't like as wiki policy (see Wiki:Vandalism) states quite clearly that a user "may remove any outside comment from their own talk pages at their OWN discretion" (added emphasis). Wjhonson 17:42, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Jackson Memorial edit

You're right, that was poorly worded. What I had hoped to convey in my original wording is that the President's memo does not directly establish the requirement, it orders the HHS deparatment to come up with rules, and the rules will require hospitals that wish to continue to recieve Medicare to provide access same-sex partners and other patient-designated individuals. For that reason, it's not quite correct to say what you've said here, but it's probably close enough, particularly for this article. Thanks for the correction! --Joe Decker (talk) 23:07, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Mike Jones (personal trainer)

An article that you have been involved in editing, Mike Jones (personal trainer), has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mike Jones (personal trainer). Thank you.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. meco (talk) 21:40, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 18:56, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Sylvia Cranston

The article Sylvia Cranston has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Had notability tag since July 2008. This bio has no WP:RS and makes no claim to notability.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Verbal chat 14:12, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Timothy J. Boham

The trial started in 2009, and the source says "2009." Also, he was convicted/found guilty July 5, 2009.

Perhaps you could add a little regarding the trial and conviction.Ryoung122 07:49, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Hawthorne

I removed the fact tag you added for Nathaniel Hawthorne. It is fairly well-known that Hawthorne himself changed the spelling of his last name. A source is already provided in the article; the lede does not need to have its own source. If what's in the article isn't enough, I'd be happy to find more sources. --Midnightdreary (talk) 01:49, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

This is a well-known fact in New England history. I'd also be happy to supply sources as well. MarmadukePercy (talk) 02:06, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Here's a source: Hawthorne's own signature while a student at Bowdoin College. Notice he spells his name Hathorne in this early instance. [1] MarmadukePercy (talk) 02:26, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

"Fairly well-known" is not how Wikipedia works. We work by the use of actual sources which readers can verify. The source provided does not state what the article is claiming that it states. Please quote the exact words the source uses. "Well-known fact" is not a sufficient source. His signature is not a source for whether he changed it as opposed to anyone else, and it's not a source for why he might have changed it. Speculation or claims of why he or anyone else changed it are original research and an exact quote from a source needs to be used to back up a claim of that sort. Wjhonson (talk) 12:18, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Conflict escalation

Your actions are inflammatory. You do not understand the situation, so you pour gasoline on it? That does not speak well of your ability to remain an admin in my opinion.Wjhonson (talk) 00:56, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I do not see my actions as inflammatory. We were having a discussion a month ago. You are the one who left in the middle of it; for you to ignore that and restore the links with a note that says "do not revert without discussion" seems extraordinary, to say the least. Nevertheless, as you know, I have sought feedback. We'll see what comes of it. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:05, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I see your actions as inflammatory. I explained very clearly why Genealogics is not a mirror nor a fork. You completely ignored my explanation and removed the link. That inflames the situation. That is not part of conflict resolution, that is part of conflict escalation. Address directly, exactly what I stated. And don't merely repeat that they copy, when I've pointed out several times, that they do not.Wjhonson (talk) 01:09, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

You left a conversation for a full month and, ignoring the input of others, restored the links. Two editors pointed out why it will not serve at Talk:Anthony Paulet. That you feel it does cannot override those concerns. You should have continued the discussion before determining to restore the links. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:15, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

There was no "conversation". There was an event, which was over. Whether two or ten editors can't grasp what a mirror or fork actually is, isn't my concern, until they interfere with scholarly research like this. Address directly the issue of whether Genealogics the site, is a mirror or fork, or whether you are going to pursue your extraordinary claim that copying a single page, suddenly makes a site of hundreds of thousands of pages, into a fork.Wjhonson (talk) 01:17, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

There was a conversation; it was not an event that was over. You left the conversation with a question posed to you. If you disagreed with the opposition you received from User:Rodw and me at Talk:Anthony Paulet, where both of us objected to the use of the link, you should have sought dispute resolution rather than returning the link to the article in the manner you did. If two editors are objecting to an action you want to take, the proper approach is to get additional feedback in the appropriate venue and manner. It is not appropriate to open a second conversation on an ongoing dispute at one noticeboard without clearly indicating what you are doing; please see our policy on Wikipedia:Consensus and particularly the notes about forum shopping. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:49, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

There was no conversation. It was an event which was over. I did not leave a conversation with a questin posed at me. There was no disagreement from two editors. There were not two editors objecting to a link. It was entirely appropriate to open a new conversation on the issue you raised, as you failed to comprehend the meaning of the language. Do not quote policy at me, that I helped write. I did clearly indicate to you that I had solicited additional feedback and I gave you, in fact, a link directly to it. Your approach in this situation has been fraught with conflict escalation and aggression. You as an admin should realize you are involved, and back away, as admins are required to do in edit conflicts in which they are involved.Wjhonson (talk) 19:30, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Editor one; editor two; unanswered question. You may wish to review WP:INVOLVED. I have not used my administrative tools or taken any administrative action in regards to the use of this link; administrators are not prohibited from involvement in content development. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:50, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

That question was apparently rhetorical since I had already stated that the bio was copied. You didn't look at the actual page, otherwise you would have seen that the bio is only one small part of that page. A page which contains several buttons and functions you did not use, which are all germane to this conversation. You seem not aware of what genealogics is, or can do, if you think the entire page, is made up of this small portion. The bio was copied. The bio is an insignificant part of the page.Wjhonson (talk) 22:52, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

There was nothing rhetorical about that question, given that you yourself brought the copying into question: "The fact that it cites Wikipedia does not indicate it is an automatic copy." --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:16, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Then I suggest you didn't actually look at the page on Genealogics at all. Otherwise you should have seen plainly that the page is not a copy of anything. One part of the page is a copy. The rest of the page is not a copy. The only possible thing I could gather from the question, was that you hadn't looked. And now as pointed out, you want to remove one of the very sources that were used to create this page in the first place. And you don't think that's troubling.Wjhonson (talk) 23:21, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Invitation to join WikiProject United States

Hello, Wjhonson! WikiProject United States, an outreach effort supporting development of United States related articles in Wikipedia, has recently been restarted after a long period of inactivity. As a user who has shown an interest in United States related topics we wanted to invite you to join us in developing content relating to the United States. If you are interested please add your Username and area of interest to the members page here. Thank you!!!

--Kumioko (talk) 03:03, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

A fellow ogre and respect for womanhood

I enjoyed your user page and the preamble on this page immensely. Curmudgeonliness is undervalued these days. I was reminded of both Walter Matthau, and of the ruler of a rare books store where I once worked, who chain smoked a pipe. If a customer entered smoking he would roar 'PUT THAT OUT' (puff puff) -I can smoke but you can't" .

Given your prediliction for genealogy research I wanted to set you a task- finding the maiden surname and present surname of Jimmy Wales' first wife Pam. He maintains her surname is irrelevant and will not divulge it [[2]].

I believe it would be disrespectful to the woman, and to women in general, to fail to include it where she is mentioned.

When men are quoted we offer them the courtesy of using their full names.We also do so generally for women with high status.So this omission could be seen as both sexist and elitist. What do you think ?--— Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 07:25, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Steve Heller (computers) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Steve Heller (computers) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Heller (computers) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:16, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Category:LGBT actors from the United States

Hi. I deleted Category:LGBT actors from the United States, which you recently created, as a recreation of the category deleted by this discussion. If, after reading the discussion, you believe that the original decision was an error or that the category should exist, I encourage you to propose recreation of the category at WT:LGBT or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies/Categories or to pursue a deletion review (but, first, contact the person who closed the discussion, User:Vegaswikian). Best, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 04:36, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion for WikiProject United States to support WikiProject Washington

It was recently suggested that WikiProject Washington might be inactive or semiactive and it might be beneficial to include it in the list of projects supported by WikiProject United States. I have started a discussion on the projects talk page soliciting the opinions of the members of the project if this project would be interested in being supported by WikiProject United States. Please feel free to comment on your opinions about this suggestion. --Kumioko (talk) 01:42, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

September 2011 Newsletter for WikiProject United States

The September 2011 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

 
--Kumioko (talk) 02:55, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Deletion review for Frederick Glaysher

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Frederick Glaysher. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Radon Detection (talk) 10:59, 22 September 2011 (UTC) -->

Following the instructions, I'm letting you know of this Deletion Review.

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Frederick_Glaysher

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2010_May_

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2011_September_21

December 2011 Newsletter for WikiProject United States

The December 2011 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

 
--Kumioko (talk) 03:48, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

January 2012 Newsletter for WikiProject United States and supported projects

The January 2012 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

 
--Kumi-Taskbot (talk) 18:20, 16 January 2012 (UTC)