User talk:Hal Cross

Do not edit my talk page

You placed a comment on my talk page and I removed it. You reverted my edit. Please stop this behavior. Please do not revert any my on changes on my own talk page. This is not acceptable. Thank you. —Christopher Mann McKay^talk 04:31, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I added extra information to the prior edit. I wish to inform you of what I see as your unconstructive and distruptive behaviour on the AFA article. Hal Cross 06:24, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't care about your complaints. Do not fill up my talk page with your claims that I am unconstructive and distruptive, when it is you who is being unconstructive. Thank you very much. —Christopher Mann McKay^talk 06:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I replied to you on your talkpage. Hal Cross 06:48, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Please do not comment on my talk page. I don't wish to dicuss anything with you. Thank you very much. —Christopher Mann McKay^talk 06:57, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Welcome back

Welcome back, Hal. Glad to see that after gaining all that experience in content disputes, you used it to make constructive contributions to a wide variety of Wikipedia articles. In the interests of continuing that positive outlook, how about you engage in the discussion instead of just edit warring, and perhaps even make some arguments rather than appealing to an invalid interpretation of policy? Thanks, Orpheus 02:27, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, my webconnection was down for a while. Its fine to make reversions where they are obvious and if you are not repeating the same editsummary. Now, how about us removing all those controversial categories we nicely allowed you to keep a few weeks ago? It can happen really easily. We have consensus based recommendations on our side. Hal Cross 02:36, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

In response to your message on my talk page, all I am interested in is discussing the content of the article. Your empty comments like "It can happen really easily" are a complete waste of time. Seriously - try actually discussing the content rather than throwing around who said what and where. You posted on WP:AN/I about this sort of thing and it was resoundingly ignored. Doesn't that tell you something? Orpheus 16:08, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

If you have a problem with me personally just say it. I am simply referring to WP policies and recommendations, and stating what seems to be inevitable about what happens with categories. Controversial cats tend to get ditched, and for good NPOV based reason. Its just one of those things. Hal Cross 16:35, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with you personally. Your reading of Wikipedia policy is flawed and your approach to community-based discussion is unhelpful, but none of that affects how I view you personally. You need to show that the categories are controversial - you can't just say that they are. Orpheus 17:13, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Orpheus, you seem to be sending mixed messages. You seemed not to want deja vu on the AFA talkpage. But above you want me to go over the same ground and show what must be the most obviously controversial subject in the article. I don't mind, but you may appear to be quite vexatious to other editors. So what do you want, to revisit or not? Hal Cross 18:07, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

No mixed messages, it's quite straightforward. I'm happy to discuss the content of articles. I'm sick and tired of your continuous posts to the talk pages that contain no actual discussion of content. The deja vu came about because you seem to be up to "adopt air of injured innocence", which if I recall correctly is the second or third step of the approach you took last time. If you're prepared to discuss the merits or otherwise of the Homophobia category, then that's great. If you insist on saying things that belong in a spaghetti western like "Now, how about us removing all those controversial categories we nicely allowed you to keep a few weeks ago? It can happen really easily" then it's very difficult to have a constructive discussion. Orpheus 18:27, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Orpheus, you don't seem to understand the situation you are in. You negotiated for compromise for a few weeks, and now that the page is unlocked and new editors seem to be helping you with reversions, you have broken the compromise. I am offering you a chance to reconsider. I don't think I could put it more plainly than I have above. Please reconsider. There are other editors on the article who are pretty upset you seem to be wasting everyone's time. I am remaining patient about it because I think that is what is required. Continue to throw accusations if you wish. But editors are quite well directed to remove any controversial categories, and cat disputes show that any disputed cats tend to stay gone long term. Hal Cross 03:14, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

(od) What are you talking about? This is a total non sequitur. Wikipedia isn't a daggers-drawn, pistols at 10 paces adversarial forum. It's a community. The way it works is that people advance an argument to support their point of view, the community considers it and the argument which sways enough people (not necessarily everybody) ends up being considered consensus. It's not treaty negotiation. Nobody ever agreed to "If we can have X, then Y can go".

If you go back through the discussion, you'll find that the homophobia category was removed because it was a subcategory of Discrimination. It's frowned upon to have a category and its subcategory in the same article. As a result, homophobia was removed. Now the article isn't in the discrimination category, that reason is invalid. I don't see any other reason to remove it.

Some specific points: "I am offering you a chance to reconsider" - what gives you the right to make that offer? It's not your article, just like it's not mine. You aren't the gatekeeper who decides what goes in and what doesn't, and taking that role as you seem to want to is not a helpful position.

"cat disputes show that any disputed cats tend to stay gone long term" - I disagree, and there's a lot of articles out there that support that position. Perhaps if you edited more widely you would have noticed that.

"There are other editors on the article who are pretty upset you seem to be wasting everyone's time" - That's a ridiculous comment.

"new editors seem to be helping you with reversions, you have broken the compromise" - You don't appear to be paying very close attention to the page history.

As a suggestion, try advancing arguments of your own on the article talk page rather than making nonsense comments like "I'll check through the literature". It's the text equivalent of nodding sagely in a bar, and just as useful. Orpheus 08:53, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm being patient with you because I believe that is the most productive way forward. I am explaining what I see as the situation as clearly as I can. I know you disagree with me, but I am looking for points of agreement here. Timing is an issue. Exhausting editor's patience is really something to be avoided. You seem to have dismissed the possibility of the previous compromise that took editors time, patience and a lot of generosity to achieve. If you begin to show willingness to work back towards compromise then I believe things may improve for you. I'm content to wait a while. Hal Cross 09:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Civility

Excuse me? I don't see how my statement was "cutting". I've been ignoring your continuing snide remarks about how I'm supposedly pushing an agenda, and suppressing information, and the other accusations you keep alluding to, and you're calling me uncivil? I find it interesting that if you go back over the talk page history, the only time progress is ever made on disputes is when everybody, on all sides, totally ignores you. That suggests to me that your method of dispute resolution is combatative and unhelpful. Orpheus 00:25, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Orpheus, your edits are definitely suppressing information[1]. There is no two ways about it. You repeatedly remove sourced and relevant facts about the views of the AFA. I am referring to your edits and not to you. However, you have cast aspersions by implying I am homophobic. Please stop being so personal. I have to talk about the homosexual agenda on the AFA article because its core to the subject. I am working on getting the article into shape, and your personalizing is highly unconstructive. Please be civil. Hal Cross 02:32, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Edit Warring

Please cease the edit warring on this page WAVY 10 16:22, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

AFA

please participate here. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 02:28, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Sure Jaakobou. Thanks in advance for your input. Hal Cross 11:51, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Editor review

If you're serious about wanting feedback on your editing, make a post at WP:ER and ask for some. I think you'd benefit from the experience. Orpheus 06:11, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm looking for higher level information. Admin coaching may be more appropriate. It involves more problem solving with controversial articles and issues. Hal Cross 06:45, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Admin coaching? Go for it. Here's the link: WP:ADMINCOACH. I think the response you get will be an extremely useful guide for you. Orpheus 07:35, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I had it already thanks. Hal Cross 07:41, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

What are you waiting for, then? You want feedback on your editing, you know where to ask for it - go for it! Be bold! Orpheus 09:07, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm already getting feedback thanks. Hal Cross 11:20, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Really? Who from? You seemed very keen to get feedback on your editing style, but I don't see where you've posted in the many forums and sources of assistance available to you on Wikipedia. Orpheus 15:54, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I've been requesting admin advice since I came here. Its often very helpful. They seem to be quite happy to be contacted using a direct approach. Hal Cross 17:02, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Really? How do you request that, because I don't see any such posts in your contributions. I'm curious to know what method you use, and who "they" might be. Orpheus 17:36, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

We are allowed to email each other to seek advice, to offer advice, and so on. Are you asking me to give you a list of each and every experienced editor and admin I have contacted in the past months? Hal Cross 18:04, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

No, but one or two representatives would be a helpful resource. It's always nice to expand one's list of useful contacts. It's somewhat against the spirit of Wikipedia to get advice via email rather than on talk pages where everybody can benefit from it. Orpheus 18:12, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Well I just pick any. Their standards are pretty good as far as I can tell, and you can always get a second opinion. Hal Cross 01:53, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

AFA

I had a glance through and didn't see anything too obviously wrong, but I'll do a full copyedit soon. I got distracted by a friend needing help with his computer. Adam Cuerden ^talk 22:24, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks much Adam. The article has long term problems, so no rush. Hal Cross 02:03, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Possible Boycott Page

I will begin work on the AFA Boycott page probably on Friday (lightest day I have in college). You can look for it then on my user page at that point (it will have ana sterisk beside it noting it is in progress). God bless. WAVY 10 22:34, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks much WavyHal Cross 02:11, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikiquette

The external opinion you've been talking about for ages and never yet asked for: Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#User:Hal Cross Orpheus 09:49, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I never asked for your opinion. I was interested in outside views. Hal Cross 09:52, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

That's what I requested! If I just wanted to give you my opinion I would have posted it here (and, by the way, not bothered in the first place). Orpheus 09:58, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Religion

I spotted this comment from you: I am not a practicing Christian, Muslim, or any other type of Abrahamic religious follower ([2]). Why, then does your user page say "This user loves God more than anyone and anything!"? I'm genuinely curious about this, it doesn't affect your wiki-editing either way so the answer is of no practical consequence. Orpheus 15:02, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Are you also calling me a liar? Hal Cross 15:02, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

No, of course not. Like I said, I'm genuinely curious - comparative religious philosophy is an academic interest of mine. Orpheus 15:07, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Well you are going to have to compare with atheism, scientific skepticism, or probably "I don't give a toss about the afterlife", then. Hal Cross 15:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

So how does that match the love-of-God userbox? I'd like to know what you think on the matter. Orpheus 15:12, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

It all depends on your assumptions about origins. I would disagree with a lot of Christians over conceptualizations of God. I interpret scripture according to my own reading. If you have considered philosophy at all, you would most likely have considered the possibility of a creator. You can be decisive about whether to believe in one or not. And you can be decisive about all the ramifications, or not. I choose to be decisive, at least provisionally, and accept all other views. Wikipedia seems to be consistent with my way of thinking. Just because you know God exists, is the origin of everything, and is there to help, it doesn't follow that you have to be religious about everything. One can believe in God, and at the same time use one's thoughtfulness to determine what is right and wrong or more or less biased etc. This probably has no baring on WP. I don't care if you are a rampant heterosexual, a neonazi, a Scientologist, a Lutheran, or even an administrator. Its encyclopedic articles that count here. Hal Cross 16:02, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Do not disrupt Wikipedia to make a point

You removed a perfectly good chunk of information, information that consensus (including you) supported including, in response to unrelated concerns about reliable sources. Effectively, you were cutting off the nose to spite the face. It is a clear and established policy that a group like the AFA cannot be considered a reliable source for most of its article. That does not mean that the section in question was inappropriate. Furthermore, such rash actions may even constitute vandalism and are certainly disruptive in order to draw attention to an unrelated point (about which you are incorrect). Please pay more mind to policy and do not edit disruptively. And keep in mind that this is not an accusation, it is a warning and some advice, to help you contribute more constructively. --Cheeser1 19:43, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Please assume good faith and be patient. I am missing something here. I have been working constructively all along, including constructively accepting suggestions on the Wikiquette article[3]. Perhaps you could say I am dumb. Please explain to me which parts are acceptable, and which are unacceptable for applying AFA sourced views, because I honestly don't know. Those [4]were certainly not views reached via consensus. They are narrow snippets that anti-AFA editors would most probably prefer because they are evangelical, rather than reason oriented. I added other views and beliefs that were always deleted because editors didn't like them[5]. and was about to add views that were more representative of the AFA as a whole and included non-AFA sources. Your input will help. Assuming good faith will probably also help. Hal Cross 19:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

If you don't understand WP:RS, as you seem to be admitting, don't make bold edits based on it. The AFA may provide input to characterize it's views, in a broad sense, however it cannot be used as a source throughout the article, especially not to counter criticisms. This was explained on the WP:WQA. --Cheeser1 20:32, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but this all seems very inconsistent. Perhaps your friends on the Wikiquette article have a slightly different view from you [6]. I'm honestly not trying to be deliberately obtuse. I've had enough of that to know it can induce rage. I'll keep off any sort of editing for a day to focus on discussion and getting the picture straight. Hal Cross 20:36, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are saying here, except perhaps to imply that I meant the exact opposite of what I actually did mean. As regards to this discussion, I don't disagree with Cheeser1 in even the slightest fraction, as far as I can tell. WP:SELFPUB isn't really very unclear; I don't quite understand what the confusion is here. Dlabtot 02:50, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I think you are correct Dlabtot. It took me a while to sort it out because people kept saying Orpheus and CMMK were doing nothing wrong. Thats the inconsistency that had me confused. I was using them as an example of correctness. I saw lots of information that complies with that selfpub list being removed from the article. I think I've sorted it out now. I'll restore the wrongly deleted material in a minute, and you can give me specific feedback if you have time. Regards Hal Cross 02:56, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, mea culpa, I should have read the diff before I left the comment above. I do believe that organization's 'mission statement's have no place in articles - they are basically a sales pitch. OTOH, taking that all out, while leaving the heading, and not talking about it on the talk page, could give the impression that it was done to make a point rather than to create a better article through a consensus process. I could be wrong about that. Like I said, I think imho, the article is better off without a mission statement. Looking at the page for a similarly controversial political organization, MoveOn, there is nothing comparable. But maybe, considering that the editing environment on the article is, shall we say, a little heated, this is a point to go slow and do a lot of talking to achieve consensus before being super bold. Just to be on the safe side. OTOH, I really am pretty new here, I'm no one to give advice. Dlabtot 03:11, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Sure, I don't think mission statements are particularly important either. The views of the AFA can be far better represented via attachment to their reported activities. Hal Cross 03:58, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Using citations to back-up information not mentioned in the citation

You added this edit to the [[American Family Association|AFA]] article while ago "Some psychologists complained the advertisements would encourage pedophilia.<ref>"Calvin Klein bows to campaign critics". ''[[New York Times]]''. [[1999-02-19]]</ref>"

This reference, which you did not provide an author, URL, or ISSN for, says nothing about "psychologists" and only references "pedophilia" in the sentence: "Rev. Donald Wildmon, the president of the American Family Association in Tupelo, Miss., told Associated Press that the photo would appeal to pedophiles and was 'nothing more than pornography.'"

Using citations, which have nothing to do with the sentences you place them at, possibly hoping no one will look up the story and realize your text is complete OR, is not acceptable. You used this same reference to another complete OR sentence, which I have explained here. This type of deceitful editing is not okay. Please do not do this in the future. Thank you. —Christopher Mann McKay^talk 04:02, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree completely. Hal, there have been alot of instances where you've shown an inability to understand (or follow) WP:RS. While we are happy to help you understand it, you continue to make drastic and/or highly dubious changes to the article. Maybe you should stop making edits like this until you fully understand how sourcing works on Wikipedia. --Cheeser1 04:10, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The source states “Designer Calvin Klein decided on Wednesday to cancel an advertising campaign for his new line of children's underwear after heavy criticism from conservative groups, psychologists and the mayor, among others.” Then goes on to explicitly mention Wildmon etcHal Cross 05:19, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

And where on Earth do you make the connection between psychologists and the AFA and/or pedophelia?? See also WP:SYN. --Cheeser1 05:39, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

If memory serves correctly, the article talks about Calvin Klein being complained about by the AFA, and psychologists who are concerned that the ads will encourage pedophilia. As always I am open to the fact being rephrased to make it more accurate or correct. And as seems to be their habit, Orpheus and CMMK simply remove such information regardless of what the source specifies. I'd like to remind you again that I am not trying to push any particular POV here and I have never to my knowledge removed any well sourced criticism from the article.

Just a minor point. You used bold on the word Earth. That gives me the impression you are shouting at me. I am not sure about that particular area of convention here, but its certainly something I will avoid. I have seen other editors use italic to emphasize parts of the sentence and will use that method instead.

Also, I do admit to being confused now about a number of things and I'd appreciate your input. Some points of confusion still remaining are;

• Was I not assuming good faith by pointing out Orpheus' lack of communication and lack of acknowledgement of my use of any sources? Were you not assuming good faith by accusing me of twisting your words?

• If I add a sourced statement, and the source and statement do not match perfectly, is it more appropriate to remove the statement altogether, or to adjust the statement to fit the source more correctly?

• I am still unsure over which statements of the AFA should be allowed in and which AFA statements should be struck from the article. I will work on that on my own though as I think you are correct to send me to the appropriate guidelines for clarification from the source. Your recommendation to take a break is one way to go. I'll keep working on making the article more encyclopedic though and avoid using AFA sourced statements without support from other sources. Your input has been quite inconsistent I feel, but quite positive over all. At least I have a better idea of the sort of sources I need to sort out the ongoing "delete instead of adjust" episode. Hal Cross 07:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC)