User talk:JCarriker

| Discussion page | Página de la discusión | Page de discussion | Página de discussão |

---

-Welcome! - ¡Bienvenidos! - Bienvenue! - Benvindo! - Willkommen! - 欢迎 - Jambo -

-добро пожаловать - 歓迎 - Benvenuto! - 환영 - Welkom! - Υποδοχή - Benvenuti! -

- حفلة استقبال - Tervetuloa - Üdvözlünk - Bun venit - Velkommen - Välkommen - Witam -

- Välkommen - خوش آمدید - Selamat datang - ¡Bonvenu! - Namaste - Shalom - Swagat -

- Hosgeldini - Vítám- Bine aţi venit- Vitaju - привіт - Teranga - Fanga - Mabuhay -

• My knowledge of languages without Latin characters is negligible; please forgive me if I insulted your mother. Please correct the mistake(s) if you are a native speaker.

---

User Talk Page Courtesy of

'

Please Read this before posting

• Esta política se aplica solamente a los comentarios en inglés. Comente por favor en el fondo de la página.
• Esta política aplica-se somente aos comentários en inglés. Comente por favor no fundo da página.
• Cette politique s'applique seulement aux commentaires en anglais. Veuillez commenter en bas de la page

If you are going to post a comment on my talk page please keep in mind the tenets of wikilove and wikiquette. If you are deliberately rude to me I will probably ignore you, I may even delete your comment.

Archives: I | II | III | IV | V | VI | VII | VIII | IX | X | XI | XII | XIII | XIV | XV

Each archive has 20 headings, including my archive heading, so each archive has 19 headings of conversation. The exception is archive IV which, for the time being, lost headings to the other archives when the archives were rearranged on April 1, 2005. Posts that I delete from my talk page are not included in the archives, however by and large even the rare heated exchanges are there.

---

Please post at the bottom of the page

Hey

Hey, J Carriker,

I think that you should be nominated for administration on Wikipedia. If you accept, please tell me on my talk page, and I'd be glad to nominate you. Take care, Horatii/Dbraceyrules 21:15, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Re:Adm.

I appreciate the gesture, but I must inform you that I'm already an admin. If you'd like I can return the favor and nominate you at Rfa, in a few weeks. However I am currently pushing for a seat on the Mediation Committee, if you're interested in voicing your support for me there in the outside opinion section (only mediators can elect mediators). -JCarriker 21:28, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

lol, I didn't know you were an admn. I supported you on the Mediation Committee, but no thanks on being an administrator. I already use the computer at my house enough. Thanks anyway. Horatii/Dbraceyrules 21:39, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

re: American West

Per your request, I audited your tally of the VfD discussion. I documented my thoughts on your Sandbox page. (I hope that's where you wanted them. Please delete or move the comments if not.)

I really don't want to butt in because I don't know all the history and don't know if you have had interactions with some of the others in this discussion which were independent of the discussion threads I reviewed. My reaction as I read the various discussions was that you appear to be taking this issue quite personally - and I couldn't figure out why. I think I understand the arguments on both sides of this debate. My interpretation is that this is a "vision" question - you all are trying to decide if the article will be about the current "American West" or the historical "American West" and where you will draw that line. This is clearly a difficult decision because the term that is inherently ambiguous. Either way the decision is made, the article is likely to overlap with existing articles. It's the nature of a wiki that we sort them out through discussion, consensus and rather a lot of trial and error. I wish I could help but I have no opinion or relevant knowledge on the best way to organize this particular set of articles. Good luck. Rossami (talk) 02:52, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Mediation

Welcome to the Mediation Committee! I've moved you from the nominations section to the active mediators section since the nomination was well supported and had no opposition in over a month. Wikipedia:Requests for mediation would be a good place to start. Good luck. :) Angela. 04:56, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Hatchet job on Hatshepsut

Sorry. Saw her & an anon flash by together on my watchlist, but I was having more of a Latin American day than an Egyptian one. –Hajor 21:06, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Accurate contributions

May I ask you to have a look at the Nick Adams page. I am sorry that there is an edit war going on. I have included two additional passages in the article, but User:Wyss and his alter ego User:Ted Wilkes have repeatedly deleted this text. Interestingly, both users seem to take turns in doing repeated reverts in order to delete what I have written, presumably to escape violation of the three revert rule. See Nick Adams, history. To my mind, both users are identical. They seem to use different IP addresses, which is possible, as in the past, User:DW, another of the many aliases of Wyss and Ted Wilkes, had repeatedly been banned. Significantly, a user has written on the User:Elliot page (one of the aliases of DW):

Isn't it amazing how much Elliot's contributions mirror DW's and Ron Davis's. Same refusal to answer questions. Same insistence that he is always right. Same vicious rudeness to anyone who dares to question his judgment. Maybe we could call them the Blessed Trinity, or maybe 'The Popes', given they seem to believe in their own infallibility.

This sounds as if it has been written against users Wyss and Ted Wilkes. See also the history of the User:Ted Wilkes page. Erroneously, Wyss has also contributed to that page. See [1]

Be that as it may, I have added these two passages to the Nick Adams page:

1. At about the same time Adams was also a close friend to Elvis Presley. This is confirmed by Red West, member of the 'Memphis Mafia' (pals and employees of Elvis), and Judy Spreckels, the platonic girlfriend of Elvis in the early days of the singer's career.

What is wrong with this passage? It should be added that there are photographs showing Elvis together with Adams. So it is quite clear that Adams and Elvis had been close friends at that time. See [2] and [3] Their friendship must be mentioned in the article. It is part of Adams's biography.

2. According to several sources, Adams had homosexual leanings. In his 2004 biography Natalie Wood: A Life, Gavin Lambert writes, "Her first studio-arranged date with a gay or bisexual actor had been with Nick Adams..." In 1972, Sal Mineo stated that Adams told him that he had a big affair with James Dean. The book Elvis: The Hollywood Years (David Bret, 2002) even claims Elvis Presley was intimate with Adams. That the singer had an affair with Adams is also confirmed by Elvis's stepmother, Dee Presley. However there are no court records, contemporary letters or statements attributed to Adams to support the rumours that Adams was homosexual.

The reputed biographer Lambert, who also worked for many years as a Hollywood screenwriter, was a lifelong friend of Wood's. He was deeply involved in Hollywood's gay scene and must have known that Adams had homosexual leanings. It is also a fact that gay actor Sal Mineo was in close contact with both Adams and Dean. It should also be noted that in the Hollywood world Adams is more widely known for his contacts and affairs with other well-known stars than his acting career. So his affairs with James Dean and Elvis Presley are of much importance and should be mentioned in the article.

In my opinion, the last sentence, written by Wyss, is not necessary as many Hollywood homosexuals did not "out" themselves, but I am willing to make this concession to user Wyss. I have only cited what is written in independent books and articles (see Talk:Nick Adams). I think this is in line with the Wikipedia guidelines, as administrator User:Ed Poor said:

unless an assertion is utterly uncontroversial, it's going to need some back-up. Especially, if one of more contributors challenge the assertion. Then, it's better to move the disputed passage to the article's associated talk page.

A good way to deal with disputed ideas is to attribute an assertion to a source. Like:

Nick Adams says James Dean screwed Natalie Wood while Elvis watched (note: this is a made-up example); or,

Nick Adams says Elvis Presley paid X to cover up his homosexual affairs with Y and Z (another made-up example)

Note the common theme here. Wikipedia is not saying Adams [in the made-up example] is right, it's merely passing along his claims clearly attributed to him.

I think I have accurately cited my sources. In addition, gay biographer David Ehrenstein, who has written a book on Hollywood gays, sent me an email in which he confirmed the assertion that Adams was gay (see Talk:Nick Adams). As an expert, he must have used several sources which prove that Adams had homosexual leanings. I am the person involved in this edit war who frequently cites different sources which all prove that Adams was gay, and Wyss/Ted Wilkes is the person who is constantly disparaging these sources - in lack of further evidence supporting his view. Indeed, user Wyss is unable to cite any sources which undoubtedly prove that Adams was heterosexual. I don't know what else I can do. May I ask for mediation?

The edit war continues. It has now reached a critical point, as it has also been transferred to the Gavin Lambert article. May I again ask for help? Thanks. 80.141.180.79 11:53, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

• I srongly urge that a sockpuppet test be run as soon as possible on my account and user:Ted Wilkes. We are two different people. I have never used a sockpuppet, I have never been sanctioned or RfC'd, I've never broken 3rr. I believe that the anon's accusations along these lines are a tactic to obscure his own possibly inappropriate behavior, not to mention mask the fact that two separate, registered WP users with extensive and diverse editing histories don't agree with him. I am considering referring the anon's edit history to RfC as abusive and in bad faith. The anon has refused to follow the consensus developed on the Natalie Wood talk page after admin user:Mel Etitis submitted it to RfC. The anon's edits have always been narrowly limited to entering the word homosexual into these articles. I suspect that his goal is to do the same with the Elvis Presley article in order to seed Google with misleading keywords. The anon has attempted to get both user:Ed Poor and user:Mel Etitis, in their bureaucrat or admin capacities, to support his edits, but both have declined.

• Please note the following statement by the anon:

Indeed, user Wyss is unable to cite any sources which undoubtedly prove that Adams was heterosexual.

I have never asserted that Adams was hetereosexual (and have never used the word in the article). Rather, the anon has asserted that Adams was gay, but there is zero evidence in the documented record to support that assertion, only gossip published for the tabloid markets decades after he died. The anon has cited several of these, and all but Lambert have been widely discredited as containing interviews and other material made up from whole cloth. The Lambert biography is also problematic (and there is zero support in the documented record for his passing remarks about Adams), but much of its content does seem to be credible. Even accurate biographers make mistakes, and it appears that Lambert's brief mentions of Adams may not be accurate. Finally, when I first stumbled across the Nick Adams article (while working on Picnic (movie), the anon had described Adams' penis as the biggest piece in town. Altogether, this has led me to strongly question the credibility and motives of the anon's edits.

• As a compromise, I have been willing to allow Lambert's reference to remain in the Adams article, and it was recently there, but the anon seems to use these references as toeholds to gradually add more and more gossip until the articles are overwhelmed out of any resemblance to reality or (more importantly) the documented record available through secondary sources.

• The bright side to all of this is that I've been led to do so much research on Adams that the article is vastly more informative and helpful than it was when I found it, which does say something positive about the WP process. Wyss 21:50, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Just a few remarks. User:Wyss says, "the anon has asserted that Adams was gay, but there is zero evidence in the documented record to support that assertion, only gossip published for the tabloid markets decades after he died." So this editor is still disparaging the many independent sources I have cited on the Talk:Nick Adams page, among them serious biogaphies and books on Hollywood's gays. Wyss further says: "Even accurate biographers make mistakes, and it appears that Lambert's brief mentions of Adams may not be accurate." So Wyss's view is based on his personal opinion that a gay biographer, who personally knew both Nick Adams and Natalie Wood, may be wrong when he has clearly stated that Wood dated gay actor Adams. In addition, Wyss writes, "As a compromise, I have been willing to allow Lambert's reference to remain in the Adams article, and it was recently there," but some days ago he totally deleted this reference, saying on the discussion page, on which I had presented an additional statement by gay biographer David Ehrenstein supporting my view: "The anon has convinced me, I don't think the rumour even reaches the bar for a mention in the article." To be sure: We are talking here about a contribution to the "Rumour" section of the article, which is supported by several independent sources. Significantly, this is the most recent contribution by user Wyss to the Gavin Lambert page: [4] To sum up: it seems as if user Wyss refuses mediation, for he is unwilling to accept the fact that there are serious written sources which support the assertion that Adams was gay. 80.141.242.209 23:56, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

There are zero secondary sources citing documented evidence to support the anon's assertion. Wyss 00:48, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

This is what you constantly claim. 80.141.200.241 02:56, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

User:JCarriker, you are mistaken (but that's ok), please see my reply on my talk page. Wyss 23:35, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

As User:Wyss so strongly urges that a sockpuppet test be run as soon as possible on his account and that of User:Ted Wilkes, you may know that it's easy to disguise one's IP address by using an anonymizer. It's also possible to come in from different IP addresses and post something different at nearly the same time. You only need to use two different personal computers sharing the Internet connection through different Internet service providers. If I am right that users Wyss and Ted Wilkes are identical with User:DW and his many aliases who in the past had repeatedly been hard banned, then he certainly would have made arrangements to easily withstand such a sockpuppet test. What makes me so certain that these users are identical?

1. User:JillandJack, an alias of DW, whose account was banned by Adam Bishop and Angela in February 2005, has created the biased article on David Bret, which in its first version, I am sure, was only written in order to cast aspersions on this biographer, who, in his book on Elvis Presley, had stated that Elvis may have been gay. See also Talk:David Bret. Significantly, Ted Wilkes was the only user who repeatedly reverted all my contributions, which made the article more neutral, to the biased edit by JillandJack. See history of the said page. Ted Wilkes even ignored what administrator User:DropDeadGorgias said on the discussion page, namely, that my version of the page is far less POV than the one by JillandJack he stubbornly preferred.
2. User Wyss used similar arguments as Ted Wilkes presented some weeks ago to suppress my contributions to the articles on Nick Adams and Natalie Wood. He repeatedly deleted these contributions.
3. Ted Wilkes frequently accused me of being a vandal, a troll, etc. Significantly, the following sentence can be found on User:Wyss's page: "I think the Internet trolls inhabiting Wikipedia are its biggest weakness since they stir up unhelpful vandalism and sabotage throughout helpful anarchy."
4. On the Talk:Natalie Wood page user Wyss even accuses me of an alleged "standard tactic of trying to wear me down with repetition of mostly factual but slightly distorted material." This is remarkably similar to what Ted Wilkes says on the Talk:Nick Adams page: "This is the 'wear them down' tactic that they have successfully used over and over with others who objected to false and unfounded claims on the Presley page, doing it so many times that the other users eventually gave up."
5. As a reply to administrator User:Willmcw's comment on the User talk:Mel Etitis page, Wyss has written: "You clearly haven't read that link yourself. Why didn't you bother to check it? Maybe because you're so busy as a new Wikipedia:Admin?" This sounds very similar to flamings by Ted Wilkes. I only mention his reply to administrator Mel Etitis: "Yet again I have to request that you read facts and know what you are talking about before commenting. I suggest, since this matter is in the hands of Wikipedia:Mediator Ed Poor, that it might be best for you to refrain from further comments and not interfere in the process." For the stubbornness of user Ted Wilkes, see also [5]
6. User Wyss called administrator Mel Etitis "dearest troll". On the Talk:Natalie Wood page, administrator Mel Etitis said: "it does seem to me that the anon is right in thinking that there's a good deal of circumstantial evidence that suggests a strong link between you [i.e. Wyss] and Ted Wilkes (talk • contribs) — similar styles, even to your user pages, similar aggressive and short-tempered approach to other users, etc., not to mention the very similar comments and editing interests. We could settle it by asking for a sock-puppet check, but so far as I can tell, if you are using both accounts, you haven't used them for nefarious purposes, so I have no desire to bother a developer. ... The suggestion that you have a second account isn't an accusation, as it wouldn't be against Wikipedia policy for you to have one — there's only be a problem if you used the two in certain ways. Intriguing though it is that you've brought this irrelevant debate here rather than discussing the article, I must decline to be distracted by it. ... With regard to the relevant issues – the anon. editor's addition – I held (and still hold) that Wyss's deletion of a large chunk of text was unjustified. ... The material seems to be adequately sourced; Wyss's only reason for deleting it all is aesthetic; that isn't adequate grounds for his behaviour according to Wikipedia policy."

To my mind, Ted Wilkes seems to have many further accounts, for example, User:NightCrawler, or User:Karl Schalike, and also posted anonymously as User:66.61.69.65, User:24.165.212.202 and User:82.40.81.132, etc.

As every unbiased reader can see, it is Wyss/Ted Wilkes's intention to suppress any reference which supports the assertion that some popular male movie stars were gay, although there are several independent sources which prove the fact that they had homosexual leanings and affairs with other male stars. To my mind, Wyss/Ted Wilkes personally wishes that these stars should be seen as 100% straight, but the sources prove that he is wrong. Therefore, both Wyss and his alter ego Ted Wilkes frequently disparage the sources I have cited on the discussion pages and repeatedly revert articles to the version they like. This is a clear offense against the Wikipedia guidelines.

Again, I strongly urge that a sockpuppet test be run on my account to end the anon's distracting (and I believe abusive and deliberate) allegations about "alter-egos" and so on. As for his accusations of "suppression", this is nothing more than a source dispute. There is zero documented evidence to support the anon's assertions. Wyss 03:03, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Harmless

Tnx. It is harmless, but usless, so I will delete it as some trash (there is no User:Piotruś and this subpage was made by an anon). I wonder - how did you find it?? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 21:45, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Sockpuppet checks

I can't do sockpuppet checks. Only David Gerard and Tim Starling have access to CheckUser to see the IPs of these users. However, using the "old-fashioned" approach of looking at user contributions, I'd say it's extremely unlikely they're the same person. I'll explain why by email. Angela. 03:10, July 24, 2005 (UTC)