User talk:Jacona

Photos in Oktibbeha County?

Do you know of people willing to take photos in Oktibbeha County for Wikipedia? WhisperToMe (talk) 17:18, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WhisperToMe, not really...I am willing to take them when I am there, which is not often but appears may be this weekend, lol. What do you need? Jacona (talk) 17:25, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll provide a list and feel free to photograph them whenever it is convenient

Starkville:

City hall (if not already there): 110 W Main Street, Starkville, MS 39759
Post office: 822 TAYLOR ST STARKVILLE, MS 39759-9998
Starkville School District HQ: 401 Greensboro Street, Starkville, MS 39759
Starkville High School: 603 Yellowjacket Drive, Starkville, MS 39759
There are many other public school facilities in the city but the SDHQ and HS are the most important two. I can provide more if you like.
(Apparently Henderson High School was at 200 Dr Martin Luther King Jr Dr W but it seems another school is there: Henderson Ward Stewart Elementary School - It's possible a historic plaque is there)
Starkville Academy: 505 Academy Road, Starkville, MS 39759

Maben:

City hall: 4026 Second Avenue, Maben MS 39750 as stated here
Post Office: 157 WATER ST., MABEN, MS 39750-9681
Maben Library: 831 2nd Avenue, Maben, Mississippi 39750
Former West Oktibbeha County High School: 2459 Holland Street, Maben, MS 39750

Sturgis:

City hall: 3851 Hwy 12 West, Sturgis MS 39769 as stated here
Post office: 2738 HIGHWAY 12 W, STURGIS, MS 39769-9127
West Oktibehha Elementary School: 127 Sturgis-Maben Road, Sturgis, MS 39769
Sturgis Library: 2732 Highway 12 West, Sturgis, Mississippi 39769

Other:

East Oktibbeha County High School (higher quality pics): 1780 Moor High Rd., Crawford, MS 39743

Thanks!

WhisperToMe (talk) 17:41, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Tampa Bay Christian Athletic League for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Tampa Bay Christian Athletic League 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/Tampa Bay Christian Athletic League until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-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 notice from the top of the article. Spiderone 09:52, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

October 2020

I was trying to add DS warnings when I found someone else did. You are allowed to delete them. But, your edit summary: Discretionary sanction templates given to an experienced editor is a passive-aggressive act of incivility. As you are quite experienced, I'm sure you know that. Please treat others as you would like to be treated is wrong and a personal attack. Further, your edit [1] calling good faith editors "haters" is a serious personal attack and lack of good faith. Please dial it down. O3000 (talk) 01:11, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Really? When I'm hit up with a page full of templates you are suprised that I'm ungrateful, you call it a personal attack? I stand by my edit summary, templating an experienced editor with 3000 bytes of discretionary sanctions is a passive-aggressive act of incivility. I'm sure the majority of editors agree with me. Please keep your discussion of the article in one place, and stop coming to talk pages trying to pick fights. Wikipedia is not your battleground.Jacona (talk) 01:38, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DS templates are required and not uncivil. This is not an example of templating the regulars. And your claim I came here to "pick fights" or engaged in battleground is yet another PA and lack of AGF. Please dial it down. O3000 (talk) 01:43, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I know of no policy requiring DS templates. I have seen that multiple editors, including one that is the alternate account of a permanently blocked users, bullied another editor to the point they asked to have their account deleted. DS templates are not necessary here, nor are your accusations. Instead of more passive-aggressive comments like the one above, please stay off my talk page unless you have a legitimate question or comment. If you do, I will be happy to respond cordially. Further micro-aggressions will be treated appropriately. Jacona (talk) 01:52, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A fairly recent RfC allows you to put a notice at the top of your TP to say that you are aware of DS sanctions and list which. If not, you will continue to be templated on an annual basis. O3000 (talk) 00:39, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, O3000. Could you be so kind as to post a link to the RfC? Jacona (talk) 13:23, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See [2]. O3000 (talk) 13:59, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, O3000, but I was asking about the RfC rather than the template. Do you know where that can be found? Jacona (talk) 16:33, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't remember. May have been at ARCA or ARBCOM. O3000 (talk) 16:38, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:35, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Precious anniversary

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:13, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tupelo, Mississippi

I saw your edit at Tupelo and it reminded me of nearly getting bit by a ratter snapping a photo of Elvis Presley Lake. Just wanted to wish you a happy new year and hope all is well. Cheers. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:29, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Barnett

The fact that editors determined that Barnett did not warrant his own page, is not evidence that he cannot be mentioned in other articles. Again, I point to his mention in the primary reference article on the January 6 riots. Johnadams11 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 01:19, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please visit the article talk page to discuss. Barnett is not notable, Draft:Richard "Bigo" Barnett was rejected as insufficiently notable, and there is no connection between Gravette and the insurrection. Per WP:BLP1E, he is simply not notable. Please discuss at article talk.Jacona (talk) 14:42, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I look forward to further discussion, and I hope the 3rd party's dismissal of the Notability standard -- the very foundation of your argument -- will work to bring more open-mindedness to the conversation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnadams11 (talk • contribs) 20:37, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not make personal attacks. Calling someone closed-minded because they cite policies such as notability is not very WP:CIVIL. As requested, let's keep this discussion on the article talk page.Jacona (talk) 12:57, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest though that you consider what elements of civility are included in your remark that Barnett “is not” notable. Not that “at present” he’s not notable, not that there is “consensus”that he’s not, but simply the assertion of this as some immutable fact. I regret my suggestion of the lack of open-mindedness, and you have my apology. However, I’m accustomed to more considerate discourse than your comments, at least at that time, provided. Johnadams11 (talk) 18:38, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I think you're reading something into the comments that are not intended....This is not my opinion, it's how the encyclopedia works. On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article. It's not something I came up with, and saying something is or isn't notable is a matter of consensus that has been built in the community over years. I have nothing against this individual. I'm just applying the standards of the community. I didn't make them up, I'm not in charge or anything...this person, however was determined (not by me, but by the community) to not meet the standard of notability in a deletion discussion in January. This does not mean they will never meet the standard. You have a lot of potential to be a great editor on Wikipedia. Take time to learn how to do it and do it right and you will have much to contribute. Happy editing!Jacona (talk) 23:53, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of lynching victims in the United States

Lol no matter what anybody says you retards will never agree to change the consensus

Anyway, don't you think you should at least try to make it seem legit by maybe adding some sources? Like wtf has has this website come to

please refrain from WP:NPA attacks. If your only attempts to change consensus consist of unilaterally overriding it and using WP:pejoratives, you are unlikely to succeed.Jacona (talk) 22:42, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I originally tried to change the 21st century one, I’m not sure that what happened was necessarily a lynching since a lynching has to do with mob justice, satisfied that the people being executed are guilty of breaching the law or a white supremacist “rule” whatever it’s called “don’t do this or you’ll pay the price”, but to me this looks more like vigilantism or can be seen as vigilantism which ends up with the same result but different motivations.

it has been discussed on the article talk page. Consensus is the material should be included. Jacona (talk) 09:06, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Slave-owning families

And thank you too, Jacona. Valetude (talk) 14:18, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New message from GreaterPonce665

Hello, Jacona. You have new messages at GreaterPonce665's talk page.
Message added 19:53, 6 May 2021 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

GreaterPonce665 ^(TALK) 19:53, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Sayre language academy" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Sayre language academy. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 June 30#Sayre language academy until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 03:02, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Harding University page edits

Hey, I had a couple comments and a question about your recent edits to the Harding University page, so I thought I'd consolidate here, but if some of it should go on the article's talk page, let me know; I haven't quite got a handle on the discussion aspect of editing articles yet. 1. Statement of Attitude was 1957, not 1956. 2. "Harding College and the Colored Problem" was in 1956 before the Statement of Attitude, not "in response" to it. "Harding College and the Negro Question" was the speech made in response to the Statement. I thought about correcting that, but decided to leave it to you because the speech summary that follows also relates to the earlier speech. 3. Could you elaborate a bit more on the reason for removing the Against the Grain book that I cited? I reviewed the primary source link that you helpfully provided. I found there this statement: "A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." The statement that you removed ("Harding's graduate school in Memphis admitted four black students in 1962.") seems to me to be a straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that doesn't require specialized knowledge to understand. 4. I wanted to respond to this comment you made in your change reason: "restored reliably sourced content, which was removed and replaced with information based on primary sources." First, the reason I made the change: Prior to my change, the page read, "In spite of the overwhelming disagreement of the school's students and faculty, Benson maintained that blacks were under "the curse of Ham" and that mixing of the races was against the divine order." This phrasing makes it seem like it was a response to the Statement of Attitude, when the cited source does not mention it in that context. So I replaced it with a summary of Benson's response to the Statement of Attitude. Second, the source of the content that I replaced it with ("Benson scolded those who had circulated the petition") was from the named source "no to integration", which is not a primary source. Tigerbaritone (talk) 01:17, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a lot of time, so I'll hit the high spots. Sorry if I made a factual error in the statement of attitude, not sure if the sources differ or if it just got switched around...the way several things have been moved around recently it's easy to get the sources confused. Please feel free to correct any such errors.

Also, I want to thank you for your work on this set of Harding-related articles...

In regards to WP:PRIMARY sources. The relevant policy states: (bolding and italics added by me)

1.primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.[d]

2.Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation.

3.A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a musician may cite discographies and track listings published by the record label, and an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source.

4.Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so.

The book Against the Grain is a self-published promotional book. It's advertising It's authors have an interest in casting themselves and their institution in as favorable a light as possible. If this can't be verified by a secondary source, I'm very dubious that it should be used.

There is no good reason to remove the Benson quote. The Curse of Ham was a religious artifice employed by Benson and many other churches of Christ preachers from their early days until recently, and it fits with the school article and Benson's ardent support of segregation. It was the theological basis for segregation, divine guidance that Black people did not belong at Harding.Jacona (talk) 19:14, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to get to the bottom of a bug(?)

Every now and then, it seems that someone edits an RfD page and, in the course of their edit, turns all of the non-breaking space characters (which in the edit window look identical to regular spaces) into   HTML entities. You're the most recent person to do this, namely here. There's nothing wrong with that per se, but I'm just trying to figure out if there's a bug in anything that needs fixing. Did you do that manually, or do you have a script that does it on purpose? If no to both, is there anything that you can think of that would cause that by accident? -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 11:00, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly didn’t do that on purpose. Unfortunately, I don’t remember which editor I used…could have been iPhone, Firefox, or Chrome. If I remember, I’ll update you. Jacona (talk) 23:07, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for Creation July 2021 Backlog Elimination Drive

Hello Jacona:

WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a month long Backlog Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running until 31 July 2021.

Barnstars will be given out as awards at the end of the drive.
There is currently a backlog of over 2500 articles, so start reviewing articles. We're looking forward to your help!

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for Creation at 21:53, 7 July 2021 (UTC). If you do not wish to recieve future notification, please remove your name from the mailing list.[reply]

Excuse Me

I am simple asking for you to site an actual source. It is a terrible misrepresentation of Nashville Christian School and you know that for a fact which is why you can't properly source your gross misrepresentation.Itztrue (talk) 01:41, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your information on the edit about the gay parents: I misread that source. As far as the school being founded by parents seeking a segregated education...... In addition to the sources listed, there are many others available. Some of them are going to be harder to find, but please research it, I'm sure you will find them. The school was founded in 1971, but didn't have tax-exempt status because the IRS considered it a segregation academy. These schools were founded around this time in response to the 1970 court case, Alexander v Holmes and others, which forced public schools in Nashville and elsewhere to integrate. White parents throughout the South didn't want their children to be near Black children and formed hundreds of schools like this one in 1970-1972. Many of these were so desperate to segregate that they were thrown together so quickly that they met in inadequate facilities (as did NCS, didn't have a real school building for 6 years) and used many unqualified teachers (as did NCS). If you look further, there are tons of low-quality sources about the treatment of minorities playing sports in competition with NCS. I haven't found one to add to the article, and removed some comments another editor added because it didn't have a quality source. Since you seem to be involved with the school, perhaps you know of one that could be added to the article. Please research the history, don't take the word of people who are now a little bit ashamed of what they did and act as if their motives were pure when they rushed to keep their kids away from those of another race. Jacona (talk) 15:26, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

3RR, come on "hero"

let's do it. Wigger is racist, right? i thought you had sources. right? c'man!