User talk:Saxonthedog

Welcome!

Hello, Saxonthedog, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! —C.Fred (talk) 19:52, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article Tonisha Mills has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This was done because the article seemed to be about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, but it did not indicate how or why the subject is notable, that is, why an article about that subject should be included in Wikipedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the notability of the subject may be deleted at any time. If you can indicate why the subject is really notable, you are free to re-create the article, making sure to cite any verifiable sources.

Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, and for specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for musicians, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. —C.Fred (talk) 19:52, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May 2008

Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary. Thank you. Bit Lordy (talk) 21:05, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 06:56, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with upload of Image:Budget Compilation.pdf

Thanks for uploading Image:Budget Compilation.pdf. You don't seem to have said where the image came from, who created it, or what the copyright status is. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

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

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 20:08, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edits to Declaration of Independence

The trouble is that anyone can read it, and no one's likely to agree that the text matches your selective editing of it. Tedickey (talk) 22:11, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia citation guidelines

Greetings.

I'm writing with regard to this edit, which you made (in good faith, I'm sure) on December 10, 2008, and the content of which I have now removed from the article. The citations you have provided in support of your edit are Dr. Ralph Abernathy's book and a particular issue of Newsweek magazine . As it happens, I've read both citations in full (yes, that includes having read Dr. Abernathy's book in its entirety) and can assure you there is not a single word about King's using prostitutes in either one.

I doubt seriously that you intended to "make up" phony citations. I expect that you likely added the offending phrase and inaccurate citations after coming across this web page (or some other web page that quoted this one). If so, then to be certain, your mistake was an honest one, since that web page does make the claim about prostitutes, and then does cite the sources that you cited. But this does underscore the need for us to pay attention to the Wikipedia policy of WP:CITE#SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT. Per that policy, the source for your edit was not Abernathy's book, nor was it Newsweek magazine, since you didn't read either of those sources for yourself. (You couldn't have, because if you had, you would have discovered that the allegation your edit was adding was not present in either of them.) Therefore, you should not have cited either of them as a source for your edit. Your true source was the web page, and that, if anything, was what you should have cited.

(And a little further research would have yielded that the webpage with that claim is run by the Stormfront white-supremacist website, and as such, not really up to the standards of WP:RS, which should have led to the realization that your edit should not have been made at all.)

It's great to see that you recognized the importance of not adding such a salacious allegation without having a source to back it up. In the future, just please to remember to cite only the actual source that you have read yourself, rather than doing a "second-hand" citation of the sources it claims in turn.

Thanks! Mwelch (talk) 02:56, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Saxon The Dog: While I think there is a fair discussion to be had about Martin Luther King's activity prior to his assassination, I find it offensive that anyone would think that I would have anything to do, or find references from, neo-Nazis like Stormfront. I think my post was accurate, but I would not contest the Wiki judgment -- but the idea that I would be somehow connected to those people I find offensive. For whatever it is worth, I have read from cover to cover Abernathy's book and also other material, my post was truthful and valid -- and not salacious in the least. It happens to be part of MLK's personality -- but that is not something I care about that much. I do care about being accused of being a Nazi or not reading the material I cite. I am not and I do. Thanks though for engaging in Wiki -- possibly the best thing that has happened to the internet since it became the internet.

Let's be clear. Suggesting that you might have at some point run across a neo-Nazi website — one which does not even clearly identify itself as a neo-Nazi website (martinlutherking.org is run by Stormfront, but it does not make that fact readily apparent to the casual reader; it would be very easy for a casual reader to see that site and not have any idea it is associated with Stormfront) — is a far cry from suggesting that you personally are a neo-Nazi. Obviously, I must have run across the site myself, or else I couldn't have referred to it. Does the fact that I acknowledge having seen the site that mean I'm suggesting that I am a neo-Nazi? If so, I must be a rather poor one, given that I'm black.

I'm honestly sorry that you've taken offense, but I cannot apologize for accusing you of being a neo-Nazi because I plainly and simply made no such accusation in the first place.

As for the suggestion that you didn't read your citation, I certainly did make that suggestion, and although can take you at your word in denying it, I don't think it was an unreasonable suggestion. The edit you added said clearly and unequivocally that Abernathy, in his book, stated King used the services of prostitutes. This statement is just plain false. Whether King did or did not use the services of prostitutes I would not know. But the claim that Abernathy made that statement in his book, which is what you wrote in your edit, is categorically false. There is no such statement in the book. If you contend that there is, then I would invite you to point out the passage therein. I predict, however, that that task won't be a particularly easy one, because simply there is no such passage.

Again, it was not my intent to offend you, and I genuinely regret that you have taken offense. But the simple fact of the matter is that you put forth an edit that made a claim that is demonstrably false. The book does not say what your edit claims that it says. Furthermore, the citation you gave for the false edit happens to exactly match the citation from the martinlutherking.org website. And I don't mean only that you cited the same two references. I mean that the exact text of your citation is an exact match, character-for-character, with the citation given on that website ... just the same as if you had copied and pasted that citation from there (or from some other website that in turn had copied and pasted it from there).

Upon discovering these facts, there would seem to be two possible explanations for your edit and citation. Either:

1) You actually read Abernathy's book and the magazine article, but, despite the fact that you're obviously an intelligent person, you were somehow unable to comprehend what you read — to the point where you, for some reason, came think that the material says things that neither even comes close to saying. Then, you cited the book and the article completely independently, entirely on your own, but somehow managed to type in a poor citation style that just happened to wind up being an exact character-for-character match with the citation as given on the aforementioned website — a truly astounding coincidence, I should say.

or

2) You happened to come across that website (or another website that copied from that website), you probably honestly had no idea that avoid white supremacists were the source of the information on the site, and you made the perfectly innocent and understandable mistake of believing that because the website provided a citation, you could assume that citation to be truthful without needing to personally verify it.

So per WP:AGF, I assumed Explanation #2 to be the correct one. Mwelch (talk) 03:39, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is fair -- in the text of the Abernathy book, I do not believe the specific word "prostitute" is used, though in FBI material and interviews with him when the book came out, the topic did come up, and hardly just the Stormfront crowd. But I agree my recollection of those things is not enough to justify inclusion on a Wiki website, in retrospect it's simply not hard enough -- and evidently I misconstrued your reference to the neo-Nazis. I do think a full understanding of MLK is helpful to understand the man -- much like understanding FDR can't be full without knowing that he approved of interning the Japanese Americans during WWII, or that Woodrow Wilson did in fact allow Eugene Debs (Socialist) to be put in jail for little reason, among other flaws. Much the same with any number of historical figures -- even George Washington had a library book that he never returned, not to mention the cherry tree. Perhaps I over reacted in what I thought was an accusation of Stormfront sympathies -- I hope that's forgivable insofar as the severity of the charge (were it true that the charge was made, which I agree it was not). MLK is of course a very important figure in history, but many times such figures, Churchill, FDR, Kennedy, Gandhi, Lincoln, the list goes on, have flaws as well as great virtues, and I do think it's helpful to understand them as persons rather than just myths. Saxonthedog (talk) 12:09, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree wholeheartedly with your position on understanding these figures as people, "warts and all" as it were. In that light, rest assured that I have no problem whatsoever with the fact that the King article discusses his marital infidelities. And I would not have a problem with it mentioning prostitutes, if such information were accurately sourced. As I said, I know for certain that citing the Abernathy book as a source thereof is inaccurate, and that was the sole basis for my objection. Contrary to what most people believe, in fact, in his book Abernathy goes to great lengths to avoid ever even directly confirming that King had sex outside his marriage at all, much less saying anything about it being with prostitutes. What Abernathy says on the topic in the book is that he acknowledges that there are claims that King was unfaithful to his wife, and then he (Abernathy) gives reason as to why King might do such a thing, basically saying that everyone has their weaknesses, whether they are sexual or substance-based or what have you, and that in King's case, women all but threw themselves at him. But after acknowledging that the stories exist and after basically providing excuses for why such stories could happen, Abernathy never actually says that there is or isn't any truth to them. In fact, given how much corroboration there is about King's infidelities in other sources, it at times seems almost comical how much Abernathy's book avoids saying. It's very apparent that he chose his words very carefully to tread absolutely as lightly as possible without resorting to actually lying or to completely ignoring that elephant in the room.

With regard to FBI materials, in that realm, it is my memory that I'll confess is suspect. I don't recall that in the FBI information I've read about his philandering. Lots about various women, including tape recordings, but I don't recall prostitutes. That said, I readily acknowledge that I by no means recall all of that stuff well enough to say that you are wrong on that point. At this point, I'll grant that your familiarity with those materials is likely far superior to my own. When I get some time, perhaps I'll make it a point to to go back and refresh my memory in that department.

Yes, I understand that it would be very disturbing to be accused of being of neo-Nazi ilk, so I entirely understand the distaste you expressed at that idea. Please rest assured again that I did not at any point mean to offer any such accusation or suggestion about you, neither explicitly nor implicitly. I honestly didn't mean that at all. Mwelch (talk) 01:05, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Organic law

I have a question regarding the Organic law article. After confirming that the Declaration of Independence actually is in the US Code, I stumbled upon this link (go to the Oxford Companion section), which makes me want to add something to the article; however, noting your interest in the article as well, I want to discuss it prior to making the change. I want to add something to the effect of "...though the US Supreme Court has rarely if ever given the Declaration the force of law." Best regards, Lord Roem (talk) 05:57, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do hope this is the best way of getting back to you on your kind inquiry -- I think that's a very fair, and interesting, addition to the point: The Declaration is part of the Organic Laws, but in a way that is a bit different to other parts of the "positive" law in the titles. While I think it immensely important as a document, and it informs a view on the other laws of the United States, that it has not been seen as somehow enforceable in court is a valuable addition in my mind. To the extent my opinion matters, I would encourage the addition of that information.

I enjoy Wikipedia quite bit, and while less is more in some respects, more is more in my opinion when it comes to the information and knowledge that Wiki provides.

Saxonthedog (talk) 05:56, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your quick response - I will add the information accordingly. Cheers, Lord Roem (talk) 07:16, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Articles of confederation

Greetings. I saw you added this information into the United States Declaration of Independence. The trouble is, you didn't specify a source for where you got this information. Unsourced information can be removed at any time, so be sure to include sources whenever you add information like this. All the best, – Quadell ^(talk) 19:30, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]