User talk:Wjhonson

Archiving

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 /Archive1 /archive2 /Archive3 (created 16 Jul 2006) /Archive4 (created 7/30/2006)

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 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 They must cite reliable, third-party publications and may not use their unpublished knowledge, which would be impossible to verify.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)

Randolph

Hi: don't be so pessimistic; it might be a great article!--Anthony.bradbury 23:43, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

underconstruction

My apologies. Have you thought of using an {{underconstruction}} template? PS I did not flag it--Anthony.bradbury 23:59, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

You're very welcome. All friends here.--Anthony.bradbury 00:05, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Agnes of France (Byzantine empress)

You marked a couple of facts in this article with the template 'citation needed'. Since both of these details were really relevant to other people rather than to Agnes, I have added the necessary citations at Alexios II Komnenos, checked that citations were already there at Maria of Antioch, and supplied cross-references in the Agnes footnotes to both these articles. OK? Andrew Dalby 16:12, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Kitty May Ellis

I reversed my decision after the overwhelming consensus on the deletion review (which you also saw). If you want, you can bring up the argument again, but practically everyone in the deletion review argued that my closure was wrong. --Deathphoenix ʕ 18:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Wjhonson, do not revert back to restore the Kitty May Ellis texts. According to the deletion reviews, her texts are unverifiable, therefore they should not be in the text. Be careful that you do not violate the three-revert rule, because it seems like you will start to do so. --Deathphoenix ʕ 18:51, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. --Zsinj^Talk 19:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Wjhonson, I will urge you again not to revert these edits. If you continue to do so, I will ask other administrators to review your actions, and they may block you for reverting these articles. --Deathphoenix ʕ 19:07, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Then put that information in the deletion review. What matters is that everyone else disagrees with you, and they disagreed with my closure. Regardless of how you feel, I follow consensus, and that deletion review examined your sources and dismissed them. If you can provide additional information in the deletion review, that would help, such as giving links to the specific articles that mention her name, giving ISBN numbers for the publications that you used as sources, and so on. If you cannot, chances are that she is not notable enough to be mentioned here. --Deathphoenix ʕ 19:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Then please present your information to the deletion review. --Deathphoenix ʕ 19:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I did enough of this without you attacking my neutrality, thank you very much. I already faced almost overwhelming criticism of my actions in keeping your article. I will no longer defend it. As far as I was concerned, I came in to close the AfD at the end, was criticised by practically everyone who told me that I should have done other things in looking at the AfD, so I ended it. This Kitty May Ellis thing has caused me nothing but trouble, and I would thank you not to attack my neutrality on top of all that. Just please, go to the damn deletion review, present your case, and see what people will do. Don't use me as the focal point of this whole mess, just go to the deletion review and take up the cause yourself, if you want. --Deathphoenix ʕ 19:53, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't care if you think I am neutral or not. My actions in reverting you ended the moment I posted on WP:ANI. Other people my revert you if your actions are wrong, but I'm done. Just don't violate the three-revert rule, in word or in spirit, even knowing that I won't revert you again. I am neutral in this: whether you think I am or not matters not a whit to me. --Deathphoenix ʕ 20:00, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

There seems to be another argument about Kitty May Ellis, but I don't want to get involved in that, however, please write articles and then post them up, don't half start an artcle. Also if the article has been deleted often, don't be provocative! -Wser 16:25, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

There's provocative and then there's fair. When I'm being treated unfairly I react. Wjhonson 16:43, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

If there's anything that needs to be done for this article, I'm sure there are tonnes of other people willing to do it. I'm washing my hands of this whole matter, so please ask someone else. As far as I'm concerned, I'm done with this article, and I won't ever touch this damn thing again, even in a future AfD. So please don't write me about this article anymore. Thank you, Deathphoenix ʕ 22:43, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Opening style

You may want to review Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Article titles, because I have fixed 3 articles you have started in this regard. Please a) bold the name of the title by surrounding it with triple apostrophes b) make sure the opening sentence is a complete sentence. Your openings have lacked verbs. In general, if you are confused, you can always look at other articles and see what most of them are doing. Hope this helps.--Andrew c 21:20, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

x-Americans

I believe Mad Jack has misconstrued policy. He has posted with his viewpoint. Please come to discuss when you get a chance. He says he won't permit for inferences. MichaelZ526 06:47, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh,sorry...The talk page of the WP:NOR policy... MichaelZ526 22:15, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Dear boy,

Hi, before this goes completely out of hand, please see Talk:List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people#Is Rictor Norton's My Dear Boy a reliable source? --Francis Schonken 07:51, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

blogs as sources

Since you participated in the discussion I'd like to point you to this newly created page Wikipedia:Guidelines_for_Blog_Citation to further continue the discussion we started over at WP:RS.--Crossmr 21:07, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

K. M. Ellis

Hi,

The Deletion Review debate on Ms. Ellis lasted five days, and concluded unanimously in favor of overturning the keep closure at the prior AfD on the basis of verifiability concerns. Community consensus is the arbiter of questions of encyclopedic suitability, and, in this case, the DRV consensus was based on a pillar of Wikipedia's policy. I simply enacted the will of the community. Best wishes, Xoloz 02:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

The participants in the Deletion Review debate are all known to me to be upstanding Wikipedians, including several fellow administrators. They might be in error, or they may have been deceived; but, I find it very unlikely that they were lying themselves. Best wishes, Xoloz 02:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I have concluded the AfD debate on Kittie May Ellis. This was an identical repost of content from Kitty May Ellis previously deleted at AfD, as reinterpreted by DRV, and is thus speediable under CSD G4. Any appeal of the prior determination of Deletion Review would need to be taken back to Deletion Review.

Alternatively, you may write an original, sourced article on Ms. Ellis -- as long as the text was not "substantially identical", CSD G4 would not apply. Best wishes, Xoloz 04:28, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Please don't modify closed AfD debates. If you have an issue, bring it up with the closing admin. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 06:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, if you're looking for how to request mediation, check out WP:RFM. That should give you the info you need. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 06:11, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Not a problem. I hope mediation will take care of the problem. And as for the Wikisource thing, that would be an oops on my part. :P --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 06:42, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

The new reposting was substantially identical to the previously deleted content. Wikipedia cannot endure endless AfD debates over the same content; that's why there is a CSD G4 for reposts. To request a Deletion Review, head over to Wikipedia:Deletion Review and follow the instructions there -- basically, place the request in the log for today, July 21. I'll warn you in advance that calling your adversaries "liars" will not help your case.

What would help your case is a mention of Ms. Ellis in some secondary sources. The article as you've written it is the beginning of something that might be published in a journal -- original research verified with primary sources. That sort of thing isn't really what Wikipedia is for. Best wishes, Xoloz 15:48, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Wherever it may be published, the text of her diary is not a secondary source; the local newspapers are also primary sources for these purposes. Clearview Pioneers may or may not be a secondary sources, depending on its age, authorship, and audience. The fact that text is published or republished does not qualify it as a secondary source -- the level of critical detachment from the original subject is what matters. Local histories written long ago by those very close to a subject are sometimes useful only as additional primary sources. Having no access to Clearview Pioneers, I can't say for sure, but its relative inaccessability calls into question whether it can be called a reliable source. Data from the Census of the United States is a primary source. Best wishes, Xoloz 16:03, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Mere republication of material does not qualify it is a secondary source. As I said above, the level of critical detachment from the original subject is what matters. The work of the local historian may or may not be a secondary source, depending on the quality of its scholarship. In the interests of fairness, it is most precise to say simply that its relative inaccessability calls into question whether it is a reliable source. Best wishes, Xoloz 16:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Look, if you really want to request mediation, follow the instructions here. (It involves using the big black box in the "Instructions" section which will lead you to fill out a form, not merely posting the request at the top of the new requests section. The form will automatically post your request.) Katr67 16:37, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

This last point of yours is well-taken, and it is true that one potential systematic bias of Wikipedia is against obscure print sources. However, consider Wikipedia's difficulty. This is an encyclopedia available around the globe, trying to maintain a standard of usefulness and truthfulness for its articles. I have no doubt that your work is sincere, but think of a hypothetical case.

User:John Doe was born in a small village in India, and now lives in a larger city. He writes an article about the founder of his village, extensively sourced from print material available only in the local library near his birthplace, and from our books about rural India he has collected in dusty bookshops over the years. Unfortunately, the founder of his village is only of local note, and no sources widely published mention this man.

User:Tom Roe has too much time on his hands, and is mischeivous. He comes from a small town in India, which he knows few people outside of his region have any awareness of. He decides to fabricate a fine article about his town's founder, a complete lie, and post it to Wikipedia. Since, quite reasonably, there are no widely published sources about his town, he claims to have several local sources, available only in his region, and uses these to "verify" his fictive narrative.

User:Jim Poe is a well-meaning editor. He comes from a small town in rural India founded by his great-great-great-great grandfather, a fact of which he is proud. He thinks his ancestor deserves a Wikipedia article because there are no widely-published sources documenting the foundation of the town. He has lots of local sources to draw from (he descended from the founder, after all!), and so composes his article. Though done in good-faith, because he loves his ancestor, Jim ends up writing a bit of a panegyric, overstating the importance and general greatness of his subject.

Now, I don't know how to distinguish between these three cases -- for the good of the encyclopedia, the best solution to me seems to be to demand reliable sources strictly from all of them. All of your sources need not be widely-known, but one widely-available citation would be a great boon here. It is true that some Wikipedia articles "slip through the cracks" without having reliable sources strictly demanded for them; but, when a group of editors make that demand, it is generally honored for the sake of encyclopedic integrity.

One suggestion for you: publish an article about Ms. Ellis yourself in a peer-reviewed journal, or as a monograph. An encyclopedia should never be the first widely-known source to "discover" an historical actor or event. An encyclopedia documents things that already have been vetted in their original field of scholarship. Best wishes, Xoloz 17:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

As I have remarked at the Census discussion, you seem to have an odd way of reading. Nothing I have said remotely suggested that the census was unsuitable for use -- it is a primary source, which (among other things) means that it couldn't be used alone as a source for any article.

Likewise, nothing I have said suggests that you are a liar. I have suggested only that your claims in the article fail a strict reading of Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. They are unproven by the standard required. WP:AGF emphatically does not require anyone to accept claims in an article that cannot be verified by reliable sources, simply because we must assume that the contributor is correct. All contributions to Wikipedia must be subject to editorial oversight. You may be in complete good-faith, and yet wrong on the facts (in manner of hypothetical #3, given above.) I have told you that the place to file an appeal of the deletion is Wikipedia:Deletion Review. I will not unprotect the pages under any circumstances without a review in that forum. Best wishes, Xoloz 20:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

You say, "An editors opinion about whether a source is reliable, when that editor has no knowledge whatsoever about the source, is WP:OR and should not be used as evidence in a review."

This is incorrect. To require an editor to have read a source before making a judgment on its reliability would create an even greater problem with "private sources" (those that only the contributor and those in a geographically-narrow range have access to.) In practice, scholars judge the reliability of a source quickly, based on (among other things): its authorship, title, audience, age, distribution, and the quality of an excerpt of its prose. Wikipedia is no different: we must (and do, successfully) make reasonably quick judgments about the reliability of sources. In the judgment of the prior DRV consensus, and in my judgment also, your article does not contain a single reliable secondary source -- hence, its failure of WP:V, and its deletion. Best wishes, Xoloz 20:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I said, "In the judgment of the prior DRV consensus, and in my judgment also, your article does not contain a single reliable secondary source..."

The Snohomish Tribune is not a reliable secondary source, because it is a primary source. Best wishes, Xoloz 20:43, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Local history

Just so you know... I actually take a hard line on notability... I feel that we should only include people of more national significance (there are far too many articles on wikipedia that I do not consider notable) ... I would vote do delete your article Mrs. Ellis on that ground. That said, I also object to mis-using WP rules and guidelines to push a POV, which is what I think is happening in your case. Blueboar 01:05, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I understand where you are coming from... I simply disagree. Mostly this is just a way to tell you that I can not join your local history project... because I don't find most local history to be notable enough for my concept of what Wikipedia should be. I also know that I have a minority opinion on this... which is why I have not filed hundreds of AfD requests.  :>) I do wish you luck on your project, and offer my (qualified) support in any future AfD - (which you may not want since, while I will happily support you on the verification issue, I will make it clear that even with all those good sources I don't find Kitty worthy of inclusion.) Blueboar 01:27, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Unclear

What was the intention behind this edit of my talk page? [1] The edit added a non-existent template. Best wishes, Xoloz 03:32, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah... well, I don't believe I qualify as a party to mediation. I merely closed a DRV and an associated AfD; I have no view of the article independent of those processes. My explanations to you earlier were an attempt to communicate why I think the DRV consensus made the decision that it did. I reiterate that the appropriate place to take an appeal of a deletion decision is deletion review, not mediation. On the other hand, if you truly feel that opposed editors are engaging in an organized effort against you, then I suppose mediation might be appropriate. I will happily provide a statement of clarification to the mediators if they wish, but, as I said, I don't think I really qualify as a party. Best wishes, Xoloz 03:50, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Protection of the page does not block further review. Page protection is standard procedure when a G4 repost is made, pending an appeal to DRV. If you wish to compose the article anew, or to have the deleted text made available to you, either of those may be done at a subpage of your own userspace. Best wishes, Xoloz 04:11, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Thinking this is what you're after, I have userfied the last draft of the Ellis article to User:Wjhonson/Ellis. Feel free to work on the draft at your userspace, if you feel improvement can be made prior to DRV. Best wishes, Xoloz 04:16, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

It really isn't me you're having this argument with: I am trying my best to explain what the DRV consensus decided and why they did so. I happen to agree with them, yes, but not at all passionately.

Do you want to make a request at DRV for appeal? Type something up on my talk page, and I will gladly place it in the proper form for you. Best wishes, Xoloz 04:25, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Your request is here Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 July 22. I made a few prefatory remarks explaining the circumstance, but tried not to be argumentative. Now that it is set up, I trust you can edit your remarks freely as you wish. Best wishes, Xoloz 04:46, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Mediation

You had the request right, you just needed to remove the paragraph you reinserted on Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Pending. I've fixed it now, all you need to do is go to Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Kittie_May_Ellis#Parties.27_agreement_to_mediate and sign ~~~~ after "Agree". Essjay (Talk) 07:01, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Kittie May Ellis

I researched this a bit. The issue here is not about WP:V only. Verifiability is only one of the content policies of WP. Other policies include WP:NOR and WP:NOT. These are my views:

• The lack of secondary sources (i.e authors, scholars, jhournals, etc) for this subject means that it is not crossing the threshold of notability. See Wikipedia:Notability (people)
• It is not enough that we have verifiable sources. We need some proof of notability, otherwise we wil end up with 1,000 of articles about deceased people, just because we can verify they existed. See WP:NOT;
• If you can find one ore more secondary sources in which there is a mention of this person in the context of an encyclopedic subject, we can then consider re-instating the article. See WP:NOR.

Hope this helps. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:11, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Hillsboro

And the point of being delibertely provacative

No, the point is to get your attention, and the point is to say -- succinctly -- why it doesn't belong. --Calton | Talk 22:09, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't you think it would be more productive to try to reach a consensus instead of engaging in edit-warring with no discussion.

"Mr. Kettle? It's Mr. Pot on line 3. He says you're black."

Consensus HAS been reached -- more than once -- and your relentless campaign to insert the non-notable and non-historically important K.M. Ellis by hook or by crook is the real edit-warring. Don't insult my intelligence with claims that fail the giggle test. --Calton | Talk 22:45, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Skutt Catholic High School, scan images URLs

Hello, on Talk:Skutt Catholic High School, is it okay to remove the two links in your comment that point to the two scans on my home computer, since an alternative [2] that doesn't go to my machine is now freely availble? I only made the scans available on my home computer because the article from the Omaha World Herald was the earliest and only available reference that I could show the admins, and no alternative was available during the time. ...or do I need to bother asking you for permission for me to do this myself? since you copied and pasted that part from the [3] that I wrote. Regards, Tuxide 00:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah, thank you :) In the meantime, I removed those images in question from my home computer for the time being. I intended them for admin usage, however now my home machine is getting hits from sites like Google and digg.com over this, particularly [4] supposedly posted by User:Alphachimp. Oh well...if there is such an admin that needs to read the article again, I would gladly restore the scans for them. Regards, Tuxide 05:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

The comment in question was [5], which I believed was off-topic. If you don't think it was, then I don't mind it being restored. Perhaps it is just me being paranoid, after all I do live in Omaha (which is in the United States [6]). Tuxide 18:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I went by what the boilerplates said, in particular Template:Talkheader and Template:Off topic warning. Perhaps I am interpreting it wrong, I read it as if talk pages were not meant to discuss the topic generally, and if such comments are not meant to coordinate the improvement of the article, then they don't need to be in the talk pages. Now that I think of it, I'm not sure if that justifies removing the comment in question, though. If you seriously don't think it does, then I will reinsert it. Tuxide 18:48, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I decided to reinsert the comment in question anyways, just to see what happens. I also removed the off topic warning since talkheader also says the same message. Regards, Tuxide 19:45, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Abraham Lincoln

I've removed your edit regarding Fry as a matter of expediency. It's my hope that you'll find a way to re-add the information in a manner that is not likely to leave readers with a mistaken impression regarding Lincoln's sexuality. Rklawton 08:05, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I am citing quotations, these are not my words. Wjhonson 08:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

The line I took out wasn't in quotes. Even if it was a direct quote, the important point, is that language used in the 19th century may leave an uninformed 21st century reader with a mistaken impression. However you choose to remedy this is fine with me. This particular "Lincoln was gay" theme has already been thoroughly hashed out and discredited academically, and Wikipedia already has an article dedicated to the topic. Rklawton 08:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I am not implying that he was gay, Lincoln and Speed both mention in their writings that they shared a bed for four years. I was citing that part indirectly :) I didn't really think it was in dispute since there is so much material on both of them. In fact, as you know, one of Lincoln's well-known anecdotes specifically discusses them in bed together. And Speed himself, wrote a piece for his biographer, which discusses the manner in which they first met, and Speed offering Lincoln to share his double-bed. This isn't really in dispute. What's in dispute is whether they used that bed for other than sleeping :) I didn't address that. But it's a bit intellectual disengenious to not mention Speed at all since he was after all Lincoln's closest friend, as both sets of biographers agree. Wjhonson 08:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I do not disagree with your points above. I only object to wording that may leave the uninformed reader with the wrong impression. Adding the clause "a common practice at the time" would pretty much clear things up. Rklawton 08:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

My source does not state that. If you have one, that's fine. I wouldn't want to add my opinion on such a contentious point. Wjhonson 08:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

That was one possible way to solve a problem you've created. Another solution would be to remove that section entirely under the theory that no information is better than misleading information. I'm not particular about how you solve it, but leaving it stand as it is will be problematical, and you will likely find your own solution more satisfactory than the approach taken by some other editor in the morning. Rklawton 08:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Sergei Yesenin.

Wjohnson,

Hi, I've noticed you've reverted my edit on the Sergei Yesenin biography and ask me to "also list a source". I am sure you are aware, it is far more ddifficult to find a source explicitly claiming an individual isn't gay than finding one that alludes to him or her being gay. I see that you have claimed (above) that you are not expressly claiming that some people are/were gay, you are merely quoting sources. That is fine, but it does appear to me that you are possibly using these sources to plant ideas that various individuals are/were homosexual. I don't mean to say that you are doing this intentionally or maliciously.

For example - Sergei Yesenin. You added him to the list of gay, lesbian, or bisexual people as well as quoted a source for his Wiki biography which many could be construed as him engaging in a homosexual relationship with Nikolai Klyuev. Whether this was intentional or not, I am not sure, but I see from above that you have done nearly the same with American president Abraham Lincoln. You then added Nikolai Klyuev to the list of gay, lesbian, and bisexual people. Well, this is infact correct - nearly every internet source openly states that Klyuev was indeed gay, and he can be easily sourced as such. However, there is little to nothing to show that Yesenin was gay other than your one source which claims that Yesenin and Klyuev had briefly lived together and Yesenin (a poet) had written someone three love letters (your source didn't even state how it knew they were to Klyuev). Which brings me to your question about how the criteria for inclusion on the list of gay, lesbian, an bisexual people should be addressed because the word "gay" was not in usage in that context at the time and the word "homosexual" wasn't invented until the late nineteeth century: you should also know (as I'm sure you do, because you seem extraordinarily intelligent) that the "stigma" of homosexuality in that era in many was was also not as pronounced and European and American cultures were vastly different than what they are from today. Men (unburdened and unworried as being labelled "gay") frequently (and often ardently and floridly and passionately and poetically) expressed idealized romantic feelings towards male companions and the purity of platonic love - but these were not homosexual sentiments (this was the age of the Romantics). They were the romanticized idyll of platonic friendship. Now, entrenched in our cultural atmosphere, this sort of 19th century idyll of "male love" often gets misconstrued as somehow "gay".

As far as Yesenin - I can find a plethora of sources stating his love of women, his marriages, his affairs with women, etc. The only source I have seen implicating him as gay is yours. Even the sources expressly stating Nikolai Klyuev was gay and mention his friendship with Yesenin, merely state that Klyuev was Yesenin's mentor and friend and make no allusions to them having a homosexual relationship.

Plenty of historical figures have an overwhelming abundance of proof and reliable sourcing to shoe that they were gay or lesbian. I am just thinking sometimes that you maybe twisting context to make claims. Sorry if this seems babbling, English is not my first languge. ExRat 21:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Wjohnson,

Thank you for your reply. I certainly don't believe I am "overzealous" in defending people from being labelled gay. I hope I am just tenacious and that I am just making sure anyone is not labelled anything they are not - be they gay, Catholic, Nigerian, Canadian, Californian, theocratic, etc. I just think that POV and/or revisionism should have no place in an encyclopedia. Not that I believe you are doing such.

I list English as a native languge because I (hope?) I am at least profficient enough with it now that I am able to speak it with as much ease as a native speaker - minus my funny accent. :) But, if this not the right thing to do or you think my English is quite bad, then maybe I should change this. Cheers. ExRat 22:18, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

my wikipedia entry

Dear wjhonson,

I notice that you created a Wikipedia entry for me; thank you for your efforts. I also noticed that there's much discussion of taking it down.

For what it's worth, you appear to be working from a rather old CV. I can provide a newer one if you contact me at j.corvino@wayne.edu.

Also, probably more noteworthy than my publications is that I have spoken to over 100 campus audiences (outside of my own university) on gay and lesbian issues, and that I regularly debate Glenn Stanton of Focus on the Family.

Anyway, regardless of what happens to the entry, thanks again for your efforts.

John Corvino

WikiProject Biography July Newsletter

The July 2006 issue of the Biography WikiProject 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. plange 08:39, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

What is CofS

Just an acronym for Church of Scientology.--Fahrenheit451 17:39, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Benjamin Freedman

No problem. You're the one doing the real writing. I'm just a janitor. :-) --Deathphoenix ʕ 04:09, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you WJ, I have corrected that Curtis Roosevelt error, and thank you for all your contributions to this and other articals that I note you have credit for contributing to. Humanity needs more fair minded people like yourself. -Theblackbay 05:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

there are some big changes comming, we have been saying it since th 1990's we will see..-Theblackbay 05:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Madarins of Regional Government in Ontario

Please stop creating redirects to this non-existent article....

Personally I'd be interested in how creating redirects could possibly constitute vandalism. From User_talk:WikiWoo#Madarins_of_Regional_Government_in_Ontario

Personally, I'd be interested to know what part of the word "non-existent" you missed. Was it the "non" part? --Calton | Talk 12:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

If someone knowingly keeps on doing something when it is disruptive, then it is vandalism. Tyrenius 14:07, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Calton, sarcasm is an art that I'm very proficient in, it won't work as a hammer to beat me with, sorry. It's only *non* because it was *just* deleted, so that logic fails. You can't accuse someone of something that you made them guilty of, by your own actions. And I when I say *you* I mean the collective you of those who have been attacking this guy on his talk page.Wjhonson 15:46, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Secondly Tyrenius, if someone is making good-faith attempts to improve the encyclopaedia that isn't vandalism. This guy has made several contributions, that appear, to be just that. To call him a vandal is not appropriate. Wjhonson 15:46, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Calton, sarcasm is an art that I'm very proficient in...'

Reality check: no, you're not -- and proclaiming it as such doesn't make it so. I will grant you the imperviousness part, though -- though not for reasons you feel fit to brag about.

It's only *non* because it was *just* deleted, so that logic fails.

It was deleted -- period/full-stop -- and the addition of meaningless adjectives such as "just" doesn't change that. It was a redirect to nothing: redirects to nothing are deleted, period/full-stop: hence, the existence of the "db-redirnone" tag. The so-called logic you are using is nonsense, so yes, you do indeed have trouble with the simple word "non-existent".

You can't accuse someone of something that you made them guilty of, by your own actions.

True -- but since no one has done that, it's about as meaningless as just about every attempt at policy interpretation I've seen you attempt.

if someone is making good-faith attempts to improve the encyclopaedia that isn't vandalism. This guy has made several contributions, that appear, to be just that.

You mean creating several articles that were collectively judged as inappropriate for Wikipedia -- including that were couple of copyright violations -- and then attempting an end-run around that by recreating the material under different names. Hmm, that last technique sounds familiar: it may explain your miscomprehension of the term "good faith" as used on Wikipedia. Hint: it doesn't mean "really really believes what he's saying".

To call him a vandal is not appropriate.

Conditionals and sentence subjects/objects: yet another area that is not one of your strong suits. Since you saw fit to attempt a lecture on logic, perhaps you can try to recall what a "syllogism" is? Hint: why do think Tyrenius's sentence began with the word "if"? Also, perhaps you can note the difference between the actual noun in the sentence ("vandalism") and the one you imply Tyrenius used {"vandal")? You DO know the difference, right?

So, to recap, you have trouble with the basic terms "non-existent", "good-faith", and "if"; confuse "vandalism" with "vandal"; and do not understand basic Wikipedia policy regarding appropriateness of articles, deletions, and attempts at re-creation of deleted material -- and most of this is stuff you've been informed of, multiple times by multiple people. Are you sure you should be picking such fights when you're so lightly armed? -- after all, if you're going to argue over the meaning of terms and over policy, it behooves you to actually understand the actual meaning of the terms and the actual policies, no? --Calton | Talk 23:52, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

WikiWoo

I didn't call him a vandal and I wasn't commenting on his creation of articles. I was quite specific in what I said, namely:

Please stop creating redirects to this non-existent article. If you persist it will become vandalism and you may get blocked. Thank you.

Which bit of that do you think is not appropriate? Tyrenius 16:13, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

The article was prod'd as:

01:44, 30 July 2006 . . Calton (Talk | contribs | block) (prod: Misspelled and idiosyncratic term, an excuse to to get around several AFD deletions and insert one editor's axe-grinding about local government. Not encyclopedic.)

It was then deleted as follows:

03:02, 30 July 2006 RasputinAXP (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Madarins of Regional Government in Ontario" (CSD G4: Reposted material)

You confirm that when you say:

Creating articles ... to evade a previous AfD

and suggest that possibly:

he was trying to repost it.

Perhaps my warning about the redirects was premature, and I should have instead issued a warning about recreating material deleted under AfD? I have no familiarity with either WikiWoo or the articles in question, but I do have a familiarity with wiki policies. I am attempting to help this user by pointing him in the right direction, which I trust he will take on board. I am also informing him of what will happen if - after he has been informed - he persists in the wrong direction. Entirely forgivable ignorance then becomes wilful violation and that does then amount to vandalism. Hopefully you will be able to use your relationship with him to keep him on the right side of the line. Tyrenius 16:48, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Just checked his talk page. Other more experienced editors are being extremely patient, tolerant and helpful, but he seems to find it hard to listen. Tyrenius 17:16, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I haven't been into the articles, so I'll take your word for it. If that is the case, then it is even more in WikiWoo's interests that he learns his way around policy. Tyrenius 17:34, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

my comments

Why thank you sir or madam... I do try.  :>) Blueboar 19:31, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Your comments on Catholicism and Freemasonry

Thanks for responding to the RFC at Talk:Catholicism and Freemasonry... Question: ... just so I am clear. Are you saying that a) the Remnant is unreliable, b) the article in the Remnant is unreliable, or c) the web-based copy of the article in the Remnant is unreliable? Blueboar 20:07, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: Acadamenorth

The problem here is that the warning was removed about 20 minutes after I left it. That's not a sufficient amount of time. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 23:55, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that's why I started with a low-level warning instead of going straight to "this is your last warning". I've had problems with him, but I'm not going to be that harsh. :P --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 00:01, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

jesus

hold off on doing anything on the Jesus talk page until we work this out with Andrew on our Project page, thanks! plange 15:19, 1 August 2006 (UTC)