Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:30, 9 January 2010

Welcome

Hello, Skywriter, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions; I hope you like the place and decide to stay. We're glad to have you in our community! Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• If you haven't already, drop by the New user log and tell others a bit about yourself.
• Always sign your posts on talk pages! That way, others will know who left which comments. You can sign your post like I did by using 4 tildes (~~~~), which will leave your username and time you posted the comment.
• The Five Pillars of Misplaced Pages
• Simplified Ruleset
• How to edit a page
• Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
• Picture tutorial, which can be very useful later.
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style
• Misplaced Pages Glossary
• Check out Redwolf24's Bootcamp! Redwolf is a very friendly user, and this page might prove useful to you.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Though we all make mistakes at some point, here is what Misplaced Pages is not, which might help you out. If you have any questions or concerns, don't hesitate to ask me, check the help pages, or add {{helpme}} to this page, and someone'll be along shortly.

Happy editing! -] _{17:31, 11 September 2005 (UTC)}

P.S. I can see that you aren't that new, but it appears you havn't been welcomed yet. Send me the HZ pic links when you get the chance.

Thank you, Mysekurity. These are all helpful suggestions, and I can see there is much study ahead. I am a professional editor but, as you have noticed, I have been editing and adding to this page with one or both hands behind my back, editing by imitation rather than seriously knowing what I am doing. Again, I appreciate the tips!

Skywriter 21:45, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm glad to help. I hope you don't mind, but I moved your comment to my (and your) talk page(s). My welcome note is not protected, meaning that you inadvertantly edited it (my fault, sorry). Thanks for the comments, and let me know if I can help with the HZ article. All the best, ] _{21:57, 11 September 2005 (UTC)}

Howard Zinn

Thanks for your contributions to Howard Zinn. It would be helpful if you could cite your sources, however, as at least one of your changes was incorrect (Zinn's degrees are in political science, not American history). RadicalSubversiv E 19:58, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The above comment is incorrect. Zinn's graduate degrees are in both History and Political Science Skywriter

Good to see you back

Welcome back to Misplaced Pages! Thanks for deleting the repeated discussions on Talk:Howard Zinn. How's the book coming? Any progress? As for people changing birthdates, I think you were right to ask the user directly, but in the future, if you see vandalism, like a person changing dates or facts, or deleting article content, you can add the template {{Test}} to their talk page (or, if they already have that template, {{Test2}}, {{Test3}}, and so on, at which point you should probably contact an administrator ). But really, it's good to see you back. Any thoughts for the plane crash article? -Mysekurity 05:27, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi-- Last we left it, I uploaded some Zinn photos to the common area and I think I sent you the names of those files. I do not know how to move them from there to the Zinn page, or to redesign the page so it looks a little more attractive. I was hoping you would help with that. I can go look for those photos again or (??). I've been working a lot, trying hard to stay one step ahead of creditors. I have written several chapters and am refining the outline to the book on the Gander crash (and even spoke to one agent!) I can't promise anything but will try to put up an article by December 12, the 20th anniversary. I have to finish a large indexing project before I can write anything. But I agree it would be an important thing to do as the families and friends of the dead soldiers are gathering at Fort Campbell, Ky., and nearby Hopkinsville, and Arlington Cemetery on 12/12/2005, and there will be a memorial service in Gander, Newfoundland on that date. Some of the children of these soldiers were toddlers (or even unborn) when their daddies were killed, and now, at least one is in Iraq. They all have a strong need to know why that bird went down. Good chatting with you. (I just checked in to make sure nothing momentous happened on the Zinn page.) skywriter 20:57, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Keeper of the Zinn

In looking at your user contributions, it looks like you're all Zinn all the time. I hereby nominate you as "Keeper of the Zinn". Dude, that's not healthy for your perspective -- what about music? art? film? city life? I sincerely wish you peace of mind. Morton devonshire 22:51, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Ha! I have many interests but can only be the keeper of one page on Misplaced Pages. I have much more to say on other topics, but no time to make adds now, or my book would not get written and the book is on a totally other subject. Thanks for taking the time to chat, Morton. skywriter 23:29, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

removal of anti-war template from Zinn page

Hi, I'm not sure I disagree with your removal of the template, but please come discuss it at the Anti-war Wikiproject talk page, where we were thinking of putting the anti-war template on prominent anti-war individuals' pages. I was initially in favor but am coming down on the side of not doing so because of the issues you cite. If you want to make that case... Kalkin 20:35, 6 February 2006 (UTC) Thanks. Sorry about not putting a project link in there; I'm afraid I still don't really know how to deal with searches and links to internal Misplaced Pages stuff. I should learn... Peace. Kalkin 03:15, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

DO NOT TOUCH MY USER PAGE AGAIN!. Since you are relatively inexperienced here, I will give you the benefit of the doubt, but spamming another's userpage is vandalism, and bad etiquite.

- Secondly, your edits do not conform to Wiki's guidelines. Please review them, or simply look at one of the many featured articles to see a good example of proper editing guidelines. Ten Dead Chickens 18:14, 7 February 2006 (UTC) Secondly, your edits do not conform to Wiki's guidelines. Please review them, or simply look at one of the many featured articles to see a good example of proper editing guidelines. Ten Dead Chickens 18:14, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

TDC: your edits lack nuance and honesty

I intended to and will comment on your talk page. Words like this on your user page describe your activities as self-appointed PC Police and Bully: "banned from too many chat rooms to mention ..."A tireless defender of Western Civilization and capitalism against"

Sometimes when I feel like killing someone, I do a little trick to calm myself down. I'll go over to the person's house and ring the doorbell. When the person comes to the door, I'm gone, but you know what I've left on the porch? A jack-o-lantern with a knife stuck in the side of its head with a note that says 'You'. After that I usually feel a lot better, and no harm done."

Is that supposed to scare people? The effect is to reinforce you as a Bully. Thanks for letting us know who you are. Your edits are not nuanced and are designed to conform with your ideological point of view, "Tireless Defender" skywriter 18:48, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Zinn

Well he is widely seen as a leftists writer. Isn't he an avowed socialist? I dont mind removing it as long as he is a confirmed conservative writer. (Neo conservatism cant apply) etc. Thanks for asking me.

JJstroker 06:03, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Ludlow Massacre

I agree with your comment re: citing sources. This will be a big job when I can get to it. If you'd like to do it for me, be my guest. Here is the list of sources that were cited underlying the material I used. (I think you already got the last one). from DocGov Feb. 17, 2006 (unsigned)

Deleted long biographical list from DocGov message. skywriter 23:32, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. I agree it would be better to have particular items footnoted to particular references, and I could do that for about everything that was written, but I'll need to learn how. It's not something I've done on wiki before. I don't have time right now, but will try come back to that next weekend.--DocGov 21:06, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Robeson and Feffer

Skywriter--

I agree that Robeson and Feffer were minor figures in each others' lives. I actually have no philosophical objection to removing all references to Feffer from Robeson's page and vice versa. But if the two are going to be referenced in each others' entries, I think that all relevant facts should be included.

It seems to me that your major objections are to (1) the inclusion of Robeson Jr.'s quote that his father kept quiet about Feffer in the West, and (2) to Feffer's condition when he met Robeson while in custody. I think these are both important, and should be retained.

Further, it seems as though you object to references to Robeson's Stalinism, yet you wish to include Robeson's personal appeal to Stalin on Feffer's behalf. I think both are relevent.

Please let me know what other items you find objectionable.

I am more than happy to reach a consensus, and I have no wish to include non-facts in the article. But by the same token, inconvenient facts are still facts.

Shall we continue this on the articles' talk pages? You have my permission to paste this comment there, if you wish.

Best Regards, --Jbull 02:55, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

The Robeson page, the Feffer page

Hi:

For weeks now, I've tried to get you to talk about and eventually reach consensus on the various edits of the Robeson page and now the Feffer page but, usually without discussion on the Talk pages, you delete, erase and revert text and sources that other people including myself add. Maybe I should have come to your Talk page sooner, asking the basis for your activities but I'll tell you this, your behavior sure does feel like harassment, aka wikistalking. Can you/will you put an end to it? I've brought up a series of well-sourced factual matters that you tend to ignore in favor of inserting your strongly held opinion. I know it is not easy to get other people to change an opinion, especially ones that are strongly held, but you know what, the purpose of Misplaced Pages is to exchange facts, not opinion. So, in that regard, I do not understand what you are doing. I'm asking you to think about the effect of what you're doing in destroying Misplaced Pages's reputation. Thanks. skywriter 02:39, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

You wrote:

Skywriter--

I agree that Robeson and Feffer were minor figures in each others' lives. I actually have no philosophical objection to removing all references to Feffer from Robeson's page and vice versa. But if the two are going to be referenced in each others' entries, I think that all relevant facts should be included.

It seems to me that your major objections are to (1) the inclusion of Robeson Jr.'s quote that his father kept quiet about Feffer in the West, and (2) to Feffer's condition when he met Robeson while in custody. I think these are both important, and should be retained.

Further, it seems as though you object to references to Robeson's Stalinism, yet you wish to include Robeson's personal appeal to Stalin on Feffer's behalf. I think both are relevent.

Please let me know what other items you find objectionable.

I am more than happy to reach a consensus, and I have no wish to include non-facts in the article. But by the same token, inconvenient facts are still facts.

Shall we continue this on the articles' talk pages? You have my permission to paste this comment there, if you wish.

Best Regards, --Jbull 02:55, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Note: the following was previously posed on Jbull's Talk page but he deleted it; this convesation is therefore moved to this talk page as a record that this conversation occurred and attempted to describe the controversy existing in the Paul Robeson article.

No, it is much more than you describe, and it is laid out in detail, line by line, on the Robeson Talk page. You seem to have a bee in your bonnet about Robeson that causes you to scratch, then add false and slanderous information. I wonder what you really know about this man's life. That you have a viewpoint is obvious but is there fact to back up that viewpoint?
Have you heard him sing? Have you read any of his biographies, or his autobiography?
I object to the insertion of false information into this or any article, and to the changing of facts to suit viewpoint. I've tried to be judicious in splicing out the viewpoint and careful to ask about each edit on the Talk page. Instead of responding to the splicing of viewpoint, you revert and revert and revert to viewpoint. For me, the last several weeks with this article have been like Sisyphus rolling the rock up hill.

The Feffer story should be accurate and not blown out of proportion. The crap about the finger nails? Irrelevant to Robeson. That Rapoport, a source you cite, says Feffer was a KGB agent. Jeez. You should have mentioned that. That's a red hot example of letting viewpoint get in the way of a claim by your own source, no less. You lose crediblity there, Jbull. Isn't there a tad of hypocrisy in the insistence that this be included: "Forced to communicate through hand gestures and notes because the room was bugged, Feffer indicated that Mikhoels had been murdered in 1948 by the secret police" when Rapaport, the source you cite, says he found proof Feffer set Mikhoels up to be murdered?
I have no idea what is true in this matter but I do know this: The melodrama belongs on the Feffer page. It is tangential to Robeson's life. But if you want to connect it to Robeson, tell the entire story. Don't skimp on the details about his speaking truth to power before a packed house at the concert hall in Moscow. Duberman describes it in detail as does Lewis in the biographies. That was every bit as powerful an act of defiance as busting out in La Marseillaise, to face down Nazis in Rick's Cafe in Casablanca. I included the Lewis description but, alas, like so much else, it was deleted, reversed or reverted.

On the Robeson Talk page, Jbull, I asked for an explanation of the following and you ignored the request: (I asked for explanation of this: at 8:17 am February 10, 2006 on Robeson Talk page) JBull REMOVED THIS His recording of Ballad for Americans was sung at the 1940 Republican National Convention. He AND THIS: ]. in 1946, he pressed President Truman to act against the lynching of black people, and encouraged black people to fight back to defend themselves.

( Twelve days later, and countless reverts and deletions of my contributions later, I still await explanation for the above edit. What is it? More personal viewpoint? Don't like the second amendment right to bear arms? )

That Robeson spoke truth to power at the concert hall in Moscow in defense of Jewish artists and writers, and to Truman's face in Washington in defense of black people is what reveals his character. It was too easy to criticize Stalin in the United States. He'd get brownie points for that, and maybe the U.S. government would even let him travel. He took up the important stuff directly with the Soviet government in the same way he took up the important directly stuff with the U.S. government. He went mano a mano with Harry Truman in an effort to get Harry to get tough and stop the lynchings. And he did this was while Harry was guarded by gunmen, guns drawn, with their trigger fingers at the ready. http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/coldwar/interviews/episode-6/robeson1.html

Robeson and a bunch of other communists, yes communists, appealed directly to Stalin in a letter to let Feffer and other artists live. Robeson Jr. says that bought Feffer four more years. Do you find that fact inconvenient?

You quote Robeson Jr. in tertiary sources or in a venue that's in print but hard to get. (I've asked my library to obtain it.) I cite him directly speaking to the issue at hand in a recent online article on a university web server. What is your objection to sourcing to that?

And by the way, the U.S. government thought it important enough to include on its web page on Robeson that the Republcan Party adopted his singing of Ballad of Americans as the theme for its 1940 convention. Either you or TDC deleted that fact, in another example of inconvenient fact not meshing with viewpoint.

I don't care about Robeson's references to Stalin. Bring it on. I object to using it as a way to lynch him, and I object to repeating what is on a web site, as I repeatedly edited it to the link, and was repeatedly reverted. I object to the deletion of information about why he was attracted to the Soviet system. That's what was deleted and that's what is pissing off people, including me. I object to facts about his life being deleted like the fact that he was a Shakespearian actor, which was deleted today. And the fact that I edited out the that he played a black laborer in Wales. What exactly does anyone expect-- that he would play a green laborer? I object to the steady deletion of biographical details about his life. That is beyond the pale.

For example, either you or TDC removed the following AND substituted interpretive personal viewpoint: Robeson was sympathetic to the Soviet Union because, there, and for the first time in his life, he was not judged by the color of his skin. He sensed a camraderie with Russian folk traditions.

Although he believed that Africa and Asia also had special redeeming features, he was so interested in the minority question in the Soviet Union that he became fluent in Russian. After a trip to Moscow in 1934, the first of several in which he and his wife would be feted, Robeson concluded that the country was entirely free of racial prejudice and that Afro-American spiritual music resonated to Russian folk traditions. Here, for the first time in my life, he said of his stay in Russia, I walk in full human dignity.

New York Times, February 12, 1989

What's so hard to understand? He was a talented guy who went to Europe and Asia where he wasn't treated like crap like he was back home. He liked not being treated like crap.

And then this sentence kept re-appearing despite the appearance that it was ripped from a headline off of the nutwing frontpagemag blog: Prior to his passport's return in 1958, Robeson wrote a book, Here I Stand, which made a case for some system of what would come to be known as affirmative action.
Now whose opinion other than David Horowitz is that? And, does affirmative action refer to the autobiographical chapter called Our Right to Travel in which he makes the case that the U.S. government, wearing the skirts of "democracy," had no more right to stop people from traveling than did the Soviet Union, wearing the skirts of "communism"? Or is it the chapter where he demands that the U.S. stop killing black people and the USSR stop killing Jews? If that is "affirmative action," bring it on.

The entire section about the McCarthy period is one-sided and slanted. Travel bans? Can we talk about South Africa and apartheid? That section of this article reads like the cross-dressing head of the FBI was Mother Theresa, and not the U.S. incarnation of the KGB. You want to make an argument that blacks and reds should not have free speech and it's okay to ban travel? Then make it, by citing sources. Just don't put lipstick on a pig and expect anyone to buy it.

When people edit and write about a subject, readers expect the writer/editor to know and or learn something about the subject. That's the central objection to the way this article reads, and that is why it's got all those stamps on it questioning its facts and POV.

After a vandal hit the page tonight, I give you credit for reverting to the last version by skywriter today and not to junk edits by TDC. That is an act toward consensus, which I was not expecting.

skywriter 05:44, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I just read your latest posting at my user talk page. In the spirit of Misplaced Pages, I sought consensus. But you have not distinguished between my edits and others', ascribed bad faith to me, and did not reply in a temperate manner. Rather than argue with you, I choose to suspend our discussion.--Jbull 16:09, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

John Lewis

(this section is a record from BlueBoy96 talk page) Hi, This pertains to your most recent edit of the John Lewis page. I do not understand this sentence and am hoping you can and will shed light. At the moment, it states: "His first run for elective office was in a 1977 special election for the 5th District, which resulted when Andrew Young was appointed as ambassador to the United Nations."

If Bond held that seat and left for the UN, then this sentence can not be true: "Lewis became the first African- American to represent Georgia in either house of Congress since Reconstruction."

Is there a missing beat?

Thanks

skywriter 21:21, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Hello BlueBoy96, It is not clear why you reverted the John Lewis page to writing that is not easy to understand. The editing I did to the page yesterday removed the confusing language and passive voice, established chronology and used active voice. Please do not ignore this message or the message on the John Lewis Talk Page. The revision also removed the error that previously stated John Lewis was the first Afircan-American to represent Georgia. Please explain why you hve reverted this page to language that is difficult to understand. And Ppease explain why you deleted John Lewis's name from his autobiography. It violates Wiki ethos to revert a page without discussing it on the Talk page, in the editing summary, or reply to messages left on your Talk page. Thank you. skywriter 17:52, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

reply

I learned about it from Misplaced Pages:Request for comment.--Urthogie 15:12, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Jim Crow laws

Hi-- it is not obvious where to vote on the Jim Crow change. Is there a link? Thanks. skywriter 17:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi skywriter – I think this is what you're looking for. Thanks for your interest!  Best wishes, David Kernow 17:06, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging for Image:Howardzinn-wellfleet.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Howardzinn-wellfleet.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Misplaced Pages's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days.

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

• Misplaced Pages:Image use policy
• Misplaced Pages:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see User talk:Carnildo/images. 05:33, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

post your opinion on the talk page?

Could you please continue the discussion at Talk:Paul Robeson? Your opinion has been requested. Thanks, --Urthogie 21:55, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

no deadline but two or three days would be nice.--Urthogie 08:02, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

A Question

Are you Carol Valentine? Because that would explain alot. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 01:34, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Cite_book response

FYI, I responded to your question on my talk page. --J. J. 01:21, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Re

Exactly, if the article doesn't need an NPOV tag, then no one should use one. If the facts need to be debated, fine, but if a stat is disputed it doesn't make the article biased. Whoever put the NPOV tag clearly had an axe to grind, and I doubt they are free of liberal bias. Haizum 01:37, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh and guess what. I didn't make a personal attack because I didn't actually name anyone as a liberal or anti-US liberal, I just asked that those that qualify identify themselves. Guess again; if they were do to so, then it still wouldn't be a personal attack because they volunteered to show themselves, but obviously you "overlooked" that facet of preceeding logic.

eg: "Everyone in this thread that is a fool, please say so."

Who am I calling a fool? No one.

You can call it something else, but don't fall back on the "omfg personal attack" cushion...it weakens your position. Haizum 01:47, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Racial discrimination

I leapt in, especially to the lead. Have a look. I'd be interested to know what you think. - Jmabel | Talk 06:54, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

My bad. I didn't mean Racial discrimination (which I've never touched, it's a redirect to racism). What I leapt in on was Racial segregation. - Jmabel | Talk 17:00, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Target Committee

I reverted you and FastFission on Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I pulled the info from this source. It could use some cleanup, but should probably not stray far from what is in the minutes. EricR 02:24, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

SPLC

A while back I added "controversial anti-hate group" as a description to SPLC in a number of references on various articles. I did so because editors were adding all sorts of ad hominem attacks on the SPLC and it was essentially a pre-emptive compromise. More recently a well-intentioned editor removed one and soon even worse descriptions were added in its place, so we eventually we reverted to the compromise formula. If you have a better way of describing it then that'd be great. But to leave it undescribed invites others to describe it- Will Beback 22:07, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Eric Foner

When I've told editors, "so fix it", few if any have done such a fine job as you have with Eric Foner. Thanks for improving both the article and Misplaced Pages. Cheers, -Will Beback 07:49, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Do not posted copyrighted material

I have deleted your post "Lynn Garafola" because it was identical to portions of http://www.barnard.columbia.edu/newnews/news050205b.html. Please do not copy and paste material you have found elsewhere on the web. Thanks, Postdlf 04:35, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Not copyrighted material. It is a news release and I rewrote it, using only facts. Facts are NOT copyrightable, only the way they are presented. You have overstepped. What are the options to appeal this decision? Skywriter 04:43, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Zinn

• Re: Howard Zinn

Good edit conflicts result in more information, better sources, and greater neutrality. Bad edit conflicts result in blind reverts, contorted prose, and endless sniping. I suggest talking some more. Try to find out what they are expecting from the article, and share with them what your expectations are. Try to pin down the differences, and see if there is a compromise or a third way which will at least barely satisfy everybody. I'll go post the same adminition to the other editor to be fair. Please, let's have a good edit conflict. I don't want to get into the details of this dispute, but I know it's about a tag. Would it be possible to exchange the article-wide tag with a section tag? -Will Beback 09:31, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Skywriter, I've responded to your comment on my talk page at my talk page. Pinkville 16:27, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Harlem edits

Two things:

1. Your claim that black people who lived in Harlem in the 20th century did not view the community as being full of crime is wrong. I have put a longer discussion of this in the Talk:Harlem page. You may want to rephrase your text; if not I'll fix it myself.

2. The big block of text that you have pasted in from PBS does not help the article, I think. You make no new points but rather than insert Levering's quotes in the appopriate places in the article, you created a new section and pasted paragraphs in the middle. At the very best, it is confusing and disrupts the flow of the article. At the worst, it is a copyright violation. I'm not sure that you are correct that because it came from the PBS website, copyright does not apply. See the following for example, in which PBS instructs teachers about how to apply copyright law to their productions

http://www.pbs.org/teachersource/copyright/copyright.shtm

and this one

http://www.pbs.org/aboutsite/aboutsite_copyright.html

PBS clearly thinks they have copyrights on this material. On what grounds do you disagree?

Would you like to rework it, to put the various quotations in context and remove irrelevant material, or shall I?

Uucp 14:38, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Reconstruction

To-- JW1805 Hey, thanks again for your comment. Here's the reason for that tag on the Reconstruction page. Other users have long favored revision of this page. This is the most recent discussion. http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Reconstruction#Wiki_policy:_all_major_POV_must_be_heard If you think the arguments are invalid, or if you have something to add, your comments are welcome. Skywriter 19:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Jefferson

As to your contributions to the Jefferson page,

Your pursuit of a dialogue is useful.

• Your addition of Annette Gordon-Reed was a positive step.
• The problems with sourcing to Ambrose are identified. What is the point of sourcing to a page that has obvious error?
  • Like I've said, the comment I put in is not controversial in any way, and is the sort of thing that others have said about Jefferson. --JW1805 (Talk) 22:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• You and I continue to disagree about Franklin's view of the Hemings affair. I maintain that the neutral observation that whether he did or didn't makes no difference-- the greater issue is that, as a slave master, he could. He had the legal right. He had the power. That is a far from "dumb" observation.
  • Ah, I didn't call that dumb, I called the other quote "somebody was sleeping with the slaves..." a bit dumb. Maybe "dumb" is too strong a word...let's say "not insightful". The quote you mention seems to be some kind of judgment about the moral implications about affairs with slaves in general. That doesn't really have a place in an encyclopedia article, at least not in Jefferon's bio. Franklin is basically making an obvious statment, "he could have". So what? Of course he could have. What does that add to the content of the article? Nothing. It doesn't prove or disprove anything, it simply states the obvious. --JW1805 (Talk) 22:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

• The deletion of Franklin's observation and addition of the speculation of TJ's slave overseer introduces unbalanced POV to the article.
  • I don't see how the two are connected in any way. The overseer's quote has nothing to do with Hemings. --JW1805 (Talk) 22:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

• The placement of the section on slavery near the end of the article is unwaranted because of its importance through the centuries and on the history of civil rights in the United States.
  • This is a biography of Thomas Jefferson. Not an essay on history or civil rights or the evils of the slavery system. There is a big difference. --JW1805 (Talk) 22:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

• That Jefferson wrote "All men are created equal", one of the most widely quoted statements in the world can not be honestly discussed without the universal observaltion that he did and intended to exclude black people from those five words.
  • See previous comment. Articles about historical people should take care to avoid presentism. Your blanket charge against Jefferson is also not accurate. You are singling out Jefferson as a scapegoat for all the injustices of America. Every single one of the signers of the DoI could also be charged with that. Jefferson did not invent slavery. As a legislator, Jefferson tried several times in various ways to abolish or limit slavery. --JW1805 (Talk) 22:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

• Thomas Jefferson's ideas are among the most influential in the world. His views on black people and slavery are not admirable, and it is fair in an encyclopedic article to examine the subjects strengths and weaknesses with equal vigor. Do you disagree?
  • Jefferson's views on black people and slavery are in the article. There is a whole section devoted to them! It mentions the contradictions of Jefferson's writings vs. his way of life. It's all there, it isn't hagiography. Let's expand it, but turning the whole article into an essay on why Jefferson was a bad man isn't the way to go. --JW1805 (Talk) 22:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I will agree to remove the tag if others would agree to a more rigorous discussion of the history of Jefferson's impact on African Americans, slavery and racism in the body of the article, not as an afterthought. At the moment, his defenders seem more bent on defending his honor than critically looking at the impact he had on his own and future generations. There is a society for the defense of the founders' reputations. Misplaced Pages ain't it.

• You are singling out Jefferson as a scapegoat for all the race-relation problems in America. There is a difference between a PhD dissertation and an encyclopedia article about a person. --JW1805 (Talk) 22:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

For example, look at the quibbling with the addition of the fact that Jefferson introduced segregation into the United States Post Office with a stroke of the pen. Jefferson was a careful man. He did not write what he did not intend. And yet, his defenders on the Talk page contend (and someone even added to the article) the irrelevant fact to that paragraph that he did not veto.

• • Did Jefferson really write that law? Congress writes the laws, not the President. Early Presidents seldom vetoed legislation (in fact, Jefferson never vetoed anything), and mainly left legislation-writing to Congress. I don't know if your change against him is fair or not. I need more information. --JW1805 (Talk) 22:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

No honest biography of a world leader neglects the impact on the population over which he rules. Do you want to argue that Jefferson should be judged differently from other world leaders in this regard?

• • No, but you are using presentist arguments instead of putting his actions into the context of the time. If George W Bush signed a law excluding blacks from the post office, that would be a Huge deal! If John Q Adams had done it, that isn't really a big deal. --JW1805 (Talk) 22:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Again, I contend that Thomas Jefferson, like you and I, is/was human and subject to the same heights of brilliance and depths of folly that any of the rest of us are subject to. That he climbed to such amazing heights intellectually yet fell to certain depths in practice shows range, and I say that respectfully of range. He achieved greatness. He also did some horrible stuff. Looking at the good with the bad is what makes most interesting reading. Exploring the gray areas makes great reading. I look forward to reaching agreement. Skywriter 19:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

• • I agree. But, the gray areas are in the article. Essays that blame Jefferson for everything that has gone wrong in North America for 400 years are not appropriate. --JW1805 (Talk) 22:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Problems on the Reconstruction page

I submitted the following revised introduction to the article:

Reconstruction was the period following the American Civil War, in which the nation decided how to handle the return of the seceded states and the status of the Freedmen (the newly freed slaves). Most scholars have accepted 1865-1877 as the boundaries for Reconstruction. The era, itself, was controversial and pitted various segments of American society against one another. Differing conceptions on how to restore the former Confederate States into the Union collided with diverse opinions concerning the status of African-Americans. The meaning of freedom itself was at stake in this crucial time period. The nascent Republican Party was divided between the mainstream which wanted a modicum of protection for blacks, and the Radicals, who wanted a thorough reorganization of Southern society. Conservative elements of this time period (in particular the Democrats) believed that the old order that governed relations between the states and between blacks and whites should remain intact. The bulk of African-Americans desired equal civil and political rights, protection of their person, and in many cases a redistribution of land and the break-up of the plantation system. These diverse perspectives enabled the period from 1865 to 1877 to be, in many ways, a grand experiment in interracial democracy, but the period was also dominated by tense political relations and a preponderous of violence across the South.

Apparently some people believe it is not the best format for the introduction. I respectfully disagree.

Personal Attacks

Thanks for telling me --David.Mestel 06:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

KKK article

Thanks for your interest in improving the Ku Klux Klan article. As I've said before, many of your proposed edits appear to be really good and I think the article editors would support you on them IF you would stop unilaterally making them and ignoring talk page requests for discussion. B/c you have ignored requests for discussion on the edits, I have reverted them and protected the article until this editorial dispute is over. However, I have also raised all of your proposed changes on the article's talk page and asked for comment from other editors on the changes.

I hope you can understand that this article has a long and contentious history. That said, by first gaining consensus for your edits on the article's talk page (a process I am willing to help you with) your edits will then be protected by the weight of editorial consensus, which means that a later editor will not be able to come in and change them without first achieving a new consensus to do so. While achieving consensus on your edits may take a few days, in the long run doing this will make your edits, and the article, stronger. I hope this process works for you. If there is anything else I can do to help, let me know. Best, --Alabamaboy 13:47, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

No one has objected to the bulk of your proposed changes. If another day or two passes w/o any other concerns being raised, we will add them in. Best, --Alabamaboy 18:02, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I've worked almost all of your material into the article. Thanks again.--Alabamaboy 15:21, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Featured Article Candidate

I nominated my article Jonathan Clarkson Gibbs as a featured article. If you could look it over and give me any suggestions to make it better, that would be most helpful. -- Ladb2000

User_talk:Travb/Archive_6#Note

The link is where I moved your kind message, and my response to your message.

Looking forward to your suggested introduction.

Please keep up the good work. Travb (talk) 21:48, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Waiting for your suggested introduction on Talk:No Gun Ri, so we can move forward... Travb (talk) 23:51, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

No Gun Ri Page unprotected, please be civil. Bateman appears to be interested in editing the page too. I just emailed him back. Travb (talk) 11:23, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Racial segregation in the United States

So is your remark at Talk:Racial segregation in the United States supposed to refer to something? If so, would you please clarify it? If not, would you please remove it? Thanks. - Jmabel | Talk 06:20, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Mentioned your name

User_talk:TDC#Is_skywriter_the_anon_from_WSI.3F Travb (talk) 05:59, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I need a Favor

Hey Skywriter. I have been editing the Neocatechumenal Way article. I happen also to belong to the organization. Recently, a member from Italian wikipedia has been replacing my article with one that is blatantly anti the Way. Is there any way you can get the editors to put a ban on editing the article? -- Ladb2000

Image:Howard Zinn-historian.png

Hi. I noticed that Image:Howard Zinn-historian.png (which you uploaded) states that the work is licensed under GFDL, however in the email response to you (also available on that page), it is explicitly stated that the image is not GFDL'd. I was wondering if you could take a look at it, and correct it. (please reply on my talk page, thanks) --Storkk 15:24, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

You said that someone had deleted the photo. I still see it. Anyway, perhaps the license should be a (c)-but-fair-use one? I refer especially to his sentence: "I am not inclined to waive my copyright on my creations in any general way". Thanks for any input. --Storkk 01:34, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies. I changed the licensing template to reflect what I understand you said. I changed it from {{GFDL}} to {{Promophoto}}. This is basically what I was referring to, rather than the text explanation. Please let me know if I misunderstood something. Cheers! Storkk 07:29, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Chilean edits

Hello, Skywriter, since you have made several edits to articles about Chile, you may be interested in looking at the Misplaced Pages:Chile-related regional notice board to pick up on other topics that need attention, or to express needs which you perceive pertaining to Chile. JAXHERE | 02:44, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

dunning

the fact that you created the page means nothing, other than the fact that you know it should be written neutral....challenged is neutral, condemned is sort of, but discredited is not. WillC 17:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Brian Jones and HZ.jpg

Thank you for uploading Image:Brian Jones and HZ.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Misplaced Pages takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Sherool (talk) 21:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Howard Zinn & tax resistance

Cite: “Writers and Editors War Tax Protest” January 30, 1968 New York Post (also published elsewhere) -Moorlock 18:56, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your enthusiasm for tax resistance but do not believe one incident nearly 40 years ago qualifies for inclusion in the category of tax resistance. Tax resistance is not something he has advocated over the years, or do you have evidence of the opposite.

The category is "American tax resisters" and is meant to include those people who have practiced the tactic of tax resistance, without regard to how long ago or how many "incidents". (And anyway, he's not averse to putting in an occasional plug for Thoreauvian tax resistance even today.) -Moorlock 00:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:Howard Zinn-historian.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Howard Zinn-historian.png. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Misplaced Pages articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 03:21, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Permission is not sufficient to use an image. It needs to be free for reusers, otherwise we can only include it under limited circumstances, which includes non-replaceability. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 05:47, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Check out Gibbs article

You might want to have a look at what I have been doing with the Jonathan Clarkson Gibbs article. Perhaps provide some advice.

Ladb2000

I'd love your help in editing the Gibbs article

I am adding as much as I can too it, but if I could have somebody editing it for me as I go along that would be great.

Ladb2000

My reverts on Race and Intelligence

Actually, there were many issues with your edits, and considering the fact that it is also a highly controversial article, I thought it was best to restore the previous version and discuss your proposed changes in talk. Some are good, some not so good, but the edits are numerous enough that a partial revert would in all lieklihood have made the situation even more confusing, and one of the other active editors would have made a full revert soon eventually. That being said, I'd really like to discuss your proposed edits on the talk page.--Ramdrake 00:09, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Many of the points you removed are statements taken from some of the references at the end of the article, and some are from the books in reference. I have read several of those books (although I disagree with the viewpoint in question). If you feel the statement is unsupported, you should add {{citation needed}} rather than removing it altogether. The current version of the article is a collaborative effort of many editors from both the pro-racialist and the anti-racialist positions. It serves you no good to remove viewpoints because you disagree with them and you feel they are poorly cited. As I said, we are not here to tell the reader what is the "right" or "wrong" position, just to point out they exist.--Ramdrake 00:51, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Race and intelligence

Thanks for taking on this article. It's hard work. Let me know if there is any way I can help.

futurebird 01:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I concur. I just added a long comment that is sure to get acid responses from a couple of the other editor. See whether you think I am making sense. I've had this argument with one of them so many times that I am feeling rather guilty for bringing it up again. On the other hand I've done some work on physics articles and I can see the difference when somebody who just has his/her own understanding of something that appeared in Scientific American or wherever and so tucks his/her rephrasing of it in where it seems to fit, and when someone who has a global understanding of the field says something appropriate and then nails it down with a solid quotation from a standard physics textbook, the writings of Einstein, Heisenberg, or somebody else whom everybody will agree has a right to report on research in the field. Futurebird and Alun have both argued that terms get used in reporting conclusions without reference to what the researchers actually meant by these terms. They have had more patience than I have had in pounding down walls with their heads. I think my head is already mushy ;-) P0M 06:26, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind note. I responded with a table on my own talk page. P0M 22:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

You are a sad individual, SkyWriter. I've read through the long list of 'improvements and criticisms' you've suggested for the Race and Intelligence page, and all I see is RamDrake consistently maintaining a rational and reasonable tone and you consistently using ad hominem attacks and your favourite blanket term 'racist' in every correspondence. You are a close-minded, self-righteous, egocentric fool of a dangerous kind. Like the ultra-religious, you stand in the face of rationality with your pious arrogance and bring nothing to the table but your own, subjective ideology. I don't support or reject any particular POLITICAL interpretation of the article, but science of any sort should be a forum for the RATIONAL and REASONABLE to be debated on its merits scientifically, not a forum for a self-important ideologue to have his two cents on the moral implications of it. By whining as you have, you only make your moral position look indefensible (due to your constant resort to emotion) in a situation that DOES NOT LOOK TO EXAMINE MORALITY! Get off your high horse and contribute productively. You accuse others having an agenda; from all I've read on the discussion page the only one with a real agenda is you.

The above anonymous note was added by (cur) (last) 18:56, June 29, 2007 58.160.98.99 (Talk)

Skywriter, never mind this anon. I think we can agree on a number of things. I'll submit some suggestions as soon as I have time over the weekend. My prime concern is about some of your longer quotes, which are not necessarily discernible all the way through as quotes, and may look like they are the editors' own words, in which case they look like editorializing (the Melvin Konner quote is an excellent example). What would be acceptable to you to make it obvious it is a quote and not your own argument? Please let me know.--Ramdrake 19:07, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I gave a shot at reformatting, trying to change your intervening text as little as possible. Tell me if this is acceptable, or if indeed I may have made a mistake as to exactly where the quote ended (which is quite possible).--Ramdrake 21:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Skywriter, as I felt there was some substance to the objection of MoritzB about the size of the Konner quote at the beginning, I've summarized it and moved to the references. If you feel I didn't do a good job of summarizing the quote or if you think it would be better summarize another way, pleas feel free to edit again. However, I think for fairness' sake it would be better to have a representative summary of the quote rather than the entire quote itself at that precise point in the article. Feedback is welcome and appreciated.--Ramdrake 12:28, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:Howardzinn-wellfleet.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Howardzinn-wellfleet.jpg, has been listed at Misplaced Pages:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 23:20, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

• I have replied to your message on my talk page as part of the discussion on the nomination page. Basically it says - you claim it is a public domain image; provide some information to support it. Also, get the image re-added to an article - an image being an orphan is in itself a reason (abet a weak one) to have it deleted.--User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 12:31, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Watchlist

Can you give me the exact name of one or more of the entries? I suspect that they got on your watchlists when articles that were already watchlisted were moved to the new names. That has the effect of creating a redirect from the old name to the new name, and of automaticlaly adding the new name to your watchlist. However without a name to go by it's very hard to track down. I couln't find any history of their ever being an article called "Racial segregation is necessary" - are you sure that's exactly right? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:29, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Neither admins, nor users with access to other common tools can see your watchlist. I assume that the developers can do so, though I've never heard of it. Anyone can look up page moves. For instance, this log shows articels that have been moved to titles that start with "nigger". However I don't see anything there that matches. I wouldn't worry about this unless it happens again. If it does, don't delete the names until we can investigate. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:48, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

MoritzB

I read your comment at MoritzB's talk page, and looked bit deeper into the issue. Niggerhead seems to be a common term (pleasant or not) used frequently enough so that WP has a disambiguation page. I can't speak to MoritzB's motivation in inserting the term into the gems article, but it does seem plausible that it is factual (see coral) and that his intent was appropriate. I don't know the history of your relationship with Moritz, but the harsh accusation may be unwarranted. Cheers! --Kevin Murray 17:46, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

My comments and Ramdrake's comments were harsh if you approach the question as a supporter of white supremacy, which MoritzB does support. The role of MoritzB on many pages pertaining to race history demonstrates that fact.Skywriter 03:24, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Skywriter, I can only evaluate Moritz based on limited experience. However, we should remain civil at WP. He is entitled to his political opinions no matter how unsavory they might be. So far his comments have been in suggetion of Jewish intellectual supremacy which vastly differs from the mainstream white supremist position. Cheers and to better times together! --Kevin Murray 04:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I was not aware of your appointment as defender of MoritzB or of guardian of civility. If MoritzB wants to race-bait, then MortizB reveals self as race baiter. Nothing uncivil about that if you like race baiting. Calling race baiting what it is -- is factual.

I would prefer that you not try to pain me into a corner as an appologist for an unsavory position. I am merely politely reminding you of the WP Standards of civility. If youd prefer, I'll just refer future issues to an admin, although I'd rather just keep in between editors. --Kevin Murray 04:41, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Further, you overstepped your bounds in failing to take changes to talk page. You seem to overlook that there has been recent active discussion on talk page of Race and Intelligence. You don't seem to be a big fan of seeking consensus especially in the presence of active discussion. The removal of the Melvin Konner reference will not only be reverted-- it will be expanded. The link to Amazon merely was to show his book was well-received. Someone else removed the citation which I will reinstate. He has a point of view not represented in this article, and an informed one at that as he is both an antbropologist and MD. Cheers.Skywriter 04:27, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• Please read the talk pages and look a bit more deeply at the changes re: Konner. The meat of what he says is still there but in a more encyclopedic format. I agree with what he says, but there are clear standards for what is permissibly included at WP and we need to keep opinions fairly centered. I've been trying to work with both Moritz and Mutwandi and I think that we've made some nice compromises together in the last few days. --Kevin Murray 04:41, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
  • My appologies, pehaps I read something into your comment which wasn't there. Lets try to work togeher in harmony on this project. We haven't worked togeher before so please let's start fresh. I think that we should look closely at a way to put the topic into a neutral perspective without over emphasis on the opinions of any one individual, group or study. Cheers! --Kevin Murray 04:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Good work on the lead section at R&I. Good night and happy writing. --Kevin Murray 05:07, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

R&I Flowchart

Hi. I changed the link to the flowchart from the sanbox to the actual graphic and for clarity removed our discussion about the logisitics for clarity. Please revert me if you would prefer that the discussion remain at the talk page. Thanks! Kevin

The Bell Curve

I'd like to amend my previous statement.. I think your recent edits to The Bell Curve were very good. I just want to emphasize that Misplaced Pages has been lacking a professional in a field related to intelligence research since the graduate students who were here decided they had better things to do with their time than argue with simple anti-IQ warriors like Ultramarine, and to a lesser extent Ramdrake and Jerekrishal. Without a proponent from the other side, the entire section of Misplaced Pages has suffered. --Ty580 11:10, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:3RR

You have breached the three-revert-rule in the article race and intelligence. Please revert the article back to my version. MoritzB 12:55, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

You are mistaken. Please read the rule that you cite.Skywriter 19:01, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Changes to Ku Klux Klan

I have undone your changes of August 26th to the order of the subsections in the Ku Klux Klan article. Please see my comments on Talk:Ku Klux Klan#Order of subsections for an explanation. You should probably have mentioned your changes on the Talk page already, rather than discussing them in the Edit summaries - they are not the place for suggesting future changes to an article, since most visitors to the page don't see them. Terraxos 00:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Watchlist and page moves

With the list of article names you provided I was able to confirm that these are being added to your watchlist automatically by page moves. If an article you're watching is moved to a new name, the new name is added to your list. For example, if I read the history correctly, George Washington, World War II, and PlayStation 3 were each moved to HAGGER???? on different days. So if you had any of those articles on your watchlist HAGGER???? would also appear. Likewise for the other entries. If you'd like to see how this works you can create a test page, watchlist it, and then move it. "This is a feature, not a bug." ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Reconstruction History

I've gotten into some of the many articles that seem to repeat myths of Southern history, especially Reconstruction, and,like you, am concerned about their effect on the professionalism of wikipedia.

Today I came across an article on a Southern historian Frank Owsley, whose "masterpiece" (no cite)in 1949 was a rebuttal of "northern critics, neo-abolitionist historians, civil rights activists, left wing writers", etc. I explained on the Discussion page why I deleted that long list of critics (some terms are anachronistic and it's unnecessary anyway), and especially neo-abolitionist historians. This is probably from the same person, rjensen, who wrote the original article on neo-abolitionists. In that article he identified neo-abolitionist as being associated with the civil rights movement (1950's and 1960's) and later historians; in this one on Owsley, he uses it to brand Owsley's critics in the 1940's. It's rather circular.--Parkwells 16:27, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Omaha

Thanks for your note about the Omaha articles - its good to know anybody is looking. If you're interested in seeing more, you can check out this page. • Freechild'sup? 00:31, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

KKK

I did some work on copy editing yesterday and adding some material. People put up so many facts about what the KKK DID and claimed, but little about WHY, what were they reacting to (more than the movie Birth of a Nation), what were the social and economic conditions, how did this compare to other places or times? Why could they recruit people? It's a lot to wade through but at least some sections are more concise so readers can see what's there. Thanks for your encouragement.--Parkwells 14:26, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Owsley and Nathan Bedford Forrest

How long are articles allowed to stay up unsupported by sources? I happened on to the Forrest article today and made some changes, but really wonder. It details every battle, and claims he was not in the KKK, but other online fan sites seem to say he was, plus a recent biography. I saw your citation requests on the Owsley article, too, and am trying to remember to use them more myself. There is an endless amount of hagiography in wikipedia articles, and often not much perspective.--Parkwells 20:33, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Lynching in the United States

Hi, I saw you had an interest in this, too. I've rewritten the opening paragraphs to try to provide more historic context, and am working on editing other sections a bit at at time. The article is overloaded with gory details and photos, in my opinion. It shares with some other wikipedia articles a breathless recounting of horror, and little effort to convey what was behind the outbreaks. It wasn't just about racism, just as pogroms weren't just about the Jews. Victims were the scapegoats for community anxieties. It doesn't give enough space to what the social, economic and other conditions were that caused lynching to erupt. It was not a new phenomenon, but a particularly violent manifestation of "rough justice". If we don't understand how such actions often expressed community will (as they also did in South Africa "necklacing"), we haven't learned anything. Can you prevent this from being reverted so that I can make some progress?--Parkwells 15:47, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Lynchings aren't pretty. I'm going to revert, because the first image makes no sense in the first part of the article. You can change anything else, but not the first photo. But since Skywrite made multiple edits, I cannot or will not take the time to sort out the mess that was created in trying to "soften" the gory details. ~Jeeny 01:48, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Will continue to work on context.--Parkwells 14:37, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

The reason I removed the Stacy case was that it was cited as "changing the climate in Washington", but nothing was added in terms of legislation being passed, or any changes that happened after the lynching. So it didn't make sense. I'll put it back. I am not trying to be at cross purposes with you or anyone else. Providing more information about social and economic tensions (which historians have identified as reasons that lynchings took place, with specific factors for different places and different times) seems worthwhile covering as well as the specific details about different lynchings and the victims. It was more than the movie Birth of a Nation that caused a growth in the KKK after WWI. That doesn't make the murders less horrific. I don't know who decided which specific lynchings to list; there are others in the KKK article.--Parkwells 23:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

It does take a toll. I added back the Stacy case. Maybe someone will add how it changed the political climate in Washington. Your work on the 20th century lynchings (and all of them) in the KKK article is really important. I definitely agree with you that the Klan was violent, in every of its three major manifestations. Maybe I just need a break from these related topics - have been working a lot on Lynching in the US, Lynching (general), Reconstruction, the KKK, Nathan Bedford Forrest, different individual lynching accounts, late convictions of Civil Rights era murders. Have to clear my head. You have done such good, hard work. We'll get there.--Parkwells 23:34, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to the African Diaspora wikiproject!

Glad to have you on board! Please let us know about anything you need with help at the talk page of the wikiproject. Also put that page on the watch list so you can find out what the various other members of the project are doing. You can get to the project page quickly using the convenient and easy to remember short cut: WP:AFRO . I noticed that you have an interest in journalism, there must be about a million (ok, more like two-dozen) stubs on black newspapers. (see African American newspapers ) And, of course, reconstruction is a huge topic that we always need more help with-- Anyways, WELCOME! If you have any questions I'm here to help (as are the other project members.) futurebird 23:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Lynching gallery

While the captions may well be a copyright violation, if the images themselves were printed prior to 1923 (whether as postcards or otherwise) then even tho were later collected in 2000, the individual images are still in the public domain. It's well established in U.S. copyright law that publish a collection of data does not establish copyright on the individual items of data. Indeed, one image in the gallery is clearly marked in the image as having been copyrighted 1911 and thus is in the public domain now. Caerwine Caer’s whines 19:39, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service and Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. are the operative cases. The handwritten comments from the back of the postcards, since they were not previously published would be covered by copyright. Factual information about the subject of the image would not. Iif the gallery contains every image from that book, there could be a problem, since the choice of which images to include and the order of presentation is covered by copyright under 'Fiest v. Rural. I don't see what being sepia-toned would have to with copyright here, since Bridgeman v. Corel indicates that even if it requires skill to make a copy of image from an original that is in the public domain, it does not confer copyright on the copy. There is one image that because it was mislabeled by the uploader as being from 1903 instead of 1930 that is problematic, but that's because the original may still be under copyright, not because it was in the collection. Caerwine Caer’s whines 20:15, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I do not believe that Feist applies at all because a telephone book is a database comprised of facts and facts are not copyrightable. Bridgeman v. Corel is more to the point. However, as the Wiki article states (and Misplaced Pages articles are not to be relied on in deciding copyright violations "Several federal courts have followed the ruling in Bridgeman, though its persuasive legal authority, as a district court opinion, has not been confirmed. It has yet to be cited by any appellate-level circuit court, meaning that it has no mandatory legal authority, and (consequently) it has also not been reviewed by the Supreme Court."

I conclude that it is chancy to keep these photos up and could subject Misplaced Pages to legal action because the matter is unsettled and the authors do claim copyright of the collection and for the fact that their collection is not credited in all of the uses that Misplaced Pages has made of the Without Sanctuary Collection.

Skywriter 20:37, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

...I encourage some research on the structure of hate or extremist groups and their often heterodox interpretations of United States Constitution and laws which disagree or are in variance with the group's opinions, beliefs, or theories. Lynching is not relegated to only the unlawful execution of a victim. Lynching is terrorism and it evolves, like a military or paramilitary campaign, as a gradual process which includes, but is not limited to, the planning, staging, and unlawful execution of an assault, whether it is verbal, physical, or otherwise conveyed in signs of malice that constitute threats of violence involving the intent to commit an unlawful and unjustifiable act that will result in harm to another.KDACAPELLA 21:04, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

KKK

I've just discovered that on Nov 30, Alabamaboy reverted a number of my edits on this article. He contended I made the lead too long (but there were other people's work involved), that I had POV (but didn't simply mark it as requiring a citation), and that I should have sought all the editors' consensus before making any changes, as this was a featured article. (But the guidelines don't say that - they invite you to improve it.) I've made some more additions, trying to focus on the real reasons for growth of the 2nd Klan (rather than all this narrative about the Birth of a Nation and Leo Frank trial), and have responded to some of his comments on the TalkPage, but am feeling rather discouraged about spending good faith time on this. --Parkwells 19:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you. Alabamaboy has apparently approved my suggestions (does he represent the consensus?) for the KKK article, at least as I presented them on the TalkPage. Now to see if I can make sense of my ideas from a month ago.--Parkwells (talk) 12:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Lynching in the United States

First, Merry Christmas and Happy New Year. Hope you have a good holiday season.

I've added a lot to "Resistance" sections in this article, especially new information about writers & playwrights, and women's creative and networking contributions, the strength of women's club movements among both blacks and whites who helped turn public opinion against lynching, early women leaders in the NAACP. Will be finding other places to use such material, too. I moved two parts that have separate articles - Thibodeaux Massacre and Chicago Race Riot, which seem different than most of the lynchings, and the article is already quite long. Did some reordering in the chronology section, and more on why the Federal gov't couldn't act - or at least why Congress was dominated by Southern Democrats. --Parkwells (talk) 17:47, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Am also working on Disfranchisement after the Civil War--Parkwells (talk) 17:42, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

What are you doing?

Why are you messing up the Robeson article? It does not need your heavy edits with no cites. Why? Catherine Huebscher 9:29, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, sorry! I mistakenly thought you were two others as I'm still understanding how reverts and undos work. The user Alex who pulled down the intro paragraph into section 8 was mistaken by me for you. Catherine Huebscher (talk) 21:03, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

1953 coup

I'll work with you if you want to fix up the Iran coup article.
http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%
http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat#Article_Structure_and_Confusion
http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat#rewriteA9tat#Column_at_Buzzflash_is_not_credible_source --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:56, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

See if you agree with me that focus needs changing http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat#rewrite --BoogaLouie (talk) 14:30, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Rosewood

Hi, Skywriter. I'm sure you notice that I'm working on Rosewood massacre, trying to add content and improve the sourcing. I would like to be able to get it to GA or FA level. I'm still searching and waiting for more sources. I'll probably rewrite the lead. I just wanted you to know that I'm not trying to undo what you're doing to the article, but I'm keeping in mind how the sources characterize the incident. "Pogrom" is a term not used in Florida to refer to racial issues. I admit I'm having difficulty with the first sentence because some of the sources refer to it as a race riot. Others characterize it as something closer to a pogrom, but that is a foreign term, and I feel as if it doesn't fit. At any rate, I just wanted you to know the article will be in flux over the next few weeks. I don't want to dissuade you from participating, and I need copy edits when I think I will be closer to being finished, just to make sure I am sufficiently expressing the thoughts I'm trying to get out. --Moni3 (talk) 20:02, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

And you are lynching Negroes

In regards to your recent edits, please remember to follow NPOV and OR policy, as well as CAT guidelines. There's no need to add that many categories when more specific ones are already included. You may not realize it, but this edit was POV. You were correct in rewording 'negroes', but the image depicts a lynching carried out by KKK members. For some reason you added 'white Americans'. These edits appear to be OR. Claiming that actual slavery existed in the US until 1945 is incorrect (even if a WSJ reporter thinks so). His book is entitled Slavery by Another Name: The Re-Enslavement of Black People in America From The Civil War to World War II. I haven't read the book, but the first few words of the title doesn't seem to be referring to actual slavery (key phrase: 'by Another Name'). He might be using a metaphor, but your wording makes it seem like he thinks pre-1865 slavery existed until 1945 (if it's not a metaphor and he thinks actual slavery existed, then I can find countless sources that prove him wrong). Please be more careful with your choice of wording. Thanks. APK thinks he's ready for his closeup 14:08, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I've responded to your uncivil comment/personal attack. APK thinks he's ready for his closeup 22:44, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

• Skywriter, your perception of the article "And you are lynching Negroes" and the discussion surrounding it could hardly be more incorrect. The wrongness of violence against African-Americans was not considered a "joke" by Soviet propagandists, nor by audiences of Soviet propaganda on either side of the Iron Curtain, nor by any Misplaced Pages editor with whom you have communicated. Rather, it held such gravity that the Soviet's correctly identified it as perhaps the worst element of American society and used it effectively to oppugn American culture. Your statement that "the existence of this article is a broad insult to a vast number of people in the US and throughout the world" is as startlingly inexplicable a comment I have ever come across. Know this: I am at least the fourth editor attempting to let you know that YOU are missing the point. Watch the three revert rule and don't start an edit war that will end up with a block on your record. --Boston (talk) 09:40, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

If you wish to offer the above context to this article, then do so, and I will support it. There is nothing in this article, other than what I added, to remotely acknowledge that this racist joke, (lynching Negroes, har-dee har, har har) which some believe to be funny, I guess, because it is called a "joke" and that is the title of the article. That this is an ethnic joke is indisputable. That it is told at the expense of African Americans and our history is also indisputable. Before I began editing this article, the emphasis was, contemptuously, on "Russian propaganda" as if the accusation (And you are lynching Negroes is assumed to be NOT true. One person who reverted my edits demanded-- and I provided-- proof that Radio Free Europe is a propaganda agency (and now that has been reverted). Why??? Because someone has the WP:POV]] that lynching is a joke and RFE is not a propaganda agency? So there are many elements and viewpoints at play in this article. The existing article implies (and one editor insists that) Free Europe is not a propaganda agency yet the caption in the only art on the page identifies the art quite clearly as Soviet propaganda meaning it is quite possibly and probably is, false, as is the history of lynching.

So no, I will not sit down and shut up. I will continue to edit this article until it stops insulting African Americans and acknowledges the history that this article does not, in the way it is written.

Oh, and thank you for your concern about violations of the three revert rule. Your concern is misplaced. Here's the rule--The three-revert rule (often referred to as 3RR) is: Contributors must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period, whether or not the edits involve the same material, except in certain circumstances. The rule is a policy designed to prevent edit warring and encourage collaboration.

Your comment your perception of the article "And you are lynching Negroes" and the discussion surrounding it could hardly be more incorrect. Hey Boston, I was not aware that anyone has been put in charge of political correctness here. Got a link to that news? If there is none, get used to the fact that there are diverse viewpoints (perceptions), some of which are different from yours. Skywriter (talk) 21:55, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

• I didn't say you were politically incorrect. I said you're incorrect. You're also abrasive and unnecessarily hostile towards numerous people who have been far more civil towards you than you deserve. Your unwise edits will continue to be reverted by me and by the ever-increasing number of editors who won't accept your sad and misguided efforts. Good luck. --Boston (talk) 00:21, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

As someone with mixed family ethnicity, I'm going to step in for a second: the article in question needs to be re-read in order to stop the complaints pronto. When one reads it, it is necessary to understand the history of US-USSR relations at the time. In the US, communism was bad - indeed, communists were the enemy - "pinkos". Everybody in the US hated the commies. Picture this imaginary conversation between am American (A) and someone from the USSR (U):

• A: You communists are despicable!
• U: No, we're not, it's simply a different economic concept...
• A: But you make people work, take their wages, and redistribute them! That's sick!
• U: To each according to their needs, from each according to their ability...
• A: Pinko bastards, you're war-mongering freaks!
• U: We're freaks? This coming from a country where they still find it OK to lynch people of colour?!??!?

Very much a "don't point your finger at someone else, unless your own hands are clean" kind of message that yes, indeed, is propaganda intended to deflect American concerns about the communist state. Truly, the message in and of itself by mocking the American belief that lynching was OK, actually says that lynching was bad. Lynching is therefore not a joke, but America (who turned a blind eye to lynching their own residents) were the joke. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 11:14, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm a student at Seoul National University.

Dear Skywriter: endulge my abrupt request. I am a student at Seoul National University. I am presently working on a research project about Misplaced Pages. To be more specific, I'm looking into the question how arguments about controversial issues are settled. I saw several of your contributions about the No Gun Ri massacre, and I thought that your experience and opinions would add a lot to the project. Data from live sources are vital now. I really need something concrete. You see, my work deals with the question 'how', regarding which superficial observations never suffice. What can help is insight, understanding, genuine experience, and the only source to get those things are active users like you. So...would you possibly care for an online interview? The time and the measures are completely up to you, and I will make full efforts for your convenience. If you are interested, please contact me on my User Talk page within May 9th. Thanks.

Little Sheepherd (talk) 02:48, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

What the interview is about

Truly sorry for contacting you late. There was some problem with my Internet connection in the last few days... I'll mail you right away.

Little Sheepherd (talk) 14:27, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

It's a BLP

It's a BLP. I don't take unsourced derogatory material to talk pages. I delete it immediately until the author can provide a valid source. In this case, you've provide one dead link and one link that was apparently temporarily cached for your use only. Please, always provide a correct and verified citation, and double-check that citation before saving the edits, especially on a biography of a living person.—Kww(talk) 01:37, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

You really need to read WP:BLP if you don't know what a BLP is. It's our policy on articles that are biographies of living persons, which calls out the need to source all material in such biographies, and calls for the immediate removal of any material which is potentially controversial and is poorly sourced. It's not my obligation to search for sourcing for you. In this case, you took an innocuous compliment to a Senator and phrased your addition to make it sound as if Bybee's confirmation was somehow the result of undue influence on that Senator's part, so I removed it again. I sincerely hope you haven't added it again.—Kww(talk) 02:32, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Reproted your abuse on BLP Violation board

I have reported your abuse in the Justus Weiner article. Mashkin (talk) 03:57, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

June 2009

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Edward Said. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. ⟳ausa کui 06:22, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I have not made three reverts within a 24-hour period. I judiciously edited already disputed material on that page and was reverted three times. I then removed the disputed material to the talk page and it was reverted to the biography page by the same editor. I suggested on the talk page that the dispute be worked out on the talk page. That idea was rejected by revert. In fairness, I then added material and citations to balance the false claims that the subject of the article had falsified his background. Skywriter (talk) 06:31, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Please revert the discussion page of Edward Said You have removed my remarks out of context and no one ca figure out what they mean. Please revert that ASAP or I will to ask that you be blocked for disruptive behavior. Mashkin (talk) 21:21, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Mashkin, you appear to be edit warring on the talk page at Edward Said. You have been asked not to interject comments within other people's commentary as this is disrespectful. If you have comments, you are welcome to place them at the end of the thread where you wish to comment. It would be most helpful if you used links to demonstrate the points you wish to make. Simply asserting your opinion is not persuasive. In the commentary you interrupted with four or five comments, you entered personal opinion only and broke up the flow of commentary. The commentary you repeatedly interrupted was filled with links demonstrating the points being made. What you have done is much like interrupting someone while that person is speaking. It is unfair and it is not nice. You can do better, Mashkin. We're all rooting for you to do better. If you would like to make use of arbitration to insist on your right to interject your opinion repeatedly on a talk page in between the lines where others have written, I would be happy to meet you in that arbitration. Not interrupting seems a matter of common courtesy, no? Thank you for your kind attention to this matter. Skywriter (talk) 02:15, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Said

See what you think. http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Edward_Said#Attempted_rewrite_of_Claims_about_Said.27s_early_life_section --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:10, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Consensus-building

Please check the proposals and the counter-proposals on Talk:1953 Iranian coup d'état. --Kurdo777 (talk) 23:50, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Binksternet's original proposal was at Talk:1953_Iranian_coup_d'état#Rebuilding_the_lede. I think discussing a compromise with SnowFire or Binksternet could lead to a workable solution. But I don't think there is any point in arguing with BoogaLouie - for reasons I won't go into yet - but a courtesy look at his website will give you the clues you need. I would suggest that you propose your own version of a compromise lead, something based on Binksternet's original proposal with some minor modifications that addresses the minor accuracy issues we discussed in "Re: Problems" and a disclaimer that the "fears od communist takeover" was a rational given by US administration, but refuted by many modern historians as "exaggerated" or something like that. --Kurdo777 (talk) 00:40, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

You should explain why you deleted this.

Why does obscure reference dominate this proposal?

Why is this obscure 20-year-old resource referred to below as Mohammed Amjad. (( http://www.greenwood.com/catalog/AFD%252f.aspx "Iran: From Royal Dictatorship to Theocracy‎"]. Greenwood Press, 1989. )) being used as the main source for this proposed lead when one the title and subject matter of the book is 1979 and not the 1953 coup and two Several excellent and widely reviewed books have been published much more recently on the 1953 coup in Iran, and three the governments of the US and UK have released information that sheds light on the coup and tends to discount this proposed lead?

This appears to be agenda-pushing at its worst. This kind of agenda pushing is what is keeping this article blocked for lack of consensus.

Skywriter (talk) 19:02, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Did not delete. Moved it to the other criticisms below --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:35, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Referencing one section of old version of 1953 coup in Iran

Reposted from my talk page --BoogaLouie (talk) 00:04, 17 July 2009 (UTC) Hi BoogaLouie, You have referenced this link several times http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat&diff=264350953&oldid=264350720#Cold_War and I have written that it is irrelevant and unnecessary expansion of the article. Let me make clear that I think the following paragraphs are not necessary especially when primary documents are quoted (the Wilber document, the NSA document, along with comments from secretaries of state Dulles and Acheson), which put forward the "commies are a threat and, therefore, this is justification for overthrowing somebody else's elected government" argument. These are the paragrpahs you want to re-insert.

Among the controversies involved in the coup is the importance and/or legitimacy of American and British fears of Communist influence in Iran. In the decades following the October Revolution, Iran's very large northern neighbor, the Soviet Union, had expanded its domain to rule over tens of millions of Muslim in Central Asia, and following World War II over much of Eastern Europe. On June 26, 1950, as the movement for oil nationalization was gathering momentum in Iran, communist North Korea, with Soviet approval, crossed the 38th parallel and invaded South Korea beginning the Korean War. Three years later, just before the coup d'état in Iran, the Soviets crushed an uprising of strikes and protests in East Germany. In Iran itself, the well-organized, pro-Soviet Tudeh (Communist) Party, greatly exceeded the National Front in the sized of its rallies as the crisis became worse. (this is an unfocused jumble unrelated to Iran)

In the view of American mainstream public and elite opinion, the crisis in Iran was a part of the conflict between Communism and "the Free world," rather than a nationalist struggle against Western colonialism. Consequently, what the mainstream thought is not ascertainable. Who is the elite?

the United States, challenged by what most Americans saw as a relentless communist advance, slowly ceased to view Iran as a country with a unique history that faced a unique political challenge. who is to say what most Americans saw? This also ignores the controversy of Joe McCarthy and anti-communism, issues that spoke not to what most Americans saw but as the anti-Red crusade de jour. Whether or not Americans viewed Iran as a nation with unique history is beside the point. Iran was a country with a unqiue history.

According to Sam Falle, a young British diplomat at the time of the coup,

1952 was a very dangerous time. The Cold War was hot in Korea. The Soviet Union had tried to take all Berlin in 1948. Stalin was still alive. On no account could the Western powers risk a Soviet takeover of Iran, which would almost certainly have led to World War III (Why is this in here at all? How insightful is a young diplomat? Stalin was still alive is a non sequitur. A lot of people were still alive. Hell, I was still alive. What does who is still alive have to do with anything, esp. the 1953 coup in Iran?Skywriter (talk) 15:44, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I note that you have failed to answer the questions posed above. I note also that you seem unwilling to compromise on any issue pertaining to the 1953 coup in Iraq. Skywriter (talk) 20:21, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

your posts are difficult to answer. The original text you are criticizing is mixed together with your assertions and questions, and the citations you complain about (e.g. (this is an unfocused jumble unrelated to Iran)) are missing.

I'm not sure how to answer some of your questions - what the mainstream thought is not ascertainable. Who is the elite? - Yes, and what is truth? and how do we know that the universe exists? Much time could be spent in inquiry into these and many other questions but this is an encyclopedia so we take standard definitions and do our best.

You are very annoyed by mention of the Cold War: (Why is this in here at all? How insightful is a young diplomat? Stalin was still alive is a non sequitur. A lot of people were still alive. Hell, I was still alive. What does who is still alive have to do with anything, esp. the 1953 coup in Iran?

... But bear in mind the cold war and the American (and Western) fear of an expanding and tyranical Soviet bloc was raised by the author and the book (Kinzer, All the Shah's Men) you thought so crucial to the history of the coup you wanted to mention in the lede. In fact it was Kinzer who quoted the "young diplomat" and talked about Stalin still being alive.

Come to think of it almost every source you have used the importance of the cold war is raised.

I hope that helps answer some of your questions. Have a nice day. :-) --BoogaLouie (talk) 00:04, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

1953 Coup

Have you time to return to 1953 Iranian coup? The RossF18 editor is still waiting for the page to unlock. --BoogaLouie (talk) 21:14, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Do you want to move on to dispute resolution in the 1953 coup article --BoogaLouie (talk) 16:02, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

The answer to your question, do I agree that the article should be edited "one sentence at a time," was posted yesterday on the article talk page: "I can't think of any reason to not open the article to editing one sentence at a time."

Would you mind answering some of the questions for you and Kurdo that were posted by me along with my reply? --BoogaLouie (talk) 19:48, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Again, do you have any reply to my questions Does the rewrite satisfy your complaints??? --BoogaLouie (talk) 16:22, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Skywriter, I rvted your edit because the lead is getting ridiculously long and we can't have every detail about the history of Iran in the lead. Let's keep the lead short and put the details of history of Mosaddeq's PMship and the nationalization in the body of the article. --BoogaLouie (talk) 01:11, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

carter braxton

it did not belong that far up....it neither defined his life nor was he a key player in the history of slavery. WillC (talk) 20:00, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

While we are grateful for your opinion, the secondary source -- the report by Brown University on Braxton's role is more usable in encyclopedia article. Skywriter (talk) 12:06, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Thomas Jefferson GAR notification

Thomas Jefferson has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:42, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

1953 Iranian coup

Asking for help. I thought the article was making some progress on non-controversial areas but it was only because Kurdo777 had taken a break. Do you have any recommendations? --BoogaLouie (talk) 22:06, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of David Wayne Hull

I have nominated David Wayne Hull, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/David Wayne Hull. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 20:10, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of The Ku Klux Klan In Prophecy

An article that you have been involved in editing, The Ku Klux Klan In Prophecy, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/The Ku Klux Klan In Prophecy. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:54, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you read my response to your post on my talk page a day or two ago, so I'll say it here. Since I also favor merging the material, I would appreciate it if you would tone down the claim that Buz lightning is some kind of proponent of Alma White's POV. If you actually read what he has written in the articles, instead of making assumptions based only on their subject matter, you would see that he is not. It makes the rest of us who agree with merging the material look bad by association. The cool thing to do would be to refactor your comments and apologize to him, but at the very least, please don't do it anymore. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:27, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion. There are way too many articles on this topic ] and some are way overblown. The basis of this article is an early 20th century newsletter distributed by the Pillar of Fire Church, which is both an article and a category Category:Pillar_of_Fire_Church on Misplaced Pages with many subtopics. The newsletter became this book and other of the books that have their own separate articles at Misplaced Pages. I am sure the enthusiasts who are placing these articles have good intentions but they seem to be stepping over the WP:Not line into advocacy.Skywriter (talk) 22:38, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

My Negligence

I was negligent to quote a sambo joke without commentary or warning. I regret doing that. Buz lightning (talk) 23:43, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Buz, I have no problem with your work. I was an editor just passing by that Klan article when I saw it for the first time the other day. I mentioned how offensive that and some of the other stuff in the article were and you quickly agreed to change it. I have no problem with change. Change is good. Now there's an article And you are lynching Negroes where I periodically stop by to point out that what its editors perceive is a joke is no joke because there's lots of history there that is none too funny. There's little or no change there and I do have a problem with that. And they, in turn, beat me up every time I come around to comment. So, I've learned that change sometimes takes a long time.

On the articles in the Pillar of Fire series, I do think they could usefully be combined, not all of them but some of them. I do think the subject is of historical interest and if I am anything it is a history buff. Combining them would actually make them stronger because it would show the relationships and get rid of the redundancies. Cheers. Skywriter (talk) 01:16, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Warning

Welcome to Misplaced Pages. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from The Professors: The 101 Most Dangerous Academics in America. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. (Your opinion that this information is "gratuituous advertising" is just that and not sufficient grounds to remove said text.) - 76.231.247.6 (talk) 18:29, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

1. [http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0020-5850(195801)34%3A1%3C1%3AHMAP%3E2.0.CO%3B2-5