User talk:Griot

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Talk to me baby! Griot 21:02, 17 November 2005 (UTC)Griot

Contents 1 Barnstar award 2 Category:People who have been pied 3 Pieing 4 Voting Request 5 Democratic-Republican Party 6 Junk guns 7 Thewolfstar 8 Matt Gonzalez 9 Democrat Party Article 10 Amy Hempel 11 Thomas Jefferson 12 Democratic-Republican Party 13 Lost the South... 14 Perhaps you misread... 15 reversions 16 "Democratic Party," not "Democrat Party" 17 Saturday Night Special 18 TJ 19 RFK Page 20 JFK et al 21 Michael Metti 22 Southern strategy 23 Turn Left 24 Chris Daly 25 Peter Ragone 25.1 Critical 26 Carlos Fonseca 27 Frederic Prokosch 28 re: Ralph Nader 29 Please reconsider

[edit] Barnstar award

I feel that you deserve this award for your work on United States related topics. I am honored to present you this barnstar. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 06:03, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:People who have been pied

You can't be serious. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 18:25, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Restored my unanswered comment deleted by Griot [1], 19:20, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

• • The category can only be deleted by an administrator, and then only after the vote has concluded (e.g. passed whatever the time period is for the deletion vote, which for categories is 7 days). But, as with all things, this too shall pass. Cheers! BDAbramson T 18:38, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pieing

Hi, You'll notice I didn't put the 'Pieing' article itself in AfD. The problem with the category (I feel) is that it's the thin end of a wedge of proliferation of (in your words) "harmless" categories.

Should (for example), Bill Gates go in "People to have business agreements with IBM", "People who own shares in (major company)"; these are significant events, possibly. And if we followed that reasoning, the list of categories Gates was in would be longer than the article itself.

At any rate, even if I had the power to, I wouldn't delete it myself without consultation. Putting something on AfD or CfD gives us the chance to discuss it, and if the original poster was wrong, the deletion will be rejected. If the majority agree, then it's probably right to delete it.

Actually, I agree entirely with the suggestion on the CfD page that it should have been a list at the end of the 'Pieing' article instead.

Fourohfour 18:21, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I see your points. Maybe I should make this into a list. The advantage of a category is that someone can see it, click on it, and see the list of pied people. In a list on the "Pieing" entry, they'd have to find their way to "Pieing" before they can see who has been pied. One question: Why did you instruct me to be "civil." I am civil in all my dealings on the wikipedia, I believe. Griot 20:20, 29 November 2005 (UTC)Griot

Actually I am the one who said "be civil" because I happened to notice you deleted my comment without any kind of explanation. I was, however, wondering if you were trying a new approach for inclusion in BJAODN with the pie category. In any case I'm not angry, and I do agree with Fourohfour that a list would be more appropriate for this phenomenon, as the association being made is clearly more relevant to the act itself than as a "trait" of the person being pied. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 20:33, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

• Hi, I know that your People who have been pied category dosen't really exist. However it does exists as a ghost category, so I added two names to it anyway. Just becouse... they got pied! / Bronks 21:30, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Voting Request

Hi Griot. We have a poll to eliminate the contentious section on American Liberalism that you had earlier said should be cut. Would you mind coming to the page to vote "No?" The poll runs for two weeks. It's at the bottom of the page [2] luketh 20:04, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

A No vote would still be a shot in the arm for me but I know it's hard to vote against 5 other people. The problem with this section is that it vascillates between insanely anti-liberal, insanely pro-liberal, and just plain insane, and in the process, wastes a lot of time while people try to fix it up, and maybe mess it up worse. Even my changes aren't great because "uses and misuses of the word liberal" has nothing to do with "American Liberalism." At one time you thought this section should be removed. Have you changed your mind? Why am I the only person who wants to keep political wrangling and misrepresentations out of articles that, while political, should substantively focus on history and philosophy? The people who refer to "liberal" as a slur are usually referring to policies farther to the left (e.g. communism, socialism) than American Liberalism and, of course, the people using the word this way are far to the right. Mention of this really doesn't belong here as it's POV by nature and must refer to some other "liberalism" than American Liberalism, maybe Social Liberalism. luketh 04:09, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment on the American Liberalism discussion page. Would you mind moving it to the poll at the bottom of the page? Right now votes for removing the section are losing 5-2, with your vote, we'll still be losing 5-3, but there may be some chance to get a few more votes before it's over. luketh 16:03, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't know. Maybe you're against voting in polls. But...if you and Rhobite both vote No then we only need one more voter to tie the vote and two more to win. The poll's open for two weeks and it looks like everyone's willing to abide by the poll in this case. It's hard to find the poll on the page with all the discussion but this link [poll http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:American_liberalism#Is_the_contemporary_usage_of_the_term_.22liberal.22_germaine_to_the_article.3F] should go right to it. luketh 01:07, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Democratic-Republican Party

Thanks for keeping me posted on the events at Democratic-Republican Party. I'll see what I can do to contribute to this discussion/dispute. --JW1805 (Talk) 23:48, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

No problem. I completely agree with you. Two completely different parties should have different names. I'll keep it on my watchlist. -- Fearfulsymmetry 01:20, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Junk guns

Just took a look at the Gun Tests[www.gun-tests.com] magazine for this month, and one of the articles is a comparison of a Bersa vs. Hi-Point 9mm pistols. Bersa is a lower-end brand, comparable to Taurus, that got their start in the US making compact Walther PP near-copies. Hi-Point makes what would be considered a "junk gun" by most, and they are mentioned in numerous "junk gun" bills. They're cheap, ugly, cast guns (as opposed to forged or milled), using blowback actions. They are at the current bottom of the price spectrum (I see new 9mm Hi-Point pistols for about $120, MSRP is $140[3]). They are, however, fairly well reguarded by those who acutally have used them, and Gun Tests supports that:

"Low-Cost 9mms: Hi-Point’s C9 Vs. Bersa’s 18-Shot Thunder 9

We really liked the High-Capacity Bersa, but we couldn’t fault the Hi-Point for being anything but ugly. Fed a variety of ammo, the C9 kept on ticking, and it saves you money in the bargain."

Gun Tests compares themselves to "Consumer Report", and they aren't afraid to give a bad review to a $2000 gun, or, as you can see above, praise something most people would look on with contempt. Unfortunately, apparently my subscription lapsed or their website lost my records, because I can't get access to the subscriber-only section to read the full article. They also, in this issue, tested a Hi-Point carbine. I've had good reviews of these from a former police officer who carried a 9mm Hi-Point in his car as a back-up before he retired (the department, in a small Oklahoma town, wouldn't pay for a carbine, he had to buy his own). Here's what Gun Tests has to say:

"If you’re in the market for a .40 S&W carbine, one of these might please you. We really liked the odd-looking Hi-Point (bottom) with its low price and great performance, and we were right at home with the AR-15-looking Olympic Arms K40 (top), but the compact, modern-looking Beretta Cx4 Storm (center) didn’t please our shooters, though it performed well enough and completely reliably."

So in this case it sounds like they picked the $200 model over the $800 one, and had unkind things to say about the $600 ultimate name brand (Beretta has been in business since about 1526). They also picked the Hi-Point 9mm carbine over the Ruger Police Carbine in a 2002 test[4] (in defense of the Ruger, they picked the model with inferior sights, a GR model would have the same type sights as the Hi-Point they tested).

Hi-Point also lists this on their website:

"All Hi-Point Firearms carry a Lifetime, No-Questions Asked Warranty. If any Hi-Point Firearm is ever need of service, please call 877-425-4867. Whether you are the original purchaser, or a third-hand owner, your Hi-Point firearm will be repaired free of charge."

You can't ask for much more out of a warranty.

Gun Tests offers a free 14 day trial subscription (which gets you web access to the current issue) so if you're interested, I think this issue is a as good a source as you're going to find for some of the most unbiased shooting reviews you're likely to find of the cheapest new guns on the market. scot 23:56, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thewolfstar

Thanks for your kind note, but I didn't intend my message to be taking Thewolfstar to task. Given that she hasn't been here long, I chose to assume that she was unfamiliar with the details of the NPOV and NOR policies. Accordingly, explanation rather than admonition is appropriate. I realize, however, that in her short time here she's gotten into more than her share of conflicts. Let's hope that problem recedes as she learns more about our mass of policies and guidelines. JamesMLane t c 00:11, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Matt Gonzalez

The wider Wikipedia community is here to help! The author of that article seems to treat the article as her (his?) own personal dominion. That's a shame, but things will change now. I put the article up for peer review (see top of Talk page). It seems as if you did the grunt work all on your own without help! Yikes. I like your proposed article on first glance. It's definitely an improvement on the mess that's there now. Moncrief 17:18, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Democrat Party Article

Hey Griot - I've been out of town and didn't see your note until Sat morning PST. I just got back from bringing back a car from St Louis all the way out to Portland, OR and this is my first chance to log back in. That gal "R" is a real political activist with an ax to grind. I'll check out her article. Actually, while I'm neither dem nor pub politically, I kind of resent the Republicans using that "democrat party" term on the dems as they're trying to say they are profoundly UN-democratic. Maybe so, but the Dems don't call the Republicans "Publicans" or something equally demeanind. Anyway, that said, I'll read the article (I'm cringing, just thinking how mad I'll probably get about it) and get back to you. Reijen's whole approach to Wikipedia really bothers me, as you know. While he demands documentation and footnoting he often ignores that very demand, herself and wholesale deletes entire sections she disagrees with. He has a real ax to grind against me because I recently revealed just how ignorant he can be when I corrected his spelling of Theodore Roosevelt's great granddaughter, Joanna Sturm, whom he spelled Joahanna or something. He didn't relent until I pointed out that the DC phone book spells it Joanna and perhaps Sturm just wanted his OWN name mispelled on purpose as Joanna. Boy did he get steamed over that! By they way, how do you know R is a he? I'll get back to you ASAP. SimonATL 14:03, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Owww - My head hurts after reading R's article and the discussion on the democrat party. While I think it does have a place, it is NOT at all balanced. Actually, I suspect a lot of people don't realize just why the republicans use the term, so I suppose that part's useful, but it needs more work and that's an understatemt SimonATL 15:59, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Amy Hempel

Just thought I would let you know that Boyle has been very public in his "praise" of Hempel: even including her in his textbook on the short story. I have not taken the time to see if any of this is available on the internet, but the book is named "DoubleTakes", if you are interested.70.191.50.181 06:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thomas Jefferson

You just reverted to a version of mine (which was itself a reversion, ...) on the Thomas Jefferson article. Having reviewed the versions, I think the one you eliminated is actually better than mine. I'd rather not get into a revert war or violate 3RR (I've already reverted on that article today), but I am asking that you revert yourself. Morphh's version is a better lead for this article, at least in my opinion, and the rationale in his edit summary is sound. GRBerry 18:05, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I added a topic in the Talk to discuss the statement. Though more applicable to the other article, I think the insufficient context applies to its first sentence as well. Morphh 02:04, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Democratic-Republican Party

Under Monroe, the DR's did include almost all the politics of the United States, including the ex-Federalists. I would not say "included almost the whole United States", because many were non-political, and some politics was outside the system. This is why Monroe was almost unopposed for re-election, and why the party broke up in 1824-8. See Era of Good Feeling. Septentrionalis 16:47, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the effect of the French Revolution, in the minds of the conservatives, was to discredit "democracy" at least as much as republicanism; not even Hamilton or the Yalies could deny that the United States was a republic made up of republics; after all, it says so, right in the Constitution.

The problem with Rjensen seems to be that he believes what he reads, even when it is partisanship and conjecture; and he reads only "serious" (? = Republican) historians. But I have not seen him edit dishonestly, by his lights. Do come and watch Alexander Hamilton, which seems to be making progress. Septentrionalis 12:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Although I must suppose he writes from memory far too often. Septentrionalis 13:49, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Jensen appears to be a committed Federalist; but I may become intemperate if this continues: He called me pro-slavery for attempting to quote Hamilton in full. Septentrionalis 22:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lost the South...

I'm in the process of trying to find additional sources or citations for him saying it. I think if you word it carefully enough, with the admittance that he may or may not have said it, it could probably stay (It seems notable enough to be attributed to him and repeated enough). But I should know more when I complete my research. Thanks for the note and the help though. Cheers. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 23:04, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Perhaps you misread...

It is not I that keeps reverting you. I believe it is Rjensen. Since you two are involved in a slow revert war (changing it from repressive to friendly and back), I simply removed the adjectives all together. Trust me, I don't really care for torture or imprisoning politcal opponents, so it isn't that I don't agree with you. I just think the constant reverts are not good for WP. We can just leave out the adjectives and let the reader decide for themselves. That's how we should be doing things. We don't really want to "lead" the reader to conclusions. Let them draw their own. I hope this all makes sense. Perhaps more discussion with Rjensen on the article's talk page would help. See you around. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 20:25, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] reversions

the following material was reverted out of the States' Rights article claiming falsity and lack of sources.

" Used as a code word "States' rights" was a code word used by last-ditch defenders of segregation in the 1960s, including George Wallace. Wallace frequently said that he should have stood in the schoolhouse door saying, "States' rights now ... states' rights tomorrow ... states' rights forever."

On August 4, 1980, Ronald Reagan declared his support for states' rights, code for support of segregation, in a speech at the Neshoba County (Mississippi) Fair. Critics complained that his speech was too close to the site where three civil rights activists were murdered in 1964. "

Perhaps you can add sources documenting each sentence/quote and add the material back into the article. Thanks Hmains 02:35, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Democratic Party," not "Democrat Party"

Looks like Justforasecond (talk • contribs) has made some changes along the above lines in Template:Infobox President. Way above my head in sorting it out, though, without fear of screwing things up. --Calton | Talk 08:13, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey Griot, not sure how you came into contact with Calton, but anyway -- most of the politicians had "democrat", not "democratic". usually i hear "democratic party", but "democrat" when there's no party attatched. i.e. "Clinton is a Democrat" and "The Democrats will win Congress this year" and "Clinton is a member of the Democratic Party". Last night I was playing around with the templates to make it more consistent and to put the little party logos in the boxes, sorry if I muffed it up. (check out Template:Infobox Congressman) Justforasecond 14:54, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I checked it out, it actually says "Democrat" not "Democrat Party". I think this is alright (most editors probably did this keep the layout clean), but feel free to change it to "Democratic Party" if it looks good. Justforasecond 14:57, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Saturday Night Special

Please discuss the issue on the talk page before you revert the article again. Thank you. Rearden9 20:43, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TJ

hey -- I am far from an expert on Jefferson, but I can recognize when someone is mercilessly editing in their POV. I'll try to keep an eye on it. thanks for working on it! best, bikeable (talk) 01:14, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RFK Page

Hi there. I'm in the process of making vast edits to the RFK page (structure, content expansion / additions, etc). Unfortunately a person called 'Achilles2006' has taken it upon himself to basically try to trash the attempts to make any article linked to President Kennedy 'Featured Articles'. I'm constantly having to undo his pointless insertions of odd and unsubstantiated nonsense into article on both of the Kennedy brothers. Could you help me out by occasionaally checking that he hasn't added in more useless stuff. I'm losing the patience required to keep an eye on this person. His only additions on Wiki amount to starting rows (check out his contribs and various arguments on Wiki). Hopefully it won't be long before I find time to radically alter the RFK article and make it worthy of 'Featured' status. Thanks in advance, Iamlondon 04:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] JFK et al

Hi, Re the recent complaints...I've already three times asked the person to lay off the random removals, subtle inferences and so forth. I think it's only fair to give them the benefit of doubt and 'wait and see' a bit more. But if after a time you feel like making a complaing of abuse then I'd be willing to support that - as would others. Another perfectly reasonable paragraph was removed today (which I reversed) from the RFK article because the 'editor' clearly thought it showed RFK in a positive light. I don't understand this behaviour at all, I really don't. Keeping eyes open, Iamlondon 20:58, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Metti

I saw your work on the Todd Chretien entry. I have created a new entry on Michael Metti, which run alongside Chretien against Feinstein in the upcoming election for Senator from California. I would like to invite you to review the entry to ensure its neutrality etc.Terjen 18:09, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Southern strategy

Griot, I disagree with your marking my edit as a "temper tantrum". I listed a great deal of sourcing and weasel-word issues in the talk page of Southern Strategy, and after Faveuncle's two changes immediately after my post, no attempts were made to deal or discuss any of the other issues. I waited for nearly two weeks for those problems to be addressed, but they were not. Please tell me what my next step should be -- should I just go ahead and remove the sentences which break policy? Should I start an RfC? I don't have access to the books listed as References or Further Reading in order to add the inline references, and I wasn't able to find a whole lot of information online. But those claims need verification, especially the more inflammatory ones such as the claim that Democrats worked with the KKK to disenfranchise black voters or that the Republican platform still uses "states' rights" as a euphemism for racism. Jpers36 05:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Turn Left

Sorry I reverted your edit to Turn Left. If you could contribute to the debate on its talk page, that'd be great. Xiner (talk, email) 19:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you, but had not the energy to fight the battle on my own. Xiner (talk, email) 19:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I was wondering, before I enter another edit war, if you think the Bush visit section of KTVX should be retained. Thanks. Xiner (talk, email) 20:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chris Daly

I thank you for your work on the Chris Daly page. The most troublesome thing missing from the most comprehensive edits is probably a sentence or two about Daly's work on the impeachment measure. Did you mean to get rid of them, and would you mind if I take a shot at restoring them with references? Thanks. Brainslug 05:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Peter Ragone

Griot, I wasn't trying to disclose his identity rather pointing out that there was a full article about this in the Chronicle and that he admitted doing this when he is the paid spokesman. I do believe it is against wikipedia policy to have paid editors here on the articles ala microsoft[5] [6][7].Frankly I think the Gavin Newsom article should have a critical section that includes his refusal of meeting with the voters and supervisors, the possible loss of the 49ers and his Chief spokesman's activities. So, I will let you be the judge as to if you believe it merits an entry…. Also, keep in mind this was posted there since 6/2006 and there wasn’t any reprimand on the one that posted it. Only this user got the reprimand since I provided a link to an actual news story on the very subject (I did note wikipedia was not mentioned). Possible entry:

[edit] Critical

Newsom's chief spokesman Peter Ragone admitted posting comments on local news-oriented Web sites using the identity of other people.^[1]

TalkAbout 21:40, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Carlos Fonseca

Griot - No offense intended, but have I reverted your edits on the Fonseca article. This information has been discussed previously. There was also a similar discussion here. If you would like to see changes to information, please re-open one of those debates. Thank you. SRICE_{13 (TALK | EDITS)} 05:43, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Frederic Prokosch

Hi, Griot! I removed Prokosch from the category of Gay Writers because there's no reference to his being gay in the article itself. It may be common knowledge, but to someone who knows nothing about Prokosch (like myself), it's not common :) So if the article has something in it, either about his self-identifying as gay or from a published source about his being gay, or even a source about who his lover(s) was/were, that should be just fine for keeping him in the category. My reason for removing him is just that we have vandals that like to put similar categories on the articles of (presumably their least favorite) entries. But if it's sourced, there's no problem. Thanks for asking! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 20:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] re: Ralph Nader

Concur with your analysis. I almost reverted the anon IP while on RC Patrol. I also agree with the final comment that the discussion should move to Nader's talkpage. That is where you will build consensus and give an RC Patrol member better reasons for reverts (although the IP did come up with good analysis too).

BTW, I see you might know some people on the Request for Adminship list. WP:CANVASS prevents me from influencing/asking for direct votes to your/any vote. Cheers, Ronbo76 15:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't give up. See my response on my talk page. --Otheus 17:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Griot. I am glad to see that you are following up your concerns about puppetry. I couple of the same concerns caused me to raise my eyebrows, and I could see why you would want to figure it out for sure.

You obviously are a good, committed editor, and I hope wikipedia won't lose you over this content dispute. Please hang in there, and let Otheus walk you this through the process. For myself, I am talking the article, and all user-related talkpages, off my watchlist. This article has just taken too much of my time. Check out your concerns about the puppets, and if the content dispute continues to be an issues, you may want to check out the member's advocates.

If there is anything further I can do for you, please feel free to contact me via my talk page. -- Pastordavid 17:58, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Please note, I have filed the case on the community's behalf here: Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Telogen --Otheus 19:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry; I don't think the article belongs in the lead, nor does the ranking. It is a reasonable source for the (widespread and obvious) conjecture that nader was one of the things which made Bush president, which does. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please reconsider

Griot, I would ask you to reconsider. Take some time off, perhaps, sure. But reconsider. The standards haven't fallen as much as there has been a rise in popularity. There are processes in place to keep that standard high, but it is a process, and that means it will take time. For instance, after watching a weeks worth of vandalism on the Aristotle page, I finally asked for and received semi-protection on it. I'm willing to give the system a chance. I offer you courage: even through WP we can make the world a better place. But if you find better venues through which you can make the world a better place, by all means, go for it.

Best wishes, --Otheus 19:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I would be sorry to see you go; if you think again and come back, let me know. But the standards haven't fallen; they've always been this low. How long has R*****n been here? :-> Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)