User talk:John Hyams

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The "talk page" of John Hyams is cleared every 6 months, every once in a while, or when John wishes to wipe the slate clean. Your understanding regarding this standing policy would be appreciated.

Contents 1 User Page Name 2 International Conference to Review the Global Vision of the Holocaust 3 My revert to your user page 4 Your User Page and Page Protection 5 Thanks 6 False vandalism warning 7 Your message to administrators

[edit] User Page Name

I have moved your user page and user talk page to User:John Hyams & User talk:John Hyams respectively as that matches your actual username. The lowercase user pages now redirect to these. Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks. -- JLaTondre 02:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] International Conference to Review the Global Vision of the Holocaust

Hi John,

while I probably agree with you about the aims of the conference, your additions are not actually well-sourced. Finding generic hate and stupidity cannot be used to support a specific statement. Also, you are by now way over WP:3RR (a revert under that rule is any edit that undoes part of the work of another editor), so please step a bit more careful and wait for the outcome of the discussion on the talk page before making contested changes. Wikipedians are a very mixed bag, but on the whole a tolerant and very much anti-hate crowd. --Stephan Schulz 19:38, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I have read the 3RR policy and found that my case falls in the exceptions. Anyway, the issue was resolved, eventually. Thanks for the comment. John Hyams 20:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, I suggest you check some cases on WP:AN/3RR. I don't know which exceptions you claim, but I see no obvious candidates. I hope you don't count on "simple, obvious vandalism". Anyways, good luck and good editing!--Stephan Schulz 22:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

No, it was disguised Antisemitism, being masked as "objective edits" by some editors. In other words, "sophisticated, non-obvious vandalism", which is much more dangerous that obvious vandalism. Posts of mine that were brutally deleted without discussion or any plausible reasoning, even those that I cited properly. Eventually, the same "not sourced" posts of mine were sourced, and everyone accepted it, but I was amazed of the ignorance of people. How could I source things that I hear on the radio almost every day?? I live in this reality, but if there are no source links - it counts as "not actually well-sourced". More than half of Wikipedia is not well sourced, I can by the same logic delete half of Wikipedia for not providing enough suitable sources. Anyway, I would have taken this issue up to Jimbo Wales (I was about to post this debate to the mass TV media), but eventually my edit was basically accepted. Know this, although what you say about Wikipedians, I cannot always trust that claim, and Wikipedia is not a grand stage for supporting half truths, originated in biased/hate attitudes. If it's not in the policies or guidelines, then maybe I should put the same fight on those pages. But thanks for being so concerned for me. John Hyams 09:00, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

However, "sophisticated, non-obvious vandalism" is not exempt from WP:3RR. And Jimbo's (and Wikipedia's) position has always been "Verifiability, not truth" (WP:V), because "truth" is hard to establish and reasonable people can differ about what it true. I do not, for example, agree with your view that most of your opposers were motivated by anti-semitism. I know that I'm not.

Re. verifiability: Sorry, but your personal perception of reality is not verifiable, and has no place on Wikipedia. But much of what you talk about is verifiable. There may be transcripts of the radio programs (and then it should be reported as "according to radio station X, ..."), and the same topics are usually taken up by newspapers, many of which nowadays have online editions that make verification easy. It's not that we do not want this information, but we want it in a high-quality, checkable, enduring format, so that people can rely on it. Otherwise, this site is not more credible than some arbitrary blog (of which there are plenty). --Stephan Schulz 10:04, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, basically I agree with you, and I hope not to be in such a position again. I can see that you are a good Wikipedia editor. John Hyams 10:17, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Glad we found agreement. I'll go and buy myself a banana now ;-) --Stephan Schulz 10:51, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My revert to your user page

I did revert vandalism to your page; here [1] is the diff. I also posted a message [2] on Pancasila's talk page warning him against further vandalism. I also noticed your page blanking [3] of his user page, reverted it, and gave the same warning [4] to you, but I think I accidentally posted it to the wrong page. Dkostic 20:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I still can't see the revert you did on my page, but never mind, it's a shame that users cannot revert back the content of their own pages by themselves. The thing is that I only retaliated, after being attacked and shocked that a user would actually delete the whole content of my user page, and then put a joke over there. I don't need a daddy's lecture, I just need to be able to revert my own page to what it was. No favors please. But thanks anyway. John Hyams 21:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

You can revert your user page. You would do it like you would any other page. See Help:Reverting for intructions. However, your page is exactly as you last edited it[5]. If there's a different version you want, then it's up to you to choose it as Dkostic & I cannot read your mind. As for Pancasila's page, whether you were provoked or not is irrelevant. Retaliation is no more acceptable than the original vandalizing. If your user page is vandalized, then utilize the proper reporting process. Thanks. -- JLaTondre 21:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, thanks, I'll try that. John Hyams 21:48, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your User Page and Page Protection

I have removed the {{sprotected}} template from your user page. Your page is not protected so it should not have the template on it. An order for a page to become protected, an admin has to use the protection tool to make it protected. Adding the template does not make it protected. You can request page protection at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection, but I doubt it will be given as your page has not been vandalized to the extent to require it. Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks. -- JLaTondre 13:37, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for the note on my talk page. I'm a little concerned abou thte pace of changes on current events subjects. A lot of the recent changes have been punhepful. On that note, thanks for helping to keep track of the recent flurry of edits. 172 | Talk 07:06, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I think I understand your reasoning for inserting the new headings in the section on the Iran-Iraq War. Making articles more organized topically speaking makes it easier for readers to navigate through long entries. But the topics you included would be more appropriate in a section on the modern history of Iraq, not the biography of Saddam Hussein. A single heading for a history of Iraq topic-- Iran-Iraq War-- is appropriate. Any more, again, suggests the article is turning into the entry on the modern history of Iraq. 172 | Talk 07:14, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, so it was you :) Please see my note ("the Iran/Iraq war section") on the talk page and put your comments there. Let's see what other users think. Thanks. John Hyams 07:17, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

It's funny, there I directed you to my note here. So we're going in circles... I'm pretty hesitant to change the headings around as the article is undergoing rapid changes while it is a current event. The headings I restored were stable for several years, helping to keep the article reasonably organized. This is pretty good, considering the traffic the and controversy such an article attracts. 172 | Talk 07:26, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, fair enough. Thanks for being alert on this article. John Hyams 07:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it was. While I'm open to changing the headings, I really think changes should be in the direction of making them more chronological. Over my time on Wikipedia, I've noticed that biographies and history entries tend to become messy, at least when not constantly watched by a stable circle of dedicated editors, when they are organized topically as opposed to a way keeping the article focused on the timeline. For instance, they often lead to disputes when editors find themselves disagreeing on criteria for deciding whether particular topics are suitably relevant for headings. 172 | Talk 08:54, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Messy or not, deleting these important facts indicate on a biased approach (positive approach towards Saddam?). This is part of history, you cannot simply delete this. I strongly oppose this type of deletion. If you think it's messy, clean it up, edit, but don't delete. And, it wasn't messy at all, that's only your opnion. I have no time to deal with it now, but expect this info to be returned into the article. 172, the article without these deleted facts is about to become disputed again (with the dispute tag). Please, avoid that. John Hyams 09:56, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Moreover, you did not indicate in your edit summary what you've done. Your major edits were summarized differently on the edit summary line. John Hyams 09:58, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean by saying "This is part of history, you cannot simply delete this." I assume what you mean by "this" is Saddam's repression of political opponents. Repression under his rule is documented at length in many sections.

Also, your last set of comments on my talk page suggested (I assume) that a chronological organization is a "positive approach towards Saddam." This is not the case because the repression is a key part of the chronology focusing on his consolidation of power and his rule during wartime. All types of repression are covered (as of my most recent reading) in relevant sections, such as the section on the years between the First Gulf War and the 2003 invasion, or in the section covering the years of the war with Iran.

Finally, regarding your comment that your "[reorganization] wasn't messy at all...," I don't necessarily disagree; perhaps I didn't make my point clear. Your topical organization might have been reasonable at the moment. The problem is how the article would evolve with such a structure. After having been a contributor on Wikipedia for four years, I've learned that structuring controversial, heavily trafficked articles with a tight, chronological focus helps build in sort of a resistance to bad edits. (For instance, let's say we adopt your approach. Then an anti-American POV-pusher shows up. He/she sees the article organized with a focus on particular topics such as "persecution of Kurds" and "repression against political opponents." This user finds that topics that interest him/her personally are not included. So he/she adds a bunch of abysmal headings like "CIA support" or "The Rumsfeld-Saddam meeting." Good editors, meanwhile, are not watching the article, and the changes stay for months.) This tendency is what I was referring to when I noted on your talk page "[topically organized biographies of political leaders] often lead to disputes when editors find themselves disagreeing on criteria for deciding whether particular topics are suitably relevant for headings." In other words, I was suggesting that your changes would likely lead to a 'mess,' not that your changes in themselves were "messy." Sorry for not being too clear earlier. 172 | Talk 14:41, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Seizing power by means of executing is not just general "repression"! Your points are very weak and irrelevant. Sorry, this is becoming a joke, or even worse, a farce. Goodbye and please do not reply again on this page. Use the relevant talk page. John Hyams 16:06, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] False vandalism warning

I would appreciate a retraction of the false vandalism warning you posted on my talk page. I made a reply on that page several days ago which explained that you were mistaken, but I never received any acknoweldgment or reply from you. —Psychonaut 13:39, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for correcting me! I posted an apology on your page. Because people are not using their real names here (unlike myself..), it is easy to get confused sometimes... I am really sorry for that. Thanks for reverting my page. John Hyams 23:16, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your message to administrators

I totally agree with you, administrators just go around doing what they want. They also put far too many articles up for speedy deletion. Djmckee1 18:38, 22 March 2007 (UTC)