User talk:Wjhonson

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Leave a new message.

My edit count using http://tools.wikimedia.de/~river/cgi-bin/count_edits as of Mar 9, 2007
Username Wjhonson
Total edits 8584 (Eight Thousand)
Distinct pages edited 1439
First edit Nov 11, 2003
Articles 6174 (Six Thousand)
Talk 789

ARCHIVING NOTICE: I reserve the right to archive any discussion older then 15 days. And I reserve the right to archive whatever I feel like archiving, and delete whatever I feel like deleting. For older discussions see /Archive1 /archive2 /Archive3 (created 16 Jul 2006) /Archive4 (created 7/30/2006) /Archive5 (created Feb 25, 2007)


Contents

[edit] Expert editors

I am a professional biographer, specializing in biographies of obscure persons of local historical note, as such I claim qualification as an Expert Editor on matters of Local History Biography. Let me quote the No original research page: '"No original research" does not prohibit experts on a specific topic from adding their knowledge to Wikipedia. On the contrary, Wikipedia welcomes the contributions of experts, as long as their knowledge is verifiable. We assume, however, that someone is an expert not only because of their personal and direct knowledge of a topic, but also because of their knowledge of published sources on a topic. This policy prohibits expert editors from drawing on their personal and direct knowledge if such knowledge is unverifiable. If an expert editor has published the results of his or her research elsewhere, in a reputable publication, the editor can cite that source while writing in the third person and complying with our NPOV policy. They must cite reliable, third-party publications and may not use their unpublished knowledge, which would be impossible to verify. We hope expert editors will draw on their knowledge of published sources to enrich our articles, bearing in mind that specialists do not occupy a privileged position within Wikipedia.' Wjhonson 17:57, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

A user can blank their own talk page, see: Vandalism? from which I quote: " It is generally recognized that the user of a talk page has the right to blank it. (Deliberate repeated deletion of requests, such as of requests to be civil, is not vandalism. It is only WP:DICK.) "

And furthermore this: User Talk is Not Article Talk from which I quote: "Many users, including admins and at least two arbitrators, routinely remove comments from their Talk pages, and advertise this." At this point he quotes User talk:Neutrality which states "I archive when I feel like it. Depending on my whim, your comments may or may not be archived. The odds of not being archived are inversely proportional to the amount you annoy me. Please do not annoy me."

And again this: xxx

Per these statements, I am removing any "outside comment" from my talk page that I don't like as wiki policy (see Wiki:Vandalism) states quite clearly that a user "may remove any outside comment from their own talk pages at their OWN discretion" (added emphasis). Wjhonson 17:42, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Waldorf education

We are seeking an independent editor to give an opinion whether the Waldorf education article, after much rewriting and searching for citations, is now written from a neutral point of view. If you have time, would you please give your impressions on the talk page? Thanks - Hgilbert 16:49, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, "we" is not correct. HGilbert, who has a confirmed COI on this subject is independently seeking someone to confirm his POV editing. Please feel free to contribute or give impressions, however. Pete K 19:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re copyright infringement

You have excluded the case where I explain the song with such exquisite beauty that, to the reader, the song can actually be heard in their head. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 08:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

You're right. But in that case, wouldn't your explanation be a brand-new artistic work? In fact I'm not sure you could even say it's derivative since it also includes "exquisite beauty". If I were the judge I'd ... I'd cry. Wjhonson 09:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Donnie Davies

It looks like Donnie Davies has been moved to WP:AFD under February 2, 2007 if you have continuing interest in this subject. Thanks for all your participation thus far. You've been helpful. --SquatGoblin 14:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Succession boxes

I can't believe you would decide that you could just start changing succession boxes willy nilly with no discussion from a form which has been used consistently in wikipedia for years now, especially after I indicated an objection. Would you please try to start a discussion of this, instead of going about it this way? I'd suggest Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Peerage and/or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Succession Box Standardization, particularly the latter. john k 20:27, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

What on earth are you talking about? Peers are normally just called "Lord X" in their lifetimes. "Lord Salisbury is the prime minister," one might have said in 1900. "The Earl of X" or "The Lord X" (there are no succession boxes where anyone is called "The Baron X") is simply a more formal variant. john k 21:37, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Oops, the comment above should go in the wikipedia talk page. Sorry...but as to your claim, it is utterly not anachronistic to call someone "The Duke of Westminster" or "Lord Butler" or whatever during their lifetime. This is absolutely how these people are properly called. I agree about cases when someone is succeeded in an office by the person who was their successor in a title. We ought to disambiguate then. But you are just wrong to say that this is not how people are called. It is absolutely how people are called. john k
Why the 17th century? I would say that in the 17th century, we're more likely to see "The Earl of Strafford" than "Lord Strafford," but in neither case is one terribly likely to see the first name, except in legal documents. By the early 18th century, you see "Lord Suchandsuch." But I don't see why it is my responsibility to find examples. I'd think it is your responsibility as the person who wants to change things, to demonstrate the flaw in the current way of doing things, and to demonstrate your claim that this is somehow anachronistic. However, to quench your thirst, I give you a pamphlet from 1681 entitled, "To the Parliament of England, the case of the poor English Protestants in Mary-land under the arbitrary power of their popish governour the Lord Baltimore, who, with his father, hath made it their business to have the whole countrey subject to the Church of Rome ever since the first planting of that collony; as doth appear by all their actions." The second sentence of this pamphlet begins, "The Lord Baltimore believing that this might be a Check to his further Designs of advancing Popery, picks a Quarrel with Claburn and the Protestants, and orders the Governour of Mary-Land to raise Forces and fall upon Collonel Claburn and the Protestants; who defended themselves, and beat the Lord Baltimore's Papists off their land." Need I go on? It can be found on the online database "Early English Books Online", available at any major university library. So, um, there we go. john k 04:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Your example does not show "the exact opposite." Your point was that "Lord X" is anachronistic. Pointing to an example that shows someone using "The Rt Hon. Givenname, Lord X" does not prove that "Lord X" is anachronistic, just that the other form is in use, which I have not denied. However, me providing a document which uses "Lord X" does, in fact, prove you wrong, as it shows that people were, in fact, called this, which was exactly what you were denying. john k 04:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Your original claim was as follows:
Masking a new like x y, the Baron of Z by just calling them "The Baron Z" is anachronistic. They were never called "Baron Z" is their lifetimes, but always referred to as "x y, Baron of Z" or something analogous.
I have provided a document from the lifetime of Charles Calvert, 3rd Baron Baltimore calling him "Lord Baltimore" or "The Lord Baltimore." Your original claim is wrong. Now you are moving the goalposts. As far as how people refer to themselves, a peer always signs his name simply by his peerage title. "Baltimore" or "Kent" or whatever. john k 06:35, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of tall women, List of tall men

Please see new combined deletion debate. ~ trialsanderrors 20:07, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sexuality of Abraham Lincoln

I noticed you've been contribuating on Wikipedia for an eternity, compared to other editors I come into contact with. So I don't need to qoute policy to you. WP:IAR is the only policy being followed in Sexuality of Abraham Lincoln. First time reading of the article I was convinced Lincoln was in fact gay or bi-sexual. Further research, I found that the topic was extremly controversial (not my opinion). Depending on what website I was at, the opinion veried from a left-wing conspiracy to the absolute truth. Which brings me to my point and question. The article represents WP:Undue weight. It weighs heavily on the absolute truth side. Balance needs to be brought to the article. What could you contribute to bring balance to this article? --ⅮⅭⅭⅬⅩⅩⅤⅠⅠ 15:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Over 1600 words clearly claiming him to be a gay or bi-sexual man, compared to only 52 words stating this may be only a opinion and not factually true. There are clear facts that he shared his bed with men, which was not uncommon at the time. Its clear he had close relationships with men. He had serious trouble with the ladies. Elizabeth Woodbury Fox got bent out shape about it. What was her agenda? It is not clear. Was she jealous? Did she want to bang the president? And he said no way. Look at Bill Clinton the man has off pissed off alot of women Hillary, Willey, Broaddrick, Jones, Flowers to name a few. Yet he has a great relationship with the elder Bush. They have traveled together, shared hotel rooms, had intimate discussions about family, friends. To draw a conclusion that every man who has trouble with women, and enjoys being with his most intimate friends does not make one gay. 9 out 10 times I would rather be with my life long male companions than my wife. I can assure you there is nothing gay about that. I would bet most men feel the same way. Common sense lacks in this article and needs to be applied. The old, walks like a duck, sounds like duck, so it must be a duck, is not a course of reasoning. --ⅮⅭⅭⅬⅩⅩⅤⅠⅠ 19:04, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
I also want to point out, that I almost fell out of my chair when you refered to the below mentioned as scholarly.
  • Capital Times of Madison, WI -- Political Bias: Liberal.
  • The New Yorker does not explicitly identify itself as a liberal magazine, though its political leanings have long been clear.
  • Jonathan Ned Katz -- Founding Member, Gay Academic Union, 1973.
  • Carl Sandburg -- Social Democratic Party (United States).
  • C. A. Tripp -- Intentional action to bring about gay social and political change.
  • Martin Bauml Duberman -- founder and first director of the Center for Lesbian and Gay Studies.

Do you see a theme? It not a scholarly one. --ⅮⅭⅭⅬⅩⅩⅤⅠⅠ 20:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

The 1600 words (your statement) present the facts of the case and the arguments of the case. Your edits, if they actually represent the arguments of some person, should cite who they represent. By the way, the above is really politically motivated. To call Tripp essentially an activist not a serious historian is basically to state that you yourself are a convervative activist determined to paint "with a broad brush" anyone who disagrees with your position. I have to leave it to you to see why this approach will not be productive. If you want to now start citing sources, that would be productive. Wjhonson 21:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Dude no way! Read Wikipedia's article on C. A. Tripp thats not my words. I did not essentially call him an activist. I called him activist. Activist is not a dirty word. Activisim is your civil duty as an American. Dont turn this into politics. I just want to improve the article. I have no bias. I voted to delete based on how the article read at the time. The article is in its infancy and needs to be improved. Once again, what could you contribute to bring balance to this article? --ⅮⅭⅭⅬⅩⅩⅤⅠⅠ 23:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Speaking for myself only, when I add controversial statements I cite my sources. I forced the editor who wanted to keep stating that "sleeping with men *on the frontier* was a common practice" (which I personally think is probably complete rubbish) to at least cite the source from where he aledgedly got this quote. Equally if someone wants to call his "most intimate friend" his "best friend" they have to be prepared to cite the source that uses this exact quote. The point being, that controversial statements need quotes and citations. That's how I do it myself, and I expect others to follow that procedure.
Now, as to your point that the article itself has many uncited statements, I don't disagree with you on that point. I disagree on the approach that to *fix* it we need even MORE uncited statements. That doesn't *fix* anything, it makes the edit warring even worse. We fix it by reading and citing the sources. You state that you've read many sources, so start citing them so we can *all* review what they do and don't say. That's how I'd improve it, were I you, or did I have the time to devote to it as you may. Wjhonson 00:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sexuality of Abraham Lincoln

Wjhonson, I'm not trying to attack you or the article. However, as I stated on the talk page, the article is biased, has a lack of references and, in my opinion, does a very bad job of paraphrasing certain sources. Therefore I have added the {{totallydisputed}} tag to it. I have not done this to "win" an argument, as on Wikipedia this is really not my modus operandi. I would like a more neutral, well-crafted article so that we can all be better informed about the topic at hand. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

As I have stated before, adding {{totallydisputed}} was not a means of disparaging anyone. It's a totally valid and acceptable way to flag to the reader that an article has problems. It would be far better to fix the problems than feel that I was deliberately trying to insult anyone. A spot of calm, a general assumption of good faith and a bit less defensiveness would be appreciated. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:23, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Re: If you think there are statements in the article that need citations then add a {{fact}} tag to those statements. That is what we all do. Changing the language however to say something completely different is not research, it's your opinion. Doesn't have a place in the article. Wjhonson 07:17, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Certainly there are, but that doesn't mean that {{totallydisputed}} should not be added. It's a way of flagging to readers that there are problems that are being worked on at the moment. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:23, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Well now you know that no, it isn't "valid and acceptable". It's offensive and antagonistic. Wjhonson 07:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
If you feel that strongly about it, I invite you to put the tag on WP:TFD. I will make sure that noone pings you for being disruptive, as you would be doing it in good faith. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:41, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
That's doesn't make any sense. The template is useful in those cases where you feel the editors of an article have been complete bozos and idiots. The article in question however is an accurate paraphrase of the sources cited. Do you imagine you are the *first* editor to review it? Those of use who've actually read the sources, even if we disagree with their opinions, have to acknowledge that the sources do, actually state, what they actually state. You seem to feel, without checking, that the article must be wrong, simply because you don't like what it says. That's very insulting to others. If you want to add more sources, ADD THEM. Add ten a hundred a thousand. But to insult the rest of us as if we have no idea what we're doing is completely out-of-line. Wjhonson 07:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Ummm... wjhonson? That's ridiculous. The template has never been for "where you feel the editors of an article have been complete bozos and idiots". That would be insulting and divisive, not to mention a slap on the face of another Wikipedian or group of Wikipedians! The template is for where the neutrality and factual accuracy of an article is disputed. Nothing more, nothing less. Please stop making things personal. Any template that makes a personal attack or comment about an editor will be summarily deleted by one admin or another. That's not what we're about! - Ta bu shi da yu 08:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I've ask you now four billion times to post a source. Will you stop talking about the tag? Thank you. Wjhonson 08:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

In case you haven't noticed, I did this already on the talk page of Sexuality of Abraham Lincoln. I think it's about time I ceased chatting on your talk page and go back to the talk page of the disputed article. For the record, though, you are the one who is making a stink about the totallydisputed tag, not me. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:17, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Succession boxes

I don't think that these opinions are completely unsupported. By the way do you have ever read Wikipedia:Consensus. It might be interesting for you. Greetings ~~ Phoe talk 20:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC) ~~

As said already, we write for the 21st century and not for the 16th or 17th and we also must therefore use the official styles of today's time, for which sources were provided. In my opinion this is approved by a clear majority. ~~ Phoe talk 17:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC) ~~

[edit] spelling

It's corrected now. This is why it's best not to do unobjectionable edits in the midst of edits you know are probably going to be reverted. john k 20:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I fully acknowledge that I made a mistake. My apologies. john k 21:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Invitation.

It's been a long while since I talked to you last, but I'd like to invite you to join WikiProject LGBT studies. Would you be interested? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome to WikiProject LGBT studies!

Hi, Wjhonson, welcome to WikiProject LGBT Studies!

We are a growing community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to identifying, categorizing, and improving articles of interest to the LGBT community. Some points that may be helpful:

  • Our main aim is to help improve LGBT-related articles, so if someone asks for help with an article, please try your hardest to help them if you are able.
  • Most important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you watchlist it.
  • The project has several ongoing and developing activities, such as article quality assessment, peer review and a project-wide article collaboration, all of which you are welcome to take part in. We also have a unique program to improve our lower quality articles, Jumpaclass, so please consider signing up there.
  • If you have another language besides English, please consider adding yourself to our translation section, to help us improve our foreign LGBT topics.
  • If you're planning to stay, have a square in our quilt! You can put anything you want in it.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask on the talk page, and we will be happy to help you.

And once again - Welcome!

-- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 07:22, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:LGBT Coordinator Election Notice

This is just a quick, automated note to let you know that there is an election being conducted over the next 7 days for the position of "Coordinator" for the LGBT WikiProject. Your participation is requested. -- SatyrTN (talk • contribs)

[edit] Thank you

I'd like to thank you for the trouble you took to find a reliable source for the claim that MLK's quote is questioned.

In my few weeks here at Wikipedia I've been able to see that the system generally works, but that bullying and flaming do occur. When I reported Jayjg's uncivil behavior at the Incidents page, I was practically lynched by an admin mob that, with an esprit de corps worthy of a better cause, tried to subdue me into compliance with a "consensus" that had never been arrived at in the first place.

In another article I'm contributing to, the Spanish language article, I've seen how a few wrong but extremely obstinate zealots can put the whole article's credibility in jeopardy.

Another problem is the things that are obvious but, however, not written into the rules. Because nowhere in the NOR policy does it explicitly say that O.R. is permitted at the Talk pages, many of my arguments have been flatly rejected on the grounds that they were O.R.-based.

I wonder how many possible contributors are scared away from Wikipedia because of the stubbornness and bigotry of some.

Anyhow, thank you again for siding with me -- and with truth. --Abenyosef 19:31, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pic of Stephen King's House in his Article

Hi. I'm asking you this because you show up in the recent History of the Bios of Living Persons policy page. Since that policy indicates a respect for the subject's privacy and possible damage that their WP article can be done to them, is it really appropriate for the Stephen King article to feature a pic of his house, even if there are no copyright issues? Nightscream 09:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's my question. Do you think that it doesn't present the potential to harm his privacy? Do you think he would object to it? Nightscream 18:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Sure someone might say that it invades their privacy. That doesn't mean however that it does, or that it does sufficiently for us to remove it. I'd say take this question to the BLP page and ask there as well. Wjhonson 18:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Okay, another editor informed me that King's house is a local tourist attraction, and opined that having a pic of it in the article is okay. Thanks. Nightscream 19:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the message concerning the sheriffs of Westmorland. I was more expecting to be asked why I still haven't put in the new ones from the last mail on the Rootsweb list! For more about me perhaps start with my contributions and see http://users.skynet.be/lancaster/index.htm --Andrew Lancaster 22:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked for WP:3RR on Institute for Historical Review

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

The duration of the block is 48 hours. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 08:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I have asked the blocking administrator for a response. In the meantime, the report on the 3RR noticeboard does appear to list a series reverts that violated the rule. You might want to expand your unblock request to explain why you think you did not violate the letter or spirit of 3RR. Newyorkbrad 00:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | unblock | contribs) asked to be unblocked, but an administrator or other user has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators or users can also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). This unblock request continues to be visible. Do not replace this message with another unblock request nor add another unblock request.

Request reason: "Did not violate 3RR, the page in question has these timestamps on "reverting" edits by me 7:36 17 Feb, 18:29 16 Feb, 7:57 16 Feb, 18:43 15 Feb, 18:01 15 Feb, 19:10 14 Feb. As can be plainly seen, there are no series of four within any 24-hour period. Therefore I respectfully submit I did not violate the 3RR rule."

Decline reason: "From WP:3RR, "The rule does not convey an entitlement to revert three times each day, nor does it endorse reverting as an editing technique rather, the rule is an "electric fence". Editors may still be blocked even if they haven't made more than three edits in any given 24 hour period, if their behaviour is clearly disruptive.", sorry you will just have to wait the 48 hours and try to avoid excessive reverting in the future. We work by communication, not stubbornness. If you have a reason other than "it was more than 24 hours", feel free to post another unblock request with that information. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 14:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)"

This template should be removed when the block has expired, or after 2 days in the case of blocks of 1 week or longer.

[edit] Succession Citing

I added the ability to cite succession boxes via the succession box. See Template:S-cite for the code and William I of England for an example. I am glad you brought up the issue as it has been bothering me a little since you brought it up.
–Whaleyland ( Talk • Contributions ) 08:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Helping out with the Unassessed Wikipedia Biographies

Seeing that you are an active member of the WikiBiography Project, I was wondering if you would help lend a hand in helping us clear out the amount of unassessed articles tagged with {{WPBiography}}. Many of them are of stub and start class, but a few are of B or A caliber. Getting a simple assessment rating can help us start moving many of these biographies to a higher quality article. Thank you! --Ozgod 23:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] LGBT WikiProject newsletter

[edit] JK

the simple fact is, there is no cite and there doesnt need to be one. there is no cited or even rumored instance of JK participating as a member of Theosophical Society activities after the speech at Ommen. it doesnt need to be proven bc its an obivous fact, try and disprove it. its impossible. its like not needing a cite for the sky being blue. I am being obstinate bc despite the cites from Lutyens about JK's private statements; in public writings and lectures for the majority of his life he was absolutely anti-organised religion (which includes the TS). Those of you who are trying to water down the veracity of his rejection of the Theosophical Society are doing the facts a disservice. I dont doubt JK may have privately still thought of himself as a World Teacher. it makes no difference to me. But dont try and distort what he said and did. VanTucky 08:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Archiving

Yes, I'm sorry, I saw I was archiving recent things, but the page was getting very long and hard to edit, and those discussions seemed closed. Feel free to restore any thread you think is still open. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair point. I'll try to be more careful in future. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 20:04, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Explanation on reversal

your comment from the Eustace Mullins page:

"Sorry we don't use firm words, with single-source, *self* sourced material."
I didn't quite grasp the meaning here, could you elaborate on this? use my Talk page if you wish. John Smith (nom de guerre) 11:12, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Citing a reference found in another source

You said at Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Archive 9

I would however note that the common citation practice *even were you to* research the underlying references, is to give credit to the overlying reference as to the fact that it provided you with the list of sources or was the overarching means by which you were able to collect the research. So you could say "The Diary of Ben Johnson, pg 10, reference provided by The personal web site of John Brown." or something of that nature. Although this is, of course not required, it is generally considered a form of "bad citation referencing" to not note the original reference. Wjhonson 21:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

That's interesting and I think I agree with you. Here's what happened to me: I read a scientific source which mentioned a scientific study, giving some information about the study. I didn't have easy access to the text of the study, which was published in a scientific journal. I added the information to a Wikipedia article and put two footnotes, referring both to the source I read, and to the study referred to. I think I wrote "as cited in", with one footnote referring to the other footnote. (I forget some of the details.) Someone said this was "disingenuous" because the two footnotes made it look as if there were two different studies. Any advice on how to handle similar situations? --Coppertwig 19:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Is there a way to write the footnote so it's clear it's the same study?
  • "Chromium and Silicon spontaneously combine at 2000K" according to Dr John Brown www.johnbrown.com/Silicon, citing "Surprises in metallurgy", Bill Hope and Kathy Waters, Metal Symposium Papers, Vol 96, pg 102
  • "Chromium appears to be a better base for lithium catalysts" according to Dr John Brown www.johnbrown.com/Lithium, citing "Surprises in metallurgy", Bill Hope and Kathy Waters, Metal Symposium Papers, Vol 96, pg 109
As is apparent in the above, the underlying source for two seperate quotes and site pages, citing two seperate Journal pages is the same article

[edit] WikiProject Awards.

Thanks for archiving the page! It's much easier to navigate now. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lineage of Huckabee

I've explained on the article talk why the link should not be included. ThuranX 01:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] j krishnamurti

could you point to me the quotes you're refering to? i don't think i added any, i did enclose in quotes statements attributed to 3rd parties (leadbeater etc) as i think is proper. these statements are also properly quoted in the 1st volume of lutyens' biography. i suppose i could cite the page numbers. other than that, the article is still one huge mess with many irrelevant details, a slant towards particular positions (the inclusion of the theosophy box is especially egregious - theosophy and the society are linked in numerous places), and undue weight in the period up to 1929.Mr.e-i-b 15:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

i will add the refs shortly. he was not a "central figure" in theosophy. he was made out to be one, by the leadership of the theosophical society at the time and those close to them. the conclusive proof was his disassociation with all the theosophical business as soon as he matured into a position to understand what was expected of him, the world around him, and was able to take unencumbered, a stock of his life up to that point. the theosophical society is being linked throughout the article. the existence of the box is a travesty, and misrepresents who k really was.Mr.e-i-b 18:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
i never said he was not a member of the theosophical society. that's not the same as being a dyed-in-the-wool advocate, especially in his case, where he was literally drafted into it. read the above closely. he was also a sports car enthusiast, and fond of driving. would you please add numerous links, and a box regarding that. he had also a lifelong interest in golf, in fact he would occasionally spout about golf to journalists who came to interview the so-called "world teacher". i think a box re:golf is also needed, or at least, several links (not joking at all). you also seem to be fixated on the fact that he was 30+ when he abandoned theosophy. well, it's not like puberty. he understood when he understood. you can't put a biological marker on that. it was a gradual process that lasted many years, slowly building to a complete end. it was not an emotional, momentary rush into judgement. the article is really a disgrace, the more i read.Mr.e-i-b 18:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

well that's the thing. i don't really want to "balance" the life of jk. i have no right. so when he makes clear that theosophy for him is over, then it's over, unless i have the evidence that proves him a liar. so first, the erroneous info and misplaced emphasis has to be corrected before any serious effort at a good article is made. i'd like it to be as lean, brief and strictly factual as possible. i don't really want to balance the theosophy box with another one, and so on and so forth, these are editorial decisions. i just want undue emphasis removed. i've noticed that most users of wikipedia are too fond of categorizing and overindulge in the adding of templates. so here we have a subject that among other things warned against just that. sources are plentiful; after all, the subject himself couldn't keep his mouth shut.Mr.e-i-b 18:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

thank you for your words, but again, i only want to correct/remove things that do not belong in an encyclopedic entry, and to mark original research explicitly as such. after this is done, we'll see about completing the article properly. i don't want to give legitimacy to what i think is a flawed article by adding information. for example, the section "leadbeater's influence" is superfluous and does not deserve such prominence. this is about jk, not cwl's wards and various youth groups. leadbeater's reputation (which is relevant) can be included in the "youth" section or the "separation from father" section (since it was part of the litigation). above all, nothing new will be added by me as long as the theosophy box remains. this alone immediately disqualifies the article as far as i'm concerned.

[edit] Your note

I don't understand what your concern is. The policy has been moved to WP:ATT, and therefore the new talk page is WT:ATT. The page you keep posting to is no longer in use for discussions about the policy, and it was never in use for anything else. See Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines SlimVirgin (talk) 00:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The page was only for discussing the policy, and the policy is now being discussed at WP:ATT. That page shouldn't be used for anything else. If you want to discuss the meta-issue of how to handle old talk pages, you should ask at Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines. I have to be honest with you: this looks like a WP:POINT on your part and a waste of everyone's time, because I can't see, and you won't say, what you're hoping to achieve. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your note (2)

Hi Wjhonson, it seems to me that posting to a Talk page of a policy that has been merged and redirected elsewhere, despite several warnings not to do do from various users and admins, is disrupting Wikipedia. We are here to build an encyclopedia. Posting to a page that is no longer active, and is in fact historical, creates confusion and disrupts our normal constructive activities. If you have pertinent points to make, this can be done in the WT:ATT page or on the village pump, but continuing to do so in the historical area is disruptive. Thank you for your understanding. Crum375 02:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Per your request, here are some places where you were informed that editing a mothballed historical Talk page is disruptive:
If I may add, this discussion, which has no clear indication of being in any way useful for Wikipedia's encyclopedia building effort, is bordering on WP:POINT. Please try to invest your resources in helping us improve the encyclopedia. Many thanks, Crum375 03:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Please see my comments on WT:ATT. Crum375 03:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
The policy you want to see quoted is WP:Consensus. It seems you're a bit too late to join the discussion that ended when Wikipedia:Attribution was adopted. And yes, you could edit the WT:NOR talk page against that consensus. But apparently there are plenty of editors around who will revert you when you do, which in itself demonstrates a renewed consensus that this talk page is no longer to be edited. If you don't agree with the adoption of ATT or with the requests to stop editing this talk page, you have lots of other options though; you're a veteran editor so I don't have to point them out to you. I hope this helps. AvB ÷ talk 09:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edit count

I have several thousand edits. Wjhonson 08:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your revert

Please don't revert changes by other users and describe them as vandalism in the edit summary unless the edit is actually vandalism [2]. I removed the {{sprotect}} template as the article was no longer semi-protected. The amount of vandalism by IP accounts taking place should have easily confirmed for you that the edit was correct. WjBscribe 02:33, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you so much!

You don't know how long I have wished someone would do what you have done for the emerging church movement article! I am an old goat who is not at all tech-savvy (so what in the world am I doing on Wikipedia?). I tried and gave up long ago. No one else would heed my cries for help. If you want to be nominated for sainthood, you might visit us again and adress other tech needs, the most important of which is the importation and pasting of relevant photos and/or artwork. Thanks again!Will3935 07:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Why yes, I do in fact want to be nominated for sainthood. You must be psychic! Wjhonson 08:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Glad Someone Else Likes Satire and Parody

It's good to see someone else realizes satire and parody can be a good thing. I think you might enjoy the "Eight Steps to Becoming a Postmodern Scholar" which I have posted on my userpage.Will3935 01:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] king II of baldwin

thanks for the correction.i naively thought it was ok to copy and paste as long as you cite the source. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Grandia01 (talk • contribs) 18:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC).


[edit] Muhammad

dear mr wjhonson thats the same emila i sent to nescott.but i would still appreciate any comments you may have.here's my revised entry after citing it with attributable sources as nescott suggested:

  • According to some scholars, vague hints of Muhammad's upcoming prophecy are foretold in the Christian Bible. Among those scholars is Ahmed Deedat[3][4]. A more detailed mention of Muhammad can be found in the Gospel of Barnabas, the earliest version of which has been traced to the late 16th Century.[1]

as you can see i omitted the didache gospel part because i found no attributable source for it in English.about ahmed deedat,in case you didn't know he is a very respected islamic scholar that is well known primarily in muslim countries.i included a wikipedia link for him so that readers can know more about him. again,thank you for your reply and kindness in assisting me with this entry wjohnson.hope that i'm able to post it on wikipedia without any problems.

  1. ^ [1]

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Grandia01 (talk • contribs) 18:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC).

Noted, please see the Talk page of Muhammad where I've opened a new discussion on whether the Gospel of Barnabas should not be mentioned in the article somewhere. Wjhonson 07:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear Wjhonson can you please provide me with any suggestions on how to re-edit my gospel of barnabas entry??also,you have taught me many things that benefitted me on wikipedia.you have my thanks and gratitude...Grandia01 07:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Brian McLaren

It seems to me that for the Brian McLaren article to become unblocked we have to come to some kind of consensus on the discussion page. I have put a couple of proposals on the page. Virgil seems MIA for now and "Frank" was indefinitely blocked for being a meatpuppet. If you might take time to briefly respond to my proposals I think it might help us to get unblocked and get back on track. Thanks!Will3935 08:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bot and LGBT cats

I'm running the bot in manual oversight mode, so I'm judging each article that's in an LGBT cat, but hasn't had the banner added. I read (most) of the articles to see if there's a reason for the banner. Most of the ones where I've removed the cat are because there's no reference to the subject being LGBT related. Especially with respect to living people, it's required. And often the cat has been added as vandalism. If there's a particular article that I removed the cat for that belongs, feel free to add it back, but check to make sure it's accurate.

Sorry if it seems annoying, but I've gotten a ton of feedback that people think we're "claiming" too many articles, so I'm tending in the other direction. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 04:38, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Now that you mention it, I suppose it is. But that's the way the "system" works :) -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 05:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
The bot I wrote doesn't have anything to do with it. I read each article and make the decision on whether or not the person (or place or event) actually is LGBT-related. I would do the same thing for Category:People from Spain except I'm not as interested in that topic. Removing the LGBT cat doesn't say they are straight, it doesn't even say they aren't LGBT. It just says the article as written doesn't include information supporting the claim that they are LGBT. To be honest, the heteronormative part of this is the assumption that they're straight if they aren't labeled with the LGBT cat. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 13:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes it seems that basically your energy is devoted toward *removing* any mention of gays and lesbians as much as you can. Perhaps you could devote your energy toward *adding* more gays and lesbians. That's seems to me much more productive. Wjhonson 07:16, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
You seem to be under a misapprehension somehow. I've removed cats from several pages that didn't need them. For example, Smokin' Aces is hardly an LGBT-related movie. And I had to search a long time to find a reliable source that said that Scott Mills was gay. But the main activity I've been involved with has been to add the LGBTProject banner and to add an assessment rating to something like 4,000 articles. I'm sorry if the three or for that you disagreed with were annoying to you.
And yes, if I were dealing with Category:Straight people, I would require a citation for those articles as well. Simply adding the word "straight" to an article, without a citation, would not constitute a verifiable fact. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 13:37, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Sorry if it seems harsh. I'm really just requiring each article to live up to it's best potential - if an article states something, it should be backed up with research and a citation. And just as important to me is to have all the LGBT project's articles be correctly labeled and categorized. I certainly don't mean to "attack" you or any particular article. If it helps, I've only got about 100 articles left to run through, so I'm not likely to need to remove many more categories :) -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 01:16, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Speaking of eating your own flesh, do you have to keep chastising me for doing something productive? Why don't you spend the time finding sources for claims rather than making me feel bad? I'm trying to *help*. What you're doing is attacking other project members - something I've never done. Please drop it. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 03:43, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RE

I did discuss it on talk last time you added the section and you did not respond. Lostcaesar 08:57, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear wjohnson can you please help me write the gospel of barnabas entry of muhammad??i would really appreciate any comments or entry guidelines you may have.and i sincerely thank you for joining us in our discussions so far...

I am sorry if my reaction was too "knee-jerk", and I agree there is much to work on in the article. Frankly, I should spend more time on the anglo-saxon material than on the more contentious pages - I'd be less "knee-jeri-ish" if I did. I hope you can help me in this. Lostcaesar 07:37, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

wjohnson, i must say i really appreciate all the wiki teachings and support you provided for me so far.i have provided a suggestion that goes by saying i will write a new article where all editors can include as many views of muhammad as possible.please see the discussion's last thread.please let us know what you think.thank you...Grandia01 09:33, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Brian McLaren Article

We still need your help in this article if you can drop in from time to time. Virgil and I have patched things up but there is now a new, anonymous editor who is barging in like a bull in a china shop. What frustrates me is this editor shares my general perspective on McLaren and the emerging church movement but he/she seems to be lacking in tact at a very sensitive time. Maybe you can help if you stop by.Will3935 21:14, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] RFC on Starwood Festival

An RFC on the mention of child care and youth programming in the Starwood Festival article has been opened[5]. If you are interested, please read the information there and the discussion that led to it immediately above it[6] on the Starwood Festival discussion page. Your input would be appreciated. Rosencomet 19:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Grammatical error

In your about me section #8 you state "Is you disagree with me" I think you possibly meant to write "If you disagree with me" but I'll leave that up to you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nowonline (talk • contribs) 16:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC).

Thanks, I've fixed it. Wjhonson 00:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Addition to Albert Fish page

You can add under "trivia" that Albert Fish is mentioned in The Sniper (1952 film).

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Starwood

The above-named arbitration case has closed and the decision may be found at the link above. Rosencomet is cautioned to avoid aggressive editing of articles when there is a question of conflict of interest. If edit warring or other conflict arises, it may be best to limit editing to talk pages. This notice is given by a clerk on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad 17:01, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Another one?

It's the same profile of the middle-aged, White homosexual who has declared Jihad on me. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bluemarine (talk • contribs) 23:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Matt Sanchez

Thanks, Wjhonson, for coming to the 'rescue.' Matt Sanchez continues to change his story. Please continue to recruit more evidence and editors, as Sanchez thinks that he can use this article for self-promotion. For example, he is a 'movie producer' because he produced a 'YouTube' video? Please!→ R Young {yakłtalk} 05:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Talk page atmosphere

Wjohnson, off-topic rants, religious debates, flaming and trolling have marred Talk:Muhammad for as long as I can remember. The talk page is the place for editors to discuss the artice, but this functionality is eroded when the page is flooded by unproductive off-topic discussions. For Zazaban to have removed them was not vandalism, but a service.Proabivouac 17:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Muhammed

The exact policy I had in mind was "Wikipedia is not a forum" Zazaban 19:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] LGBT WikiProject Newsletter

[edit] LGBT WikiProject newsletter

SatyrBot 05:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal for the Improvement of a Derelict and Abandoned Page (PIDAP): Template:S-start/doc

Well, the title says it all, really. As the talk page of the WikiProject Succession blah blah is a rather quiet place, I have decided to post the link in each individual member's talk page.

What link, you ask? Oh, right, you mean this link.

I'm waiting for feedback, mind you. Waltham 17:56, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/j/h/User_talk%7EWjhonson_b256.html"