User talk:Mosedschurte

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Welcome

Hello, Mosedschurte! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking Image:Signature_icon.png or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already loving Wikipedia you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field.
Getting Started
Getting Help
Policies and Guidelines
The Community
Things to do
Miscellaneous

[edit] Jonestown contributions

Thanks for your recent additions to the Jonestown and Peoples Temple articles. I wanted to share a few observations with you that I noticed in the contributions while checking sources. It is usually advisable on Wikipedia to attempt to keep the number of quotes in articles to a minimum, instead, summarizing material supported by good sourcing. Your sourcing is great, but the number of quotes could easily become excessive. One problem I had with this was with the quotes attributed to Tim Carter in a (radio?) interview. The reference took me to the main page of the interview, but there isn't a manuscript to check the quotes against, so the quotes are not readily, or possibly reliably, veriable. I converted the quotes to prose and left the link to the main page. Another problem I have with verifying the sourcing is with the sourcing for FBI interviews and "Recovered Document From Jonestown Produced by FBI." I'm not clear what you mean by "Image of doc can be provided as soon as autoconfirm policy allows uploading." Where are these located and how does one access that in order to verify the material the citations support? I realize this probably seems picky, but we are obligated on Wikipedia to use verifiable and reliable sources to support facts and quotes in articles. In any case, thanks for your efforts. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

This is my first wikipedia talk page edit, so I may be screwing something up. Regarding:
(1) Tim Carter OPB interviews - there is no transcript. However, that link brings yout to the page with the audio files. I can point you to the exact part of the quote on the exact audio file if you'd like for verification. It is 49 seconds into this sound file. If you're interested in Jonestown, I recommend listening to all of the sound files on that page. I think this Tim Carter interview is the best interview on Jonestown out there from the most inside member that escaped. I can change the cite to that description, but I thought linking the main page with all 5 sound file links to the interview was more helpful.
(2) Regarding the suicide notes that are "Recovered Document From Jonestown Produced by FBI", I have the FBI documents copies in pdf of the suicide/last notes from each of them (Tish Leroy, Carolyn Layton, Marcy Jones and Maria Katsaris), but they are on my computer. These are obviously signed and double witnessed documents. I can't upload a JPEG copy to wikipedia images because I haven't gone through the 4 day "autoconfirm" waiting procedure. Mosedschurte (talk) 06:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
You seem to be doing just fine in the talk page editing. I think that converting from quotes to simple description will cover the Carter interview just fine. I can't exactly say I am totally interested in the subject of Jonestown to extent to do a lot of research, although I have a vivid memory of dreams I had, apparently instigated by the first early morning radio news reports that were broadcast on that morning. At that time, I slept with the radio playing. (Actually, the most vivid being that I was amidst a group of people, marching like lemmings and jumping off a cliff to drown in the ocean. It was very disturbing, probably why I can still envision the dream imagery.) I monitor this page and the Jim Jones page, although it has mostly been to battle vandalism, format and clean up references and language issues. In any case, perhaps we can find an online depository where the notes can be posted and preserved for anyone to see? I'm a bit torn about the inclusion of the extent of the quotes, but I've nothing specific to cite against it. In any case, thanks! Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I may see if I can get Fielding McGeehee at the Jonestown Institute (at SDSU) to put the suicide/last note pdfs on that site. They're adding a lot all the time. In fact, I think he is soon supposed to be adding the bank instructional letters I cited from Maria Katsaris sending $7.3 million to the Communist Party of the USSR on another section of his site. I was thinking of uploading the suicide/last notes on wikipedia image (they're each obviously part of 1 page) and putting a small link image to a copy of the document images in the suicide notes section. Beyond signed documents such as these, one of the tough things about Jonestown "verification" for wikipedia purposes is that it happened in 1978 -- in the pre-internet 3 channel (ABC,NBC,CBS) world -- and many of the documents weren't released until much later, so relatively little media work has been done beyond just recycling the same old 1978-1979 stories and video. Fielding has started to transcribe a small fraction of the audio tapes, but most of the facts are in documents never really reported upon by print and TV journalists/documentarians. Mosedschurte (talk) 07:30, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I put verifications in for the Carolyn Layton, Annie Moore, Marcy Jones and Maria Katsaris suicide notes. Fielding McGehee put copies of those documents on the Jonestown Institute's San Diego State cite, and I fixed the cites. How do I get the "verrification needed" labels to disappear? Mosedschurte (talk) 02:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I'll take them out. It's a simple matter of removing the {{verify source}} templates. Thanks for updating them! Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I should have edited this. I figured it out once I saw the verify tags and removed them where I was able to provide a link to the specific document. I also found a link to the suicide note of Tish Leroy.


Hi. Thanks for your contributions to Jonestown-related topics. Regarding the discussion above, Wikipeda has several sister projects. Wikiquote is intended as a repository of quotations and Wikisource holds public domain source materials. Regarding your own editing, it would be a big help and courtesy to other editors if you'd describe your edits in the edit summary box. In that same vein, it's inappropriate to delete sourced material without a good reason, as you apparently did here.[1] ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Will. I actually deleted my own sourced material -- I had placed that there last night and deleted those sentences today. The reason is that I'd read the style guidelines and other materials, and I thought that getting into the minutiae of Marshall Kilduff and the Chronicle might not fit within the framework of the article.
I will definitely provide the reasons for the edits in the future. Right now, I am only adding very specific facts where there are huge historical gaps (in some cases, over a decade) in the Jonestown and Jim Jones pages. Mosedschurte (talk) 05:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WP:CIT

When adding material and sources, could you please utilize the citation templates at WP:CIT? That is the method I have been using, and it keeps things uniform/standardized. Cirt (talk) 08:55, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jonestown

I had just a few comments in passing regarding the edits from tonight. It is usually advised to utilize the "Preview" button when making extensive changes, rather than saving the page continually. This both saves time for the editor and lessens the work of the servers.

It's also important to avoid what Wikipedia calls weasel words. Saying that something "appears to indicate," "some say," "one statement by Jones perhaps indirectly references the existence of such events," etc. falls under that category. Another is to avoid speculation, such as in "Bent needles could suggest struggles among unwilling adults. However, no investigation was made to determine whether any needle was bent during an injection or later by others walking upon needles lying on the ground." Unless that is referenced, it doesn't belong in the article, as it is speculative. (That actually applies to the "Jones perhaps indirectly references" statement above as well.) I realize that it's probable that you didn't add all of that, I'm just bringing it up in observation.

I did return the original research tag to the section about Jones' psychological state. While some of the actual facts in the section are referenced (Jones' use of drugs, words that he used), the conclusions drawn about their possible meaning aren't referenced. Unless a qualified professional has written an opinion about the possible paranoia and delusions of grandeur, and the conclusions drawn aren't part of the opinion, what's presented in the article is original research by whomever wrote it. The Marc Galanter quote may or may not attribute these characteristics to Jones, but the quote is unreferenced and probably should be removed without a citation. Insofar as it's applicability, I'm not clear on Galanter's area of expertise, I see his area is in law, so I'm not sure of the validity of the statement. Honestly, I'd be just as happy if the whole section were removed. It's not the place of Wikipedia to propose explanations.

In any case, I hope you take these comments and observations in the spirit they are offered. Thanks! Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:12, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I definitely should use the preview more to avoid excessive small changes.
I completely agree with your assessments. In truth, I added some of the weasel words to give explanations given for some previously added unsourced other statements phrased in conclusory declarative form -- e.g., bent needles, but I couldn't remember any specific sources either. So I just stated them as potential alternatives, in an admittedly weasely format. The unsourced paragraph used to state that the needles proved some sort resistance. I wouldn't mind deleting the entire thing, to be honest. Bluntly, it's mostly crap, and there's not even any real documentation of pre-GDF-arrival needle bending anywhere.
Actually, the same goes for Jones' entire psychological decline. The section adds little more concrete facts than the already sourced fact he was found with drugs in his system. It also doesn't really seem appropriate for encyclopedic content.
Much of this, I just left added with edits because I thought it might ruffle feathers to delete.
This has given me an idea. I'm going to try to delete some of the more speculative unsourced sections and move some of the sourced facts elsewhere. It should improve and shorten and already very long article. We'll see if draws any criticism. Mosedschurte (talk) 08:03, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Note

I've tried to work with you on these articles, but as of right now, you and I have a problem. And it is a huge problem. I have not read any further than skimming the first sentences of the paragraphs on the first version of the response you posted, and at this point, I do not intend to finish reading it. At this time, I am going to refer you to some basic Wikipedia policies that are NOT gentle hints, suggestions, or pleases. Go read the following policies: no personal attacks, civility (specifically WP:CIVIL#Engaging in incivility for the ways it's violated), wiki etiquette, and while you're at it, read consensus, WP:TPG#Behavior that is unacceptable, WP:TPG#Own comments and WP:RTP (specifically the third paragraph of the lead).

Referring to a viewpoint posted by someone as "fairly ignorant," reiterating your use of ignorance, and then saying "Crossing the border over into utter silliness" simply and completely violates the first four policies I mentioned. I would also include stating in the edit summary that Lonewolf BC vandalized the page by removing internal links with which he disagreed is also incivil. It won't be tolerated, no matter how vehemently you disagree with my, or anyone else's, viewpoint.

Consensus may well mean that someone objects to items in a version, but that does not preclude the material being included. You are right though, there will be no consensus when you behave abusively toward others who are also working on the page. Meanwhile, no one has demanded anything. I think one point that needs to be made is that no one owns this article and if it is the case that the article has to meet your specifications and interpretations of this event, perhaps you should write a book. Finally, Please stop dividing my talk page comments and inserting your responses between paragraphs. Refactoring talk page comments left by others is a bad practice. Wildhartlivie (talk) 15:47, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

This is entirely inappropriate. I stated the expressed view was ignorant of the actual historical facts, and it was not "uncivil." It merely means the expressed view was apparently made without knowledge of relevant historical facts.
I'm not sure if this is some attempt to engage in a fight of some sort, but it was highly unusual.
This was entirely inappropriate: "Meanwhile, no one has demanded anything. I think one point that needs to be made is that no one owns this article and if it is the case that the article has to meet your specifications and interpretations of this event, perhaps you should write a book."
I have given zero implication that I "own" any article. In fact, looking at the facts, every single edit -- every single addition and every single delete -- to the See Also section by me was reverted by Lonewolf BC. Including sourced directly related articles. The history plainly speaks for itself. The "demanding" was the simply abusive edits reverting every change. Mosedschurte (talk) 16:40, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
It is not inappropriate nor unusual for one editor to approach another on the user talk page about issues. In fact, it is entirely suggested that an issue that is only tangentially related to an article, and in this case, it is that the tone and wording used in your response was offensive to me, be discussed on user talk pages and not the main article talk page. Edit warring, which is what is occurring on the Jonestown page, is not conducted in a vacuum. An outside observer would be hard pressed to discern between Lonewolf BC's reversions and yours to determine what is or isn't abusive. As a matter of note, I have reverted some of your changes to this ridiculous See also section as well. As far as I can see, you seem to feel that your knowledge and contributions are right and ours are wrong, and even more so, ignorant, utterly silly, and are gross misunderstandings. That is implicit ownership by WP definition. I made the write a book statement as a reflection of the very clear note below the edit window, and which can be found in various WP guidelines and policies, that says "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly... do not submit it." Wildhartlivie (talk) 17:44, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Regarding "As far as I can see, you seem to feel that your knowledge and contributions are right and ours are wrong" you keep attempting to make statements about me personally, and I would ask you to stop that please. Not to mention the statement is inaccurate.
Actually, I am just attempting to find consensus on the scope of the term "related" in WP:ALSO. I can work with it either way: (i) a more broad inclusive one where unrelated events occurring at other times in history with a small number of factual similarities (e.g., religious extremists dying in a building fire at the BATF raid at Waco and UFO enthusiasts attempting to commit mass suicide to transport their souls to a spaceship behind Haley's comet), which could include other historical events with more similarities; or (ii) a more narrow version not allowing such unrelated events occurring at other points in history with a small number of factual similarities.
I initially deleted the BATF raid at Waco and UFO enthusiasts attempting to ride a spaceship behind Haley's comet. That met resistance, with an incredibly broad view of the word "related" being utilized. So then I added actually directly related articles (e.g., SLA and Nation of Islam), as well as other historical events with more similarities. As a side note, these were actually simultaneously deleted by Lonewolf BC while the UFO enthusiasts attempting to hitch a ride on Haley's were left in. An interesting edit, to say the least.
As it stands right now, every single attempt to edit the "See Also" section (in any direction at all either way) is being simply "undone" by Lonewolf BC. Mosedschurte (talk) 18:47, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reverting vandalism

There are a few ways to revert chains of edits that are vandalism without having to go through each edit. The first way is to open the page history and chose the earliest link in the chain and click the "last" link, which would be here, so the last good version is on the left. This is what they call the "diff" page. Click the edit button on the left hand version (don't worry about the pink warning strips), and go to the bottom, put in some edit summary like "reverting vandalism" and save the page.

Another way, if you use Firefox, Safari, and Opera, is to go to "my preferences" at the top of the page, and chose the "gadgets" tab. go down to "Dditing gadgets" category and click the Twinkle box. Then save the changes. Follow the instructions at the bottom of the page to clear your cache. Sometimes one must close the browser and reopen it. When you log back on and go to the last diff page from the history. You hopefully have these options above the current revision side that looks like this: [rollback (AGF)] || [rollback] || [rollback (VANDAL)]. If you're reverting vandalism, use the vandal choice. If you think it was well intentioned, and one should assume good faith (AGF), then use the AGF choice. If you are reverting more than one edit, it will open a box that asks if you want to do this. Enter your edit summary in the box and click yes. That will save you loads of reverting time. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:55, 8 June 2008 (UTC)