User talk:Skoblentz

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Harding and the Klan

Hi -- The article's talk page is the place to discuss this. From the article, scroll to the bottom, and click on "discuss this page."--Bcrowell 01:13, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Which I did, but also added comments to your discussion page regarding the issue because of your involvement in the article. Skoblentz 16:44, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] I so want to talk with you about Harding and the Klan. :)

I so want to talk with you about Harding and the Klan. :)

Once you become a registered user of Wikipedia we can talk. I just prefer not to discuss matters with IP addresses. Hope you can understand Stu 01:35, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Just a research request

All I ask is that you look into the sources a book I currently hve which it claims as proof that Harding was a member of the Klan.

Well, I would be more than willing to look at the book if 1) You tell me what the book is and 2) Register with Wikipedia and then start identifying yourself by signing what you post with ~~~~. According to my history, your IP address is 132.241.245.49 - and if this is important to you, please register with Wikipedia and become a community member. I do have a personal policy about conversations with IP addresses.Stu 22:31, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Marshall Eugene DeWolfe

Hi Stu,

I placed the importance tag on the Marshall DeWolfe article because after reading it, all I see is a man who was born to a woman who later married a future president. I'm sure their family dynamics are interesting, but that can be said about most families. I prefer not to remove the tag as I see nothing that makes Marshall encyclopedic in his own right. However, having said that, I also do not care to quibble about the matter. I do not watch that page, and you are welcome to remove the tag if you choose (as if anyone needed my permission). Cheers, BrainyBroad 07:11, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi- You will never know how much I appreciate your response. Not only did you explain to me why you placed the tag on the article, but you did it in such a wonderful manner. Wikipedia needs more people like you. Tell you what I will do - let me do some additional research on him tomorrow when I'm up in Marion. As far as the family dynamic, its very important to understanding Florence Kling Harding. The day that she buried Marshall in Marion, she went to get her hair done - when her hair dresser asked her why she seemed melancholic, she simply replied "we buried Marshall this morning" Aside from the cemetery workers and the Erie railroad employees that load his body into the hearse, this was the first that anyone in town knew about it. I'll keep digging on him, and again, thanks for being really great about this... Stu 22:17, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] I am back

I now have a name and here is the book.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0195123573/102-2941184-3583311?v=glance

BTW can we agree to put aside our political beliefs in the pursuit of facts? (This post placed here "19:35, 26 September 2005 Grazon" who does not sign his/her postings on Wikipedia)

  • I don't understand what you mean political beliefs - are you implying that I am taking the opposite side of this argument because Harding is a Republican, ergo, I feel the need to protect him? I'm sticking up for the man because I have looked at primary resources and know what they say and what they do not contain - which is any inkling of Klan involvement. What I can't figure out is why is it so important for you include Harding in the Klan, that you would base you whole argument on what one book claims. Stu 01:55, 27 September

2005 (UTC)

[edit] I was in error

I apologize for assuming you had a political stake in this. I post frequently on a political forum and as a result sometimes assume people are taking a stance for a political reason when they are not.

grazon 02:07, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Accepted and thank you. There is so much misinformation about Harding out there because the guy has been trashed, without defenders, for 80 years. Seriously, once you spend some time actually looking at whole person, he really isn't so bad - just a loyal party man (his party, not mine) who got in over his head. All I care about is that the facts are correct. Stu 02:01, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
    • I know the feeling I'm partial to FDR and I swear the guy gets attacked by everyone these days. grazon 06:40, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
      • My mother still keeps his picture up on the wall as a thank you for helping to bring electricty to the family farm. Stu 12:58, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Corbett Reynolds

(Moved from my user page) re :

> Are you the one who placed the reference for Corbett Reynolds in the circuit party article? If so, thanks for recognizing him - while I am not a fan of the circuit party scene, I think its high time that Corbett gets some recognition for helping to broaden the midwest horizons. Again, thanks

(from Geoff) : yep! No problem. Although I myself have not seen a lot of his work, I was aware of his help with the circuit party scene. I didn't have a chance to go to any of his Red Parties, although I did just this year see Chrome (the replacement to it) for the first time, just to say I had been to one. It was fun.

[edit] Anthony Comstock and the president's daughter

That's very strange. Unless Comstock had a son or other relative with the same name who continued his work, I would have to say that this book must be wrong. It will simply not make sense to have an article about something that happened in 1927, and then find that the person we are talking about died in 1915. Academic Challenger 23:09, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

  • And I would certainly agree. I guess it means doing some additional digging about to see if 1) Anthony Comstock is the same Anthony Comstick, 2) Try getting a hold of Ferrell. In any event, I trust his writing - he gets high praise for his accuracy. Stu 14:26, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
    • I need my eyes checked - the passage reads "once headed by Anthony Comstock." Thanks for catching this error. Stu 14:29, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] nonsense taking up space

Regarding your comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Santa Claus Camp - I have edited the article so it is more clearly not nonsense. As for "taking up space", it is well-known (and indeed one of the precepts of Wikipedia) that space is completely a non-issue. Space is extremely cheap and Wikipedia's machines have far more than Wikipedia knows what to do with. — Dan | Talk 02:42, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Irony is a funny thing, isn't it... Stu 13:43, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't understand. Could you be clearer? — Dan | Talk 18:14, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
Simply, you took my "taking up space" literally, when the comment was made as figurative. Really, if you feel the article has merit, by all means save it. For example, one could include how it got its name, clearing up that literal/figurative quandry. However, unless its improved and can stand alone, it really does need to be merged in my opinion.

[edit] the Klan contains people of less than "pure" blood

"The reason the Klan speaks of themselves as "true" Americans, is the way THEY see it The KKK does not think the Native Americans were not the first ones in America. They claim that Vikings were there long before the Indians. There does seem to be some evidence that Vikings came to America, however, there is no proof as far as I know that the Native American Indian was not there when the Viking came centuries ago. The facts also are that the Vikings did not civilize America and left for other lands. The Klan has taught that the Indians are subhuman and refer to them as "wagon burners" Some Klan leaders have stated they had a certain amount of respect for them because rather then let the white man make slaves out of them they fought back. The weird thing is, most people I met that belonged to the Klan had at least some Indian ancestry! So much for that ignorant theory of "pure race"!"

http://www.johnnyleeclary.com/questions_on_the_ku_klux_klan.htm

  • Grazon- First, would you please learn to sign your posts - its not terribly hard, you simply type four tildas. This is as much a courtesy to other Wikipedians as it is part of how communicate. Secondly, I understand that you feel very strongly about the evil KKK, as do I, but the thing you have to remember is that the Klan is something that one can't make sense of, or apply strict logic too, because their members don't use logic, nor do they make sense. They live in their own little perverse universe. So, thanks for sharing the information. Stu 22:24, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

well I'm kicking myself for forgetting to sign my post. grazon 22:59, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Be careful that you don't throw out your knee in the process. Stu 01:53, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Harding

(This thread is carried over from User:HOTR talk page.) I disagree. The question of whether or not Harding was a member of the Klan is in the public domain and widely reported. I agree we should not state it as fact but we should mention that the issue is at question (as it is mentioned elsewhere in wikipedia in relation to Harding). Homey 01:38, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm confused - if the idea of Harding being in the Klan is still a question, and two highly respect authors such as Ferrell and Dean have not only refuted the claims, but have had their finding heralded by historians and press alike, why didn't they support further investigation of the matter? Have you studied any of the Harding documents in Columbus (his personal papers are at Ohio Historical Society) or in Marion? Stu 02:57, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

My point is that if a number of "respectable" books now mention Harding's alleged Klan membership as a fact we would be remiss to pretend that no issue or question has ever existed. I read about it in Steven Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner's "Freakonomics" (NY Times Bestseller 2005) and so looked up the Harding article to see if I can find out more. The claim has currency so there's no point in putting our heads in the sand and pretending it's not out there. People are going to be looking up our Harding article to learn more about the Harding allegation. What is our responsiblity as an encyclopedia? To lay out the issue, the claims made and the responses? Or to pretend no respectable writers have ever made such a claim and simply delete any reference to it from Wikipedia? I think our NPOV policy is quite clear. (I'm going to copy and past this on Talk:Warren Harding)Homey 03:24, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Again, I'm confused. You mention current books on Harding, and the three most current, and most respected on the Hardings do not support the Klan allegations. The Klan is a horrible organization - but we live in a time when people (in general) do not understand the Klan of the 1920s. Furthermore, we also live in a culture that is quick to condemn people who can't defend themselves and by pushing the information as you did, make Harding guilty in the eyes of people who have not a through understanding of him, the insideous nature of the Klan (and I might add that it is an organization that not runs from its truths but also creates its own reality) and the automatic assumptions in popular culture that Harding was a liar, a cheat and the lowest form ever to ascend to the Presidency. Stating the Klan allegations as you did is simply another personal attack. I'll work with you forming a neutral statement on Harding and the allegations, but to simply state Craig and Wyn's case without stating that their information is third party, and the lack of primary evidence to support the allegations is simply POV and misleading. Stu 15:07, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Freezer article

I think that my edits addressed most of my concerns. Vegaswikian 00:07, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Certainly made the article stronger! Stu 00:56, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Harding memorial

Sorry I deleted the image, but as a image with no source or licencing information it was slated for deletion. If you know of any other images you have uploaded without source information, please tag them.--nixie 23:44, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Nixie - I didn't upload the image, but am familiar with it. It really was a very genric view of the memorial. The new that I posted in its place has the correct documentation, yes? Stu 02:45, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Carrie Phillips/Warren Harding love letters

According to Francis Russell in his book about Warren Harding,I thought the letters were to be released in 2014 by the Library of Congress. Thanks RFD 21:55, 16 December 2005 (UTC) PS-The Carrie Phillips article said they were to be released in 2023.

Russell would be wrong, as he was about a number things. The Ohio Court ruled that both the Harding's and Mrs. Phillips daughter Isabelle Mathee had standing in the matter and ruled in their favor. The letters have been entrusted to the Ohio Historical Society in Columbus and are scheduled to be available on the 100th anniversary of the President's death or there-abouts. The archives would only get the letters if OHS gave them to them, and I very much doubt that they will. Stu 00:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


[edit] vote here

Vote here "keep" : Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rosario Poidimani (3 nomination). Regards, M.deSousa 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Grazon

Grazon has been indefinitely blocked. You can visit his user page for some of the gory details. —12.72.72.184 10:59, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Isaly1947.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Isaly1947.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rettetast (talk) 16:08, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Notability of Danny Day

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Danny Day, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Danny Day seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Danny Day, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 01:00, 27 March 2008 (UTC)