User talk:Slm1202000@yahoo.com

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Slm1202000@yahoo.com, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 03:26, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Stubbing of United States v. Montgomery County Bd. of Ed.

I've stubbed the article -- the text referenced Justice Hugo Black's opinion, which, while not a copyright violation as quotes were used, is not a good basis for an original article. It's such a narrow ruling that I'm not sure it's feasible as much more than a stub at best.

A decent summary needs to be written for this case. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 18:53, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

The article was only to be underconstruction, but was not finished. The stubbing is a good action until the final version is written. The article itself was linked with references to the Justices. The stub is fine, but I might need to reference it in an upcoming case. I think that it has useful potential, and is something to look into further, albeit it is still a distant cousin of the more major historical landmarks of desegregation. The references should have been left attached rather than deleted for the purposes of notability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slm1202000@yahoo.com (talk • contribs)

References can be restored (by you, even), but the text shouldn't be. The text has to be original, but not an original synthesis of existing material. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 03:26, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

It signs your name whether you sign off or not, which is good for all involved. I do not like having this conversation over editing wars, but you need to go slower on the quick-draw. I just read your user talk, and your page is filled with comments about speediness. I left a memo, and I want to reinterate that stub was less than 12 hours old. It was good enough to be left for me to finish later and it was not without its references. I am HIGHLY offended by the suggestion of original synthesis, as my opinions had not crept into something that was obviously NOT your material or expertise. Please check the subject matter again. Oh, that's right. You deleted it... P.S. You also jumped to address my comments on your page so quickly, I also had a moment where I had to clean up the editing from the two separate pages. It would be easier to contribute anything if you did not act so quickly. This is not a blog, so please stay off the site. Drop the issue.

(First response) :
Okay, let's get a few things straight. (Not sure which of your articles you're talking about now, the Coit v. Green one or the Montgomery County one, I'll cover both.)

  1. None of your work was lost -- each page has a history tab right at the top, and you can examine the history of an article or talk page, with a complete listing of the text at every step.
  2. About Montgomery County, in my opinion, you didn't have an article there, you had a cut and paste from the Supreme Court decision. That's not acceptable on Wikipedia. Even if you had put the whole thing in quotes with a reference, it's still not acceptable. Please take a look at the (now corrected) welcome message at the top of this page, it has many useful pages to read about how to write articles and what is acceptable (and what is not).
  3. Several sections of the Coit v. Green article were taken from other sources (including the copyrighted About.com), and had to be removed. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 03:44, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

(Second response) :
I don't plan to "stay off the site" or "drop the issue", when the issue is article quality. It might help if you created a personal sandbox to create an article in, and try not to go so heavy on the unmarked quotes. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 03:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


ArglebargeIV: I think that you are simply chosing to edit my work because I complained. I do not want you being annoyed, but I do not want you annoying me. I am glad that the history is there, but both Coit v. Green and I presume Montgomery articles are there for the purposes of being UNDER CONSTRUCTION. I specifically listed where I got information. If you want to continue this, we can get dispute resolution. Correcting your commentary may be cute, but I seriously doubt your ability to avoid creeping back in to re-edit your commentary. I am glad that you admitted part of what you wrote was wrong. However, that does not mean you need to go on a vendetta. As far as About.com, I do not know what you are talking about. If you have not noticed those subject matters, which may not be your strong suit, are dry. There are specific clear cut ways of saying what I did. It was not original research, which is the point behind Wikipedia's rules. All the information that I use is PUBLIC RECORD--not an article created. It is open to be reused, as I in no way suggest that I wrote the US Supreme Court's Opinion, especially concerning Coit v. Green. You need to read the GFDL. The other article was most definitely under construction. This is my User talk, and I can ask you to stop. As far as editing, you have once again been so fast to become tacky, I have to again correct what you are editing to merge the two.

Uh, all my edits to your work were before you complained about it on my talk page. If you feel dispute resolution is needed, please start the process, but don't expect any input from me for at least 12 hours.
I made a couple of typos in my commentary on this page so I fixed them. Other than that, I don't see where I have admitted where I was wrong.
You may delete my comments from this page as you choose, as this is your talk page, but I ask that you do not edit or change them.
BTW, six paragraphs of the Coit v Green article were lifted straight from About.com (see http://atheism.about.com/library/decisions/tax/bldec_CoitGreen.htm). That's copyright infringement. Quoting from court decisions is okay for short quotes, but Wikipedia holds that articles must be largely original sentences, summarizing secondary sources. Given the state of the article, I probably should have stubbed the Coit v Green article as well.
Due to your (apparent) wishes, I'm going to avoid your talk page in the future, any discussions that are needed can be conducted either on my talk page (please write at the bottom and respect the sectioning) or on the talk pages of article where we intersect. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 04:13, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

ArglebargeIV: On the personal scale, I think that you need to go back and reread the section on where you put NOW CORRECTED as far as where you were wrong. I have other complaints, too. You were rude on the comments. If you had cut it and I had to deal with rewriting it, I would not have wasted this time speaking to someone who has not done even a small number of hours researching the merits of the cases you just deleted. As far as your sectioning, I simply placed my complaint with my name under a similar complaint. I thought your grouping was organizational, not next-in-line. I will surely keep it in mind if that occurs again, although I fully intend that it will not. Given the large number of complaints about your cutting processes, maybe you could research it a little better. Apparently, I am not the only one to see that you really kinda get out there fast, especially since you know where the history is. You could have easily foreseen that was in fact newly formed and still under construction... As far as rewriting what you wrote in the aforementioned spots, I do not intend to edit those. I will, however, correct your input on the other places, which leads me to clear up the other problem. For the record, I do not think that stubbing only primary source material is appropriate or what Wikipedia wanted. There is nothing wrong with legal cases being denoted here, and I find it offensive that you actually removed EVERY reference to the IRS from Coit v. Green. You may not be aware of it, but that is what the case was about! That was not to be a copy-cat. It was to be ACCURATE! If you are going to edit, do so nicely, tactfully, and appropriately. Read the material. Know what you are turning the article into. As far as the quotations and references go, no one in the public is served by your deletions of them. You need to go back and read what Wikipedia states about original research not being allowed, which is very important for a law case that a common man's opinion and rewrite has no place, or for original synthesis, which speaks directly to putting in your original research, which is the very thing that you did. IRS belongs in that article on Coit v. Green. It was not the landmark case on Private v. Public school debate. You may not live in the U.S. but here in America, we still have private academies. If you check the U.S. Dept. of Ed., those tend to strongly be based upon a higher influx of the Caucasian race than the public school counterparts, especially in the South. The real case laws that govern the private v. public school debate come about later than this earlier case, and as such, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that segregation without discrimination is NOT illegal. Check your facts before you rewrite court cases. There are court dockets available on the web. It was not a straight copy, so much as me rewriting what amounted to hours of research to uncover. I also spent hours working on the now deleted grammer and style... To have to put up with caterwauling because you cannot admit you were wrong is annoying.

[edit] Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button Image:Signature_icon.png located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 04:12, 31 March 2008 (UTC)