User talk:Wjhonson

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"The people I distrust most are those who want to improve our lives but have only one course of action." - Frank Herbert

Welcome to my Talk Page. Please read this very Special Note before you proceed: On this page we will assume good faith about each other. I am a very firm believer in WP:Honesty and that neutral point of view applies to you, even in disputes. If you don't believe these three things, then I'm sorry but we won't be able to deal together.

  • That you have a strong belief that I might be a dick, is not evidence that I actually am. I don't happen to be one of those warm-and-fuzzy types. I'm more the Spock type with a bit of McCoy.
  • There is the possibility, however bizarre it might at first appear, that although I don't happen to agree with you, I am in actuality a sensible person just as you feel you are.
  • If you are under the impression that I'm violating policy in some way, you should be prepared to quote the exact wording of that part of that policy. I feel that I am quite aware of what our policies do and don't state, having myself spent many hours working on those same policies you're now throwing at me.
  • If you don't feel that you have the sufficient dialectic tools to discuss things with me sensibly as adults, you might want to consider first having a good stiff drink.
  • If you feel the pressing need to talk down to me, instruct me in etiquette, or impugn my intelligence or motivations, during your discussion, you are quite unlikely to be successful in your goal of correcting the Evil I'm allegedly unleashing upon the world.

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal Case Page

Some essays I happen to like, and which you might want to read:

Ethics, Don't smother conflict,Advice for new administrators,Honesty, Don't call a spade a spade, Inertia Don't Beat a Dead Horse Don't spite your face Don't template the regulars Charitableness Editors matter Expert retention Five pillars of evil Negotiation


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

[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 and 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] Frederick Glaysher

Another editor has added the {{prod}} template to the article Frederick Glaysher, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 03:59, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of Philip H. Farber

An article that you have been involved in editing, Philip H. Farber, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philip H. Farber (2nd nomination). Thank you.

[edit] AfD nomination of Frederick Glaysher

An editor has nominated Frederick Glaysher, an article which you have created or worked on, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frederick Glaysher and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 13:59, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Genie

Hi. I checked out the ongoing discussion and I still feel that it's fairly clear that the Wikipedia biography of living persons and privacy of names applies to this particular instance in the manner that For An Angel suggests. The Googleable current information online does not use her name. I'm happy to participate in some sort of mediation on this point if you'd like to bring this higher up the Wikipedia food chain, but I still feel that the policy leans to the side of keeping her name out. Jessamyn (talk) 14:11, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Genie

That is certainly something to consider (and you continue to do excellent work with your site, by the way). I'm going to suggest we seek additional input on this matter at the talk page as to whether or not we should keep the name.--Cúchullain t/c 19:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your pro-active approach. Wjhonson (talk) 20:16, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Genie 3

Hello Wjhonson:

I have replied on my talk page to the note you left there. Wanderer57 (talk) 21:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Genie

Hello Wjhonson:

There has now been considerable discussion in talk:Genie about including the real name of this person in the article. I count seven editors who say the name should be left out, and one who thinks it should be included. I believe that by Wikipedia standards this is a good consensus to leave it out.

There is no necessity for you to agree with the other seven, but my understanding is that Wikipedia practise is to respect the consensus. Do you not agree that there is a consensus?

I ask you to reconsider your changes this evening to the article and the talk page in the light of the consensus to leave out the name.

Thank you, Wanderer57 (talk) 05:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ruth White

Most likely. T'would help if editors would read the article before posting changes, ¿no?. Might help them hit the right century on a topic. Ciao, MARussellPESE (talk) 17:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] re: BLP

A prior RfD discussion had already concluded differently. You can object to the original decision. I implemented it under speedy-clause G4. If you want to appeal the original decision, I recommend taking it up at WP:DRV. Rossami (talk) 18:02, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

See line J.32 of Wikipedia:List of administrators/G-O. You could have known that because he actually deleted the page as a result of that discussion. If you think there were process problems with the discussion, the appropriate remedy is through WP:DRV, not recreation. Rossami (talk) 16:31, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] LGBT WikiProject Newsletter

This newsletter was delivered by §hepBot around 16:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC). ShepBot (talk) 16:25, 11 June 2008 (UTC)