User talk:Yksin/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Archive
Archives
Current talk page
  1. Jan-Apr 2007
  2. May-Aug 2007

Contents

LGBT WikiProject newsletter, May 2007

Indigenous peoples of the Americas re: Alaska Natives & Hawaiians

I wonder if you might want to add something to Indigenous peoples of the Americas#United States. Right now all it has is "Indigenous peoples in what is now the United States are commonly called "American Indians"..." and nothing on people in Alaska or Hawaii. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 12:01, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Corrupt Bastards

Thanks for the updating of the Article on the FBI investigation. Someone needed to spend six hours on it just to make it current. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.24.209.239 (talk) 04:26, 10 May 2007 (UTC).

Good faith vandalism?

I don't understand your edit summary

  • Reverted good faith edits by 165.155.192.155; Replacing period at end of sentence removed by Fyslee. using TW

Actually I was just in the process of reverting that vandalism (good faith or not), but you beat me to it. I didn't remove that period. -- Fyslee/talk 21:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh geez, I'm sorry! I must gotten mixed up in the head when I wrote that edit summary -- it's clear from looking at the diff that it was the anonymous IP editor, not you, who removed that period. Please accept my apologies. --Yksin 23:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Da nada! Welcome to the club of humans. We're all imperfect. I was just wondering if I had missed something. -- Fyslee/talk 06:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Blocked in error - please unblock

I am not this user. I am logged in under my own user account, I have never vandalized, & I fail to understand why I should be blocked when a different user with a different username is the person responsible. --Yksin 21:40, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Y

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

Autoblock of 66.230.200.144 lifted or expired.

Request handled by: Veinor (talk to me) 22:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Weird, I'm blocked, too, and so are a lot of others. Wrad 21:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
From the user talk page of the responsible admin, it appears s/he may have blocked all of Wikipedia. --Yksin 21:46, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
That would be quite a story! Wrad 21:48, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, now it appears that another admin is fielding a lot of our unblock requests, & has scolded Golbez for the screwup. Other messages alleging all of Wikipedia was blocked have been removed from Golbez's talk page. --Yksin 21:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm clear now. Thanks to whichever admin cleared me. --Yksin 21:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Bartlett-Begich High School

its still bartlett begich, and will still be for a couple more years... robkehr 19:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

<image of high school added by rebkehr showing "Bartlett-Begich" removed per edit summary because: "Per CSD I7 - image has an invalid fair use claim".) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ^demon (talk • contribs) 10:53, 25 May 2007 (UTC).>

See Talk:Bartlett High School (Anchorage, Alaska) for my reply. --Yksin 21:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Native Americans in the USA — demographics

why did you change the population to that false 3.4 million? I see that your interested in Native Americans, but it seems to me you don't know nothing about their population, lol 3.4 million your kidding right?

what about the tons of Hispanics who have Native Americans ancestry? (40 million + 12 million illigal residents total = 52 million), and what about the African Americans, 40% of them have Native American ancestry (20 million), and what about the White Indians, who have also have Native Americans ancestry (12 million), that's a total of 88 million people with Native American ancestry, lol 3.4 million? where did you get that false population, you know I'm right, or you just wanna show the people that their population is that low?, please do try researching in a while, I know it's kinda hard for you... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.26.7.86 (talk • contribs) 11:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC).

If you have sources for your figures, by all means add them back -- with citations. Please also include citations for the terminology "White Indian", etc. which somehow don't seem to show up as ethnic classifications in anything published by the U.S. Bureau of the Census. Meanwhile I'm seeking sources to back up the claims that were in the article before your edits -- figures which were provided by others before me, not by me. I merely reverted your edits, which, like other edits originating from your IP, appear to be vandalism edits. --Yksin 20:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
by White Indians, I mean people from mixed Amerindian/White ancestry like Chuck Norris
and I didn't vandalised, but that 3.4 million is very wrong, who did that?, anyway why don't you change it —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.26.7.86 (talk • contribs) 2:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC).
But it's not a very encyclopedic term. At any rate, I've looked up the figures at the U.S. Census site, & provided citations for those figures (with links to the original document). It's likely true that there are many more people with some American Indian descent than are reflected in the U.S. census figures (which are based anyway on people's self-reporting), but this is it: the U.S. Census Bureau is regarded as a reliable source per WP:ATT; any sources you can provide that contradict the Census Bureau's figures need to fulfill that standard as well.
I can see that maybe you weren't after all intending to vandalize, but might be someone relatively new to Wikipedia. You might try reading up on Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines particularly those regarding attribution and reliable sources such as WP:ATT before doing further edits. It would also be good if you learned to sign your comments by typing four tildes ~ after each comment before saving. The four tildes then turn into your signature, & make it easier for other users to keep track of who has written to them on their user talk pages. --Yksin 21:54, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

A couple of days later...

lol now it's 1.5 million but it's ok don't worry I won't change it again let the people believe that their number is low, I don't care but you know there are around 88 million or more people with AmerIndian ancestry in the USA, but I don't care, and btw your wrong, so you did looked at the US Census site, so you trying to say that Hispanics and the African Americans don't have Native Americans ancestry? well if you did looked to the Sensus, they don't show the part-Native American descent they only show the pure ones that's around 3.5 million, but you missed out the Hispanics and the African Americans and whites look here and here and doesn't the population I changed was: In combination with one or more other races? and so hispanic and african americans and whites have native american ancestry, so what's the problem? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.26.7.86 (talk • contribs) 01:32 to 01:38, 25 May 2007 (UTC).

My reply with demographic info for all races

I have no problem. But as a Wikipedia editor, it's my responsibility to deal in verifiable facts, not wishful thinking. If you have better figures that can be attributed to reliable published sources in line with WP:ATT, then by all means provide them. Unfortunately, the Wikipedia articles you're providing on Mestizo and Black Indians don't satisfy WP:ATT for the claims you are making. For example, most of the population figures given for mestizos in the various Latin American countries don't currently have citations to back up the figures claimed -- & even if they are backed up, those figures are for Latin American countries, not for the U.S. To know how many Hispanics in the U.S. have some American Indian descent, you have to go to reliable sources that actually give such figures -- & that you have not done.

Nor does it seem you've even bothered to look at the source given in the citation. So here it is:

U.S. Census Bureau. (2001-05). Profiles of General Demographic Characteristics 2000: 2000 Census of Population and Housing. U.S. Census Bureau. Retrieved on 2007-05-23.

That source gives the following figures for "American Indian and Alaska Native":

  • One race: 2,475,956
  • Race alone or in combination with one or more other races: 4,119,301 (Other races counted in the census include: "White"; "Black or African American"; "Asian"; "Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander"; and "Some other race.")

Because the second figure includes all the "one race" American Indians/Alaska Natives, it follows that by subtracting them (i.e., 4,119,301 minus 2,475,956) you get the figure for "In combination with one or more other races" which is 1,643,345, which rounds to 1.6 million.

Note that the U.S. Census also gives figures for other races both as "One race" and as "Race in combinations with one or more other races." So, to look at the populations that seem to be of most concern to you:

White Black or
African American		 American Indian
or Alaska Native
One race 211,460,626 34,658,190 2,475,956
Race alone or in combination
with one or more other races		 216,930,975 36,419,434 4,119,301
Race in combination with
one or more other races
(excluding "one race")		 5,470,349 1,761,244 1,643,345

"Hispanic" is treated differently because "Hispanic" is not considered a "race" -- i.e., there can be Hispanics can be black, white, mixed race, etc. The figures given in this particular table for "Hispanic or Latino (of any race)" is 35,305,818. Mestizo isn't a category used by the U.S. Census, so far as I have ever seen; but there is probably other data in the U.S. Census that gives racial breakdowns, & also breakdowns for which other races are included for the people who fall into the various "in combination with one or more other races" categories.

If you choose not to accept any of this as valid, that's up to you. But the U.S. Census is widely accepted on Wikipedia as satisfying WP:ATT when it comes to discussing population & demographics in the U.S. --Yksin 17:26, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Can't please everyone...

listen now...
yes I know the Census doesn't verify Mestizo as a "ethnic group".
but the Census also shows the Hispanic population and Black Population as 35 million, but its' 40 million and the african american is at 38 million, so it's outdated.
so the 1.6 million people is just the people who identify themself partly Native American...lol that makes no sense at all, so what your saying let's just ignore the other people (what I said) who has Native American ancestry
and why can't we just change the title like:
People with Native American ancestry
wouldn't that be better and more logical? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.26.7.86 (talk • contribs) through 10:05, 25 May 2007.
So sorry that the U.S. Census only happens once every ten years. As I've already said at least twice: if you have better figures that can be attributed to reliable published sources in line with WP:ATT, then by all means provide them. If you want to continue discussing the issue, go to the Talk page for the article -- in particular this conversation, which directly relates to your concerns, & maybe you'll find people there who will help you find the reliable sources to back up your claims & otherwise address the issues you're bringing up. Meanwhile, please learn to sign your posts. I left instructions on how to do it on your talk page.
(The only reason I know who I'm talking to now is from looking at the history of this page -- then I past the info onto this page so I can keep track. But it grows very tiresome, simply because you are not taking the time to simply type four tildes (~) before you save.) --Yksin 19:58, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

"Spouse" thread on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies

Hi, Yksin. I see a potentional problem with the the field "partner" in the Template:Infobox actor which I've outline here --Rrburke(talk) 16:54, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I've replied there. --Yksin 17:35, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

BAYSWAN thanks

Thank you for your help and any articles you unearth. I know they do good work even if their website is wonky. Benjiboi 09:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

LGBT WikiProject Newsletter, June 2007

Delivered on 16:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC).

Apologies from Deco Da Man

I wish to apologise for my inproper use of the deletion tag "db-nonsense". I should have added a "refimprove" tag and not a "db-nonsense". I will learn from this mistake and hopefully not do it again. Thank you for telling me of this mistake of mine, you have allowed me to learn from my mistake. Thank you,DecotalkDathoughtsMan 08:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC).

Refs v. Reflist confusion w/ Java7837

Wikipedia:Footnotes says that "An older system using {{ref}} and {{note}} templates is still common. Converting this older system to the new <ref>...</ref> system can make the references in an article easier to maintain." and further says that <references/> should be used. --Java7837 22:03, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

What Wikipedia:Footnotes says is An older system using {{ref}} and {{note}} templates is still common. Converting this older system to the new <ref>...</ref> system can make the references in an article easier to maintain. and further says that <references/> can (not should) be used.
But all of that is completely moot anyway, since the template that you are going about replacing is the {{reflist}} template -- a completely different animal from the old {{ref}} template.
Not only that, but the two are/were used for completely different purposes. <ref>...</ref> and its predecessor {{ref}} are both used for the in-text citations -- i.e., they make the teensy little superscripted numbers. <references/> and the alternative {{reflist}} are used for formatting of the notes/reference list at the bottom of the article. Most articles that I have ever worked on in Wikipedia use a combination of the <ref>...</ref> system with the {{reflist}} template.
If that isn't enough, you are making this systematic change to numerous articles without seeking any consensus whatsoever from editors who have longstanding histories of working on those articles. I know -- I've reverted two of your "helpful" edits already. --Yksin 22:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
here is what an admin had to say
Wikipedia:Footnotes says that "An older system using {{ref}} and {{note}} templates is still common. Converting this older system to the new <ref>...</ref> system can make the references in an article easier to maintain." and further says that <references/> should be used. -- moe.RON Let's talk | done 21:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
see WP:ANI#Mass template changed by User:Java7837 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Java7837 (talk • contribs) 22:38, 13 June 2007.
Do you really honestly have that much difficulty telling the different between a template called {{reflist}} and a template called {{ref}} which have/had two completely different purposes (albeit both are related to footnoting)? Have you even noticed that your friend Java7837 (or is that your sockpuppet?) hasn't been replacing the {{ref}} that you have such problems with, but rather the completely different {{reflist}}? --Yksin 22:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Confusion re: sock due to comment having been unsigned

I copied it from another page you fool --Java7837 00:02, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Then you forgot to sign. My mistake. Nonetheless, there's no reason for you to make a personal attack. --Yksin 00:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I didn't mean it as a personal attack i meant it as being very foolish is all --Java7837 00:10, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, for clarification's sake: to say "you fool" is calling someone a name: that's a personal attack. To say "your assumption was foolish" (which I am willing to admit it was) gets the point across without actual namecalling. --Yksin 00:14, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Quite. Java - please don't do that. Yksin was wrong in her initial assumption but name-calling is uncalled-for - Alison ☺ 00:25, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Communication w/ Moeron

I understand what you are saying at User talk:Java7837 and agree with you; both <references/> and {{reflist}} are usuable and right. Cheers! -- moe.RON Let's talk | done 20:27, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Using <references /> how do i make it display it in 2 columns and small. --Java7837 20:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Let me see if I can refigure it out & I'll get back to you on your talk page. I did this long ago before learning about {{reflist}}, so I should be able to figure out the code. Using the reflist template, it would be {{reflist|2}}. --Yksin 20:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Deco Da Man block cases

Sockie case

Hi there. Just got your note on my talk page. I'm barely awake here at the moment but left a message on that guy's talk page to ask reviewing admins to hold off a while until I can take a look at this case. Hopefully, that will keep them at bay until I can get a chance to look at it later this morning. Still feeling awful here :( Thanks for being kind and taking the time to look after a newbie (and a naughty one at that). I'll see what I can do ... - Alison ☺ 12:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Alot

Thank you sooooo much for helping me out with my block. I'll talk to you later cause I need to get to school. Again, thank you. Thank you(3rd time), Deco Da Man {talk} 23:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC).

The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
I, Declan White, hereby award you, Yksin, with this barnstar for your incredibly kind act of helping me appeal for my block. And also for all the other time you have spoken up for others in their defense. Deco Da Man {talk} 11:26, 15 June 2007 (UTC).
No problem, you deserve it. And my old signature was just a temp, I absolutly hated it. I wonder if it's possible to make a signature with an expandable div in it? Deco Da Man {talk} 02:07, 16 June 2007 (UTC).

Second block case

Unblocking

Sorry, I meant to drop you a note yesterday (Australian) but got waylaid. I unblocked Deco Da Man on the basis of the block being a little harsh, and certainly unwarned. I wouldn't have stepped in if I didn't see the backing and advice of two very established contributors, and your mentoring sealed the deal. Good luck in keeping him on track! --Steve (Stephen) talk 22:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

How do i propose a new standard for userboxes

I now that User:UBX let's people edit his/her list and so does ashley y and Wikipedia:Uerbox does too the new standard needs to be official and a group needs to be formed to make this be used on all the userbox pages of the above mentioned individuals it saves lots of space and causes pages to load a lot faster especially for people with dialup also it is easier for coding --Java7837 15:50, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I am refering above to Template:Usbk --Java7837 16:04, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't actually know how new standards are proposed. I was going to suggest talking it up on Wikipedia talk:Userboxes, but I see you and Sawblade05 (talk · contribs) are already doing that. Maybe another place to go would be the Village pump. That's at least a place to get advice. --Yksin (talk · contribs) 20:56, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks... once again

Thank you for all you have done. I agree to your proposal for WP:AAU, it's a very kind offer. I am curious about one thing though... how do I get my user page back? I plan to make minor edits for a while and then go onto more major edits. I will defineatly follow those guides though. Thanks again. Thanks (How many times ahev I said that word?), Deco Da Man {talk} 08:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC).

You're welcome. See your own talk page & User talk:Yksin/Deco Da Man for discussion related to participation in WP:AAU. --Yksin 17:46, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
I also forgot to say thanks for the barn star. Thanks! Deco Da Man {talk} 08:56, 23 June 2007 (UTC).

Battle of Washita River communications

Wow (HH)

Appearently I'm on the same level of "violating the policy" as Custerwest, when he does things like [1] (Damn your head, jackass ... If you were in front of me, I would kick your damn ass of ignorant monkey. You are just a damn idiot .... Some damn kid ... stupid bastard !). That's awesome. Wikipedia moderating good as it always is.

I told him the simple thing (after being called "the idiot" already before) - he should stop bothering me for using the US Army website and not his own blog (yes), he should adress his grievances to the US Army if he thinks they are being unfair to his idol (US Army soldier Custer). Isn't this truth?

As for blocking the guy, this what I fully except (for a quite extreme personal attacks, disrupting article with extreme POV, shameless self-promotion, continous edit-warring, and just nothing else). --HanzoHattori 22:47, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I discussed this further here:[2] (which he started by calling me "the idiot" in the very first sentence). --HanzoHattori 22:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
As I just wrote you on your own talk page, I'm not an admin, so I'm not the person to complain to about Custerwest's personal attacks on you, nor are the talk pages of unrelated articles. You might try WP:ANI, or an admin that you trust. Personally, if I was an admin, I'd be all over both of you for personal attacks, as well as Custerwest's apparent inability to seek consensus before massively changing an article by heavily sourcing his/her own blog. But y'know, I'm not admin. Find someone who is. Or geez, maybe I'll bring it up on ANI myself. --Yksin 22:58, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Maybe. I've got deep personal aversion to any sort of Wiki's beurocratic procedures beyond the talk pages. --HanzoHattori 23:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
See WP:ANI#Problems between HanzoHattori and Custerwest. --Yksin 00:02, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Washita (CW)

Yksin, I've quoted books and official papers, with 2004 and 1970 books. I want this article to be protected from vandalism because as far as I can see, HanzoHattori doesn't know a clue about the battle and his "work" on the subject is taking foonotes off and putting false comments like "Comanche campaign" on a batalle involving Cheyennes. Is Wikipedia a serious encyclopedia, protecting historical material? Or HanzoHattori's game? Custerwest 15:51, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

It is HanzoHattori's game, of course. Now direct your sight at the campaign infobox and see its name. SURPRISE. Don' get a heart attack --HanzoHattori 16:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring

Sorry I didn't have time to get involved but the AN/I posting will get more eyes on it and allow you to move away from the hassle! --Steve (Stephen) talk 00:22, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Washita River (MB)

Yeah, I seem to get sucked into one of these right after the other. Get's tiring, but I'll try to stick it out. Starting Sunday my internet access will be pretty limited as I travel up the West Coast, but feel free to ask if you need help with something in particular. I was unfamiliar with the battle before now, so it's kinda hard to pick through all the info, figuring out what's good and what's not, a learning experience! Anyway, thank YOU for stepping in the way you have. Cheers! Murderbike 19:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I reported Custerwest for 3RR violation (re: killed vs. murdered), though not sure if I did it right, as I've never had to do that before. Do you know of another recourse for the amount of abuse that Custerwest is dishing out? Murderbike 00:16, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I tried to redo it, but can't tell if I did it right. That's a confusing template. All the time stamps and what not, aaaahhhh!!!! Hopefully It worked. Murderbike 00:23, 30 June 2007 (UTC) Thanks for everything, enjoy your vacation! Murderbike 01:35, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey, hope your vacation's OK. I'm on the road myself, so don't have a lot of time to waste hangin' around here. But, I really hope you can stick it out with this article, even though I know it's frustrating. Your comments are really good, and I think the article really needs someone like you working on it. But, I do understand if it's too much, I've given up on plenty of articles. Anyway, I'll try to chime in more as I can, but it'll be easier when I settle back down in a week or so. Cheers! Murderbike 06:44, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Cool, If you're in, I'm in, though it'll be a few days before I can really do anything more than try to keep up on talk page discussions. Let me know if there's anything in particular I can do, other than back you up, and try to do some research of my own so I can add to the discussion. Murderbike 05:58, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Washita

I put protection on for a week... it's expired. I'll re-protect it again, and drop me a note when you're ready for unprotection. Клоун 23:16, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Email

Hey, I didn't see a button for emailing you. Is it hidden? Murderbike 02:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! :) (Phaedriel)

Note to self or whoever: comments here not by Phaedriel are copied over from User talk:Phaedriel/Archive 45#Battle of Washita River so that I have my own record of continuity of conversation.

Hey, hate to keep buggin' while you're busy, but we're trying really hard (on the talk page) to get this article back to a good NPOV state, but could really use some help, from folks to consense with, and an admin (none have answered our calls) to finalize it all. Anything you could do would be greatly appreciated. Hope things are well! Murderbike 17:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your offer for informal mediation. I embrace it wholeheartedly. Probably the main other people we need some agreement from are Custerwest (talk · contribs) & HanzoHattori (talk · contribs). Biophys (talk · contribs) and MichaelLinnear (talk · contribs) have also had some interest in this article, though not as vocal lately. (A quarter-Finnish, eh? I'm half, myself.) --Yksin 18:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your kind words and your enthusiasm, dear Yksin! :) I'll give it a couple of days at most before directly contacting these editors that you mention, to give them the chance to weigh in at the article's Talk page directly. Meanwhile, I'll try and educate myself further in this matter in order to take active part in the discussion. And btw, maybe you could teach me a few Finnish words - I'm a disgrace to my ancestry! ;) Love, Phaedriel - 18:30, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
P.S. Might a request for comments on the article also be helpful at this point? Can such an RfC be run at the same time as an informal mediation? Or would it be best to wait until after inf. mediation happens (assuming it does)? Also concerned about how best to address the plagiarism/copyvio I discovered last night. --Yksin 18:30, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, regarding a RfC, my humble advice is carry out one process at a time; discussing at two separate venues at the same time can turn the search for a solution somewhat anarchic. If the proposal for Mediation is accepted, I recommend we stick to it and proceed to further solutions only in the event of failure. Regarding copyvios, please let me know exactly which parts constitute said violations, and the original source; since the article is protected, you cannot remove that parts, but I can do that myself. Needless to say, I suggest those parts to be rewritten to eliminate all possible concerns. Hope this helps! :) Love, Phaedriel - 18:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
As well User:Akradecki has piped in a bit, though hasn't answered my most recent call for help, User:Evilclown93 was the initial blocker. Murderbike 18:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, these were the two admins who put a stop to the edit warring. Akradecki put a 24-hour block on Custerwest at one point for violating 3RR, I believe HanzoHattori got blocked briefly too. Evilclown93 is the admin who fully protected the article, originally a one-week protection that expired on its own, then an open-ended one after I noticed someone had been making edits again. (not that an open-ended full protection was necessarily what I was seeking, exactly...) I've got a section on my quick & dirty links page that have links to a couple of ANI reports done early on, as well as other quick refs to things about this article. --Yksin 19:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Reply from my talk page. First Finnish word: Kiitos, i.e., thank you! Yes, what you said helps. I'll hold off on an article RfC & wait for the results of this information mediation proposal -- & hopefully an actual process.

Here's the diff for the copyvio (made by Custerwest). It's located in the article at Battle of Washita River#October to November, 1868, the entirety of the third paragraph down (after the block quote), that begins "The Indians believed they had good bargaining chips" and ends "deal directly with General Sheridan." This is a word-for-word quote from Gregory F. Michno's article "Cheyenne Chief Black Kettle" online at Historynet.com, on its second page, about halfway down in the fourth paragraph ("In October 1868...") starting with the third sentence. Custerwest actually sourced the article, but he made no indication it was a direct quote, so it amounts to plagiarism at the very least.

As I stated when I discussed this last night on article talk page, the information contained in this plagiarized paragraph represents a significant (though very disputed) view of what happened, & so needs to be represented in the article to meet WP:NPOV -- but plagiarizing is hardly the best way to do it. Kiitos again. --Yksin 19:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Another P.S. I agree with what you said about the plagiarized text that "those parts to be rewritten to eliminate all possible concerns." I quite frankly don't know how to do it at this point though, because there are numerous statements contained within that passage that are very much at issue in the content disputes -- most especially statements made by Michno in the original article (& agreed with by Custerwest) regarding white captives in Black Kettle's camp. So to rewrite this gets into a whole lotta POV issues that are at the very source of the disputes about this article. The only parts of that passage that isn't disputed, to my knowledge, is that Black Kettle & associated chiefs went to see Gen. Hazen at Ft. Cobb seeking peace, that Hazen knew he couldn't make a separate peace with Black Kettle & co., & that he told them to go back to their camp & to deal directly with Gen. Sheridan. --Yksin 19:30, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Plagiarism/copyvio still there. Is there further info needed before this can be taken care of? Kiitos. --Yksin 19:21, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry, dear, I'll take care of it right away - it's just that I have so many things to take care of, that despite my wishes, some things get inevitably delayed a few hours at best! ;) But worry not - I'm off to the rescue! Love, Phaedriel - 19:25, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I did notice that your talk page is extremely busy with all kinds of issues. (As seems to be the case with the best admins). --Yksin 19:28, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
& yet again, thanks. I somehow hadn't noticed that Custerwest's intro of the Clara Blinn stuff was part of the copyvio from the Michno article. This removal also resolved the issue of the (former) footnote 17, in which Custerwest had modified a quote from another source.
Murderbike has identified two further instances of plagiarism. --Yksin 21:19, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Another tickler. Two days now, & no response on the article talk page from either User:HanzoHattori or User:Custerwest to the proposed mediation, though HanzoHattori has been on the talk page & has probably read the offer. Nor other slightly lesser involved editors User:Biophys & User:MichaelLinnear, who aren't probably as crucial as the first two. I wouldn't say that User:Akradecki or User:Evilclown93 (who has undergone a name change to User:Maxim) should be parties to a mediation: they were admins concerned primarily with user conduct (mainly edit warring & personal attacks), not with the content dispute. -- In any case, you said on my talk page that you'd give it a couple days for them to respond on the article talk page before contacting them on their own talk pages. So....

I'm not currently very confident they'll agree to mediation, esp. given their silence on it thus far. HH esp. has had ample time to see the offer, but has made no response. CW may be busy & hasn't been online; on the other hand, he might simply be stonewalling. I guess what I'm wondering (& I know Murderbike is wondering too): where do we go from here, if they don't agree to mediation? How can we create enough consensus to unprotect this article so that we can start improving it? Or is it to languish in its protected status forever, so long as CW refuses to cooperate with us towards achieving some kind of consensus that everyone could live with? That seems to be the way things are going so far... but CW successfully stonewalling everyone doesn't seem to fit what Wikipedians mean when referring to consensus. I don't want a return to the edit warring that was happening around July 1 (I was lucky to miss getting involved in it, because I was traveling at the time), but the present situation is unsatisfactory too.

So if they don't agree to mediation within the next couple of days, what might be the best possible next steps for us to get some movement out of this deadlock? Another report to WP:ANI to get more input from the wider community? An article RfC? Both? Also considering an RfC on Custerwest himself. I'd be glad for any advice you can offer. I've been around Wikipedia since about January, but this is the first time I've been involved in a dispute like this, in which a minority view of "what happened" has been locked into an article for so long, without NPOV balance, with the existing Wikipedia processes currently working to keep it that way.

Kiitoksia paljon. (thank you very much) --Yksin 18:37, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I feared as much, sweetie - let me assess the situation and I'll get back to you tomorrow, since I'm kinda busy right now, and I have to leave now, k? I'm not sure yet what would be best to do; but I'll do my very best to find a solution here. Love, Phaedriel - 00:05, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. Have talked w/ Murderbike & we can wait a couple days before doing anything more process-wise about this article, assuming mediation doesn't happen. Meanwhile, we've decided to do our best to draft an NPOV version of the article, for consideration of other editors later down the line. --Yksin 00:25, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Dear Yksin, unfortunately, and as we feared, the absolute disregard and contempt for the proposed solution has ruled out any chance at the informal mediation I suggested. Since mediation is a voluntary process, it's time to move on to other forms of dispute resolution. My most humble advice is to file a request for formal Mediation with MedCom. Since I'm not a member of this Committee, I suggest you talk with my friend Daniel for further instructions and guidance through the formal aspects of the process itself, before submitting a request. If this initiative also fails, then it may be time for RfC; but I sugest you try this first, as my proposal was informal after all, and thus it may not be counted as an attempt to solve the dispute that is required to start a RfC. Please, let me know if I can help in any possible way. Love, Phaedriel - 12:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for trying Phaedriel. I will try to figure out what to do later, right now I'm really sick & can barely think. --Yksin 23:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikidramas

Hey, I compiled all the interactions between myself and HH/CW that occurred on THEIR talk pages here. I just realized I should add the stuff from MY talk page as well. I'll do that now. Murderbike 23:39, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, geez, so much to keep track of. Kind of overwhelming. We'll see where it gets us I guess. I suppose that once the RfC for the article is filed, I'll post a link at the Indigenous peoples WP, and the Countering Systemic Bias WP. Murderbike 23:50, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually...

I won't be around much until tomorrow, there's no wireless to steal at my new house:( I'll try to get on tomorrow morning though. If you want, you can take the pasted stuff from my Sandbox Too. Hope that helps, gotta run! Murderbike 01:40, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

They're both certified. Now I'll try to catch up on everything else, though I have a lot of work to do on my bike today, so regrettably can't be around a lot. I guess just try to keep me updated as possible, and feel free to bug me for help. Murderbike 19:36, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Cool, should I go over and post them at the wikiprojects? Murderbike 19:53, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Done. Murderbike 20:05, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the heads up!

Thank you for the heads up regarding the latest events, dear Yksin! I'll take aprt at those processes, and I'll also try and resolve the matter of the external links you properly notified me of. I'm sorry about the late reply; this has been a terrible week for me, as far as time is concerned, but I'll catch up on my wiki-life this weekend, hopefully. Have a wonderful weekend! :) Phaedriel - 23:43, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: RfC

I will take a look at it, but it's not likely that I'll weigh in. Mostly because I think that the issues are really more about the user, less about the subject matter and when it comes to that subject matter, I'm completely unqualified to comment. But I'll have a look; I've been known to weigh in on some things I have no business talking about.  :) Good luck to you. You've put a lot of work into trying to iron things out and I've been watching the user RfC for a while. His flippant attitude is frustrating, but you do a great job remaining civil. Into The Fray T/C 02:38, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Welp. I made my comments. Hopefully they'll be helpful in at least reinforcing what you're trying to do. As I said, I'm ignorant of the subject, but you were right . . . there are some things that are apparent whether you know the subject matter or not. And, yes, I'm the same person.  ;) Into The Fray T/C 14:24, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Egad!

I'm very sorry for the error! You'd think I'd actually look at your user page, you know? That would have cleared up any ambiguity. I notice that, since my name change, I'm good and gender ambiguous. Anyway, joking aside, sincere apologies. Into The Fray T/C 17:55, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I really need to work on my proofreading here. I'm forever making edit after edit. Another lesson learned. Thank you again, Yksin. Into The Fray T/C 18:03, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

HanzoHattori RfC

Considering the amount of evidence in the RfC and the subject's response to it, an Arbitraton case may be an appropropriate next step. I'm afraid to have The Holocaust unprotected due to his continual editwarring and provocative and insulting comments. – Dreadstar † 19:50, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

That may be in the cards, I don't know yet. But it's only been a couple of days for far for his RfC, and meantime from my perspective on the Battle of Washita River, HanzoHattori is only half the problem -- even less than half the problem, as we're also contending with Custerwest. We've also got an RfC on him, as well as an article RfC on Battle of the Washita River that was initiated yesterday. Commments are starting to drift in (we only got the first outside statement on Custerwest's RfC today), but slowly, & process takes time... unfortunately.
But geez. The Holocaust is an important and high-profile article. Have you considered enlisting other editors there to respond to HH's RfC? Also editors at other pages where he's been involved in contentiousness. Perhaps it might be a good idea to compile evidence about his behavior at The Holocaust (I see he hasn't so far replied to your request to state his intentions about further edit warring) -- creating a longer and well-documented Statement from Outside as a sort of "RfC within an RfC" to more-or-less join the case we've already presented at his RfC, with your own statement also of what you'd like the outcome to be for the purposes of The Holocaust article. That might put the pressure on him to respond more seriously to the RfC, and also would provide further evidence for all of us should this come to arbitration.
I actually like HanzoHattori personally. But his style of incivility and edit warring needs a stop put to it. So. --Yksin 20:22, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't want to appear to be canvassing, so I'm not sure how much is appropriate. I've notified a couple of other editors directly about the RfC. I don't know how long to keep articles protected from edit warriors. I was very close to reporting him again for 3RR, but decided to have the article protected instead. He reverted one of his own reverts, so I took that as a good faith step on his part. Unfortunately, he decided to go back to edit warring once his patience seemed to wear out. I was hoping the protection would give him the opportunity to reflect and possibly change his behavior...but that does not appear to be the course he is taking. I agree to giving the RfC more time, and collecing more comments and evidence, but how much time is the question. Perhaps Phaedriel, once she gets over her Wiki-Exhaustion will be able to guide us..or perhaps we should check with ANI. – Dreadstar † 20:32, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
We can keep this discussion here, I've got your page on my watchlist... – Dreadstar † 20:34, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
You've got a good point there about canvassing. We mostly notified people about our RfCs who either had past involvement with editing the Battle of Washita River article, or who were admins who'd been involved in past efforts to deal with the disputes. We also posted notifications on the talk pages of three WikiProjects that have some bearing on the article. I think you're the only person outside of that that I posted a notification to, because I'd noticed there were issues at The Holocaust....
I still think it might be a good idea, though, to "join" our RfC in the way I suggested above. Other options might be to make an article RfC at The Holocaust or even to create a second, separate user-conduct RfC, if it seems likely that problems are going to continue otherwise. --Yksin 20:41, 5 August 2007 (UTC) Addendum. Yeah, checking with ANI might be good too, maybe three or four days from now, depending on how things going with these various RfCs. --Yksin 20:43, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Sounds like a plan! – Dreadstar † 20:45, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Here's an example of a straw poll I worked on a short while back. – Dreadstar † 23:23, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

LOL! Thanks! Hopefully, I won't have to get that sword out and use it on anyone...;) – Dreadstar † 23:58, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

The Original Barnstar
I wanted, again, to commend you for the considerable amount of work that you've put into improving and reaching consensus on Battle of Washita River. Your tirelessness in seeking the support of the community at large, your patience and your professionalism are admirable. No one simply looking at the edit history of the page will realize fully how much work you've put into this, but I see that the reward is apparent consensus. As you said, the system does work and you're the one who got the ball rolling. Congratulations to you! Into The Fray T/C 16:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Aw, man, you beat me to it. I was going to wait until the article was unprotected and all that. But anyway, you definitely deserve this, Yksin, and I'd like to thank you too for all of the work you've put in to improve the article --Miskwito 16:25, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

CusterWest August 7, 2007

Hi Yksin: I understand Wikipedia and you have had issues with Custerwest. I’m concerned with similar problems on the Little Bighorn Battlefield side of Wikipedia as well. How can I send you a private email? Regards, Bob Reece Bhist 14:09, 7 August 2007 (UTC) www.friendslittlebighorn.com

Thanks!

Thanks...Dudette...;) We'll get this mess out of the hhamper, through the laundry, and neatly folded in its proper drawers... :-D – Dreadstar † 16:38, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

WOW!

What a great barnstar award! Thank you so much! It means a lot. I luuuv them barnstars...;) – Dreadstar † 20:06, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Award

I think you deserve one of these too:

The Mighty Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
In recognition of your efforts in helping make Battle of Washita River a great article. – Dreadstar †
Definitely very well deserved; you've put so much work into making it a better article. --Miskwito 21:56, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, both of you. [blush] --Yksin 22:04, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Polling

Fabulous! Dreadstar † 18:51, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for great work on Washita!

Yksin, I just wanted to let you know how impressed and delighted I am about the knowledge, effort and civility you put (together with Murderbike) into the Washita battle article. While I was still busy with ordering and then starting to read Greene and Hardorf to be better equipped to dsicuss this with self-declared experts, you guys were very quick and dilligent in putting the article back on track. Big Kudos! Lookoo
Thanks! I've replied further on your talk page. --Yksin 20:47, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Just wanted to make sure you didn't miss this: anti-daf-plag. Dreadstar † 18:54, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

DVD "Son of the Morning Star"

Concerning discussion "Washita", here is my E-Mail: buehler_a@gmx.de Felix c 19:12, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Please send mail including your address, thank you. Felix c 15:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Central Alaskan Yup'ik language

Thanks for correcting that. Learn something new every day :) -Yupik 21:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

LGBT WikiProject Newsletter

Delivered on 16:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC).

Unusual Adoption Request

Hi! Im an English teacher in Toluca Mexico (west of Mexico City). My Advanced B classes will be contributing to Wikipedia as the focus of their English course for Fall 2007. I am looking for people who would like to mentor my students (who will be working in groups) as they do the following assignments: Edit and article (adding a citation), writing a stub with a citation, translating an English language article for Spanish Wikipedia and for the final project, writing a full article for English Wiki (they can expand on the stub mentioned previously). What I would like to do is put a list of "mentors/adopters" on my talk page as a kind of short cut for my students, who have limited time to get things done. The semester begings Aug 6, but the real Wikipedia work wont begin until the beginning of Sept. If you would like to add your name to my list, please go to my talk page and add it there, perhaps with a short introduction, if you like.

Thank you!

Thelmadatter 20:48, 26 July 2007 (UTC)Thelmadatter

Virginia Tech Shooting[s]/Massacre

Hi, I was wondering if you'd be willing to weigh in on the current discussion of the Virginia Tech attack's article's name. Thanks, Maxisdetermined 15:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

The Alaska Triangle reference

Unfortunately, the original quote was exactly from the History Channel program referenced in the links but I am not sure how to document that. That is why I attempted to provide a web source. -- EmperorBMA|話す 22:04, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

There's a Juneau Empire story I found in Newsbank that at least says something about what the History Channel program says. Most of the Juneau Empire stuff is also available through the newspaper's archive online; I'll try to find the story & provide you with a link. --Yksin 22:17, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks a million for looking for that. (I really ought to stop "wikifying" every History Channel program I see, I think... :P ) -- EmperorBMA|話す 22:27, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Haahahaaa! I know what you mean. Once I got involved in Wikipedia, I started seeing everything in the light of "hmmm, that'd make a great Wikipedia article!" I take it you're not in Alaska? I can take a look for the Nickerson book next time I stop by Title Wave (our big Anchorage used/new bookstore) & see what it says. I don't know that there's anything paranormal about disappearances of airplanes, etc. in that part of Alaska: it's quite mountainous, which makes for air turbulence & plane crashes; the sea portions of it get big storms, & if a stricken aircraft falls there it's likely to just get swallowed up by the sea. Though it is a matter of mystery about what happened with Begich & Boggs' airplane. And it's had a huge impact on this state's history, since after Begich's death our under-federal-corruption-investigation guy Don Young has been our lone Congressman ever since. Begich's son Mark is a great mayor; one of his other sons Nick has done a lot with juvenile justice in this state, & is a fine musician too -- I know him in both regards. --Yksin 22:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Yup, I live in Texas. I will admit that I'm also sort of skeptical about this sort of paranormal explanation of the disappearance "triangle," but the paranormal groups and advocates also provide one of the major viewpoints of this type of mystery. Since the History Channel makes it somewhat of the centerpiece, that kind of focused the way I wrote the article. At any rate, I suppose it might be a good idea to have a "natural explanations" section that describes the very hazardous terrain as a possible factor. -- EmperorBMA|話す 23:08, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
If there are reliable sources, anyway. Wow, the History Channel's description is so hugely sensationalistic. "What the tourist bureau doesn't want you to know!!!!" type of crap. It's not as if anyone's heard of major cruise ship or a 747 on its way to/from Seattle disappearing around there. Small planes crashing in the mountains or the sea under bad weather conditions, commercial fishing boats caught up in major storms in the Gulf of Alaska... that kinda thing. The most mysterious thing really about the Begich/Boggs disappearance is, what about those teletypes that said they found the crash site? Fodder for a conspiracy theory more than for a paranormal explanation, that. Esp. given the course of Alaska politics since then. Anyway... I'll see if I can find that Nickerson book. Probably in the university library, too, I can get there even sooner than Title Wave. --Yksin 23:17, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, this isn't the first time I'd had the History Channel turn out a bit sensationalist. A while ago, I had a discussion with Bendzh about the subterranean parts of Edinburgh because History Channel decided to hype on the "underground city" terminology... All this suggests that it is usually good to check History Channel stuff like that with people who actually live in the region. -- EmperorBMA|話す 23:22, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Plagiarism

Per Wikipedia:Public domain, "Proper attribution to the author or source of a work, even if it is in the public domain, is still required to avoid plagiarism." Dreadstar † 18:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but unfortunately a lot of people on Wikipedia don't appear to believe that "proper attribution" includes placing quotation marks around the quoted source, so that one doesn't know where the quotation begins and ends. See Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Proposed guideline: Plagiarism for details. I started that discussion after discovering how scattershot Wikipedia policies about plagiarism are, To my dismay, I learned during this discussion that numerous editors think that plagiarism of P.D. sources is just fine -- i.e., they say, provide a source, but it's not necessary to use quotation marks. I disagree, but I was in the midst of all the stuff here at the same time, & had no energy to pursue the plagiarism thing, so I gave up. --Yksin 19:00, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Are there any policies or guidelines that contradict the one I've quoted from? Dreadstar † 19:28, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Not that I've seen, unless there's something in reference to that 1911 Encylopedia Britannica. Most of the arguments that don't think quotation marks are necessary seemed to have come just from people's practice. But, it's what people do, & the opinions that they express on Wikipedia, that ultimately creates the consensus for even a guideline. And I just didn't have the ooomph to push for consensus on this right now. Dunno if you noticed, but in the earlier Washita straw poll, even Akradecki -- an editor I respect very highly -- seemed to support at least some use of P.D. sources without having to put direct quotations inside quotation marks. --Yksin 19:39, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
If consensus changes the guideline, fine - well, except for the potential legal ramifications from such a change. But editor opinion doesn't trump policy or guideline. We would have to run changes to anything regarding plagiarism past legal first, I would think... For now we have guideline to back us up in disputes such as the one you had with HH. Dreadstar † 19:44, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure of that, because the guideline does not clearly define what constitutes attribution. Thus, many editors take attribution to mean including a source citation, but not to include the use of quotation marks. I myself do not find it to be clear. Hence, my attempt to establish a clear guideline, which could also be referred to instead of to the plain old article on plagiarism (which is an article, not a guideline). --Yksin 19:51, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I see what you mean, the question of quotation marks. Yeah, that's not as significant as attributing the quote, for instance a <blockquote> doesn't have quotation marks. As long as the copied text is easily identified as being from a source, I think we're good. But just to copy without any atrribution isn't right. Dreadstar † 20:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Ah see, you & DAF are on the same side of this after all!  ;) No, blockquotes don't need quotation marks because they've already been set off as quotations. But quotations that are within a regular paragraph do need to be within quotation marks... unless, according to HH & too many other editors, it's PD text. That'll get you an instant F in the academic world. --Yksin 21:54, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
I have to agree with ya there, definitely best to have the marks when included in a paragraph! How else would the quote be easily identified...;) Dreadstar † 22:45, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Oh whew. You're not on DAF's side after all! --Yksin 22:55, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Surely thou jesteth...;) Dreadstar † 00:41, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Estimate(s)

Awesome! It's perfect! Thanks for the nudge, I completely missed it. Been neck deep in a weird one, didn't mean to get caught up in it, but fell in anyway...<sigh> The paranormal...always an emotionally heated battle..specially when it's mixed in with anything medical... Dreadstar † 23:49, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Not yet another fully protected article! Are you collecting 'em? --Yksin 00:05, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Bwahaa! I just can't stop laughing at that one! LOL! Collect'em, trade'm, get them all...new from Mattelco..."Garbage Pail Protected Articles". Very funny...yet sad somehow, all this protecting I have to engage in...<sigh> woe is me...lol! Dreadstar † 00:14, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Plebian

Surely thou dost not consider thyself a lowly plebe, M'Lady Yksin! Thou art first and foremost one of mine divine ladies of brilliance and good cheer! Dreadstar † 19:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

You are too funny..and clever to boot! Yes, lordy, lordy, We has been berry berry busy...;) Dreadstar † 20:35, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Truly, I am of the finest peasant stock, descendant of sturdy farmfolk & lumbermen, with chapped hands & weatherbeaten face. (Or, in my case, with repetitive stress injuries & prior history of a bone spur on my tailbone from sitting on my arse all day long.) --Yksin 21:20, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Ah, yes, I have heard of these lumbermen, from their lumberjack song, most interesting background ye doth hie from. Dreadstar † 21:49, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Twinkie defense

Hello, Yksin --

To get the worst out of the way first off -- I am the "Anon asshole", to use Jeffpw's very civil epithet, mentioned here. Reading that discussion, you seem to have approached the situation with far more objective eyes than anyone else, and I hope this means that if I explain my concerns to you, you may be able to see that those concerns are adequately addressed, in a way that I cannot, as an anon.

My most serious concern is that, to put it bluntly, I do not believe that Benjiboi can be trusted to make sure that only well-cited information goes into the articles. I believe the record makes this clear -- to be frank, I believe the record shows deliberate misbehavior on Benjiboi's part, but one need not believe that he did the wrong thing deliberately to look at the record and see that he did the wrong thing.

In his massive revamp of the article, Benjiboi inserted the claim that psychiatrist George Solomon, testifying for the defense, had attributed Dan White's state of mind to the effects of his junk food consumption. Here is Benjiboi's sentence: "Noted forensic psychiatrist and psychoneuroimmunologist George Solomon testified that with the effects of the junk food diet White had "exploded" and was "sort of on automatic pilot" at the time of the killings." Notice that this is a modified version of a sentence found in some previous versions of the article, which attributed to Solomon statements about White's state of mind but did not say that Solomon attributed it to junk food or to anything else. "Another psychiatrist, George Solomon, testified that White had "exploded" and was "sort of on automatic pilot" at the time of the killings."

Benjiboi is not merely restoring previous material from the article, he is adding his own new claim. It is not an insignificant or uncontroversial claim, either. Our RSes say ([3], [4]) that the original "Twinkie defense" was a myth; that whatever the defense may have said about White's state of mind, and the relationship between his state of mind and his responsibility for his actions, what everyone thinks they said that they didn't say was: the junk food made him do it. the junk food put him in that state of mind. And Benjiboi is coming along to claim, on behalf of Wikipedia, that the defense did say exactly that -- that George Solomon, on the stand, attributed White's "explosion" and state of "automatic pilot" to "the effects of the junk food diet".

Obviously, such a significant claim needs very strong sourcing. Did Benjiboi present strong sourcing? Here are the URLs for the two citations Benjiboi gave: http://www.psychosomatic.org/media_ctr/newsletters/fall01A.pdf , http://www.notfrisco.com/colmatales/moscone/mosc3.html . (Full citations are available on Talk:Twinkie defense.) The first of these is a tribute to George Solomon after his death; I reprint here the only sentence which mentions the White trial:

... Dr. Solomon became highly regarded as a forensic psychiatrist, and was called as an expert witness in a number of high-profile cases, including Dan White (who murdered San Francisco mayor George Moscone and Supervisor Harvey Milk) and Leslie Van Houten, Manson Family member.

Not a single word about what Solomon testified at the trial, not even which side he testified for, only that he testified. Obviously not a valid citation for the claim that Solomon attributed White's state of mind to the effects of junk food. The second citation is to a private website, "Tales of Colma", which gets only 250 Google hits. The author, "Joel Gazis-Sax", does slightly better at 1,150 Google hits, but this is still not enough to give us confidence in "Tales of Colma" as a reliable source. However, even if we leave that issue aside, there is the question: Does it support Benjiboi's inserted claim that Solomon testified about the purported effects of junk food?

No, it does not. If anything, it confirms what our other RSes already said: "Dr. Martin Blinder identified White's addiction to junk food as a signs sic of the disorder [depression]. In the outraged popular version of Blinder's testimony which followed the trial, Blinder was made out to say that the Twinkies had made White do it." (emphasis added) It was Martin Blinder, not George Solomon, who talked about the effects of junk food, and it was only in the inaccurate "popular version" that it had been claimed that junk food "made White do it." Only one sentence in the entire document mentions Solomon's testimony: "In all the uproar about the "Twinkie Defense", something which Dr. George Solomon had warned about seven years previous went unnoticed: if Dan White did not receive a heavy enough sentence, he would kill himself." (Notice that Benjiboi has taken it upon himself to remove from the article any notice of the fact that White did kill himself.)

I've run out of time here -- I will need to continue later. -- 192.250.34.161 21:24, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I've read through the sources you pointed out, & have also taken a look again at the article. I'm convinced that there are indeed significant problems with the article as it's currently written -- besides the agreement I already had that the article in its present form provides far more background detail than necessary for adequate coverage of the article's topic.
There are limitations to what I can do now: the article is not just semi-protected (which prevents anon editors & editors with accounts less than four days old from editing an article): it is fully protected, which prevents anyone from editing the article. It will be under that protection until September 1. But even if not protected, I wouldn't advise returning to what would very possibly turn into another edit war. What's necessary is developing a new consensus on the talk page about the article's content issues. I will be glad to help out with that. Just as I said to Benjiboi, I think a good way to do it might be through doing an article RfC (requests for comment) -- & anyone can initiate one, so I think I might just go ahead & do it, using the same basic format I followed for the very successful one we did at Talk:Battle of Washita River.
I am concerned about civility issues. I felt that the cautions Jeffpw gave you on your talk page were appropriate. I did not think that his incivility about you behind your back (so to speak) was at all appropriate, & I wrote him on his talk page to tell him so. Not that it helped any, at least not so far. I would however like to ask you to refrain from responding in kind. Although I agree that Benjiboi's edits have resulted in an inaccurate article (I'll look at pre-Benjiboi version later), I'm not convinced that Benjiboi has intentionally acted in bad faith, & it seems that your accusations that he did has resulted in a lot of ill will already. In any case, I'm going to assume good faith -- on both your parts -- but also ask that you maybe take a look at WP:CIVIL & refrain from making accusations about dishonesty or ignorance which tend to focus everything on the editor instead of on what we're really here for, which is to make the article right. Benjiboi does seem to be responding to other editors' feedback (including mine & Jeffpw's) at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies about too much background detail. Although clearly you & he have gotten off to a rocky start with each other, maybe it will be helpful to get more feedback from other editors.
If you don't mind me saying so, I hope you'll consider getting a Wikipedia account. If anonymity is an issue, it's possible to remain completely anonymous with a named account if you choose a nondescript username -- & in fact I think it can be even more anonymous than using an anonymous IP, since one can't perform a WHOIS check on a named account. And there are advantages to a named account as well: you'll be able to edit semiprotected pages once four days have passed, & it's just a lot easier to remember your "name" than an IP address.
I'm going to leave a note on your talk page now to let you know I've written this (in case you didn't put my talk page on your watchlist). Best wishes. --Yksin 23:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for making a statement. You're right on the money with what you said. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 03:35, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Unprotection

Includes my comments copied from Ikiroid's talk page for continuity.

I'm planning on unprotecting the article. Since you are mediator over this RFC, I wanted your approval first. In my opinion, the advent of the RFC has cooled down the situation and we are now in the process of reaching an agreement on the content of the page—therefore, edits made from now on (if any) would fall in line with the discussion. Of course, if a revert war begins once again, I'd reprotect it. I think the unprotection would help the level of trust in the discussion. Let me know how you feel about this. Cheers, The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 00:51, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not too sure about the advisability of unprotection at this point. I'm concerned that 192.250.34.161 (talk · contribs) wrote posted a lengthy statement yesterday which was reverted early today by WJBscribe (talk · contribs) with the edit summary "rv - please rewrite as comment on content not other contributors before reposting." WJBscribe also gave 192 a warning about incivility. Though I think WJBscribe's point that 192 should focus on content rather & refrain from comments about Benjiboi (talk · contribs), I'm also concerned about WJBscribe's neutrality given what appears to be a friendship with Jeffpw (talk · contribs). See both their talk pages -- both times that WJBscribe has warned 192 about incivility, including this time, followed on Jeffpw's alerting him to it; while WJBscribe takes no apparent notice of Jeffpw's own incivility to 192. Meanwhile, Benjiboi has gone on break as a result of 192's earlier charges, & is unavailable.
I think 192's take on the article is more accurate to the facts, & except for how s/he directed things at Benjiboi, the post s/he wrote that WJBscribe reverted was pretty clear & made a lot of sense. But I don't find it productive to charge Benjiboi with wrongdoing and imputing motives. At the same time, I really question this edit by Benjiboi in which he added two sources to back up the claim about Solomon's statement at the trial that, as 192 has pointed out, do not at all affirm what Solomon is purported to have said. It does look an awful lot like a deliberate insertion of factual errors not backed up by the cited sources. Nonetheless I wouldn't have so badly charged an established editor like Benjiboi of having done so intentionally, as stuff like that does happen accidentally in the course of lots of edits & edit warring, whose good work on Wikipedia I've run across several times -- but I can understand why 192 would make that charge.
Another aspect of this is that although this is an article RfC, to me, user conduct including incivility (by both 192 & Jeffpw, who's stayed off the article but has not refrained from uncivil commentary elsewhere about 192) as well the issues 192 has brought up about whether an editor (Benjiboi) intentionally inserted factual errors are relevant the RfC. And no, I'm not into creating user-conduct RfCs on everybody -- that would be going way overboard on this one.
But in any case, at this point the whole thing feels pretty bad to me, & I don't frankly know what to do at this point. Which is why I've done nothing. I guess my gut feeling has been that despite the issues about 192's statement, I don't feel it should have been reverted. I certainly don't feel that a consensus is being reached, inasmuch as 192's statement was reverted, Benjiboi is on a wikibreak, & thus the only statements made at the RfC are yours & mine -- neither of us having been involved in the edit warring that brought the protection on to begin with. --Yksin 03:24, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Addendum. WJBscribe reads 192's statement as what "seems to be a series of accusations against Benjiboi." There are accusations against Benjiboi, but none are ad hominem attacks: each accusation is justified factually so that one can see why the accusation was made, & there is no namecalling or what I would deem to violative of WP:CIVIL or WP:NPA -- unlike several of 192's prior communications to/about Benjiboi. I'm not sure, not at all, that that statement should have been reverted. But maybe that needs a more neutral opinion that I can offer. I do know that in the article RfC at Talk:Battle of Washita River, we were quite frank in stating the problems we had with the user conduct of two of the users involved in our dispute (both of whom also have associated user conduct RfCs]], and an admin who has been present for most of this Akradecki (talk · contribs) found nothing untoward about the "accusations" leveled at those two users, all of which were founded in fact & were presented without namecalling or incivility. --Yksin 03:56, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Oh dear. I see the revert—that changes things. Unprotection is a long way off. I was actually going to revert the removal, but I have reservations either way—basically on one the reasons you listed on my talkpage: 192's statement is accusatory towards Benjiboi, yet it is accurate. I don't believe that Benjiboi is trying to skew facts or hide the truth, despite 192's testament to exactly that. The fact that Benjiboi sought help and mediation leads me to believe that he is definitely not about ownership or POV pushing. 192's behavior actually is closer to such an editor, which is why I'm having trouble understanding a lot of what 192 wants. As you pointed out, all of 192's accusations can be substantiated, yet they come off as more of conspiracy theories to me since they all point to some unknown, dark reason of why Benjiboi would sabotage the article (something that most likely does not exist).
I really feel terrible about how hurt everyone has become over this. I understand your reservations: I avoided the wiki for a lot of today, and spent a good deal of time doing my laundry instead. Have you noticed that Benjiboi is on break?
With all of this going in circles, I don't think we will get anywhere until we square with all of the opinions from everyone's point of view. If we don't, we will end up with a solution that doesn't solve everyone's problems. You mentioned in your message that the earlier RFC you were involved in required everyone to be frank with one another, which I believe is what needs to happen here. Because of this, I'm going to add back in the statement, unedited. We need 192's opinion to end this dispute, and this is really how they feel. While removing it prevents any bad-faith statements, it also stalemates the RFC. This is their view, and it's one of the two core views of the dispute. Everyone has to deal with each other's views sooner or later, so I guess we should now. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 04:39, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, I think that's appropriate. I will try to write a respond to 192's statement later. I agree that I don't think Benjiboi did anything underhanded intentionally; the main thing is to get things moving on from here. But in any case, I think that yes, so long as no ad hominem or uncivil attacks are made, people should be able to be frank. I certainly was when I discussed 192's personal attacks. (And Jeffpw's, whatever one thinks about the relevance of what I said about his personal attacks in this RfC. He continued his attacks on 192 in this RfC, but I didn't notice anyone reverting or deleting them.) --Yksin 05:02, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for backing me up. I have left a note for 192 on their page. As for Jeffpw, I think that is really a different issue stemming from this one which should be pursued separately—as of now, it is after midnight where I am and I'm going to bed. Cheers, The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 05:16, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
No problem. I have no more to say in the RfC about Jeffpw's incivility -- I said what I felt needed to be said. Have a good night! --Yksin 05:33, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

RFC bot

Due to the CAPTCHA mechanism being implemented, it caused the bot to log off. I have put the bot back online and the RFC pages will be updated shortly. MessedRocker (talk) 20:07, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah, cool. Thanks. --Yksin 20:15, 24 August 2007 (UTC)