You removed reference to Rosebud's killing because you suggest it had nothing to do with the Park, yet Park activists blamed Chancellor Tien for allowing the University to go ahead with construction plans (volleyball court, etc.). Rosebud was one of many outspoken critics of Tien. Her being in his house with a machete was directly related to people's park, far from having "nothing" to do with it. stan goldsmith 04:16, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Your points don't make sense. On the one hand you suggest that she "links herself" to the activists and on the other you say she had nothing to do with the park besides being crazy. As a person who knew her I can say that she was instrumental in organizing protests about the park and a major player in the protest movement surrounding the park in the early 90s.
Using your logic one can say: well the marches and riots in the 60's were just crazy people running amok for no reason, just because they were near People's Park or "linked themselves" with park activists doesn't mean anything.
What is the difference between linking yourself with a movement and being a part of it? And where do you get your information that she was "imbalanced" - this seems like a pretty heavy judgement call on your part. Same goes for the rest of the park activists, many of whom were and are still Berkeley students, many of whom are active in the Berkeley government and run businesses in the city, far from being crazed lunatics who think that the cops are satan. They have a purpose and your removal of that purpose diminishes them to something that you can assert your power over, i.e. nothing more than crazy people.
If you want to maintain that you are being neutral you are just kidding yourself. stan goldsmith 20:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
You removed the Robert Altman (photographer) pictures from the Hippy article. Permission to use this copyrighted work in Wikipedia articles were granted by Robert Altman, on September 3, 2006. Do you have information which superceeds that? -- Salix alba ( talk) 00:33, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, Apostle; I was beginning to think I was the only one in the discussion besides our aristo friend the Bus Stop! -- Orange Mike 19:25, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Hey there -- got your note. See the discussion of People's Park to see some examples I pointed out. Maybe that will help, and we can start an ongoing dialog on how to bring this page up to par! Thanks
Guess I'm dense, but I do not understand why you consider parts of my ediing as biased: in my mind (probably the problem!!), many of the people involved in the "Bloody Thursday" incident were upset and confused. about why the police had fenced the park. People gathered in Sproul Plaza to find out what was going on, and to share their feelings of confusion. So I think of them as 'citizens' and not 'protestors' because they were peaceably exercising their Constitutional right to assemble. When Dan Siegel spoke he was not inciting people to protest -- he was saying that the citizens should go to the park.
As I understand 'loaded' words (I'm thinking of S.I. Hayakawa's Language in Thought and Action here), 'citizen' is more value-neutral than 'protestors,' a term that suggests a purpose not necessarily inherent in their actions. Also, I am puzzled by your comment that I 'insist' on injecting bias. In my mind, I was suggesting alternative, less loaded language.
I think the article on People's Park is much stronger these days: more info and overall, more objective. I was initially thrown off by the assertion that Mike Delacour was the Father of People's Park. I have never seen that in print, and from my recollection he was considered a poseur, so thought I'd throw in my own recollections as well. I'm actually really pleased with the current article. As a young eyewitness to these events, I was aware at the time that I did not fully understand what was going on, but I knew it was quite a story!! The current version seems much closer to reality, imho.
only onther question: why is there no link to Rabbi Michael Lerner? (it's the same guy). Pepkoka
Apostle12 -- In the "Hippie" article there is no source to back up the assertion that "Hippie opposition to The Establishment spread worldwide through..." That is a broad, sweeping statement. I don't think it should be made at all. I tried previously to change that statement to a lesser statement. I just wanted it to say something to the effect that the "culture," or the "philosophy," of the Hippies was expressed, or "spread," through the various means cited. But it has been changed back to "Hippie opposition to The Establishment spread worldwide through..." Again: I don't think such a grandiose claim should be made here. But if you are going to make that claim, it needs a source.
I have additional problems with the use of the term "visual art." I don't think it is the correct term to be used here. That phrase includes much more than what is implied here, or what is provided with a source here. A narrower term or phrase is called for, so as not to create the misleading impression that hippie culture had much of a bearing on "contemporary art," because it did not.
All that I am saying is in reference to the following two sentences, which I take objection to:
Hippie opposition to The Establishment spread worldwide through a fusion of early rock, folk, blues and psychedelic rock. To a lesser degree, hippie culture was expressed in literature, [11] the dramatic arts, [12] and many aspects of the visual arts, especially film, [13] posters advertising rock concerts, and LP album covers. [14] [15] Bus stop 19:28, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Please take it to the Talk page if you really need to debate this assertion. edgarde 05:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Good job on your latest edits to the hippie article concerning the music scene. You are really dealing with a brand new article, a subpage of psychedelic music. There's no immediate hurry, but I would start contemplating the creation of a new article (I can help out with the correct name if you want), and adding a summary paragraph or two to the hippie article with a link to the main topic. Again, nice work. — Viriditas | Talk 12:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi. Yes, I think we need to source everything in the article (it's policy, see WP:ATT), and if we don't, someone else will request it; it's the only way the article will ever meet featured article status. Ideally, the lead section should already reflect sourced material in the body of the article. — Viriditas | Talk 10:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
You have to be kidding? Please look at the talk page for why the hippie article is POV, and it's because it is US centred, as has been made clear. We are an international and not a US encycliopedia, yet the article still reads as if it were part of a US encyclopedia after the many changes I have made. SqueakBox 20:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
All the issues that have been raised on the talk page have been addressed as they came up. All sourced material regarding global hippiedom has been added. Please add more if you wish; it will be welcomed. Apostle12 22:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
But your aggressive comments on my talk page are not welcome. The issues are being raised on the talk page though unfortunately Viritidas is being so aggressive it makes it very hard for long time editors like Codex and myself to participate. i suggest you criticise his false allegations before starting to attack me, SqueakBox 03:38, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
In response to the comment you left on my talk page, I did not remove a single thing from the Hippie article. I corrected the formatting and improved the wording and order of the first section. In fact I even added content, such as the alternate spelling. I organized similar topics together instead of having them scatttered somewhat randomly, and I moved the footnotes to the ends of sentences, as per proper formatting style. Spylab 20:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
The alternate spelling was not in the first sentence before I added it. [1]
It was only buried much, much lower in the article, but it must be in the first sentence, because that's how many people spell the word. I absolutely did not delete the concept of interactive development of the hippie ethos on both sides of the Atlantic. I moved it so it was next to other sentences about that same topic. I'll paste it here in case you don't want to read the actual article:
By 1968, self-described hippies had become a significant minority, representing just under 0.2 percent of the U.S. population.[10] The hippie culture spread worldwide through a fusion of rock music, folk, blues, and psychedelic rock. The hippie ethos influenced the The Beatles and others in the United Kingdom and Europe, and they in turn influenced their American counterparts.[11][12] [13] Hippie culture also found expression in literature, the dramatic arts, and the visual arts, including film, posters advertising rock concerts, and album covers.[14][15] [16] [17][18] Eventually the hippie movement extended far beyond the United States, the United Kingdom and Europe, appearing in Australia, New Zealand, Japan, Mexico, Brazil and many other countries.[19] [20] [21] [22].
I also did not add any statement that the term was used sarcastically. Some other editor did that. I suggest you actually read the section and pay attention to who is actually making specific edits, and not to revert the first section to a lesser-quality version that is full of formatting errors, disorganization, and poor, unclear writing style. For example, your preferred version of the first sentence:
Hippie or Hippy refers to a subgroup of the 1960s and early 1970s counterculture that found its earliest beginnings in the United States, becoming an established social group by 1965 before declining during the mid-1970s.
is grammatically incorrect, sloppy and very confusing. However, my version:
A hippie (sometimes spelled hippy) is a member of a specific subculture (often described as a counterculture), that began in the United States in the 1960s, spread to other countries, and declined in the mid-1970s.
is grammatically correct, more clear, and says what your version is actually trying to say. Also, footnotes belong at the ends of sentences and topics should have some kind of organization and logical flow, instead of just plopped on the page in a somewhat random fashion. Spylab 10:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
I responded on talk about including the tune. If you can find a good cite or two that does not self-reference Wikipedia, we can add it back in. I'll keep looking, too. — Viriditas | Talk 20:33, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm sure you've met Diamond Dave (no not David Lee Roth, but the SF Diamond Dave) and are familiar with his claim that he turned Dylan on; Any idea if it is true or not? If you haven't met DD, you really should. Interesting character. — Viriditas | Talk 09:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Hey, I forgot to tell you some time ago that I agree with the changes you proposed on the talk page for WP:OWN. If you have any interest in revisiting this issue, let me know as I would like to help you add them to the policy page. — Viriditas | Talk 07:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Although I would like to work with you to elevate Hippie to FA status, I think we should bring it to GA, first. Please take a look at WP:GA so you can see what needs to be done. Let's get this show on the road. — Viriditas | Talk 05:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Hippies regularly flouted societal prohibitions against interracial dating and marriage.
They were early advocates for the repeal of anti-miscegenation laws that the Supreme Court of the United States declared unconstitutional in 1967 (Loving v. Virginia), but which remained on the books in some U.S. states until 2000, albeit unenforced.
With their emphasis on Free Love, hippies promoted many of the same counterculture beliefs that found early expression in the Beat Generation.
Co-habitation among unmarried couples was the norm,
open relationships were common,
and both Beats and Hippies advocated for legal and societal acceptance of most forms of consensual sexual expression among adults.
With regard to homosexuality and bisexuality, the Beats had demonstrated early tolerance during an era when homosexual expression of any sort was still punishable by stiff prison sentences.
Hippies generally espoused the same tolerant attitude. Many hippies, as in the movie Woodstock and the photo were casual about open nudity.
What on earth is the problem with this photo? It's been up for years with no objection whatsoever?
Seems overzealous to tag it. However, please inform how tag can be removed, as it would be a shame to lose it. Apostle12 15:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Sfan00 IMG 15:33, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
is it true Hippies rejected established institutions, criticized middle class values, opposed nuclear weapons, opposed the Vietnam War, and promoted the use of psychedelic drugs to expand one's consciousness. why don't these prove that hippies were against a lot of things the U.S. government were for. Were not hippies against the U.S. government. If hippies sold out they would become like all other americans? Some hippies did use violence.
Vietnam: There was never a declared war between the U.S government and Vietnam. The war was between the two Vietnams. Didn't hippies protest U.S involvement in Vietnam and not Vietnam fighting Vietnam. The hippies were protesting the U.S.'s involvement. not the war. VIETNAM CONFLICT.
Drugs: weren't the drugs hippies used illegal.
Hi, I see you removed the link to 'The Franklin Coverup'. The thing is that the article about John DeCamp also links to it, so I'm not sure why you feel it is wrong. Do you feel that the John DeCamp article also wrong? Or is it that you feel that the link to 'The Franklin Coverup' shouldn't redirect to The Franklin Coverup hoax? There seems to be extensive discussion of if it really was a hoax on Franklin Coverup Hoax. so I would say leave the link in and let people decide for themselves. -- Shimbo 10:22, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I would submit that linking DeCamp's book title 'The Franklin Coverup' to an article called 'Franklin Coverup Hoax' is also inappropriate. DeCamp certainly does NOT consider it a hoax, and the evidence he provides is rather convincing. The fact that some consider it a hoax might be mentioned, but letting people decide for themselves would involve mentioning the title of DeCamp's book without direct prejudice. Apostle12 07:13, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
You're right, as I added a subsequent talk page comment that explained its removal, here. Do you think a separate section, branching out to a new article, say Culture of the Hippies is required? I think it may be a good idea. — Viriditas | Talk 20:53, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
During the 1930s and 40s, the dunes were the home of a group of free thinking people including mystics, nudists, artists, writers, and hermits who identified themselves collectively as the "Dunites." Among other activities, the group published a magazine, which they called The Dune Forum. The Dunites believed that Oceano Dunes was one of the centers of creative energy in California. [3]
Here's what I think: the hippies have always been here. Call them whatever you want, bohemians, Der Wandervogel, beatniks, whatever. I think we need to view them as part of a greater community of free-thinkers spanning millenia rather than as an isolated phenomenon in one decade. Obviously, each generation will express this joie de vivre in the language and clothing of their time but the underlying ideas remain the same. — Viriditas | Talk 08:23, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I have a reference to École nationale de cirque being related to the hippie movement in some way, either attracting hippies or being influenced by hippies. Do you have any information about this? Now, wouldn't that look great in the legacy section! — Viriditas | Talk 07:24, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. — Viriditas | Talk 03:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
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. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the
Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button
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) 02:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
In addition to Haight-Ashbury, Barry Miles lists the following hippie communities in his book, Hippie (2004):
I'm wondering if you can help add a brief mention of them to the Hippie article and expand upon them in History of the hippie movement. Thanks. — Viriditas | Talk 05:56, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi,
you might want to look at the list I (we) are compiling at: Talk:9/11#NPOV / missing_facts. I appreciate any addition or criticism you can make. — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 14:05, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
In your recent attempt to move Franklin coverup hoax to Franklin child abuse allegations, you somehow managed to delete the article instead. I suggest you ask for help on WP:RM, since an administrator will have to complete the move now. In the meantime, I restored the text at the original title. -- Russ (talk) 14:33, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi Apostle12. Thanks for the good additions to the MKULTRA article, but making so many different edits makes it difficult for people to follow changes. Editing a version of the page in a sandbox in your own userspace might work best for you. Bartleby ( talk) 15:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the sympathy :D I never intended to come back to this issue, but there it was and I couldn't help myself. This time I have no illusions. The editor who proposed the change this time is relatively new, like I was when I did it. I got involved initially just to give him some moral support because I expected him to get the same drubbing that I got. Fortunately, whether we win or lose this time, the bullying tactics are much less intense, so hopefully he won't be dissuaded from going on to become the great editor which I believe he will be. ireneshusband (talk) 08:20, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi Apostle12, are you interested in looking into the npov debate which is on Talk:9/11#Heart of NPOV (3) ? — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 14:18, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
I'll reply at my page. Good idea. — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 21:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
9/11 conspiracy theories. Note that the
three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the
three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be
blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a
consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue
dispute resolution.
Ice Cold Beer (
talk) 06:11, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Please do not revert-war anymore, Apostle12 ! Revert only once, and take it to talk after that. I have a question for you: you wrote on the talk page: "actually it was another editor who originally added it; I only restored it" — I cannot find that edit, can you provide a link or a timestamp for me? Thanks ! — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 23:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Dear Apostle12,
I would welcome any improvements you could make to my proposal at Talk:9/11#Norman Mineta testimony issue ! — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 06:49, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Would it not be better to give an example of a notable subgroup, who do so? E.g. pilots for 911 truth, perhaps?? I am not sure !! — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 23:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Your comments on those pages are not helpful. Wikipedia talk pages are for improving articles not discussing personal political or other opinions that are marginally related to a topic. JoshuaZ ( talk) 04:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Dear Apostle12,
At Talk:9/11#defining consensus I started a survey to get a better picture on how editor's opinions are varying with respect to the following statement:
I would appreciate it when you could take a look. — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 17:09, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I have named you as an involved party at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#9/11 conspiracy theories. Ice Cold Beer ( talk) 22:19, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page.
For the Arbitration Committee, AGK § 19:27, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. Further to this, any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, "impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict (defined as articles which relate to the events of September 11, broadly interpreted) if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process." The full remedy is located here.
For the Arbitration Committee, Anthøny 15:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi. Please take a minute to read WP:SOCK#LEGIT and Wikipedia:Username_policy#Using_multiple_accounts. Most users who use alternate accounts will label the primary account with {{ User Alt Acct Master}} and the secondary account with {{ User Alternate Acct }}. Viriditas ( talk) 08:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
By February 1966, the Family Dog became Family Dog Productions under organizer Chet Helms, promoting happenings at the Avalon Ballroom and the Fillmore Auditorium in initial cooperation with Bill Graham. The Avalon Ballroom, the Fillmore Auditorium and other venues provided settings where participants could partake of the full psychedelic music experience. Bill Ham, who had pioneered the original Red Dog light shows, perfected his art of liquid light projection, which combined light shows and film projection and became synonymous with the San Francisco ballroom experience.
I'm not threatening to delete again immediately, but in general, I certainly will delete again until the editors of this page get their collective act together. Did you read Talk? I mentioned explicitly that the source is spurious. I will certainly re-delete that passgae in 24 hours, unless the sourcing is corrected.. and will continue to check for more substandard sourcing. I will also copy these remarks to article Talk. Ling.Nut ( talk— WP:3IAR) 04:00, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi Apostle12. The facts may have been well-documented... somewhere.. but they are very poorly documented in the article.. in fact, they are not documented at all. Have you ever written a research paper? The shoddy nature of the refs I deleted is... as obvious as could be. But I'm getting nowhere with you folks; I'm just gonna start checking everything. No more deletions, no more talk, just fact checking. Then when the fact checking is done we'll return to other things... Ling.Nut ( talk— WP:3IAR) 22:13, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi,
Regards this edit, could you discuss please?
The undo also reveerted the formatting of some bare links into citation templates. Thanks, WLU (t) (c) (rules - simple rules) 19:57, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Undent. I revisited my talk page recently and wanted to make sure this was addressed - did you want further changes to the page, or are you OK with what's there now? I think the current wording is adequate. 00:08, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Hola,
This is what makes me suspect it's a sockpuppet. User:Raorino is a sockpuppet of the indef-blocked User:ResearchEditor, per this RFCU diff. I could do a diff-by-diff comparison if you'd like, but it should be pretty easy to see.
My total objections are "some claim" is weaselly, the single sentence is weak, doesn't say much, does not elaborate. Carol Rutz, if you look into her claims, is pretty nutty fringe stuff. I did a bit of research on her a while ago. The statement is also not justified by the news.com story, which mentions children exactly twice, nonspecifically, about non-crimes (testing acid on them - not called a crime in the news story, makes it WP:OR in my mind). Fidelity Publishing appears to be vanity press - check out who wrote "A Nation Betrayed" and who the contact person is for Fidelity [9]. that makes it self-published as far as I'm concerned and therefore a nonsource. Also, have a look at the Secret Weapons summary. That looks pretty WP:FRINGE for me, not by a well-respected publisher in my mind. And my overall largest objection, even were it not a run-around of an indef block, would be that even such a tiny, pointless sentence is simply undue weight on essentially Carol Rutz' opinion, with no real merit, evidence or respectable sourcing. What do you think? It's an extraordinary weak and vague claim sourced to sources that I don't have a lot of respect for, topped off by an edit by a blocked editor with the same POV and the really nutty sources sanitized. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 00:05, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Hello. I took the liberty of undoing your reverts of "O.R." on the Peoples Park article here: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=People%27s_Park&curid=532547&diff=274880476&oldid=274621138 as I see it that it is a matter of interpretation of what is seen in the references. I appreciate your efforts in contribution to the article. Care to discuss your views ? Peace, rkmlai ( talk) 09:35, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
I actually felt that that last edit http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=People%27s_Park&curid=532547&diff=279666342&oldid=279658325, before you reverted it, was ok, except the "herded" part. Would you be willing to reconsider it as a compromise ? Peace, rkmlai ( talk) 21:17, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
This is what I found. "There were a couple of families whose wishes were that the mayor not speak," said Dellums spokesman Paul Rose. "And the mayor adhered to their wishes." [11] Geo8rge ( talk) 17:00, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Please help bring hippie to Good Article standards. For an example of what a good article looks like, please see Brook Farm. Viriditas ( talk) 03:12, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
There is no original research in Hippie article, but finding information with respect to Australia, NZ and Canada is more difficult than you can imagine.
A lot of material is either not on the web, or so obscure that even finding its name is difficult
For Australia, the task is equally as bad.
For Canada, separating the imperially imposed US hippie culture from the locally evolved one is difficult -- as the border was very porous at the time.
Remember, I am trying to put what applicable stuff I do know in hopes of others posting cited material.
The US hippie culture (much like the US as an imperial power) has the tendency to exterminate the locally evolved equivalents.
I know some Hungarians (where one of them lived in the USSR for a while at Uni) -- and they knew of no hippie culture in the whole of Eastern Europe or the USSR. However, the lack of this culture in the USSR and Eastern Block is poorly documented on the web. Yet, any Eastern European historian (including the most totally incompetent and out of touch ones) will tell you that the hippie movement did not exist there.
If you can place some tags in this article to request selective deemphasis of the US content, that would be nice. I don't know all the tags for doing this. As things stand now, the jackboot of the US hippie culture content is crushing any attempts to cover the movement's global evolution.
Hi,
Regards your recent edits to MKULtra, I'm a big fan of citation templates, which includes a {{ cite news}} option for newspapers. The reasons I've seen for including them include standardizing pages to a uniform citation, and also to help readers of print versions access the sources the page is based on. If you were citing pubmed articles I'd point to diberri's template generator, and if you work with books a lot, it has a version for ISBNs that works quite well [ [12]. Just thought I'd mention it. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 16:40, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Dear Apostle12,
I am looking for Wikipedia contributors in the San Francisco area to interview on camera on Thursday, June 25th. If you are potentially interested in doing this, please contact me.
Thanks.
Lookingforcontributors ( talk) 18:20, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
I screwed up in trying to fix someone's fix of someone's fix at the BART shooting article. Funny stuff. Thanks and nice catch! Cptnono ( talk) 05:45, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I'm chasing down a citation that you added to this article on 31 Oct 2008, that reads http://utip.gov.utexas.edu/jg/archive/2000/crimesoimmense.pdf I've never been able to locate the source, and all I get from Google is all the plagiarized stuff on other sites. Can you help me put a good citation in its place?, MTIA, PeterWD ( talk) 14:46, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi, not sure what to do about him, but I reverted to the earlier version of the sub-topic since although perhaps he made it more readable, he also as far as I can tell made it less accurate. My guess is that he either eventually will get himself blocked, or will learn to edit properly. In the meantime we will have to clean up after him. Please keep up the good work.-- Stor stark7 Speak 23:02, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Your edits to the "Operation Paperclip" article during the past day truly were over-the-top. They probably constituted the most disruptive editing I have ever seen on Wikipedia--you obviously have an axe to grind, you introduced extensive O.R., and your prose is nearly impossible to read. I will be taking the necessary steps to get you blocked until you can constructively engage with the other editors. Meanwhile your edits have been reverted. Please abstain from doing further damage to this, and other, articles. Apostle12 ( talk) 05:41, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Please explain why you restored the information regarding Kennedy's conflicts with the CIA to the Operation Northwoods article.
I posted in the talk page on December 9, 2009, that Northwoods was not a CIA plan, and thus Kennedy's conflicts with the CIA were almost certainly the result of the ill-conceived Bay of Pigs plan, not Northwoods. That post has been met with utter silence for over a month, so I went ahead and deleted the section on the CIA.
If you disagree with my assertion, please explain the relevance of the CIA to Northwoods in the talk page. I'm not even sure what you disagree with: are you saying Northwoods was a CIA plan (in contradiction to everything the article currently says), or that Northwoods was somehow relevant to Kennedy's purge of the CIA even though the Joint Chiefs submitted the plan?
The only connection I see between the CIA and Northwoods is that Lemnitzer suggested using a duplicate of a CIA plane to stage a fake shootdown of an airliner by Cuba. Are we seriously saying that Kennedy was thinking: "Lemnitzer suggested using a CIA plane for an illegal and unethical plan; that's one more reason to fire the leadership of the CIA?"
Pirate Dan ( talk) 14:29, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
I restored the following paragraph:
"Kennedy also took steps to bring discipline to the CIA's Cold War and paramilitary operations by drafting a National Security Action Memorandum (NSAM) which called for the shift of Cold War operations to the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the U.S. Department of Defense as well as a major change in the role of the CIA to exclusively deal in intelligence gathering. Kennedy was notably unpopular with the military, a rift that came to a head during Kennedy's disagreements with the military over the Cuban Missile Crisis, shortly before the presentation of Northwoods. Personally, Kennedy expressed concern and anger to many of his associates about the CIA's growing influence on civilians and government inside America."
Of course you are correct that the failed Bay of Pigs invasion influenced Kennedy's decision to clip the CIA's wings. However I think you may be ignoring other factors that influenced his decision. While not primarily a CIA plan, CIA Director Allen Dulles participated in conceptualizing the Northwoods proposal, and he made sure the CIA would play a prominent role if the plan became operational. Kennedy thought the growing influence of the CIA was dangerous, and the Northwoods proposal was clear evidence of just how dangerous. Kennedy decided SIMULTANEOUSLY to reassert his control over the military and to write an executive order (NSAM)restricting the CIA to intelligence gathering.
I believe this paragraph should remain in the article. Apostle12 ( talk) 07:07, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi the only advice I can give is to suggest you try the dispute resolution process:
E.g., if he/she is visibly messing up the article, for example inserting obvious POV, try using
or if you have a dispute over a specific issue use
if the editor displays incivility in communications with you, use
You could also use make yourself aquainted with the available message templates
I've noticed that some very "productive" editors (in terms of time devoted, not in quality) are but sockpuppets of banned users. Try checking the edit history to see if there is a crossover pattern with a known sock-puppeteer. When you have enough evidence you could go to.
Better advice on how to proceed can probably be found if you explain the issues at
cheers -- Stor stark7 Speak 16:51, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
I had a look at the section and had a go at rewriting it - have a look.
What issue are you having with the referencing? Is it just the generation of citation templates? I would suggest simply getting the isbn off of amazon or Google books an plugging it into Diberri's template generator. If that's not the issue, I may still be able to help if you let me know the problem. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 12:43, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
HI, I just wanted you to know Im not just relegating it the conspiracy section. Im just saying there is alot of conspiracy theories out there. Some that seem quite plausible. But what you are talking about is an act of war. Although I don't see the french invading us any time soon, I feel there should be more of a source then some guys book. believe me, If it was valid the press would be all over it. they live for this stuff. If we get more of an independent source then someone who is profiting off the sale of thier book, Im all for adding it to the main article. But it is still a theory at this point. ergot poisoning is another theory. Its not proven conclusively either way and would be speculating.. didn't the french launch any sort of investigation when the entire town was tripping? Ill grab the book if its in my library and take a look. sounds like an interesting read anyway. - Tracer9999 ( talk) 18:57, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.
Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.
When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.
If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles ( talk) 04:51, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi there Apostle:
As you know, I am currently completely re-writing the Space Race article (which will likely end up being segmented into four or five separate articles). If I say that a source is not going to be referenced, you can assume with a 100 percent accuracy that I will not be using it. I'm rewriting the article, not the people that previously wrote it. In many cases I added the books, but after going over them, realized that they did not apply to this time-period. Give me some slack, as I am doing serious research on this subject, though if Asif Siddiqi were to start writing (are you viewing this???), then I'd obviously defer to him, Burroughs or Schefter. Otherwise, this article was written by people that couldn't cite works properly, and who's prose was not really ready for prime-time. I have two FA articles under my belt, and I believe I can get this back to FA status. I am asking you to cut me some slack, and not just revert or summarily edit my work. What I really need is copy-editing, because I will always make typos, errors of omission, allusions that aren't in the text, etc..... It might be a week before I spot one of my grammatical or stylistic errors, because as I read the article, I fill in the errors with my own corrected text, even though that is not what is written. If you can correct those kinds of mistakes, I would be most grateful to you.
All the best, Abebenjoe ( talk) 03:48, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Let's try to figure this one out. If von Braun and the ABMA team orbited a satellite in September 1956, the USA would not have felt the need to further compete with the Soviets. The biggest favour the Soviets ever did to the American space program was to beat them, not once, but twice to two important firsts: first artificial satellite, and then the first human in space. If the Americans orbited the first satellite, Korolyov would not have had a leg to stand on, sort of speak, with Mr. K., because the R-7 was almost a year away from its first successful launch. If anything, Yangel would have gained favour, and Alan Shepard likely would have been the first person in space, and the first moon-landing likely would have occurred in the 1980s or even 1990s. The project Apollo that occurred in the 1960s, could not have happened without the public humiliation the United States endured due to Sputnik 1 and Vostok 1. That's why the Space Race would have been over before it began. Also, again contextualizing this with the times, most Westerners didn't consider the Russians to be able to build a proper refrigerator, let alone launch an Earth orbiting satellite when they announced their intentions in 1955. The Americans did not know that Korolyov existed, for if they did, von Braun would have been allowed to have launched a satellite as soon as he could. That's why both his failure to orbit a satellite is crucial, just at Korolyov's ability to manipulate the Soviet system in the late summer of 1955 was so crucial for The Race to actually occur. As you can probably infer, the R-7 was a terrible military rocket, due to the extremely long time it took to prepare it for launch, especially if combat conditions were considered, but it was a superb space launcher, arguably the first and best that has ever existed, as Korolyov intended. So the question remains, how do we project the sense that if von Braun did not launch a rocket into orbit in 1956, that, in effect, the Americans would not have taken the Soviets seriously, because they only did it after them? It is highly unlikely the United States would have put 5% of its annual 1960s budget towards the space program if they were already leading, in some way.
Abebenjoe (
talk) 04:01, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for noticing me, I will clarify. Dominictroc — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dominictroc ( talk • contribs) 06:28, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
I've discussed your recent edits [13] here, feel free to discuss them. Thanks. Phoenix and Winslow ( talk) 14:10, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
I gather you're frustrated by the process at Franklin child prostitution ring allegations. Taking a break from a contentious article is a good idea. I'd note that the article is a good candidate for mediation, which I think could help editors make progress. When you're ready to look at the article again, I suggest pursuing it. Will Beback talk 21:58, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your note. Editors are free to create RfC/Us. However, if a second editor who has tried to resolve the same dispute doesn't endorse it within 48 hours of its creation it will be deleted. While he asserts that the dispute also covers the 9/11 attacks, he doesn't present any evidence so I don't think that's a valid definition. Moving forward, I again suggest mediation. But since that suggestion does not appeal to anyone then there are RfCs. A content RfC deals with a specific question of content while a RFC/U deals with user behavior. There are specific rules at
WP:RFC/U. That may be a logical step in the
dispute resolution process.
Will Beback
talk 23:04, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Just made an interesting discovery. Bryant was never used as a source in the Franklin article until Phoenix and Winslow first introduced him in an edit he made here. Wayne ( talk) 13:24, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Apostle12: On your last TP note to WillBeback, you posted a raw HTML link to what you apparently thought was a Noticeboard comment, when that comment was "item 13" on the page. Archiving and other comments shifted things around (plus your link opened up an edit window!). I lined-thru & corrected the bad link with one pointing to the entire Franklin Noticeboard section (per WP:RTP non-contentious/technical edits), but in the future using a "diff" link is more-precise (and usually preferred). See Diffs & Links for more info. Cheers! — DennisDallas ( talk) 15:44, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
You might like to do a search in the University of California publication: North western reporter; Cases argued and determined in the courts of Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, Wisconsin. I know the 1994 issue has the Owens case so I'm hoping other issues will have reported the other Franklin court cases. Some other info I've found but cant check, the whitehouse callboy scandal is linked but while the Craig Spence page does mention it, the Craig J. Spence article doesn't. The TV show America's Most Wanted did several episodes about the Franklin Scandal and their own investigations confirmed some of the claims made by Owen, Bonacci etc which were passed to the FBI. They eventually dropped the case, according to the shows producer, because it was hurting their relationship with the FBI. The book Congress and Other Cesspools may or may not be a RS but it does provide alternate sources and it carries copies of newspaper articles and interviews with Franklin victims in the chapter "History of political sex scandals". Wayne ( talk) 18:43, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
The conduct of WLRoss ( talk · contribs), currently being discussed at RFCU, is also being discussed here. You may participate if you choose to do so. Phoenix and Winslow ( talk) 16:14, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Just a friendly reminder....not to violate the 3RR rule...
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Franklin child prostitution ring allegations and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
Thanks,
It seems that the Arbitration has been declined. However, I was going through my documents and found an old copy (two years?) of the article from before Bryant was used as a source. It has 20 references including seven for the NYT, one for the W/Post and six for the OWH. As the OWH articles are not online I will need to check them to make sure they match content. The article can be reconstructed pretty much to what it was before the page was deleted. I also did some research into defamation. As long as the source is reporting on a legally constituted investigation or court case, the text is legally protected from defamation (BLP) regardless of what it says. This puts to bed violation of BLP claims. Effectively, defamation doesn't apply to the article as long as the claim is in the source and the source is reporting on the Grand Jury, Bonacci case or Franklin Committee. Wayne ( talk) 09:37, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
I've noticed in a few online venues (Peer-to-peer, Internet Archive) that copies of the documentary have removed and in some cases replaced with at least one different version. Some comments indicate that the newer version has been "watered down." Now I learn that the entire Wikipedia article has been deleted and replaced. Is there any way to communicate privately with people who may know something about that? My questions are mostly unrelated to the Wikipedia article; I found this talk page as part of my independent research. 94.222.190.111 ( talk) 10:29, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
This message is to advise you that the Arbitration Committee has declined a request for arbitration relating to Franklin child prostitution ring allegations, to which you were listed as a party. To read the comments made by individual arbitrators in relation to the request, see here. For the Arbitration Committee, AGK [ • 20:06, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi Apostle, You may or may not be the one to ask but...with some participation/guidance from one or more other active editors, I would like at some point to bring the Oakland article up to GA standards. It has a lot of potential, but also quite a bit of challenges, particularly with article length (there is just too much material in it right now). Any thoughts?-- Chimino ( talk) 23:57, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
None of your sources appear to mention the BPP in connection with the increase in crime. What you've written is original research, and you've been here long enough to know that it's not permitted. — Malik Shabazz Talk/ Stalk 06:05, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
No problem.
—
Malik Shabazz
Talk/
Stalk 01:43, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
For your attention . I have commented on the editors Talk page. Wayne ( talk) 16:49, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi I see you raised similar thoughts to mine on this article some time back. I agree with what you wrote and see that others have made the same observation over time, but to no avail. I don't know if this is OK to do (contacting like-minded individuals to reach a consensus on a contentious article) or if you are still interested? But if it is OK, I wonder if I could ask for your involvement on the discussion page under Article neutrality and accuracy - the introduction [ [16]]-- Mystichumwipe ( talk) 15:36, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
I thought you might get a chuckle out of this. The final line is particularly telling...-- Chimino ( talk) 15:39, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 10:19, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
I noticed you wrote most of this article. It's now listed as an orphan. I added information on the site's transition. Not sure how much of the site is going to be there after the end of the month, so you may want to edit the article now, if ever...-- Beth Wellington ( talk) 19:45, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
In answer to your question on talk, I'd try emailing them at one of their websites or joining a social media and searching. But, there are no leaders. -- HectorMoffet ( talk) 07:13, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
All you need is Love.
SergeWoodzing (
talk) 10:44, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
![]() |
The Copyeditor's Barnstar |
Thanks so much for editing the article on Tamalpais Valley. Much appreciated! Fabrice Florin ( talk) 19:13, 25 March 2012 (UTC) |
Thanks Fabrice!
![]() Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello Apostle12. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click
HERE to participate. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 02:22, 6 April 2012 (UTC) |
Just a note/reminder that Shooting of Trayvon Martin is subject to a 1RR rule, meaning that no more than 1 revert per 24-hour period is permitted. I haven't counted up your edits/reverts, but given how rapidly you're editing, adding, and removing material, please be aware of that restriction. MastCell Talk 21:45, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
![]() |
The Barnstar of Diligence |
Just wanted to thank you for your pushback on the biased editing of The Shooting of Trayvon Martin article (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin). I knew they were full of foolishness when they refused to let the full audio of the witness statements be added to the article.
The pro-Zimmerman slant is appalling. It's fine that people have their personal position, but to omit so many pertinent issues (like Zimmerman's police record, and other things) doesn't provide a balanced view of the situation. I'm disgusted that the editors over there are trying to rewrite history, and I appreciate you standing up to that nonsense. NoamZinn ( talk) 20:13, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
|
Could I ask you to please refrain from gratuitous, off-topic WP:BLP violations like your last sentence here? I get it - you despise Eric Holder, but article talkpages aren't platforms for you to vent your animosity toward him. This isn't the first time this has come up, and it contributes to a more partisan/polarized and less constructive talkpage atmosphere. Can I ask you to work on restraining yourself a bit more? MastCell Talk 19:26, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Secondly, I think you're rather badly misunderstanding the purpose of article talk pages. They are not a venue for you to voice your personal criticism of political figures, no matter how well-founded or relevant you consider your personal viewpoint to be. If an independent, reliable source has criticized Holder in connection to the Trayvon Martin case, then it would be appropriate to discuss that source at Talk:Shooting of Trayvon Martin. It's not helpful to add your personal derogatory opinion of Holder to the mix, and in fact it's a WP:BLP violation.
The "right" way to edit a Wikipedia article is to find the best available reliable sources and accurately reflect their content. The "wrong" way is to start with a bunch of deeply held political/ideological beliefs, hunt around for sources that can be used as a lever to force those beliefs into an article, and then resort to spouting your personal viewpoint on the talkpage when no suitable sources can be found. The more controversial the topic, the more important it is to edit the right way and resist the wrong way. MastCell Talk 20:40, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
I was just wondering if there was a reason why you removed the Twin Lakes photo or if it was just a mistake. You removed it here. Psalm84 ( talk) 04:44, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Hello there. As you expressed interest in hearing updates to my research in the dispute resolution survey that was done a few months ago, I just wanted to let you know that I am hosting an IRC office hours session this coming Saturday, 28th July at 19:00 UTC (approximately 12 hours from now). This will be located in the #wikimedia-office connect IRC channel - if you have not participated in an IRC discussion before you can connect to IRC here.
Regards, User:Szhang (WMF) ( talk) 07:00, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Comments like this, where you insult other editors' contributions, is both petty and uncivil. I could elaborate on my credentials to show how inaccurate it is, but I suspect you were just shooting your mouth off to dissuade me from editing. You've been here long enough that I think you ought to know better by now. Don't do that. — Ƶ§œš¹ [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ] 22:19, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi Apostle. Going to be honest: the flat reversion of my edits on the COINTELPRO article made me not want to continue working on it at all. I was frustrated to see that neither you nor Kafziel made any changes to it after all that smoke over the POV tag. The article really could be a lot better, and I recognize that most of the work to be done is on 1945–1970; however, as you know, "COINTELPRO" is simply one name that was applied to work that the FBI was doing long before. So maybe we could more accurately restore some of that intro text in a "background" section. Regardless, I hope we can both do some good work on the rest of the article. Peace, groupuscule ( talk) 20:58, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.
In this issue:
--The Olive Branch 18:49, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
I hadn't realized that the New York Times fact checked its letters, but it appears that they do. Thanks for setting me straight. Francis Bond ( talk) 00:35, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi,
I would like to cordially discuss your recent edits to the article White privilege on the talk page: Dispute over "alleged" and other mitigation language.
Looking forward to an exciting and productive discussion!
UseTheCommandLine ( talk) 06:44, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at White privilege shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Legoktm ( talk) 07:59, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we request your participation in the discussion to help find a resolution. The thread is " Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#White Privilege". Thank you! EarwigBot operator / talk 20:59, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
If you want to explain why you felt that my recent edit to white privilege deserved the response that you gave on my talk page, I would like to listen. FWIW my thinking was that since other users are more likely to object to "comprised of" than "comprising" and you seemed to think that it was wrong to simply say "groups of people of color", I would make an edit that avoided "comprised of" while still including a conjugation of "comprise". I saw it as a win–win; I assure you that I meant no offense.
Anyway, the main reason I am posting here was to let you know that I felt surprised and hurt when you called me a "jerk" and said I was passive–aggressive on my Talk page. I would like you to approach me as one of your fellow editors, here to join you in making the best encyclopedia we can. I would also like you to keep conversation in Talk:white_privilege focused on topics related to improving the article as opposed to making it about me. I have found that when I reach out to my fellow editors in a spirit of compromise, amazing things can happen; I hope you have the same experience, if you have not already.
-- Marie Paradox ( talk) 06:51, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
The issue here is not "comprised" or "comprised of."
I reject the terms "reverse discrimination" and "reverse racism." There is only "discrimination based on race" and "racism;" as a multi-racial person, I am opposed to both.
In my opinion, Groupuscule's defense of Marie Paradox's previous use of "white people head-up-the-ass syndrome" as "an empirical reality symptomatic of white privilege" is as indefensibly racist as her original comment.
I have noticed that self-described "people of color" often attempt to give themselves a pass when it comes to embracing racism. I reject such attempts.
When I am being polite, I call people who embrace racism "jerks." Apostle12 ( talk) 17:05, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Hello. It appears that you have been
canvassing—leaving messages on biased users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote—in order to influence
White privilege. While
friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are
indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain
point of view or side of a debate, or which are
selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of
consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Your invitations have the appearance of canvassing to me because of the expressed viewpoints of the users you targeted, the nature of their contributions to the article (one of the three had been temporarily banned for a
3RR violation, and another had contributed little to the talk page besides an assumption of bad faith, and none had made significant use of the talk page as a means to find consensus), and the way you presented recent disputes to them. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Marie Paradox (
talk •
contribs) 07:47, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
PLEASE END THIS TIRESOME DISCUSSION. I AM LITERALLY SICK OF THE ENDLESS ACCUSATIONS AND INSINCERITY OF THE EDITORS INVOLVED. LEAVE ME ALONE. YOU WIN. I WILL NOT REVISIT "WHITE PRIVILEGE" SO DO WHATEVER THE HELL YOU WANT WITH THE ARTICLE!!!!
ANY SUBSEQUENT COMMENTS WILL BE SUMMARILY DELETED. Apostle12 ( talk) 07:58, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
While I only mentioned you in passing, and my intent was mainly to request help in dealing with the new/ip editors from today at White privilege, i think that because I mentioned you and potential issues with WP:CAN, I should post the following notice, as required at WP:AN/I
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UseTheCommandLine ( talk • contribs) 03:18, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Hello, Apostle12. Please be aware that a user conduct request for comment has been filed concerning your conduct on Wikipedia. The RFC entry is located at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Apostle12, where you may want to participate. UseTheCommandLine ( talk) 21:48, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for the notification. Apostle12 ( talk) 08:59, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
I apologize for the lateness of my reply. I haven't signed into Wiki for a while. I appreciate your reply on my profile page. I guess the whole thing seemed so important, so elaborate that I felt the article lacked enough explanation to make it...for the lack of better words, make enough sense to justify the magnitude of what they had done. Thank you for sharing the link on the radio program. I am listening now. I would love to know more about why MKUltra happened. It was so extreme in its methods, and some of the accusations are pretty devastating and alarming that I feel that there is a great deal more behind this whole issue than we have yet been made aware of, as to why they did this so drastically, so brutally. Likely, they knew (or suspected) that foreign governments had similar projects underway. I am not sure, but I wish I knew more about this and I hope that more is yet exposed.
Greg. Neurolanis ( talk) 22:28, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we are requesting your participation to help find a resolution. The discussion is about the topic Huey P. Newton.
Please take a moment to review the simple guide and join the discussion. Thank you! CarrieVS ( talk) 11:15, 2 February 2013 (UTC) Hi. I'm a volunteer at WP:DRN. I've posed a couple of questions for you at Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Huey_P._Newton.2C_Talk:Huey_P._Newton. If you could reply, that would help the case get resolved. Thanks. -- Noleander ( talk) 17:58, 5 February 2013 (UTC) Statements on Talk:Huey P. NewtonHello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. -- UseTheCommandLine ( talk) 05:33, 10 February 2013 (UTC) Behavior at Talk:Huey P. Newtonjust so you know, i interpret the following [17] [18] as personal attacks, schoolyard though they may be. Please do not expect me to tolerate hostility of any kind. You may perceive me as "dogging" you, but I have found little willingness on your part to compromise despite many extensive conversations about content issues. As has been so often the case, we often find ourselves at an impasse, which gives me little recourse other than to ask questions about policy simply because I do not know myself how to proceed. -- UseTheCommandLine ( talk) 19:28, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
My reading of WP:LAWYER is that a wikilawyer is one who quotes policy out of context, or uses it as a cudgel. I have asked for clarification. In fact, I stated that if you would not ask for clarification of the policy, I would. That does not seem to me like wikilawyering, unless one interprets "having policy discussions in a way that prevents me from immediately making my preferred changes" as "wikilawyering". Contentious changes, as you seem to be fond of making, to my mind require high degree of discussion and reference to policy, which you appear not to be fond of. Characterizing opposition to one's changes based on existing policy as wikilawyering actually, to my mind, creeps up to the line of violating WP:AGF, as the term itself would seem to imply bad-faith. For the record, the reason I asked for clarification, and urged you to do so, is because i was suspicious of Amadscientist's clear declaration, and thought that if that were the existing policy, that it might need to be changed. That interpretation does seem like it would be needlessly restrictive. And in case it needs to be restated, I am perfectly happy to work with you at any point, should you decide that you wish to do so. -- UseTheCommandLine ( talk) 23:02, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
You have been edit warring at Oakland, California for quite a long time. I have seen your attempt to resolve the issue on the talk page, but that does not make edit warring acceptable. JamesBWatson ( talk) 09:19, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
We have been trying to summarize some of the sections that were previously laden with too many details, while still retaining a historical perspective. You have to look at the whole paragraph in context and not just single out that one sentence. The sentence before the one about the "reports" of break-ins, specifically states that "crimes committed included eight burglaries, nine thefts, and one shooting". So, we are telling the reader that there were crimes committed in that neighborhood, and not just "reports". The incident of the home invasion that was referenced in that paragraph doesn't say that Zimmerman called the police or that he witnessed anything. It doesn't make any sense to single out just one of the many crimes that were committed and include it, when we don't know if this specific crime had any bearing on Zimmerman's decision the night he observed Martin, and the RS isn't making that connection either between this one single crime and Zimmerman's suspicion of Martin the night of the shooting. Zimmerman wasn't suspicious of Martin because of this one incident, but rather the cumulative effect of all the crimes being committed in the neighborhood, and that is what the RS is making it's point about, "the atmosphere of growing fear in the neighborhood". It's like the lady said that was interviewed for this article: "There were black boys robbing houses in this neighborhood," she said. "That's why George was suspicious of Trayvon Martin." Furthermore, we have entered the trial phase of this incident and you can bet that the defense will bring up the previous crimes being committed in this neighborhood as part of their defense strategy to justify Zimmerman's suspicion of Martin, and that will be included along with the rest of his defense of his actions that night.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 06:31, 11 March 2013 (UTC) Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. MastCell Talk 17:43, 8 April 2013 (UTC) The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions (information on which is at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions) on any editor who is active on pages broadly related to Race and intelligence. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, satisfy any standard of behavior, or follow any normal editorial process. If you continue to misconduct yourself on pages relating to this topic, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The Committee's full decision can be read at the " Final decision" section of the decision page. Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, with the appropriate sections of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures, and with the case decision page before making any further edits to the pages in question. This notice is given by an uninvolved administrator and will be logged on the case decision, pursuant to the conditions of the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions system. This relates to the ANI discussion concerning you, which is about conduct by you that is within the scope of the discretionary sanctions provision at WP:ARBR&I#Editors reminded and discretionary sanctions (amended), that is, "the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour, broadly construed". Notably, you may be sanctioned under that provision if you conduct yourself contrary to the principle enunciated at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Noleander#Bias and prejudice. Sandstein 10:55, 9 April 2013 (UTC) I have filed a request for arbitration enforcement regarding an edit you made to Black Panther Party, "restoring" content that was extremely contentious when it was used over at Huey P. Newton. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/ talk ] # _ 06:34, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/ talk ] # _ 05:20, 25 April 2013 (UTC) You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Race and politics, Apostle12 and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use— Thanks, -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/ talk ] # _ 17:47, 3 May 2013 (UTC) Hi, Apostle12. I'm an arbitration clerk, which means I help manage and administer the arbitration process (on behalf of the committee). Thank you for making a statement in an arbitration request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Race and politics, Apostle12. However, we ask all participants and commentators to limit the size of their initial statements to 500 words. Your statement significantly exceeds this limit. Please reduce the length of your statement when you are next online. If the case is accepted, you will have the opportunity to present more evidence; and concise, factual statements are much more likely to be understood and to influence the decisions of the Arbitrators. For the Arbitration Committee, Ks0stm ( T• C• G• E) 09:30, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
It occurs to me, I actually don't know which gender pronoun you prefer. For a while i tried very hard to use "their" when referring to someone whose gender I did not have a clear indication of, but I guess I saw so many other folks refer to you as "he" that i dropped my guard. I apologize for the oversight. Do you prefer others to use specific pronouns when referring to you? If so, which ones? -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/ talk ] # _ 08:23, 9 May 2013 (UTC) Hi. In your statement as it currently stands, at the fourteenth paragraph (if you discount the collapsed, hidden content), you say "I have been the first to edit these articles in defense of vandalism, racist attacks or other distortions that discredit those involved". Unless you meant you were defending the actual racist edits or vandalism, I think you meant to say "in order to defend against vandalism, […]". Also, please add a signature to your statement, so that readers can navigate to your userpage (and then to your contributions) more easily. Thanks! AGK [•] 23:18, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
An arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and politics. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and politics/Evidence. Please add your evidence by May 21, 2013, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and politics/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Ks0stm ( T• C• G• E) 01:48, 14 May 2013 (UTC) But I did see your recent edits at the help desk. From my perspective, it would be far better if you were to change whatever behavior ArbCom agrees is problematic (if any) than if you were to leave entirely. It would also be better (from my perspective) if you were to provide greater detail for whatever criticisms of my (or others') behavior that you do have. My goal is not to see you gone, but to bring these issues to the community for resolution, and my behavior is just as much in question as yours here. I am sorry that it has come to this. It has been a drain on my own editing and psyche just as it has been on yours. For whatever it's worth, I have some ideas for addressing what I see as failures of the current dispute resolution model on WP; although I believe in the value and model of WP, I also think the mechanisms for settling disputes do need work, and from my perspective they have failed you just as much as they have me. I can even imagine a time where we both might work productively on such a project, perhaps. In looking at your edit history I have noticed you make references to children and grandchildren, and an active family life. If you do leave, I hope that doing so gives you more time to spend with those close to you, and to tell your stories in a way that is more accepted and appreciated. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/ talk ] # _ 02:12, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Apostle12 ( talk) 08:31, 17 May 2013 (UTC) Hello, Apostle12. Thank you for your recent submission of evidence for the Race and politics Arbitration case. As you may be aware, the Arbitration Committee asks that users submitting evidence in cases adhere to limits regarding the length of their submissions. These limits, currently at 1000 words and 100 diffs for parties and 500 words and 50 diffs for all others, are in place to ensure that the Arbitration Committee receives only the most important information relevant to the case, and is able to determine an appropriate course of action in a reasonable amount of time. The evidence you have submitted currently exceeds at least one of these limits, and is presently at 1573 words and 22 diffs. Please try to reduce the length of your submission to fit within these limits; this guide may be able to provide some help in doing so. If the length of your evidence is not reduced soon, it may be refactored or removed by a human clerk within a few days. Thank you! If you have any questions or concerns regarding the case, please contact the drafting Arbitrator or case clerk (who are listed on the case pages); if you have any questions or concerns about this bot, please contact the operator. On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Hersfold ArbClerkBOT( talk) 06:00, 21 May 2013 (UTC) Motion regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and politicsResolved by motion:
For the Arbitration Committee, Ks0stm ( T• C• G• E) 02:28, 26 May 2013 (UTC) Reminder:Dear Apostle12, I have been asked to remind you that if you do not return to participate in the arbitration case by 25 July 2013, you will be topic banned and the case closed inline with point 3 of the above motion. For the Arbitration Committee Seddon talk 20:41, 18 July 2013 (UTC) The suspended arbitration case regarding Race and politics has now closed in accordance with the motion for suspension and closure. The following remedies have been enacted:
For the Arbitration Committee, Ks0stm ( T• C• G• E) 20:18, 26 July 2013 (UTC) A case ( September 11 conspiracy theories) in which you were involved has been modified by motion which changed the wording of the discretionary sanctions section to clarify that the scope applies to pages, not just articles. For the arbitration committee -- S Philbrick (Talk) 19:19, 27 October 2014 (UTC) Hi,
|
You removed reference to Rosebud's killing because you suggest it had nothing to do with the Park, yet Park activists blamed Chancellor Tien for allowing the University to go ahead with construction plans (volleyball court, etc.). Rosebud was one of many outspoken critics of Tien. Her being in his house with a machete was directly related to people's park, far from having "nothing" to do with it. stan goldsmith 04:16, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Your points don't make sense. On the one hand you suggest that she "links herself" to the activists and on the other you say she had nothing to do with the park besides being crazy. As a person who knew her I can say that she was instrumental in organizing protests about the park and a major player in the protest movement surrounding the park in the early 90s.
Using your logic one can say: well the marches and riots in the 60's were just crazy people running amok for no reason, just because they were near People's Park or "linked themselves" with park activists doesn't mean anything.
What is the difference between linking yourself with a movement and being a part of it? And where do you get your information that she was "imbalanced" - this seems like a pretty heavy judgement call on your part. Same goes for the rest of the park activists, many of whom were and are still Berkeley students, many of whom are active in the Berkeley government and run businesses in the city, far from being crazed lunatics who think that the cops are satan. They have a purpose and your removal of that purpose diminishes them to something that you can assert your power over, i.e. nothing more than crazy people.
If you want to maintain that you are being neutral you are just kidding yourself. stan goldsmith 20:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
You removed the Robert Altman (photographer) pictures from the Hippy article. Permission to use this copyrighted work in Wikipedia articles were granted by Robert Altman, on September 3, 2006. Do you have information which superceeds that? -- Salix alba ( talk) 00:33, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, Apostle; I was beginning to think I was the only one in the discussion besides our aristo friend the Bus Stop! -- Orange Mike 19:25, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Hey there -- got your note. See the discussion of People's Park to see some examples I pointed out. Maybe that will help, and we can start an ongoing dialog on how to bring this page up to par! Thanks
Guess I'm dense, but I do not understand why you consider parts of my ediing as biased: in my mind (probably the problem!!), many of the people involved in the "Bloody Thursday" incident were upset and confused. about why the police had fenced the park. People gathered in Sproul Plaza to find out what was going on, and to share their feelings of confusion. So I think of them as 'citizens' and not 'protestors' because they were peaceably exercising their Constitutional right to assemble. When Dan Siegel spoke he was not inciting people to protest -- he was saying that the citizens should go to the park.
As I understand 'loaded' words (I'm thinking of S.I. Hayakawa's Language in Thought and Action here), 'citizen' is more value-neutral than 'protestors,' a term that suggests a purpose not necessarily inherent in their actions. Also, I am puzzled by your comment that I 'insist' on injecting bias. In my mind, I was suggesting alternative, less loaded language.
I think the article on People's Park is much stronger these days: more info and overall, more objective. I was initially thrown off by the assertion that Mike Delacour was the Father of People's Park. I have never seen that in print, and from my recollection he was considered a poseur, so thought I'd throw in my own recollections as well. I'm actually really pleased with the current article. As a young eyewitness to these events, I was aware at the time that I did not fully understand what was going on, but I knew it was quite a story!! The current version seems much closer to reality, imho.
only onther question: why is there no link to Rabbi Michael Lerner? (it's the same guy). Pepkoka
Apostle12 -- In the "Hippie" article there is no source to back up the assertion that "Hippie opposition to The Establishment spread worldwide through..." That is a broad, sweeping statement. I don't think it should be made at all. I tried previously to change that statement to a lesser statement. I just wanted it to say something to the effect that the "culture," or the "philosophy," of the Hippies was expressed, or "spread," through the various means cited. But it has been changed back to "Hippie opposition to The Establishment spread worldwide through..." Again: I don't think such a grandiose claim should be made here. But if you are going to make that claim, it needs a source.
I have additional problems with the use of the term "visual art." I don't think it is the correct term to be used here. That phrase includes much more than what is implied here, or what is provided with a source here. A narrower term or phrase is called for, so as not to create the misleading impression that hippie culture had much of a bearing on "contemporary art," because it did not.
All that I am saying is in reference to the following two sentences, which I take objection to:
Hippie opposition to The Establishment spread worldwide through a fusion of early rock, folk, blues and psychedelic rock. To a lesser degree, hippie culture was expressed in literature, [11] the dramatic arts, [12] and many aspects of the visual arts, especially film, [13] posters advertising rock concerts, and LP album covers. [14] [15] Bus stop 19:28, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Please take it to the Talk page if you really need to debate this assertion. edgarde 05:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Good job on your latest edits to the hippie article concerning the music scene. You are really dealing with a brand new article, a subpage of psychedelic music. There's no immediate hurry, but I would start contemplating the creation of a new article (I can help out with the correct name if you want), and adding a summary paragraph or two to the hippie article with a link to the main topic. Again, nice work. — Viriditas | Talk 12:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi. Yes, I think we need to source everything in the article (it's policy, see WP:ATT), and if we don't, someone else will request it; it's the only way the article will ever meet featured article status. Ideally, the lead section should already reflect sourced material in the body of the article. — Viriditas | Talk 10:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
You have to be kidding? Please look at the talk page for why the hippie article is POV, and it's because it is US centred, as has been made clear. We are an international and not a US encycliopedia, yet the article still reads as if it were part of a US encyclopedia after the many changes I have made. SqueakBox 20:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
All the issues that have been raised on the talk page have been addressed as they came up. All sourced material regarding global hippiedom has been added. Please add more if you wish; it will be welcomed. Apostle12 22:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
But your aggressive comments on my talk page are not welcome. The issues are being raised on the talk page though unfortunately Viritidas is being so aggressive it makes it very hard for long time editors like Codex and myself to participate. i suggest you criticise his false allegations before starting to attack me, SqueakBox 03:38, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
In response to the comment you left on my talk page, I did not remove a single thing from the Hippie article. I corrected the formatting and improved the wording and order of the first section. In fact I even added content, such as the alternate spelling. I organized similar topics together instead of having them scatttered somewhat randomly, and I moved the footnotes to the ends of sentences, as per proper formatting style. Spylab 20:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
The alternate spelling was not in the first sentence before I added it. [1]
It was only buried much, much lower in the article, but it must be in the first sentence, because that's how many people spell the word. I absolutely did not delete the concept of interactive development of the hippie ethos on both sides of the Atlantic. I moved it so it was next to other sentences about that same topic. I'll paste it here in case you don't want to read the actual article:
By 1968, self-described hippies had become a significant minority, representing just under 0.2 percent of the U.S. population.[10] The hippie culture spread worldwide through a fusion of rock music, folk, blues, and psychedelic rock. The hippie ethos influenced the The Beatles and others in the United Kingdom and Europe, and they in turn influenced their American counterparts.[11][12] [13] Hippie culture also found expression in literature, the dramatic arts, and the visual arts, including film, posters advertising rock concerts, and album covers.[14][15] [16] [17][18] Eventually the hippie movement extended far beyond the United States, the United Kingdom and Europe, appearing in Australia, New Zealand, Japan, Mexico, Brazil and many other countries.[19] [20] [21] [22].
I also did not add any statement that the term was used sarcastically. Some other editor did that. I suggest you actually read the section and pay attention to who is actually making specific edits, and not to revert the first section to a lesser-quality version that is full of formatting errors, disorganization, and poor, unclear writing style. For example, your preferred version of the first sentence:
Hippie or Hippy refers to a subgroup of the 1960s and early 1970s counterculture that found its earliest beginnings in the United States, becoming an established social group by 1965 before declining during the mid-1970s.
is grammatically incorrect, sloppy and very confusing. However, my version:
A hippie (sometimes spelled hippy) is a member of a specific subculture (often described as a counterculture), that began in the United States in the 1960s, spread to other countries, and declined in the mid-1970s.
is grammatically correct, more clear, and says what your version is actually trying to say. Also, footnotes belong at the ends of sentences and topics should have some kind of organization and logical flow, instead of just plopped on the page in a somewhat random fashion. Spylab 10:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
I responded on talk about including the tune. If you can find a good cite or two that does not self-reference Wikipedia, we can add it back in. I'll keep looking, too. — Viriditas | Talk 20:33, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm sure you've met Diamond Dave (no not David Lee Roth, but the SF Diamond Dave) and are familiar with his claim that he turned Dylan on; Any idea if it is true or not? If you haven't met DD, you really should. Interesting character. — Viriditas | Talk 09:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Hey, I forgot to tell you some time ago that I agree with the changes you proposed on the talk page for WP:OWN. If you have any interest in revisiting this issue, let me know as I would like to help you add them to the policy page. — Viriditas | Talk 07:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Although I would like to work with you to elevate Hippie to FA status, I think we should bring it to GA, first. Please take a look at WP:GA so you can see what needs to be done. Let's get this show on the road. — Viriditas | Talk 05:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Hippies regularly flouted societal prohibitions against interracial dating and marriage.
They were early advocates for the repeal of anti-miscegenation laws that the Supreme Court of the United States declared unconstitutional in 1967 (Loving v. Virginia), but which remained on the books in some U.S. states until 2000, albeit unenforced.
With their emphasis on Free Love, hippies promoted many of the same counterculture beliefs that found early expression in the Beat Generation.
Co-habitation among unmarried couples was the norm,
open relationships were common,
and both Beats and Hippies advocated for legal and societal acceptance of most forms of consensual sexual expression among adults.
With regard to homosexuality and bisexuality, the Beats had demonstrated early tolerance during an era when homosexual expression of any sort was still punishable by stiff prison sentences.
Hippies generally espoused the same tolerant attitude. Many hippies, as in the movie Woodstock and the photo were casual about open nudity.
What on earth is the problem with this photo? It's been up for years with no objection whatsoever?
Seems overzealous to tag it. However, please inform how tag can be removed, as it would be a shame to lose it. Apostle12 15:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Sfan00 IMG 15:33, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
is it true Hippies rejected established institutions, criticized middle class values, opposed nuclear weapons, opposed the Vietnam War, and promoted the use of psychedelic drugs to expand one's consciousness. why don't these prove that hippies were against a lot of things the U.S. government were for. Were not hippies against the U.S. government. If hippies sold out they would become like all other americans? Some hippies did use violence.
Vietnam: There was never a declared war between the U.S government and Vietnam. The war was between the two Vietnams. Didn't hippies protest U.S involvement in Vietnam and not Vietnam fighting Vietnam. The hippies were protesting the U.S.'s involvement. not the war. VIETNAM CONFLICT.
Drugs: weren't the drugs hippies used illegal.
Hi, I see you removed the link to 'The Franklin Coverup'. The thing is that the article about John DeCamp also links to it, so I'm not sure why you feel it is wrong. Do you feel that the John DeCamp article also wrong? Or is it that you feel that the link to 'The Franklin Coverup' shouldn't redirect to The Franklin Coverup hoax? There seems to be extensive discussion of if it really was a hoax on Franklin Coverup Hoax. so I would say leave the link in and let people decide for themselves. -- Shimbo 10:22, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I would submit that linking DeCamp's book title 'The Franklin Coverup' to an article called 'Franklin Coverup Hoax' is also inappropriate. DeCamp certainly does NOT consider it a hoax, and the evidence he provides is rather convincing. The fact that some consider it a hoax might be mentioned, but letting people decide for themselves would involve mentioning the title of DeCamp's book without direct prejudice. Apostle12 07:13, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
You're right, as I added a subsequent talk page comment that explained its removal, here. Do you think a separate section, branching out to a new article, say Culture of the Hippies is required? I think it may be a good idea. — Viriditas | Talk 20:53, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
During the 1930s and 40s, the dunes were the home of a group of free thinking people including mystics, nudists, artists, writers, and hermits who identified themselves collectively as the "Dunites." Among other activities, the group published a magazine, which they called The Dune Forum. The Dunites believed that Oceano Dunes was one of the centers of creative energy in California. [3]
Here's what I think: the hippies have always been here. Call them whatever you want, bohemians, Der Wandervogel, beatniks, whatever. I think we need to view them as part of a greater community of free-thinkers spanning millenia rather than as an isolated phenomenon in one decade. Obviously, each generation will express this joie de vivre in the language and clothing of their time but the underlying ideas remain the same. — Viriditas | Talk 08:23, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I have a reference to École nationale de cirque being related to the hippie movement in some way, either attracting hippies or being influenced by hippies. Do you have any information about this? Now, wouldn't that look great in the legacy section! — Viriditas | Talk 07:24, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. — Viriditas | Talk 03:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
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. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the
Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button
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) 02:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
In addition to Haight-Ashbury, Barry Miles lists the following hippie communities in his book, Hippie (2004):
I'm wondering if you can help add a brief mention of them to the Hippie article and expand upon them in History of the hippie movement. Thanks. — Viriditas | Talk 05:56, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi,
you might want to look at the list I (we) are compiling at: Talk:9/11#NPOV / missing_facts. I appreciate any addition or criticism you can make. — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 14:05, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
In your recent attempt to move Franklin coverup hoax to Franklin child abuse allegations, you somehow managed to delete the article instead. I suggest you ask for help on WP:RM, since an administrator will have to complete the move now. In the meantime, I restored the text at the original title. -- Russ (talk) 14:33, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi Apostle12. Thanks for the good additions to the MKULTRA article, but making so many different edits makes it difficult for people to follow changes. Editing a version of the page in a sandbox in your own userspace might work best for you. Bartleby ( talk) 15:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the sympathy :D I never intended to come back to this issue, but there it was and I couldn't help myself. This time I have no illusions. The editor who proposed the change this time is relatively new, like I was when I did it. I got involved initially just to give him some moral support because I expected him to get the same drubbing that I got. Fortunately, whether we win or lose this time, the bullying tactics are much less intense, so hopefully he won't be dissuaded from going on to become the great editor which I believe he will be. ireneshusband (talk) 08:20, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi Apostle12, are you interested in looking into the npov debate which is on Talk:9/11#Heart of NPOV (3) ? — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 14:18, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
I'll reply at my page. Good idea. — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 21:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
9/11 conspiracy theories. Note that the
three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the
three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be
blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a
consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue
dispute resolution.
Ice Cold Beer (
talk) 06:11, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Please do not revert-war anymore, Apostle12 ! Revert only once, and take it to talk after that. I have a question for you: you wrote on the talk page: "actually it was another editor who originally added it; I only restored it" — I cannot find that edit, can you provide a link or a timestamp for me? Thanks ! — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 23:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Dear Apostle12,
I would welcome any improvements you could make to my proposal at Talk:9/11#Norman Mineta testimony issue ! — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 06:49, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Would it not be better to give an example of a notable subgroup, who do so? E.g. pilots for 911 truth, perhaps?? I am not sure !! — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 23:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Your comments on those pages are not helpful. Wikipedia talk pages are for improving articles not discussing personal political or other opinions that are marginally related to a topic. JoshuaZ ( talk) 04:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Dear Apostle12,
At Talk:9/11#defining consensus I started a survey to get a better picture on how editor's opinions are varying with respect to the following statement:
I would appreciate it when you could take a look. — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 17:09, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I have named you as an involved party at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#9/11 conspiracy theories. Ice Cold Beer ( talk) 22:19, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page.
For the Arbitration Committee, AGK § 19:27, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. Further to this, any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, "impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict (defined as articles which relate to the events of September 11, broadly interpreted) if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process." The full remedy is located here.
For the Arbitration Committee, Anthøny 15:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi. Please take a minute to read WP:SOCK#LEGIT and Wikipedia:Username_policy#Using_multiple_accounts. Most users who use alternate accounts will label the primary account with {{ User Alt Acct Master}} and the secondary account with {{ User Alternate Acct }}. Viriditas ( talk) 08:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
By February 1966, the Family Dog became Family Dog Productions under organizer Chet Helms, promoting happenings at the Avalon Ballroom and the Fillmore Auditorium in initial cooperation with Bill Graham. The Avalon Ballroom, the Fillmore Auditorium and other venues provided settings where participants could partake of the full psychedelic music experience. Bill Ham, who had pioneered the original Red Dog light shows, perfected his art of liquid light projection, which combined light shows and film projection and became synonymous with the San Francisco ballroom experience.
I'm not threatening to delete again immediately, but in general, I certainly will delete again until the editors of this page get their collective act together. Did you read Talk? I mentioned explicitly that the source is spurious. I will certainly re-delete that passgae in 24 hours, unless the sourcing is corrected.. and will continue to check for more substandard sourcing. I will also copy these remarks to article Talk. Ling.Nut ( talk— WP:3IAR) 04:00, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi Apostle12. The facts may have been well-documented... somewhere.. but they are very poorly documented in the article.. in fact, they are not documented at all. Have you ever written a research paper? The shoddy nature of the refs I deleted is... as obvious as could be. But I'm getting nowhere with you folks; I'm just gonna start checking everything. No more deletions, no more talk, just fact checking. Then when the fact checking is done we'll return to other things... Ling.Nut ( talk— WP:3IAR) 22:13, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi,
Regards this edit, could you discuss please?
The undo also reveerted the formatting of some bare links into citation templates. Thanks, WLU (t) (c) (rules - simple rules) 19:57, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Undent. I revisited my talk page recently and wanted to make sure this was addressed - did you want further changes to the page, or are you OK with what's there now? I think the current wording is adequate. 00:08, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Hola,
This is what makes me suspect it's a sockpuppet. User:Raorino is a sockpuppet of the indef-blocked User:ResearchEditor, per this RFCU diff. I could do a diff-by-diff comparison if you'd like, but it should be pretty easy to see.
My total objections are "some claim" is weaselly, the single sentence is weak, doesn't say much, does not elaborate. Carol Rutz, if you look into her claims, is pretty nutty fringe stuff. I did a bit of research on her a while ago. The statement is also not justified by the news.com story, which mentions children exactly twice, nonspecifically, about non-crimes (testing acid on them - not called a crime in the news story, makes it WP:OR in my mind). Fidelity Publishing appears to be vanity press - check out who wrote "A Nation Betrayed" and who the contact person is for Fidelity [9]. that makes it self-published as far as I'm concerned and therefore a nonsource. Also, have a look at the Secret Weapons summary. That looks pretty WP:FRINGE for me, not by a well-respected publisher in my mind. And my overall largest objection, even were it not a run-around of an indef block, would be that even such a tiny, pointless sentence is simply undue weight on essentially Carol Rutz' opinion, with no real merit, evidence or respectable sourcing. What do you think? It's an extraordinary weak and vague claim sourced to sources that I don't have a lot of respect for, topped off by an edit by a blocked editor with the same POV and the really nutty sources sanitized. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 00:05, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Hello. I took the liberty of undoing your reverts of "O.R." on the Peoples Park article here: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=People%27s_Park&curid=532547&diff=274880476&oldid=274621138 as I see it that it is a matter of interpretation of what is seen in the references. I appreciate your efforts in contribution to the article. Care to discuss your views ? Peace, rkmlai ( talk) 09:35, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
I actually felt that that last edit http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=People%27s_Park&curid=532547&diff=279666342&oldid=279658325, before you reverted it, was ok, except the "herded" part. Would you be willing to reconsider it as a compromise ? Peace, rkmlai ( talk) 21:17, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
This is what I found. "There were a couple of families whose wishes were that the mayor not speak," said Dellums spokesman Paul Rose. "And the mayor adhered to their wishes." [11] Geo8rge ( talk) 17:00, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Please help bring hippie to Good Article standards. For an example of what a good article looks like, please see Brook Farm. Viriditas ( talk) 03:12, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
There is no original research in Hippie article, but finding information with respect to Australia, NZ and Canada is more difficult than you can imagine.
A lot of material is either not on the web, or so obscure that even finding its name is difficult
For Australia, the task is equally as bad.
For Canada, separating the imperially imposed US hippie culture from the locally evolved one is difficult -- as the border was very porous at the time.
Remember, I am trying to put what applicable stuff I do know in hopes of others posting cited material.
The US hippie culture (much like the US as an imperial power) has the tendency to exterminate the locally evolved equivalents.
I know some Hungarians (where one of them lived in the USSR for a while at Uni) -- and they knew of no hippie culture in the whole of Eastern Europe or the USSR. However, the lack of this culture in the USSR and Eastern Block is poorly documented on the web. Yet, any Eastern European historian (including the most totally incompetent and out of touch ones) will tell you that the hippie movement did not exist there.
If you can place some tags in this article to request selective deemphasis of the US content, that would be nice. I don't know all the tags for doing this. As things stand now, the jackboot of the US hippie culture content is crushing any attempts to cover the movement's global evolution.
Hi,
Regards your recent edits to MKULtra, I'm a big fan of citation templates, which includes a {{ cite news}} option for newspapers. The reasons I've seen for including them include standardizing pages to a uniform citation, and also to help readers of print versions access the sources the page is based on. If you were citing pubmed articles I'd point to diberri's template generator, and if you work with books a lot, it has a version for ISBNs that works quite well [ [12]. Just thought I'd mention it. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 16:40, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Dear Apostle12,
I am looking for Wikipedia contributors in the San Francisco area to interview on camera on Thursday, June 25th. If you are potentially interested in doing this, please contact me.
Thanks.
Lookingforcontributors ( talk) 18:20, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
I screwed up in trying to fix someone's fix of someone's fix at the BART shooting article. Funny stuff. Thanks and nice catch! Cptnono ( talk) 05:45, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I'm chasing down a citation that you added to this article on 31 Oct 2008, that reads http://utip.gov.utexas.edu/jg/archive/2000/crimesoimmense.pdf I've never been able to locate the source, and all I get from Google is all the plagiarized stuff on other sites. Can you help me put a good citation in its place?, MTIA, PeterWD ( talk) 14:46, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi, not sure what to do about him, but I reverted to the earlier version of the sub-topic since although perhaps he made it more readable, he also as far as I can tell made it less accurate. My guess is that he either eventually will get himself blocked, or will learn to edit properly. In the meantime we will have to clean up after him. Please keep up the good work.-- Stor stark7 Speak 23:02, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Your edits to the "Operation Paperclip" article during the past day truly were over-the-top. They probably constituted the most disruptive editing I have ever seen on Wikipedia--you obviously have an axe to grind, you introduced extensive O.R., and your prose is nearly impossible to read. I will be taking the necessary steps to get you blocked until you can constructively engage with the other editors. Meanwhile your edits have been reverted. Please abstain from doing further damage to this, and other, articles. Apostle12 ( talk) 05:41, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Please explain why you restored the information regarding Kennedy's conflicts with the CIA to the Operation Northwoods article.
I posted in the talk page on December 9, 2009, that Northwoods was not a CIA plan, and thus Kennedy's conflicts with the CIA were almost certainly the result of the ill-conceived Bay of Pigs plan, not Northwoods. That post has been met with utter silence for over a month, so I went ahead and deleted the section on the CIA.
If you disagree with my assertion, please explain the relevance of the CIA to Northwoods in the talk page. I'm not even sure what you disagree with: are you saying Northwoods was a CIA plan (in contradiction to everything the article currently says), or that Northwoods was somehow relevant to Kennedy's purge of the CIA even though the Joint Chiefs submitted the plan?
The only connection I see between the CIA and Northwoods is that Lemnitzer suggested using a duplicate of a CIA plane to stage a fake shootdown of an airliner by Cuba. Are we seriously saying that Kennedy was thinking: "Lemnitzer suggested using a CIA plane for an illegal and unethical plan; that's one more reason to fire the leadership of the CIA?"
Pirate Dan ( talk) 14:29, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
I restored the following paragraph:
"Kennedy also took steps to bring discipline to the CIA's Cold War and paramilitary operations by drafting a National Security Action Memorandum (NSAM) which called for the shift of Cold War operations to the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the U.S. Department of Defense as well as a major change in the role of the CIA to exclusively deal in intelligence gathering. Kennedy was notably unpopular with the military, a rift that came to a head during Kennedy's disagreements with the military over the Cuban Missile Crisis, shortly before the presentation of Northwoods. Personally, Kennedy expressed concern and anger to many of his associates about the CIA's growing influence on civilians and government inside America."
Of course you are correct that the failed Bay of Pigs invasion influenced Kennedy's decision to clip the CIA's wings. However I think you may be ignoring other factors that influenced his decision. While not primarily a CIA plan, CIA Director Allen Dulles participated in conceptualizing the Northwoods proposal, and he made sure the CIA would play a prominent role if the plan became operational. Kennedy thought the growing influence of the CIA was dangerous, and the Northwoods proposal was clear evidence of just how dangerous. Kennedy decided SIMULTANEOUSLY to reassert his control over the military and to write an executive order (NSAM)restricting the CIA to intelligence gathering.
I believe this paragraph should remain in the article. Apostle12 ( talk) 07:07, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi the only advice I can give is to suggest you try the dispute resolution process:
E.g., if he/she is visibly messing up the article, for example inserting obvious POV, try using
or if you have a dispute over a specific issue use
if the editor displays incivility in communications with you, use
You could also use make yourself aquainted with the available message templates
I've noticed that some very "productive" editors (in terms of time devoted, not in quality) are but sockpuppets of banned users. Try checking the edit history to see if there is a crossover pattern with a known sock-puppeteer. When you have enough evidence you could go to.
Better advice on how to proceed can probably be found if you explain the issues at
cheers -- Stor stark7 Speak 16:51, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
I had a look at the section and had a go at rewriting it - have a look.
What issue are you having with the referencing? Is it just the generation of citation templates? I would suggest simply getting the isbn off of amazon or Google books an plugging it into Diberri's template generator. If that's not the issue, I may still be able to help if you let me know the problem. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 12:43, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
HI, I just wanted you to know Im not just relegating it the conspiracy section. Im just saying there is alot of conspiracy theories out there. Some that seem quite plausible. But what you are talking about is an act of war. Although I don't see the french invading us any time soon, I feel there should be more of a source then some guys book. believe me, If it was valid the press would be all over it. they live for this stuff. If we get more of an independent source then someone who is profiting off the sale of thier book, Im all for adding it to the main article. But it is still a theory at this point. ergot poisoning is another theory. Its not proven conclusively either way and would be speculating.. didn't the french launch any sort of investigation when the entire town was tripping? Ill grab the book if its in my library and take a look. sounds like an interesting read anyway. - Tracer9999 ( talk) 18:57, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.
Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.
When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.
If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles ( talk) 04:51, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi there Apostle:
As you know, I am currently completely re-writing the Space Race article (which will likely end up being segmented into four or five separate articles). If I say that a source is not going to be referenced, you can assume with a 100 percent accuracy that I will not be using it. I'm rewriting the article, not the people that previously wrote it. In many cases I added the books, but after going over them, realized that they did not apply to this time-period. Give me some slack, as I am doing serious research on this subject, though if Asif Siddiqi were to start writing (are you viewing this???), then I'd obviously defer to him, Burroughs or Schefter. Otherwise, this article was written by people that couldn't cite works properly, and who's prose was not really ready for prime-time. I have two FA articles under my belt, and I believe I can get this back to FA status. I am asking you to cut me some slack, and not just revert or summarily edit my work. What I really need is copy-editing, because I will always make typos, errors of omission, allusions that aren't in the text, etc..... It might be a week before I spot one of my grammatical or stylistic errors, because as I read the article, I fill in the errors with my own corrected text, even though that is not what is written. If you can correct those kinds of mistakes, I would be most grateful to you.
All the best, Abebenjoe ( talk) 03:48, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Let's try to figure this one out. If von Braun and the ABMA team orbited a satellite in September 1956, the USA would not have felt the need to further compete with the Soviets. The biggest favour the Soviets ever did to the American space program was to beat them, not once, but twice to two important firsts: first artificial satellite, and then the first human in space. If the Americans orbited the first satellite, Korolyov would not have had a leg to stand on, sort of speak, with Mr. K., because the R-7 was almost a year away from its first successful launch. If anything, Yangel would have gained favour, and Alan Shepard likely would have been the first person in space, and the first moon-landing likely would have occurred in the 1980s or even 1990s. The project Apollo that occurred in the 1960s, could not have happened without the public humiliation the United States endured due to Sputnik 1 and Vostok 1. That's why the Space Race would have been over before it began. Also, again contextualizing this with the times, most Westerners didn't consider the Russians to be able to build a proper refrigerator, let alone launch an Earth orbiting satellite when they announced their intentions in 1955. The Americans did not know that Korolyov existed, for if they did, von Braun would have been allowed to have launched a satellite as soon as he could. That's why both his failure to orbit a satellite is crucial, just at Korolyov's ability to manipulate the Soviet system in the late summer of 1955 was so crucial for The Race to actually occur. As you can probably infer, the R-7 was a terrible military rocket, due to the extremely long time it took to prepare it for launch, especially if combat conditions were considered, but it was a superb space launcher, arguably the first and best that has ever existed, as Korolyov intended. So the question remains, how do we project the sense that if von Braun did not launch a rocket into orbit in 1956, that, in effect, the Americans would not have taken the Soviets seriously, because they only did it after them? It is highly unlikely the United States would have put 5% of its annual 1960s budget towards the space program if they were already leading, in some way.
Abebenjoe (
talk) 04:01, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for noticing me, I will clarify. Dominictroc — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dominictroc ( talk • contribs) 06:28, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
I've discussed your recent edits [13] here, feel free to discuss them. Thanks. Phoenix and Winslow ( talk) 14:10, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
I gather you're frustrated by the process at Franklin child prostitution ring allegations. Taking a break from a contentious article is a good idea. I'd note that the article is a good candidate for mediation, which I think could help editors make progress. When you're ready to look at the article again, I suggest pursuing it. Will Beback talk 21:58, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your note. Editors are free to create RfC/Us. However, if a second editor who has tried to resolve the same dispute doesn't endorse it within 48 hours of its creation it will be deleted. While he asserts that the dispute also covers the 9/11 attacks, he doesn't present any evidence so I don't think that's a valid definition. Moving forward, I again suggest mediation. But since that suggestion does not appeal to anyone then there are RfCs. A content RfC deals with a specific question of content while a RFC/U deals with user behavior. There are specific rules at
WP:RFC/U. That may be a logical step in the
dispute resolution process.
Will Beback
talk 23:04, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Just made an interesting discovery. Bryant was never used as a source in the Franklin article until Phoenix and Winslow first introduced him in an edit he made here. Wayne ( talk) 13:24, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Apostle12: On your last TP note to WillBeback, you posted a raw HTML link to what you apparently thought was a Noticeboard comment, when that comment was "item 13" on the page. Archiving and other comments shifted things around (plus your link opened up an edit window!). I lined-thru & corrected the bad link with one pointing to the entire Franklin Noticeboard section (per WP:RTP non-contentious/technical edits), but in the future using a "diff" link is more-precise (and usually preferred). See Diffs & Links for more info. Cheers! — DennisDallas ( talk) 15:44, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
You might like to do a search in the University of California publication: North western reporter; Cases argued and determined in the courts of Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, Wisconsin. I know the 1994 issue has the Owens case so I'm hoping other issues will have reported the other Franklin court cases. Some other info I've found but cant check, the whitehouse callboy scandal is linked but while the Craig Spence page does mention it, the Craig J. Spence article doesn't. The TV show America's Most Wanted did several episodes about the Franklin Scandal and their own investigations confirmed some of the claims made by Owen, Bonacci etc which were passed to the FBI. They eventually dropped the case, according to the shows producer, because it was hurting their relationship with the FBI. The book Congress and Other Cesspools may or may not be a RS but it does provide alternate sources and it carries copies of newspaper articles and interviews with Franklin victims in the chapter "History of political sex scandals". Wayne ( talk) 18:43, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
The conduct of WLRoss ( talk · contribs), currently being discussed at RFCU, is also being discussed here. You may participate if you choose to do so. Phoenix and Winslow ( talk) 16:14, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Just a friendly reminder....not to violate the 3RR rule...
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Franklin child prostitution ring allegations and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
Thanks,
It seems that the Arbitration has been declined. However, I was going through my documents and found an old copy (two years?) of the article from before Bryant was used as a source. It has 20 references including seven for the NYT, one for the W/Post and six for the OWH. As the OWH articles are not online I will need to check them to make sure they match content. The article can be reconstructed pretty much to what it was before the page was deleted. I also did some research into defamation. As long as the source is reporting on a legally constituted investigation or court case, the text is legally protected from defamation (BLP) regardless of what it says. This puts to bed violation of BLP claims. Effectively, defamation doesn't apply to the article as long as the claim is in the source and the source is reporting on the Grand Jury, Bonacci case or Franklin Committee. Wayne ( talk) 09:37, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
I've noticed in a few online venues (Peer-to-peer, Internet Archive) that copies of the documentary have removed and in some cases replaced with at least one different version. Some comments indicate that the newer version has been "watered down." Now I learn that the entire Wikipedia article has been deleted and replaced. Is there any way to communicate privately with people who may know something about that? My questions are mostly unrelated to the Wikipedia article; I found this talk page as part of my independent research. 94.222.190.111 ( talk) 10:29, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
This message is to advise you that the Arbitration Committee has declined a request for arbitration relating to Franklin child prostitution ring allegations, to which you were listed as a party. To read the comments made by individual arbitrators in relation to the request, see here. For the Arbitration Committee, AGK [ • 20:06, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi Apostle, You may or may not be the one to ask but...with some participation/guidance from one or more other active editors, I would like at some point to bring the Oakland article up to GA standards. It has a lot of potential, but also quite a bit of challenges, particularly with article length (there is just too much material in it right now). Any thoughts?-- Chimino ( talk) 23:57, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
None of your sources appear to mention the BPP in connection with the increase in crime. What you've written is original research, and you've been here long enough to know that it's not permitted. — Malik Shabazz Talk/ Stalk 06:05, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
No problem.
—
Malik Shabazz
Talk/
Stalk 01:43, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
For your attention . I have commented on the editors Talk page. Wayne ( talk) 16:49, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi I see you raised similar thoughts to mine on this article some time back. I agree with what you wrote and see that others have made the same observation over time, but to no avail. I don't know if this is OK to do (contacting like-minded individuals to reach a consensus on a contentious article) or if you are still interested? But if it is OK, I wonder if I could ask for your involvement on the discussion page under Article neutrality and accuracy - the introduction [ [16]]-- Mystichumwipe ( talk) 15:36, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
I thought you might get a chuckle out of this. The final line is particularly telling...-- Chimino ( talk) 15:39, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 10:19, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
I noticed you wrote most of this article. It's now listed as an orphan. I added information on the site's transition. Not sure how much of the site is going to be there after the end of the month, so you may want to edit the article now, if ever...-- Beth Wellington ( talk) 19:45, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
In answer to your question on talk, I'd try emailing them at one of their websites or joining a social media and searching. But, there are no leaders. -- HectorMoffet ( talk) 07:13, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
All you need is Love.
SergeWoodzing (
talk) 10:44, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
![]() |
The Copyeditor's Barnstar |
Thanks so much for editing the article on Tamalpais Valley. Much appreciated! Fabrice Florin ( talk) 19:13, 25 March 2012 (UTC) |
Thanks Fabrice!
![]() Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello Apostle12. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click
HERE to participate. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 02:22, 6 April 2012 (UTC) |
Just a note/reminder that Shooting of Trayvon Martin is subject to a 1RR rule, meaning that no more than 1 revert per 24-hour period is permitted. I haven't counted up your edits/reverts, but given how rapidly you're editing, adding, and removing material, please be aware of that restriction. MastCell Talk 21:45, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
![]() |
The Barnstar of Diligence |
Just wanted to thank you for your pushback on the biased editing of The Shooting of Trayvon Martin article (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin). I knew they were full of foolishness when they refused to let the full audio of the witness statements be added to the article.
The pro-Zimmerman slant is appalling. It's fine that people have their personal position, but to omit so many pertinent issues (like Zimmerman's police record, and other things) doesn't provide a balanced view of the situation. I'm disgusted that the editors over there are trying to rewrite history, and I appreciate you standing up to that nonsense. NoamZinn ( talk) 20:13, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
|
Could I ask you to please refrain from gratuitous, off-topic WP:BLP violations like your last sentence here? I get it - you despise Eric Holder, but article talkpages aren't platforms for you to vent your animosity toward him. This isn't the first time this has come up, and it contributes to a more partisan/polarized and less constructive talkpage atmosphere. Can I ask you to work on restraining yourself a bit more? MastCell Talk 19:26, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Secondly, I think you're rather badly misunderstanding the purpose of article talk pages. They are not a venue for you to voice your personal criticism of political figures, no matter how well-founded or relevant you consider your personal viewpoint to be. If an independent, reliable source has criticized Holder in connection to the Trayvon Martin case, then it would be appropriate to discuss that source at Talk:Shooting of Trayvon Martin. It's not helpful to add your personal derogatory opinion of Holder to the mix, and in fact it's a WP:BLP violation.
The "right" way to edit a Wikipedia article is to find the best available reliable sources and accurately reflect their content. The "wrong" way is to start with a bunch of deeply held political/ideological beliefs, hunt around for sources that can be used as a lever to force those beliefs into an article, and then resort to spouting your personal viewpoint on the talkpage when no suitable sources can be found. The more controversial the topic, the more important it is to edit the right way and resist the wrong way. MastCell Talk 20:40, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
I was just wondering if there was a reason why you removed the Twin Lakes photo or if it was just a mistake. You removed it here. Psalm84 ( talk) 04:44, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Hello there. As you expressed interest in hearing updates to my research in the dispute resolution survey that was done a few months ago, I just wanted to let you know that I am hosting an IRC office hours session this coming Saturday, 28th July at 19:00 UTC (approximately 12 hours from now). This will be located in the #wikimedia-office connect IRC channel - if you have not participated in an IRC discussion before you can connect to IRC here.
Regards, User:Szhang (WMF) ( talk) 07:00, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Comments like this, where you insult other editors' contributions, is both petty and uncivil. I could elaborate on my credentials to show how inaccurate it is, but I suspect you were just shooting your mouth off to dissuade me from editing. You've been here long enough that I think you ought to know better by now. Don't do that. — Ƶ§œš¹ [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ] 22:19, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi Apostle. Going to be honest: the flat reversion of my edits on the COINTELPRO article made me not want to continue working on it at all. I was frustrated to see that neither you nor Kafziel made any changes to it after all that smoke over the POV tag. The article really could be a lot better, and I recognize that most of the work to be done is on 1945–1970; however, as you know, "COINTELPRO" is simply one name that was applied to work that the FBI was doing long before. So maybe we could more accurately restore some of that intro text in a "background" section. Regardless, I hope we can both do some good work on the rest of the article. Peace, groupuscule ( talk) 20:58, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.
In this issue:
--The Olive Branch 18:49, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
I hadn't realized that the New York Times fact checked its letters, but it appears that they do. Thanks for setting me straight. Francis Bond ( talk) 00:35, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi,
I would like to cordially discuss your recent edits to the article White privilege on the talk page: Dispute over "alleged" and other mitigation language.
Looking forward to an exciting and productive discussion!
UseTheCommandLine ( talk) 06:44, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at White privilege shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Legoktm ( talk) 07:59, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we request your participation in the discussion to help find a resolution. The thread is " Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#White Privilege". Thank you! EarwigBot operator / talk 20:59, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
If you want to explain why you felt that my recent edit to white privilege deserved the response that you gave on my talk page, I would like to listen. FWIW my thinking was that since other users are more likely to object to "comprised of" than "comprising" and you seemed to think that it was wrong to simply say "groups of people of color", I would make an edit that avoided "comprised of" while still including a conjugation of "comprise". I saw it as a win–win; I assure you that I meant no offense.
Anyway, the main reason I am posting here was to let you know that I felt surprised and hurt when you called me a "jerk" and said I was passive–aggressive on my Talk page. I would like you to approach me as one of your fellow editors, here to join you in making the best encyclopedia we can. I would also like you to keep conversation in Talk:white_privilege focused on topics related to improving the article as opposed to making it about me. I have found that when I reach out to my fellow editors in a spirit of compromise, amazing things can happen; I hope you have the same experience, if you have not already.
-- Marie Paradox ( talk) 06:51, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
The issue here is not "comprised" or "comprised of."
I reject the terms "reverse discrimination" and "reverse racism." There is only "discrimination based on race" and "racism;" as a multi-racial person, I am opposed to both.
In my opinion, Groupuscule's defense of Marie Paradox's previous use of "white people head-up-the-ass syndrome" as "an empirical reality symptomatic of white privilege" is as indefensibly racist as her original comment.
I have noticed that self-described "people of color" often attempt to give themselves a pass when it comes to embracing racism. I reject such attempts.
When I am being polite, I call people who embrace racism "jerks." Apostle12 ( talk) 17:05, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Hello. It appears that you have been
canvassing—leaving messages on biased users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote—in order to influence
White privilege. While
friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are
indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain
point of view or side of a debate, or which are
selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of
consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Your invitations have the appearance of canvassing to me because of the expressed viewpoints of the users you targeted, the nature of their contributions to the article (one of the three had been temporarily banned for a
3RR violation, and another had contributed little to the talk page besides an assumption of bad faith, and none had made significant use of the talk page as a means to find consensus), and the way you presented recent disputes to them. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Marie Paradox (
talk •
contribs) 07:47, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
PLEASE END THIS TIRESOME DISCUSSION. I AM LITERALLY SICK OF THE ENDLESS ACCUSATIONS AND INSINCERITY OF THE EDITORS INVOLVED. LEAVE ME ALONE. YOU WIN. I WILL NOT REVISIT "WHITE PRIVILEGE" SO DO WHATEVER THE HELL YOU WANT WITH THE ARTICLE!!!!
ANY SUBSEQUENT COMMENTS WILL BE SUMMARILY DELETED. Apostle12 ( talk) 07:58, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
While I only mentioned you in passing, and my intent was mainly to request help in dealing with the new/ip editors from today at White privilege, i think that because I mentioned you and potential issues with WP:CAN, I should post the following notice, as required at WP:AN/I
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UseTheCommandLine ( talk • contribs) 03:18, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Hello, Apostle12. Please be aware that a user conduct request for comment has been filed concerning your conduct on Wikipedia. The RFC entry is located at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Apostle12, where you may want to participate. UseTheCommandLine ( talk) 21:48, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for the notification. Apostle12 ( talk) 08:59, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
I apologize for the lateness of my reply. I haven't signed into Wiki for a while. I appreciate your reply on my profile page. I guess the whole thing seemed so important, so elaborate that I felt the article lacked enough explanation to make it...for the lack of better words, make enough sense to justify the magnitude of what they had done. Thank you for sharing the link on the radio program. I am listening now. I would love to know more about why MKUltra happened. It was so extreme in its methods, and some of the accusations are pretty devastating and alarming that I feel that there is a great deal more behind this whole issue than we have yet been made aware of, as to why they did this so drastically, so brutally. Likely, they knew (or suspected) that foreign governments had similar projects underway. I am not sure, but I wish I knew more about this and I hope that more is yet exposed.
Greg. Neurolanis ( talk) 22:28, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we are requesting your participation to help find a resolution. The discussion is about the topic Huey P. Newton.
Please take a moment to review the simple guide and join the discussion. Thank you! CarrieVS ( talk) 11:15, 2 February 2013 (UTC) Hi. I'm a volunteer at WP:DRN. I've posed a couple of questions for you at Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Huey_P._Newton.2C_Talk:Huey_P._Newton. If you could reply, that would help the case get resolved. Thanks. -- Noleander ( talk) 17:58, 5 February 2013 (UTC) Statements on Talk:Huey P. NewtonHello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. -- UseTheCommandLine ( talk) 05:33, 10 February 2013 (UTC) Behavior at Talk:Huey P. Newtonjust so you know, i interpret the following [17] [18] as personal attacks, schoolyard though they may be. Please do not expect me to tolerate hostility of any kind. You may perceive me as "dogging" you, but I have found little willingness on your part to compromise despite many extensive conversations about content issues. As has been so often the case, we often find ourselves at an impasse, which gives me little recourse other than to ask questions about policy simply because I do not know myself how to proceed. -- UseTheCommandLine ( talk) 19:28, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
My reading of WP:LAWYER is that a wikilawyer is one who quotes policy out of context, or uses it as a cudgel. I have asked for clarification. In fact, I stated that if you would not ask for clarification of the policy, I would. That does not seem to me like wikilawyering, unless one interprets "having policy discussions in a way that prevents me from immediately making my preferred changes" as "wikilawyering". Contentious changes, as you seem to be fond of making, to my mind require high degree of discussion and reference to policy, which you appear not to be fond of. Characterizing opposition to one's changes based on existing policy as wikilawyering actually, to my mind, creeps up to the line of violating WP:AGF, as the term itself would seem to imply bad-faith. For the record, the reason I asked for clarification, and urged you to do so, is because i was suspicious of Amadscientist's clear declaration, and thought that if that were the existing policy, that it might need to be changed. That interpretation does seem like it would be needlessly restrictive. And in case it needs to be restated, I am perfectly happy to work with you at any point, should you decide that you wish to do so. -- UseTheCommandLine ( talk) 23:02, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
You have been edit warring at Oakland, California for quite a long time. I have seen your attempt to resolve the issue on the talk page, but that does not make edit warring acceptable. JamesBWatson ( talk) 09:19, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
We have been trying to summarize some of the sections that were previously laden with too many details, while still retaining a historical perspective. You have to look at the whole paragraph in context and not just single out that one sentence. The sentence before the one about the "reports" of break-ins, specifically states that "crimes committed included eight burglaries, nine thefts, and one shooting". So, we are telling the reader that there were crimes committed in that neighborhood, and not just "reports". The incident of the home invasion that was referenced in that paragraph doesn't say that Zimmerman called the police or that he witnessed anything. It doesn't make any sense to single out just one of the many crimes that were committed and include it, when we don't know if this specific crime had any bearing on Zimmerman's decision the night he observed Martin, and the RS isn't making that connection either between this one single crime and Zimmerman's suspicion of Martin the night of the shooting. Zimmerman wasn't suspicious of Martin because of this one incident, but rather the cumulative effect of all the crimes being committed in the neighborhood, and that is what the RS is making it's point about, "the atmosphere of growing fear in the neighborhood". It's like the lady said that was interviewed for this article: "There were black boys robbing houses in this neighborhood," she said. "That's why George was suspicious of Trayvon Martin." Furthermore, we have entered the trial phase of this incident and you can bet that the defense will bring up the previous crimes being committed in this neighborhood as part of their defense strategy to justify Zimmerman's suspicion of Martin, and that will be included along with the rest of his defense of his actions that night.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 06:31, 11 March 2013 (UTC) Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. MastCell Talk 17:43, 8 April 2013 (UTC) The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions (information on which is at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions) on any editor who is active on pages broadly related to Race and intelligence. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, satisfy any standard of behavior, or follow any normal editorial process. If you continue to misconduct yourself on pages relating to this topic, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The Committee's full decision can be read at the " Final decision" section of the decision page. Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, with the appropriate sections of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures, and with the case decision page before making any further edits to the pages in question. This notice is given by an uninvolved administrator and will be logged on the case decision, pursuant to the conditions of the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions system. This relates to the ANI discussion concerning you, which is about conduct by you that is within the scope of the discretionary sanctions provision at WP:ARBR&I#Editors reminded and discretionary sanctions (amended), that is, "the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour, broadly construed". Notably, you may be sanctioned under that provision if you conduct yourself contrary to the principle enunciated at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Noleander#Bias and prejudice. Sandstein 10:55, 9 April 2013 (UTC) I have filed a request for arbitration enforcement regarding an edit you made to Black Panther Party, "restoring" content that was extremely contentious when it was used over at Huey P. Newton. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/ talk ] # _ 06:34, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/ talk ] # _ 05:20, 25 April 2013 (UTC) You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Race and politics, Apostle12 and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use— Thanks, -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/ talk ] # _ 17:47, 3 May 2013 (UTC) Hi, Apostle12. I'm an arbitration clerk, which means I help manage and administer the arbitration process (on behalf of the committee). Thank you for making a statement in an arbitration request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Race and politics, Apostle12. However, we ask all participants and commentators to limit the size of their initial statements to 500 words. Your statement significantly exceeds this limit. Please reduce the length of your statement when you are next online. If the case is accepted, you will have the opportunity to present more evidence; and concise, factual statements are much more likely to be understood and to influence the decisions of the Arbitrators. For the Arbitration Committee, Ks0stm ( T• C• G• E) 09:30, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
It occurs to me, I actually don't know which gender pronoun you prefer. For a while i tried very hard to use "their" when referring to someone whose gender I did not have a clear indication of, but I guess I saw so many other folks refer to you as "he" that i dropped my guard. I apologize for the oversight. Do you prefer others to use specific pronouns when referring to you? If so, which ones? -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/ talk ] # _ 08:23, 9 May 2013 (UTC) Hi. In your statement as it currently stands, at the fourteenth paragraph (if you discount the collapsed, hidden content), you say "I have been the first to edit these articles in defense of vandalism, racist attacks or other distortions that discredit those involved". Unless you meant you were defending the actual racist edits or vandalism, I think you meant to say "in order to defend against vandalism, […]". Also, please add a signature to your statement, so that readers can navigate to your userpage (and then to your contributions) more easily. Thanks! AGK [•] 23:18, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
An arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and politics. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and politics/Evidence. Please add your evidence by May 21, 2013, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and politics/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Ks0stm ( T• C• G• E) 01:48, 14 May 2013 (UTC) But I did see your recent edits at the help desk. From my perspective, it would be far better if you were to change whatever behavior ArbCom agrees is problematic (if any) than if you were to leave entirely. It would also be better (from my perspective) if you were to provide greater detail for whatever criticisms of my (or others') behavior that you do have. My goal is not to see you gone, but to bring these issues to the community for resolution, and my behavior is just as much in question as yours here. I am sorry that it has come to this. It has been a drain on my own editing and psyche just as it has been on yours. For whatever it's worth, I have some ideas for addressing what I see as failures of the current dispute resolution model on WP; although I believe in the value and model of WP, I also think the mechanisms for settling disputes do need work, and from my perspective they have failed you just as much as they have me. I can even imagine a time where we both might work productively on such a project, perhaps. In looking at your edit history I have noticed you make references to children and grandchildren, and an active family life. If you do leave, I hope that doing so gives you more time to spend with those close to you, and to tell your stories in a way that is more accepted and appreciated. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/ talk ] # _ 02:12, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Apostle12 ( talk) 08:31, 17 May 2013 (UTC) Hello, Apostle12. Thank you for your recent submission of evidence for the Race and politics Arbitration case. As you may be aware, the Arbitration Committee asks that users submitting evidence in cases adhere to limits regarding the length of their submissions. These limits, currently at 1000 words and 100 diffs for parties and 500 words and 50 diffs for all others, are in place to ensure that the Arbitration Committee receives only the most important information relevant to the case, and is able to determine an appropriate course of action in a reasonable amount of time. The evidence you have submitted currently exceeds at least one of these limits, and is presently at 1573 words and 22 diffs. Please try to reduce the length of your submission to fit within these limits; this guide may be able to provide some help in doing so. If the length of your evidence is not reduced soon, it may be refactored or removed by a human clerk within a few days. Thank you! If you have any questions or concerns regarding the case, please contact the drafting Arbitrator or case clerk (who are listed on the case pages); if you have any questions or concerns about this bot, please contact the operator. On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Hersfold ArbClerkBOT( talk) 06:00, 21 May 2013 (UTC) Motion regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and politicsResolved by motion:
For the Arbitration Committee, Ks0stm ( T• C• G• E) 02:28, 26 May 2013 (UTC) Reminder:Dear Apostle12, I have been asked to remind you that if you do not return to participate in the arbitration case by 25 July 2013, you will be topic banned and the case closed inline with point 3 of the above motion. For the Arbitration Committee Seddon talk 20:41, 18 July 2013 (UTC) The suspended arbitration case regarding Race and politics has now closed in accordance with the motion for suspension and closure. The following remedies have been enacted:
For the Arbitration Committee, Ks0stm ( T• C• G• E) 20:18, 26 July 2013 (UTC) A case ( September 11 conspiracy theories) in which you were involved has been modified by motion which changed the wording of the discretionary sanctions section to clarify that the scope applies to pages, not just articles. For the arbitration committee -- S Philbrick (Talk) 19:19, 27 October 2014 (UTC) Hi,
|