Archives

1

Hello! Please leave new messages at the bottom of this page.

Don't forget to sign your posts by typing four tildes (~), like this: ~~~~.

Thanks. GrayfeII ( talk)

Hello Grayfell. Thanks for good advice. I seldom work on that page, as COI concerns in the past have made a good point, and maybe you can get the new book ''Waging a Good War'' by Thomas E. Ricks which, finally, gives Bevel his due place in the movement in a very mainstream non-fiction book. I really wish dozens of editors would be working on this page, but if I start citing my papers it would just add more of my cites. At this point the COI may actually kick in, as Ricks cites an old manuscript of mine from 2004 written with Bevel. I will add more cites to the top from the 1989 paper, that I could do without edging too much into COI. More later. Randy Kryn ( talk) 12:18, 15 October 2022 (UTC) reply

@ Randy Kryn: Hi Randy, thanks for responding. I have an idea that I strongly believe would kill all COI concerns for good, and thus let you freely build that page, mind if I share? GrayfeII ( talk) 12:20, 15 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Of course. But the 2004 manuscript is publishable and that's what kicks the COI in (I haven't tried to publish it in the past outside of the Selma chapter being published but not for sale by Bevel's wife as a booklet at the 2015 50th anniversary of the Selma movement. I asked Bevel near the end of his life what he would like me to do, and he said "Make sure people know that Selma is my most important movement", which makes sense). The Birmingham Children's Crusade 60th is coming up in 2023 although I still haven't found anything about a commemoration in the city for the 60th. One of my main reasons for full support of you as an editor is you are one of the very few, and maybe the only editor, who really understand and has a focus on the Bevel page. Anyway, I'm getting long-winded - what's your idea? Randy Kryn ( talk) 12:27, 15 October 2022 (UTC) reply

And please stop with the reverts (lol, come on), those are good edits! Randy Kryn ( talk) 12:30, 15 October 2022 (UTC) reply

@ Randy Kryn: Create a secondary account that you use only for the James Bevel page. I think the fact you’re using your real name is causing others to assume bad faith in you as you work on that page but you seem earnest in your intent at building the page reliably and neutrally. I’d recommend User:Beast Mode GrayfeII ( talk) 12:31, 15 October 2022 (UTC) reply

@ Randy Kryn: Let’s make a deal, hop on the James Bevel page with a secondary account, and I’ll stop reverting you. Fair is fair, you’ve been largely ignoring the page for far too long by now. Sure you throw in a few token edits here and there, but mainly only in response to them being added by someone else first, you gotta be confident and bold and take the initiative with this stuff if Bevel is really that important. MLK never waited for anyone’s permission to change America! GrayfeII ( talk) 12:33, 15 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Kind of mean to force me to make deals (lol, which I only write when I'm lol - if Birmingham has a 60th you should come and meet Bevel's family and all). I've meant to focus more on it but not as an alternate account, that would get me banned, but I can work on it more from my account until complaints. The new Ricks book cites my work and others on Bevel extensively, and his book is where many new additions and cites can be added from. I'll do more on the page, but in a deal you have to get a really good account going where you don't bludgeon and add dozens of edits at a time, which calls attention from page lurking admins and they remove another avenue for edits. Randy Kryn ( talk) 12:40, 15 October 2022 (UTC) reply

If not as an alternate account, just move your user page, and change your signature to match the new user page name GrayfeII ( talk) 12:42, 15 October 2022 (UTC) reply

That goldfish artwork stands on its own merits and is a new page. I'll get to Bevel, please realize that there is only so much I can add without getting into unsourced data and personal knowledge but, again, the new Ricks book give myself and others that opportunity to add from his work. I've spent literally entire five-year periods and year periods working with and about Bevel, the page already contains quite a bit of data (I don't work on his incest charge or some of the other periods of his life, just his 1960s movement information). Will get to it, c'mon, stop forcing, not a fair use of Wikipedia. p.s. want me to continue the infobox rfc thing? Randy Kryn ( talk) 12:50, 15 October 2022 (UTC) reply

No need to RfC it again, just drop it back into the article, there’s an obviously clear consensus for it, it was only removed pro forma and the removing editor was practically begging you guys to restore in their edit summary lol GrayfeII ( talk) 12:52, 15 October 2022 (UTC) reply

@ Randy Kryn: GrayfeII ( talk) 12:53, 15 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Not a bad idea. Will do that once but someone may revert. It is a pretty good infobox (and NeutraI had a pretty good run). Randy Kryn ( talk) 12:56, 15 October 2022 (UTC) reply

@ Randy Kryn: Nah it won’t get reverted. Hey did G-Wash cross the Delaware on Christmas 1775 or 1776? I’m seeing different info on different pages (but don’t fix anything just yet or you’ll get caught and/or framed) GrayfeII ( talk) 13:00, 15 October 2022 (UTC) reply

@ Randy Kryn: I know how to play this game, Wikipedia is exactly like chess lol. Admins are always playing checkers and/or Whac-a-Mole lmao GrayfeII ( talk) 13:03, 15 October 2022 (UTC) reply

@ Randy Kryn: The accounts that you see getting caught and blocked are like "pawn" level, there are several others "silently" roaming around and building Wikipedia. It’s impossible to catch all of them (let alone revert all of their edits) GrayfeII ( talk) 13:05, 15 October 2022 (UTC) reply

@ Randy Kryn: Even look at NeutraI, only like 20 out of the 800 edits got reverted lol. So the admins were only about 3% successful and NeutraI was 97% successful. GrayfeII ( talk) 13:07, 15 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Okay, good to hear. But my edits were good, so that harms the place. I was just about to add the infobox and realized I can because there is no current RfC. Let's see if it sticks around. Randy Kryn ( talk) 13:13, 15 October 2022 (UTC) reply

@ Randy Kryn: wait! Not yet! GrayfeII ( talk) 13:14, 15 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Okay. Randy Kryn ( talk) 13:16, 15 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Everyone will see us in your contribs if you do it now! Lol don’t touch the Founders article or talk page for another 50 edits. So do 50 edits elsewhere, then drop in the infobox and/or portal at the US founders page. GrayfeII ( talk) 13:16, 15 October 2022 (UTC) reply

@ Randy Kryn: GrayfeII ( talk) 13:16, 15 October 2022 (UTC) reply

The admins are looking at that page like hawks, and Gwillhickers isn’t exactly trustworthy either, he’s too friendly with the admins. GrayfeII ( talk) 13:17, 15 October 2022 (UTC) reply

I'll get to it later today, but admins are good guys for the most part. I still don't know why they get to check new editors if nobody complains, that should be a rule. I don't want to step over the line in assisting you, but will not jump on an anti- bandwagon either and, since nobody is required to report anyone, talking on a talk page seems fine as far as I know. And how can I do 50 edits if they keep getting reverted? Will check into the Washington crossing question and then have to sign off for other stuff, later on all of this. Randy Kryn ( talk) 13:23, 15 October 2022 (UTC) reply

1776. Where did you see the mistaken 1775? Thanks for spotting that. Randy Kryn ( talk) 13:27, 15 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Get 50+ edits on other low-traffic pages, then I’ll tell you lol. GrayfeII ( talk) 13:29, 15 October 2022 (UTC) reply

@ Randy Kryn: 95-99% of regular active admins are like sheep, or cogs in a wheel, and seem like they haven’t interacted with people in the real world. They do a lot of cheap shots for sure. Beeblebrox is one of the few solid ones, there was also another (I think Zzyzzx11) who pitches in on a lot of the sports pages, but doesn’t do the whack-a-mole blocking and mass reverts that so many admins recklessly do. GrayfeII ( talk) 13:28, 15 October 2022 (UTC) reply

@ Randy Kryn: the wave of reverts was just to get your attention and say what’s up. I suppose you can restore them if you also continue building up the James Bevel page GrayfeII ( talk) 13:34, 15 October 2022 (UTC) reply

p.s. are you really down to meet in Vegas? You said first round on you, I might come lol

GrayfeII ( talk) 13:34, 15 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Of course, first round offer stands, if the people organizing the North American WikiConference get going on setting up a 2023 in-person conference (would be first since 2019 in Boston) without that vax requirement. I've been lobbying for Vegas which is why that was mentioned, would be a great place for a full Wikipedia conference but one guy brought up "the drought, we don't want to use up its water", like Wikipedians would take any more water than others would if they booked the same rooms. Have to sign off now, will get back to all this later. Good hanging out. Randy Kryn ( talk) 13:45, 15 October 2022 (UTC) reply

@ Randy Kryn: check out my latest edits to the James Bevel, those sources are not to be restored until you change your username, this COI has gone on for far too long! GrayfeII ( talk) 16:31, 16 October 2022 (UTC) reply

@ Randy Kryn: How many reverts will it take for you to change your username? GrayfeII ( talk) 17:39, 16 October 2022 (UTC) reply

What are you doing? I get back on and find this? Please revert those back. Change my user name? Randy Kryn ( talk) 21:18, 16 October 2022 (UTC) reply

And is nobody else watching the Bevel page? You and I could do good work together when you come in from time to time, and we have. Why do you want to stop that? I wanted to return the founder's infobox, you asked me to wait and I did (it's back on), and then I go away and come back to find my work ruined. Randy Kryn ( talk) 21:33, 16 October 2022 (UTC) reply

I was doing those edits because they were good edits for Wikipedia and within an overall personal project I'm doing (which is what most long time Wikipedians do, including yourself), and in doing so I did the 50 you requested. So, where is the 1775? Randy Kryn ( talk) 22:02, 16 October 2022 (UTC) reply

@ Randy Kryn: Change to a goofy username, then I’ll tell you. (In other words, you need a resurrection/reincarnation as a Wikipedian.) GrayfeII ( talk) 22:10, 16 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Everyone picks their username, nobody is forced to use one or another. I have no interest in a goofy name, some people do, and it should be a suggestion not an order (what's that even about?). We had a deal above, agreed to by both of us: the 1775, please fix it or let me know where it is to fix it. Wikipedians do not treat each other this way. Randy Kryn ( talk) 22:21, 16 October 2022 (UTC) reply

@ Randy Kryn: Well you’ve previously been getting sniped and hounded in older discussions at the James Bevel talk page. Essentially, if you had a goofy username, nobody would cry COI. GrayfeII ( talk) 22:22, 16 October 2022 (UTC) reply

As for Wikipedians treating each other this way, the end justifies the means. And it’s actually not that different from what admins and long-time users do to blocked editors, it’s called WP:GRAVEDANCING and it’s rampant. GrayfeII ( talk) 22:25, 16 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Never read that essay before, thanks. That's how I treat you, with the respect you deserve for your know how and good edits. The COI was just a couple people with real concerns, and I have a message all set to go for the Bevel talk page, and was about to get to it but this has sidetracked me. I had a formal but not real COI, as I'm a subject matter expert who just isn't editing the page much (was just about to but what's all this stuff?), and that counts where it's important, information on the 1960s movements. I have no interest in editing Bevel outside of the 1960s, his influential era of teaching and acting as a nonviolent leader and teacher. I'm perfectly free to edit the page in that aspect and never felt constrained by a COI tag, just haven't edited it waiting for other editors to finally start working on the page. The Ricks book should finally work in that area, as it is full of good material for the page (finally a mainstream book which give Bevel his due credit). The people who should be learning from Bevel's work would be the ones, and I don't even know if any of them did exactly this, who stood between the people trying to hurt the Federal Building in Portland and the policemen who were just doing their jobs - those are the people using the science of nonviolence. Bevel had full-on anger and directed it not at people but at policies that needed changing - he knew young that he was going to end segregation in the United States but didn't know how he was going to do it. Then he ran up on Gandhi and Lawson and Myles Horton, and found out how. Finally some of that is printed in a reliable source by Ricks. Let's add those kind of things (in other words I'm free to edit the page with my present name just needed some more sourcing which laid out the real factual path). Randy Kryn ( talk) 22:40, 16 October 2022 (UTC) reply

@ Randy Kryn: Ok I’m also gonna make a Randy Kryn biography article (still in the draft phase), it seems reasonable when comparing to the other dozens of names in the historians category of the Civil Rights movement template. Thoughts? GrayfeII ( talk) 22:43, 16 October 2022 (UTC) reply

I’ll add the template below: GrayfeII ( talk) 22:44, 16 October 2022 (UTC) reply

GrayfeII ( talk) 22:45, 16 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the thought, but not needed or cared about (except to ego which has no business deciding things like that). I do notice that Thomas Ricks should be added to the template. Every admin who bans someone on guesswork should learn that essay by heart. I can see how NeutraI, say, should have been warned about excess control and enthusiasm and given a few hour ban, but not why he should have been removed from working on behalf of Wikipedia and the topic (what better page to be working on but the Founders page - everyone who really assists that article is to be honored, in my opinion). Thanks again for pointing out that essay, it should be used in discussions. Randy Kryn ( talk) 22:54, 16 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Am signing off now for awhile, things to do. Are you a Brady fan? I like him because of his hydration and other health habits which have helped keep him young at 45, I hope he plays a couple more years which would be awesome. Randy Kryn ( talk) 23:00, 16 October 2022 (UTC) reply

@ GrayfeII, Tamzin, and Randy Kryn:

GrayfeII, spelled with two upper case i, what kind of cracks are these?

• The admins are looking at that page like hawks, and Gwillhickers isn’t exactly trustworthy either, he’s too friendly with the admins.
• 95-99% of regular active admins are like sheep, or cogs in a wheel, and seem like they haven’t interacted with people in the real world. They do a lot of cheap shots for sure.
• the wave of reverts was just to get your attention and say what’s up. I suppose you can restore them if you also continue building up the James Bevel page.
• Randy Kryn: How many reverts will it take for you to change your username?

Just for the record, and as you must know, I've never made any edits to the James Bevel article. Tamzin, please take a look at the edit history of this page, and tell me if you see one glaring familiar user name and if you suspect what I do. -- Gwillhickers ( talk) 00:46, 17 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Yup. Blocked. @ Zzuuzz: Feel like taking a second pass here? -- Tamzin ^{cetacean needed} (she|they|xe) 01:04, 17 October 2022 (UTC) reply

@ Tamzin and Randy Kryn: — Tanzin, all I can say is that this guy must be a glutton for punishment, and/or a complete idiot, using upper case 'i' in his user name, and following me to a third newly created article, making edits, which at this point was an obvious attempt to irritate me, yet again. Thanks once again for cleaning house. Randy, after listening to his flippant suggestions to change your user name, etc, etc, you should of told this individual where to get off. -- Gwillhickers ( talk) 02:06, 17 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Does a rule exist that we can't talk to socks? Blocking doesn't change anything with this fellow, he comes back, and seems focused on me, even making socks with my name all over them. I'm certainly not used to any of this, but I respect his writing and many of his edits and do respect anyone who edits certain pages, like the Founding page or the Bevel page. Since he's not going away I've both been friendly and helpful to him without either crossing a line or turning him in, and with accepting, per policy, that he's acting in good faith even in the extreme mode. All my edits have been real and edits I do anyway in my edit runs. Returning the infobox was something I intended to do (but which he has "ordered" me elsewhere to trim the added names, which I had no intention of doing. I agree with most of them, although there should be some limit to these navbox names). Easy to find this user and talk page, so this seems one of his throwaway accounts, but what I wrote and write here is a discussion of work with another Wikipedian (although one who has many identities), in good faith. Randy Kryn ( talk) 02:31, 17 October 2022 (UTC) reply

@ Randy Kryn: I've tried talking sense into him in the past. It hasn't worked. I do understand your plight. It's rare to get this particular combination of general content competence and pure trolling, and it's vexed me too. As a matter of policy, the answer is, if you know that someone's an Awolf sock, you shouldn't be helping them on-wiki ( WP:MEAT), but at the same time, you are allowed to make edits at his off-wiki request, or restore edits he's made on-wiki that have been WP:BANREVERTed, so long as they're edits that you have an independent interest in and that you take full responsibility for ( WP:PROXYING). I would strongly recommend, however, WP:RBI as the best way to go forward here. For some people that's just the only thing that works (or at least puts a dent in their efforts). -- Tamzin ^{cetacean needed} (she|they|xe) 22:04, 18 October 2022 (UTC) reply

This was an individual, who, on top of deceiving fellow editors, faked my user name and mocked me on the Founder's page, with his usual use of upper case 'i', in his 'several' user names, followed me to three newly created articles, and placated us with some good edits. The heck with this #+%?#*&#. The image on his user page pretty much coins his character, imo. -- Gwillhickers ( talk) 04:12, 17 October 2022 (UTC) reply

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. Your ability to edit this talk page has also been revoked. If this account is not a sockpuppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then appeal to the Unblock Ticket Request System. -- Tamzin cetacean needed (she|they|xe) 01:03, 17 October 2022 (UTC) reply