Welcome!

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

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Aboutmovies ( talk) 21:50, 30 November 2008 (UTC) reply

Please see Talk:Cato Institute#Founding information. Your source has neither the indicia of reliablility nor, without a page number, can I confirm that it actually says what you say it does. If the 1974 information is to be included, so must the 1977 information from the Cato Institute web page and the fact that the Charles Koch Foundation says it was founded in 1980. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:11, 9 January 2012 (UTC) reply

I cut & pasted the material you added to my talk page onto the Cato Inst talk page. -- S. Rich ( talk) 18:41, 11 January 2012 (UTC) reply

As did I. This is getting very frustrating and aggravating. Activist ( talk) 18:47, 11 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Charles Koch issued a statement this month that confirmed the correctness of my edits with respect to the Cato founding and name change. charles-kochs-recent-statement-on-the-cato-v-koch-conflict/

Charles Koch’s Recent Statement on the Cato v. Koch Conflict

By Ilya Somin • Volokh Conspiracy - March 9, 2012 2:00 pm

My objective is for Cato to continually increase its effectiveness in advancing a truly free society over the long term. This was my objective when, in 1976, I came up with the idea of converting the Charles Koch Foundation to a public policy institute and recruited Ed Crane to run it.

Activist ( talk) 07:36, 2 March 2012 (UTC) reply

The stuff you added is original research. You are not allowed to come to your own conclusions about what the video was showing. Unless you have reliable third party sources that talk about the incident you cannot include it as it is undue weight. Also, who says it is a controversy? You? Reverting my removal of your original research and calling it Vandalism is a serious breach of WP:CIVIL. I realize you don't like Breitbart, but you should probably go somewhere else to complain about him. Arzel ( talk) 14:31, 2 March 2012 (UTC) reply

Both sources I quoted, Campus Progress and WND (World Net Daily) contain graphic descriptions and characterizations of Breitbart's behavior and come to conclusions. Both videos amply document his behavior. Are you suggesting that other intermediaries are needed to verify what your own or anyone else's eyes will have to acknowledge when reading the reports or watching the videos? If you need to defend or praise Breitbart, "you should probably go somewhere else to" do it. Wikipedia's definition of the word "controversy" is Controversy is a state of prolonged public dispute or debate, usually concerning a matter of opinion. The word was coined from the Latin controversia, as a composite of controversus – "turned in an opposite direction," from contra – "against" – and vertere – to turn, or versus (see verse), hence, "to turn against." The title of the section is not mine but is of long standing on the Breitbart page. Activist ( talk) 15:50, 2 March 2012 (UTC) reply

WND is not accepted as a RS and Campus Progress doesn't look any better. Best to deal with it on the Talk. Consensus is clearly against your edits. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous ( talk) 07:00, 3 March 2012 (UTC) reply

"The Artist AKA Mr. Anonymous" was permanently blocked for edit warring 11 years ago. Activist ( talk) 10:48, 26 April 2023 (UTC) reply

I don't see any evidence at all of attempts to achieve consensus by any of the editors who removed the CPAC section of "Controversies." The removals seem to violate NPOV. Activist ( talk) 07:22, 3 March 2012 (UTC) reply

Forget the quasi-legalities: consensus is manifest, not subject to strict protocols and procedures. If we say there is consensus, and no one besides yourself agrees with whether by reverts or comments. That is one of the many ways we "achieve" consensus" You're entitled to your views but you're not entitled to rule the process, or to force your views on us. You could also take some time to find out why WND and Campus Progress are crummy sources. If you can't, then you just don't get WP. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous ( talk) 00:21, 4 March 2012 (UTC) reply

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Tiptoety ^talk 07:28, 3 March 2012 (UTC) reply

Hi there. Very nice work at the CCA article and its talk page. I did want to let you know that I slightly reformatted your comments on that talk page, in this edit because some parts were left unreadable by this previous edit of yours.

Also, since this message is quite long, I've posted it here in "collapsed" form, to avoid using quite so much real estate on your talk page. Cheers, -- OhioStandard ( talk) 23:37, 22 May 2012 (UTC) reply

You know, I think I'll just add that new editors are often surprised to discover that Wikipedia is a highly "political" environment. I know when I was just starting out, that I was very surprised to discover, for example, that the opinions one receives at the various notice boards are often very far from unbiased. And of course, as I see you've discovered as I read your talk page, you've had a couple of "tangles" with other editors already. I think you've handled them as well as could be expected, but if you ever feel like you need any advice or counsel or whatever, to know how to deal with a problem, I'd be glad to help.

I can't jump into a conflict on your side since doing so would violate our rule about what we call canvassing, but I'm pretty experienced here, and can probably help you figure out the best way to deal with disputes and conflicts, if that would be of any use to you in the future. Just drop me a note on my talk, if some problem should arise that you're puzzled over how to handle. For the short-term, though, I've temporarily placed this talk page on my "watch list", so I won't miss any reply you might like to make immediately below. Cheers, -- OhioStandard ( talk) 23:48, 22 May 2012 (UTC) reply

Thanks very much for your offer. I'm up to my butt in alligators this morning but if I can get free sometime today from some rather intense work, I'll get back with you in detail. I left those older comments on my Talk page as I felt I'd get around to dealing with them at some point, including the Breitbart thing where I think I was sandbagged. I didn't have time to deal with the undos, but I think the material was finally added by others through the consensus process. The book thing was blatant self-promotion done by the son-in-law of the author and the book was written to exonerate himself for having been paid for wearing a wire on his co-conspirators. Activist ( talk) 15:07, 23 May 2012 (UTC) reply

You're quite welcome. I'll be offline for pretty much the rest of the day, myself. Not the least criticism intended re any of the previous material on your talk page, by the way. Drop in at my talk any time if I can help you navigate; I don't like to see long-established editors use of their knowledge of the rules and political process here unfairly to gain advantage over new editors, or to see new editors snookered or intimidated on that basis. Wikipedia isn't supposed to be competitive in that way, but political articles are very often competitive between opposing points of view, and the "playing field" should be level, in my opinion, whether someone is a new editor or not. Cheers, -- OhioStandard ( talk) 15:38, 23 May 2012 (UTC) reply

I'm not sure exactly what you're asking here. I recall reading before the election of the courts deciding that there were problems with the redistricting plan, that the plan in place was only temporary for this election, and that there would be changes needed before the next election. The only media account I've had time to notice was a brief mention on the local television news ( KTVF), so I'm not that familiar with what's been said this time around. I can't see where there's any new ground here, however.

There are other issues which come to mind, though. I just didn't have time to follow the redistricting process like I wanted to. From what meetings I did attend, however, it seemed all too obvious that the Republicans (Brodie, Holm and Torgerson) walked in carrying an agenda already and considered dealing with the public to be a necessary evil, but otherwise loathsome. Of far more interest to me was hearing of "Senior Justice Warren Matthews" in that one report. It appears to me that Supreme Court appointments are being timed (more like stalled) so that new members face retention four or five years after being initially appointed. To me, this flaunts the constitutional intent of having the justices face their first retention after three years. Having pro tem justices such as Matthews occupy the vacant seat for lengthy periods of time would also appear to flaunt the constitutional intent of retiring judges at age 70.

Here in Fairbanks, Bob Miller, Joe Paskvan and Joe Thomas spent more time and energy campaigning against HB 110 than against their actual opponents, and all lost. David Guttenberg would have in all likelihood also lost if not for the chicanery of an "independent" sockpuppet candidate, which to me recalls Tom Moyer's reelection to the House in 1990 and Georgianna Lincoln's initial election to the Senate in 1992. Despite the excessive spin put on explaining their losses by their supporters (who have mostly placed redistricting at fault), methinks more attention will be given to the losses Albert Kookesh and Bill Thomas faced in Southeast. APRN reported that this leaves Southeast without any Native representation in the Legislature for the first time in perhaps decades (I didn't notice exactly how long). There's very little support amongst the average Alaskan for maintaining the status quo WRT the Voting Rights Act, but that hasn't appeared to faze the Redistricting Board. I'm sure it will be an issue in the next round. RadioKAOS  – Talk to me, Billy 15:27, 29 December 2012 (UTC) reply

Hello! While checking to make sure that the recent GEO Group problem wasn't more widespread, I noticed that you have edited several articles related with GEO Group. I'll be direct and say that while I'm weary that your username may imply that you're here to advocate a cause, you obviously have some experience with articles related to GEO Group, but I see no evidence that you're in any way associated with the organization. There's a conversation here at COIN attempting to determine if this is a larger issue. You're invited to comment there if you'd like. OlYeller21 ^Talktome 21:31, 23 February 2013 (UTC) reply

• Also, based on the thread, I would like to remind you about Wikipedia:Synthesis#Synthesis_of_published_material_that_advances_a_position - If no published source ties together, say, 163 incidents as part of a common trend, Wikipedia cannot do so either. WhisperToMe ( talk) 19:05, 4 March 2013 (UTC) reply

I did not add the source in question to Efraín Ríos Montt.

I hadn't suggested that you had added it. In fact I left it specifically so that the source could be checked and restored if it proved accurate. I didn't realize that CurtisNaito had included the quote or would have been more reluctant to remove the contention. My following responses are quite complex so I hope you would read to the bottom before responding.

CurtisNaito did, and he quoted the book as follows: "When the Lucas cabal was overthrown in the March 23 golpe de estado, the United States was not involved and, in fact, had not even seen the coup coming. The embassy did not at first grasp the origins or the implications of the coup, incorrectly concluding the Movimiento de Liberacion Nacional had instigated it and that the coup leaders, Rios Montt in particular, were nothing more than figureheads representing the interests of the Far Right."

Now here's the problem. We're dealing with "Russell's (cosmic) Teapot." It's not possible to prove that the U.S. was not involved nor had it seen the coup coming. Part of the problem is that a number of different elements and agencies (i.e., State, DEA, CIA, NSA, etc.) of U.S. policy have sometimes operated within the same theater, at times likely at cross purposes with each other. It's confounded more by relatively crude attempts to cover up political initiatives and their history (i.e., Ollie North's night of shredding tens of thousands of documents), to more use of more sophisticated covers, to use of "back channels" (such as the Heritage Foundation) for expressing support, or through use of personal connections to achieve goals (i.e. developed through mutual participation in programs at the "School of the Americas" involving such actors as SOA graduate Colonel Francisco Luis Gordillo Martinez, who was a prime participant in the '82 coup ).

Many thanks-for the notication. I came across a redirect about Beverly Masek who had served in the Alaska House of Representatives and started an article about her. Feel free to make any improvements. Thanks- RFD ( talk) 18:54, 20 September 2013 (UTC) reply

also I started an article Jerry Ward (politician) who was also in the Alaska Legislature-thanks- RFD ( talk) 21:31, 20 September 2013 (UTC) reply

@ RFD: I just made this edit. Check the subtitle in the article: Ward ran Donald Trump's 2016 campaign in Alaska, was rewarded with a position in the Department of Education, but resigned not long afterward. http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/04/donald-trump-loyalists-white-house Trump's loyalist army is getting swallowed up by the swamp], Vanity Fair, Abigail Tracy, April 6, 2017. Retrieved 15 April 2017. Activist ( talk) 06:04, 16 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Left this at the page.

I've left extensive explanations on the article's TALK page about the impropriety of posting non-factual material, removing legitimate requests for cites, attacks on living persons, and posting cites that do not nearly satisfy sourcing requirements, i.e., referring to home pages of PACER, the federal court (pay) site, the Alaska Department of Law, rather than referring to specific documents. It would be next to impossible to locate materials that ostensibly substantiate the claims and allegations the poster has inserted into the article. More importantly, perhaps, is that the perseverating poster(s?) seems to be on a vendetta against individuals and organizations that have literally nothing to do with the article in question, the AK probe. In my frustration I finally at one point referred to it as "graffiti." Responses to my efforts have been numerous reverts and personal attacks on myself and others including persons with whom I am not familiar. If you have a moment to look at the TALK page and tell me what you, as a dispassionate person, think should be done , I would greatly appreciate it. I should add that this weekend I reverted a brief comment, word salad really, on another, wholly unrelated page (regarding the estate of "H.C.", if you look at my contributions), because the poster obviously had serious mental problems. Activist ( talk) 21:48, 29 September 2013 (UTC) reply

A newly-minted IP (sock?) 72.42.151.107 made unsourced edits to the article lede tonight (pp removed earlier today today), seemingly intended to improve the reputation of one Bill Bobrick (but also quite OPEDish. Reverted for lack of RS and cautioned. Dwpaul ( talk) 03:24, 9 October 2013 (UTC) reply

I really appreciate your vigilance with regard to this page. I was surprised to see that references to Bobrick might have been changed somehow. He was truly a very minor player in the affair, the only one who took full responsibility for his involvement and did so very rapidly, the only one who did not fight the charges. The only other defendant whose indictment surprised me by his or her involvement was Bruce Weyhrauch, who was in my opinion, a pretty decent guy, a good legislator, who did not appear to have any larcenous or corrupt tendencies. Weyhrauch, an attorney, in fact challenged his indictment on technical grounds, took it all the way to the Supreme Court and won. I didn't agree with the SC's ruling in the case, which was associated with a couple of real scoundrels, Conrad Black and especially Jeff Skilling, in their challenges to the " honest services fraud" statute under which their cases (and some others in the Polar Pen scandal) had been brought. Anyway, I went to the Bobrick changes, expecting the worst, and I found I didn't disagree with the changes the editor made. They seems to be nothing like those of the two (unless there had been just one, w/a sock puppet) who were adamant about shoehorning their unrelated, obviously personal grievances and poorly sourced edits into the article despite at least one of them having a COI plus their inappropriate and possibly libelous edits not being remotely related to the subject of the article. If the new editor can provide sourcing for his or her edit regarding Bobrick, I think they could restore as much as can be verified by reliable sources. I was unaware of the 52 (or any) letters of reference to the judge in Bobrick's case, but that might be hard to establish, given that the court record itself is insufficient as a primary source. I'll drop that editor a note on his or her talk page. I don't think legitimate contributions should be discouraged, and I think that edit was indeed germane to the context of the broader investigation. The Bobrick material also I think helps establish some missing balance or gives a broader perspective to the case. All the defendants were certainly not equally culpable by a long shot, but a wide net had been cast (and some fairly odious creatures slipped through) that snared some minor players. Lastly, thanks for catching the out of date tense reference to the then-anticipated sentencing of Stevens that never happened, given the inquiry which eventually voided the seven Stevens' convictions. Again, thanks for your vigilance. This has been a thorny mess and your input is greatly appreciated and respected. Activist ( talk) 20:09, 9 October 2013 (UTC) reply

Hi, responding to your message. I'm taking advantage of a lull in business right now to hope to get a few things done, but I haven't exactly made any progress. Between dividends and the fact that the AFN convention will once again be held here, I expect to be very busy out in the real world before too long.

This whole thing has been quite silly. Even a bit lame. What can be done? Beeblebrox would probably have been a better person to ask, as he's an admin, but it appears that he is off trying to get some camping done before the snow flies.

I would recommend the BLP noticeboard and the RS noticeboard, for starters. At least it will garner the attention of others outside of this discussion. The existing discussion between only two or three people is already circular enough to where it's quickly approaching being pointless.

In general, I still see nothing which ties this whole matter into the actual subject of the article. Sheila Toomey reported several years back that Nelson Cohen was the first-ever non-resident to be appointed U.S. Attorney for Alaska. Cohen was placed in that position specifically due to his role within the Public Integrity Section. This was happening at the same time that the PIS were actively investigating other state governments, particularly Illinois. Therefore, it could be argued that Rod Blagojevich has more to do with this than Jim Duncan does, even though it would constitute quite a stretch to arrive at that conclusion through RS, also.

Funny, though, this has attracted attention away from another, years-long issue with the article: the "Murkowski legacy of corruption", that somehow Frank's appointment of Lisa to his Senate seat is tied into this, which hasn't exactly been corroborated through RS, either. If you haven't noticed, Theresa Obermeyer has recently discovered Wikipedia, but evidently hasn't progressed through it far enough to understand WP:NOTAFORUM. John Lindauer tried to do the same thing maybe two or three years ago. You would think that people who have earned PhDs would be capable of understanding what an encyclopedia is.

Anyway, Theresa appears to have her own Murkowski-related grudges, although from what I've read, it's limited to the hypothesis that Eileen Van Wyhe's service on the board of directors of First Bank is further evidence of a conspiracy related to the Alaska Permanent Fund Corporation. Yeah, just as silly as all of this about Jim Duncan and Donn Liston. First Bank is the lineal descendant of the First National Bank of Ketchikan. Both of Eileen Van Wyhe's grandparents were rival bankers is Ketchikan; her paternal grandfather, Frank M. Murkowski, was with the same First National Bank of Ketchikan, while her maternal grandfather, Lester Gore, was with the Miners & Merchants Bank. Could it be that the bank felt that she had experiences and perspective which could serve the bank well? It could very well have been cronyism and/or favoritism, too. RadioKAOS  – Talk to me, Billy 01:31, 30 September 2013 (UTC) reply

Thanks for all your input.

I posted prior text to the BLP Noticeboard last night. Got some good feedback from one editor. I think there's been more but I've just gotten back on line after being off since the wee hours this a.m. so I'll look for that in a minute.

You don't see anything that ties the whole matter into the actual subject of the article because there isn't anything. In the case of Duncan and ASEA, there's no connection, of course.

I thought that Frank M. tanked the Bank of the North, only. Were there other banks involved?

There was actually a connection between Polar Pen and Ketchikan. Prewitt, Weimar and Cornell wanted to build a rent-a-pen on Gravina Island, with the feds pitching in a quarter of a billion to build the necessary bridge and an intertie. It didn't go anywhere because the Borough Assembly knew better and Bill W. and Frank P. turned their attention to where they thought they had better action: In Wrangell, where Robin Taylor was involved, and Whittier, where the mayor, the city administrator (for a "city" of 182 people), and the harbormaster all had their fingers in the pie. I don't think the schemers ever wanted to build in Whittier, where there's no labor force, the tunnel problem, tsunamis, avalanche and probably a potential Superfund problem, but it was the mechanism they were using to get the state to change the law to favor their various schemes. If they were able to do that, they could have built anywhere. Knowles wasn't going for it, as were many legislators who gave it the fish eye. In addition to the above grifters, Jerry Ward, Loren Leman and Eldon Mulder were also looking to score big with Cornell or whomever. Frank M. wasn't enthusiastic about the various Cornell/Prewitt/Weimar schemes that included Sitka, Nome (!), and Mat Su as well as those others. There was some talk about Fairbanks, too, but legislators such as Bud Fate put the kibosh on that notion. Uncle Ted got the dough, almost, for the Gravina bridge, but Coburn put a stop to it. Activist ( talk) 05:32, 30 September 2013 (UTC) reply

I posted at BLPN, the article talk page, and now here. You are doing a good job on the article. If you still are having trouble, post a request at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection, which can prevent the IPs from posting to the article while allowing you to continue editing it (e.g., semi-protected or feedback protected). -- Jreferee ( talk) 06:20, 30 September 2013 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the feedback. I requested temporary protection and will follow through on further steps. Activist ( talk) 22:02, 30 September 2013 (UTC) reply

I protected the page and gave you reviewer and rollbacker rights. If you need more to help you maintain the Alaska political corruption probe page, etc. please let me know. -- Jreferee ( talk) 11:12, 1 October 2013 (UTC) reply

Thanks so much for your assistance. If I do need help I'll give you a heads up. Activist ( talk) 06:31, 2 October 2013 (UTC) reply

I added Juneau Empire and ADN articles that are accessible and back up the Department of Law documents as one editor asked. Perhaps removing "probe" from the title would resolve the issues with a union which has a BM that is not allowed to represent dues payers. Calling the page "Alaska Corruption" sounds good to me. Obviously 223-03-0342 is a quid -pro -quo as it were, and clearly the Department of Law suggests revisit of such ethics problems may take a different direction in the courts.(As documented in AG opinion.) The sex for job hiring policies under Duncan's stipulation that replaced the merit system the state is supposed to have, another quid-pro-quo. 98.168.175.209 ( talk) 00:27, 1 October 2013 (UTC) reply

There's nothing wrong with the title. It actually and precisely describes an important series of events in Alaska political history. Duncan was hired by ASEA, per your documents and references, 11 years ago, well before the completely unrelated probe began. He engaged in a one-year stipulation that is common among those who change jobs that he would not involve himself those issues in which he had been involved as Commissioner of Administration. That expired a decade ago and so there have been no restrictions on his representation since. Your personal feelings about Duncan, whatever they are, don't permit you to shoehorn your opinions about him or others into an article on another subject entirely. The statement by the AG's office about revisiting an opinion had absolutely nothing to do with Duncan. If you need a forum to air your ancient grievances about someone who had nothing to do with the subject of this page in any way, you need to remove them to another more appropriate venue. You've been informed by numerous editors that you need to abide by Wikipedia policies, including avoiding WP:COI. I'm hoping that you also don't restore or renew your unprovoked personal attacks and diatribes against me that also violate those policies. None of this should be too difficult for you to understand. Activist ( talk) 01:15, 1 October 2013 (UTC) reply

Thanks for your comments on my talk page. I have no problem with Slate, Salon, Motherjones, or for that matter DemocracyNow or RealNews, in fact I think all of these do great journalism. But the way I understand Wikipedia, most of what appears in these venues would be considered primary sources (investigative journalism) or opinion pieces and hence not appropriate as references for encyclopedia articles, especially controversial ones. If there is a fact that is worth mentioning in an encyclopedia article, it should probably have a secondary source at least somewhere in the news media, or at least an official primary source (like a court document or something). I'm sure I don't have to remind you about WP:PRIMARY and that Wikipedia itself is an encyclopedia, a tertiary source, and hence relies on secondary sources for credibility.

If the "fact" is a mere claim made in a venue such as those above without any other confirming source, it is not appropriate as a reference on Wikipedia. In some venues such as those, there are plenty of cited sources for a story that would be fine references. Other times, referencing links are internal, dead, or missing. This does not mean that there is anything necessarily wrong with the original story; it could be investigative, the sources could be anonymous, etc. But it does mean, in the view of this editor, that it is not an encyclopedia source. For instance, your motherjones link you're pushing on the GEO article is turning up next to nothing. Nevertheless I'm keeping track of a few leads that may be able to make their way into the article in some relevant form. Speaking of this, I'm going to take the rest of this issue to the talk page at the GEO article, where most of this should be voiced anyway. Eflatmajor7th ( talk) 00:33, 30 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Continued:

As a wikipedia editor, I'm not really interested in your knowledge and analysis of world politics and propaganda systems. I happen to agree with most of it, but that doesn't matter here, so there's no reason to keep laying down paragraphs on my talk page. I'm not going to talk further about motherjones and whether or not it should be used as a source and where, because that is really a matter for a community discussion. What we're talking about here is encyclopedia articles, their content, and the references for that content. You were trying to use the motherjones article as a reference that a particular facility exists. That, as I said, is pointless. Instead I used "some GEO Group corporate boiler plate"; of course I did, because that's the easiest reference to use for a trivial fact. What is not trivial is WHETHER that fact belongs in the article. This was the relevant discussion to have, which I had, with Niteshift on the talk page, while you were busy composing a summary of geopolitics for me. The Reeves facility is now mentioned in the article in case you hadn't noticed.

While Niteshift and I of course have many disagreements (which is often a kind of collaboration that contributes to a good article), I think he and I are both stumped as to what actual content, facts, you want to put in the article. You need to go to the talk page and say what content you want to include, where, why, and what the references are. Then there will likely be a bunch of disagreements and caveats. That's life. But it's how to make an article. You might have noticed, if you went through the history of the GEO article, that if it weren't for me and one or two other editors, the entire "controversies" would probably have been wiped in the wake of the stupid FAU stadium scandal. And the reason, had that happened, would not have been because anything in there was false, it would have been because the sources were shitty or missing, the writing was sloppy, and maybe most importantly, the content in there had not been justified as "controversial". So I argued that, rather than diffusing the section into the history section, we should find better sources and rewrite most of the section. So we, mostly I, did that. The article is still not very good, but it's better now than before.

If, for instance, you want to include a mention of the riot at Reeves, you'll first have to justify including that on the talk page (I probably wouldn't object, but the conversation should be had). And if you think the motherjones piece is a good source for that, then it would be interesting to see you try to convince other editors besides me, on my talk page, that that's a good source. Again, I probably wouldn't have an objection, but the conversation should be had. You might also look at the sources I put on the talk page. And wikipedia doesn't necessarily run on the precedent of other articles; it would be hard to evolve that way. Just because the article for private prisons cites all kinds of left-leaning media and aclu stuff, doesn't mean anything for another article. That's because groups of editors achieve consensus about specific articles they work on, and one article could have completely different approaches than another, and both could still be within WP policy. The relevant policy that was frequently brought up in the context of wiping the controversies section, not using certain types of sources, etc., was WP:UNDUE. I don't necessarily agree that it applies everywhere it's invoked, but again, that's life. Eflatmajor7th ( talk) 00:40, 2 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Continued:

Thanks for your comments, again. I don't doubt what you've said about GEO, etc. But if you want to include something in the article, you shouldn't be discouraged by Niteshift's "tirades" or "purges", neither of which accurately characterizes his behavior, I think. He is a long-time WP editor who is understandably guarding his territory (and who, of course, is of a particular political disposition), and he needs to be convinced of the legitimacy of edits. Nothing extremely surprising here. You said "I want to insert content that legitimately and importantly reflects on the actuality of GEO's operation." What is it? I ask again, what is that content? Don't talk about it here, and don't talk about it on my talk page, put it on the GEO talk page, right now, if you think it's important. There we'll discuss it, not here. Eflatmajor7th ( talk) 11:27, 2 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Thanks. That did help. I've replied at User talk:RadioKAOS. CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 22:11, 16 May 2014 (UTC) reply

You know far more about this than me. My info is very sketchy compared to yours. Activist ( talk) 05:53, 17 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Your recent editing history at Carl DeMaio 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. CFredkin ( talk) 20:10, 14 October 2014 (UTC) reply

• I'm asked not to respond in kind, because you are presently blocked for a week for doing exactly what you're disingenuously accusing me of doing. I'm about as guilty as starting a war as the Poles, who were so accused by Hitler of attacking Germany in 1939. Activist ( talk) 19:21, 22 October 2014 (UTC) reply

I have not been involved in an edit war. I have not reverted other editors work, in fact I have done two reverts in response to those that removed my own well founded edits, one each on the article talk page and article itself. Your complaint is POINTy, in my estimation. I have laboriously provided requested sourcing in response to other editors' comments. Your complaints here are in my opinion, tendentious. It's particularly ironic, given your own history of pervasive involvement in edit wars where you have simply apparently tried to wear down other editors and preserve your own extremely partisan view of history. Activist ( talk) 20:27, 14 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Activist, I came here to give you the same warning. You added the same material three times. If you do it again I will report you for edit warring. I will issue the same warning to CFredkin since he reverted you three times. -- MelanieN ( talk) 21:25, 14 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Responded with brief comment. Activist ( talk) 13:32, 19 October 2014 (UTC) reply

CFredkin was later blocked for sockpuppetry. Activist ( talk) 14:33, 12 December 2019 (UTC) reply

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Mark Begich. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot ( talk) 00:04, 6 November 2014 (UTC) reply

( talk page stalker) Heh heh heh...while I likely do have some things to say about this one, I decided to step away from such sewer pits until after the election hysteria has died down and the trolls move on to other conquests. Trust me on this one, you would stand a better chance of taking home a woman you met at the neighborhood "fine drinking establishment" and not contracting an STD than you would in getting any resolution or satisfaction out of that monstrous trollfest, populated by editors who constantly throw up the AGF shield as they tell you that they're merely improving the encyclopedia, all the while making countless edits which amount to little more than unabashed damage control and/or puffery. Just a friendly warning in the event you haven't been following it. It's the same principle behind not responding right away to your concerns about Mead Treadwell, even though I agree that you did raise a valid concern (obviously, as look at how quickly it was whitewashed by another editor). RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 02:46, 6 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Thank you for providing the reference. I need to change the wording to reflect the fact that "several" quakes were felt by a person at the surface, associated with the well in Oklahoma. There are still three wells known to have triggered such quakes, but you are right that there were more than three quakes. I will change the wording to reflect that, and see what you think. The number of quakes recorded by seismograph (43) is irrelevant, because the sentence is about those large enough to be felt by humans. Every frac job generates many small seismic events, detectable only by sensitive instrumentation. As to the the total number of earthquakes in Oklahoma, if any of them had been both associated with a frac'ed well, and felt by a human at the surface, that fact would have been no doubt studied and reported in great detail, as was this instance in your provided reference, because such events are so rare. So other than the Garvin County well, The increase in seismic activity in Oklahoma, as is the case elsewhere, is presumably associated with disposal wells reinjecting the produced brine, which is where the real problem lies. Regards, Plazak ( talk) 22:05, 31 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the very interesting note on the Santa Maria Basin quake in 1992. The 2 problems with associating that one with fracking appear to be 1) this is a much more seismically active area than the US Midcontinent, so near-coincidence in time is not nearly as remarkable, and 2) the article did not seem to give the location of the quake with respect to the fracked well, so apparently they do not know if it occurred in the near vicinity. Without correlation of both time and location, the authors did not draw conclusions. As the Wikipedia article says, there are 3 “known” instances of fracked wells triggering earthquakes; those that are not regarded by experts in the field as having some probability of causation are, I think by definition, not “known”. One can speculate that there have been more, but only three are known.

As for waste disposal wells, I note that you deleted from a sentence in the UK fracking article words to the effect that earthquakes are triggered by relatively few injection wells. This is actually a common observation, for instance the following by a USGS researcher writing in Science:

“However, only a small fraction of the more than 30,000 wastewater disposal wells appears to be problematic—typically those that dispose of very large volumes of water and/or communicate pressure perturbations directly into basement faults.” ( “Injection-induced earthquakes”

This observation certainly merits inclusion in any discussion of the subject. Regards Plazak ( talk) 06:39, 1 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the note. The US Midcontinent earthquakes (mostly Oklahoma) have certainly been increasing rapidly in number, although I'm not sure about magnitude, since the only quakes magnitude >5 were in 2011. But these things tend to be spotty. I suspect that Oklahoma state authorities have been busily limiting injection pressures and volumes at brine disposal wells, while still trying to accommodate the increased need for brine disposal. There must be some available information on this. Like yourself, I was always intrigued by the Manitou Cliff Dwellings, since I had never known of Anasazi ruins so far east. After I found out that the site was built around 1904, I paid my way into the place; nothing at the site informs you that it is recently constructed. I suspect that most visitors go away thinking that it is a genuine ancient site. Regards Plazak ( talk) 11:52, 6 January 2015 (UTC) reply

@ Plazak:I just ran across this above note again which you wrote a year ago as I looked for sections in my TALK page that might be usefully deleted or archived. I expect you're probably aware, but the OK earthquake swarms article to which you were posting in October has changed its title to 2009-2016 and your old changes show the new title in your contribution history. You may also be aware that the KS authorities ordered cutbacks in injection well pressures and volumes last March. Austin Holland, the state geologist who was reluctantly admitting despite industry pressure that OK injection wells were inducing significant seismicity was pushed out of his position and now works for the USGS in NM. Sandridge, recently delisted from the NYSE and under huge financial pressure, refused to abide by the OK Corporation Commission orders to cut back on disposal in some injection wells. I am not aware of any OK quakes in the MMS>5 range, but there have been many recently crowding that magnitude. The magnitude and frequency of KS quakes has dropped since the issuance of that order, after topping out at MMS 4.9 in 2014. Activist ( talk) 06:55, 19 January 2016 (UTC) reply

RE: Phillip Puckett: "Removed inaccurate descriptor: CREW is officially non-partisan and went after Puckett and many other Democrats". Do you really believe this nonsense? They went after Puckett because he became a Republican, and was therefore not a Democrat when CREW went after him. Please don't put agitprop in your edit summaries. Quis separabit? 03:45, 6 January 2015 (UTC) reply

I don't know where you get your information, but it is absolutely inaccurate. Puckett was still a Democrat on the day he resigned from the Virginia legislature. You can just go to the many citations that are part of this article, and to the text of the article itself, which will confirm that you are wrong. It is against Wikipedia policy to level attacks against other editors. I respectfully request that you check what you believe are your facts and respond to me with an apology. Activist ( talk) 14:52, 7 January 2015 (UTC) reply

I looked at what you described. I faintly recall having seen this come across my watchlist at the time, but probably didn't look that closely or I would have fixed it. The accompanying statement "He is currently married to Greg brown", and the listed date of death being three months after the edit, should have been obvious tip-offs to vandalism. That it appears to have been partially reverted by Moira Smith herself should have been another tip-off. The "death information" was entered into persondata, meaning that while it doesn't appear in the article, it does appear in certain envrionments which are tied into persondata (the page I linked to describes it better than I ever could). Honestly, if it weren't for the fact that I've seen his name in one or another news story in the past two years, I wouldn't have known any better whether or not he had died.

Here's something even better than that, though. Jake Metcalfe is not mentioned in his father's listing in Who's Who in Alaskan Politics, even though he had already graduated from JDHS by the time it was published. I previously assumed that the listing was lifted verbatim from the listing in Alaska — Who's Here — What's Doing — Who's Doing It by Edmond C. Jeffery, which was published several years before Jake's birth. Not exactly; Atwood and DeArmond did update Vern Metcalfe's career through his employment with the state education department in 1971. Jake's article says that Vern had nine children: Jeffery lists Vern Jr., Kim, Peter and Patrice. Atwood and DeArmond lists the same, except they say that Patrice is actually Patricia, and they added Kathleen. That means that four children are missing from the listing. I'm guessing that Vern Metcalfe was long gone from the public eye by 1977, so that information may not have been so easy to obtain. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 20:16, 11 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the compliment. Bill Parker, now there's a blast from my past. I think I mentioned a while back that when Bill Weimar first came to my attention in the late 1970s/early 1980s, he was an active Democrat. Some may find that inconceivable, given his later activities. Maybe he stumbled upon the same batch of Kool-Aid as Donley, Mackie, Williams, etc. Anyway, there once was a time when I would interchangeably confuse Bill Parker, Bill Weimar and Bill Miles. Probably not as strange as it would seem: others have interchangeably confused Mildred Hermann, Mildred Banfield and Mildred Meiers Hansen. Bringing this back around to the previous discussion, I believe Kim Metcalfe purchased the legislative reporting service founded by Hansen. I could be wrong, but I don't think it's in business anymore, as it appears that the Bradner brothers have that field pretty well locked up. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 09:16, 13 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Rafael Bienvenido Cruz. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted or removed.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:48, 23 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Winkelvi|WVDisruptive editing, it appears to me, is exactly what you're doing. Certainly we can resolve this collegially. Activist ( talk) 17:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC) reply

When you keep re-adding improperly sourced content to a BLP and edit warring over it and leaving TLDR screeds on another editor's talk page because they are following BLP guidelines, yes. That is the definition of disruptive editing. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Winkelvi|WV Why are you ignoring my request that we submit this to arbitration. You seem to be also contesting the accuracy of any source that doesn't meet your notion of what's a RSS, though it may have stood in the article for quite some time. It quite clear that your view is that it's your way or the highway. I don't have time to deal with you any longer. I repeat my request that we submit this to arbitration. Activist ( talk) 18:04, 23 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Arbitration is the last place to go if editors find themselves in an unresolvable morass. This is a dispute over one article and doesn't warrant arbitration and a case request would be declined. If you can't come to agreement with other editors on the article talk page, go to dispute resolution and maybe they can help. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the feedback, Liz. Activist ( talk) 21:39, 23 November 2015 (UTC) reply

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Rafael Bienvenido Cruz. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.
Utilize WP:BRD on the article talk page, do not edit war over content. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:05, 29 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Talk:Rafael Bienvenido Cruz. Such edits are disruptive and appear to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Warning is in regard to this edit. Don't do it again. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:46, 30 November 2015 (UTC) reply

@ Winkelvi:Your threats are getting very disturbing. I don't know if you're deliberately trying to upset me or if you're simply devoid of empathy. You keep accusing me of doing things I'm not doing (what did I delete from the Talk page, for instance?), complaining to others that I'm "stalking you," when no case could be made against me but certainly one could against you, that I'm engaging in edit warring when you have attacked the majority of my posts on RBC's page, and you refuse to even read, no less consider, my explanations that might help to resolve our problem. You continue to actually order me how to edit, and assign what WP policies I should read, as if you possess some imperial authority and have no obligation to observe the social conventions of common courtesy. I really think an honest apology is in order. Activist ( talk) 20:35, 30 November 2015 (UTC) reply

You bolded another editor's talk page comments. That's against policy per TPO. I never once accused you of stalking me or anyone. Your comments on article edits are typically too long, run off topic, and never really get to a bottom line that would help readers understand what point you are trying to make. I hope that helps. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:02, 30 November 2015 (UTC) reply

@ Winkelvi:You wrote, "I never once accused you of stalking?" What do you call this?

(talk page stalker) Things wouldn't likely go well for Activist at either. He's been stubbornly edit warring and violating BLP guidelines over his insistence on keeping the content in addition to citing unreliable sources. He hasn't even exercised BRD on the article talk page. Folliwing BLP guidelines/policy and exercising the 'D' portion of BRD should be his first actions. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

I hope that helps. Activist ( talk) 12:57, 4 December 2015 (UTC) reply

I call it having the other editor's talk page on my watchlist. " Talk page stalker" is a common Wikipedia term for those who have the talk pages of others on their watchlist. Many editors do it and call it that. It's not actual stalking. But, if it were, the person being stalked is the other editor, not you. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:33, 4 December 2015 (UTC) reply

I stand corrected. Thanks! Activist ( talk) 18:10, 4 December 2015 (UTC) reply

I probably never followed up on various discussions between you and I in recent months when I should have. The progress-to-activity ratio around here is appallingly low at times, mainly because we have lots of editors whose activities suggest that they view Wikipedia as an alternate form of social media, while plenty of content is left in a state which reinforces the "Wikipedia is a joke" meme. For that reason, I'm beginning to disdain discussions, especially when I'm being nice and trying to give people a clue for free rather than telling them to go to Walmart and buy one. Ahem, anyway...

I see that you worked on Jerry Ward's article recently. I've been working on filling in the Alaska section of List of Native American politicians, in which I had to leave his specific ethnicity blank. I actually met Jerry's mother once, back around 1992 or thereabouts, but all I really know about her is that she's from Nenana. That doesn't necessarily help with identifying his ethnicity; between its longstanding role as the intersecting point between transportation networks and its former role as the headquarters of the Episcopal Diocese of Alaska, Nenana has long attracted Natives from all over. If you can think of anything which may help, let me know.

Also, I just left a huge wall of text at Talk:Alaska Department of Corrections over one editor's efforts to turn that article and List of Alaska state prisons into a mindless repetition of the department's official website and other cherry-picked sources instead of something I would call useful encyclopedic content. I had to search for source material, and the 1985 Alaska Blue Book had some possible gems related to Sheffield's hiring of Roger Endell to lead corrections out of HSS and into its own department, but there were too many holes in the narrative of that one particular source for me to put anything into the article. Anyway, looking elsewhere in this book, I found a tidbit which could possibly be a prehistory of the Corrupt Bastards Club. pp. 114–122 contained a list of lobbyists registered with APOC. VECO's lobbyist is listed as one M. E. "Ed" Dankworth of Dankworth & Associates, not long after he left the legislature. Ken Fanning and John Manly (then his legislative aide, later press secretary "to the stars") collaborated on a book about the 12th Legislature, Behind The Scenes in the Alaska Legislature, which I would highly recommend if you haven't already read it. Manly drew numerous cartoons in the style of newspaper editorial cartoons. Some of them are dated, such as Bob Palmer lecturing on how moving the capital to Willow will make it easier for the Delta-area barley farmers to come and beg for their state subsidies, framed as "bison migration". The section entitled "Corruption in Government" is accompanied by a cartoon of Dankworth as " The Fat Lady", appearing pretty much like this. In the cartoon, Dankworth "sings" the following:

I-I-I will Not seek re-election!

I-I-I have Biz-ness to conduct!

Many, many private Deals that must be cut...

Without attracting too much Public attention!

So, please...leave...ME...AAAAAAAAALONE!

The caption at the bottom of the cartoon reads: "The fat lady having sung, the opera adjourned on the 144th day". Any of this sound familiar? George Hohman isn't mentioned by name in this section, but it sure appears that the text refers to the events which led to his expulsion by the Senate. Here's another possible tie to CBC. Wasn't Dankworth succeeded as head of AST by Tom Anderson, Sr.? I knew the elder Anderson from the Sullivan Arena (one of the middle managers under him was Dan Sullivan, as in the former mayor) and don't know all that much about his prior law enforcement career. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 04:11, 15 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Hi Activist—thanks for keeping a keen eye on the citation date. I actually didn't touch any of the citations (citation intricacies happen to be one of my least favorite things). After poring through the change log I notice I accidentally reverted the date update in this edit. Thanks for catching that. I believe that as I was working on the infobox, you corrected the citation. I might have also copy-pasted wikitext from multiple versions of the page. When I saved the changes to the infobox that overwrote the citation fix. In other words, that reintroduced an old mistake. Good thing to be aware of.

Thanks for your contributions as well! CaseyPenk ( talk) 06:11, 19 January 2016 (UTC) reply

@ CaseyPenk:You're most welcome! 06:15, 19 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Hey, realizing Obama can do more than "pardon" - as in commute the sentence - was a good catch. Instead of saying all that in the lead, I tweaked to the sources language "clemncy" and just gave a wikilink to where the pardon power is discussed.... note that section explains pardon-power includes commutation of sentence. Good eye NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 12:00, 19 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Posting the entire text of his own articles to my talk page isn't helping anything — as I've already pointed out numerous times, a person does not get a Wikipedia article by being the author of the article's sources, he gets it by being the subject of them (which is why his notability as an academic has to be parked on media coverage about his academic work, and not on a directory listing of his academic articles.) And even if it were a source that could contribute toward getting him over WP:GNG, it would have to be cited in the article, not copied and pasted to an administrator's talk page. Plus, for the record, I now have to remove it from my talk page because WP:COPYVIO. Bearcat ( talk) 15:36, 17 March 2016 (UTC) reply

	The Barnstar of Good Humor
	Thanks for defending me at the Tim Canova AfD! Appreciate the good humor. MrWooHoo ( talk) 01:32, 25 March 2016 (UTC) reply

		The Civility Barnstar
		A barnstar for your civility in dealing with a disagreement at Talk:U.N. Me DaltonCastle ( talk) 21:54, 16 April 2016 (UTC) reply

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	for bringing Senator Murphy gun control filibuster up to snuff E.M.Gregory ( talk) 18:29, 21 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Hello, Activist. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Niteshift36 ( talk) 19:14, 27 June 2016 (UTC) reply

@ Elinruby: Neglected to ping you on discussion on my Talk page. Activist ( talk) 07:27, 25 October 2016 (UTC) reply

Why are you pinging me on Talk:G4S Secure Solutions? I only made one revert, while anti-vandalism patrolling. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 19:50, 1 July 2016 (UTC) Thanks for the notice. I'll drop you from those pings. I apologize if they've been a distraction. Activist ( talk) 19:52, 1 July 2016 (UTC) reply

• See.... I told you that pinging nonsense was annoying. Niteshift36 ( talk) 22:09, 1 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Did you know there is a whole article about G4S Controversies? Why don't you put all this excessive coverage there? Niteshift36 ( talk) 22:08, 1 July 2016 (UTC) reply

I have known about it for weeks. Why don't you do it? I'm already too busy trying to keep up with your endless reverts. Activist ( talk) 22:13, 1 July 2016 (UTC) reply

• Of course.... why would I think that you'd actually give a crap about an article that is supposed to have detailed descriptions of this sort of material? Talking to you is pointless. Niteshift36 ( talk) 02:06, 2 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Is it this edit?

I meant that for all of the editors of the article in general. If you had done the edit, though, I strongly suggest heeding it. One thing that's really important on Wikipedia is referencing. Material can be removed if it's "unreferenced" (unless we're talking about common knowledge) - Manipulating information without keeping it close to the sources can lead to stuff being mistakenly removed by new editors who are unaware of what happened.

• That's it, all right. I presumed that your tip was meant for any editor, generally, but wasn't sure if it might not have been meant solely for me and I wanted to make sure I responded if that were the case.The Epps business is something I've been looking at for years before it ever got on the USAG's radar (when that concerned county sheriff blew the whistle to the AG or FBI) because of other things Chris had been habitually doing that gave rise to strong suspicions that he was a crook. The whole issue is terribly complex, of course, involving so many entities and individuals, and I'd hoped to lay it out so any naive reader with an interest could understand it. What do you think of the article, as far as that goes? This year, I've been wondering if other sheriffs or county officials might be involved in quids pro quo, or whatever, and now I guess we'll probably see that happening. I do wonder how many prosecutions have been lost, though, due to delays that have exceeded statutes of limitations? Cornell execs had a long history of corruption, for instance, but I'm guessing they're pretty much off the hook, unless there are some secret indictments out there. A reporter friend who has been covering this for some time ventured early last year that Epps had probably worn a wire for months before his original indictment had been made public. I also wonder if Sparkman's name is ever going to be brought up? Thanks for your current and future input. Activist ( talk) 17:16, 6 July 2016 (UTC) reply

There he is. That's definitely an Athabaskan vest he's wearing, but I don't recognize anything about the design which would point to a specific ethnicity or "tribe". But what's up with all these taniks wearing kuspuks, anyway? And is that a bolo tie I see Tuckerman wearing? Does he think he's Joe Vogler now or something? RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 11:05, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply

I didn't see him, but I heard that he and Dave Donley were both there pushing Cruz, beating up on Trump.

I'll see if I can't figure out what tribe he belongs to. I'll take a look at the article when I get back on line. Gotta go. Activist ( talk) 18:45, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply

He's in the center of the first photo, about the only one in that shot not wearing a kuspuk. One of the commenters made a remark about "his fake Caswell tribe". Caswell was recognized as a village entity in ANCSA, but it's unclear to me what role his family may or may not have played in that. This implies Dena'ina ancestry, but I wouldn't want to just assume that to be the case. In the Caswell area, there's a turnoff at around mile 86 of the Parks (pretty close to Sheep Creek Lodge) which leads back to a rather extensive series of subdivisions. I do know that his family's real estate business has been heavily involved with that, but I don't know if there's any firm connection between the two. Also, are you claiming that Ward is pushing Cruz? Nothing about this election would surprise me anymore, but that doesn't sound right considering the story states "Trump staffers were in touch with Alaska's Trump campaign chair, Jerry Ward". RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 20:03, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply

@ RadioKAOS: I think that those who told me that there was rebellion from Trump, were unknowingly talking about Ward and others doing the right thing, making sure Cruz and Rubio votes were counted, honoring the preferences of the Alaskan Republican primary voters. My friends, having watched that part of the convention on TV, assumed the protest was intended to throw a wrench into the Trump nomination. Activist ( talk) 05:47, 23 July 2016 (UTC) reply

@ Zigzig20s:, @ D.Creish:, @ Notque:, I restored the most recent scrubbing of the DWS article by VolunteerM. I expect he or she may be very unhappy. Activist ( talk) 23:58, 24 July 2016 (UTC) reply

What you are doing above is an improper form of WP:CANVASSing. It's against Wikipedia policy. Please don't do this again. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 06:40, 25 July 2016 (UTC) reply

@ Zigzig20s:, @ D.Creish:, @ Notque:, I clearly haven't asked anyone to do anything. The pinging was merely a courtesy notice to some of the most recent of many other editors who have differed with you over your interesting and persistent removals of what present as well documented facts in the DWS article. I'm not remotely responsible for what you imagine might be happening. Activist ( talk) 14:40, 25 July 2016 (UTC) reply

@ Volunteer Marek: As was explained on the article's talk page, it's not canvassing when the recipients are all active participants.

On another note: at what point were you planning to notify these active participants you had started a discussion on the BLP noticeboard? The instructions say to place a template notification tag on the article's talk page. Did you forget or am I missing it? I see you accuse me of being an SPA (what that single purpose could be I can't determine) who's made "BLP violations on related articles" - another accusation without evidence. Battleground behavior under discretionary sanctions should not be tolerated. Perhaps you'd like an opportunity to correct the record? D.Creish ( talk) 06:52, 26 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Your recent editing history at Debbie Wasserman Schultz shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

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.

Please self-revert your latest revert. This is a BLP. You cannot include contentious material if it's been challenged. I suggest starting an RfC or bringing the issue up to WP:BLPN again. But you really need to quit it with the edit warring. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 00:08, 31 July 2016 (UTC) reply

I am also going to ask you to refrain from making personal attacks as you did here. Discuss content, not the editor. Please keep in mind that the article is subject to discretionary sanctions. Come on, filing out WP:AE reports is a big pain in the ass so don't make me do it. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 06:22, 31 July 2016 (UTC) reply

@ WWB:, @ Fuzheado: Dear William and Andrew. I noticed your submission this afternoon. I submitted a similar, but less extensive, proposal a few days ago for the Wikipedia conference. [ [1]] I had first searched the list for "paid," but not COI and when I didn't get any hits, I made my submission. You are soliciting a third panelist. I'd be happy to join you. I was going to prepare some slides that make a case for more effective COI blocking by corporate content controllers/IPNs and paid editors who have not been blocked under their current Wikipedia identities. If you would be okay with me joining you, I can withdraw my separate proposal and if there are any other editors who have indicated an interest in my proposal, I'd ping them to note the fusion of the proposals. At present, one community editor has exhibited an interest in your proposal. Thanks. Activist ( talk) 20:26, 26 August 2016 (UTC) reply

• @WWB:, @Fuzheado: Dear William and Andrew. My request for a scholarship was approved, so I'll get gas money to get to San Diego.

Your recent editing history at Tim Canova shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

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.

The article is under a 1RR restriction. With these three edits [2], [3], [4] you've basically violated that twice. Please at the very least self-revert your last revert. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 03:45, 1 September 2016 (UTC) reply

'@ Volunteer Marek: Help me to understand this. So what you're saying is that it's okay for you to do massive reverts, three in a day (three in eight minutes of your very careful consideration I'm sure, actually), but only for you, and not anyone else?

(cur | prev) 06:17, 31 August 2016‎ Volunteer Marek (talk | contribs)‎ . . (18,668 bytes) (-104)‎ . . (→‎2016 Democratic National Committee email leak: what the sources actually say) (undo | thank)

(cur | prev) 06:12, 31 August 2016‎ Volunteer Marek (talk | contribs)‎ . . (18,772 bytes) (-3,843)‎ . . (→‎2016 Congressional campaign: update, shorten (now that the race is over hopefully there'll be no need to use this as a campaign platform), rmv unreliable sourcs) (undo | thank)

(cur | prev) 06:09, 31 August 2016‎ Volunteer Marek (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (22,615 bytes) (-14)‎ . . (Reverted edits by 2601:204:D003:7B40:30FF:F4CF:CDA4:7892 (talk) to last version by MB298) (undo | thank)

Have I missed anything? I'm trying to understand your ground rules.

Humpty appears in Lewis Carroll's Through the Looking-Glass (1872), where he discusses semantics and pragmatics with Alice.

"I don't know what you mean by 'glory,' " Alice said. Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. "Of course you don't—till I tell you. I meant 'there's a nice knock-down argument for you!' " "But 'glory' doesn't mean 'a nice knock-down argument'," Alice objected. "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less." "The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things." "The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master—that's all."

Alice was too much puzzled to say anything, so after a minute Humpty Dumpty began again. "They've a temper, some of them—particularly verbs, they're the proudest—adjectives you can do anything with, but not verbs—however, I can manage the whole lot! Impenetrability! That's what I say!

Activist ( talk) 05:20, 1 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Sequential edits are not counted as separate reverts. That there is one revert by me. A revert is when you keep undoing some one else's edits. You did that three times. I reverted once. Again, please self revert. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 12:36, 1 September 2016 (UTC) reply

You can also read WP:3RR as linked above: A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert.. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 13:11, 1 September 2016 (UTC) reply

You seem to have honed your peculiar editing to a fine edge. Three edits savage in eight minutes, undoing hours of careful work, including the time it took to make extensive repairs to your prior insufficient edits, require some deliberation and reserve. I took the time to do that. So then with a bit Wikilawyering, you seem to justify your arguably non-neutral attacks on not only my work, but apparently habitually on the efforts of other assumed good faith editors. Just in my opinion, of course. Activist ( talk) 06:03, 2 September 2016 (UTC) reply

disputed paragraph

Hello, re this un-discussed restoration of text, you ended your EditDiff with see talk, only there is no talk thread. Additionally, the essay BRD has a section saying that it is NOT B-R-R-D, which is what you did. The EW policy also says you can be edit warring without even coming close to breaking 3RR.

Please turn your attention to the version history of the article so far today, where I have painstakingly done individual edits to remove the problematic parts of your desired text. Each of my reasons is stated in the Edit summaries.

If you can expand that section or go deeper into who said what with RS based text, wonderful! Thanks NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 10:02, 3 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Sorry about that and thanks for the tips. I incorporated a few of your edits into my restoration of the original text. I had written that text hours before the OPB story on the current situation broke yesterday and of course there have been copious edits since the story appeared. There is and was a considerable divide on the political issues involved in the occupation, between Walden and the Governor and the four others in the Oregon congressional delegation. I'm guessing that his district encompasses the vast bulk, maybe 75% of the low-population eastern and southern parts of the state. It's almost entirely rural, save for Bend, Medford and Grants Pass. I'm not sure if Ashland is part of it. He's the only Republican in the delegation, with four House members and Merkley and Wyden. I was going to go back and clean it up some more, incorporating more of your edits such as the expanded Wikilinks, but when I started to review the article from the top, I noticed that the "leadership" section had Finicum's residence wrong, and I went off to check that from a number of sources before returning to correct it. By then you had written to me, though I was unaware. I think in the future, if I'm going to expand an edit summary with a direction to a TALK page, I'll open up two windows so that I can do them simultaneously and not repeat the problem I caused. Thanks for the heads up. Activist ( talk) 10:22, 3 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Yes, I know the area. Frequent visitor in those parts during my wild youth. No worries, I often forget to start the talk first also. I'm not particularly interested in covering the electoral politics end of this so I'm glad you are! My interest lies more in covering the public lands side of things. There's some overlap of course. Happy editing and thanks for the above note. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 11:39, 3 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Hi! I think the bit about Chris Epps's legal troubles may be disorganized and is too long without sub-sections. Make sure that content is grouped accordingly and that, if needed, sub-sections are put in. Perhaps it can be organized by date or by theme (say one about Epp's own plea and then one about co-conspirators). WhisperToMe ( talk) 20:52, 11 September 2016 (UTC) reply

@ WhisperToMe: Thanks for the feedback. I've been recently thinking the same as the article and the cast of characters has grown, except that the content has largely been this long, tedious procession of similar grifters who were in on the same scam, without that much variance. No other editor has seemed to have much interest for what I feel is such a major public issue, or to explore its complexity. To date, the big players in the prison hustles there have yet to have their names broached. The US AG for MS has said there will be more forthcoming indictments. I haven't been curious enough to check and see who are the four corporations which didn't want their responses to the court released, save under seal, and the MS press hasn't yet looked in that obvious direction. But those four corporations that did the vast majority of business with Epps have a long history of corruption, though none of them have ever been criminally prosecuted for it. Even PACER isn't going to tell us about things that have yet to be charged...who might be guilty and who might not. One, Cornell, has been out of business for six years so I expect the statute of limitations has expired for its execs. It never got prosecuted for laundering campaign contributions in Alaska, 15 years ago, for paying off the mayor of Richmond, VA, around the same time, etc., though some of its partners in crime were and the payments were disclosed in courtrooms. If Epps indeed got at least $1.47 million (probably more) and there seems to be no dispute about that bottom number, he couldn't have gotten that kind of money from the collection of bit players who have been indicted to date. Also that dough was split with McCrory, who has asked to change his guilty plea for the better part of a year. It's only going to take a single one of those unsentenced defendants to say, "Yes, I gave the money to McCrory with the understanding that I would get X or Y with no competition if I played ball, or no contract if I didn't. Since the payments were carefully structured by and probably between both Epps and McCrory, to conceal disclosure from the IRS, the conspiracy between them shouldn't be difficult at all to prove to a jury. I'm no legal scholar, but I think if a prosecutor can prove that A & B conspired to do X or Y, and that B & C did so as well, that C could be prosecuted for A's actions, even without personal knowledge of the particulars. In my very limited knowledge, the OPI or FBI take very unkindly to an informant or defendant reneging on a deal; so McCrory it would seem, has abandoned a choice of between going to jail for a set long period, or alternatively, gambling on either going free or going forever. Maybe he's holding out to renegotiate the deal. I've thought about looking at PACER to see whom is requesting their disclosure to be under seal, but since it would be a primary source, it wouldn't be appropriate for adding to the article's content, unless I misunderstand the conventions. I'll see if I can think of or discover a previous similar case, perhaps ABSCAM or Watergate, or something, to see how they were handled here. It might be easier than I'd imagined. I'm really tight on time with a bunch of different and important personal projects that I've been engaged in, so it's hard for me to find devote the time to Wikipedia that that some articles deserve, but I'll try to find some way to do it. I'm not conversant about how to assemble a table, for instance, to graphically show the variables that would allow any reader to more quickly grasp the scope of the issue. If you'd like, I can run some ideas past you. Thanks again for your interest. Activist ( talk) 23:17, 11 September 2016 (UTC) reply

You're welcome! In light of that it may help to split the article, with the new one dealing with the overall bribery scheme and Chris Epps being a biography of one of the participants (with the section on his legal troubles focusing only on Epps himself) WhisperToMe ( talk) 00:29, 12 September 2016 (UTC) reply

That's a thought. However, though I've made about 4,200 edits, I've only authored a few articles, one to disambiguate the many Rafael Cruz's, and another on Maia Szalavitz, at 3,000 or so characters, little more than a stub, though I did considerable research on it. I can't even remember what the third was. I'll have to figure out again how to create a page. The FBI named the criminal behavior/prosecution, the "Mississippi Hustle," if I recall correctly, so that might be a good name for the second article about the substance of the case, though I think you or I can probably do better. Activist ( talk) 01:25, 12 September 2016 (UTC) reply

If the press by and large doesn't use the FBI name then I would go by "year/decade Mississippi political corruption case" or something to that effect. Remember that the lead is just a summary of the content, and divide the body by theme/topic WhisperToMe ( talk) 05:09, 12 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Okay, I reviewed similar articles and save for ABSCAM, they are called "Operation etc." with the "House" name of the particular one. I'll see if i can figure out how I can set up a diversion to assist anyone searching without the proper name to get there. I'll delete all that now-extraneous material out of the Epps article and insert a hat note that will take readers to the "Operation Mississippi Hustle" article. If you could take a look to see if it could use additional work, let me know. I'm beat and need to hit the sack. Thanks again. Activist ( talk) 09:58, 12 September 2016 (UTC) reply

• @ WhisperToMe: I reviewed a good deal more on the MS corruption. I removed extraneous material from the Epps article and reordered and polished up it and the "Hustle" article which had quickly been reviewed. Though I've run across your edits on other pages, I'd completely forgotten that you had created the Epps article and did most of the work on it for the first year. I also noticed your editing focus is mostly on schools. Did his initial employment as a prison teacher, or his mother's position as a dean influence your initiative, or was it something else? Activist ( talk) 00:31, 14 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • It was mainly because he was the head of the Missisippi prison system and that I had worked on Mississippi State Pentientiary. Since the prison does have staff living there, I made sure to get the school attendance boundary information for Parchman (and same with Louisiana State Pentientiary in Angola, LA). The fact that staff and their children lived in those two prisons motivated me to beef up the articles.
  • I knew about Epps after doing research on Parchman. I think I remembered reading about how he did reforms... when I heard he got indicted I decided that he needed to have an article. That kind of fall from grace would be covered in reliable sources and Wikipedia needs to have records of that.
  • WhisperToMe ( talk) 00:47, 14 September 2016 (UTC) reply
    • • @ WhisperToMe: Well, I'm glad you took it upon yourself to author it, and to do such a professional job. I might have never gotten engaged with it had you not started the article. I was aware of Epps' rep from his "reforms" at Parchman, but a source told me that rather than fixing the problems, he largely moved them to contractors with little or no oversight. Walnut Grove and East Mississippi had to be up there on the top of anyone's "dysfunctional" U.S. prison list, with Wilkinson not far behind. They were lawsuit magnets. I haven't heard anything about Marshall, no matter who was running it. I was aware of the problems at Delta, which became vacant for some time. LeFlore county might be using it now for a jail. Tallahatchie has always held out-of-state prisoners and I remember it rioting in July 2004. I don't even know who owns them all, but I expect that they may have been built with bond scams engineered by out of state speculators. Adams County certainly was, with Haley Barbour using Katrina relief money to get it built. I suspect the corruption goes well beyond what we've seen, though I think Ronnie Musgrove was honest. I personally don't know much about Angola, save for watching documentaries, though I was very familiar with Jena, which started when Edwin Edwards took a bribe from the first speculators who wanted to build there. Winn has received substantial publicity in the last year, thanks to Shane Bauer. As far as Parchman, I'd heard Bukka White's song, long ago, and Mose Allison's version. Not exactly "reliable sources." Activist ( talk) 01:15, 14 September 2016 (UTC) reply
        • I am aware that after Epps closed Unit 32 in Parchman, Wilkinson County Correctional Center became the "new Unit 32" (see the refs in the article) WhisperToMe ( talk) 05:53, 14 September 2016 (UTC) reply
        • ( talk page stalker) @ WhisperToMe:, you state "when I heard he got indicted I decided that he needed to have an article. That kind of fall from grace would be covered in reliable sources and Wikipedia needs to have records of that." Um, this "need" would be because it's recent news? What about all the falls from grace which occurred and were covered by reliable sources prior to Wikipedia's existence which we've willfully ignored? I'm having a hard time as of late justifying all the time I've devoted to this project. Treating what's supposed to be an encyclopedia as a constant dumping ground for today's headlines and/or trending topics ranks at or near the top of the reasons why. Why do we have categories for state cabinet secretaries when those categories appear to be used primarily as a means to puff up articles on media celebrities? I thought their purpose was to collect articles based upon a defining element of the subject's notability, unless I'm misinterpreting WP:CATDEF. Looks like he was appointed to this position in 2002. We're sending the message that he's just now notable all of a sudden? That might not pass a smell test. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 04:14, 14 September 2016 (UTC) reply
          • @ RadioKAOS: The kind of news such as a politician getting into a major scandal is not "just recent news" that's no big deal. It's something important in the state's political history. Epps had a reputation as a "reformer" (something I knew about before the scandal hit). He was the only black man who was the head of a major state agency (at the time). His pre-scandal biography had been covered in national-level magazines like Governing. - It doesn't mean that he wasn't notable before... I think even before the scandal somebody could have written an article about him. But once the scandal came it became imperative to have an article on him.
          • As for "What about all the falls from grace which occurred and were covered by reliable sources prior to Wikipedia's existence which we've willfully ignored?" - Which ones do you have in mind?
          • WhisperToMe ( talk) 05:47, 14 September 2016 (UTC) reply
            • @ RadioKAOS: @ WhisperToMe: I've obviously agreed that I believe both the Epps article and the "Operation Mississippi Hustle" articles are quite notable. The corruption goes back to 2007, the probe has dragged out for six years, and Epps started wearing a wire in May 2014. They are also important because the corruption is endemic in the for-profit prison industry as you're aware from the "Polar Pen"/"Alaska Political Corruption Probe." This case, if the FBI prosecutes the big players involved who have yet to be indicted, could be the cause of significant changes in criminal justice policy. The state has said that $80 million a year in contracts are suspect. The DOJ has already given notice in the last month it's going to be pulling back from using CCA, GEO and MTC. Cornell (think Bill Allen, Tom Anderson & Bill Weimar) was involved with Epps and his bagman for at least three years before it was sold to GEO. So you may be aware of the impact this sort of investigation may have. CCA, the Alaska provider in AZ from 1996 until 2009 is very involved. GEO, which got Weimar's halfway houses is as well, and Cornell was the provider in Hudson, Colorado when Joe Schmidt took the contract to Cornell. That prison probably wouldn't have been built if they weren't assured of the Alaska contract before they purchased the land. The MS scandal already caused former state legislators to be indicted and we're waiting for about four more indictments to come down. I suspect that GEO and CCA, plus MTC, are three of the four corporations that have tried to bargain with the judge to keep their information secret. That's because the amounts of the bribes identified so far simply couldn't have come from these smaller subcontractors. I believe we're waiting for the other shoe to drop on some very deep pockets. All four of the MS prison operators have been associated with corruption, but none have ever been criminally prosecuted, anywhere. Activist ( talk) 08:54, 14 September 2016 (UTC) reply
              • @ RadioKAOS: @ WhisperToMe: I just checked the size of Parchman Farm out of curiosity. At almost 24 square miles it's 30% bigger than Kowloon (2 million pop.) and half the size of San Francisco (800 thousand or so?). Activist ( talk) 08:54, 14 September 2016 (UTC) reply
                • Lastly, and off the subject, as I mentioned a couple of months ago, I think, I need to get around to doing that article on Jim Duncan, who wasn't just a commissioner but a long time state legislative leader and congressional primary winner. I'm trying to remember which Alaska personage I'd asked you if you were interested in doing an article on, when we discussed it. I'm sorry you're feeling a bit burned out because you'd done a lot of very solid encyclopedic work on your state. You referred me years ago to North or South Baranof, so I guess that editor has as well. I brought the Nageak article up to date yesterday and I was surprised to see Begich's name being bandied about for the general election. I expect that's a trial balloon. That is pretty wild, and I guess you could have a five way competitive general election Senate race. That might be a first anywhere though it might also guarantee Lisa reelection. Activist ( talk) 08:54, 14 September 2016 (UTC) reply
                  • Parchman's a big place. see the map that I grabbed off of a USGS website and compare it with the aerial topo - One of the reasons why I liked writing about it. WhisperToMe ( talk) 09:19, 14 September 2016 (UTC) reply
• @ RadioKAOS: P.S. about older topics, one issue inhibiting them is that many newspapers don't have electronic archives prior to the 1980s or due to copyright reasons (why Houston Post articles aren't online). However many libraries have microfilm collections with older newspaper articles and you could ask Wikipedians to snatch stuff off of microfilms if need be. WhisperToMe ( talk) 09:22, 14 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Nice catch on the Parchman map. Looks like it's probably rich bottom land, subject to flooding and needing a lot of work, i.e. terracing. I expect they got tractors at some point to replace horse drawn plows and harvesters. RadioKAOS may know this, but I found photocopied old News-Miner articles on line at a News source. Can't remember the website, though. I found an article about a deceased Inupiat friend, who went to UAF on the GI Bill after being on a WWII ski detachment. He retired as a railroad worker and was a ivory carver and whaler and lay anthropologist. I just now looked at a narwhale he did many years ago, the only piece of his that I own. Activist ( talk) 10:27, 14 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Please don't add copyright text to this wiki, not even temporarily for editing. Please use an external text editor, or do your amendments before you save the page. All content you add to this wiki needs to be written in your own words. Thanks, — Diannaa 🍁 ( talk) 19:01, 25 September 2016 (UTC) reply

@ Diannaa: Hi, Dianna. I can't change the quotes, of course, though I eliminated parts of one or two to satisfy concerns. Can you point me to precisely what text you think I should change? I'd be only too happy to accommodate. Some of it is #s, i.e. the numbers of shanks (I changed the language in one descriptor) found in searches, the years contracts started, etc. I can't use the WP app (TW?) to check since I'm the writer. Thanks for your concerns, patience and diligence. I share them. Also, many stories about these issues derive directly from press releases, especially from the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Mississippi, so numerous reporters, as before, have written almost the same thing since they're getting it from the same source and often have limited text available to them in their papers. I did draw from other text I'd written in associated articles, but I can't plagiarize myself. If I'm writing about three different prisons with the same set of circumstances, they can't be written that differently (I did about 95% of the edits on the new Operation Mississippi Hustle article, 45% on the Walnut Grove Correctional Facility, i.e. It would be like writing about Charlie Hayden's triplet daughters, all vocalists, who share the same heritage. Can't be that different. P.S. Take a look at my note earlier today at [ [5]]. I didn't want to be there but it was such a mess it almost got me crying. I did a lot of straighening it out, time I didn't have to spare. Another editor had done the same before me or it would have been way worse. Activist ( talk) 19:22, 25 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Your initial page creation was picked up by a bot, as well as by human patrollers, as being a copyright violation. The majority of the clean-up was already done when I arrived at the page. My note here was intended as a general reminder not to add copyright material to this wiki. I have done some further copyright clean-up and removed off-topic material, including incidents that occurred at other prisons. — Diannaa 🍁 ( talk) 19:43, 25 September 2016 (UTC) reply

@ Diannaa: Hi again. Thanks very much for your efforts. I had gone back a few times to try to respond to the objections. The page looks okay to me. I thought the #s of shanks found at different institutions was quite germane though, as did the ex-US Attorney whom I was quoting. He said there were 8 times fewer shanks, per capita at Parchman than at the for-profits that all were managed by the same outfit: GEO then, MTC now. Peas in a pod. Activist ( talk) 19:53, 25 September 2016 (UTC) reply

The thing is, it's off-topic for this article to be comparing two other different prisons. The article needs to stay focused and on-topic, and not become a coatrack for discussions of flaws in the prison system as a whole. — Diannaa 🍁 ( talk) 20:12, 25 September 2016 (UTC) reply

I agree that it's very important to keep the articles focused or people may not easily read it. I think Chris Epps may need some fat trimmed off of it.

Also make sure you rewrite things in your own words (also avoid close paraphrasing when possible!). Copyright issues can kill an article.

WhisperToMe ( talk) 15:06, 27 September 2016 (UTC) reply

There was a scandal where several Detroit school principals were involved in a kickback scheme. I wrote Spain Elementary-Middle School and it turns out there was a much wider net of corruption. WhisperToMe ( talk) 15:04, 27 September 2016 (UTC) reply

@ WhisperToMe: Interesting. One of my foci is on public/bureaucratic corruption, but hasn't often extended to the K-12 education arena, and I'm currently overwhelmed beyond Wikipedia. Activist ( talk) 10:23, 28 September 2016 (UTC) reply

One thing I want to note: Remember the WP:BLP policy applies on talk pages too, so make sure to have references on hand to back up anything you say about living people and recently dead people (if their actions have implications for living people). We wouldn't want one of those guys attacking Wikipedia. IMO it also helps to keep WP talk page activity directly focused on improving the article. It is fun talking about the bad things politicians do, but it may be more difficult BLP-wise if discussion strays into suppositions. WhisperToMe ( talk) 17:19, 2 October 2016 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the advice. I'm off to bed shortly, but I'll try to fix that mixup before I do go. 18:14, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Which revision are you looking for? You can use the revision comparison tool in each history page to check which edits were made. WhisperToMe ( talk) 20:54, 4 October 2016 (UTC) reply

Ok. It's very important to keep track of these things when writing BLP articles. Getting it wrong can have disastrous consequences. WhisperToMe ( talk) 15:26, 11 October 2016 (UTC) reply

Hello, Activist. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. (you are not the subject but your name is mentioned in connection with the re-posting of your anecdote from your talk page, intended to be private, to another user's talk page). Elinruby ( talk) 23:17, 20 October 2016 (UTC) reply

Thanks very much, of course. I'll deal with it. Activist ( talk) 06:43, 21 October 2016 (UTC) reply

this is not the primary point, which is his single-minded POV pushing. I just mentioned that to illustrate editing style. Elinruby ( talk) 06:53, 25 October 2016 (UTC) reply

I'm aware. You've been very tolerant of him, as much as may be possible under the circumstances, assuming we have the gender correct. I wrote to the prosecutor today to see if she knew when or if the police knew of Boyd's identity or history, before they killed him. "Cecil" claims they did, but he plays fast and loose with the facts, so I'm trying to verify. By the way, I did edits this evening to the pages for the novel and movie and author pages for Roots of Heaven. I expect you might be familiar with the novel and author. Activist ( talk) 07:07, 25 October 2016 (UTC) reply

Hi,

While I appreciate the ping, I honestly had no role in the entire CFredkin incident beyond simply closing the SPI case. In addition, please do not modify archived SPI cases, and SPI is not the best venue for those kinds of discussions.

Regards,

GAB ^gab 00:03, 29 October 2016 (UTC) reply

Thanks. I somehow didn't realize that the discussion was closed. I apologize. Activist ( talk) 14:06, 29 October 2016 (UTC) reply

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Epps, C. Flowood Police Department.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Ramaksoud2000 ^{( Talk to me)} 17:45, 7 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Hello, I'm Zackmann08. Thank you for your recent contributions to Michael Conahan. I noticed that when you added the image to the infobox, you added it as a thumbnail. In the future, please do not use thumbnails when adding images to an infobox (see WP:INFOBOXIMAGE). What does this mean? Well in the infobox, when you specify the image you wish to use, instead of doing it like this:

|image=[[File:SomeImage.jpg|thumb|Some image caption]]

Instead just supply the name of the image. So in this case you can simply do:

|image=SomeImage.jpg.

There will then be a separate parameter for the image caption such as |caption=Some image caption. Please note that this is a generic form message I am leaving on your page because you recently added a thumbnail to an infobox. The specific parameters for the image and caption may be different for the infobox you are using! Please consult the Template page for the infobox being used to see better documentation. Thanks! Zackmann08 ( ^{Talk to me}/ _{What I been doing}) 18:32, 7 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Thanks, @ Zachmann08: I appreciate the heads up. I expect to be on the phone for the next few hours but I'll make any necessary repairs when I get loose. Activist ( talk) 22:03, 7 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Please stop attacking other editors. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Any further allegations about me editing on behalf of anyone besides myself will be sent to ANI. Niteshift36 ( talk) 14:41, 10 February 2017 (UTC) reply

@ Niteshift36: @ Eflatmajor7th: @ Lockley: @ C.J. Griffin: @ UseTheCommandLine: @ Harizotoh9: @ Simnel: @ Parkwells:

Where have I alleged that you've edited on behalf of anyone besides yourself? Activist ( talk) 14:44, 10 February 2017 (UTC) reply

I have no idea who any of you people are or what this is in reference to. -- Harizotoh9 ( talk) 14:53, 10 February 2017 (UTC) reply

I apologize Harizotoh. Activist has an annoying tendency to ping everyone who ever agreed with him on an article talk page as a form of canvassing. Niteshift36 ( talk) 15:04, 10 February 2017 (UTC) reply

• If you honestly think that your wording will save you, it won't. The ARBCOM has held that casting aspersions is a form of a personal attack. So:

1. )"you began editing the GEO Group article, almost four years ago, after GEO employees using their own names or making IPN edits were outed, you've made about 80 edits to the article." Implication that my editing was linked to the employee edits.
2. ) "but in fact you seem to be adamantly opposed to balanced presentations of this corporation, and you minimize the corporate whitewashing engaged in by others for GEO. You'll recall that after he was outed, Cohen used the corporate IPN to do further editing, only to get caught again by some observant editor(s?)" Again, linking my edits to the previous incidents.
3. ) "I note, Niteshift36 that you've made 38 of the last 107 or so edits to the GEO TALK page, since Cohen was outed. If we apply the "Duck test," where would that lead us?"
4. ) "I further note that you've made 32 edits to the GEO Group main article, with the last signed edit by Abraham Cohen being made February 20th, 2013, though the GEO IPN was used to make subsequent sock puppet edits not long after but before you started your signed edits"

You continued in that discussion, trying to justify the connections, despite several clear statements that I haven't made any edits on behalf of anyone and that your allegations are an attack. Again, your attempt to word it as a 'look at the conincidence' won't fly. The ARBCOM saw through that nonsense. Niteshift36 ( talk) 15:04, 10 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Many thanks for your comment. Several states have families who are prominent especially in politics; the Kennedys of Massachusetts; the Longs of Louisiana, the La Follettes of Wisconsin, etc. I am feeling okay and sometimes I have to undergo minor surgery to clear up an infection. Again my thanks- RFD ( talk) 18:24, 22 February 2017 (UTC) reply

@ RFD: @ RadioKAOS: @ Beeblebrox: In the interest of expanding some more stub articles, and having done so at the political families such as the Engstroms, I expanded the Ivy Spohnholz article. I couldn't help but indulge in a bit of whimsy there, as her mom also was an appointee, and her electoral history with close elections is somewhat unique. Activist ( talk) 05:56, 26 February 2017 (UTC) reply

I was born and raised in Wisconsin; the La Follette family is one of Wisconsin's political families. Robert La Follette, Sr. was the first native Wisconsinite to serve as Governor of Wisconsin; I shook hands with Bronson La Follette who was a grandson and Attorney General of Wisconsin. Many thanks- RFD ( talk) 13:40, 26 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Thanks for expanding Tom Begich! Marquardtika ( talk) 23:27, 28 February 2017 (UTC) reply

@ Marquardtika: You're most welcome, though I don't drink beer. I had intended to thank you for authoring the article. I've been trying to expand some stubs and recently have edited some articles about members of political families, including about Alaskans, so your timing was fortuitous. Activist ( talk) 23:42, 28 February 2017 (UTC) reply

@ Lockley: @ Parkwells: You may be interested in the subject of this article and Talk page, [ [6]] ...and my response to the WP:TW-generated request for it to be shortened or moved in part to other articles. Activist ( talk) 07:58, 6 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Definitely interested in both the Operation Mississippi Hustle and Chris Epps' articles (as well as others about the private prison contractors.) Thanks for letting me know. You've done a great job in explaining this huge investigation and results. Parkwells ( talk) 19:14, 6 March 2017 (UTC) reply

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Niteshift36 ( talk • contribs) 18:13, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Your post is very damaging to you and I suggest you remove it before anyone replies to it. It is long and rambling and hard to follow. You repeat the allegations of COI even as you deny you have been doing that (which makes your denial unbelievable, especially with the diffs that N brought). You cite no diffs. None. You are heading for some kind of block or ban. You can of course leave it but it would be unwise. Jytdog ( talk) 01:33, 10 March 2017 (UTC) reply

It's already been replied to so it's too late for removal. -- NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:25, 10 March 2017 (UTC) reply

@ Jytdog: @ NeilN: I read the comments left by Jytog, intended to remove mine per Jytog's advice, highlighting them, but got distracted and started reading the articles to which Jytog referred, including "Advocacy," and "ToU," (which I didn't know what it meant and spent some time eventually finding and reading it) and actually thought I'd previously deleted my comments. I'm a bit ill with some kind of crud, so am a bit spacey. When I returned to the ANI discussion, I realized I hadn't deleted what I'd intended, per that advice, so I hit "save." Then when I went back to review some of the comments that others had left, I saw the notice that comments had been left on my TALK page. Now that I've read them, I realize that I should restore them per NeilN's advice and will do so in a moment. So, if it is indeed self damage, the damage has been done, unfortunately. At least I've gotten a bit of education in the process. Thanks to you both for your input. Activist ( talk) 06:38, 10 March 2017 (UTC) reply

I reverted your removal before I posted here. -- NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:41, 10 March 2017 (UTC) reply

@ NeilN: At this point, I'm not sure either of us is of much assistance to the other. I've seen your edits before, somewhere, probably quite a while ago, but I'm not remembering where. I tend to post on a very wide variety of subjects, but focus mostly on political and criminal justice issues. Activist ( talk) 07:03, 10 March 2017 (UTC) reply

I sweep up in all kinds of areas so it's likely you've seen that somewhere. -- NeilN ^{talk to me} 07:08, 10 March 2017 (UTC) reply

• You were told you can't remove the post, but then did so anyway, after the removal was reverted. Niteshift36 ( talk) 16:15, 10 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Corrected disambiguation

We disagree about the inclusion of the family history. It's not extensive, but it's important. I note that another editor shares my convictions. Also, I was well aware that the "black gang," did not only refer to the ethnicity, but their working conditions. However, certainly African-Americans predominated in that classification back in the '30, '40s and '50s. The mess stewards were also mostly non-white in those eras, particularly Filipinos and other Asian-Americans. Again, see Alex Haley. I knew Bill Hudson, a retired USCG Commander, later a very good, six-term state legislator, who served with him as they both rose through the ranks. I expect that the City of Healy, which recently became the seat of Denali Borough, was probably named after Michael, though I've never seen it referenced anywhere. Thank you for your thoughts about my brother. Activist ( talk):::Given no one has responded to this Talk section, I have moved it, notifying those who have participated in this discussion. Activist ( talk) 03:33, 24 March 2017 (UTC) reply

@ Cuprum17:, @ Parkwells:Coincidentally, we had visitors from Alaska come to visit with us on Thursday, p.m., March 23rd, and they were both very aware of Healy. One knew that the most recently launched icebreaker was named for him. If a new report I read recently is correct, it is the only currently serving U.S. icebreaker, whereas the Russians are said to have 40 in the Arctic. The other also wondered if the city of Healy, is named for him, but I couldn't answer that. Activist ( talk) 07:34, 24 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Hi there! I had an emergency which made it necessary to completely disappear from the web for some many weeks. For approximately the past eight days, I've been in stop the bleeding mode. That's "bleeding" as in financial; I may very well be enroute to pawning my laptop after this, that's how bad things became. Anyway, thanks for all the words of encouragement that I've been remiss in not responding to as of late. It appears that RFD has done a herculean effort in picking up the slack in my absence WRT political biographies. Despite that, unfortunately, I still see a whole lot of "bleeding" going on here that I'm powerless to stop, in the sense of actually having the time to do much of anything to respond to it.

One prior comment that I did want to address: actually, Hootch and Tobeluk were two separate court cases, initiated by separate sets of lawyers. I believe both teams of lawyers were employed by Alaska Legal Services or a similar organization, however. The two cases are typically thought of as one and the same due to the similarities of their legal complaints and timelines. I see that WhisperToMe has continued to do much work on those topics, but I haven't had the opportunity to dig up relevant source material lately. Really, though, a separate article on education in the Unorganized Borough might work better than a slew of stubs on individual school districts and/or schools, especially since the whole REAA concept hasn't been given much recognition in our coverage despite its importance.

In response to the above discussion, Orth p. 413 contains all the entries on places names containing "Healy". The town Healy next to Denali Park is listed as being "named after the Healy River". The Healy River is listed as being "named by prospectors about 1902–04; reported in 1905 by L. M. Prindle, USGS". Without clearer information, there's a distinct possibility that the name could be traced to Michael Healy. A more likely namesake is found in a long-abandoned settlement on the Yukon River delta. Orth states that it was mentioned in the 1916 edition of Polk's Gazetteer, established by miners who were residing at Fort St. Michael but disagreed with the Army's views on law and order.

Finally, you mentioned Bill Hudson. I've come across a number of photos of Hudson over the years and always thought that he could pass for a lighter-skinned Charles Mingus. Curiously, both were born in southern Arizona. Cheers, I'll talk to you later. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 19:10, 27 March 2017 (UTC) reply

@ RadioKAOS: Hi! I agree that it would be a great idea to have a general article about education in the unorganized borough of Alaska. Note that in addition, articles on individual school districts are almost always kept as per Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#School_districts as they are "Populated, legally-recognized places" - While high schools are usually kept, I don't usually start articles on rural K-12 schools in Alaska unless they meet WP:GNG (due to references talking about the schools in detail) WhisperToMe ( talk) 19:45, 27 March 2017 (UTC) reply

d

Your recent editing history at Ron Estes shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

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.
The word "vastly" is opinion. It must have a Reliable source to support.-- SlackerDelphi ( talk) 23:56, 14 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Actually, it's you that's involved in an edit war. You've been deleting my edits without cause. Please contain yourself until I'm finished with my edits. Activist ( talk) 23:58, 14 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Slacker Delphi was suspended for sockpuppetry. Activist ( talk) 14:57, 12 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Anyway, there are a few things about WP:BLP that are important to know:

• It technically applies to all pages on Wikipedia, including article talk pages and user pages as per Non-article_space
• It states that public court documents, etc. should not be used "to support assertions about a living person" nor should "public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses" be used - However "Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies." Avoid_misuse_of_primary_sources

WhisperToMe ( talk) 17:13, 26 June 2017 (UTC) reply

@ WhisperToMe: Thanks for the suggestions. I reviewed all the materials to which you'd directed me. I have considered this issue before, in fact, found the date of birth for a well known writer but was reluctant to include it in the article about her, which already has the year of birth, since she may have not wanted it to become public. It's a real consideration in these times of rampant identity theft. Activist ( talk) 12:50, 29 June 2017 (UTC) reply

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Osceola Township, Osceola County, Michigan. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. John from Idegon ( talk) 22:17, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply

In 1939, Hitler invaded Poland claiming it was a just response to a "provocation" by "Polish" cavalry. Hmmm. Activist ( talk) 22:21, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Moving it to the Nestle page was probably a better solution. John doesn't like anybody editing any pages that he is watching. He would rather have no information on a page than a little. He's very territorial and has friends in high places. Pennsy22 ( talk) 05:08, 10 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Please read WP:ARCHIVE. Archiving is perfectly normal Wikipedia functions. It's done automatically by a bot in many articles. Take a controversial guy like Alex Jones (radio host). His talk page has 13 archives at this point. Nothing is "scrubbed", deleted or hidden. It's all preserved. That simply hasn't been set up on the GEO article. There is a link to the archive on the talk page, just like there is in every other article that has an archive. You are edit warring over a normal housekeeping function. I'd also like to appeal to you one last time to stop making your allegation that I am editing on behalf pf the company. It's ridiculous. If you look at my edit history, you'll see that I was actively editing many types of articles before I ever touched one about GEO and that I continue being very active over a broad range of topics. It's clearly false and I'd ask that you stop making the allegation. Niteshift36 ( talk) 14:48, 26 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Hello, Activist! I got your message, but I am traveling and won't be able to look at the issue you raised until next week. You might want to ask someone else if it is urgent. If not I will take a look sometime next week. -- MelanieN alt ( talk) 14:59, 26 December 2017 (UTC) reply

@ MelanieN:, Thanks! I noticed that another IP graffiti artist has been vandalizing the Butch Otter article, though an editor has so far fairly quickly reverted all the obvious though onerous posts. Is there another administrator you might suggest who could deal with making those articles available only to autoconfirmed users? The other issue can surely wait. Safe travels and happy Boxing Day! Activist ( talk) 15:39, 26 December 2017 (UTC) reply

The fastest and simplest approach is to request semi-protection at WP:RFPP. MelanieN alt ( talk) 14:15, 27 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Hello, Activist. I’ve been contacted by User:Marquardtika about you. Back in February you accused Marquardtika of having a COI on the assumption that they are a government employee, based on information they had on their user page. They replied, explained about the info on their page, said they are not a government employee, and said they are currently employed as a traffic reporter in Texas. [7] That should have been the end of it. But you have continued your aspersions. Here you called them a “possible COI editor”. Here you accuse them of working “on the clock”. Here you “wonder” if they have an undeclared COI or could be a paid editor.

Furthermore, looking at your recent contributions I see it is not just Marquardtika you are doing this to. Here you accuse SeventeenNinety of being an “operative tasked with scrubbing negative info about Colorado Republican officeholders".

Please see WP:ASPERSIONS, where you will read “An editor must not accuse another of misbehavior without evidence, especially when the accusations are repeated or severe. This especially applies to accusations of being paid by a company to promote a point of view (i.e., a shill) or similar associations and using that to attack or cast doubt over the editor in content disputes. If accusations must be made, they should be raised, with evidence, at appropriate forums such as the user talk page,  WP:COIN, or other appropriate places per  WP:COI.”

So this is an official warning: this casting of aspersions has got to stop. Talk pages and edit summaries are not acceptable places to accuse people of stuff. If you think you have a case, present your evidence to WP:COIN. (And don’t go looking for evidence offline; remember WP’s prohibition against WP:OUTING). If you don’t have a presentable case, then stop making this claim. If you do it again, I will take you to ANI myself. Likewise if you seem to have a pattern of following them around and reverting or reacting to their edits, see WP:HOUNDING. Just edit Wikipedia and stop accusing other people of misconduct. -- MelanieN ( talk) 19:44, 26 June 2018 (UTC) reply

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Steven Charles Watkins (politician) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steven Charles Watkins (politician) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 16:56, 4 October 2018 (UTC) reply

As a note, there have been quite a few discussions about the notability of candidates for federal political office in the United States recently. I think site consensus is moving towards keeping these types of articles, but site policies don't yet make that completely clear. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eliot Cutler is currently ongoing; Kara Eastman, Gil Cisneros, and Mark Harris have all been kept (or no-consensus) recently. (Candidates with an Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez level of press coverage are obviously notable and the wording of WP:NPOL/ WP:POLOUTCOMES is irrelevant.) If it looks like this is going to be kept, I can clean it up a bit this weekend; I'm most concerned by sentences like Although Watkins said Kansas “was always home in my heart,” he applied 11 times between 2002 and 2015 for an Alaska Permanent Fund dividend. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 20:03, 4 October 2018 (UTC) reply

My eyebrows were raised by that too, and I adjusted wording in some places to be more nonjudgemental, but fwiw that turned out to be almost a direct quote from a mainstream source. We should be careful to keep a critical perspective, and journalists can be locally non-neutral when hyping their discoveries, but it does seem like a fair reflection of high-quality RS and most local political observers to say that there at least appear to be minor contradictions in his stated biography. FourViolas ( talk) 21:21, 4 October 2018 (UTC) reply

"Power's" comment gave food for thought. I didn't know who any of those four candidates were. I thought I might have heard of Cisneros, but I may have been thinking of Henry Cisneros. Gil is clearly notable if nothing but his amazing charitable work were considered, and his going back to college after becoming immense wealthy compared to the average Californian. His opponent in the race is rather remarkable as well, though she's served in the state legislature, but more so because she beat an incumbent, then lost to the same defeated incumbent in the next election. Those sort of flips convey notability in their own right. I had to look up the other three situations that "Power" cited. I'm surprised that I've never heard of Eastman, as her situation has obviously drawn heavy national attention. I've heard of the situation that Harris has been involved in, because it has drawn national attention. But the other two are more remarkable. Ocasio-Cortez has attracted immense coverage and I've seen her dozens of times on the tube, much more than those who are entitled a "personality" in the absence of any actual lifetime accomplishment, and though they've never done anything notable, except to appear on television. But the last is the most interesting. Cutler is someone who should have had an article long ago, and yet his candidacy alone seems to have caused some editors to think that running for office in itself should be disqualifying, instead of augmenting. That's perverse in my estimation. Thanks to both of you for the comments. I went back and looked at the PFD situation with Watkins. It requires that recipients attest that they're going to remain Alaska residents intend to remain in the state. But he stopped applying two years ago, so the sentence should go and I'll take it out right now. I appreciate your helpful inputs. Activist ( talk) 21:39, 4 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Hello, I noticed that you added the WikiProject Wikipedia banner to four talk pages including Allie Ostrander. A preferable way to request that an article be assessed is to leave a message on the talk page of one of the WikiProjects already added to the article's talk page.-- Johnsoniensis ( talk) 17:03, 1 December 2018 (UTC) reply

@ Johnsoniensis: Thanks for your input. I'll add those tags to the Talk pages. Activist ( talk) 08:43, 2 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Hi there, can you please not disparage me again, as you did here? R2 ( bleep) 05:24, 3 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Your directive to "stop stabbing" wasn't constructive either and I won't submit to it. Bold attempts at compromise are a good thing, not a bad thing, even when you disagree with the particulars. If you have a content-based argument, please make it cleanly without personalizing the dispute. If you have a problem with my conduct you are always free to discuss that here or on my own talk page. R2 ( bleep) 16:26, 5 December 2018 (UTC) reply

I've responded on my talk page: User talk:Quuxplusone#"Somewhat_unrestrained" -- Quuxplusone ([[User

Hi Activist, there is a procedure for getting pages restored after they were deleted: Wikipedia Deletion Review. I think it includes sending a message to the previous XfD closer, in this case . Here is the Second delete discussion. I will also ping @ Muboshgu: who seems to have a strong opinion about this. HouseOfChange ( talk) 04:58, 24 March 2019 (UTC) @ Lourdes:, @ HouseOfChange:, @ Muboshgu: Thanks very much for your input. I'll take a look in the morning, if I can find the time. This race may get considerably more interesting as the DCCC, which may have taken a policy position about not only not supporting candidates who don't hew to their party line, has apparently taken the same stance against any campaign management firms who agreed to work for such candidates. I'm guessing that an Eastman candidacy might fit that criterion. [8] "House Democrats Move to Hobble Primary Challengers The party’s congressional campaign arm rolled out new hiring standards to deter firms from working with candidates who run against incumbents" Activist ( talk) 06:51, 24 March 2019 (UTC) reply

Thanks for creating Taylor Ewert. I have just reviewed the page, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

Thank you for your new article on Taylor Ewert. I recommend sticking with the article in case she actually makes it to the Olympics team, because otherwise I am not convinced that she is any more notable than other successful high school athletes.

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Doomsdayer520}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

--- DOOMSDAYER520 ( Talk| Contribs) 20:07, 15 April 2019 (UTC) @ Doomsdayer520: Thanks for your review. The reason she is notable is not only because she's a remarkable racewalker, but also a steeplechaser and cross country runner. Her American Junior racewalk record was set when she was 3 1/2 years younger than the age limit for setting such records. Her high school 3,000 meter walk record was set by her en route to her breaking the 5,000 meter record. Her high school record-setting range is quite remarkable: From the one-mile walk to 10,000 meters, over six times as far. That she could set a record one day in the steeple, sit in a car for 11-12 hours at least, and then break a U.S. Junior walk record the next day, is extraordinary. She lowered that walk record by over three minutes in international competition a few months later. I can think of very few track athletes with that sort of range, and being competitive at racewalking and running are extremely rare. With regard to range, because he was such a unique competitor, Mamo Wolde comes to mind: He ran on the Ethiopian 1,600 meter relay team in the 1956 Olympics, then won the Olympic marathon in 1968 and finished third in 1972. Ivan Huff qualified by times for the 1980 U.S. Olympic Trials in every race between the 3,000 steeple and the marathon. Among women, the only ones I can think of who were competitive over a wide range of distances were Julie Brown, and Jordan Hasay. I can't find anyone, male or female, other than Ewert, who has been competitive in both running and racewalking. Activist ( talk) 11:20, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Yes, I noticed you used the same wording. I don't think you appreciate how the situations are different. With Rhoda, I was restoring material that had been there for a year. With Ivey, you were restoring material that had just been added. On Wikipedia, we generally default to the status quo. St Anselm ( talk) 09:22, 21 May 2019 (UTC) @ StAnselm: I'm baffled. You restored text that had been deleted by Velella three hours earlier, on 25 April 18. On 11 April 19, an IP editor deleted precisely the same material once again. On 17 May, you restored it, once again. How is what you did "different," when it's exactly the same thing? You deleted the three sentences about Ivey's action, from which I'd paraphrased, except for the quoted remark, which I obviously couldn't change, taken from the pre-existing citation. When I reverted it, just as you had twice with the Rhoda material, with me using and quoting you exactly, the same rationale that you used to restore the Rhoda material on 17 May, you reverted it a second time and demanded consensus be sought. How could the situation be any less "different?" I am reminded of Lewis Carroll. "The contemptuous Humpty Dumpty, sitting up on his wall, said to Alice, "When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean—nothing more, nothing less." Somewhat perplexed by this, Alice said, "The question is whether you can make words mean different things." "The question is," barked Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master—that's all." Activist ( talk) 16:49, 21 May 2019 (UTC) reply

No, you're wrong. User:Velella's edit was a good one, removing a whole lot of junk. I did a partial revert (about 15% of the size), salvaging what I could. With a few more smaller changes, this became the consensus version which lasted almost a year before it was removed by an IP. St Anselm ( talk) 21:25, 21 May 2019 (UTC) reply

What's going on? Why do you keep reverting? I note we're both up to 3 reverts in the past 24 hours. But surely you can see that as a recent addition, the material should stay out until there is consensus to include it. I could understand if you think you had consensus because I had not responded to all your arguments, but I have now. We've both been around here too long to get into such an edit war. St Anselm ( talk) 08:28, 23 May 2019 (UTC) reply

This should have posted on my Talk page. I had neglected to read the header on your talk page, so I removed it from there. Here's what I'd written:

@ MrClog: I've referred the matter of the edits of the Kay Ivey case to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. I also read the FTB case. Fascinating. Activist ( talk) 15:17, 23 May 2019 (UTC) reply

The FTB case is indeed fascinating. Was this an isolated incident or are the conservative justices willing to ignore stare decisis? We'll see. -- MrClog ( talk) 19:33, 23 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Left comment pet request on RfC. Activist ( talk) 07:02, 19 August 2019 (UTC) reply

Please stop your disruptive editing.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Asha Rangappa, you may be blocked from editing. – Wallyfromdilbert ( talk) 16:56, 22 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• Reminding you of this since the previous alert you received was almost a year back, and particularly in response to your editing at Asha Rangappa and personalized comments about the subject at the article's talk page ( eg, "I wonder if she has ever tried a criminal case or even testified in one?"). Abecedare ( talk) 18:21, 22 August 2019 (UTC) reply

( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 07:50, 25 August 2019 (UTC) reply

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Abbie Hodgson is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abbie Hodgson until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 17:01, 28 August 2019 (UTC) reply

Power~enwiki I'm the author of the article. I wrote an article about Steve Watkins more than a year ago when he was running for the seat for which Hodgson has filed. He had padded his resume extensively, but I thought he deserved an article. He was spending six-figures, family money, at that point and had very narrowly won a heavily contested primary against better known, though far less well-funded opponents. An AfD was started and some deletionist editor from England who showed zero understanding of U.S. politics and had contributed little of any import to the encyclopedia erased it. A new article, not of my creation, was back on not long afterward. Based on that experience, I protested the inclusion of an article about Daniel Cameron (lawyer) who is running for Attorney General in Kentucky. It was argued he should be included because he had been on the University of Louisville football team, had worked for a couple of private law firms whose websites provide most of the material in the article, and he was African-American. Then, President Trump mentioned him in a joined pair of tweets, but probably hadn't the faintest notion of who he is. The tweets went viral and half a dozen or so citations referenced the pair of tweets, though they presented no other content and least some were from an AP story though with different URLs, that were otherwise identical. So I presumed the WP rules had changed, somehow, since my original Watkins article was deleted. Since Watkins is running for reelection and has been heavily covered in recent news, and his only opponent has a rather extensive resume, I expect the article about her would be supported. She provoked a firestorm of controversy and incurred substantial employer wrath when she initiated an investigation of bipartisan inappropriate behavior involving exploitation of student legislative interns, though she was not one of those so treated. She has considerable political experience in Kansas, including being the chief of staff for the House Minority Leader, was the spokesperson for two successive governors, and had lost a previous closely contested legislative primary to the eventual incumbent. (The sort of credentials that got Sarah Sanders and Kellyanne Conway articles) Had she been elected the mayor of a town of 25 people, I expect there would be less resistance to inclusion. Hodgson has considerable private and non-profit sector experience. I'm hoping we can achieve some consistency with this AfD. Meanwhile, the Watkins article has been regularly scrubbed, admittedly, by the article's subject and by his campaign manager and chief of staff (someone tagged it), and twice this week by an IP editor posting from England. Activist ( talk) 01:26, 29 August 2019 (UTC) reply

I've struck your second vote because it is against WP policy to vote more than once. FoxyGrampa75 ( talk) 06:29, 30 August 2019 (UTC) reply

No worries. Even after having been here for a decade or more, we can all still learn new stuff when we wander into less familiar areas, or old processes are adjusted, or lots of other times when we encounter new situations we've never been in before — so yeah, don't take it personally, now that you're aware for next time.

If you want to change your vote in an AFD, it's best to be above board about that by striking the keep/delete "vote" portion of your original comment, and then posting your new revised vote as a followup comment to your original statement instead of just erasing your original statement entirely. Bearcat ( talk) 19:09, 30 August 2019 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the feedback. I haven't voted a heck of a lot in AfDs, may not have all for the first decade in which I'd been editing. I don't think I've ever had occasion to want to change my vote but thanks for the direction on how to best do it should the occasion arise. Activist ( talk) 19:14, 30 August 2019 (UTC) reply

User:Activist, as I stated on the talk page to the Susan Wagle article, I'd ask that you kindly reconsider your ill-considered comments about me. Your comments were irrelevant to the topic at hand. Most of them were altogether irrelevant to that page. Troublingly, most of your comments were false or misleading. Those false and misleading comments include the following:

• Your accusation about my February 2018 edit on the Claudia Tenney page. This is a false accusation. You claimed that I deleted her comments about mass shootings. As you can plainly see from the diff you provided, the material I removed had nothing to do with mass shootings, which was why I removed it from a section on mass shootings;

• Your assertion that I made "26 consecutive deletions" to the Naturism page. This is incorrect. While I did remove a good deal of unsourced material from that page recently, not all of my 26 edits were deletions;

• Your speculation that I edited the naturism page because I have a problem with "naughty bits" is just weird. (If you think that is the true reason for my edits to the Naturism page, how do you account for the fact that I did not remove a single image depicting genitalia?) What I really have a problem with is editors littering Wikipedia pages with unsourced or improperly sourced material and leaving them that way for years on end, which is why I made most of the edits I made to that page;

• Your accusation that I "admittedly feel that Wikipedia should be edited from a Christian conservative viewpoint" is a complete and total lie, and an apology is in order; and

• Your accusation that I have "adopted" the Lewis Carroll quotation on my user page is blatantly false. Anyone who visits my page can plainly see that from the comment I made following the quotation.

As I stated on the talk page to the Susan Wagle article, Wikipedia article talk pages are not fora for attacks against other editors. Regardless of whether I am the target or someone else is, I object to your conduct. If you had come to me with concerns about my edits in an honest, good-faith manner, I would have been more than willing to hear your concerns (as I have demonstrated with other editors on many occasions). Because you have defamed me, I am not even interested in your concerns. I would ask that you self-revert your comments within 24 hours. Also, I would urge you to take a look at yourself and ask whether you harbor prejudices against Christians and/or conservatives that are affecting your view of me and my editing. 
SunCrow (
talk) 18:35, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
reply

SunCrow Harbor prejudices against Christians? Actually, for many years, the beneficiary of a quarter of my six-figure life insurance policy has been a Christian organization whose work I have long admired. Many of my best long-time friends are Christian pastors of different denominations, and ditto conservatives. So I would be tempted to ask you the converse to your questions. But I don't think that's appropriate. Activist ( talk) 08:41, 15 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Activist, you have now had plenty of time to reconsider and take back the false statements I brought to your attention. Obviously, you have no interest in doing that, which means that you are not trustworthy. That is unfortunate, but is good to know. SunCrow ( talk) 17:09, 16 October 2019 (UTC) reply

SunCrow I haven't made any false statements, and I've sent you proof of the veracity of a number of my contentions that you claimed had no merit. Despite that, I've made you a very reasonable offer to remove what I'd written if you reciprocate with your demonstrably false accusations against me, and back off your trying to whitewash the Wagle article. You haven't responded, but have just doubled down on your slandering me, calling me "untrustworthy" now. You seem unable to take any responsibility for your behavior. What am I to think, at this juncture? Activist ( talk) 00:43, 17 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Activist, not a single word of your last post was true. You are either very comfortable with dishonesty or are living in a world that is quite different from the world of reality that I inhabit. I don't see a point in continuing the conversation. SunCrow ( talk) 05:42, 17 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Activist, you thanked me for one of my recent edits, so here is a heart-felt...  YOU'RE WELCOME! It's a pleasure, and I hope you have a lot of fun while you edit this inspiring encyclopedia phenomenon! X1\ ( talk)

00:00, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

It's easy, just use this tool. It even lets you upload directly to Wikimedia Commons. I've changed the Kansas Senator map, but in the future don't be afraid to use that tool. Hope this helps! MAINEiac4434 ( talk) 05:14, 13 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Homestead Temporary Shelter for Unaccompanied Children, you may be blocked from editing. Drmies ( talk) 20:05, 11 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Your recent editing history at Homestead Temporary Shelter for Unaccompanied Children shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you 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.-- MONGO ( talk) 22:05, 11 December 2019 (UTC) reply

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Drmies ( talk) 03:45, 12 December 2019 (UTC) reply

• I think your point was I'm not a Trumper--fine. But I rarely edit those articles, and if I do it's as often to correct one partial reading or edit as it is to another; I have blocked many an anti-Trumper who violated the BLP, for instance, and I have revdeleted many a blatant violation in those articles and on the talk pages.

  My problem with your edits was that they were so clearly UNDUE in assigning blame IN THE ARTICLE, and your talk page comments made clear that you had a point of view that informed those edits. That's even aside from the matter of the pictures, which IMO violate some other policies/guidelines as well, including image overkill and the fact that they are only tangentially relevant; but in the end, they seem to be an attempt to stack the deck, to shame these people. That, we cannot have. Wikipedia is not a place for editors to shame people--if they deserve to be shamed, according to secondary sources, our articles should reflect what secondary sources say, and it should be done in proper neutral fashion. I seriously urge you to reconsider various things I signaled in that article. Thanks, Drmies ( talk) 15:24, 13 December 2019 (UTC) reply

I think your points are to some extent valid. My intent wasn't to shame all those generals and admirals. Had that been the case, and it certainly wasn't, I expect I would have tried to do that on their own articles. I'll review my edits but my guess is that I've read over 100 articles about the "shelter" and not a single one gave the impression that it was a good idea or not violative of standards. Of those seven flag rank officers, the only one with whom I'm familiar is Kelly, whose judgment, an opinion available to any reader that could be entirely assessed on the content of Wikipedia articles, seems to have been wanting. Kelly, according to his WP article and many other sources, has vigorously promoted some of the very policies that created intentional family separation as a deterrent to asylum seekers fleeing from the horrific, well-documented violence and climate disruption-generated diaspora in Central America. I've deleted some text from the article and I'll go back to pare it some more. Activist ( talk) 15:58, 14 December 2019 (UTC) reply

I've also deleted contents regarding unsourced or non-RSS negative behavior from articles about conservatives. I deleted a photo from one's article a week or so again as it was one of at least half a dozen that were essentially cumulative and redundant. I'm surprised there weren't any baby pictures of the article's subject. It certainly wasn't my intent to shame anyone, and all I did was post their photos as board members and identified them. I didn't even read their articles. I only recently became aware of Stavridis because I happened to see him when he was on C-Span's Book TV a couple of weeks ago talking about his most recent work and he was quite critical of Trump. The presence of those officers and ambassadors on that board of the only for-profit corporation holding detainee children speaks for itself. It was never claimed by anyone that their membership was generated by the possession of any expertise in dealing with migrants or asylum seekers. The inappropriate location of the facility on a military base and its initial operation dates back to the Obama administration. Except for being aware of Kelly and Richard Armitage, I had not been familiar with any of the histories of the remaining eight. Kathleen Martin's article had no photograph accompanying it, so I found her official Navy portrait which is in the public domain and posted it to both her article and the Homestead article. Many aspects of Kelly's post-military career behavior, as is evident from his Wikipedia article, have been widely questioned prior to, during and subsequent to his termination from the Trump administration. I hope to have the time later today to edit down textual material and to break the remaining info into more appropriate sections. I note that 16 other named editors and 4 IP editors have contributed to the article this year, excluding bots. It was created by Megalibrarygirl last year who added 13 edits at that time. I'm hardly responsible for its structure and everything in it. Activist ( talk) 01:13, 15 December 2019 (UTC) reply

I edited the pages of several members of the House of Representatives who voted against the Coronavirus Relief Bill. Considering the national emergency and state of this global pandemic, the No votes seem worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia. But @ZimZalaBim reverted my changes and said "That vote in itself isn't newsworthy and your insertion suggests a bias in pointing it out". I don't do much editing on Wikipedia so I'm not sure how the standard of this site should be applied in this situation, and I see that you reverted the changes by @ZimZalaBim for two reps. Can this info be added to the pages of the 38 other no votes? Any insights you can share would be appreciated. Harry mattison ( talk) 19:32, 14 March 2020 (UTC) reply

I appreciate your efforts and think the edits you made had merit. The two that I reverted in their articles had voted for the first ignorant bill, the only pair who did so in the House. I thought it would be hard to argue that those edits should not stand. I know Buck's constituency (mostly Weld County), and it's quite ignorant for a more rational state like Colorado. But hope springs eternal in the human heart. If some of those voters die of the disease, maybe their kin will take a better look at him. As far as Biggs is concerned, those eastern Maricopa voters were the same ones who kept "Sheriff Joe" in office for so long, even though they paid many millions to settle a deluge of legitimate cases brought against him. I appreciate your efforts and will take a look at ZZ and see how the issue might have better staying power. He (?} has not changed my two restorations of his 20 reverts. Let me suggest that these votes might be seen in the future as were those ignorant and cowardly votes to endorse the groundless invasion of Iraq in October 2002 that have cost millions their lives and trillions paid by the U.S. taxpayers. Activist ( talk) 01:28, 15 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Activist, please address UNDUE and RECENT concerns as well as NOCON before restoring this information to a number of articles. I would suggest opening a thread on the politics project page so we can get some sort of general consensus that would cover a number of articles at once. Please remember that per NOCON and BLP the disputed content remains off the article until a consensus for inclusion is reached. Springee ( talk) 13:20, 18 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Activist, edit summaries such as the one you included here should be avoided as they suggest wp:battleground behaivor [ [9]]. I rightly reverted the IP editor because their edit had no citation. You have added the citation which addresses the issue. I trust we are both content to move on. Springee ( talk) 19:16, 19 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Moving this discussion here as it was already in process [ [10]] Springee ( talk) 20:27, 19 March 2020 (UTC) reply

After reading your contention, Springee, that you erased the opinion of Biggs that global warming didn't exist, or whatever his loopy take was, because it had been posted by a "sock" of Hugh somebody, I went back to them and read them. That was October 2017, if I recall correctly. So I went back to his or her edits and found that the edits were okay, but one of his numerous sources he gave for the edit was crappy, from Daily Kos. The rest, however, were solid, and they were redundant. I expect you erased them because you were previously trying to save Biggs from his own boneheaded positions. That's not our task. The poster with the sock(s?) should have been barred permanently, obviously, though I expect he or she just got a new user name, but the posts about AGW and Biggs were legitimate. I hope you can better explain your behavior. I'd be looking forward to seeing that. Unless Biggs has reversed his "flat earther" position about climate disruption, I'll see if that warrants posting to his article. I'm having a bit of trouble with my PC, so be patient if I don't get back to you right away. Activist ( talk) 19:54, 19 March 2020 (UTC) reply

@ Activist:, HughD is a prolific sock editor. Per EVADE their edits have been removed. If you wish to restore them and take ownership of them that is fine with me. I don't give a crap about Biggs himself. Springee ( talk) 20:22, 19 March 2020 (UTC) reply

End of copied discussion Springee ( talk) 20:27, 19 March 2020 (UTC) reply

I'll take ownership of them, edit them, certainly dropping that Daily Kos cite. HughD was certainly, it seems, a well-documented sock editor and wasn't very good at hiding that behavior. If he or she has returned, I expect his or her behavior has changed or would have been dealt with once again. Thank you. Activist ( talk) 20:52, 19 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Missvain Thanks for the feedback. It is much appreciated. Activist ( talk) 02:42, 15 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Activist, please keep UNDUE in mind when adding material about COVID-19 to BLP. Individual quotes, comments, votes etc are not likely to be long term DUE when this is done. RECENT applies to virtually all COVID-19 material. The overall subject is important but it must be remembered that material needs to be DUE in context of the article subject. Springee ( talk) 12:59, 4 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Why you are simply amazing. You've taken this precious time of yours to lecture me about the necessity to stalk me. How thoughtful of you. As long as we're talking about Don Young quotes, (including the ones you reverted which I'd found in multiple sources), what do you think about his talking to an auditorium of high schoolers about "buttfucking?" I found that remains in many sources but perhaps it's still too RECENT to remain in his article. What do you think? Activist ( talk) 13:27, 4 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Take it to BLPN. If you think this is a personal issue take it to ANI. Springee ( talk) 13:32, 4 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Are you familiar with WP:WIKIHOUNDING? Just wondered. Activist ( talk) 13:35, 4 April 2020 (UTC) reply

I've opened a BLPN discussion regarding the Bollier and Wagle pages. [ [11]] Basically I'm asking for additional eyes. Springee ( talk) 01:53, 22 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Activist. Please review policy at WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE. Specifically, When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies. If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first. Also please review WP:NOCON, specifically In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit. However, for contentious matters related to living people, a lack of consensus often results in the removal of the contentious matter, regardless of whether the proposal was to add, modify or remove it. Both policies say that if new material in a BLP is challenged then it must not be restored until it has been discussed and the concerns addressed. Continuously restoring the same material without so much as engaging in a good faith discussion related to the issues with the text is not adhering to these policies. The next steps are drop it, good faith discussions (with a request for a 3rd opinion), or something like ANI. Springee ( talk) 02:03, 23 April 2020 (UTC) reply

While I was addressing your concerns and after I'd spent quite some time cleaning up many errors and incomplete citations left by other editors in the Don Young article and I was about to leave this feedback at the Don Young article, I was prevented* from doing so because you are still stalking me and Wikipedia automatically rejected the edit to the Don Young Talk page that I was making. Here's the message "Someone else has changed this page since you started editing it, resulting in an edit conflict. Here is what I'd written.

I guess I'll have join the immense number people with whom you've sparred in your last 1,000 edits (your totals are rising like coronavirus fatalities) and hope we can get it sorted out there.

Copying Missvain I've copiously labored to engage in "good faith" discussions with you, Springee, but actually you need to explain why you feel it is necessary to Wikihound and to stalk me and my edits. (Diff at:) https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Don_Young&oldid=952592084 The article needed work and I've cleaned up a number of errors within it. What you did is to follow me from the Andy Biggs and Ken Buck, articles where you erased well-sourced edits about notable votes in House floors by those two congressman alone, then you followed me to the Don Young article, the first time you'd ever made an edit to it, though I'd made about 60 edits to it over the last 8 1/2 years. You slashed my well sourced-edits and then, though you had been similarly absent there, diff at: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Don_Young&diff=949173903&oldid=949157000 went on to do the same thing at my edits to the Susan Wagle article where I'd made over 80 edits over the years. You claimed that you were removing edits supposedly based on what you claimed to be "negative Op-eds," but in fact you had instead slashed out edits sourced to reporters for Newsweek and the Associated Press that had nothing to do with Op-Eds. You had written at "01:24, 5 April 2020‎ Springee talk contribs‎ 106,106 bytes -2,143‎ NOCON related to the restored material. It violates UNDUE. The newly added material was sourced to negative Op-Eds. Again DUE hasn't been shown."

You cited subjective criteria, that is your own opinion, as giving you license to engage in this very Unwikipedian behavior. You had claimed that there was little coverage of Young's remarks and reception. I just Googled his name and "beer virus" and got 18,500 hits. I looked at the first 20 and they're from Alaskan and nationwide print and broadcast sources. Now I see that you've reverted my text once again and in doing so so you've erased numerous other corrections I'd tediously edited throughout the article. You are claiming that "other editors" have agreed with you about the legitimacy of your savaging the article (as well as others). That's also not true: It's vandalism, pure and simple and no one has agreed with your edits at this article unless you're sitting in a "virtual" boiler room somewhere and others up to the same practices are remotely cheering with you. This has really got to stop. Activist ( talk) 03:06, 23 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Activist, I don't think you are listening to the concerns of others. Notice that basically every editor who has reviewed your edits said they violate the same policies I've pointed out. That said, if you continue to personally attack on article talk pages and claim you are being targeted for hounding I will take you to ANI. I've kept the subject to only the specific edits you are making, not your edit warring, failure to follow BRD and NOCON as well as your talk page comments that attack me personally rather than address the issues with your edits. I am 100% open to discussing the issues with the edits but the personal attacks and off topic comments about me on article and noticeboard talk pages need to stop. Springee ( talk) 17:06, 24 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Activist, first WP:BRD applies to your edits. When you add new material, if that material is challenged you should take it to the talk page. If you think there is a larger problem then take it to ANI. Springee ( talk) 11:32, 20 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Hello, Activist

Thank you for creating Paul V. Malloy.

User:Doomsdayer520, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thank you for this new article. As an appointed judge, Malloy is eligible for a Wikipedia article, but in its current state the article is very heavily focused on criticizing him and his allies. Noting his controversies is legitimate, but the article was written with too much commentary from the author's point of view.

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Doomsdayer520}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

--- DOOMSDAYER520 ( Talk| Contribs) 15:14, 21 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Your recent editing history at Rick Bright shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you 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. Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 17:14, 20 May 2020 (UTC) reply

I've just seen your note, a moment ago and appreciate your interest. Unfortunately, it's not "other editors." For months, I've been stalked almost solely by Springee who has done this to other "good faith" editors before me, even on vehicular topics. (He gets occasionally company as he canvasses for support.) He uses bogus BRD claims to whitewash article after article, slashing through laboriously well-sourced material. He's not engaged in dispassionate discussion. He's enforcing a one-man topic ban on me as he tries to protect right wing politicians from documentation of their worst, notable behavior. I'll take it to Talk and go to a noticeboard. I've been pressed for time, so haven't done so sooner. I'm sick of this. It violates the spirit of Wikipedia. His behavior should not be allowed. He has a track record and I'll document it. Please note that I've not had any problem on this article, though experienced editor and administrator MelanieN and I discussed and quickly resolved an issue. Activist ( talk) 17:29, 20 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Activist, just a warning. If you continue to fail to follow WP:NOCON and WP:BRD I will take you to ANI. You need to understand that editors can object to your edits and in that case you need to engage in talk page discussions to address the problem. Springee ( talk) 18:07, 20 May 2020 (UTC) reply

You both need to stop reverting each other. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:14, 20 May 2020 (UTC) reply

@ Liz:, I'm happy to discuss any of the edits in question but I think Activist needs to understand that WP:NOCON is policy. If Activist add new content and that content is challenged then they need to get consensus before restoring the material. They should NOT if they haven't tried to address the issue. Springee ( talk) 18:18, 20 May 2020 (UTC) reply

@ Liz:, I'm gong to have to devote considerable time to Springee's latest accusations, but I would note that this is not a question of differences of opinion about edits, though he would like it to be seen as that. It's that he has a chronic habit of contentiousness with other editors and their work which is essentially, on political (or to a lesser extent, vehicular) articles, of WP:IDON'TLIKEIT He has stalked me, going from article to article, erasing edits sometimes new, but often that I've made to articles over many, many years which sometimes thousands of other editors have read and have had no problem with them. The first time he's looked at them is when he's been in a dispute over another political article I've edited, erases many hours of work, slashing through them in a few seconds, and claiming his are legitimate differences of opinion. He's Wikilawyered me and many others to WikiDeath in some cases, where editors have simply abandoned their involvement in the encyclopedia due to his intentional abrasiveness and lack of good faith. I note that of his last 1,000 edits, that 181 of them have been posts to noticeboards. By raising at times completely baseless objections, he has essentially tried to enforce a one-man topic ban on my editing of political articles. He's canvassed other editors after often quite civil discussions or disagreements I've had with them to recruit to back his latest forays. It's very Unwikpedian, in my estimation, and his somewhat unique behavior should not be tolerated. I'll respond to his latest accusations on the newest noticeboard. I'm hugely busy and have had Internet connection problems, but I intend to deal with this and hope to stop it once and for all. It is not at all in the spirit of the encyclopedia. Thank you for your interest and your long term involvement. Activist ( talk) 18:42, 20 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Actually it is an issue of good faith issues with content. I think you are making good faith edits but you respond badly when editors challenge those edits. At the same time look at examples of the edits I've challenged and the notice board replies.[ [12]] I'm seeing a common issue with trying to coatrack negative material about politicians into articles. The writing style is, as another editor put it, conspiratorial rather than encyclopedic. Unfortunately you aren't hearing the concerns of others and turn to accusations of bad faith and restoring text without consensus. That's a problem. Springee ( talk) 18:51, 20 May 2020 (UTC) reply

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Rick Bright. Activist, I told you at the article talk page that you should not add your version to the article while the issue is under discussion. You did not reply. But since then you have added it twice more. You are in violation of WP:BRD, and if you do it again you will violate WP:3RR. If you do it again I will block you myself. MelanieN ( talk) 03:29, 21 May 2020 (UTC) reply

User:Springee has pointed out to me that I misread the time stamps and that you made your re-additions BEFORE I said on the article talk page that you shouldn't - and that you have not done it since. So my warning not to do it a fourth time still stands (that would be a 3RR violation), but I apologize for my accusatory tone here, which was based on an erroneous interpretation of what was done. -- MelanieN ( talk) 14:58, 21 May 2020 (UTC) reply

MelanieN No problem. Activist ( talk) 09:36, 13 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Activist, please understand that when you add controversial material to a BLP and it is challenged you need to show consensus to restore. The reflexive restorations go against WP:BRD and violate WP:NOCON. Springee ( talk) 04:41, 28 July 2020 (UTC) reply

What you're doing is a rationalization for your abuse, of course, and BRD and other instruments and contentions should not become an automatic cover for your endless protection of right wing politicians and players. Let's take this to ANI. I'm sick of it, as are many others whom you've spent so much time reverting. You've even canvassed other editors to get them to do your specious work for you, and have consistently Wikihounded me and many others. It really has to stop. "Respect" is a term for a mutual relationship. You show little if any of that. You've left a wide trail and I'll be happy to document it. Activist ( talk) 05:02, 28 July 2020 (UTC) reply

If you continue to fail to respect BRD and wp:nocon I will take this to ANI. Please self revert. Springee ( talk) 10:13, 28 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Thank you for the heads up! It turns out Queerty recycled the website putting 2020’s Pride50 over 2019’s group. I’ve added the archived website. Gleeanon409 ( talk) 02:24, 20 September 2020 (UTC) reply

( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:07, 17 October 2020 (UTC) reply

Activist, I would have hoped that our previous discussion on Masem's talk page [ [13]] would have made it clear that accusing editors of bad faith actions is a problem. Here you accuse me of being a "partisan editor" scrubbing content. [ [14]] That is failing to focus on the content and the issues with trying to present a bill as if it were nothing but gum drops and sugar plumbs. It's not clear to me that any of that content is DUE at all but if we are going to have it is needs to be IMPARTIAL in it's delivery. Springee ( talk) 13:42, 18 October 2020 (UTC) reply

Ping MelanieN due to their prior involvement. Springee ( talk) 13:52, 18 October 2020 (UTC) reply

Activist, this edit is almost entirely devoid of actual discussion related to the diffs at hand. [ [15]] The little that discussed the article content avoided actually discussing the specific issue. The rest was an attack directed at me. That is not an acceptable use of a talk page neither is accusing me of notifying Masem and MelanieN as if they are going to restore my edits (an accusation you seem to make in the above link). I've pinged them due to your continued personal attacks on the talk pages. It's not that hard. You are welcome to come to my talk page and tell me you think my edits are full of it and you think I'm biased etc. That is not an appropriate use of the article's talk page. Springee ( talk) 19:46, 18 October 2020 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the ping, Springee. Activist, I see it was two years ago that I warned you to stop accusing Springee, without evidence, of having a conflict of interest. Now you are accusing them of partisan editing, which is not quite as bad (you would have been blocked if you had continued the COI accusations), but is still an accusation. Here's how it should work: base your comments on the merits of the edit or removal. Argue on the article talk page why the material should be included, not on what you allege to be the motives of the other editor. The rule here is: discuss the content, not other editors. If you think you have a serious case for disruptive/partisan editing, you can always try to prove it at a noticeboard, but I don't recommend it. Just get on with editing and stop with the accusations. -- MelanieN ( talk) 21:05, 18 October 2020 (UTC) reply

Activist, I understand your post was 5 min before MelanieN's but please consider the actuations you made here [ [16]] in context of the post above. Please remove the non-content related parts of that post. Springee ( talk) 22:17, 18 October 2020 (UTC) reply

Activist, you restored challenged content without going to the talk page first. This is a violation of BRD. This is the edit in question. [ [17]]. MelanieN has talked about this before. I'm going to start the talk page discussion. Do not use it to make accusations against me. You can do that here. Springee ( talk) 11:42, 3 November 2020 (UTC) reply

I've already started the Talk page discussion. It was delayed by a Wikipedia internal problem, but I persisted and it was accepted. You don't have a right to whimsically erase any edits I or anyone else have made and calling it a legitimate exercise of BRD. In your opinion, you seem to conclude you have an absolute right to challenge any edits by any editor on any grounds you might conjecture. I've noted in the past, after reviewing your most recent 1,000 edits, that you have spent up to 18% of your time on Noticeboards, which leads to an obvious conclusion regarding your assumption of good faith. I wonder how many editors who make high volume edits at a rate similar to yours and spend any time remotely approaching the amount of time you spend arguing? I would also point out that you have canvassed other editors to join you in your behavior, and even solicited at least one other editor requesting that they make an edit to my work that you were restricted from making yourself. Activist ( talk) 12:04, 3 November 2020 (UTC) reply

You still went out of sequence by restoring the content before consensus was established. The material is simply undue both in length given the short overall BLP article and also because it's a coatrack topic. It's not about Schwab and the source article hardly mentions him. Sorry, it weeks be good content (absent the puffery) if added to an article about the actual elections in Kansas. It's not ok in a BLP where it implies wrong doing. Restoring the challenged material we not the right thing to do. I'll give it a bit of time to see if anyone else weighs in. If not I will remove it again. Perhaps you could start a BLPN or NPOVN discussion to get more input. Springee ( talk) 12:37, 3 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Springee I have no idea what you're writing about with, "Sorry, it weeks be good content" (?) ("absent the puffery") ("puffery?") (Are you trying to be insulting again?) if (?) added to an article about the actual elections in Kansas. It's not ok (sic) in a BLP where it implies wrong doing.(sic) Restoring the challenged material we (sic) not the right thing to do."

Can you translate that for me? Activist ( talk) 13:37, 3 November 2020 (UTC) reply

That’s a swipeo. Should be “Sorry this might be good content”. The puffery is the part about the student. That is the sort of emotional lead in used in news stories but not needed here. Springee ( talk) 14:25, 3 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Springee I didn't know what "swipeo" meant and the only hits for the word I get are for a prolific poster on social media, Instagram, Facebook, YouTube, etc. I suggest you review the definition of puffery. This woman at 25 years old has a resume that is already longer than Schwab's. A substantial part of his WP article, half its citations, are about his young son's horrific decapitation. On the other hand, she's been a Fullbright teaching assistant, former Chief of Staff to the Student Government at WSU, current President of the Harvard Legal Aid Bureau, Miss Butler County, Miss Black and Gold, dancer, former Policy Intern with Michelle Obama, etc., etc. [18] Schwab took almost a year to settle a case that had final orders seven months before he took office, and then he whined about it and tried to besmirch the reputation of a prestigious century-old American institution, complaining they were only in it for the money, because they were compensated to the tune of $8,000. Activist ( talk) 16:08, 3 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Swypeo is an auto corrected word that programs like Swype get wrong. The woman’s resume is not relevant to an article about Schwab. You have made no reasonable argument why the material was due for that article. Springee ( talk) 16:40, 3 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Activist, this is a final warning about casting aspersions against other people. As you know, I warned you about this more than two years ago [19]. Based on the discussion at my talk page, [20] I find that you have repeatedly accused another editor of editing in a non-neutral manner (“whitewashing” was your phrase) and even of wikistalking you. I am here to remind you one last time that WP:Casting aspersions is regarded as a personal attack and against our rules. Per that page, An editor must not accuse another of misbehavior without evidence, especially when the accusations are repeated or severe. If accusations must be made, they should be raised, with evidence, on the user-talk page of the editor they concern or in the appropriate forums. Making such accusations in edit summaries or on talk pages is inappropriate, and doing it repeatedly can result in a block. -- MelanieN ( talk) 22:15, 6 November 2020 (UTC) reply

@ MelanieN:, would you please review this edit summary, "Still stalking after all these years - See talk" [ [21]]. I don't think I have interacted with Activist in many months. The article is on my watch list and I think the material I reversed (minus one part which I noted later) fails IMPARTIAL. Additionally, the source Truthout is not reliable. Finally, I see no talk page comments which effectively means a new edit was restored based on an accusation of stalking. Springee ( talk) 11:05, 15 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Hey there, just wanted to acknowledge your email. It's true I haven't edited in 9 years on this account but I'm perfectly fine, nothing happened. Just kind of drifted to new projects and things. I've made a few edits here and there as an IP when im looking something up and notice an issue, but im not really involved in the operations of the encyclopedia anymore, and also haven't lived up in AK for a very long time, so I'm afraid for all those reasons I wont be much help with the wikiproject relaunch, but I do appreciate you reaching out. --  ۩ M ask 04:25, 3 January 2021 (UTC) reply

Well, I'm pleased that you're okay, in these perilous times. Activist ( talk) 04:28, 3 January 2021 (UTC) reply

Activist, the Don Young article is on my talk page. Your edit was UNDUE and I reverted it. Your restoration followed by an accusation of stalking is not acceptable. You are allowed to question and get support for the content but not attack me. Please self revert. Pinging MelanieN as a previously involved parent. Springee ( talk) 03:32, 11 January 2021 (UTC) reply

Activist, if you restore the Rittenhouse material without getting consensus first I will take you to ANI. You have a long history of edit warring and failure to get consensus before restoring questionable edits. This is a behavior issue that needs to stop. Springee ( talk) 13:24, 17 January 2021 (UTC) reply

Doug Weller Actually, Springee, consensus does exist there. there was nothing "questionable" about my edit that you deleted. Activist ( talk) 15:30, 17 January 2021 (UTC) reply

Activist, this looks like improper campaigning. [ [22]] Springee ( talk) 23:35, 19 January 2021 (UTC) reply

I asked another editor who has considerable professional expertise in such issues for his opinion. I certainly did not ask him to post at the article and he didn't do so. Stick to the facts and stop leveling accusations. Activist ( talk) 23:44, 19 January 2021 (UTC) reply

I agree with Activist here. -- FantinoFalco ( talk) 00:20, 20 January 2021 (UTC) reply

Activist, contrary to what you appear to think, my concerns with your edits are not personal. I am often concerned with the way they are phrased or conspiratorial in tone (others have said the same). I'm also concerned that your first reaction is to revert and accuse others of acting in bad faith rather than go to the talk page to work on a compromise text. Shinealittlelight did a nice job of condensing the new Rittenhouse material in part by culling it down to the essential facts. You are welcome to disagree. The proper venue for that disagreement is on the talk page where Sal already started a section explaining why the material as in the article should be cut down. The correct next set is to reply there rather than edit war. Springee ( talk) 13:40, 20 January 2021 (UTC) reply

Activist are you having problems with partisan bias and tendentious editing regarding conservative topics coming from Springee and Shinealittlelight? It's been an ongoing problem for me as well Noteduck ( talk) 03:41, 21 January 2021 (UTC) reply

Why are you continuing to edit war at Kenosha_unrest_shooting? Additionally, your edit summary is false as there was no request for additional citations.[ [23]] If you don't self revert I will take this, along with the rest of your recent edit history to the noticeboards. You should know better by now. Springee ( talk) 14:07, 22 January 2021 (UTC) reply

\

Thank you for the pointer. It took me a while to understand whether it was me who created that article. I added him as Ambrose Redmoon when I wrote examples for Chiastic structure, which I probably looked up for something I was writing at the time. -- Diomidis Spinellis ( talk) 11:20, 28 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Ruth Shipley into Wayne Morse. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{ copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was copied, attribution is not required. — Diannaa ( talk) 12:54, 14 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Dianna talk Thanks for the heads up and recommendations. Before making the Morse edits, I'd made edits to the Shipley page, adding text, moved text within the article for coherency, checked out the old citations to see if they were still live links, but didn't change the edits enough or the work wouldn't have been tagged. I'll take care of it on Thursday p.m. Activist ( talk) 09:09, 15 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Hello, i'm not publishing The Advocate (Louisiana), so please don't delete my edits and stop making hoax. Qba0202 ( talk) 06:29, 20 April 2021 (UTC) reply

( talk) As has been happening frequently when you post to articles, your sentence here doesn't make any sense. I've recommended that you get a program that translates what you want to write from Polish to English, and I've also suggested that when you do edit, that you pay attention to the words highlighted in red that may tell you when you're not conforming to basic English rules of grammar. You may also get such notification if you've made errors in citations again, and you can try to correct them before you publish. You are also not allowed to publish your opinion but you can only post text that's supported by the citations. If you can't manage to do that, I expect we'll have to go to a noticeboard which could result in sanctions against you. Activist ( talk) 15:45, 25 April 2021 (UTC) reply

I think your latest comment to the talk page was meant to be in a new section, correct? I will create the new section, but feel free to correct me if I misunderstood. Curbon7 07:00, 25 June 2021 (UTC) reply

( talk) I'd meant it to be included in a new section, and had written the comment, but before I posted it got called away for hours. When I returned I saw that you had changed the article and didn't have any problems with your changes, and just hit "Publish," rather than changing my intended note. I hope I didn't aggravate you and that certainly wasn't my intent and apologize if I did. Activist ( talk) 09:23, 25 June 2021 (UTC) reply

Doug Weller talk 07:20, 28 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Just a reminder, the new standard is the Contentious Topic notice WP:CTOP. You are welcome to disagree with my edits/comments on the Carlson article. However, when you move from discussing the edits to focusing on the editor that is a problem. You are welcome to raise concerns on my talk page. Springee ( talk) 21:14, 19 February 2023 (UTC) reply

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jamie McLeod-Skinner, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jamie McLeod-Skinner until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot ( talk) 01:03, 3 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Re your email: I'm not taking issue with your username; you're welcome to it. But my The clue is in the username, perhaps was meant to indicate that you were perhaps allowing your opinions to overly influence your editing, which isn't good William M. Connolley ( talk) 08:57, 14 September 2022 (UTC) reply

Following your reasoning, your Username is Irish, of course, perhaps a clue that you can't be trusted to i.e., edit any article about "The Troubles," in Northern Ireland as it perhaps might allow your opinions to overly influence your editing, which isn't good. I'm so glad you're not taking issue with my Username with which I've made about 17 thousand edits in 16 years. Is there anything else we should know about you to discount or disparage your edits? Activist ( talk) 09:18, 10 October 2022 (UTC) reply

I think it is too soon to be calling Fierro a hero in wikivoice, particularly when the same sentence goes on to describe the actions of trolls. It comes across as very defensive. It's OK for someone like Polis or Biden to call him a hero, but I think those are opinions until he is given an award for heroism, which surely won't be too far away. WWGB ( talk) 13:33, 26 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Activist, please use the talk page before restoring contested content. Springee ( talk) 13:10, 9 February 2023 (UTC) reply

It was with no small regret, especially after the thanks you recently gave me, that I removed most of what you added about Nancy Marks to the George Santos article from that recent New York Times story. I had read it myself when it came out, and really, as I said in one of my edit summaries, I don't think there's anything in it, really, that would add anything new and relevant to the Santos article. Further, a lot of what you added to it isn't supported by the article—it doesn't mention Il Bacco at all, it doesn't say that the FEC investigations prompted her to resign as Santos's treasurer, and the "went rogue" remark seems to have nothing to do with the Van Duyne JFC. (And, as you did when the story first broke, you added the source in that pre-{{ cite}} style which we haven't really used for 15 years ... why? Is there some issue with that template for you? I'm curious).

Actually, it seems, given that Newsday has also devoted an extensive article to Marks, she now meets the notability standard and we could start an article on her. All the same, I'm not sure we should because she's a less well-known figure and most of what we could reliably source for the article is, like the Santos article, heavy on the negative. If you want to, feel free to discuss it with me. Daniel Case 17:16, 24 April 2023 (UTC) reply

( talk) Frankly, I'm puzzled by your actions and critique, i.e., you removed the first name from Marks. She is first mentioned, without her first name, in the Discrepancies section. That's three sections and 982 words before the FEC section. So the reader who fails to read beyond those three sections or who skips the fourth would likely have no idea who "Marks" is. You've been a professional reporter, and I would expect you to understand that. You could have left my edit, and deleted the second mention of her first name, rather than keeping readers in the dark. Marks had raised a substantial amount of money, seven figures, for Santos and I can't imagine that Marks has found the attention he has focused on her to be welcomed. It also was hardly the first time she'd come to the attention of the somewhat torpid FEC. There are plenty of references regarding her bailing as his treasurer three months ago. His comment about her should stay as it exemplifies his unwillingness to take any responsibility for his own behavior. We don't have any obligation to make the subject of articles look better. I know that Ted Bundy was a Rockefeller presidential convention delegate, but, after all, there was that "heavy on the negative" dismemberment issue. I never looked at the Il Bucco article section. Santos/Devolder had many declarations of supposed $199.99 charges to the point that they're statistically laughable. Marks has also had a problem with that sort of thing in other campaigns she's handled, though with Santos/Devolder, it was way off the charts. I think this might draw some attention to old Zeldin filings. Is there any guidance that the old cite format shouldn't be used? I've edited almost as long as you have and I haven't seen it. I find it convenient, i.e., in those cases where half a dozen reporters might be cited in the original sources. Please provide a source for your objection. Activist ( talk) 16:57, 25 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Well, thank you for not using {{ replyto}} so I would know you had responded as soon as you had. Your objection to {{ cite}} really isn't valid ... the template allows for multiple authors under last1, first1, last2, first2 etc., I think, all the way up to at least six. I have not seen any guidance to that effect but ... you are the only editor I know still not using it.

You were correct that Marks's first name was used earlier in the article as I thought it had been. But, as to some of your other responses ... you had placed Santos's "rogue" comment in the article in such a way that most readers would infer Santos had said it in direct response to the Van Duyne issue. In the original source for that comment, a couple of months ago, long before that was reported, there is no mention of it.

No, we don't have any obligation to make the subjects of articles look better. But we do have WP:OR and WP:SYNTH forbidding us from reporting inferences of our own as fact. And I take that as an obligation not to make the subjects of articles look worse than the facts reported in reliable sources do. Daniel Case ( talk) 19:13, 29 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Nancy Marks was not identified by her first name in the beginning of the article when I modified it. I put it in there so she would be. You removed it, leaving only the later mention. At the same time, you left a later extended cite in a lower paragraph which was not only redundant but erroneously Wikilinked. I don't know why you didn't see fit to remove that. I copied you about Marks and didn't hear back so I gathered you weren't interested, not realizing that you wouldn't get my earlier notice. You also removed Andrew Olson's first name (I'm not looking at it but I think I've got it correct) who was briefly identified as treasurer, but not identified otherwise by first name. I thought that was odd, in particular since you've been a reporter. I asked you if my using the old cite format was prohibited, and of course, it's not. I've used it since I started editing in 2006 and no one has ever objected or even mentioned it before. I'm hugely and urgently busy at the moment, so I can't get into discussing much more. I did wonder what was propelling you and saw that you have long had a stellar reputation on Wikipedia and that you've run as a Democrat, so that left me scratching my head. It would be difficult to make Santos look worse than he actually is, a product of his bizarre behavior over the years. I'll try to break away to respond more but I don't think I'll be able to take care of that non-WP situation today. I only came to Wikipedia to see if anyone had updated it to reflect Dick Groat's death at 92 y.o., as many occasional WP readers rush to be the first to post such events and mangle them about half the time as I'm guessing you've noticed. I expect I'll be able to write tomorrow. Maybe you could check on Groat's article. Thanks. Activist ( talk) 02:11, 30 April 2023 (UTC) reply

		The Organical Branstar
		Thanks for your serial (cereal?) contributions to Wikipedia, most recently with your finding that Atlantic article about centrist Chuck Hagel. Cheerio! BBQboffin ( talk) 01:22, 18 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Hah! Activist ( talk) 09:15, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply

your edit on the Battle of Geneina is problematic. Did someone hacked your account or something? FuzzyMagma ( talk) 14:49, 19 August 2023 (UTC) reply

My ancient laptop has keyboard problems that I try to keep under control. Sorry about the error introduced. However my use of the words "an extensive" rather than "a copious," is much better. You can look them up. Activist ( talk) 12:10, 24 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Your feedback is requested at Talk:List of Islamist terrorist attacks on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 08:31, 15 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Mike Johnson (Louisiana politician) on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 07:31, 28 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Wikimedia US Mountain West

Wikimedians of the U.S. Mountain West will hold an online meeting from 8:00 to 9:00 PM MST, Tuesday evening, November 14, 2023, at meet.google.com/kfu-topq-zkd. Anyone interested in the Mountain West or the future direction of Wikipedia and the Wikimedia movement is encouraged to attend. All guests are welcome. Please see our meeting page for details.

If you don't wish to receive these invitations any more, please remove your username from our Wikipedia:Meetup/US Mountain West/Invitation list. Thanks.

- MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 17:03, 9 November 2023 (UTC) reply

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

2023 Virginia House of Delegates election

added a link pointing to Axios

George Santos

added a link pointing to Axios

( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:00, 15 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Hey, Activist! You left a kind message on my talk page, back in the Pleistocene or Mesozoic or a few years ago, or something, IDK. I've left a well-intentioned reply on my own talk page. Have a look, if you like, before we all get too old and gray to care about each other, any more, whatever our personal beliefs about the people(s) we care about, respectively.

Best,

-- OhioStandard ( talk) 13:45, 20 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Donald Trump 2024 presidential campaign on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 15:31, 27 November 2023 (UTC) reply

FormalDude Thanks for the attaboy. It led me to look at your User page and to look further at the Shirley Chisholm (a heroine of mine) article. Her described relationship with Lubavitchers led me further still. I always thought they were somewhat insular, and now realize I was wrong with that assumption. Enjoy the holidays! Activist ( talk) 21:43, 21 December 2023 (UTC) reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Dixie Fire, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page KQED.

( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 17:47, 28 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Wikimedia US Mountain West

Wikimedians of the U.S. Mountain West will hold an online meeting from 8:00 to 9:00 PM MST, Tuesday evening, February 13, 2024, at meet.google.com/kfu-topq-zkd. Anyone interested in the Mountain West or the future direction of Wikipedia and the Wikimedia movement is encouraged to attend. All guests are welcome. Please see our meeting page for details.

If you don't wish to receive these invitations any more, please remove your username from our Wikipedia:Meetup/US Mountain West/Invitation list. Thanks.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 17:49, 1 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Republicanism in the United Kingdom and Talk:President of Venezuela on "Politics, government, and law" request for comments. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 07:45, 21 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Hello, Activist. I'm Quaerens-veritatem . I note you reverted two of my good faith and correct edits at 1213583026, Revision as of 22:32, 13 March 2024, to Zucker School of Medicine including restoring “ graduate” in the lede and removing my updated U.S. News rankings, without explaining why and without an edit summary. You apparently used WP:TWINK and I hope this was a mistake and not WP:TWINKLEABUSE as, I trust you know, Twinkle is not to be used to undo changes that are constructive and made in good faith.

I also note your revision 1213581551#2024_U.S._Senate_campaign, Revision as of 22:23, 13 March 2024, that incorrectly removed partial term special election primary voting content from the Steve Garvey Senate Campaign, with what appears to be an incorrect edit summary (“Removed contradictory and outdated info”).

The wikiarticles on medical schools, including highly ranked medical schools, do not use “graduate”. See, Harvard, John Hopkins, Penn (Perelman), Columbia, Duke, Stanford, UCSF, Washington (St. Louis), Cornell, Yale, NYU, Mayo Clinic, Northwestern (Feinberg), Michigan, Pittsburgh, Washington, Mount Sinai, Chicago (Pritzker), et al. The articles, including Zucker, use medical school as the lede description and this suffices, is definite, and encompassing, while “ graduate” is superfluous, overly broad, and includes academic degrees, certificates, diplomas, or other qualifications including Master's degrees. I restored my edit.

As far as reverting the update of the U.S. News & World Report rankings for Zucker, this was apparently without basis and I can see no edit summary that would support this. I reinstituted the edit.

Concerning the deletion of partial term special election primary voting for the Steve Garvey Senate Campaign, I believe you did not understand that California had two senate primaries, the jungle primary for the next full term starting in January 2025, and the partial term special election primary for the remaining partial term unfulfilled by Feinstein ending in January 2025. I restored your deletion.

Thank you for your attention regarding these edits, I trust these were just human errors (to which all of us are subject), and please let me know if you believe I’m “off base” on my reviews, conclusions, or edits. Quaerens-veritatem ( talk) 04:52, 15 March 2024 (UTC) reply

I was just about to write you an apology. Thanks for being so nice about my mistake. Activist ( talk) 05:04, 15 March 2024 (UTC) reply

👍 We’re all human, Activist, though I think you make fewer mistakes than the rest of us. Thanks for your usual courtesy. Best regards, Quaerens-veritatem ( talk) 05:21, 15 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Robert F. Kennedy Jr. on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 04:31, 6 April 2024 (UTC) reply