User:Jeffrey Pierce Henderson/Adoption

= Starting Adoption = I was wrong about the link to the other page. I'm sorry about that. I'll get it deleted, no problem. This is your UserSpace so I created a new page here (rather than try and go throught the acrobatics of getting you to move the other page here and... it's just not that important).

= How to proceed from here = The biggest piece of advice I can give you is to disregard other editors. Now, don't misunderstand, I don't mean ignore everyone and edit whatever you want. What I mean is give as little import to the editor as you possibly can, always remember, this is about the content. I don't care who put it there or why, if it's verifiable, fine, if not... it goes. If Jimbo put Eartha Kitt's age at 83 I'd change it on him. Who people are doesn't impress us. First off there's the side effect that we don't actually know who most people are anyway so how excited can we possibly get?

As for apologizing, I'd look for people asking for an apology (if they want one they will ask). It's not considered rude so much as "getting past the incident". Just walk away clean and remember what to say (or not as the case may be).

Now back to my first point, and this is one of the harder parts, we have to accept that we don't mean anything to others as well. I know, it sucks but that's where we are. We are about the content, nothing more. How many years I've got doing what is irrelevant, I can show you the MSNBC.com article stating Ertha Kitt's birthday as Jan. 17, 1927 so I win. Others can be as uncivil as they want... They can yell, scream holler, rant and rave for all I care. I've got a citable source so the info goes in the article.

We have to make it not personal. This isn't about what kind of person you or I are, it's just facts. If it's a fact you can point to, then fine. If not, then we'll look for a fact we can point to.

So let's pick a page and pick a fact and see what we can get added. You name it. Where do you want to start? Padillah (talk) 16:20, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I would like to improve the Tompall Glaser page. It says nothing about his work on "Wanted! The Outlaws", arguably one of the greatest and most influential albums in country music history. Jeffrey Pierce Henderson (talk) 17:35, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, cool. I see from Amazon he's got a couple of tracks on there. So first thing I would do with an article as bare as that is find someone that is like Tompall but has a bigger article. Not to cmpare but to get a sense of style and how to format the article. Let's use ... Conway Twitty. OK, so we've got a Biography, Career in country music, Private life, Awards, and Discography sections. Let's add a Career in country music section with a mention of what and when he did the tracks for Wanted. Got your source? Make sure the source has all the info (not word for word, you'll pick those, but fact for fact) you are going to add and go at it and we'll see what happens. Padillah (talk) 17:42, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

= Tompall Glaser = Ok. My first question is: I know certain facts about Tompall, but where do you drawn the line between common knowledge and details that need to be referenced? I would check out a book from the library, but I don't think one has been written. Jeffrey Pierce Henderson (talk) 17:55, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The best answer is, "We don't, so source everything." The more information we have sourced the less we can possibly get into confrontation. Now, I understand the sometimes that's not always possible or easy, so there's the long answer. The long answer is, "Would someone else believe it?" If you said "Tompall Glaser was born on Jan. 16th" most people would not bat an eye. If you said "Tompall Glaser wrote 45 number one hits", someone might start looking. If you wrote "Tompall Glaser was the third person to walk on the Moon" someone's gonna ask questions. If you think someone's gonna ask "where did you hear that", then you might want to have sources ready.


 * The other side of this question is, without sources, how do you know? If you didn't learn it anywhere, how do you know it? And when someone challenges our "facts" what do we remember? They are only challenging the facts, not ME. I've got nothing to do with this, it's just facts.


 * So, if, more like when, we get challenged it is on us to answer the challenge. That's why the question you asked is so important. We can prepare ourselves before hand and at least start looking for stuff we can use as citation. A citation doesn't need to come from a book... has an article been written in a trade mag or something like that? Once notability has been established we don't have to worry about third-party or primary sources so anything reasonably believable should do the trick. Now, I don't mean some blog or some fansite, those tend to get shot down pretty easily. But you can use news reports, magazine articles, billboard listings, anything that has credibility and is publicly accessible. Padillah (talk) 13:30, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * P.S. for what it's worth, CMT.com has a write-up on him that took me shorter to find then it's taking to post this. Padillah (talk) 13:33, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Your two edits are fine to make without citations. They're pretty vanilla, but important, additions to the article. When I made this edit about accessory breasts lactating enough to nurse from, that needs a citation. No one in their right mind would believe that without a citation. Padillah (talk) 19:38, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

= Bench Press = One of my most tiring and seemingly endless tasks is trying to protect my first edit from vandalism. I have had more problems from this Quartet person than anyone. If you had an edit that you knew was verifiable, but it kept being removed by a user that has made it clear he was interested in having you banned, how would you handle that? Jeffrey Pierce Henderson (talk) 20:09, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd have to hold to WP:BRD, Be Bold, Get Reverted, Discuss. You've made the edit, then (apparently) got reverted, so let's head to discussion. Let's find out if the person that reverted you has a specific reason to have reverted your edit or they just don't believe you. We can ask on the talk page what policy are they citing to justify reverting the edit? Then, in the mean time, we go looking for citations that support our facts so we are ready to respond. Let's head over and see what we can figure out, huh? Padillah (talk) 20:36, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, just for clarification, the revert hasn't happened yet. He just made an edit to the record section of the site that has remained unchanged for several months. I have not "reverted" his edit because I want to be careful with this editor. I want to go over to the BRD page, give it a good read, and post back here. Jeffrey Pierce Henderson (talk) 20:45, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Wow. What an eye opener. How many problems could I have by-passed if only I had read that page! Okay. So there was consensus for months. He made the edit. I have reverted, and expect to see him in the talk area. We discuss, come to consensus, Wash, rinse, repeat, No worries. (I think I will be coming back to this page a couple of times as a guide.) Jeffrey Pierce Henderson (talk) 20:56, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * For elucidation, check out the page he recommends. I don't want to sway you by saying anything more. Also, good job so far presenting your reasoning and sticking to the facts. Padillah (talk) 21:19, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * WARNING!! Don't revert him. Leave it. Let's take the high road and discuss this. If he wants to get banned for violating 3RR, let him. We will have nothing to do with it. Let's find a consensus and then abide by it. Padillah (talk) 21:29, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Whew. I got a little heated there when I saw Quartet's revert back. Good thing I came here first and saw your warning. I think I will make a habit of coming here to cool off. I have to admit I didn't come here looking for advice but to look for that link to the BRD page so I could justify my reverting his revert. I kind of feel like I dodged a bullet! I can't really say thank you enough for the mentor work. Jeffrey Pierce Henderson (talk) 22:45, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You bring up a good point - if you need to yell, yell at me. I'll never take it personally and you can get rid of some of the pressure from not being able to resolve these things in the time we need. Those are the two factors that I find most annoying; Not having references for the stuff I heard (I know it's true but others won't believe me), and not having people reply as fast as I want them to. Not being understood because the other user didn't read my post very well comes a close second. We all have bad days (check the edit history of Talk:Köchel catalogue for one of mine), we have to learn not to deal with jerks on our bad days. (and you are very welcome, I'm just glad I'm actually helping.) Padillah (talk) 23:03, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah. You are helping. Unbelievably. I was ready to delete my account. I have new hope for my future here now. I really appreciate that. I have to tell you that at first I thought you might be one of the cabal! These guys got me paranoid. I still think a couple of them are sock puppets. They always show up in tandem. That is not a coincidence, right? Like when the guy with the money can't fall asleep in the hotel room in the movie No Country For Old Men. He says, "there is no way," swings his legs out of bed, turns on the light, and proceeds to find the homing device in the money case. How do you think those guys never fail to show up in such a small window of opportunity to defend each other? And what about the fact even with so many incidents, they have never sided against each other once; even when they were later proven to be wrong? Its like Keith Sweat used to say, something something, something something, just ain't right. Jeffrey Pierce Henderson (talk) 05:53, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

= Recent turmoil regarding Quartet = Let me get to this before too long.

Quartet has a valid point in that identifying users as causing trouble is a bad faith move. Remember, this is about the facts, I don't care about Quartet. Take note of his points and address them, that's it. A good trick I found is to use the "Show Preview" button to re-read your post. Then ask yourself "Am I saying anything about the person?" Asking them a question is fine, just try and keep the point on FACTS about the article. If you feel the need, don't answer. Walk away. You don't need to respond to every post, simply having read it you may feel you can't add anything and only have hurt feelings, so just drop it. You are doing a good job of staying away from the current discussion on your very own talk page, I must give you credit for that. Notice how the comments are formed, "Quartet should try to be sensitive", "I'm left to question if JPH's edits to this article are conducted in good faith" the concerns are brought up but as honest, forward questions. No one has, thus far, been accused of anything and no one has violated any policies. No yelling, no swearing... just putting forth the argument that you are taking steps and making progress and please respect that. And they are putting forth the perfectly valid argument that your attitude will cause people to question your edits. This sounds bad, and if this were based on one or two edits I'd call it bad faith, but when it's based on a history it's got to be viewed as acceptable. He can question your motives all he likes, we're going to follow dispute resolution process and abide by the result. We just want to improve the encyclopedia. If someone chimes in from 3O and says none of the Bench Press records are worth crap... fine. We will smile and look to the Bench Press Records article and see if we can improve that article. This isn't about others, this is about the facts. Padillah (talk) 01:43, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay. I don't agree with your assessment of this situation, or your solution, but because you have proven yourself to be right on some really good information, ie. BRD, I will follow your lead. He is really stressing me out by following my edits, and I pray your solution works. Wikipedia has been one of the coolest pastimes I have come across recently, and I would like to continue editing. I definitely believe that me sticking around is bound to be able to grow and handling these kinds of situations. To Quartet's credit I must say he didn't post here, and I appreciate that. It gives me the 'illusion' of a one on one. Also, what is the 30? I am imagining the 30 illuminated people who control the information here? Jeffrey Pierce Henderson (talk) 05:21, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the trust, and good post at Talk:Bench press (just facts). 3O is "Third Opinion". It's part of the dispute resolution process. When an article has too few editors to form a broad consensus, we have to ask for outside opinions. We do that by going to 3O and asking for someone (anyone) to drop by. If we've got something really important to decide and there are more than two editors but it's just as evenly divided we ask for an RfC, a Request for Comment. These are two ways of getting more people involved in the process so we can make WP better. Check out some of the steps in dispute resolution for more info.
 * As for my assessment, please remember, it was written with the new knowledge that we are being watched and have been shown little respect for privacy or growth. As such it was tempered and does not reflect my baser feelings on the subject. This is a trick you will do well to master, how to suppress the bile that rises when faced with, what to you appears to be, blatant violations of some basic civil liberties. At that point it's best to either walk away and never mention it again, or stay with your fact-based point and don't veer from it no matter what the other says. Each approach has pros and cons which will become evident when the situation arises. As you mentioned we have the illusion of one-on-one, but we need to be mindfull that it's just that, an illusion that some will respect and others will violate at will. If needs be you should be able to find me on hotmail with little difficulty. Padillah (talk) 13:23, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, that is another good one for me. Third opinions could be very helpful in settling a matter (for or against) and then moving on. Clearly some people cannot provide a 3O. If certain editors have a history of ganging together, their opinion shouldn't be considered a different opinion, right? This is the problem that is starting rear up right now. We have to consider that there might be a biased opinion. How do I get others watching this discussion to recognize that in Quartet's last argument the James Henderson lift was blatantly left out of his list of lifts that are notable? When is the appropriate time to start considering his motives? If James Henderson's record is the only argument that we are having here, and it is, why does he leave it out? I understand the importance of assuming good faith, but at what point do we consider that someone might have proven their bad faith? Jeffrey Pierce Henderson (talk) 19:38, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * First thing to note is you can't blatantly not do something. There are several reasons to have not included it. Admit to yourself that you don't know why. Maybe he's like me and is ill-informed as to the importance of the lift. Maybe he missed it in a copy/paste action. Maybe he knows something we don't and has every right to leave it out. Maybe he thinks he's right and doesn't know to look for updates to his knowledge. The important point is: We don't know. In a case like this you would ask the question, but ask it simply and directly: "Why are you leaving out the James Henderson lift?". You might expound with reasons why he should include the lift in his list but don't get defensive. The reason we are asking is: We don't know.


 * As for when we assume bad faith: when we can't do anything else. After we've stated our case, after we've asked all the questions we have, after we've implored the other editor to come to talkpage, after we've asked others for a third opinion, after everything. That's the only time to suspect bad faith. Unless something blatant has been done to you - someone has swore at you. Someone has accused you of something that is patently false (and is unsupported in any way). Someone attacks you. This last one is still tricky, you have to make sure the person is attacking you not just being a frustrated jerk. I'm rather a softie on this front, I don't worry about others taking shots at me. I try to stick to the facts and improving the article. If it improves the article then I don't care who did it or why. If someone actually slandered me that would be different, but most of the editors here at least firmly believe they are trying to help and I'm willing to bet, when confronted with simple forward talk, will either acquiesce or acknowledge their mistake. Padillah (talk) 20:23, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

You are right. I wouldn’t want someone misjudging my actions because I messed up and left out something important. We don’t know, and the rule should be to ‘assume the best.’ That rule has really changed my way of handling these heated exchanges more effectively, and I have to remember to give others the benefit of the doubt. I am kind of ashamed that I went back to the old way of thinking so quickly. Damn it! Jeffrey Pierce Henderson (talk) 20:46, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

= Category = I see that there is no category for ex convicts, and thought it would be a very large and interesting category. How do I start a group that could be added to the bottom of pages that feature people that have been in prison? Jeffrey Pierce Henderson (talk) 07:38, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I will now let you in on one of the little known, but most useful, secrets in Wikipedia: you can find all kinds of Wikipedia-centric stuff by putting "WP:" on the front of the search. For example, Third opinion is found by searching for WP:3O. Dispute resolution is at WP:DR. Try it, type "WP:category" in the search box to the left and see what comes out. Padillah (talk) 13:29, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

= WLU = Wow. How rude. So that's it? WLU comes in and doesn't care to wait for the discussion to evolve. He makes the decision to do what he wants, make the edits his friends want, and doesn't care about consensus and our progress? Why do we have the process if he doesn't respect it? He doesn't even care enough to read the arguments. Our discussion was not too long and verbose. They hit on the points that mattered most and nothing more. Is it over? WLU is not a new person to this issue and is not a third party. How do we alert other admins of his reckless actions? I am lost on the BRD chart. Is there another page that shows us the next step? Jeffrey Pierce Henderson (talk) 21:28, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I want you to try something. Revert the edit and mention the ongoing discussion on the talk page. Then let WLU know that we are currently discussing the edits and we would appreciate it if he would wait until we've decided what goes where. Remember, not even the slightest hint of sarcasm or insincerity. Keep in mind that this is one of the guys that was giving us a problem before and we don't want to get turned over to AN/I. Keep it simple and short. By the way, that's what "TLDR" means, "Too long, Didn't read". It's moderately rude but should be noted and try to keep posts short. Keeping it short also keeps you from getting too carried away and messing something up. So, let's try that notice and see if we can't do this right. Padillah (talk) 21:40, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay. That's scary, but I will try to remember not to be afraid of ghosts. Jeffrey Pierce Henderson (talk) 22:25, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Whew. I thought I was a goner. You do know that WLU is an admin. right? Jeffrey Pierce Henderson (talk) 04:15, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Does the 3RR apply to admins? I am lost. Somewhere they went off script. What is next? Jeffrey Pierce Henderson (talk) 04:59, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, the 3RR rule applies to admins, but no one is even moderately close to 3RR so let's put that on the back burner for now. Remember, it's not about WLU or Quartet: look at what was said. WLU gives plain reasons for his point of view, let's address those if we can. If we can't then let's agree with them and let him know he has a valid point. Keep in mind, we are not trying to win, if the other editors have a good idea, then let's praise them for it and get on with the editing. Padillah (talk) 06:38, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I'm not an admin. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 19:13, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

= Lost in Cyberspace = I posted the last comment using the link [Click here to start a new topic.] at the top of the page but don't know where it went... Jeffrey Pierce Henderson (talk) 21:30, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * This is a user page. What you clicked on was a talkpage. Look up at the top of the page and you'll see the "talk" tab. click on it and you'll see your comment... on the talk page. If you want to move this to the talkpage so we can use the "new section" stuff, go ahead. As far as I know that's the only difference.

= Avoiding Conflict = So, does he get to close the discussion, make his final ruling, and continue stalking me? Jeffrey Pierce Henderson (talk) 23:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Careful with the accusations, remember he has watched this page in the past so we still have to be on our guard. In short, no, he does not get to close the discussion just because he wants to. But if you are going to confront him about it, be prepared. Keep in mind, this isn't about him. If we make this about him we do what we are suspecting him of doing, making this about the editor (you). If you have something more to say about the topic of the conversation (which is always the article) than remove the tags that mark the discussion closed and remind everyone that there are still issues left to discuss. Keep it about the issues, that's all we care about anyway. There will always be editors that want to run the show, that disagree with you, that want to see you blocked (or worse, banned)... There will always be someone that resents you knowing as much or more than they do, but that's not the point.


 * You cannot avoid conflict on this site, understand that now.


 * Unless you feel you can get along with every person on the planet you will be subject to conflict. The only way out is to divorce yourself from the personality and make it about the articles. Only the articles. That's all we are going to talk about. We don't care who thinks the conversation should end, if we have more to say about the article, we will keep talking. Discussing on the talk page is always the best decision. You should never shut down a talk page. I wish there was a way to make signatures not show up, I'd tell you to do that. Take the editor out of it. Just look at what was said, does it have merit? Then address it. If not, we don't want to hear it. I would go so far as to say don't even defend yourself. If someone calls you into question just ask them what that has to do with the article. The talkpage topic that was shut down started to get into questions of COI, well are the suggestions you are making detrimental to the article? Would accepting your suggestions make the article worse? If you have a valid point what's the difference? If the article gets better that's what we are here for. Don't worry about being OUTed. Tell them, "You can worry about COI if you want but I'd like to concentrate on making the article better. If you are going to hamper the article just because the editor that suggested it might have a conflict that's not good either." If you look I have started an article on my father and the historic collection my mother started in memory of my father. How's that for a COI? But every fact in there is sourced so it doesn't matter if I might have a conflict, I'm right too.


 * It's always about the article. Padillah (talk) 13:26, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Discouraging, to say the least. Jeffrey Pierce Henderson (talk) 22:47, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes and No. It can be liberating and encouraging when viewed with the right outlook. I hope I'm not discouraging you from editing here, I'd never want to do that. What I'm trying to instill is an outlook of "Article Only". We are not going to attack others, attacks by others are not going to bother us, we are here for the articles only. That's the pure way to keep our nose clean. Padillah (talk) 23:06, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Here is my problem. Way before I put the correct record information on the Bench Press article, there were bench press records listed. Quartet removes them all, puts the record he thinks is appropriate, and fights to keep it there. Now, since the only record that could be placed there is discovered not to be his, he decides that no record should be put there. Sour grapes. To my knowledge the fact that a record should be located on the bench press page was never the issue. It is noble for you to 'think' that this all about the article, but surely you know that this is not 'reality,' right? Surely you see that this issue is about certain egos who are desperately lobbying for 'their' way with no concern for the facts or existing protocol. Jeffrey Pierce Henderson (talk) 20:53, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * And I appreciate the outlook, really I do. There are times when other editors game the system or make inappropriate edits or what not. And there's a system to deal with them. I'm telling you, if you go back through the talk page discussion and assume good faith I hope you will see the outcome differently.
 * But if you are trying to determine the best way for you to get what you want, or if you are trying to "expose" an editor then you might want to think about stamp collecting or model cars because this is not the place for you. If what other editors do or don't do is going to bug you... If you start thinking about "who won"... then you are personalizing your editing and that's only going to lead to trouble. Look at the bottom of the edit page, it tells you "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly... do not submit it." I have seen pages grow, split, fail, AfD, merge, grow, split, and move in as little as two weeks. I have been on the side that gained consensus and I've been on the side that was against consensus (so badly I almost got blocked). I am counseling you now, with all the severity I can muster, if you continue to make this about "winning" and "losing", if you continue to ignore the merits of other editors changes, if you continue to discuss editors instead of edits than I'm going to have to bow-out and leave you to your eventual and inevitable ban. And believe me, you will end up banned. I've seen it happen before.
 * Now I want you to think of why having the records in a separate article where they can be explained at our leisure is a good thing. And, as a edit-building exercise, don't type any editors name.
 * Something else you may want to do, read the AN/I page. Look at what it takes to prove an editor is being bogus. Look at the judging process and take note of the level of proof. Also, look at how little it takes someone that's already in bad graces to get blocked. Now, I don't want to scare you - I honestly don't. But I'm not going to lie and tell you you can act however you want. If you want to hold to your ideas of an editor out to get you, fine - just don't type them. Not until you've got irrefutable proof in the form of diffs and bad faith edits from the guy. If you look back at the discussion you will see that WLU is the one that suggested that no record be on the page at all. And if you look at the situation without bias you will see that, rather than "beating you" Quartet doesn't get his records on the page either. So the situation is not the "he won, I lost" you are thinking it is. And that's the problem with that line of thinking, if you "lost" that means someone else "won" and that causes hard feelings and bad faith.
 * The argument you make at the Bench Press talk page is a very good one. It sticks to the point and doesn't yell about other editors. That's the kind of thinking you need to stick to. That's a good argument. Padillah (talk) 13:09, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

= Moving On = You appreciate the outlook? What the hell does that mean? That sounds like fortune cookie wisdom from some cut-rate marriage counselor. It says nothing. And then you stated “really I do,” like you were defending it to be the truth as if it need to be defended. That leads me to believe you might not mean it. Either you agree with the point I made or you don’t. I am not looking for someone to play the superior role here. I am looking for someone who can tell me how to utilize the Wikipedia system to make the best edits.

I know that there “are times when other editors game the system.” I would say there are not many who know that fact better than me. The question is, “Does Wikipedia think it is alright for them to do it?” And “Are you going to help me expose these pests and their shenanigans?” There is a cabal here, sir, and I am here to shut it down or be blocked in the process. I am here to EXPOSE. I am NOT going to stick around this site if tyrants are allowed to run amuck and crush the spirits of new editors.

I looked back through the page discussion and all I see are delusional despots who succeeded in keeping the name of the greatest bench presser who ever lived from being in the bench press article. However they could do it, they were bound and determined from day one to make that happen. What you fail to see is why. Why? Ask yourself what motive do they have for getting rid of the James Henderson lift? Let’s first look at it and assume good faith. Was it vandalism? No. They accused me of that and was unfounded. Second, was it not referenced? No. They accused me of that and was unfounded. Third, was it not verifiable? And on and on. I one hundred percent know why they hate the edit. Because they are racist. A black man broke a record that only white people have held since the beginning of time and according to all experts, it looks like it might never be broken. Can I prove that they are racist? Nah. Do I care to prove it? Nah. I don’t have to. I KNOW IT.

Your comment pissed me off pretty good. I needed a time out. What I will do is give up on the bench press article. You have caved and for me to ask for someone else to help correct the data would avail naught. Goodness and mercy will have to lose this time to the cabal. I will begin work on the records page. The only reason I will do this is to teach you a lesson in humanity sensei. What you will find there is the same level of resistance from these same miners of meathead mendacity. Until then I will assemble the verifiable references that I will need to mercilessly rip down that nonsense and put up the truth. That is what I want. The truth. All I care about is winning what I want. There is no merit other than the truth. If you are not interested in helping someone like me then I bid you adieu. Thank you for the lessons you have taught me, but I can learn no more from you if you fear dismissal. I do NOT fear being blocked from editing. I fear only G-d, sir. If Wikipedia blocks me for zealously making sure data is correct and free from interpretation, then I will shake the dust from my ass and not look back because I will only support organizations that love the truth, practice justice, and give mercy to those who need it most. Jeffrey Pierce Henderson (talk) 07:30, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Just a comment - but Wikipedia is not about Truth. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth, because truth is subjective - you'll never get agreement on Truth. It sounds from your post (sources, etc) that you are talking about Verifiable information, but you are using the term "truth". The distinction is important here. KillerChihuahua?!? 17:15, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It's getting harder and harder to defend The Truth these days. So many uneducated disbelievers, so little time. arimareiji (talk) 17:40, 26 January 2009 (UTC)