User talk:Digagecivrights

Tea Party protests and the CNN poll
Hi Digagecivrights. Welcome to Wikipedia!

I see you are interested in editing the Tea Party protests article. We welcome your contributions. Please join us on the talk page. (Go to Tea Party protests and then click-on the "discussion" tab at the top of the page.)

I also see that you've been inserting information about a CNN poll at the bottom of the Composition of the movement section or in the lead section; that is, in the paragraphs before the table of contents. The other editors and I believe that this information belongs more properly in the subsection on Public opinion polls so we've moved your information there. We haven't deleted your material; we've simply moved valuable information to a new location and combined it with other statistics from the same poll.

If you disagree about the movement or anything else we've done, you are welcome to express your opinions on the talk page in the section named CNN Poll. Please do not re-insert your material back in the lead until and unless all the editors, including yourself, have reached another consensus. You are also invited to participate in any other discussions we are having on the talk page.

By the way, I have left in your implicit assertion that the word "White" on the survey results form means "White Americans" as defined by the US Census. Isn't "white' more likely to mean "described self as white" when taking the telephone poll?

Thanks a bunch and good-luck on your wiki-editing, RoyGoldsmith (talk) 05:45, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Your Flint Hill School Modifications
This article has too few citations as it is. There is an implication from listing two date connected events that they are related. In this case you need to provide a citation showing they are related, or leave the non-related data out.

ed

Ecragg (talk) 23:51, 5 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Unless you can provide a citation directly connecting Flint Hill School's (then known as Flint Hill Academy) founding to the Stanly Plan and Massive Resistance please do not connect the two. Now if you want to include the fact that until it's acquisition by the break away St Stephen's School group, it was a Jock Academy feel free.


 * ed


 * Ecragg (talk) 23:51, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Promotional/unsourced edits
Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia. While objective prose about beliefs, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not intended to be a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. Thank you. TEDickey (talk) 01:09, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add soapboxing, promotional or advertising material to Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. TEDickey (talk) 01:42, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Use a scalpel instead of a machete. If you are concerned about "disruptive editing" or about the article on Chantilly, VA having a neutral point of view, you can take the time to make those specific edits. I included sites to a historical map, a picture of a museum, a picture of a hotel that hosted an event that is of topical, political and historical import, with proper, factual citations and in an objective tone. Simply because you disagree with those things being included, because you have some vested interest in not showing Chantilly, VA as a diverse, interesting and vibrant place is not enough to justify your edits. I included further detail on issues already included in the article, and information generally on what makes Chantilly, VA an interesting place to live. Further, the CDP maps are old -- yet you made no changes to those. So, I suspect your problem has more to do with the fact that my user name refers to civil rights, than any kind of genuine issue with the merits of my edits. So please stop YOUR disruptive editing.

My editing history shows that people disagree with me about historical facts -- that is not the same thing as not presenting a "neutral point of view". Disagreement does not constitute disruption. You may not like the edits, but that is your, personal issue, which reflects a bias that you have -- not a Wikipedia issue.

February 2015
Hello, I'm MusikAnimal. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Chantilly, Virginia with this edit, without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. &mdash; MusikAnimal  talk  16:14, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

My edit on the Chantilly, VA article DOES explain why. It states "Air & Space museum and other relevant photos were kept because they are notable features of the community and NOT advocacy, opinion or PR." If you do not think that is detailed enough, again, that is a value judgment rather than truth--since there was an explanation. If you don't *like* the explanation, that is different. Further details are provided above--you should read them.

Chantilly CDP
Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you. TEDickey (talk) 12:15, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Exterior of the Westfields Marriott.png
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Exterior of the Westfields Marriott.png, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. January ( talk ) 15:34, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Chantilly High School Chargers Logo.png
Thanks for uploading File:Chantilly High School Chargers Logo.png. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add OTRS pending to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as non-free fair use or one of the other tags listed at File copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log]. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 15:19, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:13, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Smithsonian Institution Air &#38; Space Museum in Chantilly, VA.png
Thank you for uploading File:Smithsonian Institution Air &. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a [ list of your uploads]. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

Also:
 * File:STEVEN F. UDVAR-HAZY CENTER Space Hangar.png

ATTENTION : This is an automated, BOT-generated message. This bot DID NOT nominate your file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:00, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

February 2018
Your recent editing history at Flint Hill School 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&mdash;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&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. &#x2230; Bellezzasolo &#x2721;  Discuss  02:29, 13 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Regarding the article, please have a look at Template:Cite newspaper. The problem with the current state is that the wording is very strong. Naturally, if that's the case, it can stay in. However, that leads to a very strong need for verifibility. With the current citation, we don't have an accurate date or page number, unless we have that particular library card. If you change the citation, I'm sure there are numerous libraries with that edition. &#x2230; Bellezzasolo &#x2721;   Discuss  02:34, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Digagecivrights (talk) 03:10, 13 February 2018 (UTC)I am incredulous that my wording would be considered "strong". That seems like a subjective consideration. I have no control over The Washington Post's decision to put this article behind a wall. However, the citation is valid. I am looking at the article on my desktop. I cannot attach it here because I cannot make it available to the commons. So not only did I properly cite the article in question, I have complied with Wikipedia's rules regarding the posting of copyrighted material.

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Anon 126  (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 02:49, 13 February 2018 (UTC) Digagecivrights (talk) 03:07, 13 February 2018 (UTC)Thanks for the insight. I wrote facts with citations. I'm not sure what there is to "war" about when it comes to facts that are properly cited but for a copyright restriction over which I have no control.
 * You're a fool for having let this get this far; if you don't get blocked after reverting a half a dozen times, it's certainly not because of you. Drmies (talk) 02:58, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

The Citations are valid
,

All of the citations are valid. The only non-neutral tone is the tone of those who wish to suppress these historical facts from being documented.

The Washington Post article is protected by copyright. Unfortunately, I do not decide for the Washington Post what they do and do not decide to protect by copyright. The relevant inquiry is whether the article is valid--and it is. The fact that it is behind a wall at ProQuest and the Fairfax County Public Library should not preclude an important historical fact from being documented.

The assertion that my "tone" is somehow strong is purely subjective. I have reported nothing but historical facts.

Talking about race is not a Wikipedia violation
Those who are challenging my edits are basing their objection solely on the fact that I am discussing race in a way that challenges a particular ideology that says their comfort is more important than reporting facts. Frankly, I do not care about the fact that they are uncomfortable with this history. It is history. This is not the State of Texas preventing schoolchildren from learning about slavery by deleting all "offensive" references to slavery in text books. This is Wikipedia. I am not concerned about hurting people's feeling by reporting facts. That is not my role.
 * No, I submit that there are other concerns with your edits that have nothing to do with race, such as verifiability, which is always a potential concern in every article. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  03:42, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Washington Post reference
Hello Digagecivrights,

Here is how the reference now reads:

"Fairfax Approves Tuition Grants For 60 to Attend Private Schools". The Washington Post, Times Herald. 1959-09-20.

I am a paid subscriber to the Washington Post and I cannot find this article when I search their database. I am a bit confused about this reference because it seems to incorporate the names of two newspapers. Can you clarify what "Times Herald" means here? Are there two articles in two newspapers? Can you supply a few sentences of direct quotation from the article(s) that supports the content you have added? Please email me a copy of the article(s) if possible. I have email activated, which you can reach by using the menu on the left side of my user page. If racial discrimination was a significant factor in the creation of this school, then that fact belongs in the article. But, let's do it right. Thank you for whatever help you can provide. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  03:40, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * User:Cullen328, good point--I was wondering about that, but all-too briefly. I think I just thought it was an AP story that was run in various papers. Drmies (talk) 16:04, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Ahead of you on this, see our Washington Times-Herald article; the article was published during the period when the Post had the Times-Herald name also on its masthead after acquiring the rival paper. I've modified the citation since this is confusing for modern readers, but we have a redirect at Washington Post Times Herald. Digagecivrights: since this article is not available online, as Cullen, with a subscription, just confirmed, could you please give us one or two pieces of further information to help out readers or editors who look for it on microfilm? Is there an author listed, and what page or pages is it on in the newspaper? If you printed a copy, I reckon you may have that information on it. Thanks for finding the source. I've done some editing to the article. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:18, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Our excellent article Stanley plan describes the vile and foul and dedicated efforts of the people who ran Virginia in the late 1950's to continue school segregation, against the rulings if the Supreme Court. What we need is a good source that connects the founding of this school with that racist venture. If that connection can be made, then I believe that it should stay in the article. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  06:03, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Select Survey Invite
I'm working on a study of political motivations and how they affect editing. I'd like to ask you to take a survey. The survey should take no more than 1-2 minutes. Your survey responses will be kept private. Our project is documented at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Wikipedia_%2B_Politics.

Your survey Link: https://uchicago.co1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_9S3JByWf57fXEkR?Q_DL=56np5HpEZWkMlr7_9S3JByWf57fXEkR_MLRP_eG3R5dy0Rqd8go5&Q_CHL=gl

I am asking you to participate in this study because you are a frequent editor of pages on Wikipedia that are of political interest. We would like to learn about your experiences in dealing with editors of different political orientations.

Sincere thanks for your help! Porteclefs (talk) 17:04, 19 April 2018 (UTC)