User talk:J.haffly

Welcome!

Hello, J.haffly, 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: 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 Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! Jaydec  (talk)  07:35, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Manual of Style

D.C. Armory
As I mentioned in my edit summary I am getting my information from the official website. Here it is. According to this page the Washington Convention And Sports Authority ""owns and manages the Stadium-Armory campus, which includes Robert F. Kennedy Memorial Stadium, the DC Armory and the surrounding Festival Grounds, and serves as the owner and landlord for Nationals Park."" Not surprisingly the WCSA is listed as the owner & operator of the Robert F. Kennedy Memorial Stadium at its Wikipedia page. You don't seem to have a problem with that. According to the District of Columbia government website; ""The DC Sports and Entertainment Commission, an independent agency of the District of Columbia government, is responsible for the management and operation of Robert F. Kennedy Memorial Stadium, the DC Armory and their adjacent facilities and for presenting and promoting sports, entertainment and special events in the District and the Washington, DC, metropolitan area."" You can find that here. I cited those pages as sources. Nowhere did I claim that the armory had "been given over to devlopers [sic] or private owners".

I am well aware that the US Federal Government is the ultimate controlling authority and owner. I updated the information as a clarification. For example the United States dollar page mentions the bill itself is printed by the Bureau of Engraving and Printing not the "United States Government". NORAD is controlled by the United States Air Force, not the "United States Government". Suffice it to say I could go on.

Of course the armory was built as an armory, it is called an armory. Your edit claims "the main purpose of the DC Armory is housing and training..". IS not WAS, that's present tense. You have left this external link on the page. Nowhere on that site can I find where it says the National Guard is trained or housed there. Nowhere on the WCSA site does it say the National Guard is trained or housed there. According to information you left on the DC Armory page "The D.C. Armory is a 10,000-seat multi-purpose arena", not a collection of buildings, nor a barracks, nor a training facility. Do the guardsmen sleep on the floor? Do they bring cots in? Do they not train when one of the many sporting events are taking place? Do they use the arena as a shooting range?

As mentioned in my edit summary, I invited the correction of any information left by myself to be corrected with a source, just as I had left a source. Clearly as someone who has done more homework than I have you will have no trouble finding reliable sources to back up your information. As for my "marching orders", Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Consequently I added a note on the DC Armory page to indicate it is now unsourced, as not only did you remove my sources but one that was there well before I stumbled across the page. I look forward to reading your sourced and rewritten version. While familiarizing yourself with the above wikilinked Wikipedia policies, guidelines, and community standards please feel free to drop over to WP:SPA and Civility. Again, welcome! Jaydec  (talk)  07:35, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Recent changes
There's going to be a touch of bold and maybe even some CAPS in this message, that's a clue to please pay special attention and absorb what I'm saying. Let's begin with;

I'm flattered that you feel that I am such an integral part of your Wikipedia experience that you felt the need to message me about changes THAT I DID NOT MAKE. If you'd bothered to check the page history&mdash;you know how, that's how you found me&mdash;you'd have seen another editor also didn't like the way you were doing things. At this point feel safe to assume that every time someone other than myself makes a change that you don't like, to the DC Armory page or any other page for that matter, you don't need to comment about it on my talk page.

If you'd bothered to read my previous message to you, specifically the last paragraph, I left your changes, invited you to source them, and had marked the page as unsourced, which is how you left it. Here it is. Instead, without checking, you raced off and inserted the same three points, once again unsourced, and complained to me about it.

In my last message I added some links to how Wikipedia works, I'm going to throw in a few more in here; Please take the time to read them. We were all new once, no problem. Go ahead, this message will still be here when you get back.
 * Referencing for beginners
 * Reliable sources
 * Verifiability
 * No original research

As for how the article is now, well it's terrible. In, perhaps, your overzealous rush to get your points back in you turned the first two sentences into gibberish. I've fixed them. As for your "source"; Not only does it contradict your claim – Square Suffix Lot 1128 0802, within the confines of the Armory, is both US & DC property. See that here. It also contradicts itself – Square Suffix Lots 1121 0802, 1122 0801, 1136 0801, as well as your source lot 1129 0801, are marked with a light blue dot indicating private property while the owner is noted as the US. So I've removed it.

Next, you've claimed to have done "homework", that you "can back it up 100%". I had sincerely hoped that the my next visit to the article would have a plethora of new information regarding the history of a seventy year old building. Unfortunately you only seem to be able to add the same three points. I've gone ahead and done the hard work, expanded the article and sourced it. There is a policy here, assume good faith, so once again I have left your unsourced information, and invite you to source it. Suffice it to say "trust me" and "contact the District's AG" don't cut it, as you should now be well aware having read reliable sources, verifiability, and no original research.

On the subject of verifiability, I have reinserted the WCSA as the de facto owner, and as co-operators, because, as you know, nonmilitary functions of the Armory Board were transferred to the DCSEC (DC Law 10-152, the "Omnibus Sports Consolidated Act of 1994") which in turn transferred to the WCSA when the DCSEC merged with the Washington Convention Center Authority.

The sources back up what I am saying, in point of fact– they are not my claims, but an assortment of claims collected and arranged into prose. They are all readable and checkable in the article's References section. Conversely I'm not sure how you back up what you are saying, but once again invite you to add a source. To paraphrase yourself; just because you say it, doesn't make it true. Jaydec  (talk)  09:41, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Sigh
Once again, you've completely missed the point. Although taking into account your last messages on my talk page perhaps you've simply ignored the point. Let's start there;

You have outed yourself in what I suspect you though would be your trump card. On the contrary it weakens your position as it indicates you have a clear conflict of interest. As far as I'm concerned your edits show an unambiguous pro-Guard/anti-WCSA bias. Please read;
 * Conflict of interest
 * FAQ/Organizations
 * Single-purpose account

Please reread;
 * Citing sources
 * Reliable sources
 * Verifiability
 * No original research
 * Referencing for beginners - A further two editors have had to come along and fix your edits so far.

Once again, I have left your claims and invite you to source them. If you'd bothered to check the page history you'd see that I have now left or reinserted your claims more often than I have removed them (just once as it stands). If you'd bothered to check the page history you'd see that your claims have been continually removed by another editor, yet you continue to complain to me about it. If you'd bothered to read the above wikilinked guidelines you'd be well aware that any editor is will within their rights to remove unsourced & original research claims.

In your recent messages on my talk page you yourself have stated; ""WACA [sic] manages the events they have here at the Armory" & "correctly, that they [the WCSA] MANAGE the sports and entertainment use of the Armory"" yet you've removed that information from the article. You've quoted the Roll Call source on my talk page. Yes, you are correct, it does say "The authority manages the sports and entertainment use of the Armory", yet you've removed that from the article. If you bothered to check the page history you'd have seen that's all my last edit claimed. You're right, nowhere does it say the WCSA owns the Armory, that's why it was not used as a source for de facto ownership. Did you notice what else it didn't say? Nowhere did it say the Armory is owned by the "United States of America", nor that it's managed by the DC Guard.

As it stands your argument is quite simple; Someone who works for the WCSA, makes claims on their website, is wrong, and can't be trusted. Someone who works for the Guard, makes claims here, is right, and can be trusted. Do you see the problem? In this instance one of those claims is verifiable. Perhaps if this someone who works for the Guard was as interested in getting their research added to the DC National Guard website there would be no problem, as it would then qualify as published and verifiable.

I have edited the page, specifically the infobox, to ACCURATELY describe the CURRENT SITUATION. Here is what it looks like, as I left it. Please read Template:Citation needed to properly understand what those words mean. That template should be removed when a reliable source is added, not before. Any reference to the WCSA should not be removed until a reliable and verifiable source has conclusively proven the claims incorrect, not simply because an editor is pushing an agenda or wishes to censor the information.

I have also fixed your last two edits, please don't be afraid to hit the "Show preview" button, or to copy the wiki markup used elsewhere to achieve your desired effect. On that note I have conceded WCSA as not being the "official site" but, since it does mention the Armory more than just once, I have listed it first, as it is clearly more relevant to both the article and the Armory itself. Jaydec  (talk)  05:40, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

D.C. Armory
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add content (particularly if you change facts and please cite a reliable source for the content you're adding or changing.  This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. Take a look at Citing sources for information about how to cite sources and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.

Also, it is standard practice in Wikipedia to describe your edits in the edit summary which you have consistently failed to do.

If you have reason to believe the article is incorrect, please discuss your objections at Talk:D.C. Armory. —D. Monack talk 22:50, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Please do not add or change content without citing verifiable and reliable sources. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. —D. Monack talk 20:34, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

DCARNG Armroy
To the folks that seem to want to think this building is District property. Please do your homework as I have. Go to the Title Office in DC as I have. Call the Recorder of Deeds as I have. You will find nothing about this building, nothing. FACT is that the Fed govt does not have to produce a title for stuff it builds on it's OWN property. Take RFK for example. That was at one time part of this complex, the land was anyways. A portion of it was carved off and a title created since the property was going from a Fed agency to a non-Fed agency. That has never happend with the DC Armory. If the District ever had ownership of this building, there would be a paper trail, there is not. Just because the Sports and Entertainment morons think it's their's, it does not make it a fact.

July 2011
I'm trying to make a point here...that's all....I would have changed it back after making my point.

Jim J.haffly (talk) 15:37, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the edit you made to National debt by U.S. presidential terms has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you.  That Ole Cheesy Dude  ( Talk to the hand! ) 16:44, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at National debt by U.S. presidential terms with this edit. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Shriram (talk) 16:49, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at National debt by U.S. presidential terms, you will be blocked from editing. Your edits have been automatically marked as vandalism and have been automatically reverted. The following is the log entry regarding this vandalism: National debt by U.S. presidential terms was changed by J.haffly (u) (t) ANN scored at 1 on 2011-07-29T15:35:00+00:00. Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 15:35, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

January 2013
This is your only warning; if you remove or blank page contents or templates from Wikipedia again, as you did at Terry Jones (pastor), you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Bbb23 (talk) 00:28, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Vandalism (September 2016)
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Ann Glover, you may be blocked from editing privileges. Quis separabit? 20:53, 24 September 2016 (UTC)