User talk:JW1805/Archive 3

Stark
No, I didn't notice, thanks for showing me. He impersonated me on my own talk page as well, right after your post. Jayjg (talk) 21:49, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

If you haven't seen...
You may want to see this. It is dealing with User:Larnue the dormouse and his remarks on various people's talk pages. You may want to review his contributions. Seems he's been after you since his creation. Just thought you'd like to know. See ya. -- LV (Dark Mark)  00:45, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Confirmed. I've blocked; would you mind adding him to the various relevant pages? Jayjg (talk) 04:38, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Larnue the dormouse
Note to other editors: has been confirmed by Jayjg (who has CheckUser power) as a sockpuppet of banned user. If you aren't familar with this long-term troll, please see Category:Wikipedia:Suspected_sockpuppets_of_Zephram_Stark, Long_term_abuse, and Requests for arbitration/Zephram Stark for details. Since he is banned, I am in the process of reverting his posts and edits to various talk pages. --JW1805 (Talk) 05:17, 9 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for letting me know. I had/have no idea who might be right or wrong on the issue he raised and replied in good faith. Hopefully, like the doormouse, we can all go back to sleep again. David91 04:57, 9 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Would you mind letting me know the details of your dispute with Larnue the dormouse? I'm having trouble determining any semantic difference in his or her recent revert of your edit.  This looks quite odd to me, and I would like to know more about the background of your dispute with the banned user in question, and why he or she would go to such trouble to make such a small revert to your edit.  Thank you in advance. --James S. 05:07, 9 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your explanation. I am reviewing Long term abuse, and Category:Wikipedia:Suspected sockpuppets of Zephram Stark.  --James S. 05:15, 9 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the heads-up about Larnue; I had no idea. If you read my reply to him, it was fairly non-committal, and I tried to be nice (I thought he was just a random new user); hope it didn't create more problems than it solved! Batmanand | Talk 10:26, 9 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Do not delete others' contributions to my talk page. —Pengo 13:54, 9 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi JW, I would rather keep it on my talk page, until archived, it seems a fairly crude and feeble ploy, it would rather blacken the perpetrator's name than your own. Rich  Farmbrough 17:19 9  April  2006 (UTC). P.S. I've added a note to the effect that it was posted on about 28 admin's talk pages. RF


 * There are several comments about me lying around on Talk pages that, in other contexts, might be considered defamatory but I have not unilaterally removed them. Indeed, I am amused to leave them there since I am here anonymously and no-one is any the wiser. I make it very clear to you that I most strongly object to you deleting material from my talk page. However, as a matter of courtesy, I have archived the page. David91 17:38, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Not Proving a Point
To quote the article you pointed me to: "If someone lists one of your favourite articles on AfD and calls it silly, and you believe that there are hundreds of sillier legitimate articles... do state your case on AfD in favour of the article, pointing out that it is no more silly than many other articles, and listing one or two examples. don't list hundreds of non-deletable articles on AfD in one day in order to try to save it. "

I neither regard Republic of Texas or Republic of Hawaii as 'silly'. I regard them as serious as Republic of New Hampshire. You are refusing to acknowledge that you are holding RofNH to a double standard, which you appeared to need pointing out.Citizenposse 01:40, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

"Plagiarism" on Seal of New Hampshire
In response to your posing at Talk:Seal of New Hampshire, I made the following request:
 * Could you please point out some of the "plagiarized" passages or edit them accordingly? Assawyer 23:52, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Witchunts and Suppression
Are there wikipedian principles against witch hunts and suppression of history? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Citizenposse (talk • contribs) 01:03, April 12, 2006

reverting ZS
I don't see the point of reverting any positive edit by ZS, even though he's banned. We're building an encyclopedia. If an edit of his improves it, your reversion will only subtract from Wikipedia's quality (ergo: don't do it) 24.224.153.40 02:42, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. Please assume good faith. Perhaps it is outside of your area of expertise, so just to let you know that on the Bring radical page, it is entirely appropriate that real links to Real number. This is within the guideline found at Disambiguation. Thanks. RupertMillard 17:46, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Pole star
It's obvious, but I'll do a check. Jayjg (talk) 23:48, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Yep, Transformed Man too. I've blocked etc.  Could you please take care of the tagging, Long term abuse, reverting etc.? Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 19:13, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Greek-Americans
I was surprised that, for a new user, he knew about WP:POINT. He hasn't said anything offensive on the page, but if you want to delete his edits, I guess that's your call. Mad Jack O&#39;Lantern 00:29, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Zephram
Have done. :-) SlimVirgin (talk) 02:04, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Re:Pole star. Interesting. I hadn't seen that note from Jayjg. Pole star wrote me a series of very nice notes, with what he says is his name and IP address, and convinced me he wasn't Zephram. I'll keep an eye on it and check again with Jayjg. Thank you for letting me know. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:27, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Greek/Irish/etc.
Hi, I didn't notice your reply at first. It's really a larger situation than the Greek - it goes back to a discussion going on at the Village Pump right now about ethnicity lists. There was a proposal to get all ethnicity lists in line - with a few clear criteria. But what's going on - and the problem is - there's a faction that agrees with the criteria, most people see it as generally reasonable, and a faction (Grace Note and Jayjg) that explicitly said that putting anyone on a list of "xxx-Americans" should happen only when that person is defined as a, using this example, "Greek American" or "Irish American" or "Jewish American" (or "Greek", "Irish" and "Jewish" without the American part), i.e. as opposed to "of Greek descent", "Greek parents" - because doing otherwise is violation of Wikipedia policy (Original Research) - i.e. calling someone a Greek-American or Jewish when they haven't explicitly been described as such. And then there's SlimVirgin, who says the Jewish lists need separate standards - but rather then being more permissive because it's a religion and an ethnicity, they have to be more restrictive and says she doesn't edit the other ethnicity lists and they're only ethnicities, anyway, not religions, so apparently they somehow don't violate Original Research while the Jewish ones do. That about sums it up. The question that I have, indeed, is whether a list like List of Greek Americans is a violation of Original Research - i.e. not everyone on it has been described as "Greek" or "Greek-American". Oh, and to use SlimVirgin's criteria exclusively on Jewish lists and stop there is outrageous and out of the question. Mad Jack O&#39;Lantern 02:34, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Jack is misrepresenting things and trying to cause trouble. He has had the situation explained to him many, many times. Whatever goes on at Greek/Irish lists, I have no idea and no comment. My concern is with Jewish lists only. Just because Jack claims that something is "outrageous and out of the question" doesn't make it so. If he attributes any claim to me in future, please note that he may not be attributing correctly. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:41, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Democratic-Republican Party
Just to let you know, the Democratic-Republican Party naming battle has started again, with some people wanting to rename the article the Republican Party. We went over this a couple of months ago. I hope you will help me keep the article under its present name, Democratic-Republican Party. Griot 13:49, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Gracias, amigo. Please check back every four or five days to weigh in. These guys are persistent (they have a hidden political agenda). Griot

Thanks again for weighing in on the naming question. Griot 17:24, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Two Irish Lists
Do you think that since the Irish are such a large ethnic group in the United States it would be a good idea to have two lists? There many Irish in America who are identified as Irish-Americans and are of full Irish ancestry. Irish are also one of the largest foreign-born populations in American history. Don't you agree that there should be a List of Irish-Americans and then also, I don't think it is needed, but the List of Americans of Irish descent for people with minor Irish ancestry. Right now it doesn't seem right that a minor ethnic group such as Romanian-Americans can have a list but not the Irish-Americans. 75.3.4.54 01:50, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Meds
I am taking up a collection to get Cathytreks back on her meds. Would you contribute to this worthy cause? :-) Thanks for bearing some of her brunt; I have staked out the Bachelder bio and she only occasionally flares up now. Hal Jespersen 18:59, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Kaspersky Trust
Thanks for the info. I don't know much about Zephram Stark but I do get suspicious of people who are unwilling to email the blocking admin with rather silly arguments. --pgk( talk ) 21:46, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Ping. User:dbenbenn 04:19, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I checked those link out yesterday. My main concern is that this particular account did not do any harm, in fact, I like his gamma-corrected pictures a lot more than the originals. His contribution may correlate with those of Zeph, but in general they were useful, wouldn't you agree? Unless the account holder starts acting with malicious intent exactly repeating Zeph's patterns, I myself would not block him. I just don't see what it is to be gained by blocking him at this point of time, is all. Thanks for the update though.&mdash;Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 20:24, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Le Secret des Vikings
Thanks for your thoughts. There are certainly plenty of articles en Français, certainly, and yes, it is listed on Amazon.FR (but not ~.com or ~.co.uk): - try repeating your Google search in English only. With that additional restriction (which was mentioned in my original post, note) the only mentions are, quelle surprise, mirrors of the now deleted Wikipedia section article on Vikings, and there are only a very few of them. With respect, I disagree with the view expressed elsewhere on the AfD that a book written in French that has not been translated into English, nor rated any mention anywhere on the internet on English (taking Google as a pretty good proxy for "the internet") can somehow be notable on English Wikipedia. Feel free to add an article to the French Wikipedia, if that is your wont, but as the consensus (which I don't understand you to dispute), even from the author of the article, is that this is "pseudohistory" - i.e., bunk - it seems difficult to divine a possible conceptual reason for notability in English for this article. ElectricRay 00:32, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Hawaiki
Thanks for your thoughts, once again. It's incredible that we should share so many diverse interests. To save you scanning all my contributions, would it suit you better if I just post them for you on your talk page for your consideration? ElectricRay 22:01, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Here are some more I have done this evening for your consideration:   . Happy editing! ElectricRay 22:51, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Paranoid? About what? I'm positively flattered that you should be so interested in my edits! ElectricRay 08:13, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Micronation infobox
Stop removing the micronation infobox from the Conch Republic article. This is an established infobox that has been developed by a group of editors specifically for use in micronation articles. If you wish to contribute to the discussion on the micronation infobox template, please do so in the appropriate place. --Gene_poole 04:03, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi Gene Poole, I dispute the claim that the Conch Republic is a real micronation. The template is not necessary for this page.  The place to discuss is at Talk:Conch Republic.  Let's discuss there, I've already left a comment.  --JW1805 (Talk) 04:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


 * With all due respect, you don't appear to understand what a micronation actually is. There are many different types - the only unifying feature thaey have is that they purport or appear to be a sovereign state but aren't. The Conch Republic is one of the world's best known micronations. Your alternate description is highly eccentric. Your removal of the micronation infobox from an article that is actually about a micronation is inappropriate, and I will continue to restore it, in line with the Wikipedia convention on these issues that has evolved over the past 4 years through the course of literally hundreds of discussions and AfDs. Please familiarise yourself with these matters before launching into unilateral eccentric changes of this nature. --Gene_poole 04:13, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with you the micronation template does not belong on this article, and other than GP, that is the clear consensus on that talk page. It is just misleading, and gives inappropriate weight to one POV. Jonathunder 05:00, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Despite your reasonable request for sources for his unsupported and POV infobox on Conch Republic, GP has again inserted it, and has reverted your other edits as well. Jonathunder 04:55, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Untitled
It's been over a week. One of them just became admin. Did you give up? Culture Snake (talk)

Reconstruction
Hey, thanks again for your comment. Here's the reason for that tag on the Reconstruction page. Other users have long favored revision of this page. This is the most recent discussion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Reconstruction#Wiki_policy:_all_major_POV_must_be_heard If you think the arguments are invalid, or if you have something to add, your comments are welcome. Skywriter 19:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Jefferson
As to your contributions to the Jefferson page,

Your pursuit of a dialogue is useful.


 * Your addition of Annette Gordon-Reed was a positive step.
 * The problems with sourcing to Ambrose are identified. What is the point of sourcing to a page that has obvious error?
 * Like I've said, the comment I put in is not controversial in any way, and is the sort of thing that others have said about Jefferson. --JW1805 (Talk) 22:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * You and I continue to disagree about Franklin's view of the Hemings affair. I maintain that the neutral observation that whether he did or didn't makes no difference-- the greater issue is that, as a slave master, he could. He had the legal right. He had the power. That is a far from "dumb" observation.
 * Ah, I didn't call that dumb, I called the other quote "somebody was sleeping with the slaves..." a bit dumb. Maybe "dumb" is too strong a word...let's say "not insightful".  The quote you mention seems to be some kind of judgment about the moral implications about affairs with slaves in general.  That doesn't really have a place in an encyclopedia article, at least not in Jefferon's bio.  Franklin is basically making an obvious statment, "he could have".  So what?  Of course he could have.  What does that add to the content of the article?  Nothing.  It doesn't prove or disprove anything, it simply states the obvious.  --JW1805 (Talk) 22:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The deletion of Franklin's observation and addition of the speculation of TJ's slave overseer introduces unbalanced POV to the article.
 * I don't see how the two are connected in any way. The overseer's quote has nothing to do with Hemings.  --JW1805 (Talk) 22:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The placement of the section on slavery near the end of the article is unwaranted because of its importance through the centuries and on the history of civil rights in the United States.
 * This is a biography of Thomas Jefferson. Not an essay on history or civil rights or the evils of the slavery system.  There is a big difference.  --JW1805 (Talk) 22:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


 * That Jefferson wrote "All men are created equal", one of the most widely quoted statements in the world can not be honestly discussed without the universal observaltion that he did and intended to exclude black people from those five words.
 * See previous comment. Articles about historical people should take care to avoid presentism.  Your blanket charge against Jefferson is also not accurate.  You are singling out Jefferson as a scapegoat for all the injustices of America.  Every single one of the signers of the DoI could also be charged with that.  Jefferson did not invent slavery.  As a legislator, Jefferson tried several times in various ways to abolish or limit slavery.  --JW1805 (Talk) 22:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Thomas Jefferson's ideas are among the most influential in the world. His views on black people and slavery are not admirable, and it is fair in an encyclopedic article to examine the subjects strengths and weaknesses with equal vigor. Do you disagree?
 * Jefferson's views on black people and slavery are in the article. There is a whole section devoted to them!  It mentions the contradictions of Jefferson's writings vs. his way of life.  It's all there, it isn't hagiography.  Let's expand it, but turning the whole article into an essay on why Jefferson was a bad man isn't the way to go.  --JW1805 (Talk) 22:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I will agree to remove the tag if others would agree to a more rigorous discussion of the history of Jefferson's impact on African Americans, slavery and racism in the body of the article, not as an afterthought. At the moment, his defenders seem more bent on defending his honor than critically looking at the impact he had on his own and future generations. There is a society for the defense of the founders' reputations. Wikipedia ain't it.
 * You are singling out Jefferson as a scapegoat for all the race-relation problems in America. There is a difference between a PhD dissertation and an encyclopedia article about a person.  --JW1805 (Talk) 22:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

For example, look at the quibbling with the addition of the fact that Jefferson introduced segregation into the United States Post Office with a stroke of the pen. Jefferson was a careful man. He did not write what he did not intend. And yet, his defenders on the Talk page contend (and someone even added to the article) the irrelevant fact to that paragraph that he did not veto.
 * Did Jefferson really write that law? Congress writes the laws, not the President.  Early Presidents seldom vetoed legislation (in fact, Jefferson never vetoed anything), and mainly left legislation-writing to Congress.  I don't know if your change against him is fair or not.  I need more information.  --JW1805 (Talk) 22:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

No honest biography of a world leader neglects the impact on the population over which he rules. Do you want to argue that Jefferson should be judged differently from other world leaders in this regard?
 * No, but you are using presentist arguments instead of putting his actions into the context of the time. If George W Bush signed a law excluding blacks from the post office, that would be a Huge deal!  If John Q Adams had done it, that isn't really a big deal. --JW1805 (Talk) 22:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Again, I contend that Thomas Jefferson, like you and I, is/was human and subject to the same heights of brilliance and depths of folly that any of the rest of us are subject to. That he climbed to such amazing heights intellectually yet fell to certain depths in practice shows range, and I say that respectfully of range. He achieved greatness. He also did some horrible stuff. Looking at the good with the bad is what makes most interesting reading. Exploring the gray areas makes great reading. I look forward to reaching agreement. Skywriter 19:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. But, the gray areas are in the article.  Essays that blame Jefferson for everything that has gone wrong in North America for 400 years are not appropriate.  --JW1805 (Talk) 22:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Democrat Party article
Hello JW. rjensen is up to his tricks again, and has written an article called "Democrat Party" dignifying this disparaging term. Wikipedia is considering deleting the Democrat Party (United States) article. I hope you will weigh in on the topic here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Democrat_Party_(United_States) Thanks. Griot 23:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry
Didn't mean to delete your talk page comment - I heartily and sincerely apologize. :) -- User:RyanFreisling @ 01:41, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Anglicanism and the Anglican Communion
Hello! I noticed that you have been a contributor to articles on Anglicanism and the Anglican Communion. You may be interested in checking out a new WikiProject - WikiProject Anglicanism. Please consider signing up and participating in this collaborative effort to improve and expand Anglican-related articles! Cheers! Fishhead64 22:10, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you JW1805
Thank you JW1805 for kindly presenting me my first award - The Epic Barnstar for the Battle of Blenheim article. It is much appreciated and further encourages me to continue to write articles for Wikipedia. BTW, like your picture of the construction of the Union Jack, very interesting. Thanks once again :) Raymond Palmer 20:25, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Please respond to the talk page of the British Kingdom.
Lord Loxley 03:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Democratic-Republican Party
The name battle at Democratic-Republican Party (United States) has started up again, with some editors wanting to change the name to "Republican Party." This is turning into a hundred years war. Can you help yet again? Griot 18:16, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Democracy disambiguation page
I came across a couple of edits you made to various politics-related pages I was browsing. There is currently an attempt to improve the Democracy (disambiguation) page. There are currently entries for a series of articles on periods in American political history (First Party System), etc. One editor is insisting these are "types" of democracy, which need entries along with representative democracy, etc. Would you mind stopping by the Talk page and giving an opinion? Thanks - David Oberst 21:24, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * As an update, Bruce reverted again, so I've set up a straw poll to try and determine some sort of consensus. - David Oberst 19:47, 22 June 2006 (UTC)