User talk:Jack DeMattos

Recent Additions
I see you've been doing some work on both the Luke Short and Dave Mather articles. One thing you'll want to do is add proper citations for the majority of your additions. In order to avoid accusations of conflict of interest, you might want to dig up a source that you didn't write. It's good to see work being done on both these men, by the way.

Luke Short
Thanks for your recent additions to Luke Short, for example, born in "Polk County, Arkansas on January 22, 1854. The claim that he was born in Mississippi is false", but you didn't add any sources. Your edits may be seen as self-promotional, however accurate, and will likely be reverted if you don't add citations supporting your changes. — btphelps (talk to me) (what I've done) 19:52, 1 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your continued contributions to Luke Short and for adding some source info. Please see that article's talk page for additional suggestions on making sure your contributions are retained. — btphelps (talk to me) (what I've done) 20:00, 2 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Jack, per summary, it'd be helpful is you add a short description of your changes to the edit summary box at the bottom of the edit field so other editors can see quickly see what changes you're makings. And if you could please use the citation format for your references, that would be immensely helpful. Thanks for your continued contributions. — btphelps (talk to me) (what I've done) 07:34, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 7 June
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/RBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/RBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=ReferenceBot%20–%20&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:29, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * On the Mysterious Dave Mather page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=665826493 your edit] caused a broken reference name (help) . ([ Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:ReferenceBot/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F665826493%7CMysterious Dave Mather%5D%5D Ask for help])

Article structure
Thanks Jack for your ongoing contributions to Luke Short and Mysterious Dave Mather‎! You've added a lot of great information and thanks for converting your parenthetical references to formatted footnotes. Please remember that Wikipedia articles are encyclopedic and not meant to be an exhaustive reprise of all known details about a person. In addition, you'll make all of the great information you've added more accessible and readable if you add subheds. Use equal signs to increase indentation of subheads, for example,

=== Level 3 head ===

produces

Level 3 head
For details about these conventions and other Wikipedia editing guidelines, I suggest you give a quick read of relevant parts of the Wikipedia manual of style. — btphelps (talk to me) (what I've done) 02:13, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Edits to Mysterious Dave Mather
For input on your contributions to Mysterious Dave Mather, please see the article's talk page. — btphelps (talk to me) (what I've done) 20:03, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

We're writing an encyclopedia here
Re: this: you have turned what was a succinct, if under-referenced, encyclopedia article about an old west lawman into something I would more expect to read in a pulp magazine. Wikipedia has a manual of style that calls for a certain tone of writing. You have a flourish of writing that, while perhaps appreciated by the readers of your historical treatises, is not appropriate for Wikipedia. Please read and try to adhere to the manual of style. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 02:31, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Bad faith
Once again, please strive to avoid journalistic style and editorial content. Your ongoing contributions, most recently to Buckskin Frank Leslie, are barely encyclopedic. Given your depth of knowledge in the subject matter, your contributions are highly desired. But you're not making any effort to adhere to Wikipedia style. Since you are a published, professional writer, it would seem that you ought to know how to follow style guidelines. I'm sure you'd like to maintain your professional reputation. Your willful ignorance of repeated requests from multiple editors to adhere to WP style is very frustrating for editors who strive to contribute and collaborate. Your unwillingness to contribute encyclopedic content demonstrates what appears to be bad faith. Please stop contributing for a day or two and study a few of the links that have been provided to you here and in the talk pages of the other articles you've contributed to. — btphelps (talk to me) (what I've done)

Some more issues
Some issues with your latest edits (i.e. edits on 23 June 2015) on Mysterious Dave Mather:
 * 1) Heading titles such as "A Connecticut Yankee" are pointless -- the section is about Mather's early life, so it should be titled "Early life". Again, we're writing an encyclopedia, not a populist history. I understand this may seem like it makes the article dry and boring, but we're not writing entertainment, we're writing a reference work. Save your entertaining writing style for your published books.
 * 2) Wikipedia uses certain citation styles, which are standardized by using the provided citation templates. I understand that these may be complicated, and many new users do not use them or understand them. But when more experienced editors have gone to the trouble of transforming your citations to these standard styles, you should not undo their work. Leave the citation templates intact.
 * 3) If you reference the same work more than once, you don't need to create a new citation for it each time. You can name the reference using this syntax:
 * Then you can cite that same reference again using the syntax:
 * This will produce the following text:
 * This fact cites a reference.
 * This new fact cites the same reference.
 * This fact cites a reference.
 * This new fact cites the same reference.

I hope these pointers help you as you develop your articles. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 18:19, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Possible conflict of interest
I appreciate your ongoing if voluminous contributions to several articles in which you are a subject matter expert. Keep up the good work! But please avoid adding your own work to the bibliography of an article if the book is of marginal interest to the reader. I reverted your edit of Wyatt Earp which added your book about the boxing match to the bibliography. I moved it to Fitzsimmons vs. Sharkey, where it is pertinent. Please do not re-add your book to Wyatt Earp. You may be seen as having a conflict of interest and engaged in promotion. Thanks. — btphelps (talk to me) (what I've done) 16:14, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Your editing is being discussed at WP:ANI
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding your refusal to adhere to WP:MOS. The thread is User:Jack DeMattos and WP:MOS. Thank you. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 21:59, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello Jack
I'm an admin and editor here, been here about 9 years, not the most prolific of authors but I'm pretty up on our Manual of Style and policies and such. Comes with the job of being an admin.

The reason I'm dropping you a note is due to the concerns on your writing. All I can do is share my own experiences. I started decades ago writing radio copy, and was fairly good at it. Then in the 90s the internet came along and I put my technical background to work writing websites, but it was a completely different animal. Definitely a learning curve, but I became a better overall writer for making the effort. Then I got involved in Wikipedia in a serious way in 2006, although I had edited before. I had similar problems. I had never written an encyclopedia before and everyone was telling me how terrible my writing was. Now, I knew from experience that I wasn't a poor writer, the problem was my style wasn't proper for the encyclopedia. It was a tough transition, even tougher than going to web authoring. Even now, I'm sure my radio copy days bleeds into what I edit, including this note, but I learned to adapt my methods and became a better writer everywhere. Off Wikipedia, I've written hundreds of semi-technical articles for the layman, and many thousands of pages, but what I learned here made them noticeably better over time.

I hope you stick around, I truly do. You have a level of expertise that is rare and desirable. It is the methods that need work. In your world, your methods obviously work wonderfully, but here, we have to do things in a more consistent and straight forward format. The real challenge is taking that style and making it flow, making it engaging for the reader. Take a look at some of our best articles, ones that reached FA status here: Featured articles and hopefully these premium examples will give you an idea what we are looking for, and what our Manual of Style demands. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 02:26, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Dennis
I want to thank you for your reasoned (and reasonable) suggestions. While I have had some success as both a researcher and a writer, no one has ever confused me with being an editor. My lack of editorial skills can be confirmed by the publishers of my seven books. So saying, I will try to develop skills in an area that does not come naturally to me (Wikipedia editing) in order to insure what I regard as my most important contribution (accurate historical reporting) can find its way onto the pages of Wikipedia for the benefit of anyone who can benefit from that information. I want to take this opportunity to thank you for your very kind response and suggestions. Your approach stands in stark contrast from some of your fellow editors who have almost made me feel like I've committed some sort of crime. I am on a learning curve - one that obviously may not be fast enough for those other editors. What I hope they don't lose sight of is the accurate history I'm trying to convey, in their discourses on my admittedly sloppy editing skills. I am a great believer in the old saw that says "great books aren't written, they are edited" ( or words to that effect ). As far as I'm concerned you are one of the most knowledgeably - and polite - editors that I've run across since my first effort ( a magazine article ) was published back in 1975. It has been a pleasure hearing from you. I wish you luck with your own projects - and thanks again for being a gentleman. Jack DeMattos (talk) 11:10, 7 July 2015 (UTC)


 * My pleasure, helping people is why I because an admin. You can "ping" me (it will leave me a notification that you want my attention) by adding    to any comment and signing it with the four ~ marks (you have to do BOTH in one edit for it to work).  I will say this, editing here has really helped me as a writer.  I tend to organize better, I'm careful to add references to strong claims, and I think my writing flows better and has more of a formatted feel to it, so there is a lot to be gained from learning how to write encyclopedia material, skills that will transfer into other areas.  Truly a win/win situation.   Thanks for your patience.  It is a bit "wild west" here sometimes and people get crazy with predesigned templates instead of simply talking.  Glad we have got to chat.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 13:05, 7 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Oh, I almost forgot! The WP:Teahouse is a project that helps new editors with any questions.  One of the our best projects.  You should always feel free to visit and ask questions.  We also have tons of other areas you will learn about in time, a Reference desk, Library, and other areas that you might find useful, or to be a home.  I've also dropped a note off at WP:WikiProject Editor Retention looking for a mentor, someone who you can ask questions with and who will actively help you adapt to Wikipedia for a few weeks. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 13:18, 7 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Jack, I'm sorry if my suggestions offended you. I'm a technical writer by trade and I guess some of the techno-babble on WP has become too commonplace for me. I'll try to use more English in the future. I do hope you continue to contribute your expertise. — btphelps (talk to me) (what I've done) 19:23, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Dennis, I appreciate all the suggestions you've made. They are all good ones. So saying, I must tell you that I am very discouraged by the cavalier treatment ( not at your hands )that my articles on Mysterious Dave Mather and Buckskin Frank Leslie have received thanks to the editors involved. The Mather article was sliced and diced with some very important material being left on the cutting room floor. In its current form Mather is acceptable but does nothing to promote the further research I had hoped for with my original draft. The same can't be said for what has happened to Buckskin Frank Leslie, which continues to be decimated as I type this. First off, the Leslie article was still ( from my viewpoint ) a work in progress. I had only got a halfway through it when my text started to disappear at an alarming rate. The resulting cuts were hardly an improvement - at least as trying to present accurate information on Leslie is concerned. Frankly, I'm very discouraged from attempting to finish a Leslie article that feels like it is being written in disappearing ink. What has been done to these articles, in my opinion, goes far beyond my ignorance (true) of the Wikipedia style. Whether the editors intended it or not, they have succeeded in destroying text that would have been important to others involved in researching Wild West history. Meeting all of the Wikipedia guidelines ( supposedly ) are no excuse for cutting content that is critical. Sure, there are cuts that could be made. I won't argue that every word, or sentence, I wrote has to remain - but it would be nice to told, in advance, what cuts are intended so that I can work, as an equal partner, with the Wikipedia editors involved. I have had the very good fortune, over the years, of working with some very accomplished editors involved in the publication of my seven books ( published between 1982 and 2015 ), as well as those involved in my numerous articles. I won't claim that all of those editors were diamond cutters - but I can state that none of them were butchers. This, unfortunately, is been my introduction to that category. I have one article left, on Luke Short, that they haven't tampered with - although I'm sure the won't waste any time making their "improvements" once they read this. I hope you get the opportunity to view the Luke Short article, as I wrote it, before it too disappears. It is worthy of note that there are currently 37 references in my Mather article and 29 for Buckskin Frank Leslie. My Luke Short article currently contains 67 citations, but I expect that to be cut in half, if Luke suffers the same "editing" as Mather and Leslie. By contrast, Wyatt Earp currently enjoys 252 citations. Is it because Earp was more important in his lifetime than Mather, Leslie or Short? Hardly. If my original drafts of the Mather and Leslie articles still can be accessed, I would be very appreciative if you could look at them, when you get an opportunity and see if you really think that many of the cuts that have been made were warranted. You seem to be a very reasonable person, and I sure wish that I had met you when I first decided to offer my articles to Wikipedia. I still think that Wikipedia is a very important resource, and that I could have made some important contributions to it - at least as far as the history of the Wild West is concerned. I don't see much point in continuing to offer my services, as long as what I have written is tossed out like so much garbage - and sometimes replaced with material that is garbage. Again, none of these comments are directed at you, Dennis. You have been a real gentleman and Wikipedia would certainly benefit with the addition of a lot more people like you. Jack DeMattos (talk) 23:28, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is a funny mistress, or a fickle bitch, if you will. There are cut fairly cut and dry rules about certain types of edits, etc. that might not make sense at first, but do in time.  Some of the rules still don't make sense to me, but I just work here.  One of the easiest ways to learn the system (and it is worth learning) is by starting small and working your way up.  If you get reverted, politely ask why.  Expect to be reading a lot of policy pages.  For editors with no clue about how to write, its an easy transition.  For guys like you, it is a bumpier ride at first.  Once you have the basic framework of rules in your head, I think you will find it isn't that difficult at all, and in fact there is some logic to it.  I still have to remind myself that we are an encyclopedia, not a book or reference guide.  All the rules are centered around that idea.  I'm short on time, but another time I will look at the older versions.  You can look at any version you want, by the way, by using the "view history" function.  Kind of cool really.  Want to see what Luke Short looked like in March of 2007?  Take a look: .  I did remove all the extra tags on that page, damn that was overkill.  Be patient, start small, build up, you will get there, you will make a difference here.  It just takes a while.  I've been here 9 years, I learn new stuff daily. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 23:39, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * As one of the "cavalier" editors involved, permit me to try to explain my reasoning. Jack, you write your articles giving every picayune detail equal weight, simply because you found a reference to verify the detail. Such detail is awesome when one has an entire book to fill about Mather, but when writing an encyclopedia article, it is too much. Think of an article you might read in Britannica or World Book. They concentrate on major details without getting lost in trivialities. For one example: the date of Mather's parents wedding, while verifiable, is irrelevant to the article about Mather. Also, the headings in the article should clearly indicate to any reader what the section contains. Section heads such as "A Connecticut Yankee" or "Buffalo Chips" are not helpful. Btphelps and I have told you this before, but you did nothing to address the matter, so, in the spirit of improving the encyclopedia, we took the matter into our own hands. Wikipedia is a collaborative project; when users addressed you on your user talk page to suggest improvements to your articles, you did not reply, which made collaboration difficult. Now that you have engaged in discussion, we can work collaboratively to improve the articles. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 00:29, 8 July 2015 (UTC)


 * WikiDan makes some good points, and those were lessons I learned the hard way. We have to write a summarized version, not the full story.  For me, it is often hard to draw the line, knowing I can maybe get away with one extra section that adds context, but I can't add everything.  Communication is key.  We often all agree perfectly, sometimes we are slinging the good dishes against the wall (but we don't make personal attacks: we attack ideas, not each other).  At the end, we get along because we know we need each other.  The guy you disagreed with last discussion might be the guy that jumps to your side the next.  We are all here to build an encyclopedia, that matters most.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 01:25, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

On a more comical note
I came here from the ANI thread, and all I can think of is that we may have here an actual budding WikiDragon. They are an endangered species you know :) Anyway, on a slightly (very slightly) more serious note, I think a pet WikiOtter might be useful to do clean up and help ease the transition for everyone. would you be interested? Or I could be a pet WikiOtter. Anyways, feel free to ignore and/or trout me if this is not helpful. Cheers! Happy Squirrel (talk) 23:11, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry I did not see this sooner, I haven't been on Wikipedia in a short while. I would love to be a pet. What exactly does a pet do? :) BluJay (talk) 01:12, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * From what I gather, follows the dragon around and generally fixes formatting, keeps discussions friendly, does copyediting and generally diffuses any bad feelings by being helpful and playful, thus allowing the wikidragon to contribute freely. Happy Squirrel (talk) 02:11, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * How would I ' follow someone around'?BluJay (talk) 02:25, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * With their permission, keep an eye on their user contribution. From any page in their user page it's in the left sidebar. Happy Squirrel (talk) 03:16, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

July 2015
Hello, I'm 99.53.112.186. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Buckskin Frank Leslie because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. 99.53.112.186 (talk) 00:34, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Removing article issue tags
Jack, thanks for your ongoing contributions. I appreciate that you want to work with others and learn the "Wikipedia Way". I had a bit of a challenge getting started too but if you put some effort in you'll pick it up. As discussed above, we encourage you to collaborate with other editors. In the past few days, you've removed notes about issues each article has from Charles E. Basett and from Luke Short without resolving the issues you created. Please don't do that. — btphelps (talk to me) (what I've done) 02:15, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Dennis (again)
I'm wondering if you could give me your opinion on the multiple issues tags than still appear on my articles on Charles E. Charlie Bassett (1847-1896) and Luke Short (1854-1893). They are off-putting, to say the least and neither accurately describes the actual content of the articles. In each case one of the multiple issue tags says that the article "reads more like a story than an encyclopedia entry." In the case of Bassett, so much of the material has been removed that there isn't much of a "story" left to read. A similar "reads more like a story than an encyclopedia entry" tag appears on the article devoted to Luke Short. Even worse, from my standpoint, is the substitution of questionable, latter-day, source material replacing the primary (contemporary to Short) material that my article contained. Someone started tinkering with the section of Luke killing Charlie Storms and replaced it with some nonsense invented by a modern day writer - which I, in turn, have deleted. For some reason, they decided to replace what I had with a long quote from an article that Bat Masterson wrote in 1907 (26 years are Luke Short killed Charlie Storms)that contains some questionable material. The inaccuracies in Bat's article are discussed in my recently published (May 2015) biography The Notorious Luke Short: Sporting Man of the Wild West, co-authored with Chuck Parsons. After this book was published, it was decided to condense some of the most important info on Short, and submit it as a Wikipedia article. The purpose was to give serious students of Wild West history another tool for their own research, and to encourage future study of that narrowly-delineated topic. I'm now in my early 70's and have been involved in the Wild West History field since 1975. During that time I have authored seven books and numerous articles. I can say, without fear of contradiction, that I have established a reputation in the field for accuracy. My current biography of Luke Short has been favorably received by the public and is up for several awards. It contains more accurate info on Luke that had ever been published, and involved working with his family members, as well as some of the most respected historians in the business of Wild West History. One of those historians is my friend Robert K. DeArment, who wrote the definitive biography of Bat Masterson. Bob and I have also co-authored a book on Ben Daniels in 2010. Anyway, we were both surprised by someone taking what I wrote on the Charlie Storms killing by Luke Short, and substituting the lengthy 1907 Masterson quote (which ended up missing some of Bat's text). I replaced the missing text - although I would have preferred that the Masterson quote didn't appear at all. If you want to talk about irony, back in 1982 (on the 75th anniversary of Bat's 1907 series of articles) I annotated bat's articles which were published as Famous Gun Fighters of the Western Frontier by W.B. (Bat) Masterson.ISBN 0-9604078-1-2. That book, with an introduction by Joseph G. Rosa, has long been a source book for numerous historians who have written books since then. The bottom line is that whether it is an Encyclopedia or Wikipedia, the important thing is to see that it contains the most accurate information possible. That is my only goal. I'm sorry to say that those who have been placing the "multiple issue" tags on my articles clearly don't share that vision. At this stage of my life, and career, there is nothing to be gained by getting in a pissing contest with these people - and I don't intend to. You are a man who has proven himself an impartial observer, in the very best sense of the term. I would appreciate your thoughts on whether those "multiple issue" tags have any reason to be on my Bassett and Short articles. If you agree, I would welcome any help you can provided to see that they are removed. Jack DeMattos (talk) 15:49, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * First let me point out that I've moved this discussion to the bottom of your talk page to improve the chronological flow of the discussion. Inserting new discussions in the middle of old ones just confuses things. Second, let me respond to your queries (even though you specifically asked Dennis, whose valuable input is also welcome here). You have been told by multiple users on multiple occasions why your writing style is inappropriate for Wikipedia. The current issues is that the Charles E. "Charlie" Bassett article "reads like a story". Specifically, what this is trying to communicate is that the style of the writing contains too many flourishes and is not direct enough. In the case of this article, I would say that the main problem is the headings. A section heading like "Birth in the Whaling City" should be replace with a simple "Early life". A heading like "Greener Fields and Pastures New" tells the reader exactly nothing about what that section might contain. It's eye-catching and enticing, but that's not what we're looking for here at Wikipedia. I would also suggest that the article has entirely too many headings. I recommend that you peruse some of the articles listed at WP:GA/H (Wikipedia's list of Good Articles in the History category) for a sample of what a good historical biography might look like. To a writer like yourself, used to writing histories for popular consumption, where the writing style must be vivid and exciting in order to keep the reader's attention, the writing style at Wikipedia must seem terribly dull. But that's somewhat intentional: we're writing a reference source here, not a popular entertainment. Reading an encyclopedia should be informative, not entertaining. Finally, please remember to assume good faith. The editors who are interacting with you (myself included) are all trying to work to create the best Wikipedia we can. We just have disagreements on how that happens, and we need to work them out. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 16:14, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's fair to characterize Mr. DeMattos' work as "popular entertainment." In truth, there are distinct differences between the sort of secondary source massaging Wikipedia does and original historical writing and research. The transition, especially for someone who's spent a great deal of time in the "creation of knowledge" world and is only now coming to the "compilation of verifiable stuff" world, can be quite difficult. Wiki writing IS terribly dull, and sometimes not especially informative. It does have its standards and style, obviously, and one has to meet them. Think of a bland summary journal and you're close. Intothatdarkness 16:29, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Personal comments in edit summary
Hi Jack, I noticed that you've tripled the size of Charles E. "Charlie" Bassett from around 4000 bytes in early June to more than 12,000 bytes today. Thanks for your hard work!

I also saw that in a recent edit you left an edit summary stating, "Time for the insulting - and inaccurate - issue tags to go. What remains of this article (and there certainly isn't much remaining) no longer has any of the issues those tags described." It appears that you're taking edits to the article very personally. I'm not quite sure what's upsetting you. None of your edits have been reverted and most of your content remains intact. In any case, as another editor noted above, all editors are encouraged to assume good faith. Other editors are offering you this courtesy in the fact that virtually all of your sources do not provide links to the actual source.

I understand that contributing to WP can be challenging. I personally have abandoned working on some articles when I felt other editors' contributions became too contentious for my taste. I don't sense any of that in edits to Charles Bassett or several other articles you've contributed to, in fact, it appears others are trying to accommodate you, even though your style of writing is largely non-encyclopedic.

It can be hard to switch from writing in one's preferred, dominant style. Getting used to both the WP style of writing and collaborative process can be difficult. I have spent a good chunk of time working on Wyatt Earp and related articles, a subject that still attracts haters and doubters. When I first read the article in 2009, I was disappointed at how this important topic was so badly written. I thought it needed a much more even-handed treatment. With the input of many others, the article has been substantially improved.

Meanwhile, Charles E. "Charlie" Bassett still has issues related to WP style and tone, and still merits a copy edit. For example, the following underscored phrases illustrate content that needs work (and in parentheses the reason why):


 * " Their marriage was a stormy one, but did result in six children." (puffery)
 * "The troubled marriage of Benjamin and Julia Bassett came to an end in 1865..." (puffery)
 * "It has been alleged that Charles E. Bassett spent the period between late 1865 and early 1873 drifting around the West..." ( who said)
 * "Actually, this amounted to job swapping, since Bat had been Bassett's under-sheriff. Such was politics in Dodge City during 1878 ." (Tone; opinion)
 * "1878 was to be Dodge City's most colorful and tragic year ." (puffery)
 * "James "Spike" Kenedy (the correct spelling)..." (Use [sic] instead.)
 * "But Spike Kenedy's hatred for Mayor Kelley had reached insane proportions ." (puffery)
 * "On April 5, 1879 Marshal Bassett witnessed one of Dodge City's most celebrated gunfights..." (puffery)
 * "A nearly all-star posse left Dodge City at 2:00..." (puffery)
 * Several missing references.

As has been repeatedly and patiently pointed out to you—evidenced by the many comments above—colorful, adjective-laden, or opinionated language are not appropriate for Wikipedia. Others have taken great pains to point this out to you. Your emotional, I presume hastily-written edit summary which described the "copy edit" tag as "insulting" may be seen by some as a bit of arrogance, in that you are a better judge of what constitutes quality content on WP. You would be more successful to seek other editor's input rather than override them when their comments are about your own contributions. Your content will better survive other editors follow up work if it more closely aligns to WP style to begin with, and you will feel less irritated by their depredations on your contributions. Please understand that no one is personally targeting your contributions. Try to have more patience and seek the input of other editors. Your contributions will be more well-received. I have re-added the copy edit tag to Charles E. "Charlie" Bassett.

Please remember that the tone required for WP is intended for is an international publication. To quote from that standard, "Wikipedia articles, and other encyclopedic content, should be written in a formal tone. Standards for formal tone vary depending upon the subject matter, but should follow the style used by reliable sources, while remaining clear and understandable. Formal tone means that the article should not be written using unintelligible argot, slang, colloquialisms, doublespeak, legalese, or jargon; it means that the English language should be used in a businesslike manner."

As Joe Friday used to say on Dragnet, "Just the facts, ma'am." — btphelps (talk to me) (what I've done) 00:50, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Your editing is being discussed at WP:AN/I (again)
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding belligerent refusal to follow Wikipedia editing standards. The thread is Jack DeMattos again.The discussion is about the topic Charles E. &. Thank you. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 17:27, 27 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Jack, btphelps here. You can call me Red. Thanks for reaching out to me on my talk page this morning. I'm sorry you didn't allow me time to respond before you dropped by WikiDan61's talk page and left a pile of manure on his doorstep. From one Western aficionado to another, you need to tone down "this town ain't big enough for the two of us" talk.


 * Your tone isn't winning you any friends in this here town. You gotta sidle up to the guy on the next bar stool and make his acquaintance, ask him where's he from, and by the way, ask for a little input on your editorial contributions. You have a great store of knowledge in that gray noggin of yours and WP needs informed people like you. Remember that for the most part you're dealing with a bunch of young upstarts who are on the young side of 40 and are pretty impatient with old-timers who think and probably do have the straight skinny. I suggest you apologize to WikiDan61 and then allow me some time (like a week!) to confer with Wikidan61 and see if there's a middle ground on his edits and your contributions. Things don't always move at lightening speed around these parts, as you may have seen. In fact, they can be slower than pouring cold molasses. Take a little breather. We don't want you getting tossed out of town on your ear because you're impatient with the rash actions of the young guys who given their experience probably consider themselves a deputy sheriff of WP. — btphelps (talk to me) (what I've done) 18:20, 27 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Also consider that contributing to Wikipedia is rather like submitting to a scholarly peer-reviewed journal in terms of tone if not content. Fighting with reviewers isn't likely to get your article accepted by said journals, and the same applies here. I suspect that's one reason many of the history articles (and especially those dealing with Western history) are of spotty quality. Experts tend to stay away. Intothatdarkness 18:38, 27 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Jack, you asked me to take a look at how your contributions to Charlie Bassett were altered by other editors. To keep the conversation tied to the article itself, you can see some comments from me on the article's talk page.— btphelps (talk to me) (what I've done) 20:26, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Red - I appreciate all your comments and observations. My main goal in my articles on people such as Charlie Bassett, Luke Short and Mysterious Dave Mather has is to provide the most accurate information on these individuals that I can. I really don't care how people tamper with my prose. If Wikipedia editors want to dumb it down to and render it monosyllabic, that's fine with me. I'm not in love with, or protective of, my writing style when it conflicts with Wikipedia standards. What I am protective of - and make no apology for - is someone tampering with the factual, historical information on people such as Mather, Bassett, Short and Leslie. You stated it best when you cited Jack Webb's "just the facts," line that his "Joe Friday" character said in every Dragnet episode. I have no objection to people editing whatever I submit - as long as they keep the factual information correct. This approach was not taken with the edit done to my Bassett article - which did, indeed"throw the baby out with the bath water. There is no excuse, for example for an edit that incorrectly describes Bassett as being born in "Bedford, Massachusetts" when he was actually born in "New Bedford, Massachusetts." For the record, there is a town in Massachusetts called "Bedford" - but it is nowhere near the city of "New Bedford" where Bassett was born. There is also no excuse for spelling a lawman's office incorrectly as "marshall" when the correct "marshal" was in my original version. It appears that the edit was done hastily, almost in anger, by someone who clearly doesn't have a background, as you seem to, in the history of the Wild West. I know nothing about astrophysics and would hardly dream of taking it upon myself to edit a Wikipedia article on that subject. That same rule doesn't seem to apply when it comes to the editor who seems to be making the most negative comments on my Bassett, Leslie, and Short articles. Having someone who appears to have a limited knowledge of a subject, such as Wild West history, deciding what is important and what isn't is a big mistake in my opinion. This goes beyond all of the techie stuff concerning Wikipedia. Of course that is important, and my articles should, indeed, meet Wikipedia standards. In an ideal world, I would love to see a lot of Wikipedia editors, with an appreciation for history or biography, get involved in my articles. I confess to having worked since 1975 (when I published my first article) on the subject of Wild West history. Over the years, I've worked with, or become friends with, just about all of the major figures in the field. I have a reputation for accuracy in my writing and research. I love people younger than myself, including my kids and grandchildren. I am not some cantankerous old coot trying to upset the "young upstarts" at Wikipedia. What I am really trying to accomplish is albout young people - meaning the young people out there today, and the generations that will follow them. I am trying to can this information as right as I possibly can, so that younger people can use it, build upon it, and hopefully create even more accurate history, long after I'm. The irony is that the Wikipedia entry on Wyatt Earp goes on and on and on, and boasts well over 200 footnotes - while poor Charlie Bassett (a far more important figure in the actual history of Dodge City than Earp) gets the 20 footnotes I accorded him, slashed down to 11. In addition, important factual info in the text, that historians would benefit from was also cut, rendering the article, in my opinion, nearly useless. Just imagine if this same editor was turned loose on the Wyatt Earp article. Bassett was Earp's boss in Dodge City. He deserves better from Wikipedia at this moment in time. It is my hope that as many Wikipedia editors as possible take a look at what I've written and offer their input on what should go and what should remain. Well, I went on far longer than I intended to, Red. If there are ever any research questions that you may need my input on, please feel free to contact me. Say hi to those young whippersnappers at Wikipedia for me, and tell them that I wish them all well. Jack DeMattos (talk) 22:53, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Jack, you've gotten yourself in a twist over a typo (Bedford vs New Bedford and Marshall vs Marshal). And you are correct: I don't have a background in Wild West History. I do, however, have extensive background in editing here at Wikipedia, and I know that the florid style in which you write is not appropriate. No one is disputing the accuracy of your article (God knows you've done your research), only the relevance. The only actual facts I removed from the article in my edit were facts that were not directly related to Bassett. The date of his parents wedding, while perfectly verifiable, is also perfectly irrelevant. The fact that Bassett witnessed a particular gunfight (but had no other involvement in it) is also quite trivial, as was his involvement in the matter of Dora Hand. The are all colorful flourishes that will make readers enjoy your books; they are not useful information in an encyclopedia. As for comparisons between the article on Bassett vs the article about Wyatt Earp, I think you'll notice that the prose style in the Earp article is considerably more matter of fact than yours. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 01:16, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

October 2015
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=688260416 your edit] to Bat Masterson may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:35, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * building known as "Adobe Walls." The 200 Indians were led by famed Comanche Quanah Parker 1846-1911. The Indians suffered the most losses during the battle. The actual number of Indians

November 2015
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=691553396 your edit] to Billy the Kid may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:18, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Kid: The Endless Ride, 2007 - pp.193-199. Tunstall's men formed their own group called the Lincoln County "Regulators". Jacobsen, Joel. Such Men as Billy the Kid: The Lincoln County

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Your removal of photos uploaded by OSMOND PHILLIPS and calling them bogus.
I have moved this discussion to Billy the Kid's article talk page. OSMOND PHILLIPS (talk) 20:53, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

You are a published writer, but that obviously does not make you a knowledgeable on identifying photos of the people you write about. Especially since there are not many photos available to compare to. It does take some experience to properly identify these people. It cannot be done with just a quick glance and judgement as you have done. You are not known as having any experience in identifying photographs. This collection is getting known as credible and submitting credible photographs of our old west lawmen and outlaws. I may not be able to write well or impress anyone with my words, but these photos I know. The collection that these photographs come from was put together before you were born, received from family and friends of the deceased people back when there were very little photos to use for comparison. Collectors, typically with money, could afford to buy their hearts desire. Museums have great artifacts, R.G McCubbin has a fantastic collection of old west photographs. Isn't it possible that someone else could of also amassed such a collection? This collection is backed by some influential people and is growing in credibility and popularity everyday. Photos from this collection have been requested by prominent film producers for use with their further investigation to be certain it is of the person claimed. You will soon see some of the photos you dispute on Discovery and National Geographic. You add to our history. Do not block others who may also know their business and contribute to history in their own way. I have attached below the photos with comparisons you dispute to help you identify the people you write about. You can click on the photos to enlarge them for analysis. OSMOND PHILLIPS (talk) 16:31, 2 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Gentlemen, I recommend carrying this conversation over to the Billy the Kid talk page, where other editors can swing the cat with you. — btphelps (talk to me) (what I've done) 01:45, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Un-encyclopedic tone, revisited, again
Hi Jack DeMattos, you recently removed hatnotes or tags at the top of the Bill Tilghman article that noted the article lead was too short and lacked references, stating "Have attempted to address the various "Multiple issues." Think I succeeded. multiple issue box has been deleted." However, in so doing, you have:
 * Introduced multiple instances of flowery, non-encyclopedic language.
 * The lede at one paragraph still doesn't summarize the main aspects of the article.
 * You've also added references that don't support the verifiability of the content but contain peripheral trivia that aren't pertinent to the article. I'm referring to references numbered 1, 3-8, 21, 22, 24-28, 30, and 31.

As stated in the Wikipedia manual of style, "Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful. An encyclopedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject." I and others (WikiDan61, Dennis Brown, Happy Squirrel, Intothat, and Sam Walton)  have repeatedly discussed with you the need to adapt your flowery, editorial, magazine style to the encyclopedic tone of Wikipedia. Other uses have initiated discussion on the administrators incidents board (here and here) about your editorial largess. You've been encouraged over the past 6 months to study MOS style and been given links to it.

But there hasn't been any noticeable improvement. For example, in the past few days you added the following language to the lead of Bill Tilghman:


 * The fact that Tilghman never achieved the household-word status of his close friends Wyatt Earp and Bat Masterson, was not due to a lack of trying on his part. Tilghman was never shy about blowing his own horn.

Since you're a relatively new editor, I want to encourage you to continue to contribute. But not only have you not addressed the issues previously identified by myself and other editors (as noted above), you haven't resolved the problems with the Bill Tilghman article noted in the prior hatnotes, and in fact you've compounded problems within the article. While I recognize that as an experienced Western author, you have considerable knowledge of the subjects you write about, it's getting to the point where I am having a hard time assuming good faith, because you appear to be ignoring these multiple requests.

It's inconsiderate to expect other editors to clean up your contributions to WP. You say you're a professional writer. You've been published in multiple periodicals. Certainly you've had to adapt your editorial style to these various publications. That's all that's being asked here. I suggest you take a breather and actually study the WP tone and encyclopedic style which you've been given links to above. If you continue to edit in the same manner, I will consider discussing your behavior on the WP Admin Noticeboard again, which may result in a forced break.

Lastly, given the challenges you appear to be experiencing in recognizing when you've actually resolved issues identified by other editors, I -- once again -- strongly encourage you to NOT remove these hatnotes or tags in the future. Please seek out the input of fellow editors. You can easily do this on the talk page of the article by adding a note with the editors name attached like this: User:User Name. — btphelps (talk to me) (what I've done) 04:24, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Your contributions are being discussed on WP:ANI
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. The direct link is here. — btphelps (talk to me) (what I've done) 22:53, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi Btphelps - The most important thing in any article on a historical person, whether it is for Wikipedia or an old-fashioned encyclopedia, is accuracy. That accuracy goes beyond just the facts and dates that are presented, and goes on to include any photographic images that are purported to be the individual in question. Recently someone who signs off as OSMOND PHILLIPS has been adding a large group of what are clearly phony photos represented as Wild West historical figures to articles on Wyatt Earp, John Clum, Bat Masterson, Mysterious Dave Mather, Luke Short and Billy the Kid - among others. This OSMOND PHILLIPS cites Robert G. McCubbin, the noted Wild West photo authority and collector, as being someone similar to how this OSMOND PHILLIPS would like to be viewed. What makes this interesting is that my longtime friend Bob McCubbin would be the very first to tell you that the entire collection submitted by OSMOND PHILLIPS, to various Wikipedia articles, are NOT the people they are represented as - without exception. Bob McCubbin allowed me to use a photo of Ben Thompson for a book of mine that was published back in 1982. Bob McCubbin also provided additional photos for my 2015 biography (co-authored with Chuck Parsons) ''The Notorious Luke Short: Sporting Man of the Wild West. '' OSMOND PHILIPS would like to portray me as someone who is not qualified to judge a phony photo alleged to be a figure from the Wild West. Well, those who are familiar with my non-fiction books and articles know that I have had a concurrent career as an artist - a portrait artist. These portraits are noted for their photographic realism. Examples of my portraits were given in my series "Gunfighters of the Real West," a series of 50 articles that appeared in Real West between January 1978 and December 1985. Other examples of my portrait work of Wild West figures (always based upon authenticated photos of Wild West figures) can be found in each of my seven books. The fact is that you don't have to be an esteemed photo collected, like Bob McCubbin, or a portrait artist/Wild West historian, like myself to identify these photos from OSMOND PHILLIPS as fakes. Anyone off the street should be able to do it - it each and every case - by being shown an authenticated photo of the Wild West person in question when placed side-by-side with one of the OSMOND PHILLIPS photos. So why does OSMOND PHILLIPS do this? I think that individual has provided the answer by claiming that they have some kind of TV show coming up on "National Geographic and Discovery." You want to talk about a "conflict of interest." This person isn't interested in promoting a accurate information (or photos) for Wikipedia - but is very interested in promoting a TV show, and undoubtedly sales of these fake photos to gullible buyers.

I think time will show which one of us has the best interest of Wikipedia at heart. On one side you have an individual peppering Wikipedia articles on Wild West figures with photos that have no provenance - beyond their unsupported say so. Most photos from that era of the photos that have been submitted bear a photographers imprint, or logo, along with the place that the photo was taken. The photos submitted by OSMOND PHILLIPS most likely have these logos with the photographers address - but don't expect to see them any time soon. On, my side you have a historian and artist who has authored books that have Forewords by noted Wild West historians such as Joseph G. Rosa, Leon Metz and Rick Miller. I have also co-authored a book with Robert K. DeArment (considered by many to be the greatest of all living Wild West historians) and, more recently, Chuck Parsons also a noted Wild West historian and author. I stand on my credentials. This happens to be my 40th year being involved in Wild West history. During that time my reputation for honest and accuracy has been a constant. On those occasions when I've found some errors in my earlier work, I have made every attempt to correct it. I stand on my record - and I use my real name ... which is probably something OSMOND PHILLIPS can't claim.

On a final note I am very disappointed it what just happened to my updates that were being written for the existing article on Billy the Kid. I spent a lot of time on this, trying to provide a lot of missing information that other historians and students of the subject would have benefited from. Well, someone decided to revert to a previous version which not only obliterated just about all of my work, but restored the phony photos by OSMOND PHILLIPS. I challenge anyone, particularly those with an interest in Billy the Kid, to take a look at my version (which was still a work in progress, that I was planning on getting to conform to the Wikipedia format and style) and compare it to what you have now. The person who reverted this claimed that my version was "unreadable." I ask anyone, without an agenda, to take a look at what I wrote on the Kid and tell me - with a straight face - thatdeleting the version I was working on was truly in the best interest of anyone who would consider Wikipedia a reliable source. Btphelps, please share this with your committees and anyone you deem appropriate to see what they think, and attach it to any of the Wild West articles that I have updated. I wish I could have finished the Kid article the way I envisioned it. I expected, over time that adjustments to me text would be made, since no "owns" a Wikipedia - but I didn't not expect the wholesale stupidity of deleting what I wrote and replacing it with the inferior version containing the bogus photos by OSMOND PHILLIPS. I see no point in trying to continue to work on the Billy the Kid article, as long as this attitude prevails. User:Jack DeMattos


 * Hi Jack, I've taken a lot of time to communicate support and concerns to you.  You really need to reply on the noticeboard link above where anyone with an interest in the discussion can comment. — btphelps (talk to me) (what I've done) 03:04, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Recent edit to Billy the Kid
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Billy the Kid, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! Materialscientist (talk) 12:05, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

ACT OF VANDALISM
The Billy the Kid article with my contributions has been vandalized on or about Dec. 14, 2015 by someone calling themselves KrakatoaKatie. What had been the most detailed, and accurate account of Billy the Kid's life has been replaced with pure garbage. I ask every to look at the last version I submitted one concerned and compare it to what it has been replaced with. I ask anyone who is knowledgeable about the subject, and who doesn't have some sort of agenda, to take a look at what has happened and let your feeling be known. Thank you.JackDeMattos
 * FYI, KrakatoaKatie is an administrator here. Your excessive amount of detail plus your overly florid writing style is what has gotten you into trouble. A discussion was posted on WP:ANI to bring your editing to the administrator corps. You were notified of the discussion, as required, and had plenty of chance to address the issues that had been brought forward. Instead, you chose to ignore the concerns of other editors and continue editing. This is disruptive and not conducive to a harmonious editing environment. As a result, in addition to your labeling KrakatoaKatie as vandal, which is a personal attack, you have been blocked. It would be to your advantage to temporarily stop editing and address the concerns raised on WP:ANI once your block has expired. Alternatively, if you wish to make your thoughts known before your block expires, you can post your response here on your talk page and request that it be copied to ANI. You can ping myself, or use the template to ask for assistance in getting your post copied to ANI. Blackmane (talk) 01:58, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

December 2015
You have been blocked temporarily from editing for persistent disruptive editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page:.  Acroterion   (talk)   13:19, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Your edits, your conduct and your refusal to adhere to Wikipedia's style and referencing guidelines have been extensively discussed. If you cannot learn from advice and experience you cannot edit Wikipedia. Since you continue to attack editors who repair the damage you've done to articles, I have blocked you from editing for the protection of the encyclopedia. It is clear that you're editing in good faith, but it is equally clear that you aren't concerned with the overriding requirement that your edits respect the encyclopedia's rules and that you must edit constructively with others. Stop attacking other editors and stop disrupting articles if you can't live within the rules.  Acroterion   (talk)   13:18, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

This is the only warning you will receive about ownership of articles, which you showed at Billy the Kid. The next time you continue to disruptively edit Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. -- samtar whisper 11:59, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for persistent disruptive editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page:.  Acroterion   (talk)   11:59, 17 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Since you have reverted to your preferred version on release of your previous block, I've blocked you again. Your edits and writing style have been questioned by several experienced editors, `who have put considerable time into correcting referencing, editing excessive levels of detail and rewriting to bring style into compliance with the tone expected in an encyclopedia. I have assumed good faith and blocked for only a week to allow you to discuss your edits with other concerned editors. However, if you make no effort to collaborate with other editors and continue to show ownership of articles, your next block is likely to be indefinite. Please collaborate with other editors and please try to acknowledge that others are entitled to disagree with you on style, attribution and detail. Disagreeing with you on these issues is neither vandalism nor criminal activity, and you are not entitled to use bluster in lieu of constructive persuasion to get your way.  Acroterion   (talk)   12:08, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Discussion of Billy the Kid‎
Hi, I understand there's been quite a bit of drama regarding this page. Would you like to calmly discuss what changes you believe should happen to the article, and why? If we take it back to the basics and work through it, hopefully by the end of your week block we'll have some constructive edits all ready for you to make Once we've got a baseline sorted out, I'll invite some of the editors who have opposed your edits to make respectful, constructive improvements to your proposed changes. How does that sound? -- samtar whisper 12:18, 17 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Hey Jack, Samtar is making a very generous offer. We sincerely value your expertise! Wikipedia needs knowledgeable authors like you. I hope you take advantage of his desire to help you get the info you think is most accurate into the Billy the Kid article --  in a collaborative fashion using an encyclopedic tone.  One way you can do that is to copy your version of the article to your sandbox and edit it there -- and with Samtar's help get those edits incorporated into the main article. — btphelps (talk to me) (what I've done) 17:27, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

My concern is that an entire article on Billy the Kid was removed for no valid reason. That article not only contained my contributions, but the contributions of others. It contained the most detailed bibliography on Billy the Kid offered yet on Wikepedia. It also included 147 detailed citations. There is no valid excuse for removing that article and substituting the mess that is there now. Blocking me for real or imagined infractions is one thing. Destroying the article that I, and others, had worked long and hard on - and replacing it with an absolute piece of junk - is quite another. You have done extensive work on Wikipedia's Wyatt Earp article. How would you feel if all of your efforts were deleted? What was done to my last version of the Billy Kid article is nothing less than criminal - and that crime is against Wikipedia and all of those unselfish people who have tried to make it a reliable source. The joke is, I considered myself finished with the Billy the Kid article when it was suddenly removed. Now if you, and the others at Wikipedia "sincerely value" my "expertise. Wikipedia needs knowledgeable authors like you," as you say, you will restore my last version of the article. Here is my good faith offer: If Wikipedia will restore that article at the point where I last left it, I promise that I will not go near it again. I look forward to the work that your expert editors can do to correct the "encyclopedic tone," and encourage that effort. I also look forward to submissions and improvements to this article by other Wikipedians. Please note that I have never claimed to "own" the Billy the Kid article. All I was trying to do was to provide the most accurate template on the subject of Billy the Kid that others could work from. The quickest way to do this is restore the article as it was when it was removed. I have no intention of trying to get it back to that point, by correcting the absolute mess that is up there right now. I trust you and all the forthright editors at Wikipedia to correct the "encyclopedic tone" that you consider lacking. I would also appreciate the removal of those tags that have suddenly appeared at the top of articles I contributed to on Bat Masterson and Luke Short. They suddenly appeared on the Masterson and Short articles at the exact same time my last version of Billy the Kid. It is not that I should be treated differently because of my credentials in the Wild West History field ... the fact is that no one should have to be treated that way. This is childish behavior from those who don't have the best interest of Wikipedia at heart. I won't bother asking to be unblocked ( which, of course, I should be ) since I have to leave the clowns that put that block in place something they can brag about ... as in the vein of "Well, I guess we showed him!" Now the time has come to show everyone else what Wikipedia really stands for. The place to start is with your good faith restoration of my Billy the Kid article exactly as it was when I last worked on it. Unless I am specifically asked for clarification, on some historical point on the Kid,by you, and others involved with Wikipedia, I have absolutely no intention of doing anything further on the subject of Billy the Kid. My best wishes to you and all of those who labor so hard at making Wikipedia great. Happy holidays to you all ... you already know what I want for Christmas as far as Wikipedia is concerned. Jack DeMattos (talk) 19:50, 17 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi Jack, I came across the issues that others have raised on ANI. ThWhile Wikipedia certainly does value your expertise, there is an expectation that you also adhere to the various policies and guidelines that have been in place. A number of editors raised concerns that your material did not meet the manual of style that has been accepted by the community as the way to lay out an article on WP. While I'm certain that many editors appreciate the content, especially sourced content, that you create, this is nonetheless a community project that requires discussion. Running roughshod over the concerns of others with "I'm providing your with sourced content, but it's up to you to make it MOS compliant" is going to set people's teeth on edge, especially when you drop such an enormous amount of content at a time.
 * As for the allegations of ownership, you yourself said above All I was trying to do was to provide the most accurate template on the subject of Billy the Kid that others could work from. This implies that you seek to set the appearance of the article regardless of the MOS. This is what others are considering ownership. This just isn't how things work.
 * To avoid being any more long winded, I'll sum up with this. Please engage with other editors over their concerns and work out a compromise that allows the inclusion of your content in such as way as to make it compliant with the MOS. Otherwise, both you and Wikipedia lose. If you continue along this path, a proposal will inevitably be raised to indefinitely block you and Wikipedia will lose yet another subject expert. Blackmane (talk) 23:40, 17 December 2015 (UTC)


 * While I appreciate your sincerity and knowledge of the subject matter, Jack, you appear to miss and have yet to acknowledge the most vital point which is the substance of these disputes: your writing style doesn't match WP's practices and policies. You continually and repeatedly refuse to alter your style or acknowledge that there's a problem. You seem blind to the fact that those notes on the other articles (which I added) indicate that your effusive use of idioms, flowery effusive language, and third person narrative simply don't belong.


 * Jack, with all due respect, your writing ​style uses too many ​adjectives and ​unnecessary words or ​phrases and your tone is too conversational and informal. Your use of words is too extravagant for an encyclopedia. You over-describe things. You're like a narrator trying to persuade your readers, when the facts should just speak for themselves and allow the reader to form conclusions.


 * Until you are willing to accept this is an issue, and until you make an effort to alter your style and tone, you're going to continue to cause other editors to buck like wearing a pointy pair of sharp spurs on a newly broke horse. — btphelps (talk to me) (what I've done) 09:48, 18 December 2015 (UTC)


 * In more real-world terms, if you submit an article written following the style guide for a popular magazine to an academic journal, you should expect it to be rejected for lack of citations, improper style, and so on. That's what's happening here. Something publishable by Wild West Magazine isn't going to be in the proper format or style to meet the standards of Montana: The Magazine of Western History. Consider the MoS to be Wikipedia's style guide and try to write to meet it. It's not perfect, especially for history subjects, but it's what we're stuck with. Intothatdarkness 20:47, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

I think I have a way to resolve this unfortunate Billy the Kid issue. If you will give me a moment, I first want to explain how we got to this point from my perspective. A lot has been made over my alleged failure to adhere to the preferred Wikipedia manual of style. That failure on my part is simply not being as well versed on the various Wikipedia guidelines as I probably should be. I am not trying to disrupt your standards. Indeed, I would appreciate any and all the help I can get, along with the active participation by experienced Wikipedia editors to bring the Billy the Kid article in line with Wikipedia standards.

I am not trying to defy or insult anyone. There seems to be a misunderstanding that suggests I seem to think that I have some kind of "ownership" over the subject of Billy the Kid. This is not true now - and it never was true. Perhaps some of this misunderstanding stems from a sentence I could have worded better which read as follows: "All I was trying to do was provide the most accurate template on the subject of Billy the Kid that others could work from."

If I could take back the word "template" I would, since it was clearly construed as meaning something totally different from what I was trying to state. What I was trying to state comes down simply to accurate "facts and dates" regarding Billy the Kid, and bringing the state of those many "facts and dates" up to date to this point in time. Before it was removed, my Wikipedia article reflected the status of Billy the Kid research as it exists today. There were 147 detailed citations, which sourced the work of such noted Kid historians as Philip J. Rasch, Robert M. Utley and Frederick Nolan among many others. Before it was last removed on December 17, that version that I was working on contained the most accurate version of the Kid's life that has yet appeared on Wikipedia. That version of the article contained contributions by several researchers - not just me.

Then it all went away, when the article was removed for reasons that make no sense - at least not for anything contained in the article itself. I attempted to restore the version that I had been working on at 11:47 17 December 2015. I attached a note that read: "Please do not delete this version of the Billy the Kid article. It contains the contributions of several respected historians, and remains the most comprehensive, and accurate treatment of the subject that has appeared on Wikipedia so far."

My restoration only stayed up for 4 minutes and and was once again removed at 11:51 on 17 December 2015.

I made what turned out to be a final attempt at restoration six minutes later at 11:57 17 December 2015. This time I left a note that said "The continued deletion of an article by myself, and several other contributors, goes beyond vandalism and borders on being criminal." The crime was against historical honesty, accuracy and, indeed, the goals that Wikipedia is supposed to stand for. The total lack of respect to those who contributed to the article goes without saying.

This time, for my troubles, I was blocked - and my blocked status remains in effect until Dec. 24. Merry Christmas.

The irony is that when the version of the article I last worked on was deleted, on December 17, I was done with it. I had no plans for further changes. I had hoped that others would then jump in - particularly those who possess the Wikipedia editorial skills I lacked to make it go along with your manual of style and other Wikipedia preferences.

Billy the Kid, as you all know, was born in lower Manhattan in New York City. I would like to use New York City as an analogy for how I view Wikipedia. Since the early 1960's I've spent a considerable amount of time, off and on, in New York City. Those of you who have been there frequently know that there is always construction going on. Indeed, change is a constant in New York City. Change is also a constant with any Wikipedia article. As stated, it was never my intention to "own" the article. I never expected, or wanted, it to remain frozen in place with my contributions. I was looking forward to contributions from other historians and researchers who could provide further info on the "facts and dates" contained in the article, as well as working with experienced Wikipedia editors who could correct any mistakes that didn't go along with your preferred "encyclopedic" standards.

Anyway, we seem to have ended up, at least for now, at cross purposes. Why it got to this point I don't understand. I am not looking for adversaries, at Wikipedia - I am looking for the collaboration of any and all who truly want to make the Billy the Kid article the best it can possibly be today - and, with the continued contributions of others, in the years that follow.

The quickest way to make this happen is by taking my last version of my article, incorporating whatever changes you feel are needed for that version, and, after doing that, restoring it to the Billy Kid page. You only have to look at the mess that is currently up there now and compare it to the version I, along with several others, worked on to see that this is the right thing to do.

Many of you are probably familiar with the interview the founding father of Wikipedia, Jimmy Wales, gave to 60 minutes back on April 5, 2015. He wasn't referring to this specific situation, but he could have been when he said: "Our biggest problem with bias, and things that stay for a long time are actually on very obscure topics. You know, a topic that not that many people are looking at. And so if something's wrong, it can persist for some time."

Something is wrong here, and it shouldn't persist any longer. Christmas is almost here. Can we all take a deep breath, put our differences behind us, and agree to work together on the very best version possible of the Billy the Kid article? You know, Billy the Kid is not only one of the four or five most recognized names in Wild West History as well as a very familiar name in American History in general. People who know absolutely nothing about the Wild West have heard his name. Let us come together and give him the biography he deserves and stop this fight which no one wins. Thank you. Jack DeMattos (talk) 23:55, 20 December 2015 (UTC)


 * "Our biggest problem with bias, and things that stay for a long time are actually on very obscure topics. You know, a topic that not that many people are looking at. And so if something's wrong, it can persist for some time." I didn't see the interview, but I'd say from a few years' experience here that this quote is in largely reference to incorrect content that has been added by vandals as well as those who have added test edits and didn't revert them.  The quote isn't referencing an article that has been edited and is watched by numerous experienced editors.  See the improvement tag at the top of the article?  It says, "This article may contain an excessive amount of intricate detail that may only interest a specific audience...This article's tone or style may not reflect the encyclopedic tone used on Wikipedia."  Those improvement notes were added after you started editing the article because the edits you added made it necessary to put the improvement tags there.  While there may have been issues at the article before you started editing it, what you added made it worse, not better.  This was all pointed out to you by several editors.  Many more saw what was going on and took notice.  You ignored what they said, refused to discuss with them, and continued to pretty much do as you pleased.  Well, now your editing privileges have been suspended for a time.  Hopefully, you will take the time to familiarize yourself with how Wikipedia works and be prepared to edit differently when your block expires.  Blocks are given to prevent disruption, not to punish.  The hope is that part of what you will have learned while on your forced editing break is that (1) You were editing disruptively, (2) You chose to continue to edit disruptively even after being asked to stop, (3) Editing disruptively and ignoring discussion and warnings get you nowhere but blocked.  This comment from you, "The quickest way to make this happen is by taking my last version of my article, incorporating whatever changes you feel are needed for that version, and, after doing that, restoring it to the Billy Kid page." tells me that, as of yet, you haven't learned a damned thing.  You still think your style of writing is preferable, the content you want to add superior.  Suggestion: Get a clue and start learning or expect more blocks at longer durations.  I've seen it happen before.  You really don't want to go down that road, do you?  -- WV ● ✉ ✓  00:16, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Jack, there are two main concerns that have been expressed with your writing: your style is too populist (i.e. the kind that might be found in a popular magazine) and not encyclopedic enough; and your level of detail is entirely too much for a concise encyclopedia article. You may well have written the most extensively cited article about Billy the Kid, but you give as much weight to the picayune details as to important details. Dedicating an entire paragraph to a census entry where the McCarty's name was misspelled does not help anyone understand Billy's life, but only shows that you have done a prodigious amount of research. That level of detail would barely serve as a footnote in a book-length biography; it certainly deserves no space in what is supposed to be a concise encyclopedia article. You spew detail carelessly rather than properly curating the details to present the important facts. The other issue I take with your argument here is that you claim to be willing to work with others to accept their help, but in your mind, that means you write whatever you want in whatever style suits you, and leave it to others to clean up the mess. As often as you have been told that your writing style is inappropriate, you have not changed your writing style one iota. Until you do, you will continue to bump heads with the other Wikipedia editors. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 02:51, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I am disturbed by the fact that, following a discussion at WP:ANI that resulted in you being blocked for 1 week, you have returned to editing in the exact same style that caused the discussion in the first place. You have made no efforts to engage in discussions with other editors regarding your editing, but have just charged in and made the change you feel are needed, despite many other editors disagreeing with you. If you refuse to work collaboratively with the rest of the Wikipedia community, you will very likely find your privileges to edit here revoked. Please discuss changes rather than just continuing. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:07, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Jack DeMattos/sandbox/Billy the Kid
User:Jack DeMattos/sandbox/Billy the Kid, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Jack DeMattos/sandbox/Billy the Kid and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of User:Jack DeMattos/sandbox/Billy the Kid during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 02:22, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

2019 US Banknote Contest
Sent by ZLEA at 23:30, 19 October 2019 (UTC) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk)