User talk:Je231107b

Feedback requested
do you agree with this edit? Je231107b (talk) 13:07, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Seems accurate per the full history of the 1960s movement and since Gandhi's name had already created the template for 'naming' in that sentence. Bevel and King were the driving force of the main movement activities, both before they met and once they teamed up. Maybe you should stop contacting me because the pings and reverts (my good non-revert percentage has suffered greatly because of you) could easily be checked. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:17, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

<!-- How are you so famous and notable? Diving into the newspapers.com archives, there are so many rich stories about you published nationwide several times per year on most years during the 1970-1996 timespan. Ironically, your “nothing to see” remark actually gave me a clue to dig deeper (probably counterproductive from your standpoint), because anytime someone says that, there’s always something more to see, that phrase is just code for “there’s more to see but I want to trick you into believing otherwise”, but you didn’t fool me, ha! You talk and act like such a politician lol.

The current rendition of the biography will probably be less than half the size of the final copy when all is said and done. And by now, it’s very apparent that you (just like me) have a wide range of knowledge and interests. Je231107b (talk) 11:34, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * p.s. you’ve had a global impact too:


 * Creating the plan to have Reagan and Gorbachev meet for a summit in Chicago to resolve the Cold War during its peak
 * Appearing on Italian television
 * Making the news in South Africa with your Wikipedia comment in an RfC (that story and source also provides independent third-party article-worthy sourcing for your status as a WP editor, which is probably rare among Wikipedians with mainspace biographies)
 * Hello. What I mean is that most of the things mentioned aren't notable for encyclopedic inclusion. I have no idea about the Italian television mention, and didn't know about the South African quote. Will tell you more about that Summit idea once I can talk of biographical information again. Watched the Buffalo game, was hoping for the opposite result. Shouldn't talk here though, so will get back to my edit run. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:43, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * They’re beyond notable for WP inclusion dude, you’re likely either being too humble or hiding behind (what you see as) the shame of having your history shown in public, plus I saw some of your oldest edits back in 2007-2008 and they were mainly centered around two things (which I presume is why you joined the site):


 * Growing and correcting info about Bevel
 * Tooting your own horn as you added your name to various mainspace articles, and defended yourself at talk pages and user talk pages, because you knew that you’re notable enough (yes I saw those edits) Je231107b (talk) 11:48, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Among the many sources that discuss your hemp legalization advocacy, one said that you previously appeared on Italian TV doing such advocacy, super cool, have found many fascinating (and previously unknown) stories about you, it will really make for a full rich beautiful biography, one of the finest the site has ever offered.
 * No idea about the Italian thing, I never knowingly appeared on Italian TV (EDIT: Oh, I do remember now being interviewed at the 1992 convention by several people, forgot about that. Maybe one of those was Italian TV, have no idea). They may be referencing the C-span coverage of that Democratic National Platform Committee hearing I've already mentioned before I was asked not to detail further bio mentions. I don't recall the early 2007 edits, but if I spread my cites around it was because of Bevel not myself (the same way I'm looking at your work on the article - what's notable about myself is bringing Bevel's work into its deserved academic consideration with the 1984 paper reprinted by Garrow in his 1989 book which you've already listed). Okay, I'm off. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:57, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok thanks for sharing, I’ll add that to the Italian TV piece for fuller context and clarity, so the thought process and flow doesn’t just dead-end, because on WP, the “why” and “how” and “why this matters” is just as important (if not more important) than the “what”. Or more simply, context is of equal or greater importance as content. Je231107b (talk) 12:15, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * By the way, one of the sources notes Bevel’s role in collaborating with you in leading that Chicago summit project (so yes, I’ve found a reliable independent secondary source discussing the Bevel-Kryn relationship! Super cool, one-of-a-kind, perhaps my best find so far haha)

EarthSave
let’s talk about this soon, your role in co-founding EarthSave is well-documented in many Wisconsin papers so there will probably be at least 3-5 sentences (and equal or more amount of sourced stories) in the live article, would love to hear more from you to hopefully get the info as correct and true as possible within the boundaries of WP policies and guidelines, thanks. Je231107b (talk) 12:27, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * That was the Madison, Wisconsin branch, not the overall organization itself which was founded by John Robbins. I think I can say that much so as you are not led down the wrong path. I don't know how much I can say, so we should stop before I tell again. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:41, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Ah, that makes sense, thanks for clarifying. Je231107b (talk)
 * on the Robbins page where it says "founded EarthSave", I was just about to change it to "co-founded EarthSave (along with Randy Kryn)", but you stopped me in my tracks with that clarification lol. Je231107b (talk) 12:46, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

What's up? Randy Kryn (talk) 13:31, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * remember the "putting up some playing field limits" comment you made on your talk page not long ago?
 * Of course, in response to an admin's request. The only people not allowed on a playing field should be Tampa Bay's defense. I thought you were "calling" when I got a ping from my comment being moved, my mistake. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:39, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Well I kinda was, we gotta have some playing field limits too, like how if you have objections to content added about you to mainspace, it should be discussed at the pertinent article talk pages to avoid deceiving and misleading others into believing you're persuading me to add said content. This account isn't really one to be used for talking much, this will be the article-drafting account. Update: Chicago Tribune newspaper archives has 20 hits for "Randall Kryn" so the article could have up to 52 sources (from the original 32), maybe more if I dive into archives of other newspapers. When I began this project, I wasn't really expecting more than 12-15 max, so this is certainly quite an interesting journey.
 * Oh my goodness gracious, 20 newspaper mentions from Chicago Tribune (you actually authored some opinion pieces in there too), 53 mentions total nationwide. Some are probably already in the original draft, but we're looking at possibly 60-80 total sources, likely a bibliography section, who knows, maybe a Bibliography of Randy Kryn page will be in the works at some point too. Some of the papers kept track of your election results/vote tallies which is interesting too.
 * Anyways, goodbye for now, 'til next time

Okay, I won't post on here and will remove it from my watch list, but want to say I haven't looked at or commented elsewhere about what you're adding or removing. You know Wikipedia rules well, and know what is or isn't due weight (such as that edit at History of Chicago politics, which I assume you've removed, as I've told you that my sourced influence on Chicago politics was negligible and had little due weight compared with others in terms of encyclopedic articles). The only one on my watch list (I have nothing Chicago on it) is Prathia Hall, and someone removed the mention because it didn't have enough detail for its inclusion (she had many interviews, so it makes sense due-weightwise not to pick one and accent it, although it probably would be notable if the information quoted in the book is what I think it is). I actually am expecting you'd remove everything which has no hint of due weight or why my name is singled out over many options, which is everything aside from Bevel information, and would count on our fellow Wikipedian's who watch those pages to question as well. Non-encyclopedically, Randy Kryn (talk) 14:09, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * if you believe that your name is being singled out in an undue-weight fashion, you are more than welcome to research and add sourced content of other politicians and historians as contextually relevant to the pages in question, if that helps neutralize the weight of your name, nobody is stopping you from doing so and it wouldn't be a conflict of interest since you wouldn't be "touching" your name, simply adding to what's around it (most of the big data additions I paired with an "expand section" tag as I created such sections, so it's pretty obvious when you take a look, and the tag welcomes you to improve the section by adding other data). Hope this helps your understanding.
 * p.s. if you really wanna see undue weight, maybe poke around subsidiary articles of Saudi Arabia, particularly those pertaining to sports and women, they're slammed with news about controversies reported from Western and biased sources, and not actually putting things into proper historical or cultural context.
 * if you still have objections about the history of chicago politics edits, you can propose ideas and we can maybe trim or tweak the language at that article talk page, and you are certainly welcome to add other data about other chicago politics names, so long as they're sourced.
 * Caught this from my contributions page, not the ping. Pings don't work if the text is added to after the ping (I made that mistake many times before figuring it out). Nah, I don't look at or edit Chicago political pages, not even for the one person still active there that I know well. Please don't add stuff about me to them, nothing notable there, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:26, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Lots about you is notable, two interesting points:


 * 1) You're more notable than Bevel, that page only has 41 sources, yours will have 60-80 when all is said and done
 * 2) You actually have more notability as a politician than a historian, more sources for your politics compared to historiography, and the data is more meaningful and impactful (some of the historiography stuff is just a passing mention or citation of you); furthermore, the politics data additions haven't been met with any pushback by others, only the historian stuff has been. (feel free to watch and keep track of my sandbox page to see the progress of the article draft, just discovered data verifying your Morton College graduation and a petition you signed there, some really nice finds)
 * But nothing major as a politician. There are thousands of politicians active in Chicago throughout its history and even now. I personally see my political time in Chicago, aside from interesting experiences, as a necessary intersection in meeting Bevel, who I hadn't heard of until I actually met him and read the short fundraising handout his wife had written. Was amazed that such a person existed and was so almost unknown to history and media coverage (as he still is). Everything else was pretty trivial. Although I'm a bit curious it's better if I don't look at what you're doing (reverting I hope) or writing. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:43, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah you did major stuff as a politician, corresponding with the Soviet consulate in NYC is something special (this was during the height of the Cold War and USSR wasn't known to be particularly friendly to Americans, so you must've been doing something big and right and important). Coretta Scott King is a big name too, you're not as a marginal as you're purporting yourself to be. (Also as a historian, many of the people you have collaborated with or who have written about you are also notable enough that they have their own WP page) And as to the other Chicago politicians, I'm sure that most of them who are more notable than you already have a WP page. Like seriously, you have 80ish sources to your name, this is not up for debate. You might be able to challenge a few sources or sentences among the many dozens and hundreds, but that's about it. The article will be going in soon, and you can't and won't stop it (WP policy won't allow you to).

good God (please excuse my language), but wow, just searched "Randy Kryn" newspaper archive results and there's 51, in addition to the previously mentioned 53 for "Randall Kryn". There's 32 in the original main version of the draft, and there is overlap in a few of them, but this may end up having 100+ sources total, holy cow. (and to think that such a person defended and supported my edits at both the most widely-viewed WP page of all-time, and what is likely the most widely-viewed editor project page -- ANI) Je231107b (talk) 16:32, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for searching, I really have no idea where many of those came from or would fit in but what you've done so far, in the draft a couple of weeks ago (or seems a couple weeks) brought back some good memories. My main focus these last years has been Wikipedia, and I've been trying to pull back my editing time (wikiaddiction is real, warn your friends not to start, "this is your brain on Wikipedia" etc.) Randy Kryn (talk) 16:43, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * What years were you a writer for the Chicago Tribune? (exact years would be nice, we can make a little IAR exception to WP:OR since telling me the years would provide concrete clarity to data that otherwise is somewhat cloudy, this wouldn't be an OR content addition, simply an enhancement of already-sourced data) Like for a example if I run into a string of Randall Kryn-authored Tribune articles all packed in between 1975 and 1982, I can't definitively say what the exact beginning and ending years are, but the pattern by the sources provides circumstantial evidence, I hope I'm making sense here.
 * For what it's worth, you mentioned in an old edit summary at the Bevel page (I think 2008?) that you went over the edits you crafted with him before publishing them live, so you're no stranger to this.
 * p.s. at some point I want to a build a table that displays the results of that one well-sourced election, the newspaper entry shows exact vote counts, and you were running against 5-7 other people.

They came from newspapers.com, super simple and easy to work with.
 * What election? None were of any consequence let alone worth a table of results, and none were run expecting to win. I did run a photocopy of Bevel's page by him in 2008, just before his trial, to be sure of no outrageous errors. Nope, I wasn't a writer for the Tribune, just a couple or three guest editorial columns and a few letter-to-the-editors. Wish I could say more but I really should comply with admins request. Have forgotten most of those. Thanks for doing all of this, although it feels quite weird to be the "subject" a not the researcher. Nothing to see here. Time to log out for awhile so don't think I'm ignoring pings on Wikipedia in these hours, as I don't even look at it. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:59, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Can't remember the election name, I skimmed through 20-30 sources in the span of a few hours (reading dozens of different not-related-to-each-other stories about you), but ok, I'll probably run a final copy by you to check for outrageous factual errors right before publishing, but if you simply disagree with things on a more nuanced level such as weight or interpretation, it can't simply be removed, we'll have to work out some sort of compromise. Feel free to keep my sandbox page on your watchlist to stay abreast of the progress (you are more than welcome to file/address objections by the way), til next time. Je231107b (talk) 17:05, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

See User:Je231107b/sandbox, User:Je231107b/sources, and their respective talk pages, thanks. Je231107b (talk) 17:11, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Just read the lead, and glanced at the sources page. Thanks. I won't read any more of it now, as I couldn't discuss it and I'm sure that there are things in there I'd want to change or correct or ask for clarification (even from reading the lead it feels uncomfortable reading about myself and not being able to comment). I'm not sure on what point I can mention suggested changes. So yes, thanks for putting so much research into this, and I'll save a copy on a subpage in case these are removed. As both the subject of a draft page and as a Wikipedian I can't suggest what to do next with such an article. On the other topic, the mentions of me in mainspaced pages, I haven't looked at any since that two second glance at that "decades" political comment, so I hope that you've considered editing or removing those per due weight, actual relevance to the topic, selecting one example above others, etc. Being fair to Wikipedia should be priority. Your work is appreciated although not totally welcome, which comes from me feeling weird about such a thing (but if seen as another way of mentioning Bevel's overall history, it seems appropriate). Randy Kryn (talk) 02:38, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Okay, I did summon up the courage and ego to go back and read it, a pretty good presentation, thanks. Has some errors, omissions, and whatnots but it does seems like an adequate draft page. I'd forgotten some of the things in there. Thanks for using the photo of Bevel, was there when that was taken. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:12, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Easy way to keep track…
…of how your data is being spread across WP mainspace, CLICK HERE (25 articles as of now with more to come, and data expansions forthcoming on some of those pages that already have you on there, my personal fav so far is History of Chicago, check out the end of the lead section and the whole paragraph about you in the body, will continue to work hard on that page to add more stuff about you) Je231107b (talk) 14:06, 19 January 2023 (UTC) Oh and by the way, if you really wanna be sure that everything about the presentation of you on WP is fair, correct, and due weight, it would behoove you to focus your online attention to stuff pertaining to Chicago history and politics, instead of goofing off at articles about the solar system, minerals, and art.
 * As to your last sentence, you are back to threatening my work here and I have no idea why. My edits are my choice, topics I choose to edit are my choice, and the reasons I edit them are my choice. Just looked at one you mention, the lead of History of Chicago. You have to understand that that's not right. Please remove it and any others that come close to something like that. I do not belong in 'History of Chicago' in any form. You do such good work on most things and then something like that makes a mockery of both myself as a person and editor and Wikipedia as an accurate encyclopedia. You are intelligent enough to know that,I don't know why you are doing it, and of course I do not want my name incorrectly "spread across WP mainspace", why would I? so please stop and revert most of those (although I haven't looked at them, it's embarrassing to even see that histoy of Chicago lead). If by some chance you are doing this in good faith and actually believe it, thanks for the thoughts, but please reconsider those mentions, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:26, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Everything is legitimate and in good faith, WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY is a prime guideline in play here, the lead deserves a quick name and link for you when there’s a well-sourced paragraph about you in the body. Currently, there are four sources there, but I have many more at the ready. The paragraph could end up being 8-10 sentences total with a similar amount of sources, the story about the Reagan-Gorbachev summit plan in Chicago in particular is a promising addition for that page.
 * There is no mockery of you or Wikipedia going on, I’m simply doing what you vouch for in the last paragraph of your userpage. I’m simply adding my own contributions based on my own interest, backed up with reliable sources. This is the deepest spirit of what Wikipedia is all about.
 * At a bare minimum, not the lead. I of course did not shape Chicago politics in the 1980s, and I'm kind of ashamed for Wikipedia that no page editor has caught that since January 16. I took a quick glance at the page, and no, I did not lead the 1996 protest, David Dellinger did, it was his idea, and saying that I did has no basis in the sources. I'm not going to even look at more. I could remove those type of edits myself but I'm somehow counting on you to be a good Wikipedian, trusting that you can edit in a way that you could be openly reinstated and not get banned. I know you say you don't care if you are editing openly, or don't care about the bannings, but it would be nice. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:55, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Ok let’s make a deal
(and maybe this will help ease tensions a bit). For every article I add content about you, I shall henceforth give you a courtesy ping on its corresponding talk page immediately after such edit runs, do we have a deal? (this is a concession I’m willing to make to help us out, instead of "sneakily" adding the content and mentions) Je231107b (talk) 14:43, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * No, no pings and I don't want to look at any. Please stop adding my name anywhere (except in the pretty well written draft article which actually works well in regards to Bevel history follow-up on Wikipedia). The edits are unlikely to last, but why the Chicago lead one has stuck around for several days without anybody else reverting is disconcerting regarding the present state of fact-checking on Wikipedia. Did you catch the mention of the very major incorrect lead edit Niece and nephew that stuck around for years (see its talk page)? If I still am incorrectly credited with shaping Chicago politics in the 1980s in the lead in a few weeks I may just give up on this site as a reliable encyclopedia (probably wouldn't give up, too many good things here, but yes, disconcerting to see something like that). Randy Kryn (talk) 14:55, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Well if you believe that you didn’t shape Chicago politics in the 1980s, then who did? Please propose a name or names to replace yours, and maybe add sourced content about such people, thanks. Je231107b (talk) 14:58, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * And the edits will last because they are true and sourced, but you are more than welcome to add more sourced content pertaining to those historical eras if you believe it would fairly “neutralize” the weight of your name and impact encyclopedically. Also those types of articles aren’t well-watched (most history articles aren’t because they were written and shaped by people a long time ago and don’t need regular “maintenance” as much as things pertaining to more contemporary topics)
 * Ultimate goal is to get you mentioned at the United States article, but before that I’ll be doing some overhauls of its subsidiary articles pertaining to politics and history (which fortunately are seldom watched or edited) so that the process makes sense both from an editor standpoint and encyclopedic standpoint.
 * No I didn’t see the niece and nephew thing, but I saw you talking about it on your talk page.
 * United States? I've asked you to stop, and since I don't report editors that's all I can do for now aside from removing all of the incorrect mentions myself, which I don't know if that's a COI or not (and I don't want to ask an admin because I don't want to advance your banning, which will undoubtedly occur once someone checks your History of Chicago edits - or at least you'd think so). Happy National Popcorn Day by the way, a favorite food of mine (which I'll now probably hear has been added to the popcorn article - see, that's an example of which of your edits is feasible and which you should realize are not encyclopedic). Randy Kryn (talk) 15:16, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Well which specific mentions do you have objections to, and why? Please be specific. A blanket objection is simply not something that can be worked with. If there are a 3-5 among the 25 that have errors, then you can call those out with your reasoning and they can be fixed, but I’m certainly not intentionally spreading false or unsourced info about you.
 * I did not single-handedly shape Chicago politics in the 1980s, although I had a couple of major moments, but those aren't sourced, known about, and which I haven't discussed with you - but so did literally hundreds of other people. Due weight and original research are a couple of the real things which keep Wikipedia afloat. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:26, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Well then who did have the biggest impact on Chicago politics in the 1980s? Maybe we can do some collaboration on that article by researching and adding more sourced data.

And as corroborated by the many sources (and the passage in the article body), you were a leader, you were involved in politics in the 1980s, and Chicago was your political base during that decade, do you doubt or deny any of those statements? If not, then the mention in the lead shall stand. Again (don’t know how many times this needs to be said), if you believe that your name is carrying undue weight at that or any other pages, you are more than welcome to contribute additional sourced content regarding other supposed “bigger” politicians and events of that era in Chicago, instead of tinkering with topics less directly pertinent to you such as the solar system, minerals, and art.
 * p.s. I actually want to collab with you on some of those Chicago politics and history pages, together we can add content while being fair and proportional about everything. The dilemma is that the only thing I know about 1980s Chicago politics and history is you.
 * Your last sentence, remember all the things you've mentioned about street smarts and the dangerous ways and streets of California? Triple that, and you'll know something about Chicago politics. I don't edit those pages, don't read them, got out of it a long time ago, and only keep in touch with a couple people from the old days. Not a subject I'm interested in editing or touching, like a live wire. Understand? Randy Kryn (talk) 12:52, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, plus I recently just ran into WP:Write the article first which made me realize I should have the full biography article completed and published before continuing to spread around your wiki-link like that, regardless of whether such edit runs include sourced content. Lastly, would you at least like to be notified after major overhauls of the biography draft so you can check for errors? (Or should I draft and publish the entire thing to your complete oblivion?) Je231107b (talk) 23:41, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * No more wiki-links needed, and much less preferred. Thanks. Since I can't correct the mistakes on your draft, maybe if another editor edits a draft page or mainspace article I probably can comment then on the talk page (I'll ask an admin at that point). Let me know if you publish, thanks. Am losing some of my drive to edit Wikipedia, so will probably be on less than before, and will do my daily break. Have to rev up for the 2024-26 American founding collection season edits, and I hope that you will be back as a position player with an accredited and fully wikilegal account. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:32, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Nah, no admin stuff at this point, you talk to any admin about anything I do or work on, you’re gonna get mass-reverted as a matter of principle (I may also start removing your sources from the James Bevel page). It’s like the politics of Chicago or streets of Oakland, we resolve our issues ourselves, talking to admins is like calling the cops and only serves to escalate tensions, snitches get stitches and fair is fair. I made a very hard-working good-faith effort to try to reason and have a discussion with the admins during my ANI thread about my behavior at one page, United States, only to get “banned” from the entire site (where’s the logic in that?). Think of it this way, any attention you get from admins will only get me checked and blocked (because they’ll automatically question the accounts that create the draft and article). Our ultimate goal here is to avoid admin attention at all costs, so please stay off their noticeboards and talk pages, thanks. Je231107b (talk) 17:09, 21 January 2023 (UTC) (p.s. don’t worry, I plan to have another trusted editor in good standing review and approve the page, so it will be legitimate and valid.)
 * That's what I meant too, to ask about it only well after another editor had helped to put in a draft space. We were on the same wavelength. But your first sentence above, sort of a default mode you go into, is well outside of anything a Wikipedian should say to another Wikipedian. So the best way of keeping off of admin's radar, and to move away from even the need for threats like that, we should probably not communicate for awhile. You should not be at all surprised if this and others accounts which you've used to post those links is checked, but not because of me talking to anyone about anything. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:19, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah it is admittedly somewhat of a default mode, because it actually works — I’m not very skilled at appealing to authority/admins via talk and discussion, so I realized that revert runs are the most effective and powerful tool in my toolbox, it gets the message across or at least gets people to listen, or wears them down enough to where my merits can actually be seen at face value, because people listen better when they’re too tired to talk. If I use edit summaries, it gets wikilawyered against me in bad faith by others; if I use talk pages, it gets wikilawyered against me in bad faith by others. If I don’t say anything, I have no words that others can use against me, and that is the raw power of reverts. My plan is to simply mass-revert anyone who gets in my way, remember the Beast Quake video? That’s like me on Wikipedia. Je231107b (talk) 00:25, 22 January 2023 (UTC) (p.s. on a more congenial note, I probably will step back from talking to you for now until the article is published, because these discussions eat up too much of my on-wiki time away from drafting the article, I’ll ping you to do a scan for errors when it’s ready to go live right before publishing) -->