User talk:Liaison1

Addressing your concerns re: Klamath
I have some ideas for the Klamath article, but that is better addressed on the Klamath talk page where other editors can find it.

OK, first of all, judging by your user page, you understand about assuming good faith, but you really started off in the wrong foot in that regard, accusing me of censorship, etc. This almost borders on uncivil and/or a personal attack. You may question my judgement, but you don't have enough information to question my motivation. Yes, you were being bold, but that goes hand in hand with, as it says on each edit page, "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it.".

Regarding placelessness, I'm more talking about seeing the same stripmalls and chainstores everywhere you go, pretty much taking all the local "color" out of places. But you raise a good point about race and my personal opinion is that these kind of discussions are long overdue. I am indeed white, however, and don't feel I am qualified to speak to the race issue, except as a neutral encyclopedia editor. I think the racism can be addressed in the Klamath article, but since we are writing an encyclopedia, we have to be very careful to write in a neutral tone and cite everything very well. Also bear in mind that Wikipedia is not a soapbox. I think it would be good to bring the article to the attention of WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America for starters.

I appreciate your passion about this issue and hope we can work together. OK, I have to run, I'll post more on the Klamath talk page later.

P.S. regarding the time codes. I have my computer set to display Pacific time instead of Universal time. When I copy the time stamp to add to the "unsigned template", I'm too lazy to change it to Universal time.

Katr67 14:51, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

In accusing you of censorship, I would have been better accusing you of reversionism, or whatever the 3RR rule is called colloquially. I certainly dont mind editing, it was just your seemingly reverting to the old without including my changes to the front page, ok, so if this consensual approach requires talk on the discussion page first, ok, I can adapt, but twice you took my edit off the front page. Is this what is called reverting changes? Does the 3RR rule apply? Well, I guess you only 2RRed me and then agreed to the Water Dispute heading, that's cool. So I feel like you are not just emptying my words off the page.

I guess I dont understand when a front page edit is ok, instead of doing a discussion first. I have already changed and added to some front page stuff elsewhere, no one seemed to care. (ie. the tribe is a little over 3700 instead of 3500, this in discussion with a tribal council man just last week) Just wondering about where the line is drawn when to do front page edits or to start on the discussion page discussions, since at the time there was no discussion on the Klamath, well, I just went for it  .... I guess I am totally confused on this point, when to discuss and when to edit the front page, (well obviously we need to discuss Klamath Water Wars addition and I am totally cool on that), and will just continue with practice makes perfect.

Your paragraph on placelessness is all very good EXCEPT your statement...'I dont feel qualified to speak to the race issue.' COME ON -- you got race, just look at your user page, anglo/irish/pirate/oregonian, (frankly if you got nothing to say, you should stay out of the Native areas) BUT you got conversation, hey, we need experienced Racially aware people to DO more than just edit...write already, you got stuff to say, that I know. I agree with the no soapbox bit. My take on the racial dialogue in America starts with my sound bite...Racial issues in America is all Black and White no Color...Meaning the African/European dialogue has long had the foreground and both do NOT give way to anything Native. What I am saying is, stop with the i got nothing to say angle, you do got it. RE: neutral tone, ok, I can use your help there, but i think it important to bring all four sides on the water issue to the fore...more to say later...

How do you indent sections?

--Liaison1 22:58, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi. You can indent sections by putting a colon in front.


 * I addressed the Klamath stuff on that talk page.


 * You were not a victim of 3RR, and bringing up 3RR instead of getting down to the business of discussing the changes to the article is a rather confrontational way of editing. I realize you are new and I was attempting to show you how we do things around here, which includes keeping discussion limited to talk pages, but you seemed to be evading the issue. In a true 3RR, I would have simply reverted your changes without discussion, but I didn't. I used the accepted practice of moving disputed stuff to the talk page and explained this in the edit summary. It was a good faith effort on my part as it was on yours. Yes, be bold, but when your edits are disputed, that's when collaboration is supposed to take over. Which it has. I think we can move on now, but if you're still concerned, you can ask about the situation at Requests for comment. For future reference here is the guideline for dispute resolution: Resolving disputes.


 * A front page edit is OK if it's not POV, original research, fits the Wikipedia manual of style, and includes properly cited statements. Your initial edit was partly fact and partly, as far as I can tell, personal opinion. Thus not appropriate on the front page as it stood. I saw your change to the population, and that seemed reasonable to me, though it should probably should be referenced (besides your conversation with the tribal person, is there a web source we can cite for the number?).No, as it was not cited originally I considered it ok. 


 * On the race thing, what I meant by "not qualified" is that I'm well aware that white people have been writing Native history (and getting it wrong) for hundreds of years and I know from experience that some Native folks resent having another do-gooding white person try to help them, "understand" them, etc. I know this is not a universal feeling, but I want to tread carefully. My involvement with the Klamath article was initially to help sort the categories into which all the articles about tribes in Oregon fell. I created Category:Native American tribes in Oregon and made it a subcategory of People from Oregon. Before, the tribal articles were all over the place--under history, under Oregon in general, etc.--the relegation of tribes to "history" was one example of how people don't realize that Native Americans are still here today, so in a way, that was my contribution to helping with the race issue here on Wikipedia--to improve the accuracy of what is already there and watch for subtle racism in wording, etc. I plan to ask the advice of the Indigenous WikiProject to make sure I'm on the right track in that regard. Anyway, since then, the Oregon tribal articles have been on my watchlist.


 * I think that about covers everything for now. I'm going to be away from Wikipedia for a while, but I'm serious about improving the Klamath article, so I will get back to it when I can. Also water rights issues in general are going to just keep getting bigger in the American west, so I really do think we could make a separate article about the Klamath Water Wars... Happy editing! Katr67 18:38, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Awesome answer, and THANKS LOTS...that was beginning to be my perception and you underscored it...I in NO way consider this a dispute, or in need of exterior resolution in the least. I just, what is the colloquial, felt bitten. And no, to bringing up 3RR  or 2RR is not confrontational, it is just trying to understand, buisness sschmisness, if I dont understand the ground rules, there will be endless mispercieved 'bites', getting down to business in my mind is less than discussing things, (since I really didnt know HOW to discuss things or even the terminology) it is building a consensus and bringing those consensus ideas and words to the front page. I would hope that you would be a little more understanding about this, me being a neophyte and all, I can only imagine that you have gotten into 3RR situations and have been bit in the past. Maybe a guideline should be, newbies cant bite, they aint got teeth...but whatever you think...I am not evading the issue, I am just trying to understand, I would hope that you could see it from my impression, my first post disapeared, what was I to think?  I didnt even know what a talk page was, or that it is tabbed  as discussion. The bottom line for me was I felt bit. |Please dont bite.


 * My appaprent evasion is exploration. I am in discussion with sevearl Klamath tribal members about this whole project, thye are at this point skeptical, and to that, I agree, they would not tolerate your statement, "seem to be evading" this would be a serious bite for them, unless they understood the ground rules, they would split. Do you want to be a little more understanding on that issue? I certainly am VERY THANKFUL for your explainations, except for the barbed phrases about me bringing up 3RR, not getting to business, and not getting down to buisness (which it absord, I am all about getting to buisness of understanding this process, how to sign up, Please think back to your first engagment with wiki and your first front page edit.) This is not evasive, this is my talk page, and I chose to discuss what I want, which is primarily, how do I DO wiki.


 * I guess what I take offense to in the above, ... well,... I feel bad, unvalidated, sidelined, about trying to understand the process and asking a whole lot of questions of you only to be told that I am confrontational and evasive because I am really trying to understand HOW to do this, and what the guidelines are, only to be told to, get to is.


 * Let's try it again. I feel unheard, about your statment of evasion and confrontation, because I AM trying to understand and feel that you are only somewhat willing to tolerate my fumbling.


 * But to your agenda: The buisness of editing the page. Yes, I agree that the water wars merit their own page.


 * Well, ignore my process if you want. And just answer my technical questions. And engage in coediting. That's fine. I write to process.--Liaison1 00:26, 2 September 2006 (UTC)