User talk:Lithistman/Archives/2011/July

It was explained
This edit was explained on the talk page. I am in conflict with a long-term edit warrior who has been blocked multiple times for edit warring in trying to add fluff to articles. Please undo it or join the conversation on the talk page. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 02:12, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You are a new IP, who may have at one point been a user that the editor in question was in conflict with. I am trying to protect articles from having reliable sources removed. Saying an article has "fluff" is not exactly a valid explanation to blank whole sections. Thank you Lithistman for your edits.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 02:15, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Even if that's true, that doesn't explain why the PR fluff about inspiration is worthy of inclusion. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 02:22, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * While I would entertain discussion of whether or not the GYFC is actually of sufficient notability for an article, simply removing a referenced list of conferences supported by the group isn't acceptable. LHM 02:17, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That's not the way to edit IP. You know that. You're "experienced" I believe.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 02:27, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I have restored the hat placed by Dreadstar.
Thanks for your note. I have never seen an EWN hatted before, and I considered that action by an involved editor to be aggressive. A "resolved" template would be less so. In any case, since you, an uninvolved editor, have added it on your own account I'll respect that.  Will Beback   talk    03:24, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The reason I did so was because that "report" seemed so out-of-place to begin with, and because it seemed like what Dreadstar wrote about it being "over" was correct. Also, Dreadstar had only just came into the discussion, so I'm not sure I'd call him "involved", necessarily. Best, LHM 03:34, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Most of Dreadstar's edits today have been connected to me, directly or indirectly. That's why I objected to his action. Note also that he kept trying to get the last word, so he was responsible to extending the thread.   Will Beback    talk    04:57, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I am basing that view only off of what I saw at that page. I haven't looked into either of your contributions. In looking back at that page, in retrospect it seems like you both were trying to get the last word, and perhaps instead of simply restoring the hat, I should have rehatted it with my own summary. It's probably best to just let sleeping dogs lie at this point, though. LHM 05:22, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Non-free files in your user space
Hey there Lithistman, thank you for your contributions. I am a bot, alerting you that non-free files are not allowed in user or talk space. I removed some files I found on User:Lithistman/Bleeding Kansas. In the future, please refrain from adding fair-use files to your user-space drafts or your talk page.


 * See a log of files removed today here.


 * Shut off the bot here.


 * Report errors here.

Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 05:03, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

The GYC AFD discussion
Hi Lithistman, I have been vacillating between the two options, merge or try to maintain a separate article. As you know, I have put considerable history information in the 21st Century section on the SDA history article. But, this has made it unbalanced because little has been written about the 21st Century. Much can be written but so far there is little. Hrfan has shown these weaknesses quite effectively. He has also inadvertantly taught me a refreshing WP policy called Ignore all the rules. "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." I believe the GYC story and its development helps add to, or improve, Wikipedia. Your kindly counsel has been, and is, appreciated. Also, a few other editors have expressed an interest in a GYC article rescue. "An article should not be deleted just because it is ill-formed. Some writer worked hard on that article. Some reader can use that article. Those writers and readers, if reached out to, can help us preserve this worthwhile content." I plan to include this analysis on the talk pages related to this article. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 04:02, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Ignore All Rules has caveats, Donald. If it's pointed out to you (and it has been) that the article does not conform with policy, and that your ignoring them doesn't actually improve the encyclopedia, then the rules need to be followed. I will tell you this: my second option to "merge and redirect", is to recommend outright deletion. There is just nothing about the GYFC that makes it notable enough for a stand-alone article, particularly when compared to other religious movements that produce conferences and such. LHM 05:14, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Lithistman, I am still learning. As you know, I tried the merge option and I appreciated you looking over my merge attempt. At the time, I recall predicting that too much information would get lost in the merge. When an editor opposed the weight imbalance, I found no support whatsoever. Meanwhile, there were several editors who asked me to help keep the article alive. If the article gets deleted, it won't be from want of trying. This particular dustup has been quite educational for me. I have appreciated your kindly advice regarding merge and am disappointed that I will probably not have such advice as I work to save the article. Meanwhile, thanks again. Revised: DonaldRichardSands (talk) 10:21, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Spectrum source
Did you read the Spectrum piece cited in the GYC article? On closer examination, it's a doozy (and badly misrepresented). It sums up the GYC thusly: "What I am saying is that emotional, anti-intellectual, conservative movements like GYC don’t accomplish much in the long run in spite of all the hoopla. They are ineffective in achieving their own long-term goals and can be spiritually harmful to the young innocents who blame themselves for delaying the Second Advent."

HrafnTalkStalk(P) 11:50, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I actually had noticed that. Maybe if it is kept against policy, non-SDA editors can use that source to at least bring a semblance of balance to the article. LHM 15:15, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Jack Johnson (boxer)
How is it ironic that someone who judged a case where a black guy was unjustly found guilty went on to run a sport where black people were kept out? Irony is when there is "a sharp incongruity or discordance that goes beyond the simple and evident intention of words or actions". It would be ironic if the judge had somehow found an innocent black man _innocent_ then gone on to run baseball in a seemingly racist way. --74.138.214.5 (talk) 13:28, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No, the incongruity comes in that a man who would later enforce the color line in a separate sport was in a position where he was expected to fairly adjudicate the judicial fate of a black man. LHM 15:13, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't really think that was expected of a judge in 1920s America. It would only be unusual if Johnson or any black man had somehow managed to get a fair trial. --74.138.214.5 (talk) 16:51, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks on SDA
Thanks for your help on the SDA articles. Sorry I've given you a hard time. I appreciate your recognition of the problems we are facing with the IP's. As you know it's not about IP's specifically but about the problem of certain ones. You've shown your willing to do more than just complain and I respect that.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 15:36, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem, and thanks for the note. LHM 15:53, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Your revert at Template:Seventh-day Adventist Colleges and Universities in North America
I understand why you've been reverting the edits done by 66.112.115.182, but instead of blindly reverting, you really should look at the changes more carefully. This diff actually fixed a problem that had been introduced to the template on June 27th by someone who didn't understand how the name parameter of the template works and by reverting the edit you broke it again. The name parameter is not necessarily the same as the title parameter. I fixed it by changing the name parameter to be since that really is the name of the template and if you want to rename it to be "Template:Seventh-day Adventist Colleges and Universities in the US and Canada", then you'll actually need to move it. Thanks. Mojoworker (talk) 18:54, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * My apologies about that. I was simply reverting them based upon the recommendations of an arbitrator, and I didn't check them like I should. Best, LHM 18:56, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem. I just re–read what I posted above and I apologize if I sounded too critical &mdash; I didn't intend it that way. I don't really know enough about the subject matter for the other edits by 66.112.115.182 to be able to tell if any others were constructive.  Do you think you could review them or would it be worthwhile to ask DonaldRichardSands to look at those edits? Mojoworker (talk) 20:49, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Donald would be a good one to ask, as would FountainViewKid. Both seem to be knowledgeable in the SDA subject area, and would know if the content-based edits were legitimate. I doubt that most were, though, since the banned user was quite the POV-pusher for an anti-SDA agenda. LHM 23:45, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * OK. I'll ask Donald if he will take a look. Mojoworker (talk) 00:07, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It's about 3-1 POV on his edits. A few of them were legit, but most were controversial. Especially when it comes to OHC, Southern, and LaSierra.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 01:25, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for looking those over. LHM 03:30, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:AGF
Really, you threaten me with 3RR after edit warring to impose your solution and refusing to engage in talk? You started the interaction accusing me of bad faith and have continued in the same vein, denouncing a quite reasonable use of template warning as vandalism. I have quite reasonably engaged in the talk page discussion. Further cluttering a talk page with a bad faith accusation of WP:POINT is demonstrating a presumption of bad faith. I suggest you stop now. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:39, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't accuse you of editing in bad faith. I can't help how you perceive things when people disagree with you. LHM 20:44, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Accusing some of acting in terms of WP:POINT when their edit is justified quite reasonably in talk and you have refused to respond to a reasonable request. That is very much acting in bad faith.  Wee Curry Monster talk 21:10, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It's quite confusing trying to make out what you're actually accusing me of doing. Are you saying I said you were acting in bad faith, or that I was acting in bad faith? And popping tags on the article because you don't like the sourced material that has been added is being point-y. LHM 23:31, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not going to clutter up Colin's page anymore but again you were out of order, I am perfectly within my rights to speak to another editor on his talk page and you should not be butting in. You accused me of being pointy and that was also out of order, the information is dubious and I have pointed this out on the talk page.  I tagged the comments rather than continuing to ingulge your edit warring behaviour - have you ever heard of WP:BRD.  Continuing to assert I am adding them because I don't like the sourced material is further demonstration to me that you have not and never assumed good faith in my editing.  Wee Curry Monster talk 13:28, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It is not out of line at all to ask that talk about an article be centralized in one place. And noting that you are wrong in your opinions, and that you slapped tags on the article to prove a point is not assuming bad faith, it's making a fairly straightforward observation. I will now ask you not to post here anymore, as you continue to sling accusations at me. Any further posts from you here will be reverted, if you can't keep the accusations in check. LHM 18:31, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

If you do not wish to collaborate with me fine. But I ask you to stop stirring the pot and aggravating matters on the talk page of other editors. Really you need to step back from this as you are allowing your emotions to cloud your judgement and projecting that onto others. Twice now you've followed me around on other editors talk pages, if you don't stop I am going to ask for admin intervention. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:16, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It is not about "collaborating" with you, it's about you not flinging wild accusations of stalking and things against me without merit. It's about not going into attack mode when someone dares to put the word "pirate" in Henry Morgan. LHM 19:20, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

are you trying to make wikipedia better?
Then why this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.228.224.139 (talk) 23:36, 7 July 2011 (UTC) Same goes for this as well as your revert on Pacific Union College. Maybe actually look at the edits next time? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.228.226.15 (talk) 23:53, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I was reverting the edits of a banned user who was avoiding that ban by using an IP address to edit. In doing so, I accidentally reverted a couple of legitimate edits. My apologies. LHM 23:43, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Just so you know, the edits of a banned user can be reverted on sight, no matter their content. That's what I was doing. I did it quickly, and some of them may have been good edits. If you think they were, you're free to revert them. LHM 00:38, 8 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Lithistman certainly doesn't need my help here. I have only worked with him for a very short time. But, he is consistently trying to improve Wikipedia and shows a pretty decent attitude. I have watched the reverts he did on the banned editor and have appreciated his work in doing so. It did involve some reverts which did not improve the articles affected. That is minor. I fixed a few myself. The banned editor did some sensible editing but he did so against the rules. Kudos to Lithistman for his work. If you want to help, fix all the edit reverts that need fixing. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 00:04, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Donald. I'm glad you were able to fix up some of the ones that were actually decent edits. Best, LHM 00:38, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Morgan
Colincbn (talk) 07:58, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

24.180.120.72
Hi Lithistman, 24.180.120.72 behaves a lot like our banned friend.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Washington_Adventist_University&curid=264012&diff=438437653&oldid=438245145

This diff especially caught my attention. The concern pattern is identical and trivial, it seems. I could be wrong, but I don't think so. There have been only four or five contributions from 24.180.120.72 so far. All innocent enough. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 17:14, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You might be right on with that. I'd wait until the IP makes some problematic edits before doing anything about it, though. LHM 18:27, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Sources from Page of Merge
I just checked the article you support merging GYC with History of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Out of 41 sources at least 38 of them are from what you call "not-independent" sources. If you are to be consistent you should argue for this article to be merged (perhaps with an article on Protestant denominations overall). It's ironic you want GYC to be merged into an article which is very much like itself in terms of sources. Most of the sources for the SDA history article come from the same sources for the GYC article.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 00:23, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Please keep discussion of the article centralized. LHM 00:27, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Will do but I'm just trying to get your response. You have yet to say which article.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 00:29, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * By the way, be careful cuz you might be around 3RR at the GYC article.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 00:41, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * This is blatant baiting, and is wildly unacceptable. LHM 00:42, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No baiting going on here. I'm just using your Talk page to continue a discussion since you didn't want me at the other one (based on the title of your section at JC's page).--Fountainviewkid (talk) 00:44, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Based upon your attitude towards me, and your behavior today, I'm asking you to stop posting at my talkpage. This very much feels like you're targeting me, and trying to bait me into incivility and perhaps 3RR. Please restrict our communications to the article talkpage from here forward. LHM 00:48, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay. Will do.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 00:51, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Can a more experienced editor please review my contributions?

 * Hi Lithistman. I think a better venue for what you seek is listing yourself at Editor review, a centralised forum for requesting just what you're asking here, except that the helpme tag is not a targeted method for this. Hope this helps.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:57, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks. Should I just cut-and-paste my message above to that forum? LHM 03:01, 11 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure I did it exactly right, but I opened up a request for review. Thanks for your help! LHM 03:19, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. You did it fine. What you may have seen though is that it did not transclude immediately, but it is transcluded now.Fuhghettaboutit (talk) --16:03, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Review left.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:16, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Discussion at User_talk:Fountainviewkid#To_LHM
You are invited to join the discussion at User_talk:Fountainviewkid. – Lionel (talk) 23:29, 11 July 2011 (UTC) (Using )

List of world trade centers
Hi! I'm trying to edit this page because the content is outdated (and it says please help expand the list). I tried citing the WTCA website, and when that didn't work, the 2011 WTCA Membership Directory, but you told me that I didn't have a reliable source. Can you please explain how this works? The information right now is incorrect (it's missing many new WTCs) and I'm trying to correct it... but something/someone won't let me. Thanks for your help!Thebestpearl (talk) 20:40, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, Thebestpearl, I'm glad to help. The problem (as I see it) is such a massive expansion without discussion. I would encourage you to go to the discussion I started at the talkpage, and we can expand the list at a slightly slower rate. Thanks, LHM 20:48, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll go discuss it there. I'm new to Wikipedia, though, so do I just click 'edit' in the corner and type? I just did that here - hopefully it worked! Thebestpearl (talk) 20:52, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh got it! Thanks again for your help. Thebestpearl (talk) 20:53, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem. LHM 20:54, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Delta and the NFCC
Please don't get the idea from Wikidemon's rhetoric that Delta's edits are riddled with errors that need to be "fixed". Delta is removing files that do not have a rationale for their use, which is required by the NFCC. As such, it's the file pages that need to be fixed, if anything does. If you're interested in fixing the files, you will need to find those that, other than the lack of rationale, meet the NFCC, and write a rationale explaining as much. Of course, this will not be all of them. Delta has not compiled a centralised list of the edits he has made- the best way to find them would be to check his contributions. J Milburn (talk) 00:02, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I got the impression that his claim of being right something like 98% of the time was less-than-accurate, though. And when I clicked through a short list someone had compiled (either at ANI or Arbcom), I noticed the Claro Puerto Rico one, which I fixed. So then, are you saying that I'll need to actually go through his voluminous contributions one-by-one to see why he removed various images? Hopefully his edit summaries are clear about which ones he removed simply because they lacked a FUR for a specific article, which bothers me a bit because it has a faint whiff of letter-over-spirit as far as fair use goes. LHM 00:21, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * In some cases, yes, that would be the case; for instance, where he has removed files which have rationales for Foo, but actually needed a rationale for Foo (band). However, the NFCC certainly do require a separate rationale for each usage, and so removing images from articles when they lack a rationale is, if done properly, a worthy task. J Milburn (talk) 18:32, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Archiving question
I'm thinking I need to archive my talkpage, but I'm unsure how to do so. LHM 22:02, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * There are a couple ways to do it. You can move your talk page to an archive page, or you can use a bot like to archive your page. (You can look up on how to use MiszaBot on its user page. You can also see Help:Archiving a talk page for a more in-depth discussion on how to do it. Good luck, and feel free to ask me any questions on my talk page! Reaper Eternal (talk) 23:50, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks! You'd think I'd have figured out how to archive my talkpage after being here for quite awhile, but it just never came up. LHM 01:30, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Old West
Hi LHM, welcome to the Old West wikiproject. I'd like to draw your attention to Cattle drives in the United States if you are looking for a project. It would be handy to have more info on the railroad expansion and the ever-westward moving cow towns of Abilene, Dodge City, etc. Take a peek and see if you'd like to add anything. Montanabw (talk) 19:36, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Right now I'm "in the weeds" a bit in real life, with a very important job interview coming up. However, I'll take a look at the cattle drive article as soon as I have a chance. Best, LHM 07:03, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It might also be good if someone dug a little deeper into the role the quarantine laws in Kansas played in the shifting cow towns. Just a thought, and in any case welcome aboard!Intothatdarkness (talk) 21:39, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Big 12 Championships
Hey, if you look at the source I provided Official Big 12 Championship List, it DOES included divisional championships. But I also did not feel they should be included so split them out into a note. This way we can still satisfy the request for citation while explaining the number discrepancy. Ryan2845 (talk) 17:57, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

New Essay
I would fully support this. Nicely done. Dayewalker (talk) 18:40, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you liked it! :) LHM 19:09, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Gwen Shamblin
Thank you for offering to let me drop you a message on your talk page if I had other concerns about edits on Gwen Shamblin’s wiki page. Begin at corner appears to be an individual referencing his own website and spending a large portion of Gwen Shamblin's wiki page discussing court cases I assume involve him along with Mrs. Shamblin and others. Does this involve a misuse of primary sources regarding court records and personal information concerning Biographies of living persons - Misuse of Primary Sources? This wiki member's only edits have been to add in references to his opinion and slander concerning these court cases and links to documents on his own website that he has scanned in detailing these cases. Some of his recent additions either quote or are referencing documents that contain comments that the original party was sued for making in the first place and he appears to be using wikipedia now to perpetuate his slander against Gwen Shamblin. I don't want to get into a wiki edit issue, but I do feel this is not in keeping with Wikipedia's policies concerning unbiased entries. Thanks again! MarcD2010 —Preceding undated comment added 19:45, 25 July 2011 (UTC).
 * Due to some real life stuff, I've been very hit-and-miss here on Wikipedia as of late. I'd recommend taking your concerns to the noticeboard created for expressing concerns about our articles on living people. They will be able to address the issues you raise in a more timely and efficient manner than I will. Best, LHM 23:52, 25 July 2011 (UTC)