User talk:Longsun

Image copyright problem with Image:Becker.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Becker.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images on Wikipedia is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this:.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. You can get help on image copyright tagging from Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags. --OrphanBot 08:24, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Social liberalism
Quotations are a notoriously horrible idea for Wikipedia articles, and people are often advised to avoid them. A separate section for Quotations adds nothing to the article that the integration of those quotations into the current narrative of the article couldn't just as easily achieve. If you want to include some of those quotations, the best thing to do would be to develop the body of the article and add them in the appropriate places.UberCryxic (talk) 22:47, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Lester ward.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Lester ward.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created [ in your upload log]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 10:09, 6 May 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:09, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Lester Ward.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Lester Ward.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created [ in your upload log]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 10:09, 6 May 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:09, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Please do not make personal attacks on other editors
You appear to be new to Wikipedia and perhaps are not aware that it is considered bad form to make personal attacks against fellow editors. No one minds if you argue your point persuasively but when you make personal claims against longtime editors, your credibility is harmed. Stick to the facts. Don't make it personal.

About me, you made this claim in a wholesale revert: (remove what appears to be vandalism i.e. falsely attributing a quote to Commager. Skywriter has a long history of doing this type of thing.) 

I don't know what quote you are referring to, longsum, but you reverted a lot more than one quote. Further, we both know you have never encountered me before. Your claim about what I have a "long history of" is absurd for the reason that you don't know my work, have never visited my talk page to discuss any issue, or had a discussion with me on the Commager page. Your revert is therefore way out of line. I understand you are a newcomer and do not yet have a grasp of what collegiality means. I'm letting you know that you don't have to go in punching other editors in the face. You can try discussion and persuasion. Quite often, it works. I'm hoping that you will consider trying a different tact. Best wishes. Skywriter (talk) 02:40, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Skywriter
Hello, you may wish to join the discussion at Talk:Samuel Eliot Morison concerning Skywriter's edits - it appears to be related to the Henry Steele Commager and Skywriter has claimed on my talk page that you support his position, when it appears to me that you actually don't. Nick-D (talk) 09:02, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I object to Nick-D making me the header on this page, a personal attack on a fellow editor and have informed Nick-D of this on his talk page. Skywriter (talk) 22:11, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Your commentary
You wrote-- (If Skywriter was truely interested in racism in American textbooks he or she would contribute to Wikipedia by writing such an article. The record indicates that Sktwriter just wants to trash Commager) (undo)

I appreciate your viewpoint, Longsun, but your attributing motives to me lessens the strength of your position. Personal attack, by its nature, is not helpful in a collegial atmosphere. Your labeling me as wanting to trash Commager also happens to be untrue. I do not want to trash Commager. He is an important historian and I am a student of history. Just as historians write history, they create history in the process, depending on their historical point of view, or historiography. Co-authors Morison and Commager made a lot of money on their history textbooks, which were used in millions of classrooms in the United States over a period of more than three decades. For nearly two of those three decades, other historians criticized their viewpoint about African American people, which was stated quite frankly in their textbook. For you or anyone to argue that this is an insignificant part of the historical record is also not a strong argument. On the contrary, the viewpoint that American children read in approved textbooks had a great effect on their outlook and on race relations for decades to come. It had an effect, in particular, on both the African American and Caucasian American children who were required to read it.

Your argument would be stronger if you would produce reliably sourced documentation to the contrary, that is, saying that Morison and Commager's textbook was not influential, or that the history they included about African Americans did not influence the views of generations of school children who were required to read it. Absent your presenting any documentation at all to support your position that this material should be erased from the article, your position is extremely weak. I look forward to you backing up your viewpoint with reliable sources. Skywriter (talk) 22:11, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Report at edit warring noticeboard
I have reported Skywriter's edit warring at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring and mentioned you in the report. You may, or may not, wish to comment there. Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 08:37, 30 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I think that it has become clear at Henry Steele Commager that you and Skywriter disagree on the presentation and relevance of some material. Even with some intervening improvements, this back and forth reverting constitutes edit warring and should be avoided. You seem to have contributed to the talk page only once; a good first step in resolving this would be to lay out your points and references there instead of discussing by edit summary. If the editors involved cannot reach consensus, please follow the steps in dispute resolution. Good luck, - 2/0 (cont.) 13:38, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Sociology
Sorry I forgot to respond to your original message.

Bias? Nothing to do with bias, it's doing Durkheim no justice to present an article concentrating more on Comte! It is important to remember that whilst Comte got the ball rolling with positivism, so many of his ideas and assumptions have been disregarded. The article sort of separates Comte from the modern academic discipline by presenting him a section entitled 'origins'. With regards to those who misunderstand and criticise the discipline of sociology, I wouldn't like to emphasise the influence of Comte over Durkheim, Weber or Marx. Comte himself is not regarded a member of that holy trinity of founding sociologists. Whilst brilliant and hugely influential at the time, Comte's ideas could appear silly and trivial to anybody casual reading the sociology article. I'd really welcome a great quote summarising Durkheim's sociology, which has a lot more relevance to modern sociology. Thanks for uploading the quote because I know they take a lot of effort to type out. --Tomsega (talk) 04:14, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

S E Morison "Response to criticism"
I think that the criticism section of the Samuel Eliot Morison article is one-sided -- as I said in that article's Talk page, it's smug and pat. It fails to put Morison's writings in the context of the times, and makes selective use of the facts to portray the man as nasty when, at worst (and I'm not even saying I agree with this) he was perhaps a bit tone-deaf, historically speaking. But... You cannot fix this the way you are trying to fix it. If you keep adding this kind of stuff you're gonna get yourself blocked -- and I say that, again, as someone completely sympathetic to the need to restore balance to the article. I myself simply don't have the necessary background to do this at the level of scholarship required. If you do have that background, please dig up third-party sources which have discussed this issue and use them as the basis for a more balanced presentation. EEng (talk) 19:54, 27 December 2010 (UTC) (If you wish to respond, please do so here -- I will watch this page.)


 * Dear EENg,  I not sure what you are looking for. I have provided a citation for almost every sentence in my addition. It is inexcusable that such inflammatory charges of racism go on challenged and you are setting a very high bar for a response. I thought Wikipedia wanted more than just articles filled with long quotes from  "3rd party sources".  [Posted by User:Longsun]

As I explained, I completely agree that the charges of racism are out of balance, to say the least. But Wikipedia articles are not a debate forum. The debate on Morison needs to go on in scholarly papers and books; all we can do here is reflect that debate. It's Wikipedia's policies and guidelines (not I) which "set the bar" for this. Please review WP:NOR, noting especially All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors. It's not enough to cite sources for statements of fact; you must also cite any conclusion, interpretation, or analysis to be drawn from those facts. You've been involved in disputes on this issue before, and I predict there will be very little tolerance if you continue to violate policies such as No Original Research/No Original Synthesis. EEng (talk) 20:48, 27 December 2010 (UTC)


 * EENG Dear Sir, Let me ask you a question: Wikipedia NOR quidelines clearly state that "The best practice is to write articles by researching the most reliable sources on the topic and summarizing what they say in your own words, with each statement in the article attributable to a source that makes that statement explicitly. Source material should be carefully summarized or rephrased without changing its meaning or implication." Now it seems to me that the Criticism section of the Morison article is in clear violation of this standard. Critics of Morison have just pasted long quotes with no attempt at original summary. You let this violation stand yet hold me to the most strict standards. This leads me to believe that you are not unbiased in this matter. Please tell me I am wrong.

Please sign your posts using four tildes (i.e. ~ ) which will be automatically turned into your username and time/date. Now, then... You are indeed wrong. I've said I agree with you -- the Criticism section of the Morison article is unbalanced, in violation of WP:NPOV, and in need of overhaul. But the problem with that section is not the presence of the material that's there, but the lack of balancing commentary and analysis appropriately sourced -- with sources not only for statements of fact (such as the fact of what DuBois said) but also for analysis, commentary, and conclusion on their significance to evaluation of Morison's writings. Therefore, it is you that are letting the (very unfair) material on Morison remain unchallenged, because you're wasting your time adding original synthesis of your own instead of digging up third-party discussion which is more balanced, which you can then paraphrase in the article. (I have said that, as much as I bemoan the state of this section, I lack the time, background, and -- quite frankly -- the high level of interest necessary to find and make use of such sources.) I can hardly doubt that such discussion exists, because Morison was a prominent writer of prominent books, and this kind of subject has received a lot of attention in the last 40 years. Again I stress: it is not the Criticism material already present which is the problem, but rather the lack of balancing material (which would be woven in with it, not presented in some kind of separate rebuttal section). You're the one trying to add balancing material, for which I applaud you. But you're going about it the wrong way. EEng (talk) 22:03, 27 December 2010 (UTC) P.S. You said "Critics of Morison have just pasted long quotes with no attempt at original summary." Again I urge you to review WP:OR very carefully. Wikipedia editors may not add their own "original summary" -- that's specifically what WP:SYNTH forbids.


 * EEng, What you say and what you do are two different things and it's clear from your actions that you hold the critics of Morison to a very low standard. Good luck in the future.

In removing your additions to the article I have not done anything that any of thousands of other editors wouldn't do -- must do -- if I hadn't done it first. However, I also did what many others wouldn't: I took the time to contact you, to applaud your goals and point you to rules you must follow lest you continue to undermine yourself. Your response is to impugn my motives. Since you insist on shooting yourself in the foot I guess poor Morison will have to wait even longer before being presented in a more balanced light. EEng (talk) 22:55, 27 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Dear EEng, One final question. If I wanted to complain that a senior Wikipedia editor was unfairly enforcing clear guidelines, who would I contact?

I suggest you take a look at WP:ASSIST, but if that doesn't appeal to you see WP:DISPUTE. However, if your concern refers to me then you're laboring under another misconception: I'm not any kind of "senior editor" (no one is, despite cute userboxes and barnstars), nor am I "enforcing" anything. I've applied policy as I believe it applies. Iif you think I'm wrong, you should give substantive reasons instead of impugning my motives. I'm going to say, yet again, that what you're trying to do is noble and right -- but you're going about it in a self-defeating way. EEng (talk) 13:44, 29 December 2010 (UTC) P.S. For the benefit of anyone trying to follow this discussion, I refer to the following diffs:    


 * Discussion continued on Talk:Samuel_Eliot_Morison click here) EEng (talk) 06:27, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

S E Morison (again)
Hi! I've been away for quite a while so apologies that this is coming several weeks after the event. Your latest changes here to the Morison article completely ignored my extensive comments on the article's discussion page. Much of the material you have restored is factually or grammatically incorrect, such as the use of it's for its, and the statement that Morison's daughter was married to the NAACP's Spingarn (in fact she was married to Sprinarn's son). You also simply removed the translation from Spanish which another editor went to the trouble of supplying. I went to great trouble to research and cite these points, so please reconsider your changes in light of those comments, and if you disagree with my reasoning there, discuss rather than simply displacing the carefully considered work of others. Also, edit summaries such as (are you people on drugs?? times are hard, please act in a professional manor :)) are inappropriate, even with a smiley face. EEng (talk) 17:56, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Gumplowicz"System_Sociology".png
Thanks for uploading File:Gumplowicz"System_Sociology".png. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please remove the tag.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Melesse (talk) 04:02, 11 October 2011 (UTC)