User talk:Oldperson/Archive 2

First an explanation. I blanked my talk page, because it is a distraction and unmanageable and a source for trolls looking for ammo. I can self revert if you think it appropriate. Getting involved in contentious topics is unavoidable and when I am lashed out at I tend to respond in kind. Shame on me at my age. The reason I am pinging you is that I don't know how to deal with the constant reverting of my edits by. The problem first started with my edits on Virginia Company the edits provided essential information, with citations, yet he changed my edits with the most specious of edit summaries, an activity that he consistently uses. I understand that if there is a problem with grammar or syntax that they should be corrected,but Dilidor reverts whole paragraphs and sections with the most specious of reasons. We have gone at it on a related page, Pilgrims (Plymouth Colony), for one example he claims that "The Mayflower Compact was the seed of American democracy and has been called the world's first written constitution.[41][42][43]:90-91[44]" and the citations are colored by bias. Non the less if true it was a seed, for the "Great Charter"of the Virginia company in 1619 preceeded the Mayflower Compact. It appears (to me) that his obsession with the Virginia Company and it's charters poses a dilemma for the Piligrim story. He has also edited many articles dealing with Native Americans and edits them to the word Indians. We got into a minor edit war over the subject, then I went to RfC for advice and decided to let it go. Here is another similar edit on his part, and accusing me of edit warring. It appears that he is the one engaged in edit warring.https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pilgrims_(Plymouth_Colony)&diff=prev&oldid=914309746

He also is hostile (reverts) any information on the Puritan Pilgrims, that cast things in a different light. Such as pointing out that only 35 ofthe 102 passengers belonged to a radical sect of Brownists, who referred to themselves as Saints. He leaves the impression that all aboard the Mayflower were "Pilgrims" a term that only came into popular use in the 19th century, save perhaps in New England. The Mayflower also stopped short of it's destination, which was the vicinity of the Hudson Bay, because it ran out of beer or mead whatever they called the fermented liquid they drank because it was potable. To replenish their supply of potable liquid (beer) they stopped short of their destination, and the rest is history, This is all documented fact, it's inclusion certainly improves the article,however it does run counter to a mythology beloved by a portion of the population. Apologies for the length but I do not like to elevate this situation, and have asked Dilidor politely a couple of times to communicate with me and resolve the issue..crickets. Early on I was terse, but subsequently apologized. Still he will not communicate with me as to why he wholesale reverts whole paragraphs with only the most irrelevant and sometimes farcial excuses. Any recommendations, if it is for me to back off I will be happy to comply.Oldperson (talk) 18:24, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, unfortunately this appears to be a long-recurring problem with this user. I do see some issues with some of your edits to Virginia Company but there's no excuse for him not working with you. I've seen him change wording to "American Indian" various times before, and I can look into that if you point me in that direction.--Cúchullain t

/ c 18:31, 16 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks my preferred course of action is to work this out with him. Cooperation is so much better than antagonism. If you would, it would help me in my editing, to point out the problems that I have in my Virginia Company edit.


 * Here on 6 September, 2 days after an edit warring notice on the subject he made some edits including changing Native American to Indian

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tuscarora_War&diff=prev&oldid=914303843 Again on Sep 5 here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peach_Tree_War&diff=prev&oldid=914171787


 * I am searching for examples, but here is one edit that seems to bother him, referring to the 35 Separatists aboard  the Mayflower as Brownists, which they were, for the euphemism of Puritan. Which is a step up because he invariably reverts Puritans to pilgrims, which he capitalizes as Pilgrims, this designation only exists in popular lore.They called themselves saints, not pilgirms. Apparently Bradford called himself a pilgrim in his diary.


 * In looking at his edit summaries, I see a constant and meaningless (derogatory) phrase"untwisting this train wreck" he uses it over and over again as though he was a potentate, but the summary is useless for someone who would like to improve their own edits.
 * The Mayflower did stop to replenish their supply of beer and it is documented and cited, yet he changes it as though I made the thing up

It is important to the history of America to explain why the Mayflower stopped short of it's destination (Hudson Bay) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pilgrims_(Plymouth_Colony)&diff=prev&oldid=912705499


 * Here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pilgrims_(Plymouth_Colony)&diff=prev&oldid=913027158, the group that we now call Pilgrims I wrote as "came to be known" he changed it to "called", when in fact they were not called pilgrims at the time.

Here is one you can clarify. If you want to date the start of the Native American wars in America you have to start with DeSoto and his pillaging of Florida (which included Alabama and Louisiana).https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=American_Indian_Wars&diff=prev&oldid=915177252


 * This is rather old, but provides insight into his POV, and uses inappropriate language in a summary https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dummer%27s_War&diff=807384273&oldid=807383244


 * Here is an interesting edit. He says everyone involved was a native American (lower case native). Technically true, but the citation says that 30 were whites and the rest were Indians (Native Americans)https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yamasee_War&diff=prev&oldid=914818483.


 * His edit summaries are either farcial, useless for understanding the reason (e.g. copy edit) but he edits (reverts) wholesale, paragraphs at a time, and AFIK that is not the editing guidelines on WP.Oldperson (talk) 23:35, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

It appears that editing and twinkle are being misused and abused. Please check out this revert and my subsequent revert https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thirteen_Colonies&diff=prev&oldid=916166748 There was nothing approaching vandalism in that edit he reverted, but he uses vandalism pretty consistent as one of his excuses for reversion. Apparently any edit of his edit is considered vandalism. The info he reverted was solid and factual, it contributes to the article, but it apparently conflicts with his POV.Oldperson (talk) 15:08, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi Oldperson. Some of the issues with your Virginia Company edit included style and syntax errors. For example, the first sentence introduced a capitalized "Which" in the middle of the sentence and the phrase "for one thing" which is awkward. Under the "Second Charter" section, you started a sentence with "And". You also have a stray space after the comma in the sentence beginning "The governor was ,". Under the "Great Charter" section, you have a capitalized "The" in the middle of the first sentence and an awkward comma placement. There are also typos like "eGovernor" and a stray space in "( House of Burgesses)". Additionally, you introduced a claim about representative government being introduced with no citation and passive voice.
 * I'll look into some of those articles where he changed things like the "Native American" terminology without reason.
 * I've left him a note re Twinkle. Hopefully that's the end of that.--Cúchullain t/ c 18:03, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the input on my errors. I probably should refrain from editing period. I have some serious medical issues, and eyesight is one of  them. I try to review my edits, but obviously don't catch them as often as I should. I appreciate your constructive advice. I have refrained from editing on his Plymouth Colony and Pilgrim articles as he apparently feels attached to them, and it isn't worth the negativity that goes with all of this reverting stuff. I would like him to leave my edits to the Virginia Company alone, after I correct the grammar and syntax. Or if he feels fit correct the grammar and syntax, however mentioning, separately, the charters of the Virginia company as items onto themselves, as well as dissolution of the company (which he reverted) is important and should stay within in the article. By the way what happens when one twinkles a revert? Just curious.Oldperson (talk) 18:44, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks - this definitely isn't worth losing any sleep over. No need to stop editing, but perhaps it would be easier to change a few things at a time. As for Twinkle, that's just a tool that allows editors with certain permissions to revert more quickly. I don't use it myself. The issue here wasn't so much his using Twinkle as it was claiming that good faith edits were vandalism though they didn't meet Wikipedia's definition of vandalism.--Cúchullain t/ c 18:52, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately is, when he does not feel personally involved, a good editor. After all he is a ghost writer, and much more experienced with proper grammer and syntax than most, especially me. However he appears to have a profound and personal interest in some subjects,and freely reverts using inappropriate and deceitful edit summaries, vandalism being just one, heavy copy edit(ce)being another.His behavior is a deterrent to new and experienced editors, especially those that aren't familiar with grievance procedures like RfC, ANI or Arbcom. Thanks for your attention aand help. His obsession with all things New England, especially the Plymouth Colony and it's spin offs, led me to conjecture that he is protecting certain wikipedia pages which are essential to him, I thought perhaps he was a 4th grade history teacher who uses WP as a teaching tool,or maybe an author (ghost writer) whose books are invested in a certain myth about the origin of America and it's democracy, thus his obsession with maintaining that the Mayflower compact was THE seed of American democracy, when clearly and demonstrably it was A seed. His obsession is otherwise incomprehensible, and any student who accesses his article (for he acts like he owns it) would be misled, as it is revisionist.Oldperson (talk) 20:02, 17 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I have attempted many, many times to interact with you in civil and helpful dialogue, but invariably you have become aggressive and insulting. I have told you previously that I would no longer interact with you for that very reason, yet I will endeavor one last time to do so. Cúchullain has taken the time above to point out some of the typographical and syntactical issues with some of your edits that have been of concern to me. There have been occasions when I have taken the time and effort to go through your edits to clean them up and retain the content that you've added. However, on other occasions, there have been larger issues with the content itself, and this has frequently occurred on the topic of Puritanism. On those occasions, it was simpler just to revert than to go through and clean up the typographical issues and to address erroneous or misleading content. This is not because I have "a profound and personal interest in some subjects", although that is undoubtedly true; it is simply because I want content to be accurate.
 * I will point out that your language and approach are inherently aggressive. Please read through just the paragraph above and note that you have accused me of "obsession" at least three times. You accuse me of being obsessed with a "myth" concerning American history, with New England, with Plymouth Colony "and it's [sic] spin offs" (whatever that means), with "protecting" articles that are "essential" to me, with being a "revisionist" (whatever that is), and so forth. Your suggestion that I'm "a 4th grade history teacher" can only be interpreted as a snide attempted put-down. Perhaps you do not intend to come across as aggressive and insulting; I have given you the benefit of that doubt on more occasions than I can remember, but in every case you have continued to insult and attack. So if in fact you are not intending to be insulting and aggressive, I have made one last attempt to conciliate and work cooperatively.
 * That was my spirit in working with you on the Mayflower article, which evidently offended you so deeply. Your edits concerning the Jamestown charter were out of context in the article on the Mayflower ship; the article was merely pointing out the significance of the Mayflower Compact, it was not attempting to trace the roots of American democracy. Nonetheless, I did not delete your contribution, I merely moved it to a footnote which helped to clarify that the Jamestown charter was also a significant document. Please also bear in mind the point which I put in a summary that the charter was a document issued by the king of England, while the compact was a contract written up and signed by the colonists themselves. I think this is an important distinction which sets the two documents into different categories.
 * I hope that this has been helpful in explaining some of my edits and reversions. —Dilidor (talk) 11:29, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

I apologize for appearing aggressive. To be fair, your edit summaries were not helpful nor explanatory and they appeared to me to be arbitrary and capricious,you kept reverting Native American to Indian, and insisting that the Mayflower Compact was THE seed of american Democracy, when I tried to correct (with citations) that it was A seed, not the seed. Your insistence that it was THE seed led me to believe that you were obsessed with the idea that the Brownist faction of Puritans were THE seed or start of democracy in America, and that is not true. I felt that leaving it as such is misleading, and can only wonder why. Also this Pilgrim thing is a modern term, Bradford may have called himself a pilgrim, but at the time they were Brownists and called themselves Saints. You say that your goal is accuracy then the article should accurately reflect what they were considered and what they called themselves, not how we "euphemistically" refer to them today.

As regards my contribution to the Virginia Company. I labored over it before I posted it the first time (days of research). Obviously I do not have the command of proper grammar and syntax that you do. I acknowledge your superiority in that regard. However the information in that edit not only improves the article, but is contributive and, say, a student doing research should have that information available.

I have spent hours correcting grammar, syntax, references and despite that I probably have missed some errors. I would appreciate cleaning up the errors, but not deleting or reverting the complete edit and all of it's paragraphs.

I would be glad to work with you and not against you, fresh start. Believe it or not this situation is creating tension and causing me physical discomfort. It isn't just you. I've noticed that most of the very active editors have a lot of experience in academia, and probably peer review (just guessing) I have none and am unaccustomed to this style of "communicating", meaning short, inexplicable edit summaries. Again I apologize for my behavior and wish to collaborate rather than fight. I will be reposting my edit on the Virginia Company. I've worked it over quite a bit. Please do not revert but communicate. Thanks.Oldperson (talk) 12:35, 18 September 2019 (UTC) =

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election half-way mark
G'day everyone, the voting for the XIX Coordinator Tranche is at the halfway mark. The candidates have answered various questions, and you can check them out to see why they are running and decide whether you support them. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:37, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

It is unwise...
...to respond to your edit being contested by following me to another page to revert my edit. Particularly when your action is repeating an edit in the lead of a contentious article. See WP:HOUND. VQuakr (talk) 03:29, 25 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Excuse me, if you check back over my edits with you, you will notice that I thanked you for your previous edit. I didn't contest it as you claimed, but thanked you as I thought it was a common sense solution. Out of curiosity I did what others routinely do, including Admins. I was simply curious as to your interests. After all that is why WP has links to contributions. The edit I suggested on Assault rifles was not getting even or anything like that, in fact it was polite. I WAS not hounding you, but you are hounding me. I don't appreciate this behavior from a person who apparently has admin privileges it is unbecoming, especially after I thanked you for reverting an edit. Since when is a thank you a contesting an editOldperson (talk) 16:51, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

This takes the cake. I don't know what to think of a person who can't take a thank you and views it in a negative light. I guess that constant editing on WP results in some programmed expectations of negativity.


 * Yeah, your passive-aggressive take on this isn't going to be as effective as you hope. Hopefully you'll exercise better judgement in the future. VQuakr (talk) 16:57, 25 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Passive aggressivity is not my style. I genuinely thanked you for that edit. Apparently you have too long dealt with revert wars and hostility that, like the cop that thinks everyone is a crook, you think everyone is automatically hostile or passive aggressive.

I am always upfront. And you are warning me over one supposed instance. That is an abuse of power.Oldperson (talk) 17:40, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not assuming anything and my feedback is not colored by some third party's actions; I am addressing your behavior. Not one "supposed" instance; one admitted instance. Take it as advice, not a warning - there was a reason I didn't use some canned template. Not sure why you keep mentioning the thank as if it were relevant. Also not sure what power you think I'm abusing. VQuakr (talk) 18:16, 25 September 2019 (UTC)


 * You are abusing your authority as an Admin. Your "feedback" was predicated on the false assumption that my revert was a tit for tat.It wasn't, but you won't accept that,and in fact you assumed the worst. Understandable because of your long experience with edit warring and vindictive editors. As regards "one supposed instance". If your warning, and that is what it was, a threat, it did not come across as advice. As regards addressing my behavior. What behavior is that? I thanked you for reverting an edit of mine, and yes it is relevant as it was a sincere thanks, which you then took as some kind of retributive act when I subsequently reverted an edit of yours, with a thoughtful and sincere explanation. So you apparently assumed I was involved in some kind of tit for tat war.But this raises the issue of WP:HOUND because you mentioned my behavior. my "behavior" if so  then what behavior are you talking about. Thanking you for an edit,which you claim is irrelevant, or reverting, in good faith, an edit with a solid and rational explanation, not one of those facetious shorthand edit summaries that are the custom on WP?18:44, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I read a comment recently either on ANI or Teahouse about new editors being driven out. I am not really new, I have been here for a year now (new enough I guess) but I certainly can see,now, why new editors would throw  up their hands and leave in disgust. Incidentally I have had some off WP conversations with folk who scoffed at the objectivity and reliability of  WP. And from reviewing talk pages, ANI, Arbcom I can see that, facts, logic, reason take second place to  consensus, and of course consensus is weighted and controlled by the bias, beliefs and prejudices of interested parties, as a consequence WP winds up being a propaganda vehicle for parties most interested, and of course have mastered the jargon and technique of appearing neutral. Neutrality is a veil easily penetrated.Oldperson (talk) 19:03, 25 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm not an admin. What behavior are you talking about? This violation of WP:EW and WP:ONUS. Precisely no one, including yourself, will ever believe that was a good-faith revert. Even if you'd suddenly developed an unprecedented interest in the subject, the next step after content is contested is the talk page, not edit warring. VQuakr (talk) 20:39, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * So you aren't an admin how about WP:DUCK, as regards WP:EW I am not accusing you, but you are certainly acccusing me, and our situation does not meet the standards of edit warring. As regards WP:ONUS I have no idea what you are talking about. Whether you believe my edit was good faith or not is irrelevant. Unlike you, who reverts with facetious edit summaries, I actually took time to explain my reason.  You made a mistake by over reacting. I suggest stop, drop and roll, stop taking yourself so seriously, maybe you have been editing so long that you have tunnel vision and are primed to see edit warring at every revert. Don't be so ready to take offense. Advice from an elder, FWIW.Oldperson (talk) 21:21, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

edit
I have your indentation on Talk:TERF to what you appear to have intended. If you think this changes the meaning of your comments in any way, please revert that edit, or ask me to self-revert. Lmatt (talk) 16:02, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

TERF
This comment appears to accuse me of at hominem argumentation. However, when I said that Crossroads "is misunderstanding policy" that is a characterization of his contribution to the discussion, not a personal attack and most definitely falls on the angelic side of "comment on content, but contributors" as far as I can tell. But I would be interested in hearing your perspective. Newimpartial (talk) 19:01, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * My apologies to Newimpartial. The structure of the thread in which I mentioned an ad hominem was confusing. My comment was directed to Crossroads and not Newimpartial.Oldperson (talk) 20:55, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

What was Grahams characterization of Downer (source?)
Hi,

I'm not adding the refs to that TQ on the Trump page, but here's the article

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/06/us/politics/barr-and-a-top-prosecutor-cast-a-wide-net-in-reviewing-the-russia-inquiry.html

and Graham's letter

https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/LOG%20to%20Australia%20Italy%20UK.pdf

soibangla (talk) 23:41, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks and mind blowing, especially Grahams Letter. Why won't you add them as references>Should I?Oldperson (talk) 00:17, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, I have all the refs for the TQ, but I don't know how to add them without them appending to the bottom of the Talk page, which is annoying. You can see it all in my Sandbox soibangla (talk) 01:49, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * {{u|Soibangla)) I already added them, check it out.Oldperson (talk) 01:59, 7 October 2019 (UTC)