User talk:Readsomescience

Welcome
The subject header "Homosexuality" does not belong in an article about the "California Gold Rush".' The context is not historically accurate / and not being on topic according to Wikipedia rules. The California Gold Rush ended in 1855... the first gay bar did not open in San Francisco until 1908 (Gangway). Numerous other historical events show that the two time periods (open homosexuality in San Francisco and the California Gold Rush, do not overlap, read my edits that were removed).

The California Gold Rush took place from 1848 to 1855. ‘Gangway” was the oldest gay bar in San Francisco (closed in 2016) after being open 108 years… the first gay bar opened in 1908; so obviously the history timeline is clear that the Gold Rush 1849’rs in San Francisco were not visiting “openly tolerant gay bars”. The first openly gay bar in San Francisco did not open until 1908, almost 60 years after the California Gold Rush ended! [The Gangway was at 841 Larkin St. San Francisco, opened in 1908, [city paperwork cites 1910] closed in 2016.

“Miners Ball” a painting portraying a same-sex dance in San Francisco was engraved in 1891… (again, the California Gold Rush took place from Jauary 1848 to 1855).. Clearly the timeline shows the “Miners Ball” took place almost 40 years after the “Gold Rush” had already ended. Nan Alameda Boyd, author of “Wide Open Town: A History of Queer San Francisco to 1965,” (cited frequently above as a reference throughout this section “Homosexuality”), states: “Lesbian and gay history in the East Bay stretches back at least to the 1950s.”... well, the “1950”s is about 100 years after the “1850s” (the California Gold Rush took place in the 1850’s, NOT the 1950’s… so clearly again there is a timeline problem here to say that the California Gold Rush history is related to the openly “Homosexual history in San Francisco”… the timeline referenced in Boyd’s reference is off by 100 years! Even anecdotal and “oral history” cited by Alameda Boyd relates to a history timeline that took place 100 years(!) after the California Gold Rush had already ended… timeline is clear - these histories do not overlap in any way. The concept that the topic “California Gold Rush” is related to "open homosexuality” has been completely debunked by reviewing in the historical time-period. The timelines ("California Gold Rush" / Open homosexuality in San Francisco) do not overlap - any doubts are cleared up by reviewing historical references and comparing the well-documented timelines for the history of San Francisco. "Open homosexuality” did not take place in San Francisco until 60 years (!) after the California Gold Rush ended. Nan Alameda Boyd, author of “Wide Open Town: A History of Queer San Francisco to 1965,” (cited above as a reference), also relies upon “oral histories from people living in San Francisco from the 1930’s”... and again, clearly the timeline does not overlap as the “1930’s” took place 75 years(!) after the California Gold Rush time period had already ended.  This historical timelines (and even “oral histories”) from Boyd’s reference also do not overlap. George Chauncey's, "Gay New York: Gender, Urban Culture, and the Making of the Gay Male World, 1890-1940". This book is well researched and clearly proves that there was a thriving gay culture in San Francisco well before the Stonewall uprising in New York… but again the timelines for the “California Gold Rush” do not overlap either… (1890 was 35 years after the California Gold Rush time period ended!, again no overlap in historical context). (The “Stonewall riots” took place in 1969, 114 years after the Gold Rush ended… clearly, again no overlap in historical time period). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stonewall_riots  The time period is 1969 when the riots took place, social history needs to be referenced for overlaps, there is none with regard to this and the California Gold Rush. The topic of “Homosexuality” (when referenced to San Francisco social history) with regard to the  historical time period of the California Gold Rush, simply is impossibly to be relevant or related to the California Gold Rush - the two time periods for cultural history do not overlap. The two topics are not related or even relevant to be mentioned with the California Gold Rush history. Historical references clearly show that the two timelines do not overlap at all, San Francisco’s homosexual prevalence did not happen until much later (perhaps as much as 40 to 60 years later! - an entire generation of people had already passed between the two time periods!  To make a false and historically inaccurate statement that the “prevalence of men compared to women in the gold mining communities caused homosexuality to flourish” (as flippantly stated above in this same Wikipedia article on the California Gold Rush) is a completely ridiculous and fabricated conjecture - at best -  for many reasons.  Firstly, before the twenty-first century homosexuality was not an open topic, it was not talked about or openly admitted as it is today.  Secondly, there is simply no social history or psychological research to substantiate that wild conjecture that open homosexuality was prevalent at the same time-period as the California Gold Rush; in fact the social history (for San Francisco as cited through multiple references) simply did not overlap in any way.

“So it’s difficult to identify gay relatives when most traces of their homosexuality never made it out of the closet, much less into the historical record. How can one draw conclusions about any aspect of people’s lives when all that’s left are names, some dates, and family relationships?”... History and science should be based on facts, history and facts (like business records, documented cultural history) state that open homosexuality did not take place in San Francisco until a much later time-period than the California Gold Rush. The word “Homosexual” was not even used until 1868 (the California Gold Rush ended in 1855). For someone to make a claim that the California Gold Rush influenced the prevalence of homosexuality in San Francisco is a ludicrous assumption at best, and completely unsubstantiated; it is not an assertion based on the historical events and cultural history.

I added content regarding the historical fact that San Francisco was NOT openly gay during the "California Gold Rush", and further, previously stated that the topic "homosexuality" has nothing to do with the subject "California Gold Rush" for that reason. User "eggishorn" continually removed my added content showing the historical facts regarding the history of San Francisco (which clearly showed that the "California Gold Rush article" was in error... I am not the one who was "edit warring" rather user eggishorn - see the log, that user continually reverted my edits - without even attempting to dispute the historical facts in discussion. The reference book mentioned (by other people previously - amailia) even states that her account of history goes back to the 1930's --- well the California Gold Rush ended in 1855! I cited other references that clearly show San Francisco was not openly gay tolerant until about 1908... there is a big gap there in history... also about 40 to 60 years(!) passed before the subject of "homosexuality" was even mentioned regarding the history of San Francisco... so why does the article "California Gold Rush" have a sub-topic of "homosexuality"? its completely off topic, and also historically inaccurate, and not related to the "California Gold Rush". Other users engaged in blatant "edit warring" removing my content. Readsomescience (talk) 07:51, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

May 2018

 * Eggishorn reverted your changes to the article twice on May 13, while Mikeblas and North Shoreman also reverted your changes to the article as well. If you felt that there was a major issue with the article content and after different users had also reverted your changes, why didn't you start a discussion on the article's talk page and notify them of the problem so it could be discussed properly? You've been blocked in the past for edit warring and at the same exact article - wouldn't it had been a good idea to talk to the editors directly, start a discussion on the article's talk page, file a report at AN or ANI, anything other than repeatedly reverting the article as you've been previously warned and blocked for doing? :-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   08:00, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Talk pages
Please see help:talk pages and wp:talk page guidelines. Please sign your talk with four tildes: " ~ " and start a new thread at the bottom of the page (Use "New section" tab) Thank you Jim1138 (talk) 07:14, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Doing the same thing and expecting different results
This is your only warning; if you remove or blank page contents or templates from Wikipedia again, as you did at California Gold Rush, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.

You have now been blocked three times, by three different administrators, for this same behavior--as well as having had two unblock requests declined. Regardless of the truth or falsity of the content in question, a rational person would now try behaving differently. It should be obvious that what you've been doing does not work and will not work. Please achieve consensus on the article's talk page before making this edit again. NewEnglandYankee (talk) 18:34, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Thank you. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 03:10, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

June 2018
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for edit warring. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. Neil N  talk to me 03:15, 18 June 2018 (UTC)