User talk:Uwishiwazjohng/Archive 1

Welcome

 * It is a little belated, but I felt like you might like this. It has a lot of useful links in it to help you understand Wikipedia better. Hope it helps. - Killiondude (talk) 05:18, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Message
Hello. Regarding the David Ferguson article note you left. I think you must have the wrong user, since I have not reverted any of your edits or warned you on your talk page. If I did, I must have forgotten, but I cannot recall doing so. Thanks.  Ollie Fury  Contribs  18:31, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Good to see that you 'whatchamajohng' decided to get out from behind the persona of the real 'CassandraR'. Warms my heart to see that you have mustered the composure to back out of wreckage you initiated.  And it’s also mighty big of you, 'CassandraR' to confess to a COI...now...now after inflicting uncalled for damage upon what was once a valid, resourced article.


 * You conveniently...now...seek to deflect yourself from what you created by claiming that some of your concerns/edits were legit. And we know how bogus and hypocritical that posturing actually is, don't we.  All one needs to do is to look at the posting of the Legal Cases sections. What purpose could posting these cases serve to overall integrity of the article? The links here direct the reader to cases, some of which do not have an outcome posted.  Do we know whether the cases were dismissed? Later ruled in subject's favor, perhaps? For the cases in which an outcome IS posted, the rulings went in Ferguson’s favor.  But really, the mere presence of these cases are designed to do nothing more than to instill in the reader an unfounded association of guilt concerning Ferguson. Planting that seed of doubt was the true motivation behind your 'contribution' to the article.


 * Not only are you guilty of conflict of interest. You also instead chose to recklessly vandalize the article, even going so far as to remove a some valid articles and legitimate sources, which is a flagrant violation of Wikipedia vandalism rules. Those violations will be addressed in due time.


 * And I know you like to thing that, because I wrote the Ferguson bio, that I'm somehow a 'sock puppet' or in the employ of Ferguson. Nothing could be further from the truth. I am an independent writer putting together a book on Ferguson and wish to maintain an appropriate professional distance.  Unlike, say, you Mr. ‘UwishIwasjohng',  whose efforts to contribute to Ferguson’s Wikipedia article reek of the need to gain retribution for past grievances against the subject.
 * DrJamesX (talk) 20:09, 26 November 2008 (UTC)DrJamesX


 * DrJamesX
 * I can see that you might be insulted that I pointed out that there were problems with your article. Please don't take it personally.  It was not intended this way.


 * Since you are a biographer of Ferguson, I would think you'd be interested in knowing the facts. Mr. Ferguson's legal history is every bit as pertinent to your article as the section about Barry Bond's alleged use of steriods is to his article or the section on Willie Nelson's bankruptcy is to his article. Mr. Ferguson likely a public figure, but even if he is not, there is no libel here, because there was no defamation, just a statement of fact.  Please feel free to post the rulings if you feel so inclined.


 * The article you wrote is one-sided and doesn't present the side of Mr. Ferguson that I and many of his other associates know. If you have not met those yet, I suggest for the sake of your professional distance and objectivity that you reach out to these people.


 * Also, per your comments to me on Talk:David_Ferguson_(impresario) I think you should check this page out WP:NPLT. I will not report you this time, but this is the last time.  If you'd like to take this issue to dispute resolution, follow this one. WP:DR


 * Uwishiwazjohng (talk) 05:43, 27 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Switchintoglide,
 * I know I have a funny way of showing it, but I really don't want to be your adversary. Wikipedia has rules and there are a lot of people who edit only the David Ferguson (impresario) Bio page and many of them have simply removed my legal section.  The rule on Wikipedia is that you can't enlist your friends to gang up on people (see WP:MEAT).  The admins will determine the outcome of this case.  But I do want people to know the facts, of which there are still shockingly few on David Ferguson (impresario).


 * I also didn't intend to pressure you to out yourself. However, unlike you, who seems to be sure User:DrJamesX is a man twice your age. Again, this is for admins to decide.


 * I removed my accusations about your accusing me of libel. That was your boyfriend who did that in his comment.


 * Uwishiwazjohng (talk) 04:19, 29 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Switchintoglide,
 * Per your comment on Suspected sock puppets/DrJamesX‎ about User:DrJamesX identity, see On_the_Internet,_nobody_knows_you're_a_dog Uwishiwazjohng (talk) 02:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Switchintoglide, let's make up
Switchintoglide, I see that you are trying to get help and that you are worried that I'm going to get you in trouble. When you stepped into this mess, you came in the middle of an edit war between DrJamesX and I. I can see that you are sincerely trying to appeal to admins.

Let's be adults about this and fix it ourselves. Let's do what we can to make reasonable edits. I want to work *with* you, not against you. I want this to be article to be accurate.

What do you say? I propose we continue to discuss the edits on the talk page and try to make the edits together.

Uwishiwazjohng (talk) 06:53, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I appreciate you reaching out, but I am really not personally invested in doing a whole lot of research for the article. What I am interested in doing and hove done is restoring citations that had been taken down, but I am not about to go and find page numbers in books I don't own or don't have access to in Libraries because they weren't published outside of the States. What I think you should do in order to cooperate with what I think is fair is to take down the WP:Sock accusations against Quotseeky and myself [User:Switchintoglide|Switchintoglide]]. If you have that charge on my account I will still feel like to are antagonizing me, and clearly your issues are with DrJamesX and not the neutral third parties. I also think that you should take down the accusations against Melrosechoc because s/he seems interested in providing page numbers to improve the article, but has had his/her work taken down (see the history of the edits). I have also left some comments on the Ferguson talk page. Switchintoglide (talk) 18:46, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I prefer to let the admins handle this. I was extending an olive branch, but since you have refused it, I'm not going to do you any favors.  Uwishiwazjohng (talk) 06:35, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Asking that you take down accusations is not "refusing an olive branch," I would just be more inclined to believe in your sincerity if you didn't make me into your opponent. You said above that I walked into an edit war, so you know that I am not the person you accused me of being, but you won't take down the notice on my page and I find that particularly irksome. I don't want to have enemies here, I just think that extending the olive branch means more than just saying "hey, let's work things out," it means a clean slate. I think you know that you won't have a clean slate with me until you take down that accusation. It's a condition of my acceptance, not a rejection.
 * Actually, I think that your timing is suspicious. That is what I meant. 64.175.34.225 (talk) 03:34, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Note To Melrosechoc
This is the second time you have removed the legal history section in the David Ferguson Article. Please read the discussion section of the article carefully. You actually did exactly the opposite of what the person you quoted was talking about. Uwishiwazjohng (talk) 05:25, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Note To DrJamesX re: David Ferguson Bio
I continue to contribute despite WP:COI because I do not feel that it is a problem. You managed to write for 6 months knowing Mr. Ferguson.

Furthermore, I have attempted to keep my edits to my section. I continue to flag references, and have even added a few, but other than that, I don't contribute. What I'd like to do is remove about half the article, since it consists of unsubstantiated claims, WP:OR,WP:FACT, and WP:WEASEL.

You, like others who have made their opinions known on the discussion page, seem to think that you can say something in an encyclopedic article without quoting it's source. I beg to differ and I believe you wouldn't have to dig too hard to find people who agree with me.

While your content may be perfectly appropriate for a sensational biography, by encyclopedic standards it needs work. That is what I'm doing. Really, I'm trying to help you.

Uwishiwazjohng (talk) 01:52, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

David Ferguson Bio - Cottonshirt
I am more than happy to accept that someone else might have a different opinion on the matter, and I actually think it healthy to have my opinions challenged, so thank you. I did read the discussion page carefully, and arrived at my decision in this way. If I were involved in the WikiProject: Notable Criminals, would I include a man who repeatedly defaulted on his photo-copier lease? No, is the answer. That he has done this does not therefore constitiute what you refer to as a "significant point". It is one aspect of the man, and it might be mentioned in a full-length biographical book, but I don't see it deserving more than a footnote in Wikipedia.

One could write a biography of the previous British Prime Minister that characterises him as an inveterate liar, and with good reason and plenty of evidence available to support the claim. But I doubt the Wikipedia bio of him does that. I guess you have to accept that almost everyone is dishonest to some degree but it takes some judgement to decide whether that is what you want to hang your biography on. In this case, I would not, but I respect your right to choose otherwise. Cottonshirt (talk) 06:25, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * My intention was not to "hang" the biography on the section, but rather to write a brief statement in what was once a very long biography to show that a man who claims to run a charitable institution (which until recently was supported by U.S. taxpayers) has legal problems with those he claims to help. The previous statement is original research and I can't back it up with citation.  However, it is a fact that he was named the defendant in 21 case since 1990 in the county of San Francisco, and several of those cases were decided in favor of the plaintiff.  It is not so much the Xerox's of the world that are the emphasis but the Jerry Freesias and John Glucks that are the concern here.  The small amounts of money involved here matter to individuals.  They are not large companies.  Uwishiwazjohng (talk) 14:51, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

David Ferguson - legal papers
Not everything that is verifiable is noteworthy or encyclopedic. Your agreement that no thrid party has discussed the lawsuits is again support that we should probably not be covering them in our encyclopedia; and if we do, per WP:UNDUE, any such reporting must be minimal. -- The Red Pen of Doom  14:32, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with your statement above and still feel that there are enough primary sources to support a brief statement about Mr. Ferguson's legal activity. This was my intention all along.  There are several points of view in the section, some better sourced than others.  Would you be willing to go into more detail about your specific problems with the section in the discussion page?  I believe it would be enlightening to all the editors involved?  Uwishiwazjohng (talk) 14:40, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

To The Red Pen of Doom and Cottonshirt
Hello, Having read all your comments thoroughly, I believe we are actually quite in agreement. I think User:DrJamesX has understandably misinterpreted what you said. I get it. I believe I misinterpreted at first as well. I'd like you to come back to the Talk:David_Ferguson_(impresario) section and leave your specific comments, if you would be so kind.

I have also included my proposal for the what the section should look like at Talk:David_Ferguson_(impresario). I'm not married to it being a section on it's own and am content with moving the statements into the context of the article if it seems that they are too sinister all together.

I appreciate your feedback Uwishiwazjohng (talk) 05:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Before I say anything else I want to make it clear that I am not an administrator, merely an editor like yourself. My opinion carries no weight greater than your own and it is merely my opinion given because I found a page asking for editors to offer their opinions in disputes; in a previous comment you referred to my decision and I am concerned about my opinion being given undue weight in that way.


 * Your opinions are being used to support the removal of my material, so they feel like decisions, but yes your opinion has been given undue weight. --Uwishiwazjohng (talk) 06:25, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * You are clearly passionate about this which causes mne to ask, are you really being neutral on this? Yes, the man has had court cases, and yes you have found a website for the Superior Court of the State of California that says so, but I still feel that this is far too close to original research for my taste. You say that you are, "content with moving the statements into the context of the article" yet you do not have any statements. All you have are original documents. I am currently writing the bio of an athlete on whom I am probably the World's Authority, having studied the man for fifteen years. I have his birth certificate in front of me but cannot say in his bio what his father's name is because no one else has ever said so in print or online. Your court cases are worse than this because they are defamatory. I have enjoyed our little discussion but I am afraid that I must now move on, can I please ask you to do the same. Cottonshirt (talk) 05:54, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I am puzzled by your statement about not being able to use a primary source for a birth certificate. Wikipedia does not ban the use of primary sources in WP:BLP last I checked, but perhaps I am misunderstanding the policy. Furthermore, I'm not exactly sure these are Primary sources, but even if they are Wikipedia says I can use them if I'm not being interpretive.  Can you please help me and explain to me what interpretation I have applied?  I have almost directly copied the summary of the ruling.  --Uwishiwazjohng (talk) 06:25, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Also, a friendly warning, your use of the word defamatory encroaches on WP:NPLT Also, your statement about my passion leads me to believe you have a misunderstanding about WP:NPOVT --Uwishiwazjohng (talk) 06:25, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The word "defamatory" in that context, btw, is not a violation of NLT, as the person involved is not threatening to sue any Wikipedia user or Wikipedia itself, or even suggesting they might (simply believes the court cases themselves are defamatory to the subject). In common parlance "defamatory" simply means "tending to discredit or malign". Re primary sources, WP:NOR is fairly clear: "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation." Making Wikipedia a reporter of primary source information which has not lent itself to examination in secondary sources would be in violation of WP:V and WP:NOR. Orderinchaos 07:00, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Orderinchaos,
 * 1. Is there any possible way you or I could know that User:Cottonshirt is not threatening to sue me? Is there any way I could know that the user is not in fact the subject? A gave him/her a friendly, unofficial warning.  I don't know who this person is and I feel I was being gentle. Furthermore, I did not say 'violate'.


 * You were being gentle, thank you. I meant it in exactly the way Orderinchaos interpreted it; the court cases have a negative impact on the reader's impression of the subject. Cottonshirt (talk) 07:48, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * 2. Please go back are read my statement. I am not defending an interpretation.  I am stating that I felt I haven't made an interpretation but am asking politely for help understanding how I might have.  I willing to admit a mistake.  I'm just not sure I've made one yet and no one has yet proven to me otherwise.


 * Here is the Wikipedia policy
 * Our policy: Primary sources that have been reliably published (for example, by a university press or mainstream newspaper) may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge
 * I would like someone to explain to me how my proposed section violates that rule --Uwishiwazjohng (talk) 07:29, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * There is a difference between "published" and "in the public domain". Just because you can access the website and obtain a copy of the court records does not mean they have been "published". Cottonshirt (talk) 07:56, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Cottonshirt, thanks for your help. That's a good point, and the one I suspected was at issue. My research in Wikipedia policy leads me to believe there is some ambiguity around this point, but I didn't find much.  Do you have any citations from Wikipedia policy that support your point? --Uwishiwazjohng (talk) 16:24, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Easy answer: WP:SYN says we do not make links which reliable sources do not make. If you do not have a secondary source - and the maxim "strong claims require strong evidence" applies here - making the exact same link you are trying to make, then you are interpreting the primary source. I run into this all the time with politics and government areas. A lot of the stuff appears in Hansard but is never reported on. We then can't report it because it's primary-sourced and contentious. Bit of a pain as there's a lot of useful stuff in Hansard, but it can only be used to extend on a point already made. Additionally, WP:BLP, which deals with biographies of living persons, is fairly clear on the need for us to be extra-careful with what we write about people, and that anything that does not comply can be removed by any user. An ArbCom decision last June (see WP:BLPSE) gave this measure real teeth. Worth noting that BLP actually stands over our policies as it came from the Foundation rather than community discussion. Orderinchaos 19:06, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Great answer, thanks. Okay.  I'll back down --Uwishiwazjohng (talk) 19:15, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Are Alternative Weeklies reliable sources
Yiloslime,

I made the clarifications you requested regarding my inquiry on Reliable_sources/Noticeboard. I'd love to hear your further thoughts on the matter. --Uwishiwazjohng (talk) 17:37, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Much Ado About Everything
Me thinks 'uwishiwasjohng' doth protest too much DrJamesX (talk) 19:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)DrJamesX
 * I didn't ask you what you think and I don't care -- Uwishiwazjohng (talk) 04:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Wait a second, I doth protest too much and you file a complaint on Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard? Hmmmm.
 * I was going easy on you at first, but I've decided you should be held to the same standards we are all being held to. -- Uwishiwazjohng (talk) 04:18, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Nope. I doth protest just the right amount. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DrJamesX (talk • contribs) 07:54, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Whatever.
 * I've told you this before and I'll tell you again. You should really check the history of edits before you go around accusing people of things they didn't do.  The person who removed the majority of text from this article is User:DoriSmith.  Not that I don't agree with her.  I do.  However, you accused me of 'abusive editing'.  What you should do is used the history to actually take a look at what I've removed. My guess though is that if anyone actually responds to your cry for help, they'll find it largely unfounded.  --Uwishiwazjohng (talk) 04:18, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Wait a minute...you mean you and 'DoriSmith' are not one and the same person? Wow...the focus of your editing activities have so marched in lockstep with each other, I mean...I just assumed. The 'abusive editing' I mentioned was directed at your 30+ entries since January 31. I find it highly suspicious that -- once your Legal History handiwork was removed and other Wikipedians rejected your subsequent groveling to get those legal cases reinstated -- you suddenly found all these other components of the article worthy of your objection -- text and citation issues that somehow had escaped your notice in the prior 2 1/2 months during which time you have run roughshod over the article.  Very curious. DrJamesX (talk) 17:45, 5 February 2009 (UTC)DrJamesX


 * Again, whatever.
 * Go ahead, DrJamesX, report us as WP:SOCK. It won't matter, they'll find that we're not the same person, because we're not.  But I encourage you to file the report if you are so suspicious.  I thought you thought I was John G.
 * And it's not suspicious that I started editing more assertively since my groveling and rejection. You held me to different standard than I held you.  I was giving you the benefit of the doubt.  Quite frankly, your article was full of unsubstantiated claims and I allowed you plenty of time to fix it.  Instead, you continued to add back cites that had already been proven unreliable, false, or non-existant.  I'm tired of that now.  And yes, it was spurred by the reviews above.  Is there a problem with that?  --Uwishiwazjohng (talk) 03:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * and who was it that, in addition to admitting a COI with the subject, made the following commitment oh those many weeks ago. Nice to see that 'uwishiwasjohng' is a man of his word.


 * Dori
 * I agree with you on just about all points. Agree with you that I need to cool off on this page and I'm going to stop editing the article too, with the exception that I plan on getting better references for the Avengers sections and lots of opinions before I put it back. May be a while though. I'll monitor the changes to make sure I agree, but so far, I think you are doing a great job. I feel that despite the COI, I'm capable of keeping NPOV and so far your comments seem to back that up. Uwishiwazjohng (talk) 07:55, 25 November 2008 (UTC)


 * DrJamesX (talk) 00:50, 7 February 2009 (UTC)DrJamesX


 * BTW. I know. You and DoriSmith are not the same individual. Perhaps a more suitable name for you would be, 'iwishihadasenseofhumor'. Believe me, should you ever learn about or come into contact with this thing known as sarcasm, maybe even cultivate a taste for it, your life will be so much fuller, richer.
 * DrJamesX (talk) 17:11, 6 February 2009 (UTC)DrJamesX


 * Yeah, you're right. I'm a two-face with no sense of humor.  You see right through me. I wish I did have a sense humor.  It's too bad I don't.  It's all I've really wanted in life.  I'm so sad now.  You've ripped right through the pathetic facade I call my life.  What can I do?  Help me.  Oh yes, and please read WP:NPA   --Uwishiwazjohng (talk) 04:10, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, if you consider my needling a personal attack, then the bankruptcy of your humor is even greater than I jokingly suggested. While I'm looking over the WP:NPA, you should definitely familiarize yourself and practice the policies found in WP:SOCK and WP:COI.  You might stand to benefit. DrJamesX (talk) 02:40, 9 February 2009 (UTC)DrJamesX


 * Now a merger between Ferguson and CD Presents?? Wow.  You'll try anything to eradicate the Ferguson article, won't you.  Definitely curious as to what about Ferguson's presence on Wikipedia gets you so riled up ;-)
 * DrJamesX (talk) 07:36, 12 February 2009 (UTC)DrJamesX

No Valentine for David Ferguson
There's COI...and then there's COI.

''I'd like to speak up here for myself because it appears that I'm being lumped in with a soapbox campaign. I, like Dori, have actually been attempting to validate these citations and even went to the public library to find some of the harder to find stuff. I put in the legal cites with copious sites based on feedback I got from a neutral review from another Wikipedian. I clearly misunderstood the "precendent" around WP:PRIMARY but as soon as User:Orderinchaos gave me what I thought was the first reasoned argument I heard, I backed down. Yes, I'm passionate. Yes, I have WP:COI because I personally know David Ferguson and quite frankly dislike him. I'm willing to just stop, but I figured anyone going up against User:DrJamesX needs help. But if you all think I'm just hurting the cause, let me know.'' -- Uwishiwazjohng (talk) 03:43, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Well slam the door on the judge! Perhaps you could call upon that frankness and go into more extensive detail about your 'dislike' of David Ferguson. Quite frankly, I'm sure it would make for some compelling reading.


 * DrJamesX (talk) 19:35, 13 February 2009 (UTC)DrJamesX


 * Go read the policy again, paying particular attention to this part:

''Editors with COIs are strongly encouraged to declare their interests, both on their user pages and on the talk page of any article they edit, particularly if those edits may be contested. Most Wikipedians will appreciate your honesty. Editors who disguise their COIs are often exposed, creating a perception that they, and perhaps their employer, are trying to distort Wikipedia. '' -- Uwishiwazjohng (talk) 04:52, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Sure, I'll gladly read the policy again. But in the meantime, could you please entertain and enlighten your audience by explaining your history with Ferguson. Feel free to include as many sordid details as possible. We readers await with baited breath.  DrJamesX (talk) 19:08, 14 February 2009 (UTC)DrJamesX


 * While you are at it, read WP:OUTING again as well -- Uwishiwazjohng (talk) 02:16, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Read OUTING, you say. Right, right. Got it.  But, while I'm engaging in something that has no relevance vis-a-vis my WP editing practices, could you please honor us readers with some tidbits about your history with Ferguson.  Quite frankly, I've been on tenterhooks since you mentioned your dislike of the man.  Now don't be a Talk Tease and throw out such a tantalizing comment and then walk away.  I'm sure, quite frankly, that your background with Ferguson, along with your generously florid imagination, blesses you with the wherewithal to really flesh out a spellbinding yarn.  Do tell.   DrJamesX (talk) 00:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)DrJamesX


 * You didn't read it. You aren't getting it.  It has everything to do with your editing practices. --Uwishiwazjohng (talk) 05:08, 16 February 2009 (UTC)