User talk:Your Buddy Fred Lewis

July 2011
Welcome to Wikipedia. Please be aware of Wikipedia's policy that biographical information about living persons must not include unsupported or inaccurate statements. Whenever you add possibly controversial statements about a living person to an article or any other Wikipedia page, as you did to Talk:Harold Covington, you must include proper sources. If you don't know how to cite a source, you may want to read Referencing for beginners for guidelines. Thank you. WP:BLP applies to talk pages, not just to articles. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 12:54, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Covington
Hi, please take care to source anything in that article to the highest quality sources. Please remember the article at present is a WP:BLP about a person and not the organization - Please also be aware there are multiple complaints about the details in the article already and please consider discussing large expansions on the talkpage first. The expansion of the group/organization content should be better in its own article. I was wondering, as you are a WP:spa single purpose account in relation to Covington, have you edited the article under any other usernames? Off2riorob (talk) 09:23, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Did you see anything wrong with the content that I posted the past few days? I think it's pretty solid.

I think my sources are good. I use contemporary reports from respectable newspapers, usually AP or UPI stories. This is way better than "Myrna Estep ph.D.", I'll tell you that!

I did not create the section titled "National Socialist Party of America." So far as I can tell, all those paragraphs under that heading, most of which I did not create, all pertain to Covington.

Most of what I did in that section was to sort out chronologically what was already there.

The part that I added about the alleged Hinckley-NSPA connection is centered on Covington, because he was the prime mover behind the claim, and he still makes that claim in 2011 even though it was dismissed in 1981.

I am sure that you recall on the old discussion page where Covington insisted that he never said that he was going underground, and I pulled up a newspaper report with a direct quote from him that said that the NSPA was going underground. Maybe Covington himself wasn't going underground with the party, and I won't claim that he was, but he certainly talked about somebody going underground.

Sorry to embarrass him with the truth, but there it is! Saying that the newspaper reporters all lied about what he said is not very convincing -- to me, at least.

Wikipedia will continue to get complaints from Covington because that's the way Covington is. He will never shut up until he gets what he wants. What kind of man is sued for libel and loses, violates an injunction to desist from libeling the plaintiff, incurs a 30-day prison sentence for contempt of court, and abandons his native state to avoid serving it? This is not behavior that most people are accustomed to witnessing. The only problem will come if somebody unfamiliar with him naively assumes that all this clamor can only mean that somebody really did him wrong.

In the future I will take your advice to post the topic in the discussion page first, but it has seemed to me in the past that this didn't make much difference. People just ignored content posted on discussion pages until it appeared in the article, then they went berserk. Your Buddy Fred Lewis (talk) 09:54, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

No, I never edited that article under any other username. The fact that the Covington piece motivated me to register a username and go to work on it doesn't mean that this is a single-purpose account. I have some other topics in mind. Your Buddy Fred Lewis (talk) 10:02, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Bear in mind, the dispute between Covington and Wikipedia editors, as represented on the now-archived discussion page about him, goes back at least to 2006. Already in 2006, if I recall correctly (from what I read on the discussion page yesterday), he was threatening to sue Wikipedia. Your Buddy Fred Lewis (talk) 10:22, 23 July 2011 (UTC)


 * - I appreciate you removing the personally opinionated attacking comments about a living subject of one of our articles. It is insulting comments such as that the subject is loudly and deservedly so, complaining about, please consider at this time considering the complaints, as is clear that you are opinionated against the living person to take a step back and stop editing there. Thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 14:30, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I am not opinionated. I just happen to know the facts and I state them. Covington already mentioned on the old, archived Covington discussion page that he had a partisan within Wikipedia, and you are acting the part, Rob. I don't think you are going to fool many people into thinking that you are being objective. Your Buddy Fred Lewis (talk) 14:36, 23 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The insinuation you're making there is both misguided and unseemly. I suggest you be very careful. Single purpose accounts whose edits are guided by the belief that they "know the facts" are nothing new around here. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:03, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Demiurge1000, I am really sorry that the discussion page for the Covington article was archived yesterday, because if it were visible I could show you something that might make you think again.

I was under the impression that my edits were good so long as they were based on sound sources, and faithully represented what those sources said.

Off2riorob has not offered any specific criticism except that what came from the SPLC might be biased. On that basis he went in and removed almost all of my work, most of which was based on mainstream journalistic sources (mostly the Associated Press) that anybody can access.

How can you not see something wrong about that? Your Buddy Fred Lewis (talk) 18:36, 23 July 2011 (UTC)


 * If you want to look at the archives, you go to where it says "Archives" at the top of the page, and click the number of the archive you want to see. In this case, 1.


 * I've looked at the changes made by Off2riorob, and they seem to me (and at least one other editor) to be entirely sensible trimming down of material that isn't really directly relevant to the subject. Maybe he removed a little too much? If so, then we can look at how much can be re-added and how to phrase it. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:45, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I mean, I expected people to make a few corrections here and there, and the SPLC thing could be argued, but eliminating whole paragraphs that are sourced to the AP and UPI and clearly do narrate key events in the subject's life is over the top. Your Buddy Fred Lewis (talk) 18:51, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

This is about all that's left of my work: "In 1981 Covington alleged a connection between the NSPA and would-be presidential assassin John W. Hinckley. Law enforcement authorities would not corroborate the alleged Hinckley-NSPA connection."

Do you see what Off2riorob did there? He eliminated any indication that what Covington said was probably not true, which is the whole gist of the article that I cited there. http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=AD8aAAAAIBAJ&sjid=SSQEAAAAIBAJ&pg=4414,3778065&dq=hinckley+covington+law-enforcement-authorities&hl=en Your Buddy Fred Lewis (talk) 18:59, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

There is a real, big difference between saying that law enforcement authorities say that they have found no evidence to corroborate, which is what AP reported, and saying that law enforcement officials "would not corroborate." This is practically an insinuation that something was being covered up. It's a distortion of what the source said! It's "We have found no evidence," vs. "No comment." How can you not see that?

And then there is other evidence that the whole thing was a hoax (vague and inconsistent statements from Covington and Allen, total lack of any documentation), which Off2riorob completely eliminated from the article. http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=9d0hAAAAIBAJ&sjid=AKEFAAAAIBAJ&pg=1783,1752577&dq=jack-taylor+covington+hinckley&hl=en Your Buddy Fred Lewis (talk) 19:08, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

SlapChop Vincent -- I appreciate very much what you said on the Harold Covington discussion page: "4twenty42o and Off2riorob, Your Buddy Fred Lewis has been fair in the discussion here. I don't think it's fair for either of you to accuse him of being paranoid, biased, or having any ulterior motives and then not refuting the points he has made."

I have noticed on Wikipedia that sometimes when people don't like what somebody is saying, they start looking for ways to apply Wikipedia labels and Wikipedia stereotypes to that person, and trying to drum up an Official Wikipedia excuse to ban that person instead of dealing with the information. For their edits, if they have a personal interest in the subject, they will also frequently give specious justifications that won't stand up to scrutiny. They know the "right words" to make what they do SEEM justified, so long as nobody really checks.

I appreciate the fact that not everybody on Wikipedia is like that, and that somebody checks. Your Buddy Fred Lewis (talk) 01:11, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

User's Relation to the Harold Covington
It has come to my attention that other users seem to question whether or not the user name of Your Buddy Fred Lewis has some relation to Harold Covington. I would like to add that in the archived discussion (here) you will see that Covington claims that Fred Lewis refers to Eric Thomson and/or Jeff Spencer. He does not elaborate on this at all, or provide any reason as to why we should believe him. Just thought I would mention this here for anyone that was concerned about this.--SlapChopVincent (talk) 21:33, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Covington claimed that Eric Thomson had at some time called himself Fred Lewis and that therefore I was pretending to be Eric Thomson. If Thomson ever used my name as his pseudonym, it does not seem to have been a publicly known fact until Covington announced it.

You know, there are a lot of Fred Lewises in the world. I am not even the only one on Wikipedia. Your Buddy Fred Lewis (talk) 23:52, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Word choice
Please be careful of your word choices when referring to trans people. Wikipedia does not allow hateful or disparaging comments against trans people (e.g., 1, 2). EvergreenFir (talk) 19:09, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

It would have been nice if you had specified what you found offensive,because of course I have no recollection of using any "hateful or disparaging" terms in a Wikipedia entry, since that would be inappropriate for an encyclopaedia. But your political correctness may bar terms that seem perfectly normal and objective to me. So, please say explicitly what you mean if you expect to be understood. Your Buddy Fred Lewis (talk) 22:38, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Would have been referring to . Your use of "transvestite" and calling Miller a vigilante. Vigilantism is when someone takes the law into their own hand like Batman.  Targeting and assaulting a transgender person  is not vigilantism, it's a hate crime.   Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please  22:43, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Okay. I see now why I did not understand what you meant. It's because what you meant didn't make any sense. I call your attention to the following (rather obvious) points:

(1) Any crime can be a "hate crime." Vigilantism and "hate crime" are not mutually exclusive categories. (2) The person that Miller says he intended to beat was not merely a "transgender person" (whatever that is) but a male prostitute dressed in women's clothes. If Miller was trying to curb prostitution in Raleigh because the police were unable, that is vigilantism. There was a problem with male prostitution in the vicinity of North Carolina State University that police were unable to handle due to constitutional restrictions on the powers of police, according to one report that I found in a newspaper from 1977.

So, really, I suggest that it would be more reasonable, when you don't understand why somebody uses a particular word, to begin by asking for an explanation. Your objection to the word vigilantism is based on a strawman representation of the situation, leaving out the fact that Miller's intended victim was a prostitute.

Am I to understand that the word transvestite is now considered rude and insensitive? It is a Latin-derived word that is precisely interchangeable with "cross-dresser." Is cross-dresser a permitted word? I can't see why transvestite would be a forbidden word. I am sorry, but this is all craziness to me. Your Buddy Fred Lewis (talk) 04:23, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * "Transvestite" is typically incorrectly used. Rudy Guliani was said to be a transvestite as he liked to dress in feminine clothing.  This prostitute was almost certainly transgender.  If you don't know what a transgender person is (e.g., Chaz Bono is transgender), check out the wiki article about it.  Still, I highly doubt Miller choose his target because of her profession.  He assaulted her because they are transgender.  That's not vigilantism.   Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please  04:43, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Apparently you are able retroactively to read Glenn Miller's mind and you somehow know that he was not interested in suppressing prostitution, even though vigilantism is a traditional activity of Klan groups. Your Buddy Fred Lewis (talk) 09:48, 7 July 2014 (UTC) The "crime against nature" itself, with or without prostitution, was illegal in North Carolina anyway (North Carolina § 14-177). So you really have no basis for objecting to the word vigilantism as a designation for Miller's undertaking to inflict a beating on a male prostitute. Your Buddy Fred Lewis (talk) 03:33, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * All sodomy and "crimes against nature" laws were invalidated by Lawrence v Texas. I'm not interested in your defense of a bigot.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please  03:38, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

The allegation was about an incident in the 1980s. Lawrence v. Texas was not until many years later (2003), as you surely know or could easily find out. Your political views seem to be distorting your ability to judge the appropriate use of words in this matter. Your Buddy Fred Lewis (talk) 09:36, 8 July 2014 (UTC)