User talk:Alanscottwalker/Archive 1

Archive 1

Crackel

I had an edit conflict with HoppyH and think s/he's right, so I'm leaving my comment here instead of there.

No, you originally wanted to "give Crackel credit" not to give him his due, but to limit his writing as an opinion that TVH was presenting as fact.

Onuf, Langston, Wagoner & McDonald, Yarbrough, Robert P. Wettemann, Jr. (who cites to Kohn with a mere "Also see" to Crackel), and doubtless others, agree with Crackel. So, this isn't solely Crackel's argument: it has gained acceptance in the academy. We don't have to say in our narrative "as argued by Crackel" unless we tack on all the other scholars. We wouldn't do that. YoPienso (talk) 22:22, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

You are incorrect on why I think it's important to give credit and treat fact and analysis separately, so we will have to disagree. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:31, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Season's Greetings!

Hello Alanscottwalker: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:16, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message

Thank you. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:42, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement 2 case closed

You are receiving this message because you are a party or offered a preliminary statement and/or evidence in the Arbitration enforcement 2 case. This is a one-time message.

The Arbitration enforcement 2 arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t) has been closed, and the following remedies have been enacted:

1.1) The Arbitration Committee confirms the sanctions imposed on Eric Corbett as a result of the Interactions at GGTF case, but mandates that all enforcement requests relating to them be filed at arbitration enforcement and be kept open for at least 24 hours.

3) For his breaches of the standards of conduct expected of editors and administrators, Black Kite is admonished.

6) The community is reminded that discretionary sanctions have been authorised for any page relating to or any edit about: (i) the Gender Gap Task Force; (ii) the gender disparity among Wikipedians; and (iii) any process or discussion relating to these topics, all broadly construed.

For the Arbitration Committee, Kharkiv07 (T) 02:41, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Arbitration enforcement 2 case closed

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	For your great work, against overwhelming odds, in defending the conflict of interest guideline. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 23:43, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Alanscottwalker!

Happy New Year!

Alanscottwalker,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:57, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Savvyjack23 (talk) — is wishing you a Happy New Year! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the New Year cheer by adding {{subst:New Year 1}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Savvyjack23 (talk) 08:09, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited National Society of Black Physicists, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page James Davenport. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:17, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for supporting my RfA

	Hawkeye7 RfA Appreciation award
	Thank you for participating in and supporting my RfA. And for your comments. Very much appreciated. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:00, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for supporting my RfA

	Brianhe RfA Appreciation award
	Thank you for participating at my RfA. Your support was very much appreciated even if I did get a bit scorched. Brianhe (talk) 07:49, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Quick note

You are completely misunderstanding what I am writing on Jimbo's Talk page. I do understand the license we grant to the content we create; that has nothing to do with what I am talking about. I hope you will reconsider what you are understand I am saying. Jytdog (talk) 17:00, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Oh I understand - you are complaining about control, just think about that and think hard. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:03, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Um, "control" is kind of the issue but not really. There are two issues. One is about the platform we all work on, that enables everything we do. The other is about the WMF's relationship with us. (neither is about content per se; it is kind of about control with regard to the tools and the one-way nature of the relationship when it comes to making decisions) But hey look - I am telling you that you are not understanding me. You have clearly judged me negatively based on your misunderstanding. You can stick with that if you like, but it is a waste of time for both of us. Like I said, I would be happy to answer any questions you have about what I what I am saying. Jytdog (talk) 17:14, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

No. I do understand. It's often the same thing over and over again in Wikipedia - people regularly come to a place where they just cannot deal with its set-up. It is unfortunate but, then they always blame it on others - as if they didn't know that others are what they would have to deal with going in. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:24, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

You do not understand and are misjudging based on your misunderstanding. I am OK with things the way they are. The tools are pretty crappy and archaic but they work. The WMF board is working on making radical changes to the tools we use and they are not talking to us about that, and according to Doc James he disagreed and that is why he was dismissed. I cannot say it more concisely than that. I don't mind people disagreeing with what I am actually saying (this happens all the time) but you don't seem interested in understanding what I am saying, so I am not going to take up more time with this for now. If you become interested in discussing what I am actually saying, I would be happy to talk. Jytdog (talk) 17:40, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

About your last note on Jimbo's page. Yes you gave me some insight that I lacked into how wikipedia.org fits into the KE picture. I acknowledged that. Nobody is perfect; we are all limited creatures. Being able to learn and acknowledge mistakes is not a sign of weakness. I do understand that in the forum-flaming world, acknowledging that you learned something or made a mistake is devastating. I don't live in that world. Apparently you do. And again, that is your deal. I am sorry that you have taken this antagonistic stance - I have seen you around WP and you do some good things here. Ah well. Jytdog (talk) 18:07, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

You are the one who came out accusing and saying bad things about people. If you have not learned that draws response by now, sorry. I have only responded to the very things you have said. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:25, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Most of what you have written was not about what I actually said, but rather what you thought I was talking about. I am sorry that you still don't understand what the issues are and are remaining antagonistic instead of dealing with them. They are important to all of us in my view. Anyway, good luck to you, and see you around. Jytdog (talk) 18:28, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

You are the one who started off antagonistic. I understand very well. I have dealt with the exact things you have said. You don't like what I understand, fine. That is your problem. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:37, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

"Who was right" seems to be more important to you than dealing with the core of the matter, however messy it is to get there, and you still have said nothing about the actual issues I am raising nor am I sure that you even understand them. I had a better impression of you than this. I am unwatching your page now, but if you want to actually talk, please ping me. Again, good luck to you. Jytdog (talk) 18:41, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Everything you say gets more ridiculous - so, I should care about your impression of me? - I see you do not know how to handle disagreement, without trying to get personal. I have responded to exactly what you said. The information and the ideas -- I cannot help it if you raise claims based on misinformation, except to correct your misinformation. I cannot help it that you complain about using content and then say you are not complaining about using content. I cannot help it, that you think badly of people. Every thoughtful Wikipedian knows that, your approach, with thinking badly about people, is precisely unworkable. It means you don't read what they write, things as simple as, "wikipedia.org." Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:57, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi just thought I would check back and see if you wrote back. I cannot figure out how to talk with you, when you keep responding to things I am not saying (but are insisting I am saying). It is really frustrating for me, and I reckon it is for you to. I have no idea what you are saying, and you have no idea what I am saying. I am convinced you are not actually reacting to what I am saying, and you are convinced that you are. I have normal conversations all the time here, and I sense that you do too. So somehow we are just missing each other by miles. Crazy. I don't know how to fix it. Do you? (re-watching) Jytdog (talk) 07:17, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

When multiple people are using words like trolling, paranoia, (or what I think, ABF) you know, perhaps you should rethink your approach. Not only, can no one have any useful conversation with someone who keeps crying, 'liar' - it really shows that it is impossible for you to think about others points-of-view. Let alone being actually careful about your facts. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:26, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

I asked you how you and I can re-set our discussion, and you continue to frame this as only my issue. OK then. Jytdog (talk) 17:34, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, I am not seeking to make a point, let alone a conversation, you are. And I am informing you how in my view it would be worthwhile to go about it, otherwise, it is not worthwhile. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:46, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Black Metropolis

— Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:02, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm sure I didn't express myself well

Re: Jty's saying "I'm done." I was trying to say that Jty is not welcomed on that page anymore - calling Jimbo a liar pretty much ensures that. I occasionally moderate Jimbo's talk page, in line with what he has stated several times, that others should moderate the page. So when Jty says he's done on the page, he's done. I'll just remove anything he adds from here on out. So there is no need for you to criticize Jty there (he can't answer). I didn't mean to say that you are not welcomed on that page. Sorry for not spelling it all out the first time. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:37, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Still working on a draft,

but your comments are welcome.

See User:Smallbones/vital_articles#Draft_write-up

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 04:48, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

@Smallbones: Thanks, I do appreciate it. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:25, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 30

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Miguel I of Portugal, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Absolutism. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:44, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Accusation of falsified credentials

Hi Alanscottwalker,

I trust you're fine. I want to let you know that I forwarded my credentials and employment document to the OTRS team. Thanks. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 14:36, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom

If this was the comment you were referring to in your recent post at ArbCom, then I completely agree with you. There is no place for such a blatant attack here. - ^theWOLFchild 22:20, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Augustus Saint-Gaudens, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Grant Park. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:56, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Wikicology arbitration case opened

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wikicology. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wikicology/Evidence. Please add your evidence by April 22, 2016, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wikicology/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:57, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

The message was sent using the case's MassMessage list. Unless you are a party, you may remove your name from the list to stop receiving notifications regarding the case.

WT:RFA

Hey Alanscottwalker, I was thinking more about what you said on WT:RFA, but I don't want to fill up that thread with an aside. I think that most new admins are active, for a while anyway. Activity does tend to wear off as time goes on, it begins to feel more like work, more repetitive etc. You're also right that the work is uninteresting for the most part, but I think the same could be said of any activity on here. Wikipedia isn't a roller-coaster; nothing that happens here is going to stimulate a dopamine reaction in the brain. People will contribute here if they feel that they get something out of it - an intrinsic sense of helping out being the ideal motivation, but everyone well knows that others exist. I personally would like to think that, in some small way, it matters. I am also fascinated by these discussions in general, and how much emphasis people put on these made-up roles on internet websites.

Anyway, I was just wondering what you thought would fix the problem then. What benefit would there be from removing the inactive admins? They could well have requested the tools with "impure" motivations, and after realizing that they didn't get more power, they just got more responsibility, they back off. But how will removing the "dead weight" change anything? I am just thinking that most of what you say about adminship could be applied to editing here in general, and I'm not seeing why adminship should be so different / important in comparison. And ultimately, if someone shows up who doesn't spend their whole life here, but still is around, then where is the harm in them becoming admins? Ajraddatz (talk) 23:35, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

User:Ajraddatz: Not ignoring this but there are many responses to make and remember the question being asked was why people don't do it; something along the lines of 'it does not look like a good job and people are not trying to make it look worthwhile' is responsive to the question. I have more thoughts on how to respond here on larger and smaller issues and will get back. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:58, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Gamaliel and others arbitration case opened

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gamaliel and others. The scope of this case is Gamaliel's recent actions (both administrative and otherwise), especially related to the Signpost April Fools Joke. The case will also examine the conduct of other editors who are directly involved in disputes with Gamaliel. The case is strictly intended to examine user conduct and alleged policy violations and will not examine broader topic areas. The clerks have been instructed to remove evidence which does not meet these requirements. The drafters will add additional parties as required during the case. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gamaliel and others/Evidence.

Please add your evidence by May 2, 2016, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gamaliel and others/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. This notification is being sent to those listed on the case notification list. If you do not wish to recieve further notifications, you are welcome to opt-out on that page. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:39, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

George Tucker

We've done a fair amount of work on the presidents' articles and I thought I'd solicit your help with a FA nom on a biography I have worked on. The George Tucker (politician) nom needs a source review and there have been no takers on the request. Regardless, I think you'd enjoy the article. Cheers. Hoppyh (talk) 20:55, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the article and the kind invitation. I'll never, say never, but best to look elsewhere, at this time, sorry. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:27, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Comment at Arbcom case

Hi Alanscottwalker, Per my comment at WT:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gamaliel and others/Proposed decision#Ryk72.27s section, parts of your preceding comment are unclear to me. Would it be possible to clarify the meaning of the parenthesis in You did something those who saw it say is vile (and think you should have too) and were educated on policy. Thanks in advance for any response. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 19:14, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Tribune-publishing-logo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Tribune-publishing-logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:14, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Giant boobs on the Tamar Bridge, or not

Hi Alan. I was prevented from replying to you at the A/N page, as the thread has been closed again. So I thought I had better reply directly to you here:

"The Coppafeel source has a picture (taken at the half-way point, with the walkers facing Plymouth), with no costumes and just says "a boob walk across the iconic Tamar Bridge". The Herald Express says "But before crossing the Tamar Bridge from Cornwall into Devon they were made to remove their big boob costumes to avoid startling motorists" but has a picture of them with their costumes on (taken in sunshine, on the east side, presumably before they started walking). So the word "pending" would be key, I think. Neither source definitely says they walked only one way. I am suggesting that the sources are rather scant and open to interpretation. And I've suggested that Ritchie33 edited in totally good faith to try and preserve what he thought was the more accurate hook. That's about it, really. I didn't expect to be described as "someone who likes to misunderstand everything only to defend a wikifriend."

Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:39, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

First, I did not describe you at all, as anyone's friend, or otherwise. "Pending" was removed by Ritchie per the diffs. Last, what you are calling "interpretation" is OR. Yes, people make good faith mistakes, it's important to own them when they occur especially for admin acts. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:49, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. No, I'm not claiming you did describe me like that. That was Fram, as you'll see from the thread. I thought that was a pertinent comment about how that discussion had unfolded. I've just posted what I was about to add at the thread. I don't see any diff from Fram showing that Ritchie had removed "pending", or any asking why. As for interpretation of "before crossing the Tamar Bridge from Cornwall into Devon" - that phrasing suggests very strongly to me that they were wearing those costumes in Cornwall. I think that the border between "interpretation" and "OR" is sometimes indistinct. You may have seen that Ritchie himself has now removed all mention of the walk from the article with the edit summary: "rm off topic trivia only supported to a local source", so it seems like he's had second thoughts about its value. I still think Fram's approach was wholly uncalled for and over the top, "wikifriend" or not. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:02, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

OK on the first, I just did not want anyone to think I described you. That diff of Ritchie removing "pending" was provided as part of the sequence, but here it is again [1]. Whether they wore them in Cornwall or not seems quite irrelevant to carrying them on the bridge, as they could wear them in Cornwall and not carry them on the bridge. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:12, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

That's perfectly fair. I'd not want anyone to think that. Now I see that link - sorry it's the first time I've seen that. And I'm not sure why Ritchie made that change - the edit summary is a bit cryptic. Those breast costumes are quite odd aren't they. They have little hand images on the sides (as if they were being "carried", or indeed being fondled). They are obviously meant to look amusing. In the photo it's hard to determine if they are being worn or are being carried, i.e. held in front by each person. As regards the walking, personally, on the basis of the photos, I'd guess they had first walked westwards with the costumes on, and then back eastwards (from Cornwall into Devon) without them (they would have then been facing the oncoming traffic and thus would have been more of a distraction). But the sources are not 100% clear, are they? I can accept that Fram is fully justified in holding Admin actions to account, but is there really any need to adopt quite such a confrontational tone? Judging by other editor's inputs at the discussion, I don't think I was alone in thinking Ritchie had edited in perfectly good faith. I also think it's very wrong to impute guilt simply because someone has not responded. Thanks for listening. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:17, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

In fact, the sources are very clear to state one assertion: 'the costumes were removed before the bridge'. Beyond that, your or my speculation, while perhaps entertaining is totally irrelevant. As for your plea of "good faith", that also is irrelevant here. The claim was not that he acted in bad faith, the claim is that he misrepresented a topic/source on the main page, in an involved act, using admin permissions. Those may well be mistakes but none requires bad faith. One of the reasons we even have the rule against involvement is so that such mistakes do not occur. And again, when a mistake happens, what matters is owning it. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:21, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

The Herald Express headline is this: "Charity walkers forced to ditch giant breast costumes on Tamar bridge over fears they may cause crash". So we have to understand from that that the walkers actually "ditched" their costumes on the bridge, yes? In fact a normal reading of "ditching" tells us that the costumes were thrown over the side of the bridge, yes? You are saying that this is exactly what happened and is a certain fact? And I'm certainly not trying to claim that my "speculation" is "entertaining." I'm saying there is room for doubt, and for misinterpretation. And I'm not saying that Ritchie didn't make a mistake. I'm saying that Fram's approach is wholly out of all proportion and leaves a lot of people feeling thoroughly disappointed, dispirited, disheartened and demotivated. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:44, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

No. Absolutely not. Reading a headline out-of-context is misrepresenting the source. The source is clear that the headline is referring to them removing the costumes so they would not be a distraction on the bridge and no one actually in reading that article can conclude they threw them in the river from the bridge. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:16, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

It continues: "But before crossing the Tamar Bridge from Cornwall into Devon they were made to remove their big boob costumes to avoid startling motorists." Still not clear to me that they definitely walked only only one way. I don't think small local newspapers are the best source for establishing clear facts about something that happened 18 months ago. Sorry if you disagree. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:43, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, I and you did not choose that source to support an assertion on the main page, but it remains that it supports removal of the costumes before the bridge, and not something else done with them. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:49, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

We didn't. I think we might possibly agree, taking all available sources, that they could have removed the costumes, somewhere on the bridge, after previously holding (or "carrying" them) somewhere near the bridge, before walking, in at least one direction, from Cornwall into Devon. (Obviously another really catchy hook there, I feel). But, of course, we don't know for sure, do we? Thank you for seeking some kind of mutual agreement in this situation. Martinevans123 (talk)

Well, what we don't know, we don't know, and more to the point, can't say in main space. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:07, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree. But sometimes we think we know, don't we. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:56, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Four years ago ...

focus
... you were recipient no. 232 of Precious, a prize of QAI!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:27, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Dunning–Kruger

Alan

thanks for your comments [2] at Talk:New York.

As promised, let's discuss it here.

I think that any suggestion that another user's arguments exhibit Dunning–Kruger effect is a personal attack, and that this is a case in point.

You disagree? Andrewa (talk) 22:24, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

I do. If you took that comment as a personal attack, I am sorry for the confusion. It was intended to comment on your argument, not you. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:28, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

So, if the comment was not intended to suggest that I was a case of D-K, what was its intent? Andrewa (talk) 22:48, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

As I said, at length, that your arguments' appeals to ignorance were highly unpersuasive. It was you, after all, that descended into speculating on motivation on that page, thereby demonstrating your biases about nothing you know about, and that's just one example. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:00, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

And how did D-K come into that? Isn't that just another personal attack? Andrewa (talk) 23:53, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

No. That you would ask about the same thing over again means, we can go no further. Read the article, if you don't understand, perhaps that will help you because it appears I cannot. We have gone as far as we can on this topic as is needed. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:01, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

It appears that you consider it fair to raise D-K as you did, and will feel free to do so in the future, is that correct? Andrewa (talk) 00:42, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

The future will take care of itself, as they say, and I have no crystal ball, and as we have already discussed the past, there is nothing more to any of this. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:40, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Alanscottwalker. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

MOS proposal: listing successors to incumbent politicians

Hey, Alanscottwalker. I thought you would be interested in this MOS change I've proposed. I expect that it will be consistent with the current consensus, but you might have other perspectives as well. Edge3 (talk) 04:56, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Re: African Americans/Washington DC

It was created by P2prules (talk · contribs), whose articles are all original research and disconnected hodgepodges from other Wikipedia pages and God knows where, with atrocious grammar to boot. So after indef-blocking them, I nuked a lot of their articles, because what they wrote was worse than nothing. For instance, the "African Americans in Washington, D.C." article starts: "African Americans in Washington, D. C. are an old community, dating to the city's foundation. As of 2014 they constituted under 4% of the metropolitan area's population." I don't know much about this subject, but I do know that Washington D.C. proper (not the metro area) is considered an African-American majority city, so using the metor area there seems more than a tad misleading to me. If you want to play with the article, I can put it in your userspace, but... it doesn't seem to be the best starting base. Graham87 15:51, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Makes sense. Thanks. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:00, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Reference errors on 26 January

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Bessie Coleman page, your edit caused an unnamed parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:21, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Lincoln Park

I noticed your reversion of my edit on this page, and ask you to reconsider. Although Canadian geese may be a common name, it is not the most common name, and - the only thing that's important - it's incorrect. At Wikipedia that's is all that should matter. The singular is Canada goose, the plural is Canada geese. The geese don't have nationalities. This was not a random pickup by me, it was in my participation on the Wikipedia Typo Team. Again, I ask you to reconsider. Thanks.

Ira

Ira Leviton (talk) 21:30, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry, it seems 'incorrect' to say 'it's incorrect' in an WP:ENGVAR sense, so acceding to being proscriptvist seems wrong too. People call it by different names, one of which is Canadian geese, and they are not making a claim about its nationality. Alanscottwalker (talk)

If you don't mind my interjecting my two cents here (and I haven't looked at the article), if you are referring to the specific type of goose called the Canada goose, I would use the correct term: singular "Canada goose", plural "Canada geese". If for some reason you are referring to any type of goose that happens to live part of the year in Canada, you could say "Canadian geese" (there are other types of geese, such as the Snow goose). But since that one type of goose, the Canada goose, is so well known, I would limit the use of the phrase "Canadian geese"; it ends up being so vague that it verges on inaccurate or misleading.  – Corinne (talk) 01:05, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

You linked to an article that says, "The Canada goose is also colloquially referred to as the "Canadian goose".[8]" It also calls it, Branta canadensis, of course, which would, if anything, be what's needed to be "accurate", "correct" or "precise". It seems exceedingly doubtful that anyone is in most any circumstance mislead about anything. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:36, 22 January 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 Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Alanscottwalker reported by User:Dilidor (Result: ). Thank you. Dilidor (talk) 15:30, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

For whatever it's worth

I completely agree with you (although I'm at my word limit). It makes no sense to decline even an admonishment because the case doesn't rise to the level of a full desysop, when an admonishment is the vehicle to establish a track record of poor conduct, which in turn makes the case for a desysop if the behavior continues even after being admonished. GMG^talk 10:56, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

I have no interest in making a record against a User, my interest is that admins don't editwar, and settle the edit war with protection tools. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:11, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, mine was more of a broad point about process. I don't have any personal grudge against FPaS, and almost no personal history that I can remember. But I'm flabbergasted by the argument there that using ArbCom to decide whether administrators are expected to follow policy is proving a POINT. I think most people just call that the explicit remit of ArbCom. At any rate, I'm probably just rambling. GMG^talk 11:23, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Even more alarming is Newyorkbrad's argument that whether an administrator is guilty of de-sysopworthy conduct is governed solely by whether he thinks he is guilty of de-sysopworthy conduct. I think we're being taken for a ride here, folks. 92.19.169.150 (talk) 12:18, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

What? What matters is precisely whether he thinks it's desyssop worthy, it matters what each of them think is desysopp worthy, that is one of the major reasons they are elected to decide whether something is desyssop worthy -- the problem is actually somehow there seems to be a strain that nothing short of desyssop matters, which is the antithesis of actually calming and settling things before they escalate to irretrievable. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:57, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

If you read what the Arbitrators are saying, they're basing their declines not on whether the Arbitrators think the conduct rises to de-sysop level but on a presumption that if an administrator does something which the Community considers crosses the bright line which leads to de-sysop but the administrator does not then he is protected from sanction. Essentially, this argument is that someone cannot be prosecuted for mass murder if in his own mind he considers that mass murder is not against the law. 92.19.169.150 (talk) 13:07, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

No. And such overwrought rhetoric is worse than useless. It's just an odd reluctance to correct what should simply be corrected. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:07, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, what Newyorkbrad said was (and I quote):

But FPaS's error did not lie in taking a self-interested or "involved" action, because in his mind his entire role was as an administrator enforcing policy.

If administrators can self-excuse their misconduct then the law of the jungle prevails. 92.19.169.150 (talk) 14:40, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Actually, you missed where Newyorkbrad said FPaS was in error, so that following statement is not excusing it, it is rather mitigating the circumstances. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:45, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

What worries me about this case is that the filer pointed out that Future Perfect at Sunrise acted against ANI consensus, and when other editors attempted to restore the consensus version he edit-warred it out, and when that didn't work he full-protected the page to his preferred version. Effectively Newyorkbrad is saying consensus is of no importance and is tearing the pillars down. Also, where an administrator has been previously de-sysopped for exactly what he has been doing here Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia 2 and has been regularly "admonished" since, I'm wondering why nobody has pointed to the pattern of behaviour. Maybe you would like to do that? 92.19.169.150 (talk) 15:20, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

No. Whatever happened ten years ago, I will not be bringing-up, it won't help in the least, and it's ten years ago. As for consensus, I don't think there was any, but that is actually why FPaS actions were incorrect, nothing like 'murder' just incorrect. People, even Admins, are going to be incorrect from time-to-time - so just say, 'that was incorrect'. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:42, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Ten years ago ... two years ago Special:Permalink/701797478 ... the inevitable fallout Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man plus innumerable censures at AN and ANI. The line now seems to be "admin abuses tools ... others sort out the mess ... no problem!" Pinging @GreenMeansGo: and @Jbhunley: as this site seems to be going to the dogs. 92.19.169.150 (talk) 16:29, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

I mean, I don't know what you want us to do about it. It's like pulling teeth just to get ArbCom to issue a warning for edit warring and violating INVOLVED. The only thing to do about that is don't put those people back on ArbCom. GMG^talk 16:32, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Oh, please, this digging through memory lane is boring and there is no need to continue on my talk page. Thanks. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:45, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Reverted

AllanScottWalker, I reverted your reversion of my close on the AN page. I don't necessarily think stating the facts constitutes showing my ass. DocJames removed the videos voluntarily, that's what caused the original discussion to be closed down (not be me either). Jytodg initiated the original discussion and I supported him on it, as you can see in the discussion, and once the videos were removed, which is what he and Sandy Georgia were fighting for to begin with, happened. There was nothing further to discuss. This renewed discussion isn't necessary and , imho, constitutes nothing more than someone not getting what they wanted and because of that, they continue the discussion, It's far past time for that discussion to be closed down. That's why I boldly closed it.  К Ф Ƽ Ħ  14:45, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

@KoshVorlon: Stop showing your ass. Since, I doubt you don't know what facts are, and you attempted to state your opinion in that close, don't come here and argue nonsense. Escalating is not closing, don't do it. (Also, see BRD, don't revert after being bold). Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:02, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Stiers

Hi Alanscottwalker. I'm contacting you because I've been reading your insightful comments at the RfC with interest but I've been wondering whether you agree with me that the non-neutral wording of the RfC is a problem. Two other participants have agreed with me that it is, but I'm frankly a little taken aback that more haven't chimed in. I've definitely seen RfCs aborted and restarted from scratch over less problematic wording than what this one uses, and I worry about this one setting a precedent. I'd really like to know what you think. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 18:41, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, sure it's non-neutral, but just say the ways it is non-neutral , and in what ways it misrepresents sources, and what ways it makes it's assertions without evidence (or support) and give your !vote because you can't count on a closer knowing or seeing any of that. Lay-out all the sources end to end and after quoting them - note there is no way (in hell, if it makes one feel better) this is a BLP violation, etc. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:45, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Both of you have commented that the wording is non neutral. For arguments sake, what do you think is the non neutral part, and what would you have suggested instead? ResultingConstant (talk) 18:52, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

I have already noted ways the representation is problematically non-neutral on the page already - to begin with, the sources say what they say about what happened, not a single RS is offered to show that they are false. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:58, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

The RFC specifically calls out that many RS copied the story. The entire crux of the dispute is if that copying makes the story reliably sourced. If your "neutral wording" ignores that potential issue then I don't think its my wording which has an issue. You may be right in your interpretation of policy. You may prevail in the RFC. But just decreeing you are right and not actually giving information so that editors understand what the dispute is not going to fly. ResultingConstant (talk) 19:03, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Once again, assumes facts without evidence - there is no evidence whatsoever that anyone 'just copied' anything, and it defies reason and common-sense that these professional news organization just unthinkingly copy whatever to pass on false information. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:07, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflicts) All right, thanks. I guess I'll just add to what I already wrote there. I'd like to think that when such wording is egregiously bad, the RfC could just be deemed invalid rather than simply closed in the usual way. @RC: I'll expand on my comments at the RfC, and that should answer your question. If it doesn't, feel free to ask me. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 19:04, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

I make no sense?

OK, let's show some civility and courtesy and pick this discussion up on someone else's talk page. Now please enlighten me as to how I don't make any sense. Thanks Terry Foote (talk) 16:33, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Read that comment back to yourself that I was responding to, if you can't tell how it does not make sense, I doubt I can help you. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:35, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't remember asking for your help. So in a court of law, if an attorney says to another attorney "that makes no sense!" and then the opposing attorney says "tell me how that makes no sense" and then the attorney responds with "figure it out for youself!", I don't think anything would get done in anyone's legal system. So............I know you are, but what am I? I've given you the courtesy of a discussion of your points, point by point - I didn't imply that you're stupid or unable to comprehend things, which is uncivil. And you're still being uncivil.

Terry Foote (talk) 16:40, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

No, and court of law, none of this has anything to do with a court of law, if you don't want my help than fine. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:42, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

??

I've been civil to you this whole time, now you take the refuge of...........I don't know who. I find it very unfortunate that you implicitly cast aspersions on my intelligence, and then when I ask you courteously to explain what I've done to bring you to such a conclusion, you just remove everything. Can I safely assume we're finished here? Terry Foote (talk) 16:56, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

I've not cast anything, so you have to blame yourself for whatever it is you think - I moved the discussion because your amending a comment after I had already replied suggests to me this will go nowhere. So, we are done. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:02, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

There's a whole lot of "you're stupid!" and "you don't make any sense" and very, very little as to why. Thank you for this most enlightening discussion - time well spent. Terry Foote (talk) 17:04, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

False. Never, did I say your stupid, but of course I told you when you used a bizarre aphorism it made no sense. Your attempt to use 'civility' claims as a weapon, while you are flat out making up quotes, and pretend I said them, does enlighten me. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:14, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Just because you didn't know the various definitions of the word "emissary" does it make it bizarre. You just disagree with me, which is fine. Then you got really rude, which isn't. And then you tried to whitewash the whole thing by blanking the discussion, which is a sign of I'm not sure what. You've been, and continue to be, very uncivil. And you still haven't discussed why what Jimbo did was such a bad thing because you're too busy bashing me. Terry Foote (talk) 17:21, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

False. I archived the discussion for the reason I already stated. The rest of your claims are just not true. So feel free to go. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:29, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

RfC on "No paid editing for Admins" at WT:COI

I've relisted an RfC that was run at WT:Admin in Sept. 2015. It is at Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest#Concrete proposal 3 as there are a number of similar proposals going on at the same place. Better to keep them together. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 04:29, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Cheers to you, sir. One "wikipedian" seems to be trying to bully me, and I don't have the time to deal with it. I appreciate you bringing your experience and rationality to the discussion of the Pope Francis intro. Thank you. Remclaecsec (talk) 16:07, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

@Remclaecsec: Excuse me sire. Reckon when did I try to bully you? You're the one who started the condescending attitude in the Martin O'Malley article by calling my edit as being "silly", and reverting without explanation. You're too fond of eluding Wikipedia policies without seeking consensus on the talk page. Have fun and drink on that one :)). Bluesphere 16:35, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

No. This is a WP:BLP -- it is you that must have consensus on the talk page -- it's your burden and your onus to get consensus, as the person who wants to add such BLP material. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:41, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

BN comment

"Support - Gosh, you're responsible people, I assume, but more important, we have no need to micromanage in this way, and I don't want to."

I'm probably having a thick moment here, but I don't understand. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:36, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Forbid adults (or adult like people) from having a work channel when they think they can use it? I am not going to do that or support it. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:39, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

The curse of the autocorrect strikes again

Alanscottwalker, if you say variable one more time when you mean verifiable, I'm gonna reach through the ether and throttle you. EEng 12:20, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Gah, sorry, but feel free to correct the auto-"correction" anytime you see it in my comments -- that may be somewhat more effective than trying to reach through the internet, and I would heartily thank-you (for multiple reasons of life and limb) :). Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:26, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Education program

The education program doesn't control anything, it just facilitates. You might want to actually read the AE and look at the several community discussions already linked there at ANI and ENI, including the recent statement by the Education Program on what happened. Jytdog (talk) 00:29, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Exactly. It facilitated this. Facilitation means you are responsible. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:32, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Too facile. Not that simple. Jytdog (talk) 01:05, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Actually, it is profoundly and directly on point, and the only hope of effectiveness in the future. They set up this whole thing. Your thinking punish-blocking an account is really something, is the only thing that is facile and simplistic. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:12, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

This is the last response I will make here. You do not understand the Education Program and what its "powers" are, and what it can and cannot do. You obviously have not read what the Education Program tried to do to prevent this and stop it once it happened. Please inform yourself before you make more statements like this. This is a little bit like the way people offer very strong opinions like "we must ban paid editors!" without thinking through issues like anonymity/OUTING which render the banning-call impossible nonsense and clutter.

And as stated at AN this indef is to prevent future disruption. Jytdog (talk) 03:41, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

False. I have read and do know well the education program, and I know what they did, here. And have seen it through years of experience. If I didn't, I would not be taking them at their word that they want to work with EJustice and others in a less pressured time and atmosphere to find out what went wrong and to see if and how it can be remedied. Your punishment-block is short-sighted, facile and simplistic. Your retribution is going to be more damaging than the alternative of sorting it out this summer. The only thing obvious is you have now made disruptive and imagined claims about what I have read, for which you have no basis of actual knowledge. Then you turn around and bring up totally unrelated paid editing to somehow support your nonsense post. That you would do that only confirms your wrongheadedness. Alanscottwalker (talk) 04:31, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Clarification request

On Jimbo's talk page, could you edit "Indeed, and OID your absurd claim that a written licence is not proof of licence and that people cannot rely on written licence is absolute nonsense" to say "...and OID your (name of person who made the claim) absurd claim..." Right now it kind of looks like I made the claim, when in fact in my opinion it is a false claim. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 20:51, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

New move request for New York

In case you are still unaware of this discussion, there is a new discussion for renaming New York to New York (state). As you participated in the previous discussion on this topic, you may want to express your opinion in the new disussion. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 04:21, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

RfA

Thanks for supporting my run for administrator. I am honored and grateful. ) Cullen328 Let's discuss it 21:53, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Just be careful, what you ask for:) and good luck. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:17, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Glad I'm not the only one...

To hit the "archive" link instead of "show" on those collapsed discussions :) MLauba ^(Talk) 15:34, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, egads, and I just happened to look at my contributions a short time later and wondered where those edits came from. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:51, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Map of Illinois Historic sites 2012.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Map of Illinois Historic sites 2012.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 18:38, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

I just popped in to make the same point, but see someone beat me to it. I'm heading to Wikimania in the morning, so will have limited time to discuss this further until next week, but I would like to discuss it late next week, if you are interested.--S Philbrick(Talk) 00:13, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure what there is to discuss - I made the rationale, years ago - and its been illustrating the thing discussed since - I don't have anything to add to the rationale. We have no interest in original research. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:23, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

I have speedied the file as no longer used. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:21, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Change to RfC at NOT

You participated at this RfC; the proposal has changed a bit. Just providing you notice of that. Jytdog (talk) 17:34, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

btw that change was based on your oppose vote which was in view entirely valid. Jytdog (talk) 19:22, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Illinois Historic Preservation Division

Thanks for monitoring a recent change in Illinois law. Bigturtle (talk) 00:42, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Precious five years!

Precious

Five years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:36, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Sherman Park

Hello! About this, my mistake. Thanks for fixing it. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 13:18, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Well, it forced me to double chk, which is not always a bad thing. :)Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:21, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Emancipation proclamation

Although I concede that "Brian R. Dirck" has written that the "Emancipation Proclamation was an executive order", I find that questionable. The Proclamation/Executive Order dichotomy was, as I understand it, really an anachronism advanced by the State Department in 1907. The Emancipation Proclamation was given the proclamation number 95. It was not given a number in the Executive Order series, and is not included as an excutive order on this page. In my opinion, this indirecly contradicts Dirck. There are also sources which contradicts it more or less directly, for example:

The distinction between executive orders and proclamations was even less clear in other eras. President Abraham Lincoln directed much of the early Civil War by proclamation, including calling forth the militia. Calling forth the militia is now typically accomplished by executive order. In 1862, President Lincoln issued the first formally designated "executive order." But later that year, he ordered federal officials not to return captured former slaves to the states in rebellion in his "Emancipation Proclamation." In sum, there is not much that distinguishes Lincoln's executive orders from his wartime proclamations--apart from the title. Gaziano, Todd (21 February 2001). "The Use and Abuse of Executive Orders and Other Presidential Directives". The Heritage Foundation, Center for Legal & Judicial Studies.

Gaziano acknowledges the hollowness of the distinction, but nevertheless described the Emancipation Proclamation as distinct from an executive order. I should add that the term "executive order" is receiving much abuse on wikipedia. For example, just as I'm writing this I discover that Reorganization Plan No. 3 is an "executive order", which is totally false (also, see here). National security directives were until recently executive orders (incidentally mislabeled "Presidential Directives"). Those kinds of things makes me skeptical of any things that are described as "executive orders". Btw, I've recently written the page presidential directive to try to clarify these issues. Uglemat (talk) 07:28, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I am skeptical of the use of an advocacy group think tank piece, but I take from Gaziano that there was no difference in Lincoln's time - if we can get enough good sources, I would propose a note in the Emancipation Proclamation article, after the use of the term, explaining the distinction is academic/anachronistic, as one of your quotes in your Presidential Directives does suggest it's substance, not form - this might lead to greater understanding - see, eg. [3] a famous executive order to the armed forces (similar to Lincoln's) and most certainly not done pursuant to the will of congress. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:55, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

According to one widely used source, "issuance of proclamations by the President followed a tradition established by British monarchs and practiced by royal governors in the North American colonies and by their elected successors after the Revolution" (Relyea 2008, p. 14) I don't think "Executive Order" so denominated had such a tradition, but that doesn't stop sources from talking about it and "tracing it back", as is the wont of nationalists everywhere. I haven't seen a source saying straight out that "Executive orders were invented in 1907", but I wished such a source existed, because I believe it is the case. Heres another definition:

Presidents have historically utilized various written instruments to direct the executive branch and implement policy. These include executive orders, presidential memoranda, and presidential proclamations. The definitions of these instruments, including the differences between them, are not easily discernible, as the U.S. Constitution does not contain any provision referring to these terms or the manner in which the President may communicate directives to the executive branch. A widely accepted description of executive orders and proclamations comes from a report issued in 1957 by the House Government Operations Committee... https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RS20846.pdf

The 1957 description does say "in the narrower sense Executive orders and proclamations are written documents denominated as such". The Emancipation Proclamation was clearly denominated as a proclamation. The problem is really that one cannot object to Dirck on objective grounds. If he thinks the Emancipation Proclamation was an "executive order", then noone can stop him. But I think his contention is very unusual, and ultimately confusing. Uglemat (talk) 12:01, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

I did find this quote, perhaps of use (Unfortunately I don't have the books under the "further reading" section of presidential directive):[4]

Executive orders are the best known and most common type of unilateral presidential directive. They date to the earliest days of the republic, but the term "executive order" was not regularly applied to unilateral presidential directives until the late nineteenth century, and the first directives to be officially designated as executive orders were military orders by Abraham Lincoln. There is no official definition of what constitutes an executive order; there is no law—or even an executive order—that defines what an executive order is.

Uglemat (talk) 12:16, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

I do not know why you would want to have a source that says EO's were invented in 1906, since, read your sources again, we know EO's exited long before 1906 and we know that EO's after 1906 did things that proclamations did before 1906, it apparently just did not matter. I do not think it helpful, at all, and is actually harmful to try to understand this as if it is such a particularized thing, like a form of common law pleading - Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:12, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, the sources say that EOs existed long before 1907, but the sources were written after 1907. By "invented", what I mean is that (I suspect) the very concept of the "Executive Order" as a particular type of presidential directive was invented by the State Department in 1907. Directives issued in the past naturally fit the definition, but that does not mean that Lincoln thought about the "executive order" in the way we do today: "Executive order" was simply a natural thing to put in the title of his decree. After all, he belongs to the executive branch, and he is giving an order. Anyway, we digress. The more relevant point is that pretty much all knowledgeable sources reaffirm a distinction between "Executive Orders" and "Proclamations", in which the Emancipation Proclamation clearly falls in the latter category. Dirck's idiosyncratic usage is more confusing than helpful, although it cannot be "proved wrong". Uglemat (talk) 14:32, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

As to your penultimate point, that is not what the sources are saying, they are saying there was basically no distinction. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:19, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes and no. The sources say that there is no legal difference, but they still accept the basic classification scheme of the State Department from 1907, and they still use it, despite the anachronism. They describe the Emancipation Proclamation as a type of "Presidential Proclamation" (read: as opposed to an executive order) for two reasons: 1) It has "Proclamation" in its title. 2) The State Department in 1907 classified it as a proclamation, again, as opposed to an executive order. Uglemat (talk) 15:29, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

No. They are not accepting the "classification system" when they say it does not matter how you classify. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:33, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

If you accept that the differences are mainly of "form, not of substance", then surely you accept that the "Emancipation Proclamation" is in the "form" of a Proclamation? Just read the last source I quoted: "Executive orders are the best known and most common type of unilateral presidential directive. They date to the earliest days of the republic.... Proclamations are another main type of unilateral presidential directive. Prominent examples of proclamations include George Washinton's Neutrality Proclamation and Abraham Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation. Like executive orders, proclamations are generally written documents that the president issues to direct goveernmental action, and they lack a strict definition. Accounts disagree somewhat about whether or how these two devices differ. Legally and constitutionally, there is no difference between executive orders and proclamations."[5] Emphasis added. Yes, there is really no difference, but the classification is still made, and the Emancipation Proclamation falls firmly in one camp. The legal and constitutinal equivalence is best discussed in the article presidential directive, because that article encompasses both types. Uglemat (talk) 17:15, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

No, it does not fall firmly, otherwise we would not be discussing it. The distinction in substance is generally one orders the government, generally the other orders private individuals (in either case, to the extent he (never yet, she) can order them) - we already know there is a source calling the EP an EO, and other sources saying it's of no real difference from the EO. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:11, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry for the false premise of my last comment, which misrepresents your position. I have now found one source (a book about the Emancipation Proclamation) which directly contradicts Dirck: "...what was the reasoning that led Lincoln to emancipate through the use of a proclamation rather than an executive order or a general military order?" [6]

I've now found several other sources which also describe the EP as an "executive order". So Dirck is not alone. Uglemat (talk) 18:30, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm sure we're both tired of this debate. Let me just close by saying that I personally don't think the EP should be described as an "executive order", but I realize that I was mistaken in my strong conviction that there is only one truth to the matter. Cheers. Uglemat (talk) 18:46, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for stopping by, as you may have surmised, I am unsurprized and would expect sources to call it P and/or EO. Alanscottwalker (talk)

Season's Greetings

Hello Alanscottwalker: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 16:45, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message

Happy New Year, Alanscottwalker!

Happy New Year!

Alanscottwalker,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
-- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 23:19, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Generation X page

To avoid an edit war please go to the talk page to discuss it further. Thank you!Aboutbo2000 (talk) 21:03, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

ARCA

What's the arb case you're referring to? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:34, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

[7] You really have to consider, the inevitable back and forth of were those words 'clear violation' 'was that really a violation' 'yes, it was a violation, but no one should care', 'the way the ban is worded is crap' etc etc etc 'every enforcement is a naziplot'. 'lets have several rounds of appeals', and on and on. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:53, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I do note an enhanced civility restriction was enacted, though. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:07, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

You call that enhanced? It's all just a weird way through a tortuous process to try to say something similar to what was said before 'but we think this might be a little clearer because it's all just so hard.' And even then, that new wording caused a ton of drama later. Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:12, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	I appreciate your contributions regarding my topic ban as well as your thoughts on Arbitration Enforcement. --MONGO 13:09, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. And good wishes to you. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:21, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Andrew Jackson

I think this article is close to promotion to FA. I recall collaborating with you on other POTUS articles and thought you may like to take a look and offer your comments or support for promotion. Thanks. Hoppyh (talk) 19:50, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Another Daily Mail RfC

There is an RfC at Talk:Daily Mail#Request for comment: Other criticisms section. Your input would be most helpful. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:20, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for correcting my incorrect edit of Rockefeller's article. I don't know why I missed that "m." indicating marriage!! I only make minor grammatical edits, generally, and was surprised to see I goofed.

Best wishes!TobusRex (talk) 10:04, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

No worries. You may consider adding a pipelink with the 'm.' to Marriage, if you think that would help. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:30, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Abolition of slavery in West Virginia

Hi there! I notice that you indicated in the edit history that a map I recently made (my first SVG map, actually!) was incorrect with respect to West Virginia. I had been wondering about that, and would be happy to stand corrected. Do you know when and how slavery was legally abolished in West Virginia? Q·L·1968 ☿ 23:10, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes. See Slave and free states#West Virginia, during the civil war, February 2, 1865 by state statute if memory serves. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:14, 20 May 2018 (UTC) Sorry February 3 [8] Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:17, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Brilliant! Thanks very much. I've now corrected that (though you may need to refresh to see the new version in your browser). Q·L·1968 ☿ 23:23, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Your comment at WP:AN

Thank you for your comment. I'm glad that some people still understand allusion. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:49, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

social worker

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Doria_Ragland&diff=843668539&oldid=843646825 hi - shes not a notable social worker, is she? this is your edit - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Doria_Ragland&diff=843668539&oldid=843646825 19:52, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Sure she is, we have an article about her. I stress the article is about her, it is her biography, it should be written about her. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:55, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, I'm happy to disagree with you, regards Govindaharihari (talk) 20:01, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Your comment

Thank you for your comment, what's truly surprising is that those voting keep don't speak Spanish either. It was a simple machine translation of an article from es.wikipedia - there is a common "tell" in the opening line if you look. You may have missed it but they've now changed tack to argue that she is notable because she is used as the character in two romantic works of fiction. And I say they, since nearly all of those voting keep appeared after it was listed at a wikiproject and belong to that project. WCM_email 16:02, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Bell page

I removed this.

His blog is an SPS and is not useful as a reference for much other than his opinion, and we should not be reaching for opinion pieces on this page in any case. So the section is not about developing content.

You appear to have been using the article talk page to argue with him. The article talk page is not an appropriate forum for that, per WP:NOTFORUM. It is also weird, since he cannot respond.

I believe his blogs have comment sections if you want to argue with him. Jytdog (talk) 21:06, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Disagree. I have undone your edit, as you are wrong, per WP:TALK. There is no rule against discussing published opinion pieces on the topic, and it is about the content of the article, the article already discusses the legal standard of Carlile report. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:11, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

I'll bring this to ANI. Jytdog (talk) 21:48, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

done: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#NOTFORUM_at_George_Bell_(bishop). Jytdog (talk) 21:53, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Pushpin map at New York City

Could you please voice your opinion on the matter you discussed on New York City because the editor who practically ignored you is refusing to discuss or even acknowledge the fact he ignored you. IWI (chat) 19:44, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

RfC on which you !voted, has been amended

In response to objections, I struck the two year moratorium thing at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people)#RfC:_Amendment_for_BIO_to_address_systemic_bias_in_the_base_of_sources. I'm notifying everybody who !voted. Jytdog (talk) 14:31, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Mediation

Regarding this edit: I imagine you don't really mean the term "meditation" (unless you were trying to slyly comment on the original post which incorrectly used that word)? That would be a whole different committee... isaacl (talk) 21:35, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Odd spell check, rather. Thanks. Alanscottwalker (talk)

To

"If you want talk about those or anything else, please post on my talk page." Enigma^msg 00:28, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Thx. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:35, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Jean Baptiste Point du Sable

Just letting you know it's been selected as TFA for December 6, 2018. Hope you're doing well.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:57, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. Doing well, and hope you are to. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:47, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Wow, nice. Thanks for all your work on this article. "P.S." I can't remember where I heard this, but there's an apocryphal story that the local indigenous people used to say that "the first white man in Chicago was a black man". — Mudwater ^(Talk) 00:29, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I have heard that story too. Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:40, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the "trader living on the frontiers of empires in North America. He is regarded as the founder of Chicago", and for mentioning your helpers! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:31, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

You're welcome, but more like "colleagues" than helpers perhaps:). 18:58, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I have always trouble spelling that word ;) - I miss Corinne. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:21, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

That was a sad loss, and so soon after she worked on this article. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:21, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

I guess an honest question deserves an honest answer

The past few days, Dank said he was recusing from TFA error reports "pending a discussion with the other TFA coordinators about how to proceed" (all quotes in this reply are paraphrased, not direct, and I'm getting surprisingly upset the more I think about this, so I'm not going to look for diffs). I assumed that discussion was happening, since Wewalt started replying instead. Indeed, Wehwalt just said "one coordinator hasn't replied yet", so I think at least some discussion of some kind has happened. I couldn't find the discussion on-wiki, so I assumed it was happening off wiki.

Some combination of poor wording on my part, misunderstanding on my part, misunderstanding on Dank and Wehwalt and Jim's part, and general prickliness on everyone's part (including me) has apparently blown this all up. I honestly don't know where the crap about me accusing anyone of lying came from, nor how I've become a populist, but I have no stomach for an argument. If I could take it back I would, but apparently it's taken on a life of its own.

I hate it when discussions go all pear-shaped like this, it happens all the time on WP, and now apparently I'm partially responsible for it going all pear-shaped. I honestly wasn't trying to start a "dump on coordinators" discussion, and now it looks like that's going to happen, and someone is going to quit in frustration... --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:49, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Just so you know, this is all I saw. Someone making a compliant. Someone recusing from the complaint. Someone rejecting the complaint. And then you asking about a meeting somewhere else that you want everyone to participate in. So, that was confusing. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:55, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that was the problem for you after I left ERRORS, that's why I posted here. Sorry for confusing you. But I guess I assumed the coordinators would have known what I meant. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:01, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Ida B wells

Hi alanscottwalker, I noticed you reverted the introduction that I posted to the Ida B. Wells article back to the original. You cite that it was too long, but there were a number of important and substantive changes that I spent a lot of time documenting - and I do not exceed the four paragraph guidance. I'd like to repost, but want to talk specifically about what you'd like to remove from the original post to shorten it. Please let me know if you would like to co-edit a new introduction in a sandbox. 192.70.253.18 (talk) 22:03, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi. Two minor things first, usually you should put new messages at the bottom of a talk page but I will keep this here for now, and you did not sign in with your account, you should do that. As to the article, the one I reverted if I remember correctly was much, much more than four paragraphs. If you want to take another run at it (all your work is there in the history of the article, see the history tab), I would suggest you put a shorter version on the talk page of the article (Talk:Ida B. Wells) at the bottom. Title it. "Proposed introduction". I am sure we and other editors can iron it out. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:21, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

New York

I'd love an explanation of what you mean. IWI (chat) 18:08, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Look, we got off on the wrong foot. I felt, at the time, that you were saying my opinion was invalid because of where I’m from, which was clearly not the case. I apologise.

On another note; there is a discussion at Talk:Los Angeles about the readdition of "Los Angeles, California", which is seeing strong opposition. IWI (chat) 04:07, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Please explain

on what grounds you think I am trying to stop anyone from knowing anything. Kevin McE (talk) 23:53, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

It seems that way to me, I think I explained why it seems that way to me. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:55, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

I queried whether it was appropriate for the same word to be transliterated in two different ways: how do you construe from that that i "object to people knowing Peterhof and Petergof" ?

If you can find another published sentence that uses "country habitation" as an uncountable noun, please provide it, otherwise your explanation is absent. Kevin McE (talk) 01:03, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Something Good – Negro Kiss

On 1 February 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Something Good – Negro Kiss, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the recently rediscovered and restored 1898 short film Something Good – Negro Kiss counters racist caricatures? You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Something Good – Negro Kiss), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Amakuru (talk · contribs) 00:02, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Negro in Art

Hello! Your submission of Negro in Art at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 20:25, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Mary Kay Letourneau

Hi. I don't know you. But I know you're sound-minded. Would you be willing to examine what I've prepared here?: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mary_Kay_Letourneau#Consensus_on_substantiated_changes — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcfnord (talk • contribs) 06:05, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

DYK for The Negro in Art

On 17 March 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article The Negro in Art, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that leading black and white artists responded to the 1926 symposium The Negro in Art: How Shall He Be Portrayed? with their views on the extent to which black artists could avoid racial stereotypes? You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, The Negro in Art), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 01:52, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

hi, you're invited to an RfC discussion regarding Bruno Bettelheim article

As a relatively recent contributor to the article, you're invited to a Request for Comment (RfC) discussion on the article's lead sentence. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 17:51, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bruno_Bettelheim#rfc_7DDF8CC

Redaction unnecessary

The redaction here is unnecessary. I'm not implying that the subject here acted improperly herself. Likewise, I did not name any names, ergo, WP:BLP does not apply. That there is an accusation of impropriety/conflict of interest of WMF is a matter of fact. Removing it further seems to mask the issue rather than address it.

Please revert. Buffs (talk) 17:56, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

I've rephrased. Unless required, please refrain from refactoring others' comments. Buffs (talk) 18:04, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

(e/c)Incorrect, beginning with your claim there is only one subject. One of which you now identify as a "her". Your argument about "the fact that there is a claim", would open the pedia to repeating every living person rumor, in contravention of BLP. Immediate redaction is required, even in other's comments. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:07, 24 June 2019 (UTC) I have fowarded it for clerking. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:20, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

To the contrary, I've stated that she is possibly ONE of the people involved. That "Laura" is a "she" is not exactly a debate; she claims as such and WMF identified her as female...you really have me confused. That Fram has stated he was banned for interactions with her doesn't even seem debatable. That's a simple fact: he claimed it. Ergo, the entire discussion is formulated on it.

Lastly, nothing here falls under BLP. Don't refactor comments Buffs (talk) 18:48, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

It all falls under WP:BLP, which applies everywhere on the project. These are living people and you are spreading rumor ("it is possible", if nothing else, proves you are spreading rumor). There just is no WP:Reliable Source for the claims you are making about the lives of these people. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:52, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

[ec x2]There is at least an online relationship that seems friendly. I'm not saying "Ah this is the Chair's girlfriend/friend/close acquaintance". Ergo, there is a personal relationship of some kind. That is fact, not rumor Buffs (talk) 18:56, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Again, no WP:Reliable Source, and seeming friendly on the internet cannot possibly be used against anyone the way you are attempting to use innuendo and rumor against living people. I'm trying right now to be friendly to you on the internet. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:59, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

My assessment is based on their interactions and WMF Chair's description alone. I have no intention of explaining every detail to you. My assessment is my own. If you feel a redaction is necessary, feel free to ask for one. Buffs (talk) 20:45, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

I told you I already have, and you have already made it clear you are a source for spreading the rumor. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:51, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

User talk:Jimbo Wales

Your indentation suggests you are replying to me, but I don't understand your response in the context of what I wrote. 28bytes (talk) 02:38, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

I was responding to you. Your comment seemed personalized against a named individual and it seemed an irrelevant reach since nothing about it was conduct on Wikipedia. Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:41, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I still don't understand what you mean. 28bytes (talk) 02:44, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

What do you not understand? You named an individual to criticize so it seems like you wanted to personalize it. And the topic is conduct on Wikipedia but the person your comment was about was not on Wikipedia. Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:51, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

I believe you have misunderstood my comment. But regardless, I now know that you were replying to me, so I won't bother you further. Have a good evening. 28bytes (talk) 02:56, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

You too. But if you were not trying to criticize an identified person and what they did off-site from Wikipedia, it read that way. Alanscottwalker (talk) 03:01, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Long history

I don't want to clutter the case page with threaded comments. In the past when ArbCom has started a case of it's own initiative (sua sponte), things have ended really badly. It is best for them to have a live request from the community, and to see if there is a consensus to take the case or not, and also to hear what the case should involve. This is an important safety measure to prevent ArbCom from abusing their power. We want them to take cases with our consent, not on their own initiative. This ritual of us requesting them to take the case is important. Jehochman ^Talk 12:36, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Ok but unpersuaded, your argument here reads like 'pro forma' silliness. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:41, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

FLW

No need to argue further, nominate the DYK and somebody will review, - I will if nobody beats me to it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:18, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Buzz Aldrin

The events you describe in this edit occurred on July 20. They landed on July 20 (UTC) and walked out on July 21. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 17:13, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Trying different things. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:54, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Richard Spencer: one of UVA's most prominent alumni?

Hello Alanscottwalker! As a regular contributor to University of Virginia topics I encourage you to evaluate and comment on this discussion. I appreciate your consideration of the matter! Omnibus (talk) 17:02, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Arbitration case opened

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kudpung. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kudpung/Evidence. Please add your evidence by January 28, 2020, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kudpung/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, CodeLyoko^talk 05:08, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Arbitration case opened

In 2018, you offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has now accepted that request for arbitration, and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jytdog. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jytdog/Evidence. Please add your evidence by March 23, 2020, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jytdog/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.

All content, links, and diffs from the original ARC and the latest ARC are being read into the evidence for this case.

The secondary mailing list is in use for this case: arbcom-en-b@wikimedia.org

For the Arbitration Committee, CThomas³ (talk) 17:23, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for speaking up

Just wanted to drop a note of thanks for your comments as almost the lone voice of sanity in that thread!

Most of the thread seemed to be relitigating portals (which is completely irrelevant at AN in general, or the situation at hand, or even the filed complaint), or focusing on the personal tiff between two admins, or whether a single word was impolite. *sigh* I've recently been subjected to the behaviour you refer to in the single portal-related MfD I actually care one whit about (as part of my WikiProject; and even that was more an issue of principle than really caring about the darned thing). It became immediately obvious that this was full-on BATTLEGROUND territory and anyone disagreeing, for any reason, would be immediately designated an "enemy" (toward whom ABF is then self-evidently appropriate), and that "allies" (those who agree) can do no wrong. And upon looking around afterwards (I'm staying well away from the Portal Wars) it was obvious that this was not a unique incident. The tiff between the two may be the underlying cause, but anyone straying into the area will get subjected to it.

That AN collectively failed to see this is exceedingly concerning. Either no scrutiny was actually applied, or those participating genuinely saw no problem with the behaviour in this instance (but normal editors are indef'ed and topic-banned for far far less).

But the result was not altogether unexpected, just disappointing, so I chose to not post the comment I had already typed out there (pointing out the same issues you did, only less elegantly and more verbosely): if that behaviour from an admin is now considered acceptable, I am now—for the first time in my 10+ years on the project—afraid to express my opinion in case it antagonizes an admin. It's a strange feeling. I still have faith in our processes and institutions—so no chance I'll get sucked in with the "admins are all buddy-buddies that protect eachother" conspiracy theorists and professional malcontents—but it does make me worry about the overall health of the community. Our systems are imperfect, of course, but some obvious issues should, and have in the past, been decisively dealt with. --Xover (talk) 08:10, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Xover, Well, the admin did take on some commitments, time will tell whether that is enough, but all anyone should want is such behavior to stop. Alanscottwalker (talk) 09:28, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

ANI

Hi Alanscottwalker, Not going to edit war over it but I strongly object to anyones comments/images being removed,
We're all offended in different ways - Some may be offended by the image and others may not .... so unless an admin came along and removed it then imho it should've remained,
Thanks. –Dave | Davey2010^Talk 14:02, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for not undoing the edit (with related request). IMO it improves the page and the environment for a host of reasons related to our purposes, others may disagree but it was not done lightly, and is not done often. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:57, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Alanscottwalker, No worries, Given yourself and someone else had issues with it reverting again would've been silly (and really for nothing in the end),

I agree, I suppose really it'd be no different to randomly inserting a male genitalia picture in ..... I'm just a stickler for rules ... well TPO rules anyway but yeah I to a certain extent agree with the removal,

Anyway happy editing, Many thanks, –Dave | Davey2010^Talk 15:17, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Illinois news

Yes, I maintained that section for several years. There were some lapses, but if you look at the archive I think you'll see that I'm serious about it. Fishal (talk) 02:16, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Would you please explain this

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Slavery_in_the_United_States&diff=928191647&oldid=928191100

Thank you, deisenbe (talk) 13:39, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes. The edit reverted made a contentious claim using a primary source from the 1800s in the WP:LEAD of a prominent article, no less. (and on top, the claim is vague, how long did such a thing happen). The subject of the article is extensively covered in academic secondary sources. It is a likely failure of WP:NPOV and WP:NOR to not use modern research that analyses primary sources on such claims, and not just take a single primary source's word because a Wikipedia editor thinks it makes their point. We are not here to convey our views, we are here to convey the survey of scholarship.

Now if you would answer, did you do research across the breadth of modern scholarship on the issue to find out what modern scholarship has to say about such numbers? Or are you just putting in the factoid because you like it? Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:06, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Why do you call it contentious? deisenbe (talk) 19:32, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Because it is a contention, someone in the 1800s contended something. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:26, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

First wikipedia edit from space - not relevant?

First, a very happy new year - and thank you for all your efforts. And then, a question. You removed the text about Christina Koch making the ”first wikipedia edit from space”. I would like to understand a bit more, beyond the edit notes. Don't you think it's relevant at all? And if it's relevant, how do you propose we get it back in somewhere, somehow? Jardenberg (talk) 09:20, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Jardenberg, See WP:BLP and WP:DUE. If you find several high quality sources picked up what was an 'in-house' factoid than it would have a chance. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:35, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Alanscottwalker, to the best of my knowledge a factoid is supposed to be unreliable. This edit can clearly be verified via Wikipedias mechanisms. Even if not conventional, what speaks against concidering that a reliable source? Any external, high quality, source would have to build on that very information, anyway. Or do we mistrust the edit history? Do we belive that this was not the first edit? Do we not believe that the wiki user is the same person as the astronaut? I don't get it, and others, much more experienced, wikipedians I've talked to feel the same way. Jardenberg (talk) 03:30, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Alanscottwalker is right. Factoids are true but tiny, amusing curiosities of no long-term importance. No RS has suggested that the edit in question will have any long run impact on Wikipedia or anything else on earth or in space. Rjensen (talk) 03:40, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

References

united States

the official name as voted by Congress and recorded in its official journal is United ... you are looking at a copy used for publicity but never officially approved. It's a matter of taking a typo in a primary source when we need published reliable secondary sources.Rjensen (talk) 18:38, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Rjensen, No. I am looking at the transcript at the government archives website. Moreover, it is quite silly for you to make that argument on the basis of a primary journal. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:46, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

/it's a MISTAKE to misread a primary source hundreds of years old with different punctuation standards . you are looking at the wrong primary source and you need to use a reliable secondary source. the right primary source re name of USA is the official journal. Rjensen (talk) 18:50, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Rjensen, It's not a mistake at all. It is the way it is punctuated in the archive document. That you disapprove of their punctuation is worse that useless, it is nonsense. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:56, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Pardon me for butting in. I believe the lower case u in united on the engrossed parchment is a one-off, perpetuated by Stone. Jefferson's "original Rough draught" has "UNITED STATES OF AMERICA" in all caps. The Dunlap Broadside--the first printed copy, coming off the press on July 5th--does, too. The Constitution captitalizes the u in "United States" all 59 times, only once appending "of America". I think for common usage, legal usage, consistency, and common sense, we should keep the capital U. YoPienso (talk) 19:25, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

yes Yopienso is right. see 1945 William & Mary Q p 245 by Charles Warren who states Congress voted on July 19 1776 to print a copy of the Declaration "with the title and style of 'The Unanimous Declaration of the Thirteen United States of America.'" capital U ordered but a mistake made by copyist. see "Fourth of July Myths" by Charles Warren The William and Mary Quarterly, Vol. 2, No. 3 (Jul., 1945), pp. 237-272 . Rjensen (talk) 19:33, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

WP:PSTS applies:

Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources. All analyses and interpretive or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary or tertiary source, and must not be an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.

Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.^{[Note omitted.]} Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation.

YoPienso (talk) 19:44, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Yopienso Rjensen Sorry, you still both are talking nonsense. According to Yopienso, it has to be "UNITED STATES OF AMERICA" (and then also brings a document signed 13 years later, which is irrelevant), and according to Rjensen it has to be "Thirteen United States of America" - but if it can be both those things, there is no logic in claiming it can't be 'united States of America', and it is in the document that purports to be signed by the congressmen, so unless you are claiming it is not the document they put their John Hancock's to (ha), then your purported disapproval of the punctuation in the signed document is meaningless or ridiculous. It is not a matter of interpretation at all to read 'united States' in a document -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:31, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Wow, Alan, you must not be feeling well. I hope you are, but this doesn't sound like you. I'm not used to you misinterpreting my comments or saying they're nonsense, meaningless, or ridiculous. (You don't usually make a typo like the ping to Rjensen, either.) You're one of the editors I most admire for civility, knowledge, and common sense.

I never said it has to be in all caps; I said we should keep the capital U. The all caps style in TJ's rough draft merely demonstrates that in his mind--the foremost mind on this subject--the word United was part and parcel of the country's name, not a common adjective preceding the country's name. As Harvard says (and I think you know), "There is no singular authoritative version of the Declaration of Independence."

The Constitution is not irrelevant to this discussion; do you think its framers got the capitalization wrong 59 times? I conclude that's how they meant it to be. This is the same country that was fought for in the American Revolutionary War.

Then there's all that policy about primary and secondary sources, and Rjensen's journal citations.

The quibble about the lower-case u on the document engrossed in August--almost a month after the Dunlap Broadside capitalized the U--could be put into a subsection or footnote, but is confusing and wrong in the lead. YoPienso (talk) 20:59, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

the problem started when Alanscottwalker cited . https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/declaration-transcript . which is the Stone engraving from the 1820s, in which Stone made a mistake. It is NOT a primary source because it was prepared a halfcentury after the event by someone who was not there. it is not a RELIABLE secondary source because the author Stone was an engraver not a historian like Charles Warren. Rjensen (talk) 21:03, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

It was Matlack's mistake (or style?) made Aug. 2, 1776, not Stone's, who simply copied Matlack's version in his July 4, 1823, copperplate engraving. YoPienso (talk) 21:18, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Rjensen Well actually I was looking at the Matlack signed copy transcript of 1776 and also had the Stone open which I had looked at earlier, but you are right that I had that address in the edit summary when I should have had the Matlack address in the edit summary (as you know I did not actually cite) -- at any rate they both have 'united States' (so, no need to blame poor Stone). Yopienso But Yopinso, it does not matter what you think Jefferson was thinking, he could captitalize whether he thought of it as part of a name, or he thought of it as an adjective, either could be capitalized, as so could Thirteen. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:38, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Ah, but what matters is what reliable secondary sources say. They say what Rjensen and I are saying, not what you're saying. YoPienso (talk) 21:41, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Yopienso, What ? The source that Rjensen provided says the delegates signed onto united States, so that supports what I am saying -- that being hung up on it being capitalized is nonsense, the signers did not get hung up by it. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:44, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

The NARA's direct transcript of Congress's order for the Matlack engrossment reads, On July 9 the action of Congress was officially approved by the New York Convention. All 13 colonies had now signified their approval. On July 19, therefore, Congress was able to order that the Declaration be "fairly engrossed on parchment, with the title and stile [sic] of 'The unanimous declaration of the thirteen United States of America,' and that the same, when engrossed, be signed by every member of Congress."

I don't know which source that Rjensen provided you refer to. This is the journal article he cited, which doesn't at all settle the matter, capitalizing the title like we would today: The Unanimous Declaration of the Thirteen United States of America.

This is from a history of the DOI by Julian Boyd: On January 18, 1777—just two week after Washington's encouraging victories at Trenton and Princeton, it should be noted—Congress ordered that an authenticated copy of the Declaration, with the names of members who had subscribed it, "be sent to each of the United States, and they be desired to have the same put upon record." It shows the contemporary capitalization at the beginning of the war in question.

With all the variations, I don't understand why you're quibbling about whether or not to capitalize this one letter. It's been a capital "U" for years, so the burden is on you to show it should be lower case. You haven't. What you're doing is using one primary source and ignoring other primary, secondary, and tertiary sources. YoPienso (talk) 22:22, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

A way to obviate the problem would be not to mention the DOI. Here's an older version:

The American Revolutionary War (1775–1783), also known as the American War of Independence, was a war fought primarily between Great Britain and revolutionaries within thirteen of her North American colonies. The war, which eventually widened far beyond British North America, resulted in the overthrow of British rule in the thirteen colonies and the establishment of the United States of America.

Sorry that I didn't copy the diff to that version.

Also, shouldn't this discussion be on the article talk page? YoPienso (talk) 22:34, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Yopienso, I think you came into the discussion without knowing what was being talked about, no one is contending United States of America did not become the name over-time. These colonies resolved that they were free and independent states in July, their delegates then voted a declaration in July and signed on to the copy in July and August. The use of 'united States' was still in current use in the documents at that time, the use of capitalization was different for them than for us, they were not hung up on it. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:43, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

No, I get it. What I don't get is why you're so hung up about it. Please consider WP:PLA--wouldn't the average user think the lower-case u is a typo? I certainly would! Wikipedia is written today and I'm not aware of any policy that says we have to use antiquated styles when writing about historical topics. Anyway, the antiquated style under discussion appears once, while less astonishing styles were also used at the time in primary documents.

What do you think about taking the DOI out of that paragraph? There's no real reason to have it there, and it wasn't until--Rats! I didn't copy the diff--a few years ago. Besides, the war started at Lexington and Concord before the DOI was even written or proposed.

Should this be moved to the article talk page? YoPienso (talk) 23:05, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Yopienso, I did not revert to what the signers signed onto because I'm not hung-up on it. But the fact that I'm not hung up on it, does not change the fact that the official signed declaration in the archives says what it says. I just was transferring that information over. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:20, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Well, you also didn't revert Rjensen's reversion of your change because you don't edit war; good on you! This interminable discussion indicates suggests you're more hung up on it than you'd like to think.

I've put a link to this discussion on the article talk page, along with my suggestion to swap out the lead. Best wishes, YoPienso (talk) 23:31, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Yopienso, No. If I felt really hung-up on it I would have reverted because Rjensen did not have an edit summary and my purpose was just transferring over what the official signed document says. You guys came to talk to me, so don't blame me for this discussion or its length. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:37, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Okay. YoPienso (talk) 23:39, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Note re your great idea for village pump tab

Hi. I like your idea much better than my own proposed ideas , i.e. for WP:Town HAll, etc. your idea knocks the heck out of anything I came up with. I need to work on a draft to highlight your great idea. I want to switch my own vote to your proposal. it sounds great. I didn't even know we could do that. ok, so here is what I would like to write; below is the draft.

also, down at the bottom, I ask some question about how we can actually get your idea presented for adoption. so feel free to reply to that here as well. I plan to post this pretty soon. I will wait about 10 -15 minutes, just in case you want to reply, but then I plan to add the reply below to the existing discussion at village pump.

Please feel free to let me know what you think of this. Please ping me in any reply. thanks!!! --Sm8900 (talk) 14:22, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

draft of addition to talk page:

guys I support the idea proposed by Alanscottwalker. that sounds really good as an option. it is probably better for now than my own ideas that I suggested above. for one thing it is exactly the kind of resource we need that would most help ideas like my own. A new tab, at a central location like Village Pump is much better. it is exactly where I could post notices to draw editors to my own project page, if I want to let folks know about any useful discussions there.

Also, what happens if some other WikiProject Coordinator had some idea that they wanted to try? and what if they had eight or nine interested active coordinators, ready to help them to build it? would we tell them, "sorry, USer:Sm8900 already had that idea"? of course we wouldn't. there is room for multiple approaches for this, i.e. for the goal of creating new collaborative workspaces. after all, that's what WikiProjects are all about in the first place.

And lastly, there is no guarantee that any idea of mine stated above will necessarily take off. I think they are good ideas, but they will take time to develop. I have a few editors who are interested, and a few who are not. so therefore, creating a new tab here leaves the door open for any new ideas, efforts or groups who might come along later, and might have their own ideas for new forms of group efforts at Wikipedia.

By the way, one note re my reasons for submitting this proposal, or for submitting proposals in general. I had several main goals for this process: a) to get other people's feedback on my ideas; i.e. which parts seem useful, and which don't. b) to see how much interest there actually is using this concept, and helping to make it work. c) to see what other ideas and thoughts others might have on this topic. d) to brainstorm and find out some good ways to implement this.

So therefore, I posted a few notices at several active WikiProjects, to let them know about this proposal. I wanted to see what response I might get, and how much interest they might have in this.

as you can see, I did not get a huge response. so therefore, based on that, I say we adopt the idea for adding a tab to Village Pump. Again, I could always use that to build interest in my own idea; but similarly anyone else with a greater base of followers would then be free to add their own ideas as well.

Okay, how do we move towards consensus for this? I would like to let discussion proceed here. if we want to propose to add a tab to Village Pump, do we need a whole new section to propose that? should we create a section for votes? Lots of editors here are probably more knowledgeable than me on this. so feel free to let me know. thanks!! --Sm8900 (talk) 14:28, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

(end of draft) --Sm8900 (talk) 14:22, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

comments on above (if you want)

Consider your posts might be too long (are you familiar with tldr)> like, 'I think I agree this tab idea makes more sense because . . . one or two sentences, ping the people in the discussion to get feed back and wait. Ask if it is doable (i'm not much of a coder, but those tabs got there somehow). As to ultimately getting it done, probably WP:RfC but again wait to do some coalescing first. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:38, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

okay, thanks. I am open to all your feedback on this. I consider your ideas on this to be extremely bright and resourceful. you took the problem I was trying to highlight and really focused on a real solution for it.

okay, you want my comments to be more concise? you're probably right. Okay, I will give that a try. I can always add my other musings later on, I guess. i want to work as closely as possible with you on this. your knowledge of the available options is greater than mine. I really appreciate your helpful insights. thanks!! --Sm8900 (talk) 14:42, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

hi. okay, I went ahead and posted my comments on your great idea. if you have any comments, you are welcome to express them there, or here or anywhere else of course. please ping me if you reply here. thanks!! --Sm8900 (talk) 14:58, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

I like you idea re a new tab for WP:Village Pump, to be labeled either as "Projects" or else "Community." totally awesome. well done!!!! please let me know any ideas or steps that I can offer to help out.

I felt like it might be good for us to be in touch this way,via your talk page. please feel free to let me know ideas, comments, etc you may have. your ideas and thoughts are always welcome. thanks!!! -Sm8900 (talk) 01:44, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

note re possible effort

Hi, I think I need to request your assistance. let me give you a quick update on where we are with my idea, i.e. to create User:Sm8900/community forum. Basically, we have not gotten a lot of user response in terms of people helping by adding content, even though at leats a few editors did state that they support my idea. so therefore, based on that, is it possible for you and me to work together on this? namely, could we perhaps try to please move ahead with your idea? i.e., to add a tab to Village Pump, to be entitled "projects," or something similar?

Please note, if you wish, we can start your idea right now, if you want. We could make a new sub=page of Village Pump, just to get things started, the new page could be called WIkipedia:Village Pump/Projects. what would you think of that? could you please let me know? I'd be interested in any feedback or comments that you might have. thanks!! --Sm8900 (talk) 04:42, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Sorry I am not sure what time I will have: 1) taking the various comments in account, look at the directions for the various pumps and draft a concrete statement of purpose like those directions: This pump page is for . . .(my vision is just basically a notice page for editors to bring notice to community editor gruops discussions happening elsewhere or events or contests or revivals, etc. to a wider audience; 2) As it stands now, Cas Liber suggests turning the community page into this page and then making it a tab, explore that further with Cas Liber, perhaps. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:09, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi. Okay, I went ahead and worked with Casliber on this idea. here is a draft of what I came up with. we can transclude a new section into an existing page. let me know what you think. the new materials is under the heading "Project efforts and group activities." here is the link: User:Sm8900/bulletin draft . thanks!! --Sm8900 (talk) 16:27, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't think transclusion works efficiently to show on a watchlist, ie, you have to watch the transclusion page separately from the main page. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:05, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

hm, that may be true, but if so, I think we can provide a button to add it to one's watchlist, can't we? I would have to look up how to do so, though. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 18:53, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Notice

You have now presumed to remove an RS statement of Electoral College proponents here, without any effort to disqualify the professional scholar as an RS who is cited in the article twice, once to a left-center newspaper and once to a moderate right center magazine.

I reworded the summary statement to answer any fear that the general reader might misunderstand "disenfranchise" as it is used in redistricting court cases against gerrymandering, and generally in the scholarly field of political science, and then posted my explanation at Talk.

Instead of entering into a discussion, you vandalized the article by removing a point to support advocates of the Electoral College by a cited RS, justifying the revert by claiming there may be other unnamed "sources" to support the Electoral College who disagree with Guelzo's examples of California and Illinois, specifically.

Please supply them in 24 hours, or restore my edit here. Failing that, I will begin a dispute resolution process. Thank you for your attention to this matter. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 22:33, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Your vandalism claim is false. And I have discussed on the talk page. You were even told by another editor on the talk page to not put it back, and so you have breached editing resolution obligations already, see also BRD, BURDEN and ONUS, which your editing have failed. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:10, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Irish Slaves Myth

Hi, I think you are incorrect in your reversion simply because it is longstanding. That sentance is neither supported by it's citation nor a prominent point in the article. In fact it's kind of a sketchy proposition that lies outside of the articles thrust. And mainly besides the singular quote from Liam Hogan, doesn't seem to appear often if at all. Thanks. Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 23:36, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I reread completely the article and it does also have the Hogan ref. However I stick to my point, this is a minor point in the article – in fact it is a claim only made by Hogan, that doesn't have the same documentation or support that the other information in the article does. Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 23:44, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

This is actually a good new piece about it. Thanks! Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 00:01, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

I read your source but it does not support your contentions, it says there was Irish involvement in the slave trade and connects its discussion to what it says is the Irish slaves myth. The Wikipedia article discusses Irish involvement in the trade from several authors and its connection to the myth being the obscuring, hiding, or suppression that there was Irish involvement -- it is just one aspect of the use of the myth, but it is a known documented aspect of the myth's use. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:18, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

The article points to the misrepresentation of 'the Irish' involvement. Basically in the rush to denounce the Irish Slaves Meme people are over compensating and suggesting that 'the Irish' were involved in slave trading, when in fact only the super elite Landlords were. It's a rebuttal to Hogan's relatively simple suggestion. I thought that would be clear. I highlight this as also recently references to British colonialism were being removed from the Irish Slaves page. It is utterly important to stick to facts and not exaggerated narratives of any kind. Please point me to the "several authors" discussing this aspect, as I remain unconvinced of it's veracity and of it's noteworthy-ness IRL and on the page. Thanks. Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 13:56, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

The misrepresentation is coming from you (your only landlords claim is not supported by any source, including your own). Your desire to misrepresent that the Irish had no involvement in the slave trade is the very use of the myth -- nothing and no-one claims in the Wikipedia article or otherwise that all Irish were involved in the slave trade, but involved in the trade Irish were, so stop using the myth to deny documented history. Read the Wikipedia article sources (and your own source) and you will see the several sources that Irish were involved in the trade, and that the attempt to deny that or hide that is a use of the myth. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:15, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

This is nonsense buddy. You are not addressing the specificity of my argument nor apparently understood the text I left above, which clearly states what I am paraphrasing (i.e. There is no reason to undermine the colonial oppression during that time). I have already looked through the sources and the page and find most of it agreeable, however the idea that 'Ireland' or 'the Irish' were benefitting from the slave trade as a whole is misleading, if not a myth. As the page stands, only one person, Liam Hogan, has asserted that this is a thing. I'm asking you to support your claims about other authors and other sources and you can't! Laughable response tbh. I will continue to work on the article using reliable scholarship. Kind regards Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 15:12, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Your false claims have been addressed, and it is further addressed in your own source. Irish were involved in the slave trade and those involved did benefit. That there was colonial oppression does not change the facts that Irish were involved in the slave trade (and there is no reason to hide that, as you wish to do). Nothing in the article or in the sources say, otherwise -- that you are seeking to deny or hide that, is the myth. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:34, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Now you're just back-peddling.

Only I know my wishes, and here my wish is to accurately convey historical information and to have that, further, reflected in the article lead according to the encyclopedic standards of Wikipedia. I invite you to come aboard! For example: there would be no reason to highlight the black slave owners in Louisiana in the US Slavery article, as that would be misrepresenting the historical facts. It is clear to me you have very little knowledge of Irish history nor it's people, perhaps you are conflating Irish Americans with Irish? Who knows?! But you clearly are having difficulty with reading comprehension. :-P Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 16:53, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

You are obviously not here to do anything of the kind, You are here to make false claims and silly, useless insults. I have not backpaddled, I have said the same thing all along, fully supported by the sources. The article is about a thing sources call myth and the uses of the myth, as fully supported by the sources -- one of the uses of the myth is to deny or hide that Irish were involved in the trade, and to deny or hide that is promotion of the myth. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:10, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Again, you miss the nuance... Which is another way of saying you aren't understanding the sources.

"one of the uses of the myth is to deny or hide that Irish were involved in the trade, and to deny or hide that is promotion of the myth" Facts from the sources: 1) This is not being used by white supremacists. The assertion is that it is being used by or could be used Irish nationalists to make Ireland look 'victimised' historically. Including two assertions in one sentence is misleading.

2) This is a lesser point in the article and is covered by cited information in the background section of the article. I have not removed or denied information in the body. I have only added sourced information and am trying to make a case for treating this in proportion.

3) Not all Irish were involved in the slave trade. Ireland wasn't even a nation. Ireland has colonisers. I believe that needs to be understood in the context of (esp.) the comparisons nationalists make.

4)The truth is what needs to be reflected. Conflating, downplaying manipulate this cause the same as exaggerations, overplaying does.

Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 17:53, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

I have have not missed anything. It's not a lesser point it's another point, and the effects of the various points are to not acknowledge or hide history. You keep saying a lie, no one has ever said anywhere including the Wikipedia article that all Irish were involved in the slave trade -- that does not change the facts that Irish were involved in the slave trade, and to obscure that or hide that is part of the of the mythology, regardless of anyone's reasons for doing that. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:02, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Does the lead need to include all information in the article? No. It needs to summarise the article. The dangers discussed in the article are about misinformation, fabrications, and distortions in the history what is almost entirely a false concept of 'Irish Slaves'. I do not deserve rash reverts or accusations as I continue to improve, expand, and reorganise for clarity this article. As I mentioned before, and showed with the article I shared, the 'framing' of the Irish in all regards needs to be historically accurate, well sourced, and neutral. That's what I'm doing here. Accusing me of perpetuating lies is out of line. Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 18:32, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Well, than don't keep saying the same lie. The lead is and has been short, and it is already a summary - in the lead it makes perfect sense to briefly describe the employment of the myth. Part of the employment of the myth is to obscure or hide related slave trade history. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:41, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

David Gerard

You're wasting your time I'm afraid, it's not possible to have a meaningful discussion with him. WCM_email 17:15, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Twelve years on Wikipedia!

Hey, Alanscottwalker. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Chris Troutman (talk) 15:06, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	I thought your comment at Village Pump RE: ONUS was particularly cogent. Among all the reasons to oppose, yours introduced a simple argument from first principles. Well done! SPECIFICO talk 18:12, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

your edit with proveit

With this edit you and/or proveit created this pair of flawed cs1 citations:

{{Cite web |last=Phillips, Jr. |first=William D. |title=Slavery in Medieval and Early Modern Iberia |url=https://www.upenn.edu/pennpress/book/15140.html#:. |url-status=2013 |access-date=2020-09-03 |website=www.upenn.edu}}

Phillips, Jr., William D. "Slavery in Medieval and Early Modern Iberia". www.upenn.edu. Retrieved 2020-09-03. {{cite web}}: Invalid |url-status=2013 (help)

{{Cite web |date=2012-10-18 |title=Iberian Roots of the Transatlantic Slave Trade, 1440–1640 | AP US History Study Guide from The Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History |url=https://www.gilderlehrman.org/node/324 |access-date=2020-09-03 |website=www.gilderlehrman.org |language=en}}

"Iberian Roots of the Transatlantic Slave Trade, 1440–1640". www.gilderlehrman.org. 2012-10-18. Retrieved 2020-09-03. {{cite web}}: Text "AP US History Study Guide from The Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History" ignored (help)

If it was you, please use the Show preview button to see and fix errors before you save your edits. If it was the fault of proveit, please report the errors to the maintainers so that the tool can be repaired.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 23:09, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 16

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ida B. Wells Homes, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Richard Hunt.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 8

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Black church, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page National Baptist Convention.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:23, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Your changes to WWI article

Hello there

I reverted your changes to the lead of this article because it has been extensively discussed on the Talk page and the current version represents a consensus. Please discuss your proposed changes on the Talk page. The link to the concert of Europe is also inappropriate as hardly anyone argues that there was such a thing in the early twentieth century.

Thanks Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 01:33, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

RFA2024 update: no longer accepting new proposals in phase I

Hey there! This is to let you know that phase I of the 2024 requests for adminship (RfA) review is now no longer accepting new proposals. Lots of proposals remain open for discussion, and the current round of review looks to be on a good track towards making significant progress towards improving RfA's structure and environment. I'd like to give my heartfelt thanks to everyone who has given us their idea for change to make RfA better, and the same to everyone who has given the necessary feedback to improve those ideas. The following proposals remain open for discussion:

• Proposal 2, initiated by HouseBlaster, provides for the addition of a text box at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship reminding all editors of our policies and enforcement mechanisms around decorum.
• Proposals 3 and 3b, initiated by Barkeep49 and Usedtobecool, respectively, provide for trials of discussion-only periods at RfA. The first would add three extra discussion-only days to the beginning, while the second would convert the first two days to discussion-only.
• Proposal 5, initiated by SilkTork, provides for a trial of RfAs without threaded discussion in the voting sections.
• Proposals 6c and 6d, initiated by BilledMammal, provide for allowing users to be selected as provisional admins for a limited time through various concrete selection criteria and smaller-scale vetting.
• Proposal 7, initiated by Lee Vilenski, provides for the "General discussion" section being broken up with section headings.
• Proposal 9b, initiated by Reaper Eternal, provides for the requirement that allegations of policy violation be substantiated with appropriate links to where the alleged misconduct occured.
• Proposals 12c, 21, and 21b, initiated by City of Silver, Ritchie333, and HouseBlaster, respectively, provide for reducing the discretionary zone, which currently extends from 65% to 75%. The first would reduce it 65%–70%, the second would reduce it to 50%–66%, and the third would reduce it to 60%–70%.
• Proposal 13, initiated by Novem Lingaue, provides for periodic, privately balloted admin elections.
• Proposal 14, initiated by Kusma, provides for the creation of some minimum suffrage requirements to cast a vote.
• Proposals 16 and 16c, initiated by Thebiguglyalien and Soni, respectively, provide for community-based admin desysop procedures. 16 would desysop where consensus is established in favor at the administrators' noticeboard; 16c would allow a petition to force reconfirmation.
• Proposal 16e, initiated by BilledMammal, would extend the recall procedures of 16 to bureaucrats.
• Proposal 17, initiated by SchroCat, provides for "on-call" admins and 'crats to monitor RfAs for decorum.
• Proposal 18, initiated by theleekycauldron, provides for lowering the RfB target from 85% to 75%.
• Proposal 24, initiated by SportingFlyer, provides for a more robust alternate version of the optional candidate poll.
• Proposal 25, initiated by Femke, provides for the requirement that nominees be extended-confirmed in addition to their nominators.
• Proposal 27, initiated by WereSpielChequers, provides for the creation of a training course for admin hopefuls, as well as periodic retraining to keep admins from drifting out of sync with community norms.
• Proposal 28, initiated by HouseBlaster, tightens restrictions on multi-part questions.

To read proposals that were closed as unsuccessful, please see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I/Closed proposals. You are cordially invited once again to participate in the open discussions; when phase I ends, phase II will review the outcomes of trial proposals and refine the implementation details of other proposals. Another notification will be sent out when this phase begins, likely with the first successful close of a major proposal. Happy editing! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her), via:

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:52, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

[Tendentious]

I apologize if you took offense to the identification of your edits in particular in the edit summaries as introducing errors. But the Stadtman book is clear that it was not a merger, and that fact is already stated in the University of California article. Coolcaesar (talk) 15:03, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

I was specifically referring to this edit of yours which characterized the merger as a "legal merger". It was not. In fact, it's because it was not a merger that Governor Haight was able to promptly betray the unwritten understanding that the College of California trustees had reached with Governor Low that the college's people would be dominant in the new university. So the trustees resisted the transfer of the college's assets, promptly lost the resulting lawsuit, and were bitter about that for many years. Haight's betrayal of the college trustees is thoroughly covered elsewhere in the Stadtman book (and several other books on UC history). --Coolcaesar (talk) 15:09, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

It remains, stop making tendentious and abusive edit summaries. Your quibbling is particularly egregious. And don't split discussions, there is no reason for you to be here, when the discussion is already on your page. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:09, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

No, let's take it to the article talk page. I am raising the issue there. --Coolcaesar (talk) 15:28, 7 March 2024 (UTC)