User talk:Readsomescience

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome[edit]

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

The California Gold Rush took place from 1848 to 1855. ‘Gangway” was the oldest gay bar in San Francisco (closed in 2016) after being open 108 years… the first gay bar opened in 1908; so obviously the history timeline is clear that the Gold Rush 1849’rs in San Francisco were not visiting “openly tolerant gay bars”. The first openly gay bar in San Francisco did not open until 1908, almost 60 years after the California Gold Rush ended! [The Gangway was at 841 Larkin St. San Francisco, opened in 1908, [city paperwork cites 1910] closed in 2016. [1] [1]

“Miners Ball” a painting portraying a same-sex dance in San Francisco was engraved in 1891… (again, the California Gold Rush took place from Jauary 1848 to 1855).. Clearly the timeline shows the “Miners Ball” took place almost 40 years after the “Gold Rush” had already ended. [2]

Nan Alameda Boyd, author of “Wide Open Town: A History of Queer San Francisco to 1965,” (cited frequently above as a reference throughout this section “Homosexuality”), states: “Lesbian and gay history in the East Bay stretches back at least to the 1950s.”... well, the “1950”s is about 100 years after the “1850s” (the California Gold Rush took place in the 1850’s, NOT the 1950’s… so clearly again there is a timeline problem here to say that the California Gold Rush history is related to the openly “Homosexual history in San Francisco”… the timeline referenced in Boyd’s reference is off by 100 years! Even anecdotal and “oral history” cited by Alameda Boyd relates to a history timeline that took place 100 years(!) after the California Gold Rush had already ended… timeline is clear - these histories do not overlap in any way. [3]

The concept that the topic “California Gold Rush” is related to "open homosexuality” has been completely debunked by reviewing in the historical time-period. The timelines ("California Gold Rush" / Open homosexuality in San Francisco) do not overlap - any doubts are cleared up by reviewing historical references and comparing the well-documented timelines for the history of San Francisco. "Open homosexuality” did not take place in San Francisco until 60 years (!) after the California Gold Rush ended. [3]

Nan Alameda Boyd, author of “Wide Open Town: A History of Queer San Francisco to 1965,” (cited above as a reference), also relies upon “oral histories from people living in San Francisco from the 1930’s”... and again, clearly the timeline does not overlap as the “1930’s” took place 75 years(!) after the California Gold Rush time period had already ended. This historical timelines (and even “oral histories”) from Boyd’s reference also do not overlap. [3]

George Chauncey's, "Gay New York: Gender, Urban Culture, and the Making of the Gay Male World, 1890-1940". This book is well researched and clearly proves that there was a thriving gay culture in San Francisco well before the Stonewall uprising in New York… but again the timelines for the “California Gold Rush” do not overlap either… (1890 was 35 years after the California Gold Rush time period ended!, again no overlap in historical context). (The “Stonewall riots” took place in 1969, 114 years after the Gold Rush ended… clearly, again no overlap in historical time period). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stonewall_riots The time period is 1969 when the riots took place, social history needs to be referenced for overlaps, there is none with regard to this and the California Gold Rush. [4]

The topic of “Homosexuality” (when referenced to San Francisco social history) with regard to the historical time period of the California Gold Rush, simply is impossibly to be relevant or related to the California Gold Rush - the two time periods for cultural history do not overlap. The two topics are not related or even relevant to be mentioned with the California Gold Rush history. Historical references clearly show that the two timelines do not overlap at all, San Francisco’s homosexual prevalence did not happen until much later (perhaps as much as 40 to 60 years later! - an entire generation of people had already passed between the two time periods! [3]

To make a false and historically inaccurate statement that the “prevalence of men compared to women in the gold mining communities caused homosexuality to flourish” (as flippantly stated above in this same Wikipedia article on the California Gold Rush) is a completely ridiculous and fabricated conjecture - at best - for many reasons. Firstly, before the twenty-first century homosexuality was not an open topic, it was not talked about or openly admitted as it is today. [5] Secondly, there is simply no social history or psychological research to substantiate that wild conjecture that open homosexuality was prevalent at the same time-period as the California Gold Rush; in fact the social history (for San Francisco as cited through multiple references) simply did not overlap in any way. [3] [4] [1] [1]

“So it’s difficult to identify gay relatives when most traces of their homosexuality never made it out of the closet, much less into the historical record. How can one draw conclusions about any aspect of people’s lives when all that’s left are names, some dates, and family relationships?”... [5] History and science should be based on facts, history and facts (like business records, documented cultural history) state that open homosexuality did not take place in San Francisco until a much later time-period than the California Gold Rush.

The word “Homosexual” was not even used until 1868 (the California Gold Rush ended in 1855). For someone to make a claim that the California Gold Rush influenced the prevalence of homosexuality in San Francisco is a ludicrous assumption at best, and completely unsubstantiated; it is not an assertion based on the historical events and cultural history. [6]

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

References

  1. ^ a b c d http://www.newnownext.com/gangway-san-francisco-gay-bar-closes/01/2018/. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help) Cite error: The named reference "San Francisco Chronicle" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  2. ^ https://www.history.com/topics/gold-rush-of-1849 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Gold_Rush, https://www.history.com/topics/gold-rush-of-1849. {{cite web}}: Check |url= value (help); Missing or empty |title= (help)
  3. ^ a b c d e Boyd, Nan Alamilla (2003). Wide-Open Town. University of California Press. pp. 26, 27 – via Project MUSE. ...Here, the rough-and-tumble saloons of the Gold Rush.... Cite error: The named reference "NAB" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  4. ^ a b Chauncey, George. {{cite book}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
  5. ^ a b {{cite web}}: Empty citation (help)
  6. ^ {{cite web}}: Empty citation (help)

May 2018[edit]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Readsomescience (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

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

Decline reason:

Your request largely deals with the behavior of others and not your own. Until you take ownership of your edit warring, and explain how you should have properly handled the editing dispute, you won't be unblocked. As such, I am declining this request. 331dot (talk) 08:37, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Eggishorn reverted your changes to the article twice on May 13, while Mikeblas and North Shoreman also reverted your changes to the article as well. If you felt that there was a major issue with the article content and after different users had also reverted your changes, why didn't you start a discussion on the article's talk page and notify them of the problem so it could be discussed properly? You've been blocked in the past for edit warring and at the same exact article - wouldn't it had been a good idea to talk to the editors directly, start a discussion on the article's talk page, file a report at AN or ANI, anything other than repeatedly reverting the article as you've been previously warned and blocked for doing? :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 08:00, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Readsomescience (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

The historical fact is that San Francisco was NOT openly gay during the "California Gold Rush" - the Wikipedia article is blatantly in error. the "California Gold Rush" article's subtopic "homosexuality" has nothing to do with the "California Gold Rush" for that reason. The historical facts of the history of San Francisco clearly show that the "California Gold Rush article" is in error... I am not the one who was "edit warring" rather user eggishorn - see the log, that user continually reverted my edits - without even attempting to dispute the historical facts in discussion. The reference book mentioned originally in the article (put there by other people previously - amailia) even states that her account of history goes back to the 1930's --- well the California Gold Rush ended in 1855! I cited other references that clearly show San Francisco was not openly gay tolerant until about 1908... there is a big gap there in history... about 40 to 60 years(!) passed before the subject of "homosexuality" was even mentioned regarding the history of San Francisco... so why does the article "California Gold Rush" have a sub-topic of "homosexuality"? its completely off topic, historically in error, and not also not related to the "California Gold Rush". Other users engaged in blatant "edit warring" removing my content. Readsomescience (talk) 07:51, 13 May 2018 (UTC) Readsomescience (talk) 18:37, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

As has already been pointed out to you, none of this is relevant. You are blocked for edit-warring and need to address this in your unblock request. It doesn't matter if your edits were correct. You need to show how you already established consensus for your edits prior to making them, and how you engaged in discussion rather than edit-warring, once people started removing your content. Yamla (talk) 18:44, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Talk pages[edit]

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

Doing the same thing and expecting different results[edit]

Stop icon This is your only warning; if you remove or blank page contents or templates from Wikipedia again, as you did at California Gold Rush, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.

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

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Information icon 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:Readsomescience reported by User:North Shoreman (Result: ). Thank you. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 03:10, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

June 2018[edit]

Stop icon
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for edit warring.
During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  NeilN talk to me 03:15, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Readsomescience (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have proven that the topic of "open homosexuality in San Francisco" is historically irrelevant to the 'California Gold Rush' history (wikipedia article). (This is based on the fact that a 60 year time gap took place before there was open homosexuality in San Francisco - after the 'California Gold Rush' time period took place. The reference I cited (A. Boyd) backs up that historical gap in history, (which is the same reference that the article uses under that sub-topic). There is an obvious agenda for including mis-information and historically inaccurate statements in the article about the "California Gold Rush". I should not be blocked for pointing out the clear fact that "open homosexuality in San Francisco" is completely unrelated, irrelevant, off-topic, and historically inaccurate for that time period. The article should be corrected to be historically / factually accurate. I should not be blocked because of trying to correct clear historical facts.... personal agenda's should not be allowed to "rewrite history" with regard to the wikipedia article. Readsomescience (talk) 06:05, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Once again, you have completely ignored the reason for your block in favour of using the argument that you were "right". In assessing whether or not to unblock you, we simply don't care whether your content was correct or not. This is the third time you have posted such a request; if your next appeal does not address the reason for which you were blocked, and instead continues to argue that you should be unblocked because the content you edit warred over was correct, your ability to edit this talkpage will also be revoked. Yunshui 雲水 08:08, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Readsomescience (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Wikipedia should have articles that are factually accurate; when someone edits an article in good faith to ensure historical accuracy, and is then accused of "edit warring" because it does not support someone else's "personal agenda" that is morally wrong. To ban someone from editing Wikipedia articles while stating relevant historical facts is called CENSORSHIP. It is the worst kind of CENSORSHIP, Wikipedia should not be about promoting personal "agenda's" above historical accuracy; anyone who states otherwise should clearly not be editing articles on Wikipedia! Anyone who puts personal agenda's before historical facts (and accusing someone else of "edit warring" when the edits are historically accurate).. should clearly not be censoring Wikipedia and deciding who gets banned! If you want Wikipedia to get completely overrun with "personal agenda's", people trying to distort historical facts for there own purpose, then keep banning people who attempt to state the truth. People who are accusing me of "edit warring" should really "check-themselves" for there own personal "agenda" - and stick to historical facts and accuracy. The previous editor-censor stated "we do not care if you are historically accurate"... huh?! are you kidding me? so when does personal agenda (served by clearly misstating historical facts) override history, facts and science? If you read my reasons for my edit to the California Gold Rush article, I have clearly stated the historical inaccuracy of stating the "San Francisco was openly gay" during the California Gold Rush time period - it was not, even read the reference included in the article (A. Boyd) to see that the timelines are off by 60 years (between when the California Gold Rush ended and open homosexuality in San Francisco - the two topics are totally unrelated... it should be removed from the sub-topic on San Francisco, its historically inaccurate. (San Francisco was not openly gay until 1908, read the lengthy references cited, including A. Boyd mentioned in the Gold Rush article -- California Gold Rush ended in 1855!). Now, if someone reads the references that I stated (on the Gold Rush discussion page, and my own talk page) it is clear that the Wikipedia article is historically inaccurate --- it is misstating history. There is obviously a few militant editors on Wikipedia that are trying to promote there own personal agenda, but re-writing history is blatantly wrong and will lead to people losing trust in Wikipedia - it has to stick to historical facts and not be distorted by personal agenda. Readsomescience (talk) 08:16, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You have been told multiple times that you need to address your edit warring if you wish to be unblocked, and once again you have neglected to do that. The block is about how to deal with editorial disagreements, and a repeated rehashing of your content argument is not what we need to see. Whoever is right about the content (and everyone thinks they're right, don't they?) edit warring is strictly prohibited as a means to solve disputes. For repeatedly failing to address the reason for the block and for not listening to what you have been clearly told, you have now also lost your ability to edit this talk page. Please see WP:UTRS if you wish to make a further request - but I warn you that similar unblock requests which do not address your edit warring will be declined via that route too. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:08, 26 June 2018 (UTC) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:08, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Readsomescience&oldid=847571241"