User talk:Tlukay

Current discussion[edit]

@Randy Kryn: hey, I’ve been keeping tabs on the US Constitution talk page from afar. That one editor has started numerous ever-changing proposals since over three months ago there without having any meaningful support, is he getting on your nerves? Tlukay (talk) 17:10, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, hi again, and I hope all is well. Not at all, as the other editors are debating well with him. I was actually thinking of someone else that used to have the kind of habits he has, opening many sections and long discussions, and was trying to warn this one ahead of people taking him to the principal's office and indeffing him. He seems to be arguing in good faith from wanting his points of view on the page, but then gets overzealous when rebuffed, not understanding that these are all volunteers. Have you read the good new thing occurring at the John Adams talk page, suggesting 'Founding Father' as important to the short descriptions of pages of the first four U.S. presidents. That feels important, and correct, and should find inclusion in the short descriptions of all the founders. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:11, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Old discussion[edit]

@Randy Kryn: hey Tlukay (talk) 13:45, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. nice edit runs by the way on the 'see also' List of historical horses, you’re doing lots of good work with that.

Darn it, I really thought you were doing that six-month stint at simple or at a sister project, and was hoping for your good work there. Come on, we need you back free and clear for founding articles during the 250th anniversaries (if you'd like to be involved in that). Anyway, it's very nice of you to work on that bio thing but please stop adding my name anywhere, thanks. Yeah, discovered the historical horses didn't have distribution and have even added some. Am enjoying the articles. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:54, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Randy Kryn: idk why you keep pushing this founders thing like it’s my #1 favorite thing in the world, (you even acknowledged in your very first talk comment to me that I have a wide range of knowledge and interests) I don’t care for it more than I care about tennis or drums or grocery stores or motor oil, wanna know the real reason I wreaked havoc at that page for a while? Tlukay (talk) 13:57, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I didn't realize, thought you had an interest and a feeling for the founding. You did good work at the founders page, much of it still intact. Sure, real reasons are honest. I don't know if anyone is still tracking my pings and edits so don't blame me if admins arrive. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:03, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Going to breakfast. I hope all is well, back later but not most of p.m. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:06, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Randy Kryn: Well firstly, you invited me over there from the United States talk page. But secondly and more importantly, you, Allreet, and Gwillhickers as a collective group of three were doing at Founders talk exactly what I had done at US talk: wall-of-texting and bludgeoning, tiring out other regulars to the point of them giving up, and that had been going on since around February or March of last year. And in the spirit of fairness, I wasn’t gonna let y’all get away with that since I was “banned” for the same thing. Tlukay (talk) 14:11, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That several month-long talk page discussion and sub-discussions back-and-forth were something I don't think any of us expected to occur, what a mudfight. I pointed it out to you and others as an interesting extended discussion, wall of texts and all. Note that none of the editors involved there hurt your editorship status, and you did add very good data to the founder's article and added to the talk page flow both critically and with content. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:11, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Randy Kryn: hey I’m sorry about all the arbitrary random unfair reverts, I actually feel some guilt and shame and remorse over it, and it was a super fucked up thing for me to do. Especially since you’re always present and responsive to me whenever I ping you or talk to you (instead of ignoring/deleting me like almost everyone else has since I was “banned”), and you always try in good faith to hear me out when nobody else listens or understands. Tlukay (talk) 13:00, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Totally forgiven, although caused some stress as you could tell. It's all part of the Wikipedia process (although not a formal process). Wanted to mention that you may have been a bit mistaken about the founder's talk page, as I don't think the vast 2022 discussions caused any page editors to be pushed out because not many were active. If you check the talk page before 2022 it will probably show little activity except for me trying to get editors to help with the page. The page has been refined and edited tremendously since January, 2022, and you are one of the main editors per contributions. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:08, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ok that’s refreshing to hear

@Randy Kryn: hey, wanna collaborate on some Bevel stuff at some point? Such as adding sourced content about him on other pages where he is either unrepresented or underrepresented. (US history pages come to mind as a prime example). I’m also not exactly the best researcher, so I could benefit from some assistance with that. Tlukay (talk) 21:37, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the Thomas Ricks book would provide lots of sources, and plenty of sources and unused quotes from others are in my 1984 (Garrow, 1989) paper. I've done quite a few in the past but hesitate in spreading the full information about Bevel to other pages besides the obvious movements he initiated and directed (Birmingham Children's Crusade, Selma, etc.). I've semi-expected others to do so at some point. You're the only Wikipedian who's taken more than a passing short-term interest in that. Bevel seems the most underrated American in history, on the level of the major Founding Fathers, and it surprises me a little that a dozen editors aren't working the page. I don't really want to go fully into it either, had many years focused on Bevel and his work, and not interested in focusing on it again as yet. The Bevel page is in pretty good shape, not feature worthy but that's for others to do. I hope you understand, and appreciate your interest. Must say it's weird writing on this page with that article laying there underneath. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:30, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Randy Kryn: c’mon man, why do you hesitate in spreading the full information about Bevel to other pages besides the obvious movements he initiated and directed? We both know that you and I are basically the only two Wikipedians who actually care about this extremely underrated pivotal leadership figure in American history, and quite frankly I’m jaded and apathetic about most WP stuff unless it pertains to Bevel or you, those are the only two subjects I really have an interest in these days. Tlukay (talk) 00:04, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't misunderstand me, I've added accurate Bevel information to the articles where it fits. When the Birmingham and Selma movements are mentioned on Dr. King's page or other pages, Bevel's role has been presented. He is well represented on Wikipedia. I really don't know where else you want him to be added besides the obvious. Due weight is real here. For example, Bevel sang well and was going to pursue a career in music before he became involved in movement, and would have probably done very well. But that doesn't mean that his name belongs anywhere in Wikipedia's American music collection as an entertainer. The things you added in those Chicago pages about me, even in the leads, kind of shows you either haven't gotten a full understanding of due weight or you know exactly what it means and choose to disregard it. Adding Bevel to pages outside of where he's already at falls into the same category, things that cannot be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Since we can't collab unless you come back as a full editor, the only thing I can do is to add back some of your edits when you are "caught" and those edits are deleted. But only if they fit, if they can be stated in Wikipedia's voice, have due weight, acknowledged reputable sources, and edits I can make taking COI into the WikiEquation. I appreciate the research you've done on a page about me, oddly floating below this discussion, yet please don't consider me a 'subject' of interest. I can see some of the things I'm interested in as subjects of interest, but that's the same with anyone. This gets very long, so have a good night and nice Super Bowl weekend. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:20, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Did you have a particular page in mind that could use more Bevel? I've been thinking and can't come up with pages outside of regular Civil Rights Movement related topics. Take artwork for example. People aren't going to be erecting statues and holding memorials in his honor, although they should be, mainly because that 2008 trial and conviction really did a number on his reputation (recall, he claimed he was innocent). As far as is known, during his lifetime only one sculptor did a bust of him, and Bevel appreciated that and kept it in his home. After his death the bust was given back to the sculptor and I was told it was lost, a Bevel-like occurrence which doesn't surprise me. I know of no paintings. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:03, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Randy Kryn: at a minimum, the following three pages could use more Bevel:

We can overhaul a paragraph or two in each of those pages by adding a few sentences of sourced passages regarding Bevel, with his photo too, can you help me gather high-quality data and sources to utilize in such an endeavor? And maybe also help me assess due weight? Tlukay (talk) 19:11, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if I've really looked at or edited those pages. An idea. I'll take a couple weeks to add more cites to the Bevel page, from my 1984/1989 paper etc., to get it into better shape (have to build in time for procrastination) and then I'll check to see if the topic fits well within those pages. Adding his image, if applicable, seems like a good idea, the photo used in his article is nicely representative of Bevel and the photographer placed it in public domain. Someday someone will paint a good large portrait from it. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:20, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Randy Kryn: hey, so what’s the connection between you and Bevel down in the Chicago political scene in the 1980s in the Illinois 7th congressional district? Would love to hear more about it, please feel free to write/share as much as you’d like, thanks. Tlukay (talk) 12:07, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bevel ran for Congress as the Republican candidate in 1984 in the heavily Democratic 7th district. None of this is for your paper below by the way, original research. I was at an October 1983 Republican meeting at the Oak Park Club when he and three of his guys (who soon became some of my close friends) came to speak and they handed out a fundraising bio of his SEED group afterwards. Having been a 1960s activist, and listening to that type of music since, it was amazing to me that if what they said was true about his history that I'd never heard of him. I wrote him offering to be his campaign press secretary in order to research his history, knowing that he'd lose the general election, and he agreed (nobody on the campaign was paid), and from there I spent years hanging out with him and working on his bio. Met and still know some great people because of it. The three people with him that night, one was a guy Bevel met in a cotton field and was called to join him, another that claimed he was dead and Bevel woke him up in the morgue and he too now traveled with him, and the third was an activist who knew Bevel from the Chicago Open Housing Movement who joined the campaign once he found out Bevel was running. Saw them all just about daily during the duration of that campaign and a while afterwards, and spent parts of each week with them until 1989. My only long time not being in touch with Bevel, except for a few phone calls and a few visits in 1990, was between sometime in late-1989 until 1995. Long story short. Thanks for asking, and that's not for bio material for Wikipedia. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:28, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Randy Kryn: so y’all three are back to the same old “who’s a founding father?” debate? (seems to have been triggered this time by its category creation/deletion attempt). If you’re met with pushback again, let me know, I have some tricks that’ll help you win. Tlukay (talk) 13:16, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Randy Kryn: p.s. found several sources establishing Paul Revere as a founding father, but that’s a discussion for another day. Tlukay (talk) 13:22, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Best to get the 'who' sorted out before the 250th anniversaries begin. Thanks, but no tricks (fellow Wikipedians, no need to trick them). I think I can mention one thing about that thing below (still weird) without running afoul of my promise to an admin. 'Mr.' is not an alternate name or a infobox name. Don't know where you got that, maybe from a formal newspaper article because some newspapers use 'Mr.' for everyone who qualifies as a Mr. Odd Super Bowl, lots of controversies. Yes, Paul Revere is a close one but right now seems to fit Patriot more than Founder (although he'd probably disagree). Randy Kryn (talk) 13:26, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Randy Kryn: the sources disagree too, he’s a founder. And yes you’re Mr. Kryn because some of the sources say so. I honestly didn’t even pay attention to the Super Bowl this year, and haven’t much for the past few years, in a weird way I’ve noticed I’ve become un-American (not caring much for the Super Bowl is just one of many symptoms, was more excited about the World Cup). Have you ever traveled abroad by the way? Tlukay (talk) 13:32, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You asked me to mention what's due weight, so no, "Mr." is not a name or a nickname, and if the article was mainspaced it would lose that quickly. So that's one measure: the things which would be obviously removed by someone and not pass a talk page discussion would be undue. You can still edit the Founder's talk page to bring those sources up, but if you do so with this account may lose it. Yes, he's a close call. As for abroad, only Paris once. Fell in love with it of course. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:38, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Randy Kryn: After your biography article is complete and published, I’ll make it a personal crusade to add relevant sourced content about you and Bevel to as many pages as possible, that is the only thing I care to do on Wikipedia anymore, gonna make the world know your names. Tlukay (talk) 16:16, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and I hope all is well. I'd ask you not to do that, especially with me, no need to place things out of context or to overly focus on the topic. But, within context, please see the new page African American founding fathers of the United States which mentions Bevel twice. The references I've mentioned are in my 1984 article and Garrow's publication of it in 1989 (with a new addendum). I've got a copy all set to be read and to add some of its references, haven't read it since 2005. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:44, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Randy Kryn: saw it, but don’t care much for it. Like I said, my main areas of focus are adding large chunks of content pertaining to Randy Kryn and James Bevel, have put in many hours of research on this project lately, rest assured that everything will be placed in proper appropriate context and a moderated focus. Tlukay (talk) 17:02, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

May 2023[edit]

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

--Blablubbs (talk) 18:30, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]