User talk:Activist

Welcome!

Hello, Activist, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Aboutmovies (talk) 21:50, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Talk:Cato Institute#Founding information. Your source has neither the indicia of reliablility nor, without a page number, can I confirm that it actually says what you say it does. If the 1974 information is to be included, so must the 1977 information from the Cato Institute web page and the fact that the Charles Koch Foundation says it was founded in 1980. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:11, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I cut & pasted the material you added to my talk page onto the Cato Inst talk page. --S. Rich (talk) 18:41, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As did I. This is getting very frustrating and aggravating.Activist (talk) 18:47, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Koch issued a statement this month that confirmed the correctness of my edits with respect to the Cato founding and name change. charles-kochs-recent-statement-on-the-cato-v-koch-conflict/

Charles Koch’s Recent Statement on the Cato v. Koch Conflict

By Ilya Somin • Volokh Conspiracy - March 9, 2012 2:00 pm

My objective is for Cato to continually increase its effectiveness in advancing a truly free society over the long term. This was my objective when, in 1976, I came up with the idea of converting the Charles Koch Foundation to a public policy institute and recruited Ed Crane to run it.

Activist (talk) 07:36, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The stuff you added is original research. You are not allowed to come to your own conclusions about what the video was showing. Unless you have reliable third party sources that talk about the incident you cannot include it as it is undue weight. Also, who says it is a controversy? You? Reverting my removal of your original research and calling it Vandalism is a serious breach of WP:CIVIL. I realize you don't like Breitbart, but you should probably go somewhere else to complain about him. Arzel (talk) 14:31, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Both sources I quoted, Campus Progress and WND (World Net Daily) contain graphic descriptions and characterizations of Breitbart's behavior and come to conclusions. Both videos amply document his behavior. Are you suggesting that other intermediaries are needed to verify what your own or anyone else's eyes will have to acknowledge when reading the reports or watching the videos? If you need to defend or praise Breitbart, "you should probably go somewhere else to" do it. Wikipedia's definition of the word "controversy" is Controversy is a state of prolonged public dispute or debate, usually concerning a matter of opinion. The word was coined from the Latin controversia, as a composite of controversus – "turned in an opposite direction," from contra – "against" – and vertere – to turn, or versus (see verse), hence, "to turn against." The title of the section is not mine but is of long standing on the Breitbart page. Activist (talk) 15:50, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WND is not accepted as a RS and Campus Progress doesn't look any better. Best to deal with it on the Talk. Consensus is clearly against your edits. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 07:00, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"The Artist AKA Mr. Anonymous" was permanently blocked for edit warring 11 years ago. Activist (talk) 10:48, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any evidence at all of attempts to achieve consensus by any of the editors who removed the CPAC section of "Controversies." The removals seem to violate NPOV. Activist (talk) 07:22, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Forget the quasi-legalities: consensus is manifest, not subject to strict protocols and procedures. If we say there is consensus, and no one besides yourself agrees with whether by reverts or comments. That is one of the many ways we "achieve" consensus" You're entitled to your views but you're not entitled to rule the process, or to force your views on us. You could also take some time to find out why WND and Campus Progress are crummy sources. If you can't, then you just don't get WP. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 00:21, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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. Tiptoety ^talk 07:28, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. Very nice work at the CCA article and its talk page. I did want to let you know that I slightly reformatted your comments on that talk page, in this edit because some parts were left unreadable by this previous edit of yours.

Also, since this message is quite long, I've posted it here in "collapsed" form, to avoid using quite so much real estate on your talk page. Cheers, --OhioStandard (talk) 23:37, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You know, I think I'll just add that new editors are often surprised to discover that Wikipedia is a highly "political" environment. I know when I was just starting out, that I was very surprised to discover, for example, that the opinions one receives at the various notice boards are often very far from unbiased. And of course, as I see you've discovered as I read your talk page, you've had a couple of "tangles" with other editors already. I think you've handled them as well as could be expected, but if you ever feel like you need any advice or counsel or whatever, to know how to deal with a problem, I'd be glad to help.

I can't jump into a conflict on your side since doing so would violate our rule about what we call canvassing, but I'm pretty experienced here, and can probably help you figure out the best way to deal with disputes and conflicts, if that would be of any use to you in the future. Just drop me a note on my talk, if some problem should arise that you're puzzled over how to handle. For the short-term, though, I've temporarily placed this talk page on my "watch list", so I won't miss any reply you might like to make immediately below. Cheers, --OhioStandard (talk) 23:48, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for your offer. I'm up to my butt in alligators this morning but if I can get free sometime today from some rather intense work, I'll get back with you in detail. I left those older comments on my Talk page as I felt I'd get around to dealing with them at some point, including the Breitbart thing where I think I was sandbagged. I didn't have time to deal with the undos, but I think the material was finally added by others through the consensus process. The book thing was blatant self-promotion done by the son-in-law of the author and the book was written to exonerate himself for having been paid for wearing a wire on his co-conspirators. Activist (talk) 15:07, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're quite welcome. I'll be offline for pretty much the rest of the day, myself. Not the least criticism intended re any of the previous material on your talk page, by the way. Drop in at my talk any time if I can help you navigate; I don't like to see long-established editors use of their knowledge of the rules and political process here unfairly to gain advantage over new editors, or to see new editors snookered or intimidated on that basis. Wikipedia isn't supposed to be competitive in that way, but political articles are very often competitive between opposing points of view, and the "playing field" should be level, in my opinion, whether someone is a new editor or not. Cheers, --OhioStandard (talk) 15:38, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure exactly what you're asking here. I recall reading before the election of the courts deciding that there were problems with the redistricting plan, that the plan in place was only temporary for this election, and that there would be changes needed before the next election. The only media account I've had time to notice was a brief mention on the local television news (KTVF), so I'm not that familiar with what's been said this time around. I can't see where there's any new ground here, however.

There are other issues which come to mind, though. I just didn't have time to follow the redistricting process like I wanted to. From what meetings I did attend, however, it seemed all too obvious that the Republicans (Brodie, Holm and Torgerson) walked in carrying an agenda already and considered dealing with the public to be a necessary evil, but otherwise loathsome. Of far more interest to me was hearing of "Senior Justice Warren Matthews" in that one report. It appears to me that Supreme Court appointments are being timed (more like stalled) so that new members face retention four or five years after being initially appointed. To me, this flaunts the constitutional intent of having the justices face their first retention after three years. Having pro tem justices such as Matthews occupy the vacant seat for lengthy periods of time would also appear to flaunt the constitutional intent of retiring judges at age 70.

Here in Fairbanks, Bob Miller, Joe Paskvan and Joe Thomas spent more time and energy campaigning against HB 110 than against their actual opponents, and all lost. David Guttenberg would have in all likelihood also lost if not for the chicanery of an "independent" sockpuppet candidate, which to me recalls Tom Moyer's reelection to the House in 1990 and Georgianna Lincoln's initial election to the Senate in 1992. Despite the excessive spin put on explaining their losses by their supporters (who have mostly placed redistricting at fault), methinks more attention will be given to the losses Albert Kookesh and Bill Thomas faced in Southeast. APRN reported that this leaves Southeast without any Native representation in the Legislature for the first time in perhaps decades (I didn't notice exactly how long). There's very little support amongst the average Alaskan for maintaining the status quo WRT the Voting Rights Act, but that hasn't appeared to faze the Redistricting Board. I'm sure it will be an issue in the next round. RadioKAOS  – Talk to me, Billy 15:27, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! While checking to make sure that the recent GEO Group problem wasn't more widespread, I noticed that you have edited several articles related with GEO Group. I'll be direct and say that while I'm weary that your username may imply that you're here to advocate a cause, you obviously have some experience with articles related to GEO Group, but I see no evidence that you're in any way associated with the organization. There's a conversation here at COIN attempting to determine if this is a larger issue. You're invited to comment there if you'd like. OlYeller21^Talktome 21:31, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Also, based on the thread, I would like to remind you about Wikipedia:Synthesis#Synthesis_of_published_material_that_advances_a_position - If no published source ties together, say, 163 incidents as part of a common trend, Wikipedia cannot do so either. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:05, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did not add the source in question to Efraín Ríos Montt.

I hadn't suggested that you had added it. In fact I left it specifically so that the source could be checked and restored if it proved accurate. I didn't realize that CurtisNaito had included the quote or would have been more reluctant to remove the contention. My following responses are quite complex so I hope you would read to the bottom before responding.

CurtisNaito did, and he quoted the book as follows: "When the Lucas cabal was overthrown in the March 23 golpe de estado, the United States was not involved and, in fact, had not even seen the coup coming. The embassy did not at first grasp the origins or the implications of the coup, incorrectly concluding the Movimiento de Liberacion Nacional had instigated it and that the coup leaders, Rios Montt in particular, were nothing more than figureheads representing the interests of the Far Right."

Now here's the problem. We're dealing with "Russell's (cosmic) Teapot." It's not possible to prove that the U.S. was not involved nor had it seen the coup coming. Part of the problem is that a number of different elements and agencies (i.e., State, DEA, CIA, NSA, etc.) of U.S. policy have sometimes operated within the same theater, at times likely at cross purposes with each other. It's confounded more by relatively crude attempts to cover up political initiatives and their history (i.e., Ollie North's night of shredding tens of thousands of documents), to more use of more sophisticated covers, to use of "back channels" (such as the Heritage Foundation) for expressing support, or through use of personal connections to achieve goals (i.e. developed through mutual participation in programs at the "School of the Americas" involving such actors as SOA graduate Colonel Francisco Luis Gordillo Martinez, who was a prime participant in the '82 coup ).

Many thanks-for the notication. I came across a redirect about Beverly Masek who had served in the Alaska House of Representatives and started an article about her. Feel free to make any improvements. Thanks-RFD (talk) 18:54, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

also I started an article Jerry Ward (politician) who was also in the Alaska Legislature-thanks-RFD (talk) 21:31, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@RFD: I just made this edit. Check the subtitle in the article: Ward ran Donald Trump's 2016 campaign in Alaska, was rewarded with a position in the Department of Education, but resigned not long afterward.http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/04/donald-trump-loyalists-white-house Trump's loyalist army is getting swallowed up by the swamp], Vanity Fair, Abigail Tracy, April 6, 2017. Retrieved 15 April 2017. Activist (talk) 06:04, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Left this at the page.

I've left extensive explanations on the article's TALK page about the impropriety of posting non-factual material, removing legitimate requests for cites, attacks on living persons, and posting cites that do not nearly satisfy sourcing requirements, i.e., referring to home pages of PACER, the federal court (pay) site, the Alaska Department of Law, rather than referring to specific documents. It would be next to impossible to locate materials that ostensibly substantiate the claims and allegations the poster has inserted into the article. More importantly, perhaps, is that the perseverating poster(s?) seems to be on a vendetta against individuals and organizations that have literally nothing to do with the article in question, the AK probe. In my frustration I finally at one point referred to it as "graffiti." Responses to my efforts have been numerous reverts and personal attacks on myself and others including persons with whom I am not familiar. If you have a moment to look at the TALK page and tell me what you, as a dispassionate person, think should be done , I would greatly appreciate it. I should add that this weekend I reverted a brief comment, word salad really, on another, wholly unrelated page (regarding the estate of "H.C.", if you look at my contributions), because the poster obviously had serious mental problems. Activist (talk) 21:48, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A newly-minted IP (sock?) 72.42.151.107 made unsourced edits to the article lede tonight (pp removed earlier today today), seemingly intended to improve the reputation of one Bill Bobrick (but also quite OPEDish. Reverted for lack of RS and cautioned. Dwpaul (talk) 03:24, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I really appreciate your vigilance with regard to this page. I was surprised to see that references to Bobrick might have been changed somehow. He was truly a very minor player in the affair, the only one who took full responsibility for his involvement and did so very rapidly, the only one who did not fight the charges. The only other defendant whose indictment surprised me by his or her involvement was Bruce Weyhrauch, who was in my opinion, a pretty decent guy, a good legislator, who did not appear to have any larcenous or corrupt tendencies. Weyhrauch, an attorney, in fact challenged his indictment on technical grounds, took it all the way to the Supreme Court and won. I didn't agree with the SC's ruling in the case, which was associated with a couple of real scoundrels, Conrad Black and especially Jeff Skilling, in their challenges to the "honest services fraud" statute under which their cases (and some others in the Polar Pen scandal) had been brought. Anyway, I went to the Bobrick changes, expecting the worst, and I found I didn't disagree with the changes the editor made. They seems to be nothing like those of the two (unless there had been just one, w/a sock puppet) who were adamant about shoehorning their unrelated, obviously personal grievances and poorly sourced edits into the article despite at least one of them having a COI plus their inappropriate and possibly libelous edits not being remotely related to the subject of the article. If the new editor can provide sourcing for his or her edit regarding Bobrick, I think they could restore as much as can be verified by reliable sources. I was unaware of the 52 (or any) letters of reference to the judge in Bobrick's case, but that might be hard to establish, given that the court record itself is insufficient as a primary source. I'll drop that editor a note on his or her talk page. I don't think legitimate contributions should be discouraged, and I think that edit was indeed germane to the context of the broader investigation. The Bobrick material also I think helps establish some missing balance or gives a broader perspective to the case. All the defendants were certainly not equally culpable by a long shot, but a wide net had been cast (and some fairly odious creatures slipped through) that snared some minor players. Lastly, thanks for catching the out of date tense reference to the then-anticipated sentencing of Stevens that never happened, given the inquiry which eventually voided the seven Stevens' convictions. Again, thanks for your vigilance. This has been a thorny mess and your input is greatly appreciated and respected. Activist (talk) 20:09, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, responding to your message. I'm taking advantage of a lull in business right now to hope to get a few things done, but I haven't exactly made any progress. Between dividends and the fact that the AFN convention will once again be held here, I expect to be very busy out in the real world before too long.

This whole thing has been quite silly. Even a bit lame. What can be done? Beeblebrox would probably have been a better person to ask, as he's an admin, but it appears that he is off trying to get some camping done before the snow flies.

I would recommend the BLP noticeboard and the RS noticeboard, for starters. At least it will garner the attention of others outside of this discussion. The existing discussion between only two or three people is already circular enough to where it's quickly approaching being pointless.

In general, I still see nothing which ties this whole matter into the actual subject of the article. Sheila Toomey reported several years back that Nelson Cohen was the first-ever non-resident to be appointed U.S. Attorney for Alaska. Cohen was placed in that position specifically due to his role within the Public Integrity Section. This was happening at the same time that the PIS were actively investigating other state governments, particularly Illinois. Therefore, it could be argued that Rod Blagojevich has more to do with this than Jim Duncan does, even though it would constitute quite a stretch to arrive at that conclusion through RS, also.

Funny, though, this has attracted attention away from another, years-long issue with the article: the "Murkowski legacy of corruption", that somehow Frank's appointment of Lisa to his Senate seat is tied into this, which hasn't exactly been corroborated through RS, either. If you haven't noticed, Theresa Obermeyer has recently discovered Wikipedia, but evidently hasn't progressed through it far enough to understand WP:NOTAFORUM. John Lindauer tried to do the same thing maybe two or three years ago. You would think that people who have earned PhDs would be capable of understanding what an encyclopedia is.

Anyway, Theresa appears to have her own Murkowski-related grudges, although from what I've read, it's limited to the hypothesis that Eileen Van Wyhe's service on the board of directors of First Bank is further evidence of a conspiracy related to the Alaska Permanent Fund Corporation. Yeah, just as silly as all of this about Jim Duncan and Donn Liston. First Bank is the lineal descendant of the First National Bank of Ketchikan. Both of Eileen Van Wyhe's grandparents were rival bankers is Ketchikan; her paternal grandfather, Frank M. Murkowski, was with the same First National Bank of Ketchikan, while her maternal grandfather, Lester Gore, was with the Miners & Merchants Bank. Could it be that the bank felt that she had experiences and perspective which could serve the bank well? It could very well have been cronyism and/or favoritism, too. RadioKAOS  – Talk to me, Billy 01:31, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all your input.

I posted prior text to the BLP Noticeboard last night. Got some good feedback from one editor. I think there's been more but I've just gotten back on line after being off since the wee hours this a.m. so I'll look for that in a minute.

You don't see anything that ties the whole matter into the actual subject of the article because there isn't anything. In the case of Duncan and ASEA, there's no connection, of course.

I thought that Frank M. tanked the Bank of the North, only. Were there other banks involved?

There was actually a connection between Polar Pen and Ketchikan. Prewitt, Weimar and Cornell wanted to build a rent-a-pen on Gravina Island, with the feds pitching in a quarter of a billion to build the necessary bridge and an intertie. It didn't go anywhere because the Borough Assembly knew better and Bill W. and Frank P. turned their attention to where they thought they had better action: In Wrangell, where Robin Taylor was involved, and Whittier, where the mayor, the city administrator (for a "city" of 182 people), and the harbormaster all had their fingers in the pie. I don't think the schemers ever wanted to build in Whittier, where there's no labor force, the tunnel problem, tsunamis, avalanche and probably a potential Superfund problem, but it was the mechanism they were using to get the state to change the law to favor their various schemes. If they were able to do that, they could have built anywhere. Knowles wasn't going for it, as were many legislators who gave it the fish eye. In addition to the above grifters, Jerry Ward, Loren Leman and Eldon Mulder were also looking to score big with Cornell or whomever. Frank M. wasn't enthusiastic about the various Cornell/Prewitt/Weimar schemes that included Sitka, Nome (!), and Mat Su as well as those others. There was some talk about Fairbanks, too, but legislators such as Bud Fate put the kibosh on that notion. Uncle Ted got the dough, almost, for the Gravina bridge, but Coburn put a stop to it. Activist (talk) 05:32, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I posted at BLPN, the article talk page, and now here. You are doing a good job on the article. If you still are having trouble, post a request at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection, which can prevent the IPs from posting to the article while allowing you to continue editing it (e.g., semi-protected or feedback protected). -- Jreferee (talk) 06:20, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. I requested temporary protection and will follow through on further steps. Activist (talk) 22:02, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I protected the page and gave you reviewer and rollbacker rights. If you need more to help you maintain the Alaska political corruption probe page, etc. please let me know. -- Jreferee (talk) 11:12, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for your assistance. If I do need help I'll give you a heads up. Activist (talk) 06:31, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I added Juneau Empire and ADN articles that are accessible and back up the Department of Law documents as one editor asked. Perhaps removing "probe" from the title would resolve the issues with a union which has a BM that is not allowed to represent dues payers. Calling the page "Alaska Corruption" sounds good to me. Obviously 223-03-0342 is a quid -pro -quo as it were, and clearly the Department of Law suggests revisit of such ethics problems may take a different direction in the courts.(As documented in AG opinion.) The sex for job hiring policies under Duncan's stipulation that replaced the merit system the state is supposed to have, another quid-pro-quo.98.168.175.209 (talk) 00:27, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing wrong with the title. It actually and precisely describes an important series of events in Alaska political history. Duncan was hired by ASEA, per your documents and references, 11 years ago, well before the completely unrelated probe began. He engaged in a one-year stipulation that is common among those who change jobs that he would not involve himself those issues in which he had been involved as Commissioner of Administration. That expired a decade ago and so there have been no restrictions on his representation since. Your personal feelings about Duncan, whatever they are, don't permit you to shoehorn your opinions about him or others into an article on another subject entirely. The statement by the AG's office about revisiting an opinion had absolutely nothing to do with Duncan. If you need a forum to air your ancient grievances about someone who had nothing to do with the subject of this page in any way, you need to remove them to another more appropriate venue. You've been informed by numerous editors that you need to abide by Wikipedia policies, including avoiding WP:COI. I'm hoping that you also don't restore or renew your unprovoked personal attacks and diatribes against me that also violate those policies. None of this should be too difficult for you to understand. Activist (talk) 01:15, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments on my talk page. I have no problem with Slate, Salon, Motherjones, or for that matter DemocracyNow or RealNews, in fact I think all of these do great journalism. But the way I understand Wikipedia, most of what appears in these venues would be considered primary sources (investigative journalism) or opinion pieces and hence not appropriate as references for encyclopedia articles, especially controversial ones. If there is a fact that is worth mentioning in an encyclopedia article, it should probably have a secondary source at least somewhere in the news media, or at least an official primary source (like a court document or something). I'm sure I don't have to remind you about WP:PRIMARY and that Wikipedia itself is an encyclopedia, a tertiary source, and hence relies on secondary sources for credibility.

If the "fact" is a mere claim made in a venue such as those above without any other confirming source, it is not appropriate as a reference on Wikipedia. In some venues such as those, there are plenty of cited sources for a story that would be fine references. Other times, referencing links are internal, dead, or missing. This does not mean that there is anything necessarily wrong with the original story; it could be investigative, the sources could be anonymous, etc. But it does mean, in the view of this editor, that it is not an encyclopedia source. For instance, your motherjones link you're pushing on the GEO article is turning up next to nothing. Nevertheless I'm keeping track of a few leads that may be able to make their way into the article in some relevant form. Speaking of this, I'm going to take the rest of this issue to the talk page at the GEO article, where most of this should be voiced anyway. Eflatmajor7th (talk) 00:33, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Continued:

As a wikipedia editor, I'm not really interested in your knowledge and analysis of world politics and propaganda systems. I happen to agree with most of it, but that doesn't matter here, so there's no reason to keep laying down paragraphs on my talk page. I'm not going to talk further about motherjones and whether or not it should be used as a source and where, because that is really a matter for a community discussion. What we're talking about here is encyclopedia articles, their content, and the references for that content. You were trying to use the motherjones article as a reference that a particular facility exists. That, as I said, is pointless. Instead I used "some GEO Group corporate boiler plate"; of course I did, because that's the easiest reference to use for a trivial fact. What is not trivial is WHETHER that fact belongs in the article. This was the relevant discussion to have, which I had, with Niteshift on the talk page, while you were busy composing a summary of geopolitics for me. The Reeves facility is now mentioned in the article in case you hadn't noticed.

While Niteshift and I of course have many disagreements (which is often a kind of collaboration that contributes to a good article), I think he and I are both stumped as to what actual content, facts, you want to put in the article. You need to go to the talk page and say what content you want to include, where, why, and what the references are. Then there will likely be a bunch of disagreements and caveats. That's life. But it's how to make an article. You might have noticed, if you went through the history of the GEO article, that if it weren't for me and one or two other editors, the entire "controversies" would probably have been wiped in the wake of the stupid FAU stadium scandal. And the reason, had that happened, would not have been because anything in there was false, it would have been because the sources were shitty or missing, the writing was sloppy, and maybe most importantly, the content in there had not been justified as "controversial". So I argued that, rather than diffusing the section into the history section, we should find better sources and rewrite most of the section. So we, mostly I, did that. The article is still not very good, but it's better now than before.

If, for instance, you want to include a mention of the riot at Reeves, you'll first have to justify including that on the talk page (I probably wouldn't object, but the conversation should be had). And if you think the motherjones piece is a good source for that, then it would be interesting to see you try to convince other editors besides me, on my talk page, that that's a good source. Again, I probably wouldn't have an objection, but the conversation should be had. You might also look at the sources I put on the talk page. And wikipedia doesn't necessarily run on the precedent of other articles; it would be hard to evolve that way. Just because the article for private prisons cites all kinds of left-leaning media and aclu stuff, doesn't mean anything for another article. That's because groups of editors achieve consensus about specific articles they work on, and one article could have completely different approaches than another, and both could still be within WP policy. The relevant policy that was frequently brought up in the context of wiping the controversies section, not using certain types of sources, etc., was WP:UNDUE. I don't necessarily agree that it applies everywhere it's invoked, but again, that's life. Eflatmajor7th (talk) 00:40, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Continued:

Thanks for your comments, again. I don't doubt what you've said about GEO, etc. But if you want to include something in the article, you shouldn't be discouraged by Niteshift's "tirades" or "purges", neither of which accurately characterizes his behavior, I think. He is a long-time WP editor who is understandably guarding his territory (and who, of course, is of a particular political disposition), and he needs to be convinced of the legitimacy of edits. Nothing extremely surprising here. You said "I want to insert content that legitimately and importantly reflects on the actuality of GEO's operation." What is it? I ask again, what is that content? Don't talk about it here, and don't talk about it on my talk page, put it on the GEO talk page, right now, if you think it's important. There we'll discuss it, not here. Eflatmajor7th (talk) 11:27, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That did help. I've replied at User talk:RadioKAOS. CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 22:11, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You know far more about this than me. My info is very sketchy compared to yours. Activist (talk) 05:53, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Carl DeMaio shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution.CFredkin (talk) 20:10, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm asked not to respond in kind, because you are presently blocked for a week for doing exactly what you're disingenuously accusing me of doing. I'm about as guilty as starting a war as the Poles, who were so accused by Hitler of attacking Germany in 1939. Activist (talk) 19:21, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have not been involved in an edit war. I have not reverted other editors work, in fact I have done two reverts in response to those that removed my own well founded edits, one each on the article talk page and article itself. Your complaint is POINTy, in my estimation. I have laboriously provided requested sourcing in response to other editors' comments. Your complaints here are in my opinion, tendentious. It's particularly ironic, given your own history of pervasive involvement in edit wars where you have simply apparently tried to wear down other editors and preserve your own extremely partisan view of history. Activist (talk) 20:27, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Activist, I came here to give you the same warning. You added the same material three times. If you do it again I will report you for edit warring. I will issue the same warning to CFredkin since he reverted you three times. --MelanieN (talk) 21:25, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Responded with brief comment. Activist (talk) 13:32, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CFredkin was later blocked for sockpuppetry. Activist (talk) 14:33, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Mark Begich. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:04, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Heh heh heh...while I likely do have some things to say about this one, I decided to step away from such sewer pits until after the election hysteria has died down and the trolls move on to other conquests. Trust me on this one, you would stand a better chance of taking home a woman you met at the neighborhood "fine drinking establishment" and not contracting an STD than you would in getting any resolution or satisfaction out of that monstrous trollfest, populated by editors who constantly throw up the AGF shield as they tell you that they're merely improving the encyclopedia, all the while making countless edits which amount to little more than unabashed damage control and/or puffery. Just a friendly warning in the event you haven't been following it. It's the same principle behind not responding right away to your concerns about Mead Treadwell, even though I agree that you did raise a valid concern (obviously, as look at how quickly it was whitewashed by another editor). RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 02:46, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for providing the reference. I need to change the wording to reflect the fact that "several" quakes were felt by a person at the surface, associated with the well in Oklahoma. There are still three wells known to have triggered such quakes, but you are right that there were more than three quakes. I will change the wording to reflect that, and see what you think. The number of quakes recorded by seismograph (43) is irrelevant, because the sentence is about those large enough to be felt by humans. Every frac job generates many small seismic events, detectable only by sensitive instrumentation. As to the the total number of earthquakes in Oklahoma, if any of them had been both associated with a frac'ed well, and felt by a human at the surface, that fact would have been no doubt studied and reported in great detail, as was this instance in your provided reference, because such events are so rare. So other than the Garvin County well, The increase in seismic activity in Oklahoma, as is the case elsewhere, is presumably associated with disposal wells reinjecting the produced brine, which is where the real problem lies. Regards, Plazak (talk) 22:05, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the very interesting note on the Santa Maria Basin quake in 1992. The 2 problems with associating that one with fracking appear to be 1) this is a much more seismically active area than the US Midcontinent, so near-coincidence in time is not nearly as remarkable, and 2) the article did not seem to give the location of the quake with respect to the fracked well, so apparently they do not know if it occurred in the near vicinity. Without correlation of both time and location, the authors did not draw conclusions. As the Wikipedia article says, there are 3 “known” instances of fracked wells triggering earthquakes; those that are not regarded by experts in the field as having some probability of causation are, I think by definition, not “known”. One can speculate that there have been more, but only three are known.

As for waste disposal wells, I note that you deleted from a sentence in the UK fracking article words to the effect that earthquakes are triggered by relatively few injection wells. This is actually a common observation, for instance the following by a USGS researcher writing in Science:

“However, only a small fraction of the more than 30,000 wastewater disposal wells appears to be problematic—typically those that dispose of very large volumes of water and/or communicate pressure perturbations directly into basement faults.” (“Injection-induced earthquakes”

This observation certainly merits inclusion in any discussion of the subject. Regards Plazak (talk) 06:39, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. The US Midcontinent earthquakes (mostly Oklahoma) have certainly been increasing rapidly in number, although I'm not sure about magnitude, since the only quakes magnitude >5 were in 2011. But these things tend to be spotty. I suspect that Oklahoma state authorities have been busily limiting injection pressures and volumes at brine disposal wells, while still trying to accommodate the increased need for brine disposal. There must be some available information on this. Like yourself, I was always intrigued by the Manitou Cliff Dwellings, since I had never known of Anasazi ruins so far east. After I found out that the site was built around 1904, I paid my way into the place; nothing at the site informs you that it is recently constructed. I suspect that most visitors go away thinking that it is a genuine ancient site. Regards Plazak (talk) 11:52, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Plazak:I just ran across this above note again which you wrote a year ago as I looked for sections in my TALK page that might be usefully deleted or archived. I expect you're probably aware, but the OK earthquake swarms article to which you were posting in October has changed its title to 2009-2016 and your old changes show the new title in your contribution history. You may also be aware that the KS authorities ordered cutbacks in injection well pressures and volumes last March. Austin Holland, the state geologist who was reluctantly admitting despite industry pressure that OK injection wells were inducing significant seismicity was pushed out of his position and now works for the USGS in NM. Sandridge, recently delisted from the NYSE and under huge financial pressure, refused to abide by the OK Corporation Commission orders to cut back on disposal in some injection wells. I am not aware of any OK quakes in the MMS>5 range, but there have been many recently crowding that magnitude. The magnitude and frequency of KS quakes has dropped since the issuance of that order, after topping out at MMS 4.9 in 2014. Activist (talk) 06:55, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Phillip Puckett: "Removed inaccurate descriptor: CREW is officially non-partisan and went after Puckett and many other Democrats". Do you really believe this nonsense? They went after Puckett because he became a Republican, and was therefore not a Democrat when CREW went after him. Please don't put agitprop in your edit summaries. Quis separabit? 03:45, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know where you get your information, but it is absolutely inaccurate. Puckett was still a Democrat on the day he resigned from the Virginia legislature. You can just go to the many citations that are part of this article, and to the text of the article itself, which will confirm that you are wrong. It is against Wikipedia policy to level attacks against other editors. I respectfully request that you check what you believe are your facts and respond to me with an apology. Activist (talk) 14:52, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at what you described. I faintly recall having seen this come across my watchlist at the time, but probably didn't look that closely or I would have fixed it. The accompanying statement "He is currently married to Greg brown", and the listed date of death being three months after the edit, should have been obvious tip-offs to vandalism. That it appears to have been partially reverted by Moira Smith herself should have been another tip-off. The "death information" was entered into persondata, meaning that while it doesn't appear in the article, it does appear in certain envrionments which are tied into persondata (the page I linked to describes it better than I ever could). Honestly, if it weren't for the fact that I've seen his name in one or another news story in the past two years, I wouldn't have known any better whether or not he had died.

Here's something even better than that, though. Jake Metcalfe is not mentioned in his father's listing in Who's Who in Alaskan Politics, even though he had already graduated from JDHS by the time it was published. I previously assumed that the listing was lifted verbatim from the listing in Alaska — Who's Here — What's Doing — Who's Doing It by Edmond C. Jeffery, which was published several years before Jake's birth. Not exactly; Atwood and DeArmond did update Vern Metcalfe's career through his employment with the state education department in 1971. Jake's article says that Vern had nine children: Jeffery lists Vern Jr., Kim, Peter and Patrice. Atwood and DeArmond lists the same, except they say that Patrice is actually Patricia, and they added Kathleen. That means that four children are missing from the listing. I'm guessing that Vern Metcalfe was long gone from the public eye by 1977, so that information may not have been so easy to obtain. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 20:16, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the compliment. Bill Parker, now there's a blast from my past. I think I mentioned a while back that when Bill Weimar first came to my attention in the late 1970s/early 1980s, he was an active Democrat. Some may find that inconceivable, given his later activities. Maybe he stumbled upon the same batch of Kool-Aid as Donley, Mackie, Williams, etc. Anyway, there once was a time when I would interchangeably confuse Bill Parker, Bill Weimar and Bill Miles. Probably not as strange as it would seem: others have interchangeably confused Mildred Hermann, Mildred Banfield and Mildred Meiers Hansen. Bringing this back around to the previous discussion, I believe Kim Metcalfe purchased the legislative reporting service founded by Hansen. I could be wrong, but I don't think it's in business anymore, as it appears that the Bradner brothers have that field pretty well locked up. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 09:16, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Rafael Bienvenido Cruz. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted or removed.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:48, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Winkelvi|WVDisruptive editing, it appears to me, is exactly what you're doing. Certainly we can resolve this collegially. Activist (talk) 17:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When you keep re-adding improperly sourced content to a BLP and edit warring over it and leaving TLDR screeds on another editor's talk page because they are following BLP guidelines, yes. That is the definition of disruptive editing. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Winkelvi|WV Why are you ignoring my request that we submit this to arbitration. You seem to be also contesting the accuracy of any source that doesn't meet your notion of what's a RSS, though it may have stood in the article for quite some time. It quite clear that your view is that it's your way or the highway. I don't have time to deal with you any longer. I repeat my request that we submit this to arbitration. Activist (talk) 18:04, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration is the last place to go if editors find themselves in an unresolvable morass. This is a dispute over one article and doesn't warrant arbitration and a case request would be declined. If you can't come to agreement with other editors on the article talk page, go to dispute resolution and maybe they can help. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback, Liz. Activist (talk) 21:39, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Rafael Bienvenido Cruz. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.
Utilize WP:BRD on the article talk page, do not edit war over content. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:05, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Talk:Rafael Bienvenido Cruz. Such edits are disruptive and appear to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Warning is in regard to this edit. Don't do it again. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:46, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Winkelvi:Your threats are getting very disturbing. I don't know if you're deliberately trying to upset me or if you're simply devoid of empathy. You keep accusing me of doing things I'm not doing (what did I delete from the Talk page, for instance?), complaining to others that I'm "stalking you," when no case could be made against me but certainly one could against you, that I'm engaging in edit warring when you have attacked the majority of my posts on RBC's page, and you refuse to even read, no less consider, my explanations that might help to resolve our problem. You continue to actually order me how to edit, and assign what WP policies I should read, as if you possess some imperial authority and have no obligation to observe the social conventions of common courtesy. I really think an honest apology is in order. Activist (talk) 20:35, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You bolded another editor's talk page comments. That's against policy per TPO. I never once accused you of stalking me or anyone. Your comments on article edits are typically too long, run off topic, and never really get to a bottom line that would help readers understand what point you are trying to make. I hope that helps. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:02, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Winkelvi:You wrote, "I never once accused you of stalking?" What do you call this?

(talk page stalker) Things wouldn't likely go well for Activist at either. He's been stubbornly edit warring and violating BLP guidelines over his insistence on keeping the content in addition to citing unreliable sources. He hasn't even exercised BRD on the article talk page. Folliwing BLP guidelines/policy and exercising the 'D' portion of BRD should be his first actions. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

I hope that helps. Activist (talk) 12:57, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I call it having the other editor's talk page on my watchlist. "Talk page stalker" is a common Wikipedia term for those who have the talk pages of others on their watchlist. Many editors do it and call it that. It's not actual stalking. But, if it were, the person being stalked is the other editor, not you. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:33, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected. Thanks! Activist (talk) 18:10, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I probably never followed up on various discussions between you and I in recent months when I should have. The progress-to-activity ratio around here is appallingly low at times, mainly because we have lots of editors whose activities suggest that they view Wikipedia as an alternate form of social media, while plenty of content is left in a state which reinforces the "Wikipedia is a joke" meme. For that reason, I'm beginning to disdain discussions, especially when I'm being nice and trying to give people a clue for free rather than telling them to go to Walmart and buy one. Ahem, anyway...

I see that you worked on Jerry Ward's article recently. I've been working on filling in the Alaska section of List of Native American politicians, in which I had to leave his specific ethnicity blank. I actually met Jerry's mother once, back around 1992 or thereabouts, but all I really know about her is that she's from Nenana. That doesn't necessarily help with identifying his ethnicity; between its longstanding role as the intersecting point between transportation networks and its former role as the headquarters of the Episcopal Diocese of Alaska, Nenana has long attracted Natives from all over. If you can think of anything which may help, let me know.

Also, I just left a huge wall of text at Talk:Alaska Department of Corrections over one editor's efforts to turn that article and List of Alaska state prisons into a mindless repetition of the department's official website and other cherry-picked sources instead of something I would call useful encyclopedic content. I had to search for source material, and the 1985 Alaska Blue Book had some possible gems related to Sheffield's hiring of Roger Endell to lead corrections out of HSS and into its own department, but there were too many holes in the narrative of that one particular source for me to put anything into the article. Anyway, looking elsewhere in this book, I found a tidbit which could possibly be a prehistory of the Corrupt Bastards Club. pp. 114–122 contained a list of lobbyists registered with APOC. VECO's lobbyist is listed as one M. E. "Ed" Dankworth of Dankworth & Associates, not long after he left the legislature. Ken Fanning and John Manly (then his legislative aide, later press secretary "to the stars") collaborated on a book about the 12th Legislature, Behind The Scenes in the Alaska Legislature, which I would highly recommend if you haven't already read it. Manly drew numerous cartoons in the style of newspaper editorial cartoons. Some of them are dated, such as Bob Palmer lecturing on how moving the capital to Willow will make it easier for the Delta-area barley farmers to come and beg for their state subsidies, framed as "bison migration". The section entitled "Corruption in Government" is accompanied by a cartoon of Dankworth as "The Fat Lady", appearing pretty much like this. In the cartoon, Dankworth "sings" the following:

I-I-I will Not seek re-election!

I-I-I have Biz-ness to conduct!

Many, many private Deals that must be cut...

Without attracting too much Public attention!

So, please...leave...ME...AAAAAAAAALONE!

The caption at the bottom of the cartoon reads: "The fat lady having sung, the opera adjourned on the 144th day". Any of this sound familiar? George Hohman isn't mentioned by name in this section, but it sure appears that the text refers to the events which led to his expulsion by the Senate. Here's another possible tie to CBC. Wasn't Dankworth succeeded as head of AST by Tom Anderson, Sr.? I knew the elder Anderson from the Sullivan Arena (one of the middle managers under him was Dan Sullivan, as in the former mayor) and don't know all that much about his prior law enforcement career. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 04:11, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Activist—thanks for keeping a keen eye on the citation date. I actually didn't touch any of the citations (citation intricacies happen to be one of my least favorite things). After poring through the change log I notice I accidentally reverted the date update in this edit. Thanks for catching that. I believe that as I was working on the infobox, you corrected the citation. I might have also copy-pasted wikitext from multiple versions of the page. When I saved the changes to the infobox that overwrote the citation fix. In other words, that reintroduced an old mistake. Good thing to be aware of.

Thanks for your contributions as well! CaseyPenk (talk) 06:11, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@CaseyPenk:You're most welcome! 06:15, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, realizing Obama can do more than "pardon" - as in commute the sentence - was a good catch. Instead of saying all that in the lead, I tweaked to the sources language "clemncy" and just gave a wikilink to where the pardon power is discussed.... note that section explains pardon-power includes commutation of sentence. Good eye NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:00, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Posting the entire text of his own articles to my talk page isn't helping anything — as I've already pointed out numerous times, a person does not get a Wikipedia article by being the author of the article's sources, he gets it by being the subject of them (which is why his notability as an academic has to be parked on media coverage about his academic work, and not on a directory listing of his academic articles.) And even if it were a source that could contribute toward getting him over WP:GNG, it would have to be cited in the article, not copied and pasted to an administrator's talk page. Plus, for the record, I now have to remove it from my talk page because WP:COPYVIO. Bearcat (talk) 15:36, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

	The Barnstar of Good Humor
	Thanks for defending me at the Tim Canova AfD! Appreciate the good humor. MrWooHoo (talk) 01:32, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

		The Civility Barnstar
		A barnstar for your civility in dealing with a disagreement at Talk:U.N. Me DaltonCastle (talk) 21:54, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	for bringing Senator Murphy gun control filibuster up to snuff E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:29, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Activist. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:14, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Elinruby: Neglected to ping you on discussion on my Talk page. Activist (talk) 07:27, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you pinging me on Talk:G4S Secure Solutions? I only made one revert, while anti-vandalism patrolling. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 19:50, 1 July 2016 (UTC) Thanks for the notice. I'll drop you from those pings. I apologize if they've been a distraction. Activist (talk) 19:52, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• See.... I told you that pinging nonsense was annoying. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:09, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know there is a whole article about G4S Controversies? Why don't you put all this excessive coverage there? Niteshift36 (talk) 22:08, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have known about it for weeks. Why don't you do it? I'm already too busy trying to keep up with your endless reverts. Activist (talk) 22:13, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Of course.... why would I think that you'd actually give a crap about an article that is supposed to have detailed descriptions of this sort of material? Talking to you is pointless. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:06, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is it this edit?

I meant that for all of the editors of the article in general. If you had done the edit, though, I strongly suggest heeding it. One thing that's really important on Wikipedia is referencing. Material can be removed if it's "unreferenced" (unless we're talking about common knowledge) - Manipulating information without keeping it close to the sources can lead to stuff being mistakenly removed by new editors who are unaware of what happened.

• That's it, all right. I presumed that your tip was meant for any editor, generally, but wasn't sure if it might not have been meant solely for me and I wanted to make sure I responded if that were the case.The Epps business is something I've been looking at for years before it ever got on the USAG's radar (when that concerned county sheriff blew the whistle to the AG or FBI) because of other things Chris had been habitually doing that gave rise to strong suspicions that he was a crook. The whole issue is terribly complex, of course, involving so many entities and individuals, and I'd hoped to lay it out so any naive reader with an interest could understand it. What do you think of the article, as far as that goes? This year, I've been wondering if other sheriffs or county officials might be involved in quids pro quo, or whatever, and now I guess we'll probably see that happening. I do wonder how many prosecutions have been lost, though, due to delays that have exceeded statutes of limitations? Cornell execs had a long history of corruption, for instance, but I'm guessing they're pretty much off the hook, unless there are some secret indictments out there. A reporter friend who has been covering this for some time ventured early last year that Epps had probably worn a wire for months before his original indictment had been made public. I also wonder if Sparkman's name is ever going to be brought up? Thanks for your current and future input. Activist (talk) 17:16, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There he is. That's definitely an Athabaskan vest he's wearing, but I don't recognize anything about the design which would point to a specific ethnicity or "tribe". But what's up with all these taniks wearing kuspuks, anyway? And is that a bolo tie I see Tuckerman wearing? Does he think he's Joe Vogler now or something? RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 11:05, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see him, but I heard that he and Dave Donley were both there pushing Cruz, beating up on Trump.

I'll see if I can't figure out what tribe he belongs to. I'll take a look at the article when I get back on line. Gotta go. Activist (talk) 18:45, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He's in the center of the first photo, about the only one in that shot not wearing a kuspuk. One of the commenters made a remark about "his fake Caswell tribe". Caswell was recognized as a village entity in ANCSA, but it's unclear to me what role his family may or may not have played in that. This implies Dena'ina ancestry, but I wouldn't want to just assume that to be the case. In the Caswell area, there's a turnoff at around mile 86 of the Parks (pretty close to Sheep Creek Lodge) which leads back to a rather extensive series of subdivisions. I do know that his family's real estate business has been heavily involved with that, but I don't know if there's any firm connection between the two. Also, are you claiming that Ward is pushing Cruz? Nothing about this election would surprise me anymore, but that doesn't sound right considering the story states "Trump staffers were in touch with Alaska's Trump campaign chair, Jerry Ward". RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 20:03, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@RadioKAOS: I think that those who told me that there was rebellion from Trump, were unknowingly talking about Ward and others doing the right thing, making sure Cruz and Rubio votes were counted, honoring the preferences of the Alaskan Republican primary voters. My friends, having watched that part of the convention on TV, assumed the protest was intended to throw a wrench into the Trump nomination. Activist (talk) 05:47, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Zigzig20s:, @D.Creish:, @Notque:, I restored the most recent scrubbing of the DWS article by VolunteerM. I expect he or she may be very unhappy. Activist (talk) 23:58, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What you are doing above is an improper form of WP:CANVASSing. It's against Wikipedia policy. Please don't do this again.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:40, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Zigzig20s:, @D.Creish:, @Notque:, I clearly haven't asked anyone to do anything. The pinging was merely a courtesy notice to some of the most recent of many other editors who have differed with you over your interesting and persistent removals of what present as well documented facts in the DWS article. I'm not remotely responsible for what you imagine might be happening. Activist (talk) 14:40, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Volunteer Marek: As was explained on the article's talk page, it's not canvassing when the recipients are all active participants.

On another note: at what point were you planning to notify these active participants you had started a discussion on the BLP noticeboard? The instructions say to place a template notification tag on the article's talk page. Did you forget or am I missing it? I see you accuse me of being an SPA (what that single purpose could be I can't determine) who's made "BLP violations on related articles" - another accusation without evidence. Battleground behavior under discretionary sanctions should not be tolerated. Perhaps you'd like an opportunity to correct the record? D.Creish (talk) 06:52, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Debbie Wasserman Schultz shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

Please self-revert your latest revert. This is a BLP. You cannot include contentious material if it's been challenged. I suggest starting an RfC or bringing the issue up to WP:BLPN again. But you really need to quit it with the edit warring.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:08, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am also going to ask you to refrain from making personal attacks as you did here. Discuss content, not the editor. Please keep in mind that the article is subject to discretionary sanctions. Come on, filing out WP:AE reports is a big pain in the ass so don't make me do it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:22, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@WWB:, @Fuzheado: Dear William and Andrew. I noticed your submission this afternoon. I submitted a similar, but less extensive, proposal a few days ago for the Wikipedia conference. [[1]] I had first searched the list for "paid," but not COI and when I didn't get any hits, I made my submission. You are soliciting a third panelist. I'd be happy to join you. I was going to prepare some slides that make a case for more effective COI blocking by corporate content controllers/IPNs and paid editors who have not been blocked under their current Wikipedia identities. If you would be okay with me joining you, I can withdraw my separate proposal and if there are any other editors who have indicated an interest in my proposal, I'd ping them to note the fusion of the proposals. At present, one community editor has exhibited an interest in your proposal. Thanks. Activist (talk) 20:26, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @WWB:, @Fuzheado: Dear William and Andrew. My request for a scholarship was approved, so I'll get gas money to get to San Diego.

Your recent editing history at Tim Canova shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

The article is under a 1RR restriction. With these three edits [2], [3], [4] you've basically violated that twice. Please at the very least self-revert your last revert.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:45, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

'@Volunteer Marek: Help me to understand this. So what you're saying is that it's okay for you to do massive reverts, three in a day (three in eight minutes of your very careful consideration I'm sure, actually), but only for you, and not anyone else?

(cur | prev) 06:17, 31 August 2016‎ Volunteer Marek (talk | contribs)‎ . . (18,668 bytes) (-104)‎ . . (→‎2016 Democratic National Committee email leak: what the sources actually say) (undo | thank)

(cur | prev) 06:12, 31 August 2016‎ Volunteer Marek (talk | contribs)‎ . . (18,772 bytes) (-3,843)‎ . . (→‎2016 Congressional campaign: update, shorten (now that the race is over hopefully there'll be no need to use this as a campaign platform), rmv unreliable sourcs) (undo | thank)

(cur | prev) 06:09, 31 August 2016‎ Volunteer Marek (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (22,615 bytes) (-14)‎ . . (Reverted edits by 2601:204:D003:7B40:30FF:F4CF:CDA4:7892 (talk) to last version by MB298) (undo | thank)

Have I missed anything? I'm trying to understand your ground rules.

Humpty appears in Lewis Carroll's Through the Looking-Glass (1872), where he discusses semantics and pragmatics with Alice.

"I don't know what you mean by 'glory,' " Alice said. Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. "Of course you don't—till I tell you. I meant 'there's a nice knock-down argument for you!' " "But 'glory' doesn't mean 'a nice knock-down argument'," Alice objected. "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less." "The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things." "The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master—that's all."

Alice was too much puzzled to say anything, so after a minute Humpty Dumpty began again. "They've a temper, some of them—particularly verbs, they're the proudest—adjectives you can do anything with, but not verbs—however, I can manage the whole lot! Impenetrability! That's what I say!

Activist (talk) 05:20, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sequential edits are not counted as separate reverts. That there is one revert by me. A revert is when you keep undoing some one else's edits. You did that three times. I reverted once. Again, please self revert.Volunteer Marek (talk) 12:36, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You can also read WP:3RR as linked above: A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert..Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:11, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have honed your peculiar editing to a fine edge. Three edits savage in eight minutes, undoing hours of careful work, including the time it took to make extensive repairs to your prior insufficient edits, require some deliberation and reserve. I took the time to do that. So then with a bit Wikilawyering, you seem to justify your arguably non-neutral attacks on not only my work, but apparently habitually on the efforts of other assumed good faith editors. Just in my opinion, of course. Activist (talk) 06:03, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

disputed paragraph[edit]

Hello, re this un-discussed restoration of text, you ended your EditDiff with see talk, only there is no talk thread. Additionally, the essay BRD has a section saying that it is NOT B-R-R-D, which is what you did. The EW policy also says you can be edit warring without even coming close to breaking 3RR.

Please turn your attention to the version history of the article so far today, where I have painstakingly done individual edits to remove the problematic parts of your desired text. Each of my reasons is stated in the Edit summaries.

If you can expand that section or go deeper into who said what with RS based text, wonderful! Thanks NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:02, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that and thanks for the tips. I incorporated a few of your edits into my restoration of the original text. I had written that text hours before the OPB story on the current situation broke yesterday and of course there have been copious edits since the story appeared. There is and was a considerable divide on the political issues involved in the occupation, between Walden and the Governor and the four others in the Oregon congressional delegation. I'm guessing that his district encompasses the vast bulk, maybe 75% of the low-population eastern and southern parts of the state. It's almost entirely rural, save for Bend, Medford and Grants Pass. I'm not sure if Ashland is part of it. He's the only Republican in the delegation, with four House members and Merkley and Wyden. I was going to go back and clean it up some more, incorporating more of your edits such as the expanded Wikilinks, but when I started to review the article from the top, I noticed that the "leadership" section had Finicum's residence wrong, and I went off to check that from a number of sources before returning to correct it. By then you had written to me, though I was unaware. I think in the future, if I'm going to expand an edit summary with a direction to a TALK page, I'll open up two windows so that I can do them simultaneously and not repeat the problem I caused. Thanks for the heads up. Activist (talk) 10:22, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know the area. Frequent visitor in those parts during my wild youth. No worries, I often forget to start the talk first also. I'm not particularly interested in covering the electoral politics end of this so I'm glad you are! My interest lies more in covering the public lands side of things. There's some overlap of course. Happy editing and thanks for the above note. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:39, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I think the bit about Chris Epps's legal troubles may be disorganized and is too long without sub-sections. Make sure that content is grouped accordingly and that, if needed, sub-sections are put in. Perhaps it can be organized by date or by theme (say one about Epp's own plea and then one about co-conspirators). WhisperToMe (talk) 20:52, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@WhisperToMe: Thanks for the feedback. I've been recently thinking the same as the article and the cast of characters has grown, except that the content has largely been this long, tedious procession of similar grifters who were in on the same scam, without that much variance. No other editor has seemed to have much interest for what I feel is such a major public issue, or to explore its complexity. To date, the big players in the prison hustles there have yet to have their names broached. The US AG for MS has said there will be more forthcoming indictments. I haven't been curious enough to check and see who are the four corporations which didn't want their responses to the court released, save under seal, and the MS press hasn't yet looked in that obvious direction. But those four corporations that did the vast majority of business with Epps have a long history of corruption, though none of them have ever been criminally prosecuted for it. Even PACER isn't going to tell us about things that have yet to be charged...who might be guilty and who might not. One, Cornell, has been out of business for six years so I expect the statute of limitations has expired for its execs. It never got prosecuted for laundering campaign contributions in Alaska, 15 years ago, for paying off the mayor of Richmond, VA, around the same time, etc., though some of its partners in crime were and the payments were disclosed in courtrooms. If Epps indeed got at least $1.47 million (probably more) and there seems to be no dispute about that bottom number, he couldn't have gotten that kind of money from the collection of bit players who have been indicted to date. Also that dough was split with McCrory, who has asked to change his guilty plea for the better part of a year. It's only going to take a single one of those unsentenced defendants to say, "Yes, I gave the money to McCrory with the understanding that I would get X or Y with no competition if I played ball, or no contract if I didn't. Since the payments were carefully structured by and probably between both Epps and McCrory, to conceal disclosure from the IRS, the conspiracy between them shouldn't be difficult at all to prove to a jury. I'm no legal scholar, but I think if a prosecutor can prove that A & B conspired to do X or Y, and that B & C did so as well, that C could be prosecuted for A's actions, even without personal knowledge of the particulars. In my very limited knowledge, the OPI or FBI take very unkindly to an informant or defendant reneging on a deal; so McCrory it would seem, has abandoned a choice of between going to jail for a set long period, or alternatively, gambling on either going free or going forever. Maybe he's holding out to renegotiate the deal. I've thought about looking at PACER to see whom is requesting their disclosure to be under seal, but since it would be a primary source, it wouldn't be appropriate for adding to the article's content, unless I misunderstand the conventions. I'll see if I can think of or discover a previous similar case, perhaps ABSCAM or Watergate, or something, to see how they were handled here. It might be easier than I'd imagined. I'm really tight on time with a bunch of different and important personal projects that I've been engaged in, so it's hard for me to find devote the time to Wikipedia that that some articles deserve, but I'll try to find some way to do it. I'm not conversant about how to assemble a table, for instance, to graphically show the variables that would allow any reader to more quickly grasp the scope of the issue. If you'd like, I can run some ideas past you. Thanks again for your interest. Activist (talk) 23:17, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! In light of that it may help to split the article, with the new one dealing with the overall bribery scheme and Chris Epps being a biography of one of the participants (with the section on his legal troubles focusing only on Epps himself) WhisperToMe (talk) 00:29, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's a thought. However, though I've made about 4,200 edits, I've only authored a few articles, one to disambiguate the many Rafael Cruz's, and another on Maia Szalavitz, at 3,000 or so characters, little more than a stub, though I did considerable research on it. I can't even remember what the third was. I'll have to figure out again how to create a page. The FBI named the criminal behavior/prosecution, the "Mississippi Hustle," if I recall correctly, so that might be a good name for the second article about the substance of the case, though I think you or I can probably do better. Activist (talk) 01:25, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If the press by and large doesn't use the FBI name then I would go by "year/decade Mississippi political corruption case" or something to that effect. Remember that the lead is just a summary of the content, and divide the body by theme/topic WhisperToMe (talk) 05:09, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I reviewed similar articles and save for ABSCAM, they are called "Operation etc." with the "House" name of the particular one. I'll see if i can figure out how I can set up a diversion to assist anyone searching without the proper name to get there. I'll delete all that now-extraneous material out of the Epps article and insert a hat note that will take readers to the "Operation Mississippi Hustle" article. If you could take a look to see if it could use additional work, let me know. I'm beat and need to hit the sack. Thanks again. Activist (talk) 09:58, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @WhisperToMe: I reviewed a good deal more on the MS corruption. I removed extraneous material from the Epps article and reordered and polished up it and the "Hustle" article which had quickly been reviewed. Though I've run across your edits on other pages, I'd completely forgotten that you had created the Epps article and did most of the work on it for the first year. I also noticed your editing focus is mostly on schools. Did his initial employment as a prison teacher, or his mother's position as a dean influence your initiative, or was it something else? Activist (talk) 00:31, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was mainly because he was the head of the Missisippi prison system and that I had worked on Mississippi State Pentientiary. Since the prison does have staff living there, I made sure to get the school attendance boundary information for Parchman (and same with Louisiana State Pentientiary in Angola, LA). The fact that staff and their children lived in those two prisons motivated me to beef up the articles.
  • I knew about Epps after doing research on Parchman. I think I remembered reading about how he did reforms... when I heard he got indicted I decided that he needed to have an article. That kind of fall from grace would be covered in reliable sources and Wikipedia needs to have records of that.
  • WhisperToMe (talk) 00:47, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • • @WhisperToMe: Well, I'm glad you took it upon yourself to author it, and to do such a professional job. I might have never gotten engaged with it had you not started the article. I was aware of Epps' rep from his "reforms" at Parchman, but a source told me that rather than fixing the problems, he largely moved them to contractors with little or no oversight. Walnut Grove and East Mississippi had to be up there on the top of anyone's "dysfunctional" U.S. prison list, with Wilkinson not far behind. They were lawsuit magnets. I haven't heard anything about Marshall, no matter who was running it. I was aware of the problems at Delta, which became vacant for some time. LeFlore county might be using it now for a jail. Tallahatchie has always held out-of-state prisoners and I remember it rioting in July 2004. I don't even know who owns them all, but I expect that they may have been built with bond scams engineered by out of state speculators. Adams County certainly was, with Haley Barbour using Katrina relief money to get it built. I suspect the corruption goes well beyond what we've seen, though I think Ronnie Musgrove was honest. I personally don't know much about Angola, save for watching documentaries, though I was very familiar with Jena, which started when Edwin Edwards took a bribe from the first speculators who wanted to build there. Winn has received substantial publicity in the last year, thanks to Shane Bauer. As far as Parchman, I'd heard Bukka White's song, long ago, and Mose Allison's version. Not exactly "reliable sources." Activist (talk) 01:15, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • I am aware that after Epps closed Unit 32 in Parchman, Wilkinson County Correctional Center became the "new Unit 32" (see the refs in the article) WhisperToMe (talk) 05:53, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • (talk page stalker) @WhisperToMe:, you state "when I heard he got indicted I decided that he needed to have an article. That kind of fall from grace would be covered in reliable sources and Wikipedia needs to have records of that." Um, this "need" would be because it's recent news? What about all the falls from grace which occurred and were covered by reliable sources prior to Wikipedia's existence which we've willfully ignored? I'm having a hard time as of late justifying all the time I've devoted to this project. Treating what's supposed to be an encyclopedia as a constant dumping ground for today's headlines and/or trending topics ranks at or near the top of the reasons why. Why do we have categories for state cabinet secretaries when those categories appear to be used primarily as a means to puff up articles on media celebrities? I thought their purpose was to collect articles based upon a defining element of the subject's notability, unless I'm misinterpreting WP:CATDEF. Looks like he was appointed to this position in 2002. We're sending the message that he's just now notable all of a sudden? That might not pass a smell test. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 04:14, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • @RadioKAOS: The kind of news such as a politician getting into a major scandal is not "just recent news" that's no big deal. It's something important in the state's political history. Epps had a reputation as a "reformer" (something I knew about before the scandal hit). He was the only black man who was the head of a major state agency (at the time). His pre-scandal biography had been covered in national-level magazines like Governing. - It doesn't mean that he wasn't notable before... I think even before the scandal somebody could have written an article about him. But once the scandal came it became imperative to have an article on him.
          • As for "What about all the falls from grace which occurred and were covered by reliable sources prior to Wikipedia's existence which we've willfully ignored?" - Which ones do you have in mind?
          • WhisperToMe (talk) 05:47, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
            • @RadioKAOS: @WhisperToMe: I've obviously agreed that I believe both the Epps article and the "Operation Mississippi Hustle" articles are quite notable. The corruption goes back to 2007, the probe has dragged out for six years, and Epps started wearing a wire in May 2014. They are also important because the corruption is endemic in the for-profit prison industry as you're aware from the "Polar Pen"/"Alaska Political Corruption Probe." This case, if the FBI prosecutes the big players involved who have yet to be indicted, could be the cause of significant changes in criminal justice policy. The state has said that $80 million a year in contracts are suspect. The DOJ has already given notice in the last month it's going to be pulling back from using CCA, GEO and MTC. Cornell (think Bill Allen, Tom Anderson & Bill Weimar) was involved with Epps and his bagman for at least three years before it was sold to GEO. So you may be aware of the impact this sort of investigation may have. CCA, the Alaska provider in AZ from 1996 until 2009 is very involved. GEO, which got Weimar's halfway houses is as well, and Cornell was the provider in Hudson, Colorado when Joe Schmidt took the contract to Cornell. That prison probably wouldn't have been built if they weren't assured of the Alaska contract before they purchased the land. The MS scandal already caused former state legislators to be indicted and we're waiting for about four more indictments to come down. I suspect that GEO and CCA, plus MTC, are three of the four corporations that have tried to bargain with the judge to keep their information secret. That's because the amounts of the bribes identified so far simply couldn't have come from these smaller subcontractors. I believe we're waiting for the other shoe to drop on some very deep pockets. All four of the MS prison operators have been associated with corruption, but none have ever been criminally prosecuted, anywhere. Activist (talk) 08:54, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
              • @RadioKAOS: @WhisperToMe: I just checked the size of Parchman Farm out of curiosity. At almost 24 square miles it's 30% bigger than Kowloon (2 million pop.) and half the size of San Francisco (800 thousand or so?). Activist (talk) 08:54, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
                • Lastly, and off the subject, as I mentioned a couple of months ago, I think, I need to get around to doing that article on Jim Duncan, who wasn't just a commissioner but a long time state legislative leader and congressional primary winner. I'm trying to remember which Alaska personage I'd asked you if you were interested in doing an article on, when we discussed it. I'm sorry you're feeling a bit burned out because you'd done a lot of very solid encyclopedic work on your state. You referred me years ago to North or South Baranof, so I guess that editor has as well. I brought the Nageak article up to date yesterday and I was surprised to see Begich's name being bandied about for the general election. I expect that's a trial balloon. That is pretty wild, and I guess you could have a five way competitive general election Senate race. That might be a first anywhere though it might also guarantee Lisa reelection. Activist (talk) 08:54, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Parchman's a big place. see the map that I grabbed off of a USGS website and compare it with the aerial topo - One of the reasons why I liked writing about it. WhisperToMe (talk) 09:19, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• @RadioKAOS: P.S. about older topics, one issue inhibiting them is that many newspapers don't have electronic archives prior to the 1980s or due to copyright reasons (why Houston Post articles aren't online). However many libraries have microfilm collections with older newspaper articles and you could ask Wikipedians to snatch stuff off of microfilms if need be. WhisperToMe (talk) 09:22, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nice catch on the Parchman map. Looks like it's probably rich bottom land, subject to flooding and needing a lot of work, i.e. terracing. I expect they got tractors at some point to replace horse drawn plows and harvesters. RadioKAOS may know this, but I found photocopied old News-Miner articles on line at a News source. Can't remember the website, though. I found an article about a deceased Inupiat friend, who went to UAF on the GI Bill after being on a WWII ski detachment. He retired as a railroad worker and was a ivory carver and whaler and lay anthropologist. I just now looked at a narwhale he did many years ago, the only piece of his that I own. Activist (talk) 10:27, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't add copyright text to this wiki, not even temporarily for editing. Please use an external text editor, or do your amendments before you save the page. All content you add to this wiki needs to be written in your own words. Thanks, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:01, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Diannaa: Hi, Dianna. I can't change the quotes, of course, though I eliminated parts of one or two to satisfy concerns. Can you point me to precisely what text you think I should change? I'd be only too happy to accommodate. Some of it is #s, i.e. the numbers of shanks (I changed the language in one descriptor) found in searches, the years contracts started, etc. I can't use the WP app (TW?) to check since I'm the writer. Thanks for your concerns, patience and diligence. I share them. Also, many stories about these issues derive directly from press releases, especially from the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Mississippi, so numerous reporters, as before, have written almost the same thing since they're getting it from the same source and often have limited text available to them in their papers. I did draw from other text I'd written in associated articles, but I can't plagiarize myself. If I'm writing about three different prisons with the same set of circumstances, they can't be written that differently (I did about 95% of the edits on the new Operation Mississippi Hustle article, 45% on the Walnut Grove Correctional Facility, i.e. It would be like writing about Charlie Hayden's triplet daughters, all vocalists, who share the same heritage. Can't be that different. P.S. Take a look at my note earlier today at [[5]]. I didn't want to be there but it was such a mess it almost got me crying. I did a lot of straighening it out, time I didn't have to spare. Another editor had done the same before me or it would have been way worse. Activist (talk) 19:22, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your initial page creation was picked up by a bot, as well as by human patrollers, as being a copyright violation. The majority of the clean-up was already done when I arrived at the page. My note here was intended as a general reminder not to add copyright material to this wiki. I have done some further copyright clean-up and removed off-topic material, including incidents that occurred at other prisons. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:43, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Diannaa: Hi again. Thanks very much for your efforts. I had gone back a few times to try to respond to the objections. The page looks okay to me. I thought the #s of shanks found at different institutions was quite germane though, as did the ex-US Attorney whom I was quoting. He said there were 8 times fewer shanks, per capita at Parchman than at the for-profits that all were managed by the same outfit: GEO then, MTC now. Peas in a pod. Activist (talk) 19:53, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is, it's off-topic for this article to be comparing two other different prisons. The article needs to stay focused and on-topic, and not become a coatrack for discussions of flaws in the prison system as a whole. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:12, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it's very important to keep the articles focused or people may not easily read it. I think Chris Epps may need some fat trimmed off of it.

Also make sure you rewrite things in your own words (also avoid close paraphrasing when possible!). Copyright issues can kill an article.

WhisperToMe (talk) 15:06, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There was a scandal where several Detroit school principals were involved in a kickback scheme. I wrote Spain Elementary-Middle School and it turns out there was a much wider net of corruption. WhisperToMe (talk) 15:04, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@WhisperToMe: Interesting. One of my foci is on public/bureaucratic corruption, but hasn't often extended to the K-12 education arena, and I'm currently overwhelmed beyond Wikipedia. Activist (talk) 10:23, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One thing I want to note: Remember the WP:BLP policy applies on talk pages too, so make sure to have references on hand to back up anything you say about living people and recently dead people (if their actions have implications for living people). We wouldn't want one of those guys attacking Wikipedia. IMO it also helps to keep WP talk page activity directly focused on improving the article. It is fun talking about the bad things politicians do, but it may be more difficult BLP-wise if discussion strays into suppositions. WhisperToMe (talk) 17:19, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice. I'm off to bed shortly, but I'll try to fix that mixup before I do go. 18:14, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Which revision are you looking for? You can use the revision comparison tool in each history page to check which edits were made. WhisperToMe (talk) 20:54, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. It's very important to keep track of these things when writing BLP articles. Getting it wrong can have disastrous consequences. WhisperToMe (talk) 15:26, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Activist. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. (you are not the subject but your name is mentioned in connection with the re-posting of your anecdote from your talk page, intended to be private, to another user's talk page). Elinruby (talk) 23:17, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much, of course. I'll deal with it. Activist (talk) 06:43, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

this is not the primary point, which is his single-minded POV pushing. I just mentioned that to illustrate editing style. Elinruby (talk) 06:53, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware. You've been very tolerant of him, as much as may be possible under the circumstances, assuming we have the gender correct. I wrote to the prosecutor today to see if she knew when or if the police knew of Boyd's identity or history, before they killed him. "Cecil" claims they did, but he plays fast and loose with the facts, so I'm trying to verify. By the way, I did edits this evening to the pages for the novel and movie and author pages for Roots of Heaven. I expect you might be familiar with the novel and author. Activist (talk) 07:07, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

While I appreciate the ping, I honestly had no role in the entire CFredkin incident beyond simply closing the SPI case. In addition, please do not modify archived SPI cases, and SPI is not the best venue for those kinds of discussions.

Regards,

GAB^gab 00:03, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I somehow didn't realize that the discussion was closed. I apologize. Activist (talk) 14:06, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Epps, C. Flowood Police Department.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. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 17:45, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Zackmann08. Thank you for your recent contributions to Michael Conahan. I noticed that when you added the image to the infobox, you added it as a thumbnail. In the future, please do not use thumbnails when adding images to an infobox (see WP:INFOBOXIMAGE). What does this mean? Well in the infobox, when you specify the image you wish to use, instead of doing it like this:

|image=[[File:SomeImage.jpg|thumb|Some image caption]]

Instead just supply the name of the image. So in this case you can simply do:

|image=SomeImage.jpg.

There will then be a separate parameter for the image caption such as |caption=Some image caption. Please note that this is a generic form message I am leaving on your page because you recently added a thumbnail to an infobox. The specific parameters for the image and caption may be different for the infobox you are using! Please consult the Template page for the infobox being used to see better documentation. Thanks! Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 18:32, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, @Zachmann08: I appreciate the heads up. I expect to be on the phone for the next few hours but I'll make any necessary repairs when I get loose. Activist (talk) 22:03, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop attacking other editors. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Any further allegations about me editing on behalf of anyone besides myself will be sent to ANI. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:41, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Niteshift36: @Eflatmajor7th: @Lockley: @C.J. Griffin: @UseTheCommandLine: @Harizotoh9: @Simnel: @Parkwells:

Where have I alleged that you've edited on behalf of anyone besides yourself? Activist (talk) 14:44, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea who any of you people are or what this is in reference to. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 14:53, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize Harizotoh. Activist has an annoying tendency to ping everyone who ever agreed with him on an article talk page as a form of canvassing. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:04, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• If you honestly think that your wording will save you, it won't. The ARBCOM has held that casting aspersions is a form of a personal attack. So:

1. )"you began editing the GEO Group article, almost four years ago, after GEO employees using their own names or making IPN edits were outed, you've made about 80 edits to the article." Implication that my editing was linked to the employee edits.
2. ) "but in fact you seem to be adamantly opposed to balanced presentations of this corporation, and you minimize the corporate whitewashing engaged in by others for GEO. You'll recall that after he was outed, Cohen used the corporate IPN to do further editing, only to get caught again by some observant editor(s?)" Again, linking my edits to the previous incidents.
3. ) "I note, Niteshift36 that you've made 38 of the last 107 or so edits to the GEO TALK page, since Cohen was outed. If we apply the "Duck test," where would that lead us?"
4. ) "I further note that you've made 32 edits to the GEO Group main article, with the last signed edit by Abraham Cohen being made February 20th, 2013, though the GEO IPN was used to make subsequent sock puppet edits not long after but before you started your signed edits"

You continued in that discussion, trying to justify the connections, despite several clear statements that I haven't made any edits on behalf of anyone and that your allegations are an attack. Again, your attempt to word it as a 'look at the conincidence' won't fly. The ARBCOM saw through that nonsense. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:04, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your comment. Several states have families who are prominent especially in politics; the Kennedys of Massachusetts; the Longs of Louisiana, the La Follettes of Wisconsin, etc. I am feeling okay and sometimes I have to undergo minor surgery to clear up an infection. Again my thanks-RFD (talk) 18:24, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@RFD: @RadioKAOS: @Beeblebrox: In the interest of expanding some more stub articles, and having done so at the political families such as the Engstroms, I expanded the Ivy Spohnholz article. I couldn't help but indulge in a bit of whimsy there, as her mom also was an appointee, and her electoral history with close elections is somewhat unique. Activist (talk) 05:56, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was born and raised in Wisconsin; the La Follette family is one of Wisconsin's political families. Robert La Follette, Sr. was the first native Wisconsinite to serve as Governor of Wisconsin; I shook hands with Bronson La Follette who was a grandson and Attorney General of Wisconsin. Many thanks-RFD (talk) 13:40, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for expanding Tom Begich! Marquardtika (talk) 23:27, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Marquardtika: You're most welcome, though I don't drink beer. I had intended to thank you for authoring the article. I've been trying to expand some stubs and recently have edited some articles about members of political families, including about Alaskans, so your timing was fortuitous. Activist (talk) 23:42, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Lockley: @Parkwells: You may be interested in the subject of this article and Talk page, [[6]] ...and my response to the WP:TW-generated request for it to be shortened or moved in part to other articles. Activist (talk) 07:58, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely interested in both the Operation Mississippi Hustle and Chris Epps' articles (as well as others about the private prison contractors.) Thanks for letting me know. You've done a great job in explaining this huge investigation and results.Parkwells (talk) 19:14, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Niteshift36 (talk • contribs) 18:13, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Your post is very damaging to you and I suggest you remove it before anyone replies to it. It is long and rambling and hard to follow. You repeat the allegations of COI even as you deny you have been doing that (which makes your denial unbelievable, especially with the diffs that N brought). You cite no diffs. None. You are heading for some kind of block or ban. You can of course leave it but it would be unwise. Jytdog (talk) 01:33, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's already been replied to so it's too late for removal. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:25, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jytdog: @NeilN: I read the comments left by Jytog, intended to remove mine per Jytog's advice, highlighting them, but got distracted and started reading the articles to which Jytog referred, including "Advocacy," and "ToU," (which I didn't know what it meant and spent some time eventually finding and reading it) and actually thought I'd previously deleted my comments. I'm a bit ill with some kind of crud, so am a bit spacey. When I returned to the ANI discussion, I realized I hadn't deleted what I'd intended, per that advice, so I hit "save." Then when I went back to review some of the comments that others had left, I saw the notice that comments had been left on my TALK page. Now that I've read them, I realize that I should restore them per NeilN's advice and will do so in a moment. So, if it is indeed self damage, the damage has been done, unfortunately. At least I've gotten a bit of education in the process. Thanks to you both for your input. Activist (talk) 06:38, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your removal before I posted here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:41, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@NeilN: At this point, I'm not sure either of us is of much assistance to the other. I've seen your edits before, somewhere, probably quite a while ago, but I'm not remembering where. I tend to post on a very wide variety of subjects, but focus mostly on political and criminal justice issues. Activist (talk) 07:03, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I sweep up in all kinds of areas so it's likely you've seen that somewhere. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 07:08, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• You were told you can't remove the post, but then did so anyway, after the removal was reverted. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:15, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected disambiguation

We disagree about the inclusion of the family history. It's not extensive, but it's important. I note that another editor shares my convictions. Also, I was well aware that the "black gang," did not only refer to the ethnicity, but their working conditions. However, certainly African-Americans predominated in that classification back in the '30, '40s and '50s. The mess stewards were also mostly non-white in those eras, particularly Filipinos and other Asian-Americans. Again, see Alex Haley. I knew Bill Hudson, a retired USCG Commander, later a very good, six-term state legislator, who served with him as they both rose through the ranks. I expect that the City of Healy, which recently became the seat of Denali Borough, was probably named after Michael, though I've never seen it referenced anywhere. Thank you for your thoughts about my brother. Activist (talk):::Given no one has responded to this Talk section, I have moved it, notifying those who have participated in this discussion. Activist (talk) 03:33, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Cuprum17:, @Parkwells:Coincidentally, we had visitors from Alaska come to visit with us on Thursday, p.m., March 23rd, and they were both very aware of Healy. One knew that the most recently launched icebreaker was named for him. If a new report I read recently is correct, it is the only currently serving U.S. icebreaker, whereas the Russians are said to have 40 in the Arctic. The other also wondered if the city of Healy, is named for him, but I couldn't answer that. Activist (talk) 07:34, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! I had an emergency which made it necessary to completely disappear from the web for some many weeks. For approximately the past eight days, I've been in stop the bleeding mode. That's "bleeding" as in financial; I may very well be enroute to pawning my laptop after this, that's how bad things became. Anyway, thanks for all the words of encouragement that I've been remiss in not responding to as of late. It appears that RFD has done a herculean effort in picking up the slack in my absence WRT political biographies. Despite that, unfortunately, I still see a whole lot of "bleeding" going on here that I'm powerless to stop, in the sense of actually having the time to do much of anything to respond to it.

One prior comment that I did want to address: actually, Hootch and Tobeluk were two separate court cases, initiated by separate sets of lawyers. I believe both teams of lawyers were employed by Alaska Legal Services or a similar organization, however. The two cases are typically thought of as one and the same due to the similarities of their legal complaints and timelines. I see that WhisperToMe has continued to do much work on those topics, but I haven't had the opportunity to dig up relevant source material lately. Really, though, a separate article on education in the Unorganized Borough might work better than a slew of stubs on individual school districts and/or schools, especially since the whole REAA concept hasn't been given much recognition in our coverage despite its importance.

In response to the above discussion, Orth p. 413 contains all the entries on places names containing "Healy". The town Healy next to Denali Park is listed as being "named after the Healy River". The Healy River is listed as being "named by prospectors about 1902–04; reported in 1905 by L. M. Prindle, USGS". Without clearer information, there's a distinct possibility that the name could be traced to Michael Healy. A more likely namesake is found in a long-abandoned settlement on the Yukon River delta. Orth states that it was mentioned in the 1916 edition of Polk's Gazetteer, established by miners who were residing at Fort St. Michael but disagreed with the Army's views on law and order.

Finally, you mentioned Bill Hudson. I've come across a number of photos of Hudson over the years and always thought that he could pass for a lighter-skinned Charles Mingus. Curiously, both were born in southern Arizona. Cheers, I'll talk to you later. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 19:10, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@RadioKAOS: Hi! I agree that it would be a great idea to have a general article about education in the unorganized borough of Alaska. Note that in addition, articles on individual school districts are almost always kept as per Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#School_districts as they are "Populated, legally-recognized places" - While high schools are usually kept, I don't usually start articles on rural K-12 schools in Alaska unless they meet WP:GNG (due to references talking about the schools in detail) WhisperToMe (talk) 19:45, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

d

Your recent editing history at Ron Estes shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
The word "vastly" is opinion. It must have a Reliable source to support.--SlackerDelphi (talk) 23:56, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it's you that's involved in an edit war. You've been deleting my edits without cause. Please contain yourself until I'm finished with my edits. Activist (talk) 23:58, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Slacker Delphi was suspended for sockpuppetry. Activist (talk) 14:57, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, there are a few things about WP:BLP that are important to know:

• It technically applies to all pages on Wikipedia, including article talk pages and user pages as per Non-article_space
• It states that public court documents, etc. should not be used "to support assertions about a living person" nor should "public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses" be used - However "Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies." Avoid_misuse_of_primary_sources

WhisperToMe (talk) 17:13, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@WhisperToMe: Thanks for the suggestions. I reviewed all the materials to which you'd directed me. I have considered this issue before, in fact, found the date of birth for a well known writer but was reluctant to include it in the article about her, which already has the year of birth, since she may have not wanted it to become public. It's a real consideration in these times of rampant identity theft. Activist (talk) 12:50, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Osceola Township, Osceola County, Michigan. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. John from Idegon (talk) 22:17, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In 1939, Hitler invaded Poland claiming it was a just response to a "provocation" by "Polish" cavalry. Hmmm. Activist (talk) 22:21, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Moving it to the Nestle page was probably a better solution. John doesn't like anybody editing any pages that he is watching. He would rather have no information on a page than a little. He's very territorial and has friends in high places.Pennsy22 (talk) 05:08, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:ARCHIVE. Archiving is perfectly normal Wikipedia functions. It's done automatically by a bot in many articles. Take a controversial guy like Alex Jones (radio host). His talk page has 13 archives at this point. Nothing is "scrubbed", deleted or hidden. It's all preserved. That simply hasn't been set up on the GEO article. There is a link to the archive on the talk page, just like there is in every other article that has an archive. You are edit warring over a normal housekeeping function. I'd also like to appeal to you one last time to stop making your allegation that I am editing on behalf pf the company. It's ridiculous. If you look at my edit history, you'll see that I was actively editing many types of articles before I ever touched one about GEO and that I continue being very active over a broad range of topics. It's clearly false and I'd ask that you stop making the allegation. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:48, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Activist! I got your message, but I am traveling and won't be able to look at the issue you raised until next week. You might want to ask someone else if it is urgent. If not I will take a look sometime next week. --MelanieN alt (talk) 14:59, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@MelanieN:, Thanks! I noticed that another IP graffiti artist has been vandalizing the Butch Otter article, though an editor has so far fairly quickly reverted all the obvious though onerous posts. Is there another administrator you might suggest who could deal with making those articles available only to autoconfirmed users? The other issue can surely wait. Safe travels and happy Boxing Day! Activist (talk) 15:39, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The fastest and simplest approach is to request semi-protection at WP:RFPP. MelanieN alt (talk) 14:15, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Activist. I’ve been contacted by User:Marquardtika about you. Back in February you accused Marquardtika of having a COI on the assumption that they are a government employee, based on information they had on their user page. They replied, explained about the info on their page, said they are not a government employee, and said they are currently employed as a traffic reporter in Texas.[7] That should have been the end of it. But you have continued your aspersions. Here you called them a “possible COI editor”. Here you accuse them of working “on the clock”. Here you “wonder” if they have an undeclared COI or could be a paid editor.

Furthermore, looking at your recent contributions I see it is not just Marquardtika you are doing this to. Here you accuse SeventeenNinety of being an “operative tasked with scrubbing negative info about Colorado Republican officeholders".

Please see WP:ASPERSIONS, where you will read “An editor must not accuse another of misbehavior without evidence, especially when the accusations are repeated or severe. This especially applies to accusations of being paid by a company to promote a point of view (i.e., a shill) or similar associations and using that to attack or cast doubt over the editor in content disputes. If accusations must be made, they should be raised, with evidence, at appropriate forums such as the user talk page, WP:COIN, or other appropriate places per WP:COI.”

So this is an official warning: this casting of aspersions has got to stop. Talk pages and edit summaries are not acceptable places to accuse people of stuff. If you think you have a case, present your evidence to WP:COIN. (And don’t go looking for evidence offline; remember WP’s prohibition against WP:OUTING). If you don’t have a presentable case, then stop making this claim. If you do it again, I will take you to ANI myself. Likewise if you seem to have a pattern of following them around and reverting or reacting to their edits, see WP:HOUNDING. Just edit Wikipedia and stop accusing other people of misconduct. --MelanieN (talk) 19:44, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Steven Charles Watkins (politician) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steven Charles Watkins (politician) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:56, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As a note, there have been quite a few discussions about the notability of candidates for federal political office in the United States recently. I think site consensus is moving towards keeping these types of articles, but site policies don't yet make that completely clear. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eliot Cutler is currently ongoing; Kara Eastman, Gil Cisneros, and Mark Harris have all been kept (or no-consensus) recently. (Candidates with an Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez level of press coverage are obviously notable and the wording of WP:NPOL/WP:POLOUTCOMES is irrelevant.) If it looks like this is going to be kept, I can clean it up a bit this weekend; I'm most concerned by sentences like Although Watkins said Kansas “was always home in my heart,” he applied 11 times between 2002 and 2015 for an Alaska Permanent Fund dividend. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:03, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My eyebrows were raised by that too, and I adjusted wording in some places to be more nonjudgemental, but fwiw that turned out to be almost a direct quote from a mainstream source. We should be careful to keep a critical perspective, and journalists can be locally non-neutral when hyping their discoveries, but it does seem like a fair reflection of high-quality RS and most local political observers to say that there at least appear to be minor contradictions in his stated biography. FourViolas (talk) 21:21, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Power's" comment gave food for thought. I didn't know who any of those four candidates were. I thought I might have heard of Cisneros, but I may have been thinking of Henry Cisneros. Gil is clearly notable if nothing but his amazing charitable work were considered, and his going back to college after becoming immense wealthy compared to the average Californian. His opponent in the race is rather remarkable as well, though she's served in the state legislature, but more so because she beat an incumbent, then lost to the same defeated incumbent in the next election. Those sort of flips convey notability in their own right. I had to look up the other three situations that "Power" cited. I'm surprised that I've never heard of Eastman, as her situation has obviously drawn heavy national attention. I've heard of the situation that Harris has been involved in, because it has drawn national attention. But the other two are more remarkable. Ocasio-Cortez has attracted immense coverage and I've seen her dozens of times on the tube, much more than those who are entitled a "personality" in the absence of any actual lifetime accomplishment, and though they've never done anything notable, except to appear on television. But the last is the most interesting. Cutler is someone who should have had an article long ago, and yet his candidacy alone seems to have caused some editors to think that running for office in itself should be disqualifying, instead of augmenting. That's perverse in my estimation. Thanks to both of you for the comments. I went back and looked at the PFD situation with Watkins. It requires that recipients attest that they're going to remain Alaska residents intend to remain in the state. But he stopped applying two years ago, so the sentence should go and I'll take it out right now. I appreciate your helpful inputs. Activist (talk) 21:39, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I noticed that you added the WikiProject Wikipedia banner to four talk pages including Allie Ostrander. A preferable way to request that an article be assessed is to leave a message on the talk page of one of the WikiProjects already added to the article's talk page.--Johnsoniensis (talk) 17:03, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnsoniensis: Thanks for your input. I'll add those tags to the Talk pages. Activist (talk) 08:43, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, can you please not disparage me again, as you did here? R2 (bleep) 05:24, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your directive to "stop stabbing" wasn't constructive either and I won't submit to it. Bold attempts at compromise are a good thing, not a bad thing, even when you disagree with the particulars. If you have a content-based argument, please make it cleanly without personalizing the dispute. If you have a problem with my conduct you are always free to discuss that here or on my own talk page. R2 (bleep) 16:26, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded on my talk page: User talk:Quuxplusone#"Somewhat_unrestrained" --Quuxplusone ([[User

Hi Activist, there is a procedure for getting pages restored after they were deleted: Wikipedia Deletion Review. I think it includes sending a message to the previous XfD closer, in this case . Here is the Second delete discussion. I will also ping @Muboshgu: who seems to have a strong opinion about this. HouseOfChange (talk) 04:58, 24 March 2019 (UTC) @Lourdes:, @HouseOfChange:, @Muboshgu: Thanks very much for your input. I'll take a look in the morning, if I can find the time. This race may get considerably more interesting as the DCCC, which may have taken a policy position about not only not supporting candidates who don't hew to their party line, has apparently taken the same stance against any campaign management firms who agreed to work for such candidates. I'm guessing that an Eastman candidacy might fit that criterion. [8] "House Democrats Move to Hobble Primary Challengers The party’s congressional campaign arm rolled out new hiring standards to deter firms from working with candidates who run against incumbents" Activist (talk) 06:51, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating Taylor Ewert. I have just reviewed the page, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

Thank you for your new article on Taylor Ewert. I recommend sticking with the article in case she actually makes it to the Olympics team, because otherwise I am not convinced that she is any more notable than other successful high school athletes.

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Doomsdayer520}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:07, 15 April 2019 (UTC) @Doomsdayer520: Thanks for your review. The reason she is notable is not only because she's a remarkable racewalker, but also a steeplechaser and cross country runner. Her American Junior racewalk record was set when she was 3 1/2 years younger than the age limit for setting such records. Her high school 3,000 meter walk record was set by her en route to her breaking the 5,000 meter record. Her high school record-setting range is quite remarkable: From the one-mile walk to 10,000 meters, over six times as far. That she could set a record one day in the steeple, sit in a car for 11-12 hours at least, and then break a U.S. Junior walk record the next day, is extraordinary. She lowered that walk record by over three minutes in international competition a few months later. I can think of very few track athletes with that sort of range, and being competitive at racewalking and running are extremely rare. With regard to range, because he was such a unique competitor, Mamo Wolde comes to mind: He ran on the Ethiopian 1,600 meter relay team in the 1956 Olympics, then won the Olympic marathon in 1968 and finished third in 1972. Ivan Huff qualified by times for the 1980 U.S. Olympic Trials in every race between the 3,000 steeple and the marathon. Among women, the only ones I can think of who were competitive over a wide range of distances were Julie Brown, and Jordan Hasay. I can't find anyone, male or female, other than Ewert, who has been competitive in both running and racewalking. Activist (talk) 11:20, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I noticed you used the same wording. I don't think you appreciate how the situations are different. With Rhoda, I was restoring material that had been there for a year. With Ivey, you were restoring material that had just been added. On Wikipedia, we generally default to the status quo. StAnselm (talk) 09:22, 21 May 2019 (UTC) @StAnselm: I'm baffled. You restored text that had been deleted by Velella three hours earlier, on 25 April 18. On 11 April 19, an IP editor deleted precisely the same material once again. On 17 May, you restored it, once again. How is what you did "different," when it's exactly the same thing? You deleted the three sentences about Ivey's action, from which I'd paraphrased, except for the quoted remark, which I obviously couldn't change, taken from the pre-existing citation. When I reverted it, just as you had twice with the Rhoda material, with me using and quoting you exactly, the same rationale that you used to restore the Rhoda material on 17 May, you reverted it a second time and demanded consensus be sought. How could the situation be any less "different?" I am reminded of Lewis Carroll. "The contemptuous Humpty Dumpty, sitting up on his wall, said to Alice, "When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean—nothing more, nothing less." Somewhat perplexed by this, Alice said, "The question is whether you can make words mean different things." "The question is," barked Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master—that's all." Activist (talk) 16:49, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're wrong. User:Velella's edit was a good one, removing a whole lot of junk. I did a partial revert (about 15% of the size), salvaging what I could. With a few more smaller changes, this became the consensus version which lasted almost a year before it was removed by an IP. StAnselm (talk) 21:25, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What's going on? Why do you keep reverting? I note we're both up to 3 reverts in the past 24 hours. But surely you can see that as a recent addition, the material should stay out until there is consensus to include it. I could understand if you think you had consensus because I had not responded to all your arguments, but I have now. We've both been around here too long to get into such an edit war. StAnselm (talk) 08:28,