Can you please supply page numbers relating to this edit in order that a correct reference can be made. Best. RashersTierney (talk) 21:28, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please use them. It's painful to try to figure out who's commenting on what from the history otherwise. Best, Ray^Talk 19:06, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Assme you mean on discussion pages? Will do....Jonathanwallace (talk) 19:13, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the Alexandra Powers article I created I found a website that says she is in Scientology. Here's the website: http://www.truthaboutscientology.com/stats/by-name/a/alexandra-powers.html Should this be used as a reference in the article? Please let me know.

Hello, Jonathanwallace. You have new messages at Neptunekh2's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

(talk) 16:02, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User Nahome and other keeps reverting your changes from when the article was contested to non-unbias blabber about brand, and un-relevant and unsupported facts. Why is this article being lambasted by soo many people? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.164.114.50 (talk) 05:40, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure but it certainly is a volatile environment over there. I posted something at Editor Assistance Requests asking for an admin to take a look. Jonathanwallace (talk) 11:21, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let's please talk about this on the Bambu talk page. There needs to be references for every item. I am not slandering anyone on purpose or otherwise, I am only removing ad-text and re-inserting referenced items that seem to be contrary to your brand IP user (sorry). See you on the talk page!Nahome (talk) 15:51, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Inclusion of porn film in Sarah Palin, you wrote:

Someone said "I object to the implication that invoking the mantra 'BLP', without more, constitutes an argument for omitting information." Since in recent weeks I have made that same argument here in four or five other disputes, I wanted to specify why I don't agree on this one. ... However, I believe the existence of a porn film purporting to portray or satirize the subject, without her consent, is not notable, significant, relevant, useful, or "encyclopedic".

The holidays prevented me from rejoining the discussion, but I wanted to clarify what I, as the "someone", wrote. Almost nowhere in that whole thread do I see any reasoned argument for saying that giving our readers this information would be a BLP violation. In fact, I see very few attempts. What I see are flat assertions that the information should be omitted because it's a BLP violation. My point is that that's not an argument. It's not really worthy of much attention at all. BLP is like any other policy in that it's not self-executing. An editor must explain why certain material would violate BLP. That's what I meant by the phrase "without more" -- merely saying "BLP" isn't enough.

Your comment was a cut above most because you at least didn't think that three letters constitutes a reasoned analysis. In this particular case, I partially disagree with your reasoning, because I think that "not notable, significant, relevant, useful, or 'encyclopedic'" aren't BLP considerations. If Palin died tomorrow, the arguments about the film would be unaffected (unless she died of a heart attack precipitated by finding out about the film). I think the film is only a little bit notable, significant, relevant, useful, or encyclopedic, which is why I thought that one or two sentences in one of the 20 or so Palin daughter articles would be about the right amount of coverage and would not be undue weight.

Incidentally, I largely agree with the "Bios of living people" section on your user page. JamesMLane t c 07:46, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the good word. I liked the phrase of yours I quoted because it expresses my reaction in the other disputes in which I took the side of including information. You are correct that people arguing "not BLP", without more, has no more content than if they merely said "I win". Jonathanwallace (talk) 11:25, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Jonathanwallace. You have new messages at January's talk page.
Message added 23:50, 2 January 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Hey there Jonathanwallace, thank you for your contributions. I am a bot, alerting you that non-free files are not allowed in user or talk space. I removed some files I found on User:Jonathanwallace/DraftJoeWilson. In the future, please refrain from adding fair-use files to your user-space drafts or your talk page.

• See a log of files removed today here.

• Shut off the bot here.

• Report errors here.

Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 05:00, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was moving my mouse over my watch list and accidentally clicked rollback and then immediately reversed my edit.[1] My apologies. TFD (talk) 17:56, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your paragraph but edited it by adding that "the Congolese who fought against colonization". De Brazza is not looked upon by most Congolese as a "humanitarian" and that we believe that colonizers should not looked upon as heroes, especially since our for-fathers fought against them for their freedom.

The Mausoleum for this colonizer is a controversy and should have it's own paragraph or at the very least, the heading for Death and Memorials should be titled differently.

Thank you for edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nzingamina (talk • contribs) 03:48, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan, - sorry coming back to this late - I have been travelling. Many thanks for your intervention in this matter. I had referred this topic on because, as you yourself discovered, for some years any attempt to edit Nzingamina's text has previously been reverted enigmatically "from a Congolese point of view of our history". Its hard to AGF & NPOV in the face of these edits, and when requests for substantiation on the talk page are ignored with counter-accusations in the edit summaries. You will have seen that I have made efforts to improve the museum controversy section of the article. Thank you too for identifying a better source of the allegation against de Brazza. However, I still have a question about the inclusion of this allegation. It seems Obenga is the only person to make this allegation and quotes his source as 'oral history', which to the best of my knowledge is not classed as RS in WP. If Obenga can be seen as an academic scholar (and not just a respected politician) then I can understand the inclusion of this allegation. I would also feel more comfortable if Obenga's own WP page was unquestioned. The allegation is not mentioned in any other works I have seen that cover de Brazza during the colonisation of the Congo; placing it in WP:FRINGE. In the context of the tribal and colonial history of the Congo this allegation of rape - while serious - seems to pale in the context of the gruesome and cannibalistic violence commonly meted out between groups at that time. Yet, in contrast to most colonial conquests, de Brazza's journeys appear to have been amazingly peaceful - making this allegation even more surprising and requiring good substantiation. The interpretation of an event that happened more than century ago is inevitably mired in speculation when there is no surviving written history or evidence other than a century-old folk story - apparently not even an oral tradition. So are you happy that the wording now properly reflects that and is not giving WP:UNDUE? As a postscript - do you think the last paragraph warrants its own top-level heading? Ephebi (talk) 12:49, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jonathan. Thank you for your assistance, it is greatly appreciated since I believe that history should be told from the point of view of the colonizers and those colonized. The Mausoleum Controversy section has been on wiki for nearly two years. I fail to understand why Ephebi wished to delete the section, since it has been referenced and was approved. Again, thank you for your input. Nzingamina 22:05, 17 January 2011 (UTC). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.66.230.128 (talk) [reply]

Nzingamina, you are mis-representing me, as a glance through the revision history will show. I have not tried to delete the mausoleum controversy, instead I have tried to make it read better and be more balanced as an example of post-war and post-colonial historiography. (In my experience, many articles read better if controversies are integrated into the article rather than in a separate 'Controversy' section.) My main issue has been with historical revisionism, which relies on a single poorly-sourced fringe allegation. Maybe you could try adding it to the French WP and see the reaction there? And now a reminder of Wikipedia etiquette: our editing experiences on WP will be more pleasant if we do not assert points of view, recognise that no-one owns a page, accept that pages will change over time without our permission, and respond to requests to co-operate before starting a revert war. Thanks, Ephebi (talk) 08:27, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest we move any further discussion off my talk page and to the article's. Thanks-- Jonathanwallace (talk) 17:42, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ephebi, you have attempted to re-write history by re-organizing the Mausoleum Controversy into a Death and Memorial section. There is nothing memorial about De Brazza to many Congolese. My main issue is that for over two years, this section was approved by Wikipedia based on the references and I fail to see your point in deleting that section and combining the controversy with your praise of De Brazza's death and memorial section. If you look at the French section of De Brazza, neither are the Africans pleased with the revision of history. Our experience with Wikipedia would be well served and is well served when references prove different point of views. As a Congolese, I refuse to have those that colonized us continue to write our history to the world. Thanks, Nzingamina —Preceding undated comment added 00:28, 19 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Hello, Jonathanwallace. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Requests_for_feedback/2011_January_13#User:Jonathanwallace.2FWhat_is_a_Nation.3F.
Message added SPhilbrickT 21:30, 16 January 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Hello, Jonathanwallace. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests.
Message added 07:57, 23 January 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hi, would you mind please not adding I disagree with Rob, I have seen it about three times now - just make your comment and please don't make it so personal. Off2riorob (talk) 22:44, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I follow your work here, and agree with you more often than otherwise. I did not intend any offense. I've been criticized for having edit summaries that are too vague, so still trying to get the hang of it.Jonathanwallace (talk) 22:47, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I just use - comment, or add, or reply - which is what it is, no need to explain everything in the summary - I disagree with off2riorob, there is no need to announce it to the world .. personally I like to be a bit vague in my summaries and if they are that interested then let them look go through my contributions themselves. Off2riorob (talk) 22:57, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Jonathanwallace. You have new messages at Chipmunkdavis's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hi, your contributions at the BLP noticeboard are appreciated. You keep going on there and commenting about this redlink Wikipedia:NICENESS - can I suggest you either start linking to an essay - there are I imagine a couple of essays that perhaps say something along those lines - also - please can you stop with the niceness stuff - we are required to edit the articles of living people in a respectful manner and to err on the side of caution - you have added your redlink multiple times, either please write it or stop going on about it - your stop being nice claims are a bit undue and are not what BLP is designed to protect living people from and I don't see anyone removing con=tent because they want to be nice to the living subjects of our BLP articles. thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 19:40, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Its a way of dramatizing a point I am trying to make. I am not accusing anyone in particular but saying that across the board, we often try to protect people when 1. they don't need protection and 2. Wikipedia policy doesn't require it. The red ink shows that the policy doesn't exist, which is my point. I was inspired by the Roman senator who ended every speech, no matter what it pertained to, with the statement Carthage must be destroyed until, sick of listening to him, the Romans destroyed Carthage. However, out of personal respect for you, I will defer for a while.Jonathanwallace (talk) 19:48, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, OK..interesting, thanks for the explanation - I have a personal ambition for wikipedia that it is an educational tool and not a mirror of smoking gun - if you think wiki should be that then we are never going to meet in the middle - the tabloid addition of such trivia and, ow he was caught shoplifting 12 years ago - is valueless in that position. Its not nice, its just not beneficially educational - I can show you many BLP articles of special people where the tabloid reported minor talking on the phone conviction has been added and dwarfs the actual notable things the person has done in their life - remember - people that hate a living person and people that have massive conflicts of interest come to wikipedia to add as much hateful additions as they can - for this reason - there is plenty of reason to consider - erring on the side of caution - one of the main issues is do no harm - its cited and I want to add it - we have an ever increasing complaint list from the living subjects of our articles and the lawyers of living people - your article about me is detrimental to my online persona - why are you reporting a minor criminal conviction from 20 years ago, why are you reporting unsupported rumors about my sexuality..there have been discussions about allowing living people to opt out if they so desire - a possibility that is increased by low editing and addition standards to those articles - this would result in a gap in our articles about living people that would be detrimental to the projects attempt towards broad coverage of all topics - the reason to err on the side of caution is as much to protect the project as it is the subjects of our articles - the media sphere is riddled with attacking content that people can go and read and as such we can and should rise above that trivial tabloid path. As far as your wp:niceness goes - although there is no specific policy called that we are more requested through BLP take care of additions and show respect to the subjects of our BLP articles than we are here to be WP:NASTY either. Off2riorob (talk) 20:09, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you and I agree on more things than otherwise. I also am not interested in having Wikipedia become thesmokinggun.com. I first started zeroing in on the BLP issue when people wanted to delete any reference from the bio of professor Charles Rackoff that he had sent a very public anti-feminist email which was covered extensively in Canadian media. There was another professor whose bio we maintained for a few months after he was arrested for raping a baby (no kidding), without any mention of the event, which was widely covered in reliable media. The solution in that case was to delete the article (I was fine with that). If you want to see an example of this protectiveness way out of control, see Marc Blitzstein who was murdered in the 1960's--until I re-added it our bio contained no account of how he died, though it is a well kown fact about a long dead person. All I am saying here is that there is a long standing, deeply rooted tendency not to include difficult or upsetting information, even when it is well sourced and key to an understanding of the person's career or life. In the baby rape case, would you want someone to make a decision about dating the guy or letting him babysit by looking at his Wikipedia bio? (except he wasn't out on bail). Or someone who wants to invite him to a seminar, or recruit him for a faculty position, or ask him to co-author a book....Imaginable, right? Don't you think its pertinent to his bio that he's in prison? If you had looked him up and tried to contact him and found out, wouldn't you be a little startled the info wasn't in his Wikipedia bio? This is not like an old talking-on-a-cellphone conviction. In these cases, its best to have no article at all than one that implies someone's life is business as usual when its not. Jonathanwallace (talk) 20:22, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well imo - people should not be hiring people by reading the content in their BLP at wikipedia and the project s disclaimer is related to that. The alleged baby rape case - the way that worked was imo - a reflection of policy working at its best - he wasn't actually notable and the allegations were one event issue and we imo correctly got rid of it as fast as possible - don't forget - all the details are available via a simple google search - we are not hiding anything about anyone - it is all available via google, we are just our keeping editorial focus as high as possible in regards to living people. Yes, well done for replacing that content at Blitzstein - it was removed in August 2010 by User:ValenShephard - his edit summary was that it was uncited and it was at that time but it really should have been moved to the talkpage or simply tagged as uncited and needing a cite. In reply to your comment, there is a long standing, deeply rooted tendency not to include difficult or upsetting information - Actually imo and from my experience - there has been a culture of attacking the subjects of our articles in the past at wikipedia, it was a pretty usual practice to add attacking content to the articles of people editors didn't agree with...this practice is on the decline and since BLP has been supported this is a much lesser situation, which is a very good thing indeed and good for the projects goals and ambitions - Rackoff - an addition was replaced after discussion - the final addition satisfied both sides I think, discussion and policy usually gets us there in the end. Best regards. Off2riorob (talk) 20:56, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, I respect your work and your goals. On those occasions when we do disagree, I'm almost as contented when you prevail (as in Vaughn Walker) because its not for the most part about individual bios but about maintaining a principle on the noticeboard and in the articles I can touch. As you say, its the process--I stand up for what I believe and then live with the consensus. Jonathanwallace (talk) 21:53, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, me too, yours, I was looking at your userpage bio comments and external links yesterday, and well meaning intellectual input is always very beneficial to the project, even if they don't always agree with me, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 22:39, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I reverted your well-written edits at David Berlinski because phrases like "incorrigible" and "inadequate" reflect your own views, constitute synthesis, and are not in accord with Wikipedia neutral point of view standards. Please also be aware of the three revert rule. Please discuss this issue on the David Berlinski talk page and seek consesnus before making further attempts to restore your edits to the article. Thanks, Jonathanwallace 14:10, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan, "Incorrigible" comes from the title of Berlinski's own hour-long video, "The Incorrigible Dr. Berlinski," where he clearly presents those views. See these comments from 2007. You can also find a partial transcript here. —Montana Mouse (talk) 16:04, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

• More comments here. —Barry Kort 19:09, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Can we devise a satisfactory plan? —Moulton (talk) 19:49, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• FYI, the anon IP in question is banned User:Moulton. There may be problems with the Berlinski article. However, working with an extremely disruptive banned user to evade his ban is probably not a good idea. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:05, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. Despite the invitation, I haven't been working with anyone. Jonathanwallace (talk) 03:12, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Michael Cherney. Just a reminder for you to be mindful of the three-revert rule. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:05, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am very mindful--I'm the one who reported the prior user who made 6 reverts,who was blocked 24 hours and of whom I am guessing this one is a sock. Jonathanwallace (talk) 19:12, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thank you for participating in this discussion, regarding Kaveh Farrokh. I wonder what the result is ? redirect ?!!! why ? *** in fact *** ( contact ) 05:39, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just opened an RFC in here. *** in fact *** ( contact ) 06:40, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Please read my last comment in the Rfc. Is wikipedia a dealing company ?!!! Now that I have discovered it, the author should have his own article. *** in fact *** ( contact ) 10:38, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I note you and I are the only people who have opposed the redirect in the RFC. You might want to remind some of the others who participated on the noticeboard to add their voices. Jonathanwallace (talk) 10:41, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you so much for supporting my idea. I have decided to quit the discussion. Best wishes, *** in fact *** ( contact ) 11:55, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since I am already relisting 20+ AFDs today I decided to withdraw this nomination instead of relisting it. However, though you didn't bold the word delete, your comment did look like a weak delete argument based in the last sentence. Therefore I would be willing to reopen this AFD if you wish. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:18, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, let it ride for now. Thanks. Jonathanwallace (talk) 05:13, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The admin who closed this as Delete might have been following a "letter of the law" approach, but, as I know from some recent experience, he sometimes makes the easier decision rather than the best one (see my comments on his Talk page). In this case, the best decision might have been to redirect the article to something like Isaaq Genocide, or Somalia genocide controversy. To do so now, however, with your userfied copy, might bring charges of WP:CONTENTFORK after the fact. I'd be happy to work with you on focusing what you wrote toward one or the other of those two alternative topics -- it wouldn't take much. I think Somalia genocide controversy is more likely to survive an AfD attempt, of the two, but I am open to arguments that Isaaq Genocide would be better, or perhaps some other title you can suggest. Yakushima (talk) 07:17, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I added virtually all the information to Genocides in history. I then added a shorter version as a section in Somalia and kept getting reverted with an UNDUE comment (one two sentence section in an article of 33 sections). The editors finally let me keep a reference to genocide allegations as a short passage at the bottom of the History section, with a link to Genocides in history. And I redirected Somalian genocide to the latter.Jonathanwallace (talk) 10:16, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed a couple edits where you reference a Cloward Piven Strategy article - the actual article still exists and is named Cloward–Piven strategy. Regards, Rostz (talk) 22:09, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. On the ANI noticeboard where they were discussing Frances Fox Piven, someone said, yeah, we should also delete Cloward Piven; it was redlinked and so I thought they already had. Jonathanwallace (talk) 05:49, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I agreed with all your edits but disagreed with the coat rack. The information relating to the Dewsbury seat provides vital context – it was the worst affected seat that survived the Boundary Commission changes in West Yorkshire. On Wiki it states: “This coat rack is almost completely obscured by hats and coats” – there is no question that the article is obscures the piece as it is important context setting and there is lots more information which follows. The information provided is factual/neutral, verifiable (well sourced) and not from original research, which are the three core wiki policies, which jointly determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles. According to wiki: “Because these policies work in harmony, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should try to familiarize themselves with all three.”

In addition, wiki guidance states: “Remove material only where you have good reason to believe it misinforms or misleads readers in ways that cannot be addressed by rewriting the passage.” Hope this helps. thank you --Truesayer (talk) 02:54, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It has WP:WEIGHT problems, because you devote a long paragraph in a relatively short bio to it, and also synthesis problems as it is an expression of your own opinion of the relevance of the redistricting to his loss. If you cited a third party reliable source saying he lost the seat because of the redistricting, that might work. As it stands, the content does not belong in the article. Jonathanwallace (talk) 05:11, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input on this Jonathan. Others have already stated it is inappropriate including a Wikipedia admin and it clearly does not belong anywhere near the article in its present form. Hopefully the message is now getting through.--Shakehandsman (talk) 05:34, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Jonathan - I didn't read your comments but I will re-work it tomorrow. As for shakehandsman I'm afraid he seem rather obsessed and has made numerous threats - his outburst here and elsewhere appear far from objective. --Truesayer (talk) 02:54, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think I am doing this right, but I am requesting some help. I want to make my article final and finalize it so that it can come up in wikipedia searches. Could you instruct or elp me with this? I have given adequate info on a person of fame and have included the proper citation (with your help, you fixed it for me!). So.. could you help me make this published? Thanks a ton. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cardsfan524 (talk • contribs) 14:57, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you are an autoconfirmed user (account has existed four days and has ten edits), you can move your draft article to mainspace by following the instructions here. Let me know if that works for you or if you need more help. Jonathanwallace (talk) 17:06, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I got it moved! Thanks for your help. I will work on it more in the next week once I am out of my classes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cardsfan524 (talk • contribs) 15:00, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]