Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal Case Page

Some essays I happen to like, and which you might want to read:

Ethics, Don't smother conflict,Advice for new administrators,Honesty, Don't call a spade a spade, Inertia Don't Beat a Dead Horse Don't spite your face Don't template the regulars Charitableness Editors matter Expert retention Five pillars of evil Negotiation

ARCHIVING NOTICE: I reserve the right to archive any discussion older then 15 days. And I reserve the right to archive whatever I feel like archiving, and delete whatever I feel like deleting. For older discussions see

I am a professional biographer, specializing in biographies of obscure persons of local historical note, as such I claim qualification as an Expert Editor on matters of Local History and Biography. Let me quote the No original research page: '"No original research" does not prohibit experts on a specific topic from adding their knowledge to Wikipedia. On the contrary, Wikipedia welcomes the contributions of experts, as long as their knowledge is verifiable. We assume, however, that someone is an expert not only because of their personal and direct knowledge of a topic, but also because of their knowledge of published sources on a topic. This policy prohibits expert editors from drawing on their personal and direct knowledge if such knowledge is unverifiable. If an expert editor has published the results of his or her research elsewhere, in a reputable publication, the editor can cite that source while writing in the third person and complying with our NPOV policy. They must cite reliable, third-party publications and may not use their unpublished knowledge, which would be impossible to verify. We hope expert editors will draw on their knowledge of published sources to enrich our articles, bearing in mind that specialists do not occupy a privileged position within Wikipedia.' Wjhonson 17:57, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A user can blank their own talk page, see: Vandalism? from which I quote: " It is generally recognized that the user of a talk page has the right to blank it. (Deliberate repeated deletion of requests, such as of requests to be civil, is not vandalism. It is only WP:DICK.) "

And furthermore this: User Talk is Not Article Talk from which I quote: "Many users, including admins and at least two arbitrators, routinely remove comments from their Talk pages, and advertise this." At this point he quotes User talk:Neutrality which states "I archive when I feel like it. Depending on my whim, your comments may or may not be archived. The odds of not being archived are inversely proportional to the amount you annoy me. Please do not annoy me."

And again this: xxx

Per these statements, I am removing any "outside comment" from my talk page that I don't like as wiki policy (see Wiki:Vandalism) states quite clearly that a user "may remove any outside comment from their own talk pages at their OWN discretion" (added emphasis). Wjhonson 17:42, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another editor has added the {{prod}} template to the article Frederick Glaysher, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 03:59, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Philip H. Farber, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philip H. Farber (2nd nomination). Thank you.

An editor has nominated Frederick Glaysher, an article which you have created or worked on, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frederick Glaysher and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 13:59, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I checked out the ongoing discussion and I still feel that it's fairly clear that the Wikipedia biography of living persons and privacy of names applies to this particular instance in the manner that For An Angel suggests. The Googleable current information online does not use her name. I'm happy to participate in some sort of mediation on this point if you'd like to bring this higher up the Wikipedia food chain, but I still feel that the policy leans to the side of keeping her name out. Jessamyn (talk) 14:11, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is certainly something to consider (and you continue to do excellent work with your site, by the way). I'm going to suggest we seek additional input on this matter at the talk page as to whether or not we should keep the name.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your pro-active approach. Wjhonson (talk) 20:16, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Wjhonson:

I have replied on my talk page to the note you left there. Wanderer57 (talk) 21:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Wjhonson:

There has now been considerable discussion in talk:Genie about including the real name of this person in the article. I count seven editors who say the name should be left out, and one who thinks it should be included. I believe that by Wikipedia standards this is a good consensus to leave it out.

There is no necessity for you to agree with the other seven, but my understanding is that Wikipedia practise is to respect the consensus. Do you not agree that there is a consensus?

I ask you to reconsider your changes this evening to the article and the talk page in the light of the consensus to leave out the name.

Thank you, Wanderer57 (talk) 05:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most likely. T'would help if editors would read the article before posting changes, ¿no?. Might help them hit the right century on a topic. Ciao, MARussellPESE (talk) 17:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A prior RfD discussion had already concluded differently. You can object to the original decision. I implemented it under speedy-clause G4. If you want to appeal the original decision, I recommend taking it up at WP:DRV. Rossami (talk) 18:02, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See line J.32 of Wikipedia:List of administrators/G-O. You could have known that because he actually deleted the page as a result of that discussion. If you think there were process problems with the discussion, the appropriate remedy is through WP:DRV, not recreation. Rossami (talk) 16:31, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The LGBT studies WikiProject Newsletter

The LGBT studies WikiProject Newsletter! Issue XV: June 11, 2008 Hello, members and friends of WP:LGBT! I'm not one to be writing newsletters, but I miss our cruise director, Miss Julie, and our project is drifting along with a few leaking plugs in the bottom of the boat. Hey, it happens. Every group we join goes through changes. If Wikipedia weren't so interesting it wouldn't also be so frustrating sometimes. And vice versa. More than one Wikiproject has tumbleweeds blowing through it, but this is one that can't afford to let that happen. Even if you pop in to the talk page of the project, you can let us know you're still around. WP:LGBT's Role in HIV / AIDS articles It wouldn't be a proper gay community without a li'l bit o' drama! That's right. If we aren't arguing about something, then we should be asking if we're still queer. Maybe that's for the best, since we know we're still kicking. Our most recent topic is how far the role of our project should go in dipping our toes into HIV/AIDS articles. The main AIDS article was delisted as a Featured Article last month, sadly. (Sending a swift kick to WP:Medicine.) A spirited discussion is available for your entertainment on the WP:LGBT talk page about just how much of HIV and AIDS should we take on. As ever, we'll take your opinions under advisement. We're going to have to, because it doesn't seem to have been settled. Is Pride POV? We have a pretty cool sidebar that identifies core LGBT articles. Its symbol is the iconic gay pride flag, much like other Wikiprojects have iconic symbols denoting the topic is a core subject in a series of articles. However, a question recently arose asking if the symbol itself is not neutral. Should a pride flag show up at the top of the article on Conversion therapy? How else would anyone know the article is about queer issues? Is there another symbol that is as widely recognized and that includes all our many splintered facets? At what point do we stop asking ourselves all these questions and just go have a mint julep on the verandah and stop caring? Harvey Milk and Jim Jones For the love of all that is holy, no Kool Aid jokes. However, an editor involved in pioneering San Francisco Supervisor Harvey Milk's article has included a section about the late supervisor's support of Jim Jones and the People's Temple. While it may be accurate, there is a Request for Comment regarding how much emphasis the section places on Milk's support in light of his overall political influence on the city, and indeed the rest of the United States. Milk's article is a sad one in more ways than one. It lacks the detail and heart that honors its subject. Anyone want to do a barter with me? I'll bring Harvey Milk to featured status (give me a month or two so I can read stuff), if you do something of equal value to WP:LGBT?? Make me an offer... Queer Studies is offensive! The established branch of study known as Queer studies was brought up as an category for deletion because an editor was offended by the use of "queer" in the title. It was overwhelmingly rejected mostly by the usernames I see here on our Wikiproject page. (A clue that I know you are out there, hiding...biding your time...) So, I wish I could congratulate you, but now I'm all confused by my sympathy for the editor who was offended. So, if you're reading this, Moni has a short memory and can't remember your username. Don't be put off by our demonstrative pushiness. Join us. We can always use involved editors. Lambda Literary Awards What can you do to help the project out? Be a wiki-fairy, on many levels. There are all kinds of articles that need help. Why, just this morning I removed those ugly wikify and cleanup tags from four articles at random. If you can put [[ ]] around stuff, you can clean up articles. There's a list of articles that need attention at the top of the WP:LGBT talk page. Or you can start with the Lambda Literary Awards, where the goddess of my altar received a pioneering award, and was "reduced to rubble" by Katherine V. Forrest's wonderful speech. The 20th ceremony of the Lambda Literary Awards, which celebrates LGBT literature, took place in West Hollywood on May 29th [1]. The page needs to be updated with the new winners, to be found on the official website [2]. Yeshayahu Leibowitz, Arthur C. Clarke and Bernard Montgomery Why on earth would someone want to delete material about homosexuality? 'Tis truly a mystery. But these embattled articles have some random evil gnomes removing information that places these folks under our queer umbrella. Help us keep an eye out for the deletions. Take a peek at the articles, familiarize yourselves with the info, and be handy with the undo function in the article history. If tempers flare, take it to the Hall monitors and let them sort it out. Best solution is to make sure your sources are immaculate. This month's Wiki stars This is what I get for opening my big fat mouth and suggesting the newsletter should be revived. Here I am writing it. So, to pat self on back (*cough*) Mulholland Dr. became a featured article in May. This is A Good Thing since it is my personal declaration that there is no such thing as lesbian porn. I don't care what Benjiboi says about the video collection at goodvibes. Instead, we have hot women who connect on a deep, personal, soul-touching level, so this film should qualify as some of the skankiest porn available for lesbians. Plus, it's completely confusing and surreal! D'you think Laura Harring would care that the article is featured? I don't think so either... (Call me, Laura!) Compulsive hoarding of templates Once I saw a harrowing episode of Animal Planet's Animal Cops where this guy had, like, 250 cats in his house and it freaked me right out. I'm drawing a parallel between 250 cats and, well...three, really, templates in articles involving LGBT issues. Can we stick to one, maybe? In the aforementioned Harvey Milk's article there's a core LGBT template, a link to the LGBT portal, and a sidebar for LGBT rights. Jiminy! You'd think we weren't the folk to set industrial grey carpeting and track lighting in vogue. An LGBT footer was designed to link to articles of interest that aren't the aforementioned core articles. What do you think, can we have either an LGBT template for core articles, a footer for LGBT articles that are high profile but not core, or an LGBT rights template? As ever, anything's up for discussion on the WP:LGBT talk page. The Violet Quill and magazines Zigzig20s suggests we create an article on The Violet Quill, as it seems such a milestone in the advancement of gay/queer literature. Members of the Quill all have pages of their own (Edmund White, Christopher Cox, Robert Ferro, Michael Grumley, Andrew Holleran, Felice Picano, and George Whitmore). We need to find more info on the Quill per se to reference the page that we create. Perhaps Google Books - and libraries? - can help. A number of magazines also need articles, perhaps most notably QW, LGNY, and Lesbian Feminist Liberation. Mom's nagging for Pride Month It's June, Pride month. Wear sunscreen, stay hydrated, get a designated driver, then go half-dressed in the streets find a girlfriend or boyfriend, or some homo who's standing there looking lonely and kiss 'em up real good. Remember, it all started 39 years ago when a bunch of drag queens just got fed the f*ck up by the cops raiding the bar and dragging them all out to the pokey again. Rock on, queens! Enjoy your celebrations. My town's is in October, and 200 people attend. I miss Denver. Fresh faces to brighten our pages Hey, I've seen you around! Sorry there seem to be so many—it's been a while. But we welcome you all: Cheezisyum21, Taineyah, Dustihowe, Avesta69, RachelSummers77, Vivekgopinathan, AMK1211, Staffwaterboy , Ted Ted, Joe5150, Leahtwosaints, Robapalooza, Arthomure, Confusionball, Affinity likely, PrinceOfCanada, Yobmod, Npd2983, Neagley, Bvlax2005, Bvlax2005, Rhullsf, Textorus, Kieran.casey, Tyciol, Meojive, Sappho'd, Bookkeeperoftheoccult, Gaywarrior, Aujourd'hui, maman est morte, and Balin42632003. It looks like we've picked up a lot of talent lately. We have no doubt you'll be making your indelible mark on LGBT knowledge as we know it, here at Wikipedia. In the immortal words of Miss Julie, "May all your Wiki days be bright, and may your Love Boat never turn into a Poseidon." We miss you, Miss Julie, as well as all the others who have graced our project and are on wiki-breaks or just got fed up with all the nuttiness and went to live their lives. Get your stupid houses built and hurry up and come back. --Moni3 (talk) 16:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply] To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please let us know here. If you have any news or any announcements to be broadcast, do let Moni3 know.

This newsletter was delivered by §hepBot around 16:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC). ShepBot (talk) 16:25, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

.. suffice it to say, they weren't "juvenile insults" at all. Juvenile insults, as a rule, don't get oversighted[3] - Alison ^❤ 18:57, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you do not want the page Wikipedia:Ethics/User:Wjhonson, you can ask for it to be speedy deleted as a test page. Bebestbe (talk) 23:36, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per your suggestion I've enable an email account, I don't check it so ping my talk page if you send something. Banjeboi 19:10, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Newsletter delivery by xenobot 13:26, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On the mailing list you appeared to say that we didn't have an article on Richer of Reims, so you'd written one. I agree on the first point, we don't, strangely enough, but I can't find any sign of the new article. As for the DNB/ODNB test you proposed, it's not even worth starting it. We don't have all of the articles from either the original DNB or the newer ODNB. I'd guess around half, and two thirds at most. Anyway, can you have a look and see where Richer went? If he's escaped, I can cobble something up easily enough. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:41, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I started one on my own site at http://www.countyhistorian.com. I just wrote up a few bits, you can see them here Richer of Rheims Wjhonson (talk) 20:28, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Makes sense now. Regards, Angus McLellan (Talk) 09:24, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having trouble finding the year of death of the English illustrator Miss M. Dorothy Hardy, fl. 1891 - 1925 (prior discussion here). Is this something you could, in principle, find out? Haukur (talk) 15:26, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sample here: Image:Odin and Fenris.jpg Haukur (talk) 10:15, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I've been doing a bunch of research the last few days. Illustrators are difficult in general to research. And a name like Dorothy Hardy is just common enough to confuse her with someone else of that same name. Illustrators also don't tend to make the newspaper articles unless they are also famous artists of other kinds of art as well. It would probably take a great deal of work to pin her down. I mean on the order of perhaps ten to thirty hours of work. Of course if she had any close friends, with happen to have left diaries or autobiographies, that would help. Wjhonson (talk) 05:28, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Never mind, then. Haukur (talk) 06:48, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You may remember that during the DRV discussion last year (see the DRV log for May 28, 2007), you and other editors had started to change my mind concerning the BLP rationale for my deletion of Shawn Hornbeck. During the past year, it has become even more apparent that this individual is voluntarily holding himself out as a spokesperson for victims of crimes like the one he was subjected to, and is granting interviews etc. for that purpose, at an age where he is clear that this has been his own personal choice. A full-page article in today's New York Post is only the most recent incident in which I have seen attention drawn to this individual in an article obviously published with the full cooperation of the subject himself.

As such, it is now even more clear that, unlike the other person who was the subject of the companion deletion, there is no longer a viable BLP reason for this deletion, even under my own fairly conservative view of how policies should address articles concerning minors who are crime victims.

Please take this as consent by me as the deleting administrator to the re-creation of Shawn Hornbeck. Any administrator may feel free to unsalt or to provide a copy of the deleted material for use for this purpose. If process such as a DRV needs to be opened, please feel free to link here. Note that my personal opinion, for what it is worth, remains strongly that the name of the other victim, who was missing for a far shorter time and who has not voluntarily sought any comparable publicity, still should not be publicized. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:22, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've just visited the above site and found that some of the pages including the Main Page and the Talk:Main Page have been spammed, so I thought you'd like to clean it up. Kathleen.wright5 00:30, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I know they've been spammed, but apparently the owners of that wiki are dead or something. Who knows. I just use it sometimes as a white-board now. Wjhonson (talk) 06:09, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your attention here William Willoughby, 3rd Baron Willoughby of Parham. One reference is indeed as you indicate a personal site with no real provenance; your astute recognition is well received. The other [4] I agree is simply a title page that requires input, however, I would really like to continue to use this source if only I could get it to function like some others, for example John Sackville, Esq.. For some reason, however, the example given seems to be an anomaly. Again thanks for your attention and input which I am certain to value in the future. Daytrivia (talk) 02:32, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Go to my jump page here "Sources" on CountyHistorian.com and you will find a great number of printed sources on the British Peerage that would be acceptable. Some of these are free on Google Books, such as Burke's Peerage. Be sure to cite to the page number where you find the relevant factoids. Thanks! Wjhonson (talk) 02:37, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Outstanding. Many many thanks. What a page!!! Daytrivia (talk) 03:57, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This newsletter was sent by §hepBot (Disable) at 21:29, 12 November 2008 (UTC) by the request of Moni3 (talk)[reply]

Hi! Please note that I have filed a request for appeal here. Comments welcome! Best regards PHG (talk) 16:14, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to open this up here rather than on a dozen or more pages at once. That would be underhanded as well as a bitch to follow.

One of the sources used in the Baha'i biographical & history articles, such as Mírzá Muhammad `Alí, is this one from Maulana Muhammad Ali. Another is W.M. Miller's book.

The problem with the Maulana book is that it's a self-published source (see the title page on the pdf) used in articles not about itself. I'm looking specifically at para 2 of the policy ("Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable …"). Maulana doesn't get over this bar. To my knowledge nobody (MacEoin, Cole, Smith, etc.) uses him as a source. The Encyclopedia Iranica articles significantly do not cite him as a source, which is what this paragraph from the policy addresses.

Miller's book should be viewed similarly as it has the same flaws. Outside of Christian apologia, this book isn't cited by any third-party sources.

I think these do belong in their respective authors' bio pages, but I think that their self-published status is a fatal flaw in their inclusion elsewhere. ("For this reason, self-published books, … and similar sources are largely not acceptable to cite in Wikipedia.")

MARussellPESE (talk) 18:25, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/PHG/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/PHG/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel (talk) 23:06, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've initiated a request for amendment in an arbitration case where you were a named party. You may wish to comment. Best regards, Durova^Charge! 06:11, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]