User talk:Brad101/GWALRFC

Sufficient?

Hi Brad, I tried to summarize the lengthy and winding discussion at Thomas Jefferson. Most of this took place on the Talk Page; Gwillhicker was not making as many edits to the article, but complaining about work other editors had done and trying to shape what was covered. It all had so many twists and turns that I was not sure how to approach it. Have also noted a "Fringe Theory" issue that was reported by Ebanony, another TJ editor, re: Gwillhicker to the Noticeboard in early March and where the discussion continued to March 15, 2011.Parkwells (talk) 22:23, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's a good synopsis but you will need to add "difs" to point out the posts that you and Gwill or other editors made. See how Coemgenus laid out the Benjamin Harris issue. BTW, I contacted Stephan Schultz another editor that's embroiled in the conversation but seems like he doesn't want to participate, Ebanony hasn't edited since March. Anyone else you're aware of from TJ that could help out? Brad (talk) 23:57, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I had thought Cmguy, but had my own difficulty with him trying to convince him there was academic consensus on this issue, despite the quotes from leading historians, the PBS program, the TJ Foundation (he was overanalyzing one web page); the National Genealogical Society, the MacArthur Fellowship for Gordon-Reed for "dramatically changing Jeffersonian scholarship"; he wanted a quote with "consensus" in it. When I came up with the curator at Monticello saying "90 percent of historians agree on this", he had trouble with that, too, saying maybe we needed to find a survey. (!) He felt the Monticello Association's commissioned report and refusal to admit Hemings descendants as members should be weighed the same as the overwhelming majority of the academic community. Seems to have finally subsided on this. Had a personal email from Annette Gordon-Reed (as I'd written her a fan letter), amazed that the issue could be in contention. She said that for Wikipedia not to reflect the consensus on this issue was why academics had a problem with it. At least her email renewed my sense of purpose. Did not think it appropriate to introduce it to the TJ Talk page.Parkwells (talk) 14:10, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's awesome that she wrote you back. I actually started out thinking that the Hemings matter was being given undue weight and that the issue was still in doubt. The talk page discussions and research I did on my own afterwards convinced me otherwise. So, if nothing else, you've convinced one editor that there is an historical consensus that we should follow. Cmguy is a good kid and edits in good faith, but I don't think he really understands rules like WP:OR and WP:ILIKEIT. Maybe Rjensen? He's interacted with GWills on the TJ and AL articles. I've been trying to find out how to invite more editors to comment without violating WP:CANVASS, so that may yet yield some results. --Coemgenus 15:01, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Believe it or not to some degree I agree with Gwill on the Hemings debacle. I think it's being given too much weight in popular culture and it certainly shouldn't be presented in TJ's article with undue weight. I'm quite sure that TJ fathered children with Hemings as it was not an uncommon occurrence of the day. Many politicians have illegitimate children in their past and it wasn't only limited to the days of slavery. Most recent one I can think of was Strom Thurmond's child via the family housekeeper. I dislike the way that the Hemings debacle is being presented as something that negates everything that TJ ever did. His philosophy on politics and liberty is something everyone should read up one. I've just started Malone's six volume collection.

OTOH I happen to believe that Lincoln is the most over-rated president in the entire history of the US. I could go the rest of my life and be happy to never see or hear another word about him. But my personal opinion is beside the point of helping to get his article past FAC. It still is an article of vital importance which I'll keep with until it passes FAC. Brad (talk) 19:41, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Help?

Because so much of the TJ discussion was archived, I couldn't figure out how to pick up "diffs". For instance, the Edit history of early February simply shows the archiving of the page. Here is part of the discussion at the archive: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Thomas_Jefferson/Archive_8&diff=417095153&oldid=416044636 (Archive 8)

The fact that this subject is still discussed after 200 years, gives it weight. It should not be limited to one sentence to satisfy Gwillhickers, who is clearly POV pushing. The level of proof this person and other people of this ilk are demanding is ridiculous. This level of scrutiny would not be applied to anyone else, other than Thomas Jefferson. The only sure way of knowing with absolute certainty is to dig Thomas Jefferson up. There should be no change on the Hemmings subject. This subject was put to bed years ago. --Joe bob attacks (talk) 17:14, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The weight of an issue can not be measured simply by how many people happen to be talking about it, esp since the only reason the issue comes up so often is because of an orchestrated effort to keep the issue in your face, and I believe that has happened here. There is much talk here because, for example, there was once more than three entire pages dumped onto the TJ page about Hemings. Recently someone put almost an entire paragraph in the lede about Hemings. 'That' is how the issue usually comes up. In of itself, the Hemings affair is not a pressing issue, and effects virtually no one other than the people who chose to do cart-wheels over the issue. -- To measure the weight of an historical issue it must be looked at from the perspective of how this issue impacted the fate of millions of people. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:19, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Parkwells (talk) 14:56, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok; here's the Joe bob attacks diff and the Gwill diff (after he edited his response about five times). Brad (talk) 16:01, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Finding diffs

Find the post you want to diff either in archives or main talk page and note the date and time of the post.
Go to the history section of the main talk page.
Use the tool at the top of the page to narrow the date. In the case of the above posts set year to 2011 and month to February.
Find the date you need by using "older posts" if necessary.
Using 'compare selected revisions' find the diff you need and copy the address from your browsers address bar.

This sounds easy but it's really not. It took me about 15 minutes to find the two diffs above. WP loads talk page information as slow as molasses. It's a frustrating endeavor all around. Alternatively you could search the editor's older contributions via their history. Brad (talk) 16:23, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestions. I've been practicing, too, and understand better, but find it difficult when there are many quick changes to the page. For instance, I was trying to show by diffs several exchanges between GW and me on April 19, 2011 (under Bias on Jefferson section, mine starts at 14:07), in which he dismissed academic scholarship about three times (which I had kept referring to), but I kept picking up too much extraneous material.Parkwells (talk) 16:29, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's almost inevitable that you will have to resort to looking at many diffs until you find what you want. I'm sure that the actual times of the posts can be confusing because the server works on UTC and editors may have time settings for WP that reflect their own time zones. I'm UTC -4 for example. Brad (talk) 17:03, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

American Civil War

That dispute seems to be ending amicably. We should leave it off the RfC, I think. --Coemgenus 10:37, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is only a draft of course but it would be interesting to wait and see if anything further happens. The article still doesn't meet mos:images btw. Brad (talk) 17:32, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

update

Something I've determined since things got started here: The Rfc must be about Gwillhickers' behavior on the same subject which means that Thomas Jefferson doesn't go along with the stamp agenda though it does serve as a good example of similar behavior. Also, once this rfc is posted there must be two editors that can show they've tried to work with Gwill on the same topic, in this case stamps. So in the stamp arena there is Coemgenus but from what I can see we're missing another editor willing to show where they've tried to work with Gwill on the subject of stamps. I've had to gather the other stamp agenda articles and flesh those out myself but I've not had any contact with Gwill on those topics and I sort of stayed out of the ALincoln debate directly.

This is somewhat disappointing because the other editors I've asked to comment here either never responded to the request or declined to comment. Coemgenus and Parkwells being the exception of course. Right now I'm reluctant to file this rfc because there doesn't seem to be enough interest from others. OTOH there is no problem with allowing this draft to sit here in case something else develops. Brad (talk) 15:13, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You've been pretty involved in the stamps debate on Lincoln, haven't you? If you don't think that's enough, I'll try to get one of the other editors there or on the Harrison article involved. --Coemgenus 16:14, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it's a matter of interpretation. I'm the one who did the image review on AL which eventually led to the stamp's removal but only in a couple of responses did I engage Gwill directly. I suppose that's enough to qualify me as having tried to work with him. I'd rather have an editor with a more solid engagement to make the claim. Carmag4 might be another editor to ask. For whatever reason I never contacted him about this. Brad (talk) 16:51, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I left a note on Carmarg's talk page inviting him to join in. --Coemgenus 13:58, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks for that. Would it be possible for you to "depersonalize" your write up on BH? Brad (talk) 15:19, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought I'm probably over-analyzing the rules and requirements. Would be nice if they were a bit clearer. Anyway, I think all of the articles that are listed here have enough similarities with each other. Disruptive editing all around and conflict of interest with stamps. Brad (talk) 14:55, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're good, but I'll still depersonalize it if you want. --Coemgenus 16:11, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Meh. Let it stay the way it is. This isn't a run-up to FA going on here. Brad (talk) 16:20, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I found the rules and requirements confusing, too. Thanks for taking the lead on this.Parkwells (talk) 14:01, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That goes for me, too. Thanks for talking time away from your article-writing to do what must be done here. --Coemgenus 14:05, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have edited the statement of dispute to add some behavioral specifics and changed the tense. I hope I have not acted out of turn. Carmarg4 (talk) 21:15, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's much better and directly to the point. I did remove "complusive" as I thought it read a bit combative even though I agree with it. Brad (talk) 22:21, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Filed

At Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Gwillhickers. The two users who have unresolved issues with Gwill are Coemgenus and Parkwells. Those two editors must certify that they've tried to resolve an issue with Gwill and failed. Only those two editors (from what I can understand) must reply at the Rfc in the Users certifying the basis for this dispute section within 48 hours or the RfC will be invalid. Other editors like myself can post in the Other users who endorse this summary section. If you don't see this message here I will be posting it to your talk pages as well as informing Gwill. Brad (talk) 10:34, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As the RfC rules state.. there must be two editors who can certify that they have tried and failed to resolve issues with Gwill. Three out of the five examples given in the RfC were eventually resolved. Harrison and Jefferson are still open without resolution. Parkwells was the only editor from the Jefferson article that responded and made his entry here. It's possible that the whole RfC will be deleted if Parkwells doesn't certify. Less than 24 hours left to certify. Brad (talk) 10:40, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll talk to him. --Coemgenus 10:58, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure Lincoln should count as resolved, either. He refused to say that he accepted that there was consensus to exclude stamps when I put the question to him directly. --Coemgenus 12:49, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose it could be interpreted that way. At this point I'm beginning not to care. How anyone could interpret the RfC as being about copyright is beyond me. I'm becoming more and more convinced that the majority of WP editors are just monkeys banging on a keyboard. If this RfC nomination fails for lack of certification then WP deserves what it gets. I should go back to working on my seven article featured topic. At least with those articles only one has a stamp in it. Brad (talk) 13:17, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's frustrating, but I'll keep up with it. I have to: if his behavior continues, it will be impossible to get any presidential biography featured, which would be a huge loss for the encyclopedia. --Coemgenus 14:05, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did not mean to delay; was unavailable. Had difficulty also in trying to identify difs, as the arguments went on for so long and were so circular. You've given me insight into tools to try earlier.Parkwells (talk) 13:55, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Carmarg4 edit warring

Gwillhickers is now insisting on the placement of stamps at Buchanan, Garfield, FDR and Kennedy I'm responding here to your talk page post at the RfC in case the RfC gets deleted. I glanced at the Garfield article and it in no way meets MOS:Images by a long shot. I'm surprised it was promoted to GA in this condition. I used the application of Mos Images on the Lincoln article because it was the best thing to do in order to stop the complaining about stamps. I had a feeling that dispensing with the stamp photos could be achieved by applying the MOS and I was correct. Using the MOS doesn't allow anyone with half a brain to claim that the issue is all about stamps. In most cases the stamp photos are memorials to the subject but in most cases there are many other pics that are more relevant to the subject as memorials. That's what happened at Lincoln. Brad (talk) 16:21, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. You should copy this answer to the RfC talk page, so that if it doesn't get deleted the conversation can stay together. --Coemgenus 16:39, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gwillhickers added two memorial stamps to the Jefferson article, but now it is only one, at the appropriate place in the text.Parkwells (talk) 13:59, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]