User talk:JLUKACS1
Welcome to wikipedia
[edit]Editing your own wikipedia article rarely works out well. Take a look at the WP:Autobiography page for the gory details. That said, I hope you decide to stick around and contribute elsewhere. Editing here can be an addictive timesink, but if you enjoy the satisfaction of writing well then it can be a pleasant one. If you have questions, drop by the WP:Teahouse. They're very good about not biting the heads off of newbies.
Best,
Lesser Cartographies (talk) 19:52, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
Repeatedly reverting edits you disagree with without discussion will (eventually) result in your account getting blocked. I'm more than happy to discuss with you why I don't think your edits are appropriate, and I'm also happy to hear why I might be wrong. They're closing the plane doors so I'll leave it at that for now. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 23:01, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
- I've raised this here at the 3RR notice board. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 02:11, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Notices - COI
[edit]
Hello, JLUKACS1. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article John D. Lukacs, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.
All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.
If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:
- Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
- Be cautious about deletion discussions. Everyone is welcome to provide information about independent sources in deletion discussions, but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors.
- Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
- Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.
Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.
For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. Softlavender (talk) 05:49, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at John D. Lukacs, you may be blocked from editing. Softlavender (talk) 08:06, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
This is your last warning. The next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Yintan 08:48, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
I have blocked you for edit warring. Please, discuss edits on the talkpage. At least parts of those edits are not following our policies and guidelines, and edit warring, as you were doing, is not going to keep that information there. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:03, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi, John. I hesitate to bring up the stuff you posted on this Talk page from your earlier rant, because you deleted it, and that may not reflect your current feelings. But one thing in particular stuck out, and I'd like to address it just in case, because its sort of important to get this thing right.
"Nowadays, publishers do very little in terms of promoting authors, therefore that responsibility falls to us writers ourselves."
However important it may be to the author, Wikipedia does not recognize self-promotion as "building an Encyclopedia", and its generally unwelcome here. Some authors indeed do use Wiki articles to promote themselves; its a violation of policy and any such articles would need cleanup as well.
"Given the evident transition from a print to an online world, a brief, balanced and informative Wikipedia biographical page is an extremely valuable tool that enables authors such as myself to stake a small claim on a large Internet landscape and connect not only with readers, but prospective editors, publishers, producers and perhaps most importantly, a dwindling handful of military veterans who are the lifeblood of my work."
Here's the problem.
A wiki page can be an extremely valuable tool for you to connect with your readers and sources, but that's not what Wikipedia is for. The overarching purpose of Wikipedia is to create and maintain an encyclopedia. To promote this, there are some guidelines and standards afoot. Since you're editing a page on the subject of yourself, you fall under severe conflict of interest concerns. If COI isn't addressed, your changes are likely to get reverted. Also, you must be very careful with self-promotion) or your edits are likely to get reverted under those criteria. Repeatedly adding (or deleting) content without discussing it may lead to a temporary block. This is not the end of the world, and it doesn't indicate hard feelings or bias. Blocks are never intended as punishment. Wikipedia is similar to yet different from other publishing media you may have worked with before. Content here is self-published, but can't include original research, cannot promote yourself, must be properly cited by reliable sources. Wiki editors do not own their contributions.
This may be a lot to take in. Hopefully, you'll have a chance to digest it a little better by the time your block expires, so that you can edit more effectively (and with fewer WP editors "slashing" your edits willy-nilly). Good luck! --R.S. Peale (talk) 09:53, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Welcome back
[edit]We'd love to have you stick around for a while and edit anything you like, so long as it doesn't benefit your career directly. We can always use another professional writer. If your career is taking up most of your attention, well, we'll still be here when you need a break.
Looking forward to working with you,
Lesser Cartographies (talk) 01:16, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the greeting, Lesser_Cartographies (as well as anybody else with sincere intentions).
I had no intentions of upsetting the proverbial apple cart here on Wikipedia or "warring" with anybody over anything. I apologize if I rubbed anybody the wrong way. It's been a difficult week from both work and personal perspectives. Furthermore, I'll admit to not being fully educated on Wikipedia rules and regs regarding pages and edits. I had put together my bio page a few years back and other than making an quick, almost bi-annual update following another successful research expedition, didn't pay much attention to it or the workings of the site in general. Which is strange, given my reputation for exhaustive research and citing/sourcing my published work to the hilt. Of course, paying gigs take priority and precedence for time and attention to detail. Since I strive for perfect accuracy in my own work, I certainly understand the necessity of removing redundancy, commercial links, unsourced claims and material, etc. That said, I'm in the process of prepping a leaner, cleaner page that not only truthfully and accurately explains who I am and what I do sans promotionalism, but contains all the necessary citations and will adhere to the site's rules and regs to the fullest extent possible.
Please don't think that this post is a full act of contrition, however. I will not apologize for the ferocity with which I defended my career, my accomplishments and my personal honor. I think one individual called my initial, emotional response a "rant." Maybe it was. Maybe not. But I believe I have a right to defend myself. The crux of the disagreement regarding our respective edits was the fact that certain individuals who became involved with editing were seemingly discounting a significant part of my legitimate biography on what I initially perceived to be personal whims. Maybe that's a legitmate complaint. Or perhaps not. Nevertheless, I couldn't see how anybody could sit there and deny me the right to call myself an adventurer as well as an author and historian. It's a right that I've legitimately earned through an investment of no small amount of blood, sweat, tears and expenditure of treasure. If you had spent a fortune traveling the globe to gain first-hand knowledge of remote battlesites, had frequently risked life and limb on these expeditions, snuck into third-world prisons, stomped through gun bunkers filled with human waste on the heels of a cholera epidemic, dove on shark-infested wrecks, etc., paid through the nose for shots for exotic diseases that are incredibly difficult to pronounce, for emergency medical evacuation and corpse retrieval/return insurance...well, I expect you'd get tad defensive, too. In fact, I had just returned from a trip to the Aleutian Islands (the most difficult WWII battlefield in the world to get to) the week before and experienced a storm in the Bering Sea much like the one in the George Clooney movie, "A Perfect Storm," and the idea that while I had just survived that, someone or some cabal of "editors," was sitting in the warm safety and comfort of their homes, strangers whose real names I didn't even know, reverting the page and thus marginalizing, disputing and in effect eliminating the record of my work and sacrifices, that notion outraged me. Worse yet, to see some people engaging in discussions regarding my "notability" as an author - this, right around the same time that World War II Magazine had come out with a new subscription advertisement[1] in which I was listed as one of the country's "notable authors" of WWII history! I had to laugh; that list features nearly all Pulitzer and Pritzker Prize winners. The next youngest author has got me by 25 years. I'm used to being discounted, discredited and disrespected because of my youth, my unconventional approach, etc. But when I try to use those very things as positives to separate me from other authors, it seems as though people can't wait to click me into oblivion.
I've never gone around and patted myself on the back for anything (in fact, publicists aren't happy that I despise writing awards and contests and generally refuse to enter such things or to engage in events that require me to discuss or talk about myself), a fact which bears itself out on my original bio page. If I had been truly interested in superfluous self-promotion I'd have previously posted every great review and kind word written/said about me, as well as probably made up a few, and tried to make myself look like a caricature hybrid of Hemingway and Hillary (Sir Edmund). I have no interest in such ridiculous behavior or fabrications. In fact, I have no illusions of achieving fame and amassing a personal fortune - if so, I would not have picked nonfiction military history as a field of work and specifically not the Pacific (aka the Stepchild) Theater of the war! - so I'm certainly not attempting to use Wikipedia to sell books and directly advance my career as an extension of a personal or publisher's site. I merely want to educate those who might be interested in my background, how I came to be what I'm currently doing, how I do it, why I do it, etc. I'm not a retired colonel, general or admiral living on a military/gov't pension indulging a love of military history for a second career; a six-figure salaried staffer on a major metro newspaper writing books on sabbaticals; a tenured prof with an army of grad students assigned to handle all of my research. And while some folks may frown on authors writing their own biography on a site like Wikipedia, I never gave it a second thought. That's because I've always handled all of my own research and writing (with the exception, obviously, of foreign language translations); I spare no expense to locate sources and documents, to travel to conduct in-person interviews; I handle my own transcription and voluminous correspondence, as well as all promotional activities and arrangements. Not a single aspect of my life or work is "outsourced," so the idea that I'd let others scribble up anything they want about me and sit back is, from my perspective, ludicrous. Hope this all helps to explain my perspective a little better.
I honestly do enjoy Wikipedia and appreciate the work that many fine people do here upholding the integrity of compiled knowledge. I think that given the sum total of my vast personal library, files and archives, my extensive conventional and unconventional research experiences and knowledge about many aspects of military history, sports, etc. I can make some valuable contributions to the world's encyclopedic knowledge of those subjects if given the opportunity.
Lastly, I think Mr. Jarrod Clark is owed an apology; he's not a "meathead" or whatever some have called him. He's a loyal friend who is aware of all of the sacrifices I've made to get to where I am and knows where I hope to be and couldn't sit by while his friend was seemingly being ambushed in an online Custer's Last Stand. ...I've also noticed that some of the articles that I had referenced from many years ago, such as the story I wrote on the last NYC speakeasy, Chumley's, are no longer archived online anywhere. I definitely wrote that story and remain proud of it; I wasn't claiming credit for a piece I hadn't authored. That story, along with many others, will find an online home shortly once I find out how squeeze 25 or 26 hours out of every day. I also once lived in the famous Chelsea Hotel, too. Proof of that extraordinary experience will be sourced soon as well.
If anyone has any legitimate questions, concerns, ideas or anything to discuss in regards to WWII, history, my work, my research, my projects,my adventures, etc., I've always practiced an "open-door policy" with readers, fans, fellow researchers, folks who would like information on finding guides to take them to places I've been, people looking for info about their loved ones, vets, etc. - feel free to e-mail me at john@johndlukacs.com. While I do plan to help with some edits on here, as much as time will permit, I usually don't spend much time on message boards or talk pages; I prefer to correspond with people directly and using real names. Just one more way how "old school" or "DIY" and "hands-on" I am.
Thank you for your time and I'm looking forward to working with you, too.
John D. Lukacs
- No apology necessary. But I don't think you've quite understood why your biography article has been nominated for deletion. Wikipedia gains value primarily by what it excludes. The easy cases are libel, copyright infringement, legal threats and obscenity. (Interestingly enough, we rarely exclude information just because it's wrong.) These cases are all (thankfully) rare. The common bar to articles is usually notability. In this context, the term describes the conditions under which we accept articles. There's nothing magical about it: the definition varies by topic and reflects the rough, evolving consensus of those who edit articles in that particular domain. Here are the notability guidelines for authors (meeting any single criteria is sufficient):
- The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.
- The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.
- The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.
- The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.
- Contrast this with the notability guidelines for an individual book (meeting any single criteria is sufficient):
- The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews. Some of these works should contain sufficient critical commentary to allow the article to grow past a simple plot summary. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.
- The book has won a major literary award.
- The book has been considered by reliable sources to have made a significant contribution to a significant motion picture, or other art form, or event or political or religious movement.
- The book is the subject of instruction at multiple grade schools, high schools, universities or post-graduate programs in any particular country.
- The book's author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable. This does not simply mean that the book's author is him/herself notable by Wikipedia's standards; rather, the book's author is of exceptional significance and the author's life and body of written work would be a common subject of academic study.
- Contrast this with the notability guidelines for an individual book (meeting any single criteria is sufficient):
- I don't see any difficulty establishing the notability of an article on Escape. But it's not clear to me how a biographical article on you would pass the test. This doesn't mean such an article wouldn't be useful, interesting, truthful and fully cited; it just means that article doesn't belong on wikipedia. If you want to write another draft of the article then you should be addressing the notability question head on. I'd be happy to look over a draft when you have one.
- That said, you'll have a much easier time with this process if you settle in an make a thousand edits or so. There are dozens of proposed articles at Articles for Creation daily; reading through those will give you an excellent grounding in what gets rejected and why. Ditto Articles for Deletion. Having the guidelines written down is useful, but like most rules the nuance and application lies in practice rather than the words.
- Let me know how I can useful. I've set up email on my account so you can reach me privately if you wish.
- Best,
Redirecting Escape from Davao
[edit]Have a look at Escape from Davao. Cheers, Sam 🎤 20:25, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
File permission problem with File:Escape From Davao paperback cover photo.jpg
[edit]
Thanks for uploading File:Escape From Davao paperback cover photo.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.
If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
- make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
- Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.
If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.
If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:48, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Sfan00...E-mail granting my permission for image sent - TY
Conflict of Interest notices
[edit] Hello, JLUKACS1. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article John D. Lukacs, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.
All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.
If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:
- Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
- Be cautious about deletion discussions. Everyone is welcome to provide information about independent sources in deletion discussions, but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors.
- Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
- Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.
Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.
For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. Softlavender (talk) 22:29, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Hello, JLUKACS1. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Escape from Davao, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.
All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.
If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:
- Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
- Be cautious about deletion discussions. Everyone is welcome to provide information about independent sources in deletion discussions, but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors.
- Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
- Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.
Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.
For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. Softlavender (talk) 22:29, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at John D. Lukacs, you may be blocked from editing.
Really, Softlavender?
[edit]There's not a single thing wrong, inaccurate or otherwise objectionable with the bio page that I've posted. It's concise, contains no falsehoods, is fully cited and is purely informative. Most importantly, I've violated no neutrality rules or other Wikipedia standards, rules and/or regulations. I've simply explained, in a mere few hundred words, who I am, what I do, why I do it, how I do it, where I've done it, what others have said and written on all of the above, where I attended college, what awards I've received and other pertinent, truthful encyclopedic information. If I was interested in peacockism, wouldn't I have chosen to include some of the more flattering reviews of my myself and my book (i.e. NPR called my book "dazzling;" a celebrity considers me a "top-notch non-fiction writer")? Nothing appears on my bio page that does not appear on the pages that feature the bios of my colleagues (I'd be happy to provide examples to an interested administrator, seeing as how I used the author pages of my peers, in some cases almost identical language, as templates for my own page). After conducting a few quick clicks of research of your profile, I truthfully believe that the only "conflict of interest" here is that I've contributed a worthwhile addition to the Wikipedia community and you don't seem to appreciate cold, hard, cited facts when they appear on your screen. What is it about my work, my career, my accomplishments, that bothers you so? Does it make you uncomfortable that I don't "outsource" any aspect of my career, that I have the audacity to want to ensure accuracy in my own biographical information?
Personally, I sense some kind of simmering resentment by someone who has been a "professional editor for over 17 years" of someone who been a professional writer (yes, I've been getting paid to write since I was teenager; I'm guessing that disclosure will really rankle you) for the exact same period of time, but who is more than two decades your junior. Hmm, are you suffering from a case of "editor envy," perhaps? I posit that it is you, Softlavender, who is "at it again." I would hope that any rational administrator that reviews this page and the fight you seem insistent on picking, would recognize that the real conflict of interest is your bizarre preoccupation with me as an author and a subject. Please grow-up and discontinue disruptive editing of the author biography page, John D. Lukacs. As I'm on deadline this evening for a magazine article, have one book for a major commercial publisher long overdue, another under contract for the same major commercial publisher due in late 2014 and a full-length television documentary film to write and executive produce before this summer concludes, I simply don't have the time to get into "edit warring" with someone who has so much spare time on her hands that she seemingly sits by her computer all day wringing her hands with glee at the opportunity to revert the accurate work of others. I'd appreciate it if you'd go play red-pen god on some other page and leave writing and editing to the professionals and those dedicated others who truly care about providing quality, accurate content for Wikipedia readers.
John D. Lukacs
- I reverted you because I am a cock. --Malerooster (talk) 00:21, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
- LOL. Well played, Malerooster, well played.
3RR warning (again)
[edit]Your recent editing history at John R. Lukacs 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. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
John: This strategy didn't work well for you last time, either. Standard operating procedure when you have a conflict of interest is to propose your edits to a neutral editor and have them make the change. I offered to take a look and, had you taken me up on it, I expect the edits would have sailed though. Instead you're repeatedly going out of your way to annoy other editors. I expect the block will be a little more substantial this time. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 03:29, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
[edit]Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lesser Cartographies (talk • contribs) 16:42, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:51, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
JLUKACS1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I'm not engaged in edit warring, vandalism or any such thing. I'm merely defending myself from Internet bullies, which is what Lesser Cartographies, Softlavender, R.S. Peale, Yintan and others are. I posted a fully sourced, objective, neutral encyclopedic article without a hint of promotional material and these individuals are so blinded by their personal dislike of me and displeasure at the fact that I did not outsource my biographical article that they can't seem to put their torches and pitchforks down fast enough to click "revert" or cry to have me blocked. In the interest of professionalism, I'll admit that in the case of last week's disagreement, I had acted hastily, repeatedly posted a poorly sourced article and thus did engage in edit warring (unknowingly) but was nevertheless guilty according to the letter of the law. This time, however, I submitted a fully sourced, non-biased, non-promotional encyclopedic article that fully adhered to Wikipedia's standards and guidelines and it is Lesser Cartographies, Softlavender, et al that are acting irrationally and irresponsibly and committing the crime of edit warring.
The article that I submitted was no different than any of the dozens of author bio pages on Wikipedia that I consulted prior to updating this one in order to adhere to Wikipedia's exacting standards. Let us air, shall we, all of our dirty laundry on this page for the administrators - notably Mark Arsten - and let us all have a look, for a first example, at the esteemed author and European war historian Antony Beevor's bio article, where it says that his works "have been praised for their vivid, compelling style" (Those quotes are my own; the notion of Beever having "vivid, compelling style" is unsourced). I guess Mr. Beevor can be praised for having vivid, compelling style, but I can't be considered a "gifted stylist and storyteller" even when the quote is sourced. Likewise, another outstanding author, Alex Kershaw, is a "master storyteller" according to Booklist. Booklist, Kirkus, et al, have said a lot of nice things about me and my work, too! But no matter. Beevor and Kershaw = ok. John Lukacs = bad, bad man.
What about Winston Groom, author of Forrest Gump? There is a statement on his article that "Groom was an old friend of writer Willie Morris, dating to their days together in Bridgehampton, Long Island, New York." I'm not saying Groom and Morris weren't friends. I just don't see any citation or source for that claim. If yours truly, however, had written that I was a good friend of Stephen King dating to our days together in Maine, Softlavender would probably have an aneurysm. Speaking of Stephen King, his bio article states that he is a fan of John D. MacDonald. But I don't see that sourced, so somebody better rush on over to Steve's page and either correct that or remove that reference right away before Steve gains any promotional advantage or reward by maybe or maybe not being a fan of John D. McDonald. Oh, and while you're there, only four of the 12 "influences" in King's infobox are sourced. If the impartial jury of my peers of which Softlavender is the foreman believes that I'm guilty, that nobody influenced me as a writer, that I couldn't possibly have looked up to guys like Kerouac or gals like Anne Lindbergh, I want Steve King tried and convicted of not having all these influences, too! His sentence should be the loss of 2/3 of his influences using the exact same legal standard. It's only fair, right? The purpose of Wikipedia is to be objective and accurate, right? That's what you guys are here for, right? Right??? Justice for all!!
And what of one of the best sportswriters of all-time, the inimitable Red Smith? Smith's a fellow Notre Dame alum. Says so on his article bio. But unlike my article, his graduation verification is not sourced, so we can't be sure. Better revert Red, too. It's a double-standard that other authors have their educational backgrounds listed, but I'm not permitted to post mine. I guess maybe you are all Southern Cal fans??
Oh, and Mitch Albom. Tuesdays with Morrie. Great book. On his bio article, Albom is listed as an "American best-selling author, journalist, screenwriter, dramatist, radio, television broadcaster and musician." In his infobox, he's also a novelist and a philanthropist. How dare Albom or whoever composed and edited his article provide him with nine occupations! And while I believe he's a fine musician, I'm not so certain that Albom has been featured in Making Music Magazine; there's no citation for that. Let's get Softlavender on this. She can't stand the thought of me being an adventurer and I'm enraged that someone could conceivably be perpetuating the myth, be pulling the wool over the eyes of every editor on Wikipedia, that Mitch Albom has been featured in Making Music Magazine. This could be a scandal rivaling the "Great That-Liar-and Publicity Hog-John D. Lukacs-claims-he-wrote-an-article-about-the-famous-NYC-speakeasy-Chumley's-for-the-now-defunct-USAirways-in-flight magazine-Attache-Sham of 2013."
I could go on for hours (with both examples of the ridiculous double-standards being applied to my author bio article and those of other authors and snarky comments) but I believe I made my point. Where's the angst, the loud, energy-pulsing editorial riots in the streets of Wikipediaville, to correct these articles? Why am I garnering all this spectacular attention? I think I know. Like it or not, there is not a single thing wrong with either of the articles submitted within the past 24 hours. They are fully sourced, almost factually unassailable, neutral and anything but promotional. I don't know what else I can say, do or write. But perhaps therein lies the issue. I get it: it's becoming plainly obvious that a small group of equally small-minded, petty, vindictive editors don't want ME to say, do or write anything. According to the Wikiconstitution, "people with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject," so even though I'm not breaking the law, this group has taken the law into their own hands and decided they don't like me doing what's perfectly legal. They're engaging in nothing short of vigilante editing and harassment.
Long post short, you guys demanded citations and neutral, sourced material devoid of bias and blatant promotionalism - I delivered. You guys are upset with the delivery and, perhaps most importantly, the deliveryman. If you are truly interested in improving Wikipedia and making it "the" online destination and repository for accurate encyclopedic knowledge, of reaching "consensus" and not just simply grinding axes and ganging up on people who choose to ensure that their own biographical information is accurate, why don't you point out just what is wrong with the article I submitted? Provide proof - graph by graph, line by line, word by word, citation by citation proof - or else get over it. See, Mark Arsten, this is hardly a fair fight. Lesser Cartographies picks the fight and then runs and hides behind Softlavender, but everyone strategically avoids making 3 or more reverts to my article and possibly incurring a block of their own for "edit warring" by then bringing in mercenary flunkies like R.S. Peale and Yintan to throw fuel onto the fire. I'm naturally forced to protect my sourced, legitimate edits single-handedly, earning myself and only myself disciplinary action.
I would certainly not be averse to letting a neutral editor take a look at things - if there is such a thing as a neutral editor. I believe that the material not only meets, but surpasses Wikipedia's standards and goals for accuracy and proper citation and sourcing. There is no original research, no self-published sources and every single assertion or statement is verifiable. I've not attempted to distribute previously-unpublished information. I've without question met and surpassed Wikipedia's author "notability" standards (*The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors - CHECK. *The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique - CHECK). Furthermore, I've taken great care to avoid being "too flattering or too disparaging" with my edits. I've purposefully made sure that none of the glowing reviews or kind words I've been a beneficiary of appear anywhere near this article, you know, like the time NPR called my book "dazzling" or when a celebrity called me a "top-notch non-fiction writer." My publisher loves that stuff - me, I don't walk around spouting it. In fact, I've left out a ton of biographical material and career related information that some people might find informative and appropriate (such as other sportswriting jobs and experiences) but that I find unnecessary and superfluous. I always choose the high road because I truly don't believe in tooting my own horn. And disparage others, or competition? Never. Wouldn't dream of it. I would never say a negative word about a fellow author, historian, adventurer, filmmaker or artist of any other kind. The extent of my editorial explanations have simply been to explain how I am different than others - not better, different. I've also been "especially careful about ensuring" that "edits are verified by reliable sources." How especially careful? Nearly 20 rock-solid citations especially careful.
Administrators: if there's someone truly neutral who can look at this page and also compare it to all of the other author pages that I've researched and point out how I'm in left field, specific lines, words, etc. that need to be changed or somehow altered or ask me to make changes that don't force me to submit to any ridiculous double-standards, I'm willing to listen. In fact, I'm more than willing to learn of any biases that I was not previously aware of having. Perhaps there's a line or phrase that I misinterpreted. And while we're on the subject of who should be reviewing, editing and posting what... Lesser Cartographies wrote, "I offered to take a look, and had you taken me up on it, I expect the edits would have sailed through." No hint of pretension in that statement whatsoever, huh? You're a "neutral" editor? Sure. You're the individual who took issue with my article in the first place and was so obsessed with setting me straight you were reverting your little fingers off on a smartphone before a flight attendant told you to shut off your phone last week. And please forgive me the slight: I had no idea that you were such an editor extraordinaire, Max Perkins reincarnate. Let's dispense with the niceties, shall we? I may be a "newbie" on Wikipedia, but in the real world, where people use real names and don't sit behind computers and hide behind screennames and offer unsolicited advisory and editing services, I'm a professional writer. I only submit drafts of material to professional editors whose names I know and who also affix signatures - again, real names, not screennames - to payment checks. I especially don't submit items to complete strangers for review. Never have. Never will. I apologize for that digression, but I remain skeptical that there is anybody within this cloistered community or cabal that is truly neutral (actually, only User:Sam Sailor, who has made some great, helpful and welcome edits and improvements to both the Escape From Davao article and John D. Lukacs article, has proven to this editor that there was some highly intelligent, non-biased life on Wikiplanet). So far these past few days, I've seen nothing that suggests that anybody is interested in anything but bullying, protecting online turf, issuing online threats and pursuing punitive action against someone who deserves none of the above. No one has provided me with a single solitary example of something that was posted that is inappropriate - it's a case of I post and seconds later, it's just wholesale deletion/reversion, summary execution by judge/jury/executioners named Lesser Cartographies, Softlavender, et al. Then I am warned, spanked, put in a corner or else ultimately sent to my room by an administrator without dessert like a recalcitrant toddler for daring to challenge their parental omniscience. I've not received anything approximating a fair trial. The burden of proof falls with those who disagree with me and the sourced material that I have posted to provide legitimate contradictory evidence. For example, Softlavender approaches the bench with "Exhibit A, John D. Lukacs is not a documentary filmmaker." I don't see how anyone with a flicker of cognitive capability in their thick skull can not see that the statement is sourced and the headline of said source states "...Documentary Filmmaker," referencing John D. Lukacs, "Comes to Abilene." I don't have to prove my notability to, or beg for permission to state true facts to, anybody that disgustingly stupid as well as any other obviously disturbed folks that possess an inherent bias against me.
My adult-child analogy is perhaps the most appropriate, because the roles are, in actuality, reversed - contrary to the perception of the individuals possessing this bias - Lesser Cartographies, Softlavender, et al. Putting your fingers in your ears, stomping around and punching a key and performing repetitive willy-nilly reversions and pretending that someone you don't like (or are envious of) isn't a "notable" author, a "documentary filmmaker," a "gifted stylist and storyteller" and a legitimate graduate of a certain university simply because you don't like that person, because YOU yourself doesn't think he's notable, or because he didn't accept your unsolicited offers for advice and services, isn't consensus-building, isn't good editing, isn't anything constructive, really. It most certainly isn't behaving like an adult and reality. But then again, perhaps we also differ in our respective definitions of reality. I live in the real world. My address is a place where facts and citations and sources are the only legal tender currency. I'm a stand-up, face-to-face guy. I created an account with a username that contains my own real name because I own everything I write and edit. It's always been that way. My byline and my name are my word. I wouldn't make a fantastic, fabricated, unsourced claim in one of my books or a published article or on any of the television pieces I've written or produced in the past and will be doing in the future, and the same goes for entries on Wikipedia. Using one's own name compels you to not only strive for total accuracy, but it also ensures that you behave professionally, respectfully and rationally and illustrates to others that you presume to be acting in good faith, which I have been. Sadly, I've yet to be shown any semblance of professionalism, or receive any respect or rational treatment from anybody else not named Sam Sailor.
John D. LukacsJLUKACS1 (talk) 21:20, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You are blocked for edit warring. You'll need to address that, and only that, in an unblock request. --jpgordon::==( o ) 01:33, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
- Hi John, I think we have a bit of a misunderstanding here. You were blocked for edit warring, not for the content of your insertions. You can read about our policy on the subject here: Wikipedia:Edit warring. When users have disagreements here, they're supposed to discuss them on talk pages and come to a solution that way. Continually reverting is considered disruptive and usually results in blocks. Even when an editor is inserting valuable information, they may still be blocked for edit warring if they keep reverting and refuse to discuss disagreements. In this case, a number of users attempted to convince you to discuss the matter instead of continually reverting, and your failure to do so resulted in the block. It's possible for your block to be shortened or removed, but you have to convince us that you're going to adhere to this community's guidelines about discussion instead of reverting. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:37, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
- Some remarks from "internet bully", "mercenary flunkie" and "obviously disturbed" Yintan: First, I reverted because you removed the conflict of interest tag that was rightly put on the article. Second, I reverted because the texts you added weren't properly sourced. Your blog is not a proper source for an article about you that's written by you. Contrary to your assumptions, I'm not "upset with the delivery man". It's not about you. I don't give a toss about author Lukacs, I'd never heard of you and I had no reason to like or dislike you. I was as neutral as I could possibly be. I reverted your edits because they didn't follow Wikipedia guidelines, it's as simple as that. If you had taken a look at my contributions (or those of the other editors that were involved) you would have seen this happens quite a lot. The fact that there are other articles in a similar, badly sourced, state is no reason to have more of them. As Mark Arsten explained above, you were blocked for edit warring. Using a sock puppet didn't help your case either. I can only suggest you familiarize yourself with the WP guidelines before assuming we're all out to get you. Regards, Yintan 22:30, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
- WP:Edit warring is a technical term describing a certain style of making changes to a Wikipedia page. Its not an evaluation of the quality of your contributions. Its not a personal judgment of yourself or your work as a writer off-wiki. Making repeated changes (more than once) to an article that undo or revert other people's edits without pausing to discuss your changes and seek consensus, is how that term is defined. "Edit warring" may mean something else in your own or in some other lexicon, but in the Wikipedia context it has a specific meaning. Its something that many, many wiki editors fall prey to, without realizing it. Most, if not all of the people commenting on this page have engaged in Edit War at some point in the past. However, Wikipedia recognizes this as corrosive and harmful to the project as a whole, and to all its individual parts. Those of us who have a natural tendency to EW learn to develop more collegial behaviors on this site. We have to, because the community does not and can not accept constant back-and-forth sparring. There is no "winning". An EW means that the Wiki loses. Wikipedia has its own quirky politics and community standards. You don't have to understand all of them, and you might not adhere to all of them, but you should respect them if you want to contribute. If you don't respect the community, you will have a very difficult time winning the community's approval of any contributions you may offer. Being relatively new, you probably don't know the rules very well. If you think you already know the rules, you're probably more lost than you realize. There are people who'd still like to help, but you'd have to extend some recognition that you need and want help navigating through the thicket.
- On the flip side, if you show respect for the community and express a desire to engage in it constructively (or to learn how to engage constructively) people here are more likely to rally to your side and extend the benefit of the doubt. Your edits may still get reverted. That's not personal. But if you learn how to make edits that aren't trivially revertible, you will find this happens less often. Venting and ranting at other editors usually doesn't further this. Perhaps you've found that ranting helps convince others of your sincerity and probity in other venues, but on Wikipedia that rarely works.
- Good luck, jug/jullie/ex-inquestioneer R.S. Peale (talk) 23:15, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
- "I especially don't submit items to complete strangers for review. Never have. Never will." Yeah, it's not for everyone. As a scientist I'm intimately familiar with both sides of anonymous peer review in submitting and reviewing both publications and funding proposals. Academics have to deal with this as well. Wikipedia isn't anywhere near as harsh: you have the opportunity to engage in discussion and, if you're an effective writer, you learn how to use that process to get your work accepted. If you're not comfortable with anonymous review, though, your time is probably better spent elsewhere. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 23:37, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
So before you go all nonlinear again....
[edit]Yes, the article you created and put a fair amount of work into has just been deleted. That sucks. And because the article was your biography it's sucks that much more. I get that. I'll even buy that your ability to make a living has been impinged in some measurable way. And I'll stipulate that there are far worse articles out there. That'll get no argument from me.
That said, Bataan death march isn't even up to WP:GA status. You could get it up to WP:FA. I can't. You're good at that sort of thing. I'm not. Want to take a crack at it?
Lesser Cartographies (talk) 05:27, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
- May I add that actually a lot of folks, not sure if you are one, I am guessing not now, would much rather that they didn't have there bio on this site. Just one misstep, and it will forever be part of your bio, and sometimes blown way out of proportion and made to be very unflattering in the name of "no censoring" or "no whitewashing". I am sure many famous folks don't want to read their bios because it would make them cringe and they have very little control on how they are portrayed. I am a totally unknown and insignificant bird, so easy for me to say, but I think you are much better off, ego deflating aside. Cheers, --Malerooster (talk) 14:51, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
- ^ http://www.historynet.com/subscribe-to-world-war-ii-magazine.
{{cite web}}: Missing or empty|title=(help)