User talk:MesserKruse

Haymarket affair

Did you make this edit while not logged in to this account? You may want to have a look at Wikipedia's policy on sockpuppets. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:00, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake. I've only just registered and began contributing to Wikipedia today and am not familiar with all the protocols. I'm learning quickly.MesserKruse (talk) 18:13, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, no worries, sorry for throwing lots of policies your way, one after another, you began your editing on an article which has been rated "good" following a very long contribution history :) This in no way means the article can't be made more helpful and tightly written to the sources though, it can be and your contributions are very welcome here. Cheers, Gwen Gale (talk) 18:25, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

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

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Gwen Gale (talk) 18:25, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

verifiability

You wrote: As for you claim about Wikipedia's policy, your characterization of it is absurd, especially if the "majority" source that is cited can be shown to be factually wrong. Explain to me, then, how a "minority" source with facts on its side would ever appear against a wrong "majority" one?

As odd as it might seem, Wikipedia (along with many other kinds of tertiary reference works) can easily carry "wrong" or "untrue" content. In short, following Wikipedia's verifiability and weight policies, Wikipedia is not "truth," Wikipedia is "verifiability" of reliable sources. Hence, if most secondary sources which are taken as reliable happen to repeat a flawed account or description of something, Wikipedia will echo that. In truth, flaws abound in some Wikipedia articles, not so much because of careless or PoV editing, but because these articles are only meant to echo the secondary sources, which may be flawed. Sometimes, "minority" (less often-cited or published) sources do make their ways into articles, but not always: Editors might not allow some minority sources at all, calling them unreliable. Sometimes this is ok, sometimes not. Happily, there haven't been too many worries like that at Haymarket affair. It crops up most often on high traffic articles in the humanities and history (lots of sources mean more likelihood of widely repeated flaws and skewed weight). Gwen Gale (talk) 19:56, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see and I understand. I'm used to a different standard that relies on the citation and primary scholarship of source materials.MesserKruse (talk) 20:45, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Haymarket

Thank you for your messages. I have ordered your book and look forward to reading it.

This weekend I will double-check what you've written about Avrich and his sources. If necessary, I will undo my change.

I look forward to collaborating with you in the future, but I hope you will familiarize yourself with some of Wikipedia's policies, such as WP:Verifiability and WP:Undue weight. If all historians save one say that the sky was green in 1888, our policies require that we write "Most historians write that the sky was green, but one says the sky was blue" (as absurd as that seems). As individual editors, we're not in the business of weighing claims, just reporting what reliable sources write. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:07, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is very fair and understandable. I understand the policy but also note that it is not currently consistently applied. For example, if Schaack is a reliable source for "friendly fire" why is he not also a reliable source for his observation that the "mob" exchanged gunfire with the police? Also, as far as verifiability goes, if it can be clearly shown that a source has misquoted or misrepresented another, we certainly should disqualify it on these grounds. Avrich especially has numerous quotations that in his book that are different from the sources he cites. Finally, I can work with the "majority" policy stated above, but will hope to see my "minority" view represented in the future. MesserKruse (talk) 21:13, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think we probably need to take another look at Schaack as you suggest. I, too, hope we can incorporate your insights into the article. That's why I'm going to read your book. That, plus a life-long interest in the Haymarket affair.

— Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:47, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is great. I look forward to helping in any way I can. I look forward to a productive collaboration.MesserKruse (talk) 21:48, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: The 'Undue Weight' of Truth on Wikipedia

Great article. I hope you return to active editing to help advise the community on how to deal with this problem, as it is affecting all the Wikimedia projects. Viriditas (talk) 00:13, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Great article. Next time just go ahead make all of your changes in one edit, without hesitation. If you are reverted, then make a reasonable educated complaint in the talk page of the article (or simply write another article for the Chronicle, or a blog post). Other people with more, eh, "wikiexperience" will be able to look at your edit, review the changes, and make them stand. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:47, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Great article. Many editors share your concern and face harsh opposition when actually improving an article. It is a known wikipedia problem, see for instance Campaign to alienate productive editors --POVbrigand (talk) 10:46, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you!

Hi there, I linked your user page to Talk:Haymarket_affair#Messer-Kruse_controversy and feel you should read that, too. We all make mistakes, so don't be too hard on yourself -- or on us!

Bearian (talk) 01:21, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Haymarket affair#Signpost article

Please see comments at the bottom of the Signpost article section of Talk:Haymarket affair (Talk:Haymarket affair#Signpost article). Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 22:03, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A related article you may find interesting

Edits by tenured University Professors citing peer reviewed articles... get dumped by guys who work in Sherriff’s departments. Senior Wikipedia editors look the other way — after all, someone has to defend Wikipedia from ideas that might make readers actually think.

Who better than the Public Relations wing of the Denton Sherriff’s Department?

Anatomy of a Wikillusion Or, how to Rid Yourself of Embarrassing Footnotes in Three Easy Steps…. (November 5, 2011) —Wbm1058 (talk) 00:36, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NPR

Professor Messer-Kruse, I heard your interview on NPR today and was inspired to check out the article. I had little idea that this was such a controversial issue. I applaud you for your efforts to improve Wikipedia and bringing this to the public's attention. Thanks, Adwiii Talk 21:24, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

National Review article

Here is a link to the National Review article (11 Feb 2013) "What Happened at Haymarket?", which describes your books, research, and analysis: http://www.nationalreview.com/nrd/articles/338656/what-happened-haymarket.^[1] — Loadmaster (talk) 00:00, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Thomas Leitch (November 17)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Rankersbo was:

This submission's references do not adequately evidence the subject's notability—see the guidelines for academics and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing, so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia.
What you can do: Add citations (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners) to secondary reliable sources that are entirely independent of the subject.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Thomas Leitch and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also get real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Rankersbo (talk) 07:07, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! MesserKruse, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering or curious about why your article submission was declined please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Rankersbo (talk) 07:07, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Thomas Leitch concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Thomas Leitch, a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:37, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Thomas Leitch

Hello, MesserKruse. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled "Thomas Leitch".

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by one of two methods (don't do both): 1) follow the instructions at WP:REFUND/G13, or 2) copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|Draft:Thomas Leitch}}, paste it in the edit box at this link, and click "Save page". An administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. JMHamo (talk) 17:06, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

^ John J. Miller (2013-02-11). "What Happened at Haymarket?". National Review.

[1] John J. Miller (2013-02-11). "What Happened at Haymarket?". National Review.

[1]