User talk:Morgan Wright

This user has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia.
(see: block log • contributions • deleted contributions • page moves • current autoblocks)

Welcome!

Hello, Morgan Wright, 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 name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! RJFJR 18:14, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Cavallo article

please do not delete due to the anti-plagiarism laws or copyright infringement laws. I am the author of the essay this was pasted from, and in fact I am the author of the entire website www.hyzercreek.com/hoyhoy which is my website and domain. I am donating this essay to Wikipedia. Citations verifying the truthfullness of information in this essay will all come back to me, since I wrote the liner notes for 3 of the 4 Jimmy Cavallo CD's that have been issued in the past 10 years, and Jimmy himself has read them, of course, and verified all information himself before these CD's were issued.

Hello - What you're going to need to do to make sure your article isn't deleted is add a statement to the work on your website saying that you release the content of this article under the terms of the GFDL, which goes beyond simply allowing Wikipedia the right to use the work. Please see WP:CV and WP:GFDL. Such a statement would likely include "I hereby release the contents of this article under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License." Once that is there you should be good to go, however keep in mind that your work will likely be edited, possibly mercilessly, to fit the tone of similar biographical articles on Wikipedia. Feel free to be a part of that process, and good luck! - skrshawk ( Talk | Contribs ) 18:39, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok that's a good idea. It's such a good idea, I beat you to it. Go to www.hoyhoy.com/cavallo.htm and see the note I just added at the very bottom, giving permission for Wiki to use the text. Why not, everybody else has (it's the liner notes for 2 different CD's and part of a third one, nobody paid me they just said thank you)Morgan Wright 18:48, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The website address has been changed to www.hyzercreek.com/hoyhoy/cavallo.htm

Morgan Wright 09:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The website is changed back to www.hoyhoy.com Morgan Wright (talk) 04:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dog contributions

G'day Morgan. Your contributions to the Dog article are... thought-provoking. Unfortunately, unless you can back them up with appropriate citations (provide reputable sources), they are -- at best -- speculative. Gordon | Talk, 5 October 2006 @12:18 UTC

Broncs and such

Hi Morgan, Didn't mean to be snarky about the bronc versus bronco thing. (I am actually on vacation in the land "down under" as we speak)...my comments about usage were not intended to argue that one form or another is the "right" informal term, but rather to explain the regional dialect as a term of art. "Bronco" is archaic in the actual west where the term "bronc" is most frequently used. Anyone saying "bronco" in the American west labels themselves immediately as a "dude," just like people look at me like I am an idiot here in your country for saying words like "flashlight" instead of "torch"! <smile> And yes, we know about introduced species, we have lovely fish called Carp that destroy the habitat of Trout, we have nasty weeds that chopke out native species. Yes, the damage introduced species can do is real problem, isn't it? Your country is beautiful and it is sad that people sometimes mess things up. Oh, FYI Remember to sign your posts with the four tildes (~) so that we can link more easily to your talk page. Montanabw 23:04, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Midwest Accent

Hi, and thanks for you interest in the subject! Linguists reject the idea of a "General American" accent, because it can be applied to almost any rhotic accent without noticeable regional influences, and unfortunately the General American accent doesn't reflect that. I've been meaning to re-write the article, but I haven't really had the time. About your assertion that speakers from the rural Northeast have the same accent as Midwesterners: that isn't really true. Upstate New York has undergone the Northern Cities Vowel Shift, so the accent found in that region is similar to that found in Northern Ohio, Michigan, Northern Illinois, and parts of Wisconsin, but the "General American" article isn't about that region. Western PA has its own accent, centered around Pittsburgh, and Eastern PA is part of the Mid-Atlantic dialect region. Western New England alternately shows signs of the Northern Cities Shift and the Boston or New York City accents, depending on geography. You may be interested in looking at the Teslur Project or the Phonological Atlas of North America (here's chapter eleven, which has a lot of good maps, although it's rather technical [1].) Concerning the spread of the dialect, you need to provide sources for the inclusion of the information, rather than have me provide sources for its exclusion. Dialects and accents are dynamic; for example, the accent of New York City was traditionally rhotic, but the influence of New Englanders moving into the city made it non-rhotic. The Boston accent underwent the bath-trap split, and is now moving away from it, through the influence of television, and the Northern Cities Shift is relatively recent, having been going on for about forty of fifty years. It doesn't make sense to say that a Northeastern accent went to Iowa and has remained unchanged for 100 or 150 years. Still, it's a fascinating subject, isn't it?

Cordially, Confiteordeo 11:03, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's pretty fascinating. I disagree that New Englanders moved into New York City and changed the accent to non-rhotic. Lots of people moved into New York City...Jews, Italians, and Irish being the biggest. I think New Englanders might be around # 178 on the list of groups moving to NYC, and the New Engand -ar is so different from the NYC -ar that we can forget the whole theory. Also the Northern Cities accent shift is food for a nice academic paper (that's what scholars do, right?) but incorrectly implies that northern cities like Syracuse, Utica, or Albany did something or other to change the accent from the rural areas, when the truth is that the rural accent around Syracuse, Utica or Albany is the same as that in the cities. People move back and forth all the time. You have to have a big city like NYC or Boston to have enough isolation to create a new accent. There is no variation in accent anywhere from eastern upstate NY (Albany), whether city, rural, or whatever, to Syracuse, because people move around too much and there is no isolation. The first change going west happens in Rochester, where o changes to a. So, "doctor" becomes "dactor," "contact" lenses becomes "cantact" lenses. I'm an optometrist, a dactor who fits cantacts whenever I'm in Rachester. Ha ha. I tell patients to turn their hat around and they turn their head around. e becomes a, so "head" sounds like "hat." I ask them, how do you say "head" and they say "heead." Buffalo gets worse, it has a Midwest accent, by everybody's opinion, and many Buffalo people think it's part of the Midwest. I think you are from Ohio, that's probably just like Buffalo. Believe it!Morgan Wright 16:02, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With a few exceptions (like the NCS, which has been extensively studied,) it can be hard to pin down exactly how or why pronunciation changes occur. I've also heard that NYC speech became non-rhotic in the same way that Boston speech did; that is to say, the upper classes mimicked the non-rhoticity of London English (a phenomenon that happened at least a century after the founding of the colonies,) and this change eventually moved its way down the socioeconomic ladder. Albany hasn't undergone the NCS, but Utica, Syracuse, and their surrounding areas are included in the Phonological Atlas' isogloss of the shift, which goes as far east as Herkimer, Otsego, Delaware, and parts of Sullivan counties. However, even in Albany, /ʌ/ is more backed than /ɑ/, and /æ/ is being fronted, which is the first step of the shift. Regardless, these areas do not share the Omaha-Iowa-Quad Cities accent, which is really what is incorrectly referred to as "General American." I removed your assertion that the "GA" accent came from rural areas of the NE because it seems like original research, and the original version of the section made no claim about the origins of the accent. Since such things are so hard to pin-down, it's better not to say anything about it unless you have a really good source. I also added the citation needed tag because I don't believe that newscasters are specifically trained to speak "Standard Midwestern," which is another misleading term. Although I haven't done any research on it, it seems that there's quite a bit of dialectical variety on CNN and the other major networks. That is, many "standard" Northern accents are represented, not just "Standard Midwestern." Please let me know what you think of the current version of the article. Confiteordeo 18:21, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One of the things that bugs me about the writers who claim that the Midwest accent is the standard American accent is their fishbowl view. They view their own accent as the correct one. What do you think somebody from Georgia or Texas would think of that? Is this another "to the victor goes the spoils" from the Civil War? The north gets to have the "correct" accent? The population of southern speakers is barely a minority, I'd hate to be from Louisiana and hear some egomaniac from Iowa talk about his accent being the right one. It's like the woman who says the toilet seat should be down, even though 50% of the population uses it the other way, she thinks her way is the right way. Newscasters generally speak with a northern accent, I can attest to that, but they come from all over, and how many of them are deliberately trained to speak like a Midwesterner? I can't imagine such a thing. Would a newscaster from Albany NY or Seattle, or LA, or Connecticut, where people all have basically the standarn northern accent, need to change to some sort of cornfield Nebraska twang? Hell no. The Midwestern accent is not really typical anyway, I lived in Michigan for a year and people have an unusual accent there, not the typical newscaster accent. They say everything is "the bomb," but they pronounce bomb as if it were spelled "bahm." Their accent may be the bahm, but is NOT the standard way to pronounce things in journalism. I would say that of all the places in the USA that have the most neutral speach, that journalists would try to emulate, this region where I live beats out the Midwest for neutrality. Eastern upstate NY, from Poughkeepsie to Syracuse. Also Connecticut, they have no trace of the New England weirdness that you see in Vermont or Maine, or most of Mass. And northwestern Mass has the Vermont accent. Very little of Mass is free of the weird New England thing. Worchester, forget it...very thick there. Probably the only accent-free part of Mass. is around Springfield, or southwestern Mass in general. That's like Connecticut, which is neutral. Unless you count eastern Connecticut, which is too close to Rhode Island, where everybody talks like Elmer Fudd. Pwovidence, Wode Iwand. So, the only neutral parts of New England are Central and Western Connecticut, and southwestern Mass. Forget Maine, they have the thickest accent of all. The Vermont accent is only found among the older people. Young kids in Vermont are not carrying this on at all. The old timers with their "Pepperidge Faam Remembas" accent with all the "ayaah," well that was a Swedish accent and the grandchildren of the Swedes don't talk that way anymore. Not at all. As for the NYC accent, that only goes as far north as Peekskill unless you count all the transplanted NYC folks, especially after September 11, who moved upstate by the millions lately. As far north as Poughkeepsie, there are a good number of NYC folks that moved up due to 9/11, but the native Poughkeepsie people have the basic American accent, and the children of the NYC folks lose their accent in one generation. North or west of Albany, there are very few NYC transplants and no accent at all, except for the rednecks. And what can you do about the rednecks? Morgan Wright 04:29, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits to Albinism

Thanks for your interest in this article and efforts to improve it, but many of your changes have had to be reverted because there are no references cited to back them up. Please do not make factual changes to science articles without citations to reliable sources. See this talk page topic for a detailed explanation of the specific reverts. PS: The other editors of that article are well aware that the section in question is already lacking sources for much of its information, but adding unverified claims only worsens the situation; and while the article is under heavy development, especially with regard to source citations, as you can see it is from the article history, removing material that is in the process of being researched, as you did in several cases, is not helpful either. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 02:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NB: I've responded at length to your reply on my Talk page. Super-short version: No disrespect intended; it's not about whether you are qualified or not, but rather about policy/process here. Replacing one unsourced thing with another unsourced thing is almost certain to get reverted by someone, because the original is presumed under WP:AGF to be valid, while WP:OR#Citing oneself (and see also footnote 1 on that page for further rationale) prevents us simply taking your word for the validity of your unsourced changes just because you happen to be a doctor in a relevant field and "know you are right". Wikipedia just doesn't work that way. Anyway, please see the longer reply. Your input would be actually genuinely valued on the article, it just needs to be sourced like everyone else's. No free pass for a medical degree. :-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 08:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS: See also your #Midwest Accent and #Dog contributions threads above; three of the five (not counting the generic intro) topics on your talk page are saying the same thing to you: Please cite your sources, or expect reversions. It doesn't matter how much you think you know, or genuinely do, know about a topic, or what qualifications you have — that experience is invisible to the rest of the world in the articles you edit, which is why we have WP:V and WP:RS (and WP:N for that matter, which is really largely about source citations). :-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 09:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Albinism#Section tagged-to-heck with "citation needed" specifics for a (long!) reply that I think will be consensus-building. (Short version is: Delete the unsourced stuff you are sure is bunk, but if your new additions can't be sourced "soon-ish" they'll probably get removed, too, on the same grounds. The article needs to be sourced or it's simply not trustable by anyone, since they can't be sure who edited/wrote what or on what basis. :-)

PS: Somewhere in there you said something to the effect of "the original author of this article should..." Just FYI, for an article of this scope there really isn't (in any relevant way) any such thing as "the original author", as any non-trivial article may have been edited many hundreds, possible several thousand, times by hundreds (or more) editors, and the origial article text is long, long gone. What's way more relevant is the present active editorship (which 6 months from now will probably be radically different, and today is very different than it was 6 months ago.) "Original authors" are pretty much meaningless in Wikipedia unless the article is so insignificant that the original drafter remains the only major editor of it for a long time.

— SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 12:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I waited long enough for citations and deleted. Nobody cited. Astigmatism is an optical disorder caused by aspherical curviture(s) of the cornea and/or anterior lens surface and/or posterior lens surface. None of this has anyhting to do with albinism. Citations can be found in the most rudimentary reference books, try Britannica for children or Current Science, 6th grade editions. The same can be said for hyperopia and myopia. These have nothing to do with albinism, so I 86'ed them too.Morgan Wright 02:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response to your trash talk

I did not trash the Harry Gibson article. I have attempted to bring it up to encyclopedic standards. Perhaps you should familarize yourself with Wikipedia guidlines, such as Wikipedia:Citing sources and The five pillars of Wikipedia. Wikipedia isn't just for readers who are familiar with a topic already, otherwise nobody would learn anything by reading it. Wikipedia is for presenting verified facts backed up by reliable sources. Also, please be careful to write your comments on talk pages, not editors' user pages. Spylab 13:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Morgan, can I ask you to tone down your angry comments on Spylab's talk page? Let's keep WP:CIV and WP:NPA in mind, ok? —Viriditas | Talk 04:47, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Morgan, judging by your comments on my talk page, you do not understand what Wikipedia is about, and you definitely do not understand what it means to provide a reference. Please read Wikipedia:Citing sources and The five pillars of Wikipedia so you comply with Wikipedia guidelines.Spylab 09:50, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your threat of "open war" on my talk page, I again suggest you read the five pillars of Wikipedia, especially http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Etiquette. Keep in mind that if you cross certain lines you can be reported to an administrator and have your account blocked from Wikipedia. Spylab 11:56, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Bronx Cheer"

In regards to your additions to the "Bronx Cheer" section of Blowing a raspberry, I'm not sure that the information pertaining specifically to Yankee Stadium, or Yankee fans is necessary or beneficial to the article. In my opinion leaving the more general information in this section is more helpful. Skylerb 17:22, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So how 'bout we shorten it up a little instead of just blowing the whole thing outta the water, hmm? And the reference to Ice Hockey was idiotic so I deleted it. And the other writer's reference to when a Bronx Cheer is used is also idiotic, about the pitcher and outs and base runners, idiotic, so it got the can as well. Who do they let on this thing to edit? They let any old body edit this thing??Morgan Wright 14:24, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits to Hippie

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. However, adding content without citing a reliable source is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. —Viriditas | Talk 13:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add content without citing reliable sources. Before making potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Thank you. —Viriditas | Talk 13:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much. "Welcome to Wikipedia," you say. Like I'm new here. "Our encyclopedia" you says, like it's yours. How is it yours? You go around deleting and destroying, and never contributing. Yeah, we need people who do that.Morgan Wright 00:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've made 450 edits to Hippie, mostly involving adding new material, adding new references, and improving the article. What have you done? —Viriditas | Talk 02:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen your edits. I went back and checked them 100 and 200 posts back. Almost all your edits were to delete other peoples work. Why are you so hooked on this article, when you never were a hippie yourself. Why don't you leave it up to the people who actually know something? (Oh yeah, knowing something about a topic is called "original research" and can't be used. How nice)Morgan Wright 02:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The majority of my 450 edtis were spent adding new material, new references, new sections, new formatting, and greatly improving the article. When you've done the same thing, you will be free to criticize me. —Viriditas | Talk 03:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you just say 450 edits? So basically, you are the author of the whole article then. Do you see why people feel you have commandeered the article? 450 edits is more than just an edit, it's sabotage. You think the article belongs to you.Morgan Wright 08:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please pay close attention to WP:NPA. Your latest edits to Talk:Hippie show that you understand the concept, as you have made some very constructive comments. —Viriditas | Talk

Wikipedia stress

One thing I find helps with conflicts here on Wikipedia is to approach them slowly. Try limiting yourself to 1 edit per day on pages like Talk:Hippie. This allows time for other editors to pass by and participate as well as lowering the stress level for all involved. I happen not to believe that editing wikipedia is a waste of anyone's time, as it plays such a visible role in our modern information landscape. Why not try a different article for a few months and return to Hippie 3-6 months down the road. In any case, thanks for your efforts with the project. ∴ here…♠ 03:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sock Puppet

By his own admission, Viriditas says he edited the article 450 times, and most of the 450, he claims, were content additions rather than deletions or edits. I searched the history of the article going back 500 posts at a time (and after scaning thousands of edits I only got back as far as early 2006, it's amazing how many edits there are). Anyway, this is well before the first edits by Viriditas, and I counted only a fraction of the 450 he claims, and almost all of them are deletions and minor edits, perhaps only a handful of actual content additions. So if he indeed did make 450 edits with content additions, then he must have done so under several sock puppets because even if you add up the major contributors, you'd have to add several of them together to come up with 450 edits that contained actual content rather than trivial changes, since the time that Viriditas zeroed in on this article. If edits are by concensus, the quickest way to get concensus is to create sock puppets. As for actually PROVING that he has sock puppets, you know as well as everybody else that's it's impossible to do this, people can get many email addresses easily at yahoo, hotmail, etc and use many different IP addresses. The days are over where you can just check IP's to see who is posting. My own computer has wifi and there are about 8 people in my building with wireless modems that I can access the web with, all with different IP addresses, and after that I know of many proxy servers I can use. If I were obsessed with commmandeering an article and needed to make sock puppets, I could, but I sure wouldn't waste my time. Viriditas needs to step aside from hippie and let others edit it. He's done more than enough, just read the talk page for all the complaintsMorgan Wright 16:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sock puppets can be proven to some extent; that is why we have Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser. Please see WP:TOOL#Edit_counters to see all 450 (there's more than that of course, but that is what the edit counter lists as current because the primary edit counter is lagging behind at 126 days, 7 hours as of this edit) of my edits to Hippie. —Viriditas | Talk 03:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chrysler Building

Hello Morgan,

I've checked out the source from Emporis about Chrysler in 3rd position and added a source; as we cannot use Wikipedia itself and its articles as source. I've also clean up the clarity of language so that it flows neatly with the "...The Chrysler Building is a classic example of Art Deco architecture..." with the rest of your own text. Please also note that the article is currently under the process of GA nomination, so whatever is written has to have an external, reliable source or citation, or those GA guys will start questioning whatever new that is added... (Those GA guys seem to have an eye of precise watch of content accuracy with the references, so be careful...)

Compliments of the Season! :) Someformofhuman Speak now! 17:30, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quote:...Also I reworded your writing because my English is very good

Wow, it’s good to see someone in that professional level like you! I didn't know about that! Have you ever written a few books before? I'm currently a freelance and script writer/actor in a local newspaper firm and organized many writers' conferences in Asia.

Well in regards to the topic, I hope the matter is settled, and, if applicable or in any extent an announcement from CTBUH about the tallness ranking of the three buildings, I’ll gladly cite the announcement as valid source.

Someformofhuman Speak now! 08:51, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah that's nice, but I actually speak English. Your English is very good as a second language. My second language is BS which I also speak well Morgan Wright (talk) 12:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well actually, since Singapore is a multicultural society, English is our official language. I've actually learnt four languages but I don't usually express them. :) Oh yeah and, sorry for the lateness of my reply. Someformofhuman Speak now! 13:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, your English is very good for a 4th language. Morgan Wright (talk) 01:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And what are you trying to prove? Someformofhuman Speak now! 09:04, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:3RR

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Hippie. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. --Veritas (talk) 23:24, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You obviously are a sock puppet for Viriditas. I find you to be a thorougly loathsome individual, both you and your other sock. Morgan Wright (talk) 23:26, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1) No, I am not even though our usernames are similar. Check our edit histories as they are different. Also, feel free to pursue a sock check. 2)Consider this your first warning for also violating WP:NPA. Comment on edits, not on editors. --Veritas (talk) 23:42, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the more important issue here is that you are not citing sources. See WP:CITE for more information on how to do this. WP:RS and WP:VERIFY are policies on what kinds of sources are deemed reliable. --Veritas (talk) 23:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not citing sources? That ALL I did was to cite a source. I stuck on the Oldham liner notes to the Rolling Stones album as an earlier source of the word "hippie." Somebody (Viriditas) made a bogus claim that the September 1965 usage of "hippie" by Fallon was the first, then Til cites an earlier reference from a 1964 Time magazine, and I cited the Feb. 1965 "Rolling Stones Now!" album liner notes as a reference. Then Viriditas deletes both of the those references, and claims that his reference is correct because it's a secondary source, while Til's and mine are primary. He says Wikipedia can't cite primary sources. How absurd! The secondary source is wrong, and should not be used because the two primary sources that Til and I cited prove that Viriditas secondary source is wrong! The editor of an encyclopedia doesn't just blindly cite sources, he has to find out if the sources are valid and reliable. Just because something is in print doesn't mean it's usable. It might be wrong, as the Fallon reference clearly is. Our sources, whether primary or not, prove that it is, but each time we delete it, he puts it back. Then you come on here telling me I can be blocked for edit wars? How absurd. Viriditas is the one who is warring. Why don't you block Viriditas for reverting when I and Til are correct? Also, the citation claims that Fallon "came up with" the term hippie, and in the same sentence it says there were earlier usages of the term. ABSURD!! And then he says there are many different meanings of the term hippie, and Fallon gives the first valid use of the contemporary usage. This is laughable! A hippie is a hippie. Everybody knows what it means, EXCEPT VIRIDITAS. As I said before, the hippie article is an atrocity. It's really pathetic.Morgan Wright (talk) 00:16, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting points. Yes, there is a policy issue with citing primary sources. Using primary sources to prove secondary sources as incorrect does legitimately violate WP:NOR. However, in this case it does bring up an issue of verifiability concerning the initial secondary source (Fallon) per WP:VERIFY. So this is problem of two policies conflicting to which I believe there is a solution. I assume that such problems are not uncommon. I'll look into it and get back to you. In the meantime, I'd advise against edit-warring. The issue will be settled in due time. Please note that I am not an admin and cannot "block" people as such. --Veritas (talk) 07:07, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I think the best place to bring in assistance on this issue is at WP:EAR. You should post the problem there. Alternatively, there is also the Reliable Sources Noticeboard at WP:RSN.--Veritas (talk) 07:11, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Morgan's points have all been addressed on talk many times. A hippie is not a hippie. Prior to 1965, the term was used in many ways that did not refer to the subculture. Furthermor, the Time magazine and Rolling Stone sources are not cited by any secondary source on the issue; this is original research by Morgan Wright, and he has actually admitted it on Talk:Hippie. The only reliable source that conflicts with Fallon (and those that cite him) is Michael Doyle, however I have gone to great lengths to verify Doyle's claims, only to find that the primary source he refers to does not use the word hippie, it uses the word "hip". For more on Fallon and the rest, see Talk:Hippie#Contemporary_use_of_hippie. While the origins of words like this are admittedly murky, Morgan would do well to find a single reliable source that disputes Fallon's use of the term in relation to the emerging subculture. —Viriditas | Talk 11:24, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Veritas is correct. The Feb 1965 use of the word hippie to describe the Rolling Stones (who are universally regarded to be contemporary hippies) prior to the September 1965 use by Fallon, invalidates that as a source. It's simply wrong. The Fallon citation is wrong and should be deleted. Morgan Wright (talk) 13:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Viriditas needs to get off his San Francisco kick. If you start with a premise, that SF was the birthplace, and allow all evidence that backs up this premise, and dispute any reference to hippies outside SF as not being real hippies, then everything is based on the premise, and you are striving to prove your own premise. This is called a straw man argument. In this case, the premise is wrong, so the rest of it will be wrong. If you define hippies as a culture that started in SF, and then you say the Rolling Stones were not hippies because their manager was from London, and even though he used the term before there were references to hippies in SF, he must be talking about some other form of hippie because we already defined that as a culture from San Francisco. Do you see how wrong this argument is? Its circular logic.Morgan Wright (talk) 14:04, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. The word "hippie" was in use before it referred to the hippie subculture. Read Hippie (etymology). Unless you can find a secondary source showing that the Rolling Stones were using it to refer to the subculture, then you don't have a dispute. We don't do original research. The Fallon citation isn't sourced to Fallon: it's found in multiple sources that make that claim. Take a look at the citation in the Hippie article: Perry 2005, p. 19; Sinclair, Mick. (2004) San Francisco: A Cultural and Literary History. Signal Books. p. 205. ISBN 1902669649; Singleton, Carl. Wildin, Rowena. (1999). The Sixties in America. Salem Press. p. 334. ISBN 0893569828; Stevens 1998, pp. 299-300; Tompkins 2001, vol. 7: 1960-1969. Now, all you have to do is find one that refers to the Rolling Stones. The addition of McCleary's "numerous theories abound as to the origin of this word" is a great start in the right direction. The next step is to find sources for additional theories. I recommend using the library. Good luck. —Viriditas | Talk 14:08, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed the statement above that, "Veritas is correct," but please understand that I am not taking a position on this issue. I don't know enough about it to do so - rather I am trying to listen to both sides of the argument and discern how to apply existing policies accordingly. From the look of the edit history of the article, people have resorted to using their IP as a way of violating 3RR. I strongly suggest taking any dispute to the proper forum. --Veritas (talk) 15:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Concert Ten

I can't find any reliable sources for this concert or for its importance. Can you please help? Otherwise I will merge it into another article and nominate it for deletion. Can you look through archival, regional newspapers or magazines? Thanks. —Viriditas | Talk 21:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Viriditas, I am totally amazed that you (today of all days, the same day you blocked me for the 3 revert rule when I only reverted twice and you reverted at least 10 times) are going around Wikipedia using my username to find things that I wrote or edited, just so you can delete them. What you are doing is clearly an act of aggravated harrassment and you should be blocked from Wikipedia for this, and the way you commandeered the hippie article so nobody but you can edit it without being blocked.

The importance of this concert is the 300,000 people who attended it, and the link to the photograph of the handbill I posted is clearly a reliable source. I linked to a couple of other first hand sources. Morgan Wright (talk) 04:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:SPS. Blogs and forums do not establish notability. And, I am unconvinced that you are not the author of those blogs and forums. —Viriditas | Talk 04:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are unbelievable. Totally, thoughoughly and utterly unbelievable. The author of blogs and entire forums? Just so I can back up a concert that you are saying never existed, that I concocted? You are just unbelievable.

Please don't post anything to my talk page again. Anything you post here will be removed.Morgan Wright (talk) 04:43, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Morgan, I don't think you "concocted" anything. We just can't use self-published sources. And, if I wanted to delete the article, I would have added a prod template. Please assume good faith. Improving sourcing on Wikipedia is the task of every editor. It sounds strange, but try to get in the habit of arguing against yourself. That way you can assure that both sides of an argument or perspective are being addressed. In this case, the sources you have provided do not meet the basic standards for WP:V. Familiarize yourself with policies and guidelines. If you don't know something, ask. You can also use the {{helpme}} template to request online assistance. Instead of closing yourself off to other editors, try opening yourself up. We are all here to learn and help others. Ask yourself this: how am I helping? —Viriditas | Talk 04:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Those sources are NOT a blog or a forum, it's a web site of a reliable preiodical, although it has a forum attached to it. It certainly is not a blog. And I told you NOT to clutter my talk page with your spench. DO NOT post here again.Morgan Wright (talk) 04:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Concert Ten

An editor has nominated Concert Ten, an article on which you have worked or that you created, 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/Concert Ten 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) 04:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just ordered a copy of The Americana Annual, 1973: An Encyclopedia of the Events of 1972 from Amazon for 28 cents and 3.99 shipping. It will be here in a few days. Under no circumstances is Viridit-ass allowed to continue railroading this topic until I have a chance to view this source.Morgan Wright (talk) 23:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You will have to take it up with User:Catchpole as that user added the cite. Calling me an "ass" as you did above is not acceptable behavior. If you can't edit without making personal attacks, then it's time for you to take a time-out. —Viriditas | Talk 23:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

<<Extremely Hostile Personal Attack Redacted>>.----Morgan Wright (talk) 00:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Morgan Wright, your continued personal attacks are absolutely unacceptable. You've been warned several times now and have been notified of the policy against personal attacks. These are blockable offenses and you've already been blocked several times for previous offenses. This latest one severely crosses the line and warrants a permanent block. --MPerel 01:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for a week per the above personal attacks. Vsmith (talk) 02:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry claims

You keep making this accusation. Make the accusation at WP:SUSPSOCK. They are the people who will check whether or not we are the same person. I have nothing to hide. You, however, seem to be attempting to hide behind this silly accusation as an excuse for violating Wiki policies concerning reliable sources and verifiability while also choosing to make contentious edits without discussing them first. --Veritas (talk) 05:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of BSD Records for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article BSD Records is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BSD Records until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Chetsford (talk) 08:07, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]