User talk:JCDenton2052

Notice: Feel free to discuss, but any posts that violate WP:AGF or WP:NPA will be reverted in accordance with WP:TALK. Any further wikistalking will be reported.

Welcome

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

You are welcome to continue editing articles without logging in, but you may wish to create an account. Doing so is free, requires no personal information, and provides several benefits. If you edit without a username, your IP address (JCDenton2052) is used to identify you instead.

In any case, I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your comments on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your IP address (or username if you're logged in) and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 15:54, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GT-R

Hello, I noticed you undid my removal on the Nissan GT-R article of the "baby Veyron" comments. I feel this addition creates bias in the article, and do not feel that media outlets (and the forum you've linked) qualifies as sources that should be included in an encyclopedia here.--kb (talk) 16:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:RS. I can understand your objection to the NAGTROC forum as a source, however it is a scan of an Evo magazine article that has yet to be published online. Do you think that the scans have been altered in some way? However, I don't see any reasonable objections to Autocar or Top Gear. Both are well known sources in the automotive world. Remember, I wrote that reviewers had compared the GT-R to the Veyron, labeling it a "baby Veyron" and then I provided reliable sources with reviewers writing just that. I didn't frame it such that the article claimed that, so there isn't any bias. JCDenton2052 (talk) 20:56, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BRD

Have you seen WP:BRD or WP:EW yet? Typically speaking, it is ok to make bold edits. However, if you get reverted by another editor, in good faith, it is never appropriate to re-insert the controversial new material. If you want the new content to go in the article, you need to go to the talk page, make a proposal for your changes aruging why you think they are beneficial and in line with policy, and see if there is community support (consensus) for your proposal. Twice you have re-added material that I have reverted in separate articles. And in my opinion, these edits seem to be made in (put bluntly) ignorance of wikipedia guidelines (which is fine in and of itself. Everyone is new, and everyone can learn from others. however, when you edit war to add material that goes against guidelines, I have to try to communicate the problematic nature of these edits, hopefully in a kind and polite manner). Have you read WP:CAT or WP:ALSO. For Jonathan Archer, categories are not like myspace interests. We don't add them indiscriminately to articles. Categories are there to pull out the most basic and important aspects of articles. For people, they are there to highlight why the individual is notable. For fictional characters, they are there to associate them with the most important and notable aspects of those characters. If the article does not mention a single word about Archer being a space pirate, it has no business being a category. What's worse is it seems you are supporting this claim based on a single episode. How many episodes of enterprise were there? 98? so something that represents only 1% of the character is not notable enough to work as a category here on wikipedia. If you were to describe Archer in 3 sentences, would "space pirate" come up in that description?

As to the see also section, links that are already included in the article, and links which actually redirects are usually to be avoided. Since misogyny is mentioned in the first sentence of the misandry article, it seems like it is prevalent enough in the article to not be needed in the see also section. Violence against men redirects to violence. Since someone looking for information on "violence against men" would be redirected there, the link is of little help for them. Would you consider adding simply the violence link to the see also section? probably not because it doesn't seem that related to the topic of misandry.

I hope this explains why I have reverted some of your changes (twice now). I don't mean to be too harsh, but I to get across the point that the best way to get disputed new content into articles is to initiate discussions on talk pages and avoid edit warring. On top of that, make sure your edits are within basic wikipedia guidelines. I honestly hope this helps, and if you have any questions about any of this, or wikipedia in general, I'd be glad to try and help.-Andrew c ^[talk] 15:40, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for not noticing that 2 months ago you proposed adding the space pirates category on Archer's talk page. Going to talk first is commendable, and we do have a silent consensus sort of view of things. However, now that there is at least one party who disputes the category, it should remain off until we can discuss things a little further.-Andrew c ^[talk] 15:51, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the links. That was some informative reading. I think I now have a better understanding of when to add a page to a category.

I was just trying to make the Misandry and Misogyny articles more parallel. I assumed that since Violence against women had a link to Violence against men that redirected to Violence, that was the normal practice. I have a couple of questions: Since Misogyny mentions misandry in the lead, should it be removed from the See Also? Misandry has a link to Female Chauvinism and Misogyny has a link to Chauvinism. Should that be changed to Male Chauvinism or should they both just be Chauvinism? Otherwise, I think the See Also sections look good now. What do you think? Thanks. JCDenton2052 (talk) 18:49, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikicookie

HTC TyTN merge

You need to show the multiple merge notice at the top of the HTC TyTN article as well. If you wish to reply to this message, please post your reply on my Talk page, as I am not watching this page. Thanks.--Mak Allen (talk) 02:26, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks for the tip. JCDenton2052 (talk) 02:40, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Glad I could help someone with a WP resume like yours. If you have a chance, could you weigh in on a requested merge debate we have going? See talk:Family register. If you reply to this message, please reply to my talk page. cheers,--Mak Allen (talk) 05:52, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Hello! :) I noticed that you have been editing alot of "feminism" and "women's rights" articles. I thought you might be interested in this. Check it out and add your name under "Participants" if your interested. Have a nice day! Keep on making good edits, like your doing! --Grrrlriot (talk) 16:30, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks for the compliment! :D JCDenton2052 (talk) 22:37, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your welcome! :) I have seen many of your edits around. It's good to see a new Wikipedian and you have made good edits, considering your new. --Grrrlriot (talk) 22:41, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Now I'm going to work on the "men's rights" type articles, which seem to be in worse shape. JCDenton2052 (talk) 22:52, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great! :) Yes, The "men's rights" articles do seem to be in the worst shape. --Grrrlriot (talk) 23:44, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did note my changes in the edit summar

As the title above indicates, I did note my changes in the edit summary. On the Domestic Violence page specifically, I noted several unreliable sources. Since I noted my changes in the edit summary, I will reverse your reverse. We can chat about this further in the talk page.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 02:09, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You removed sources that might not have met WP:RS along with sources that did. Additionally, you replaced newer research with older research. JCDenton2052 (talk) 13:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Karl Rove

Hi JCDenton2052;

I reverted your edit here [1] Please take a look at my edit summary. Rewrite if you wish and incl. a reliable source. Thanks --Floridianed (talk) 05:28, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As per WP:TALK, this should be on Talk:Karl Rove. JCDenton2052 (talk) 09:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is not such rule at WP:TALK (unless I just missed it) and is rather a matter of interpretation. My intention was to point you to the revert in question so you won't miss it as I clearly was in favor on it's bases. Rather then say nothing I thought it would be nice doing so on your talk page. It wasn't meant to be offensive and I apologize in case you took it this way. Regards --Floridianed (talk) 18:23, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No offense taken and I didn't mean to offend. Are the new source and phrasing alright? JCDenton2052 (talk) 21:07, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They're both perfect. Thanks for asking, --Floridianed (talk) 21:46, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update! It was perfect for me at first sight but not for WP-guidelines, So:

Please take a look at my edits at Karl Rove.

Citations/references were missing so I made some changes. I searched for simple references to confirm what you wrote (to take the easy way out) but couldn't find any that would "work" but if I do find anything worthy I'll let you know as I would be pleased if you let me know what you think about my edit. For sure it isn't and shouldn't be the final draft (in my opinion). Important for you to know: I had to take out W. Bush, Rove and McCain regarding direct membership. Regards, --Floridianed (talk) 03:51, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I only added the bit about him leaving the country, but good work on finding sources for and rewriting the country club bit. I'm not sure if scrutiny is the right word, but I don't know what would be better. I would consider controversy, but from my experiences working on other articles, there is a very high bar to call something a controversy.

Actually, it appears that John McCain has had fundraisers at several country clubs. [2] JCDenton2052 (talk) 04:24, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing this [the source] out. I'll try to get back to it when I have the time to get it right in the first time [preventing a reverse and possible warring] what I can't just do "on the side". I'm sure you understand my point. --Floridianed (talk) 07:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I understand. I'm not a "full-time" Wikipedian either. JCDenton2052 (talk) 09:49, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

tagging

Hi JC, I just want to drop you a line about your use of tags in regard to situations like this[3]. You've used {{who}} and {{cn}} for a statement that is not unsourced. The first two sentences are sourced to Alice Walker's book. The sentences in question might be badly formed but the tagging you've used is not the best option. For instance the sentences could be restructured to state:

Alice Walker and other Womanists pointed out that black women experienced a different and more intense kind of oppression from that of white women. They point to the emergence Black feminism after earlier movements led by white middle-class women which they regard as having largely ignored oppression based on race and class.^[1]

This reword may not be perfect but it is accurate.
It is not uncommon that more than one sentence is sourced to a single reference. Sometimes whole paragraphs are. Tagging in these cases is not always the best option - sometimes questions on the talk page may be better--Cailil ^talk 14:26, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It did not seem, from context, that the first sentence was sourced. Such a POV statement needs to be clearly sourced and needs a clear subject. Fortunately, your edits fix both of those issues. I'll keep that in mind for future editing. JCDenton2052 (talk) 21:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Marc H. Rudov article

Please see my talk page comments here: Marc Rudov talk page LuisGomez111 (talk) 17:34, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend reading WP:OR and WP:RS. JCDenton2052 (talk) 22:33, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

unbalanced template on reproductive rights page

I noticed you put an unbalanced template on the history section of the reproductive rights page, but didn't leave an indication of what you think is unbalanced. It helps to have a comment on the talk page explaining what the difficulty is so other editors can contribute to fixing (or disagree, or whatever), and so the template can be removed once the issue is dealt with. Thanks. Zodon (talk) 06:38, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added an explanation on the talk page. JCDenton2052 (talk) 09:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

what vandalism is not

JC I know this must be frustrating but Alastair's reverts are not vandalism - they maybe stubborn but they are not vandalism. Giving a Level 4 immediate or blatant warning template should only be done in extreme cases of blatant vandalism and should not be used in content disputes--Cailil ^talk 23:27, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again I ask you, if removing tags without responding to their explanations on the talk page is not vandalism, then what is it? JCDenton2052 (talk) 23:29, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It might be considered disruptive, tendentious or pointy, but it is not "vandalism". You'll see at Wikipedia:VANDAL#NOT that stubbornness is not vandalism--Cailil ^talk 23:45, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So how should a user who removes tags without responding to the discussion of them on the talk page be warned? JCDenton2052 (talk) 23:48, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well... sometimes you need warn users "manually". Occasionally templates don't work very well and it is necessary to ask a user why they are making edits we don't agree with / don't understand. If they are unresponsive then ask them to stop - if they continue bring in a third opinion or a sysop. If they are responsive (which is the case with Alastair) try to use dispute resolution. Have a read of Wikipedia:DE#Dealing_with_disruptive_editors & WP:DR--Cailil ^talk 23:54, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Alastair Haines is not being responsive. I responded to User:Jclemens's suggestion to use inline tags. User:Alastair Haines simply removed all of my inline tags without addressing any of the issues that I brought up on the talk page. JCDenton2052 (talk) 00:05, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This might not be a response you like or find helpful but it is a response - your next interaction with him was to leave a {{uw-vand4}}. Situations like this need to be defused before they escalate. I recognize that there is something to investigate here and I am not dismissing your views but delivering a {{uw-vand4}} when it is inappropriate is not going to help. In the words of DR. Phil "some relationships need a hero" and sometimes no matter how difficult somebody's behaviour is or how hard it is to understand you must rise above it, and take the calm, patient road to eventualism. Getting the article right is worth taking the time to build consensus of a period of time--Cailil ^talk 00:34, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I left the vandalism template on his talk page in response to his removing all of my inline tags without addressing any of them or following the advice of User:Jclemens who voiced a third opinion. As User:Ilkali pointed out (and your diff highlights), User:Alastair Haines has a double standard that makes it impossible to reach consensus with him. JCDenton2052 (talk) 00:41, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I find Alastairs demeanor to be positive and forwarding to the articles eventual status. Anytime something is deleted or tagged, etc. there is bound to be a bit of tension. He asked you to discuss...he answered your first comment with his position and seemed willing to continue ...in Good Faith. Im curious ...where does User:Ilkali come into the picture...I don't find him involved in this article or discussion. --Buster7 (talk) 05:20, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No he didn't. He addressed one issue out of several and removed the tags without discussing their removal. That is not good faith. JCDenton2052 (talk) 11:08, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@ Cailil...i much enjoy and support your stance of "articles needing heroes" and asking editors to rise above a fellow editors demaenor. It is a Candle that needs to burn-brightly! The only problem is that you besmirch Alastair while advising JCDEnton. Alastair was not stubborn nor was he difficult. I know PEACE was your intent..that is obvious. But, lets bring peace to BOTH sides.--Buster7 (talk) 06:10, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think its fair to say that both editors were being stubborn, Buster7. Repeating the same edit is just that. And even in good faith when two editors (or more) do this it is tendentious and it is disruptive. No action was taken here because as I said to JC when he raised it at ANI - this issue "cuts both ways"--Cailil ^talk 11:01, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not fair to say that. I followed the advice of User:Jclemens third opinion by using inline tags and explaining each one on the talk page. User:Alastair Haines removed all of the inline tags without addressing them on the talk page. JCDenton2052 (talk) 11:08, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He removed tags that had been explained on the article's talk page without discussing their removal. How is that not being stubborn or difficult? JCDenton2052 (talk) 11:08, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my request at User talk:Alastair Haines#WP:AN/3RR. --John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:41, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. JCDenton2052 (talk) 23:55, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Falcon 1

I removed the changes that you made to Falcon 1. The article does need a "see also" section, so please continue to work on improving it. However, starting the section with N1 rocket is not very helpful as the two are very dissimilar. For example, so far the Falcon 1 has not destroyed its launch pad. Some good ideas for this section might be other rockets by the company, a page about reusable or partially reusable rockets, maybe something about rocket staging, and a page about Kwajalein. If something has already been linked in the article, then it does not need to be added as a "see also". Thanks for taking an interest in improving this article! Wronkiew (talk) 19:43, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there

Familiarize yourself with WP:TALK. Bye. Colchicum (talk) 02:28, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am familiar with it. JCDenton2052 (talk) 02:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And be so kind to revert yourself. Colchicum (talk) 02:30, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On whose authority? JCDenton2052 (talk) 02:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then may I ask you on whose authority you were going to block me? Fortunately you don't seem to have access to the button and is unlikely to get it anytime soon. No, you are not familiar with WP:TALK: "Some examples of appropriately editing others' comments: <...> Deleting material not relevant to improving the article". Also familiarize yourself with WP:DTTR. Colchicum (talk) 02:44, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is relevant to the article. At least one source [4] uses the possibly staged photos, calling its reliability in to question. Furthermore, WP:DTTR is an essay, not a policy (and it is an essay with which I disagree) so I am not obligated to follow it. JCDenton2052 (talk) 02:53, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, you are not obliged to be civil, I see, and as evident from #what vandalism is not this is not for the first time. Neither am I. Bye. Colchicum (talk) 02:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please point out where I was uncivil in either case. JCDenton2052 (talk) 02:59, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a pity that you don't see it yourself. I can't help here. As to the pictures, they have been taken by reputable Reuters photographers, while those nearly anomymous reddit users who question their authenticity have no reputation whatsoever and plenty of axes to grind. Anyway, the web discussion (which doesn't even satisfy the criteria of WP:RS itself) is completely irrelevat to the issue of the reliability of the NYT and cannot be used to question it. It is a textbook example of "material not relevant to improving the article". Colchicum (talk) 03:15, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see what doesn't exist. JCDenton2052 (talk) 03:23, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

inappropriate "final warning" to Alastair

The 3RR report was within process.

Before the 3RR report, you were warned of the 3RR issue at 22:09, 3 August 2008, albeit the template wasnt used perfectly, however you as reverted the notice 8 minutes later calling it vandalism.

The 3RR report filed at 04:41, 4 August 2008 contained the diff to your notice of the 3RR violation. It is advisable that a {{uw-3rr}} is left on the user talk, however given that you had just called Alastair's last warning "vandalism", it is not surprising that he didnt want to comment on your talk page again. But that is not a big deal - there are thousands of people that watch that page, and the first admin to respond decided that the circumstances of the edit war meant that you didnt cross the threshhold required to invoke a 3RR penalty - lucky you. If the admin had decided it was actionable, he would have checked that you had been duly warned. If you had not, he may have decided to advise you of the report in order to give you time to respond.

Just because the process was not conducted the way you think it should have been, does not mean the report was disruptive, and it certainly doesnt give you the right to give a "final warning" with someone who you have had a pre-existing conflict with. The process depends on everyone working together, and reports that turn out to be rejected are part of that process working. If there was any major issue with the way Alastair had reported it, I expect El C would have informed Alastair.

The 3RR thread was archived at 6:35, 8 August 2008, which means you had 4 days to investigate what was going on and follow up on it, and almost 3 days since it was archived to raise this somewhere. That page is an archive, which means it is not supposed to be altered by anybody; it is supposed to reflect the discussion as it was prior to being archived. Honestly, I dont see that you have a need to defend yourself on that page 4 days late, because no action was taken. As a consequence, I request that you revert your recent comments to the page Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive77, in order to restore the integrity of that page as an archive of the original discussion.

Your posting of a warning at 21:55, 10 August 2008 for events that are 7 old is entirely inappropriate, especially when you are involved, as no sane admin is going to act on it. If you somehow truly missed this 3RR entirely, Alastair had little or nothing to do with with that.

I can certainly see why you feel a bit annoyed at having been left out of the loop of the 3RR report, but there was no need to lash out at Alastair. You should apologise for accusing him of being disruptive, for accusing him of grossly failing to follow process in such a way that was blockable, and finally for your own disruption caused by posting a final warning on his talk when there was no need or basis for it. That is just my opinion. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 04:46, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No it wasn't. User:Alastair Haines misrepresented two sets of two different reverts as four reverts. He also lied that someone else reverted my edits after he did.

I made two reverts, then requested a third opinion. I took the advice of the third opinion and made new edits. User:Alastair Haines ignored the third opinion and reverted my new edits without discussing them. I reverted him once and he gave me a WP:3RR warning.

Do you expect every Wikipedian to have WP:AN/3RR on his or her watchlist? I was given no notice of a potential action taken against me. When I found out, I did not want User:Alastair Haines false statements about me to stand on the record. I have no intention of reverting my edits unless you show me a Wikipedia policy that states that accused Wikipedians have no right to confront their accusers or offer a defense.

User:Alastair Haines had everything to do with it. As he was the one who made the (false) report, he was obligated to inform me of it.

User:Alastair Haines was disruptive and failed to follow process. I do not see where I was disruptive, so I do not know what you expect me to apologize for. JCDenton2052 (talk) 05:03, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

JCD, I've posted at my talk page. You are right to be angry, even if you've expressed it strongly. I reverted two edits you made, where you had actually accommodated my requests. I really appreciate you doing what you did. I look forward to your content related replies to my last posts at the article talk pages, regarding your points 1 and 2. Alastair Haines (talk) 07:32, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just had to go out for a while JCD. Just to respond to some of your other points. Yes, indeed, I totally agree that false accusations should be withdrawn by the accuser as soon as possible. I also agree that kicking up a fuss and asking for admin assistance in such matters is absolutely reasonable. I also think apologies for false accusations should be prompt and profuse, you have mine on this matter.

Our differences are not yet settled. I still think you were insistant and provocative at first, though I appreciate your prompt involvement of a third party and provision of an appropriate and acceptable alterative was laudable.

Finally, I think Cailil and JAV have done credit to the system in asking you not to be so extreme in your accusations against me. I made two honest mistakes. I've clarified and apologized promptly. It is up to you whether you apply your own standards to yourself. I'll be no judge of that, since others have addressed you regarding it.

Again, looking forward to hearing your replies regarding content at the talk page. Alastair Haines (talk) 14:42, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

JC I understand why you feel aggrieved but please don't use vandalism user-warning templates like this. They are not generic warnings. Nor are they (and this is the fault of the template design) the most collegial way of pointing out that an action was bad form. Only use {{uw-vand}} when deal with vandalism - never use it in a content dispute and never use it in an inter-personal dispute--Cailil ^talk 12:29, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

War rape

OK, I see now that there were multiple uses of that reference. --Timeshifter (talk) 11:07, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

^ Walker, Alice, In Search of Our Mothers' Gardens (Phoenix, 2005), ISBN 9780753819609

[Walker-1] Walker, Alice, In Search of Our Mothers' Gardens (Phoenix, 2005), ISBN 9780753819609

[1]