User talk:SouthernNights/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

External links

It's a kinda gray area, but those don't really seem appropriate to me either. Besides the points you mention (fairly general compared to the specific articles they were added to, as well as appearing to be self-promotion), the site seems to be mostly links to other sites (sometimes referred to as a 'link farm', and generally not considered worth linking to), and commentary which seems to fall under the definition of 'original research', which is also frowned upon. The fact that those three edits are the only ones that user has made on Wikipedia, the user's intentions/motives seem a bit suspect, altho' Wikipedia policy is to 'assume good faith' whenever possible. The not particularly high Alexa rank seems to indicate his site's not a 'leading journal' in its field. Also, with Medicare (United States), since many piperreport.com links go to kff.org, it is arguably redundant with the direct kff.org link above it.

Anyway, some policy/guidelines that are documented related to all this include "Adding links to one's own page is strongly discouraged." from Wikipedia:External_links#What_should_not_be_linked_to, Wikipedia:Autobiography (which I consider to include people's own websites and other works in principle, tho' I don't know how widespread that interpretation is), Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox, items 5 and 6. Wikipedia:No original research (although again this is a bit open to interpretation, since it only specifically talks about contributed text--but it seems to me that since Wikipedia's mission is not to disseminate original research, linking to it is about as bad). While the Edit window doesn't mention it, clicking any redlink to start a new article very specifically states "Please do not create an article to promote yourself, a website, a product, or a business (see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not).", which again addresses the issue more in principle than specifically with external links.

So, in this type of situation, I would remove the link(s), with clear but concise edit summaries of what's being done, and the main reason(s) why (EG "Removing overly general, self-promotional external links"). Then, either pre-emptively go to the articles' Talk pages and give a more detailed explanation, including links to any guideline/policy articles you're citing, or just add the articles to your watchlist and wait until if/when he tries to add the links again, and make the case on the Talk page then. If he persists, it would be best to get input from more Wikipedians by putting a summary of the issue, and links to the article(s) and discussion(s), at the Wikipedia:Village pump. Niteowlneils 19:06, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the help and excellent guidance! SouthernNights

You are welcome. Welcome to the wonderful world of wikidom.Andycjp Some day in May 2004

Cleanup tag

Hi there, Do you have any specific suggestions for the salt of the earth article? Thanks, Nathan Larson 04:12, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

African American literature

Thank you for your message. Good work! Article now looks great! I think that African American literature is very important issue in American history. All your edits will be cheerfully welcomed. Thank you! - Darwinek 20:34, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your work on this. I think it's headed the right direction. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:24, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Congratulations on getting this up to FA level! Great work! -- Jmabel | Talk 22:56, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. And also thanks for the feedback and support. --SouthernNights 22:49, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Help with vandalism

Sorry for the delayed response (you posted the comment on my talk page a week ago). If somebody continues to vandalize despite warnings, report it at Wikipedia:Vandalism in Progress, or you can ask an administrator to help you out. Also, check out Wikipedia:Dealing with vandalism. Again, sorry for my tardiness, as you probably have found this out by now. Keep up the good work and happy editing! ~~Shiri — Talk~~ 05:11, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

Votes for Deletion/Military Families Against the War

I have just rewritten the page Military Families Against the War. I would be grateful if you would reconsider your delete vote. Kel-nage 20:05, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Much thanks SouthernNights. Kel-nage 20:24, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

African American literature

I don't want to be picky, so do understand that the comments I've put on the FAC page are intended to protect the article from what's going to happen when it gets to be an FA and gets on the main page. When that happens, all hell breaks loose from the editors. Anyway, the last part of it now looks like opinion. It's in sections like that that you really have to cite like mad. It'll protect the article from the edit wars that come later. Also, the 2nd half opens with a consideration of the definition and difference of African American literature. That's a vexed discussion for all of us, and it's probably not a bad idea to admit, in the first section after the lead, that there is disagreement about its exact limits. (I've had to do that every time I've talked about the history of the novel. Most recently, I've had to admit that no one knows exactly what they mean when they refer to Augustan literature.) Geogre 30 June 2005 11:50 (UTC)

Geogre: I think you are correct and I appreciate you pointing all of this out. I'll work on the points you raise here and on the Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/African-American literature page and get back to you for a look-see when I'm finished. thanks. --SouthernNights 30 June 2005 13:21 (UTC)

You're doing great work on this. Nice to see another litgeek in action. Filiocht | Talk June 30, 2005 13:28 (UTC)

Hear hear! I almost forgot, in the rush of pickiness, to welcome you to the ranks of the Order of the Noble Litgeek. We are the few, the humble, the misunderstood. The article, and its expansion are so overdue as to be well beyond silly. You should also look at English literature at some point and see if there are any areas outlined there in brief that you'd like to tackle for a major work up. A few of us are working on making each section of that article point to a major overview article. Geogre 30 June 2005 13:55 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll also check out the English lit article soon. Please check out the updates to the African American literature article and let me know what you think.--SouthernNights 30 June 2005 16:11 (UTC)

Excellent revisions, and I support enthusiastically. I really appreciate how willing you have been to do the necessary work, how quickly you've done it, and how well. Great stuff. Geogre 1 July 2005 11:31 (UTC)

Hi there. Thanks for your comments on the current debate. I've just replied on the article's talk page. Looking forward to a fruitful and - I hope - very productive discussion. All the best --Albrecht Conz 04:04, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Claude McKay

Hey! I want to congratulate you on a job extremely well done in the Claude McKay article! Keep up the good work! (yes, some of it was my mess, too *cough*cough*cough* ;) Project2501a 1 July 2005 12:25 (UTC)

Thanks. I've been working on helping the African-American literature article reach feature article status and have been branching out to people like McKay. Fascinating guy.--SouthernNights 1 July 2005 12:34 (UTC)

32 KB is too small!

I'm joking, but do not worry about the 32 KB warning. It's there because some very, very, very old browsers (prior to Netscape 4.2, for example, which was 1998) choked on anything longer than that. I can't imagine that anyone is still using browsers that can't handle beyond 32 Kb, and, if they are, they certainly don't have to use anything that archaic. The warning is helpful for casual editors making casual articles on buildings or food, but it should be joyfully disregarded when even thinking about considering planning an FA. That said, we all ought to have some pity on the FAC voters and not subject them to anything like http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Augustan_literature&oldid=17960233 which was 90 KB. (bishonen is now spinning off the sections into stand-alone articles, and I'm trying not to look, because otherwise I'd have a stroke.) My Restoration literature (written with bishonen) was about 50 kb or more, and I thought it was just about the perfect size for an overview of a substantial literary topic.

Be nice to the voters, but don't pay attention to the 32 Kb warning when you're doing something that needs depth. Geogre 1 July 2005 16:58 (UTC)

Thanks for the info and context on the issue. I was worried when I first saw the warning but I'll let it go. --SouthernNights 1 July 2005 17:31 (UTC)

Main

I dont know whats going on, but it looks like a few people got together and came up some logical structure on how things should be and then decided to go ahead with it without having anything official to back it up, like a consensus, and now its breaking 100s (1000s) of articles. I suspect this will be a fight and will need support as things develop. Stbalbach 3 July 2005 19:06 (UTC)

I wouldn't be surprised if it became a fight. As I said, I didn't want to cause a fight, just raise the issue. Despite this, one of the people in the debate immediately relabeled an article I've been working on for a while, African-American literature, right up top as a subarticle. I removed this and asked him not to do it again b/c it isn't technically correct (partially correct, but not totally). I mean, if you tried hard enough, almost every article on Wiki could be reduced to a subarticle of something else. --SouthernNights 3 July 2005 19:12 (UTC)

Your right, it logically has problems, imposes a certain vision that others might not share. This would come out in a large vote or RFC. Stbalbach 3 July 2005 19:25 (UTC)

If you ever need any support on this issue, just let me know.--SouthernNights 3 July 2005 20:22 (UTC)

I just created a Vote for Deletion for Template:Subarticleof, please vote if you like. And there is also now voteing going on with main and seemain on the same voteing page. Stbalbach 3 July 2005 21:02 (UTC)

Dear SouthernNights,

Dear SouthernNights, Thank you for the warm welcome. It looks like you put much more than a month of work into your African American Literature article, and you deserve all the praise it's getting! Yoninah 7 July 2005 08:13 (UTC)

Traffic impact of the Montgomery bus boycott

Sorry, SouthernNights, but you don't know your state's history. That white women drove their black domestic servants to work is a well-documented historical fact. Just a quick google, and there are ample examples of documentation. Here's just one: [1]. Further, the so-called "edit war" -- not! -- was about some silly, hazy statement inserted by someone with a fixation on traffic that served no useful purpose because it imparted absolutely no information whatsoever. Go back and read the exchange. deeceevoice 7 July 2005 13:43 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer of support, but the subject under discussion is a widely known historical fact. I've provided the link. If you think it needs to be inserted in the article, then you're welcome to do so. deeceevoice 7 July 2005 13:57 (UTC)

I am aware of my state's history. I'm also aware that lots of so-called facts lack documentation. Lot's of "widely known historical facts" turn out to be legends. As I said on your discussion page, I wanted to see documentation on this. Since you proved it, I support you on the issue (I also inserted the reference). I also left a statement on the other users discussion page that there should not have been any traffic issues back then b/c the city wasn't that big. Traffic patterns in this article are irrelevant. --SouthernNights 7 July 2005 14:03 (UTC)

Clearly, you were not aware of your state's history in this regard, which was the subject under discussion -- and that was my point. Lots of "widely known historical facts" are precisely that -- as, again, in this case. About the irrelevance of traffic issues vis-a-vis the boycott -- precisely the point I made. This "edit war" was little more than a skirmish. The kuncklehead who had the complaint about the insertion of the information regarding white women and domestics was simply being petty because he had no legitimate comeback to my response. Your deletion of the information was in error and certainly premature. Had you not done so, the matter probably would have dropped. But all's well that ends well. deeceevoice 7 July 2005 14:11 (UTC)

About Wareware

Well, after I (and the others who helped me) went through all that trouble, I found out long after the fact that the Arbitration Committee dropped the case because the racist coward left the web site (as near as we can tell) -- and only then after I inquired. It seems no one felt it necessary to inform me, so I have no idea exactly how long ago the matter was dropped. (Not terribly efficient or competent on the part of the Arb Com, I'm afraid; it doesn't speak very well of them.)

But I can't say the exercise was a complete waste of time. It provided an opportunity for a lot of good people to come forward and speak their minds about the situation. And I achieved some of what I wanted -- for that sick, little b*st*rd to disappear. I'm fortunate/blessed to know who I am, and so I wasn't the least fazed by the racist vitriol. (I've heard it all before. *yawn* :p) But I wanted to make a point by drawing attention to the problem and indirectly confront those Wikipedians who'd known of the situation but who had remained silent -- these people who want to pretend they're decent and all that crap, but who won't utter a peep when some sleazoid mental cretin spews racist venom. Shameful -- and typical. :p

Anyway, it's over and done with. Wareware is nowhere to be found, and I don't miss him one bit. :p Peace 2 u. deeceevoice 23:57, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. Always good to know how things are before you step into something yourself.--SouthernNights 18:09, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Transformation problem

Thank you for your comments. I have tried to explain things in an overview section with definitions. I would appreciate your reaction to it now (if it stands as it is just for a bit!). Keep in mind that this is ideological dynamite. One must stick to the analytically narrow and stright to avoid edit wars (which, crossing fingers, I have succeded in doing so far). Thanks anyway. --Mario 00:23, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Toni Morrison

Terrific work on Toni Morrison; that's needed that expansion for much too long! --Dvyost 20:16, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm planning on adding some more in the coming month. Best, --SouthernNights 12:46, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

list of white supremacists deletion vote

Hey SouthernNights. I've noticed you contributing to some articles on race-related matters, and wondered if you might want to weigh in on Wikipedia:Votes for Deletion/List of White supremacists. Take care. NoahB 18:07, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Grr. That link should be Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of White supremacists Duh. NoahB 18:08, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Expectant parents (FA's on the main page)

I don't quite know what to say. I know that all of us who have FA's get hot under the collar and want it to be on the main page, and soon, but I don't think there is much formal rallying that can affect it. Seriously, I don't think there is much to do except wait. I'm sure it will be on the Main Page (there is nothing to keep that from happening, and only those articles with a specific problem (vandal-oriented ones, e.g.)) won't go. Geogre 13:28, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the guidance. You are correct--I want my little baby to go out into the world and be read. It's good to get the perspective. BEst, --SouthernNights 13:30, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

DYK

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Anti-Tom literature, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently-created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Anti-Tom literature

Hi, I just wanted to tell you that I found your article quite interesting. It's an important topic, yet one that wouldn't get its own article in a traditional encyclopedia. Oh, and it's worth quite a bit that you write articles, not stubs;) --Zantastik talk 11:21, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. This was an offshoot of other articles I've been working on (such as African American literature and Southern literature). And you are totally correct--a print encyclopedia would never have an article on this. That's the great thing about Wiki.--SouthernNights 11:31, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Uncle Tom's Cabin Plot

Hi, thank you for this section and for Criticism and Stereotypes. They really improved the article. GhePeU 15:14, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Reversi Article - change I made today about the chess refererence

Hello SouthernNights. I made the change to the Reversi article today.

I'm obviously new, and didn't realize that doing an edit would be summarily deleted without explanation if it wasn't agreed with if I didn't become a member. Sorry for any unintentional rules infractions, etc. Well, now I have joined. I have a wide ranging and long term interest and a fair amount of expertise in the area of computer pure-knowledge games (programming, history, evolution, theory, etc.) I hope I have something constructive to contribute to such articles. I stand behind the factual correctness and the documenting link I made in my edit today. The change seemed to be handled fine - just as it appeared in the preview. If you can help me understand your objection(s), offer suggestions, point out which pages I should study (there is a LOT of data in the help, etc. sections), that would be great. At this point I'm pretty clueless about any detailed style rules, etc. If I should have posted this query elsewhere, such as the Reversi discussion page, please let me know that too. (I wasn't sure if you'd see it there). Also, if you'd prefer to disuss this Reversi article issue elsewhere, such as on my "talk" page -- whatever works. I'm still learning to navigate around... Thanks in advance. Outcast Searcher

My bad on the revert--it was a simple srewup that happened while I was reverting vandalism. Please see the message I left on your talk page.--SouthernNights 00:31, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Tom shows

It pretty much all comes from the one chapter of Lott's book that I mention explicitly in the References section. I'd be inclined just to footnote the whole section to the chapter, rather than anything more precise. If there are any particular facts that you think need more specific citation, let me know and I'll do my best: I don't own a copy, I was writing from notes made from a library copy, and I may or may not have specific page number at hand. Some of my notes are specific to page number, but a given paragraph may actually combine information gleaned from different places in the chapter. For example, Stowe's reaction to Caroline Howard's portrayal of Topsy comes from a different part of the chapter than her not authorizing a performance, and I'm not even sure Lott gives Caroline Howard's first name (I think he says "Mrs. Howard"), but the Howards were one of the leading theater families of the era, and I'm sure that I could come up with an independent citation for that if needed. -- Jmabel | Talk 17:17, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Main-Page-itis

So far, Augustan literature isn't suffering as badly as previous FA's. The thing about going on the main page, is that you get some amazingly perceptive and good edits mixed in with the people who want to link every single noun in the article. This last is main-page-itis. I appreciate their desires to make the article better and sympathize with their having little to contribute but the links, and so I try not to revert them unless I see what they're doing as being knowing distraction (one who did Wiktionary links to common words in a sentence). Then you have just a general up-tick in vandalism -- people who want to insert a reference to their school buddies into whatever article is on the main page -- but they're just doing what they always do. Thanks for the congrats, and brace yourself for what's going to happen when yours shows up. :-) (Remember to keep a good humor about it and that you can revert the lot, if needed, the next day, when the world has forgotten about your article.) Geogre 16:59, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

can't tell if this guy is vandalizing?

I can't tell if this guy is vandalizing on the Indian American and Asian American article. I think adding Asian Indian is redundant and ddrastically changes the tone of the article. It's already mention in the beggining of the article and in classification. --Dangerous-Boy

I thought he was because of this comment he left on Asia: "asia was seemingly invented by the middle eastern part of europe in the early 1000bc by persian tribes migrating east to get away from roman armies, mixing there language with ancient neolithic languages and new age persian. also forming a text by scribling, that no one can read." [2] That last comment about scribling is pure vandalism. As a result, I read his further edits from the POV of him being a vandal.--SouthernNights 18:10, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

He even made a username: User:Dark Tichondrias. I reverted the Indian American back to the way it was and about to do the same to the Asian American one.--Dangerous-Boy

Nevermind. He is vandalizing. --Dangerous-Boy

This guy seems to be regularly editing Asian, Asia, Asian American, Race (U.S. Census) and Indian American. Whether or not he's a vandal, he sure seems pretty over-zealous about it. It looks like he's here to 'enlighten' everybody with his copy of the 2000 Census... 213.210.13.209 00:57, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

I'll post something on his user talk page--I'd suggest others also do this. There needs to be consensus (see Wikipedia:Consensus) on a change like he's promoting. To get consensus, he needs to raise the issue on an article's talk page.--SouthernNights 00:07, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

John Beecher

The John Beecher article is still substantially the same as the link that I found, including both wording and organization. There are only minor changes, and some sentences are still verbatim from that article. As it currently stands, it is still a copyright violation. You will need to work on rewording, reorganizing, and expanding the article before it is no longer a violation.

Your other choice would be to contact the publisher and/or editor (Steven Ford Brown). Presumably that text is either from the book's intro or the back cover copy. You could ask their permission to reprint the text under the GNU Free Documentation License.

Some suggestions: The current info in the article is begging for some expansion. Where did he go to school, and did he go to college? How did he develop an interest in poetry, and what were the influences on his poetry? Did he work in the mills by choice, or because of his parent's changing economic fortunes because of the depression? As a contemporary of Woody Guthrie and John Steinbeck, did he ever meet either of them (if he didn't, I would say that info should be excised from the article—just say that his poetry was about the problems of the depression)? What was the name of the court case, and why was his firing overturned? Where did the troop transport Booker T. Washington serve (Europe or Asia), and where there any major incidents aboard the ship while he was a CO? BlankVerse ∅ 03:21, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm aware that the article needs expanding--it has just been a low priority for me. I disagree that the article is still a copyright violation but since I didn't originally write it (and only cleaned up the language and added additional info at a later point) let's go ahead and let it be deleted. Once the article is gone, I'll write a new, non copyright violation article. Best, --SouthernNights 12:05, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Blacks

Hey thanks for the positive feedback regarding Blacks. I agree with others who feel that "Blacks" is an inappropriate term, but my inexperience makes it hard for me to find a better way than using Black (people). Also, I do not know how to end each comment with my name and time without typing it out. Is there a shorter way? - Zaphnathpaaneah August 14th 1:02 PM

I wouldn't agree that the term is inappropriate--as I'm sure you know, this is an old debate with valid arguements on both sides. I guess I'd see what the consensus on the issue turns out to be. As for the name tag, you can either hit the second button from the right above the box where you write your comments (the button looks like someone signed their name there) or you can type four tildes (they look like this ~, usually on the upper left of a kepboard) all in a row. If you ever need anything, or possible support on an issue, just drop me a line.--SouthernNights 17:19, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

History of South Carolina FAC/FARC dispute

I'm trying to avoid acrimony, not terribly successfully, which is why I wasn't so blunt on the FARC page as I am here. I think user:Toothpaste was purposefully gaming the system to avoid doing the work needed to get the article up to standards. She said (pretty directly on the peer review page, not quite as explicitly on the original FAC page) that she was going to do major work on the article, and that it was "much too soon" to renominate it. She then did minor work on the article (added a couple of superficial paragraphs that show no sign of serious research) and renominated it the next day. I don't see why it's my obligation to repair somebody else's bad work just because I've pointed out defects in it, especially when the repair work will be time-consuming. I don't even have the time to work on the articles I want most to work on. Monicasdude 19:01, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your comments and input on this matter. I'm going to follow up a bit more tomorrow (a little longer "cooling off" than I'd originally said. Monicasdude 06:05, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Columbine High School Massacre

Ok, I've added a ton of references, can you please check them for me to make sure they're acceptable? Also, I've had an experienced user help me tag the images. Can you please check those for me, too and see if anything more needs to be done. I think I can still find more refferences online, so feel free to leave me a list on my talk page of paragraphs/sentences/sections that need more refference coverage.

Also, the article is now at 45KB and I think that may be too big, please suggest what part of the article I should make into sub-page, unless 45KB is ok? (I've seen several featured articles reach 50, but the top of the edit page says 32 is acceptable).

Thanks a lot for your help! - PRueda29

To be honest, I did take your comments that wrong way, but it was just me overreacting. I was cranky from not sleeping (I had spent like 12 hours working on the article and didn't want to go to bed until I found it just right) and on top of that one of my friends had pissed me off right around the time to read your objection so it just added to my anger. Later on, I read the objections again and realized it was all done to better the article, so I apologize for the dumb comment I made on the columbine talk page. Should I submit it through peer review, or just go straight to the FAC page? Also, do you think once its on the front page it'll be almost completely changed by edit from "everyone and their mother?" Or will it just be minor stuff? Thanks for your help! - PRueda29

Hello again, it seems the image tags have become a problem again. I don't know how to fix them. Can you help? - Prueda29

I asked him for help, but he hasn't given me a reply. Another user has offered help, and has cleaned up all but 1 of the pictures, which we're trying to work out right know. Thanks anyway. I have noticed how he seems to be real picky with pictures. He's an administrator so I guess it's just his job to make sure they don't get sued. Thanks again, just two more days until your article is on the front page. Excited? - Prueda29

• I saw that you are watching over this article during its FAC. I added some information in the long-term impact section, notably about school security and gun control legislation. Can you look over it and expand if necessary? Thanks. Pentawing 00:42, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Thank You, it was my goal from day one to have this article be probably the best source of information on this event in the internet. I noticed that a lot of websites rely on myths, and don't give detailed accounts concerning Columbine. Of course, I can't take all the credit. Many users have contributed to this, including you. I just put a little extra effort in stabilizing it, and adding details. Prueda29

Image 2 is the actual Columbine Library. Its a picture of it during the investigation, if you look closely you can see the yellow labels they placed for shell casings, and sadly, bodies of the deceased (including blood stains). I do think that image 3 is good, but it might be a little graphic. My favorite is Image 2, especially if we place a caption that it is the Columbine Library after the shooting, but if you preffer #3, i'll go with it. - PRueda29

Ok, Image 3 it is. I'll add it, and I guess I'll copy the rationale from another picture. The image 2 picture is the Columbine library, not with bodies, but with yellow labels that show where the bodies were located, the bodies have already been removed. Image 1 is just the door of the library and i don't think that's blood, but it might be, who knows. I don't think image one should be it so it's betwen 2 and 3, and I think 3 is the best to replace the current image for the library massacre. If we get complains, we can change it for 2, how about that?- PRueda29

The candidate page is on my watchlist so I can see any new support/objections that arise. If any do, I'll get right on them as I did with nearly all of them (except of course, the ones Pentawing did for me). PRueda29

I know about my weak support, but as I told PRueda29, I want to see the best that Wikipedia has to offer, especially for a subject like this (of course after seeing lots of screaming and yelling in other areas of Wikipedia and several prominent users leave, sometimes in a huff, I have become cautious unfortunately). Of course, I hope that this article will become featured. As for PRueda29, I think I might offer him a barnstar when this is all said and done (even though one user I respect, RadicalBender, thinks they are stupid). Pentawing 00:40, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Frontpage

Your article is on the front page! You must be very proud that your hard has been recognized and set for everyone to see! Congratulations! PRueda29 00:23 25 August 2005 (UTC).

Thanks. And so far so good--no vandalism.--SouthernNights 00:47, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

American Civil Rights Movement

Please vote for the American Civil Rights Movement in the nominations for the Article Improvement Drive. [Click here and scroll down to (Nominated in August or later: American Civil Rights Movement... to cast your vote]. Thanks! Mamawrites 03:56, 27 August 2005 (UTC

African American Literature

I really don't understand what's the problem, other than bigotry. I'm happy to provide my comments at Talk:African American literature. Yoninah 18:11, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Re: AALit Direction (and mediation)

I thought you might be looking for some more constructive feedback than what I was willing to open up on the talk page of the article. Here's what I was about to add; I think you can see why it would've destroyed the point I was trying to make ...

"If I were to reorganise the article, I would make the History section shorter. I would change the title of Critque to something like "Impact" and include the positive contributions that African American Literature has made to African American culture, to Literature as a whole, American culture as a whole, and to American Literature as a whole. Critiques could then be a sub. The Critiques are a more powerful piece than the History. It has more to contribute that is new. So, the thought is to keep it as powerful, add the positive elements, and make the whole section more prominent. If possible, I would de-emphasize Frederick Douglass. However prominent, this is glaringly out of place with the rest of the article."

— <TALKJNDRLINETALK>    

Pro sit

There was already a strong defense, which I just endorsed, but I couldn't resist mentioned the naivette of "quality writing" and "style" in a separate section. Geogre 12:01, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Just wondering, do you think we've heard the last of Albrecht Conz? Yoninah 19:34, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

African American literature - comments

I made a preliminary look at the discussion and article (for this issue, it might take me some time to think of a workable solution, given that I am in the middle of other projects and issues), but I would suggest you talk to the person objecting directly on his talk page. That way, there is a better chance at a more detailed response and explanation.

Though the user hadn't been contributing much on the English Wikipedia, I looked at his German page and saw (if I have read it correctly), that he has an interest in literature, though in what way I am not sure. He has brought up some valid points, but his asking for a "complete rewrite" is extreme to say the least, and something I wouldn't recommend unless several more (note several more) users other than him object to the point of (God forbid) nominating the article for FA removal.

You said you have tried adding some material that he said were missing - that is a start. I also saw that you have support (Geogre seems to be someone who enjoys literature, so you should ask him for any advice short of a rewrite). Aside from that, I will continue to look at this and see if there is anything more I can do. Pentawing 23:01, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

• That's good to know. Keep me informed of any more assistance that you may need in the future. Pentawing 23:48, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

responded to Fac conflic of i. concerns

I responded to your concerns on the Fac page, here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates&diff=22598853&oldid=22558074

I may renominate, if in fact that article can address all of the problems people have found (real or imagined problems),

--GordonWattsDotCom 05:24, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

PRueda29

I would love to help with the article but b/c of hurricane katrina we have had an onging internet outage in our area and I have not been able to log onto wiki. When I get internet back I would love to help but I cannot do anything until I get my internet reconnected. Also, if possible, could you keep an eye on my article while I'm away? I really have no idea how long this is going to take. Thanks.

--PRueda29 5 September 2005, 20:52(UTC)

autobiography FAC

Hi and thanks for your vote. Which of the following do you think is best for the article:

1. Summerizing the controversies and leaving the sources etc. up to the main ashlee simpson article
2. Kind of duplicate the controversies from the Ashlee Simpson article into the Autobiography one
3. Move the controversies from the Ashlee Simpson article into the Autobiography article and refer to there

Your opinion on this would be much appreciated :) Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 02:12, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

OK, I rewrote it a bit. What do you think? Thanks! Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 16:42, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

a new user spoke to you on your FRONT page vis a vis TALK page...

At this diff here, a new user just posted to you [on your front page, vs this talk page), and I am notifying you because this post will not generate a "got new messages" message -but I saw it on my watchlist.

As I have been told by Ann recently on my page (she gave me a photogs barnstar), I will tell you -that you should keep your own page(s) on your watchlist, even if only to avoid vandalism. Anyhow, the new user has concerns about some article, but I didn't read it in detail.--GordonWattsDotCom 02:33, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

I do keep my page on my watchlist. But thanks for the suggestion. Best,--SouthernNights 13:14, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

==Disputes== (cross posted on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lord_Voldemort)

I basically have two disputes of a differing nature. The 1st wd be on the novel talk page. I just think that the links to novels are ungodly long and have suggested a number of options, mainly due to the fact that some of the cited links are not to novels, novel precursors, some were written in verse- including a verse novel, and there is, to me, some manifest biases for certain ethnic groups. Aside from that there are over 101 links and growing. How can I try to get a quorum to simply make this better, more concise, etc? Looking around on Wiki I find some abominable entries- either in terms of redundant phrasing, grammar, punctuation, but even more in some flat out wrong factual areas, such as... This is dispute #2. I came across it in the cat entry 1st- the redundancy of stating that an urban legend was untrue. I then saw that the urban legend entry stated there could be true urban legends so went to the snopes.com website and pasted in its contradictory definition- which logically says that UL's, like any legend, cannot be true, by definition. It's ill worded but you can sort it out. In short, if a hallmark of a UL is that it has had information altered or distorted it is by definition not true. Logic dictates that one impure element corrupts the whole. A sea of pure water, fouled by a drop of blood is no longer pure. The same it is with truth. It can be partly true, based on a truth, etc., but it requires that qualifier- despite the idiocy of the Snopes definition. For example, if alligators were found in NYC sewers they wd no longer be a UL, but a fact. Just as gorillas were once legendary, but are now fact. The chronological qualifier of the past tense 'were', would be required; as in 'Alligators in NYC sewers were an urban legend until they were in fact discovered in 2008', or the like. Similarly, if I state 'George Washington was a tall white man who was the first President of the United States,' I am stating an unequivocal truth. However, if I change a single element, if I substitute is for was, short for tall, black for white, woman for man, second for first, Governor for President, France for US, the whole sentence is untrue, despite truths within it. It may be partly or mostly true, but it is in the whole false. Similarly, any legend- urban or not- is untrue. If proved true it ceases to be legend, and becomes fact- like the gorilla. This is basic logic, and semiotics. Another user states that it is a vital point that ULs can be untrue. I agree it's vital, but the lad has lost his head- and I don't care what some website or book says. No cited source is above logic and truth, and as a claimed encyclopedia Wiki should be held to higher standards than any old website. I would like to lay out my case before whatever powers that be on these matters. I realize this may not be as 'sexy' a battle or issue as President Bush, abortion, the war in Iraq, or the death penalty, but if this org cannot even stabd up for impeccable logic and truth, thaen what's the point? I've other points to make, but this is my basic case, and I think both are worthy. The first for simple functionality, and the second for logic. Forgive me if I seem picayune, but these seem to me to be the essence of what a source of knowledge shd be about. Please advise me. Cheers, Iago Dali 01:55, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

GNAA FAC

Now I see your points. Except for blogs (while I hate to use them as sources, but in this case we have to) and GNAA published stuff, there is no third party source. I can also see why yall think this group does not deserve an article on Wikipedia, thus why I gave up the FAC. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 16:48, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Columbine Massacre

Hey, I'm thinking of adding the article to the Tomorrow's featured article candidacy page, do you think it's ready for this? I want to get your opinion on it before I go ahead and add it, or do you think it still needs more work?--PRueda29 00:40, 09 September 2005 (UTC)

Hey, the article is going to be on the front page on September 18th. Thought you'd like to know. PRueda29 13:26 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Template:Mainpage date

Thanks for your message, I was hoping you wouldn't mind my putting this template on the article that you promoted to Featured and Main page so well. :-) hydnjo talk 22:22, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Also, as much as I would love full credit, this template is actually the result of a collaboration between Rick Block and myself.  ;-) hydnjo talk 22:35, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Many thanks for the publicity at Wikipedia talk:Tomorrow's featured article and Wikipedia:Template messages/Talk namespace. I think that it will go a long way in getting the folks already involved with a Main page push to proudly pin the templates onto the article's history (even retroactively). hydnjo talk 23:38, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Hopkins School FAC

Could you answer my questions? I would really love to fix this up, but Harro was the only one posting on the Peer review (I'd love to know what you think needs fixing). Thanks! Staxringold 01:16, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Thx 4 the Schiavo feedback -I responded, ETC.

I responded to your post, with a request for help @ the talk page of Terri, and I also have tried to take advantage of opportunities to both fix problems and answer questions/concerns of import, but -you know -I'm only one person. You do know I made a special trip to Terri Schiavo's grave -and single-handedly made the "references" section, right? -not that I worked alone on Schiavo, but anyhow, I responded at: Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates and have done my part at Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Terri_Schiavo and: Talk:Terri_Schiavo.--GordonWattsDotCom 02:29, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Kammerlader

Hi. I applogies for 'spamming' your talkpage like this, but some time ago you was helpfull with comments on one of 'my' other articles on old Norwegian rifles and I wondered if you might be interested in helping out peer reviewing the article on the Kammerlader. Thank you for your time. WegianWarrior 11:37, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Date changes

I noticed that they've suddenly changed all the dates to the british style. It's automatic. Do you know anything about this? I preffered the old style where depending on the type of article you could choose the date format (like US articles had US formats) but now, if you put [[April 20]] on the editing page, it comes out as April 20. I don't think they should force us to use that style of dates? Any idea what's going on? Or how to stop it? PRueda29

Various Invitations

We have met in passing before, but I would like to take this opportunity to invite you to join the user organizations Esperanza (dedicated to appreciating and helping fellow users) and the Institute of Wikipediology (dedicated to providing resources on the Wikipedia Community and examining the communities strengths and weaknesses), as well as Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Regions and the User category Category:U.S. Southern Wikipedians (there is also a Southern notice board but it is inactive. Please let me know if you are interested in any of these things. Thanks. -JCarriker 21:41, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Dixiecrat

In the recent interaction on Talk:Dixiecrat, you agreed with me on the talk page, but then reverted mainly what I saw as the least problematic of the recent edits (in fact, some of what you reverted I think was fine). I've now edited to what I think is correct. You may want to check and see if we are in agreement. -- Jmabel | Talk 03:21, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, my bad on that. I didn't edit them the way I meant to. Thanks for catching the mistake. --SouthernNights 23:58, 18 October 2005 (UTC)