User talk:Allreet

Welcome

Please feel free to post your comments and I will reply as soon as I can. Thank you. Allreet (talk) 23:24, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Big 200.63.44.117 (talk) 16:40, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

List of train songs

What an absolutely tremendous article. I only wish I'd stumbled across it sooner. Thank you for all your hard work on it. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 23:59, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Callsign suffixes

Callsigns issued by the F.C.C. sometimes DO have suffixes: -FM, -TV, -LP; in fact, the callsigns with -LP suffixes continue to display them on the list of community radio stations page! Please see 47CFR2.302. I saw nothing on the talk page about deleting said suffixes. The suffixes indicated in the callsign field should be exactly what is issued by the F.C.C., & not an incomplete callsign!

@Stereorock: Callsigns do not include FM or AM. The FCC assigns the four letters after approving a license, and the AM/FM designation is tied to the station's frequency, not its callsign identity. Having gone through the process of starting a station, I am absolutely certain of that. In any case, please see the Wikipedia article on the subject, specifically the section on Broadcasting: Call sign#Broadcasting. Accordingly, I would appreciate if you would revert your most recent revert. I apologize for not posting my Talk page explanation sooner, but I got called away while composing it. Thank you. Allreet (talk) 00:05, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Very often a station's FCC assigned call sign does have an "-FM", "-TV", "-LP" suffix. For the applicable regulation see here:[1]. The following links are some examples from the FCC:[2][3][4][5] Station articles are not titled arbitrarily, they are titled according to the station's official call sign.--Tdl1060 (talk) 01:57, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

@Stereorock:, @Tdl1060: and @DavidMCEddy:: Well I'll be. I stand corrected and all I can say is "live and learn". I checked 50+ stations on the FCC database, and while a station's "Callsign:" listing never includes FM, the additional listing of the call letters on the FM Query page is consistent with the station titles in Wikipedia. I initially thought this might be a random aberration of the FCC's website, but the FCC regulation doc Tdl1060 provided explains it all. BTW, I had added other "re-directs" to the wikilinks in the List of Community Radio Stations, so I'll remove these to allow the official callsigns to display. However, the sentence in the lede needs to be modified. Also, to keep everything clear, I'd like to re-add the AM/FM designations to the Frequency listing, as long as nobody objects. I'd also like to add a note on this to the thread on the list's Talk page to make sure others know the issue is resolved. Thanks to all. Allreet (talk) 02:49, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

No objection from me & one suggestion-the band could be added as another sortable field, which when clicked would group all of the A.M.s, then the F.M.s. I think the next thing is we need to make sure those callsigns are the true calls, lest we have another KAZI/KAZI-FM incident. Out of curiosity, which F.C.C. database were you checking? Thanks! Stereorock (talk) 08:30, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

@Stereorock: I used the links provided by the "FM station data|WXXX" template under External Links in the stations' WP articles. I have no idea which FCC database this links to, though the current URL is "https://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/fmq?call=WYEP", so my guess is the information is up to date. Note that the "call" in the URL does not reflect the "official" callsign so you do have to visit the FM Query page to determine whether the sign includes FM or not. If the Query pages are reliable as far as callsigns are concerned, I'm willing to verify all of them on the community radio list, which would probably take less than an hour. Allreet (talk) 15:40, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

@Allreet: I understand now where you were only seeing the base callsigns. What it is is Wikipedia’s shortcut, and I believe Radio Locator also only lists the base callsign. The F.C.C. F.M. query is up-to-date. There is also the CDBS, but I believe that is getting replaced on the F.C.C.’s site with a more modern database. If you want to verify the calls, please do! Stereorock (talk) 16:21, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

@Stereorock: The FM Query page lists four-letter signs at the top left under "Callsign:" and then the official callsign on the bolded line below. This line also includes the state abbreviation, city of license and service designation, which displays as a red button on the right. Clicking the button takes you to the station's CDBS (FCC's Consolidated DataBase System) page where you can further confirm the callsign along with other basic station data. Allreet (talk) 16:58, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Want to publish draft

I'm creating a new article on a blind street musician who was one of country music's earliest recorded artists, and I inadvertently set up the new page through the draft process: Draft:Ernest Thompson (musician). I'm an experienced editor but am not familiar with this process. Since the artist is unquestionably notable and the article meets other WP standards (citations, structure, writing style, etc.), I see no reason to wait for the draft to be reviewed. So my question is:

What is the procedure for publishing a draft without waiting for review?

Thank you. Allreet (talk) 17:28, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

You are free to move the draft yourself by using the "Move" function as long as there is nothing that needs to be deleted to make way for it(there doesn't seem to be). The Move function is under the "more" tab at the top(if you are using the full desktop version). You should be 95-100% confident that it would survive an Articles for Deletion discussion(should one arise). My advice would be to allow the review process to play out so you get other eyes on it now, rather than later- unless you have had other drafts accepted in the past, but you may do as you wish. 331dot (talk) 17:50, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

331dot I understand the need for "eyes" but also see no reason the article could come up for deletion based on what the sources have to say as well as my experience with WP. My confidence, then, is 100%. Thanks for the info on the posting procedure as well as your exceptionally quick response.Allreet (talk) 22:42, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Sorry

I reverted your edit on the Blues page. I did not see your discussion at first. Sorry about that. NW1223(^{Howl at me}/_{My hunts}) 03:28, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

@NW1223: Is okay. Thanks for letting me know. Allreet (talk) 04:32, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

RfC

Thanks for putting this up instead of going back and forth again. Maybe we can hold off on doing that at the RfC except in replies to others, which I hope it gets. I'm surprised more editors didn't enter the discussion, as the page would seem to be one of the top pages in U.S. history. Looked at your articles when I thanked you for the Phil Ochs film page, really nice articles (you've given Bob Dylan, who has just organized a large tour, nice presentations of Wikipedia). Ochs was a large influence on me for lots of years and signed my draft card (which I soon burned) on the first anniversary of the '68 convention. Met him again just after that event as he was going into the Haymarket Bar at the Hilton, could have joined him for a drink (duh, just realized that I could have and had pineapple juice or something, what a maroon) but was only 19 (duh). The Founders were the Yippies of their time, and built something so great it took us to the Moon and freed people to create and act on their own thoughts and ideals. Nice to meet you in the midst of their memory. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:47, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Randy, yeah, the ping pong game was getting tiresome, and as you alluded earlier, distracting from more fruitful tasks. Good to hear we have quite a bit in common. I went to the same military academy as Ochs, though a few years after he left so I never met him, nor of course Dylan. I did get to interview their fellow folkies Eric Andersen and Peter Yarrow decades later. I also got to see a draft card burning (btw, good for you) during my first protest rally while going to college in Boston - by the editor of the BU News who went on to found the Liberation News Service. I don't know if I'd describe the Founding Fathers as Yippies, though for sure they were protesters, ones who truly put their lives and fortunes on the line. Back to the RfC, I hope to hear from editors who know more about this than I do, so my intention is to sit back and let them have their say. Allreet (talk) 20:25, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Well, at least in the vicinity of Yippies if Yippies had money and political influence and could actually sit in a few rooms and come up with documents that created arguably the most interesting individual and group actions and discussions in world history. Those kind of Yippies. Phil Ochs was a major yippie and put his voice and career (media blacklisted him when he could have been a contender per Dylan) because of his protest and truth-driven chosen direction to speak up about civil rights and against the Vietnam War when neither was as yet fashionable or allowed. Anyway, that's kind of what I meant, but mainly talking about the similarities of the type of activist energy involved in both groups. Sam Adams would have gotten along well with Abbie Hoffman, I would think, and make the basis of a fine play (first act with the two of them on stage in discussion within a swing of emotions, and then some of their friends begin to drop by, and by the time Mama Cass sings you'd have Ben Franklin hitting on Joan Baez and Mary Travers). The RfC, I'll watch it as well but will probably comment if I think a commentable inaccuracy has entered the discussion. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:36, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

The idea of Ben hitting on Joan or Mary is hilarious, as is your allusion to the woman challenged by gravity. Sam Adams as a Yippie or getting along with Abbie? Either is very plausible. Dylan went apolitical quite early on - he only did two "protest" albums. Phil was king of that realm, but as you probably know developed profound emotional problems. At the military school I went to, in Staunton, Virginia, the Government professor, who was a legendary for the difficulty of his course, described Phil as the most brilliant student he had ever taught. Allreet (talk) 23:20, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

The drinking and the mugging that ruined Ochs' vocal chords didn't help, and his downhill slide was as extreme as they come. He sang about it early on though, left a couple full and creative albums of a psyche on the way out before he took the whole trip. There's that moment where he got to the door of the EST seminar that Jerry Rubin had talked him into taking, and he turned around and went to a bar. Seems like it could be a key scene in an Ochs' film (it'll come sometime, they've talked of it for years and Sean Penn owned the rights for awhile and wanted to play Ochs but aged out, and later there was talk of k.d. lang starring). Thanks, a play and semi-musical doesn't seem far-fetched. Dylan made a choice, and he wouldn't be exactly the Dylan we know if he had attended all the marches and did the full Woody (Guthrie and Ochs' archives are together). Randy Kryn (talk) 23:44, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi! thx for your message concerning the Dahmer RFC. I'm a total newb, sry to ask: can you rearrange everything so it's ok? this would be a great help... many thx in advance. H8eternal (talk) 08:53, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

'anks!

'anks for poin'ing ou' United Colonies, a fine and impor. page no memory of seeing before (edi'ed awhile ago wi'hou' realizing i's impor'ance). Did some good edi's already, maybe you can have a look and add a 'hing or 2. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:25, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

@User:Randy Kryn JSTOR is an excellent research site. It doesn't seem to be as strong on colonial history, but it does offer articles from a range of very reliable sources. I'll review your edits as suggested. Allreet (talk) 17:49, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

@User:Randy KrynYou may want to take a look at "Repairing the Breach: Puritan Expansion, Commonwealth Formation, and the Origins of the United Colonies of New England, 1630-1643." I know this relates to the New England Confederation - so no doubt this would be a good source for that page - but it raises this: If the term was used first in the 1600s in New England, doesn't that explain its "colloquial" use, its availability, a century later? IOW, the term had a precedent, didn't spring from the ether. A source making the direct tie would be preferred, but it's mention can still be made as a possibility, actually should be, regarding the term's origin in the Thirteen Colonies page. You would know better than I. Allreet (talk) 18:26, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Why isn't the Lee Resolution mentioned in the United Colonies page? The United Colonies is discussed at length in the Resolution's page. Shouldn't that be reciprocal, at least mentioned? I see Adams is mentioned but not Lee. Just questions "out of the mouth of a babe". Allreet (talk) 18:41, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

'hanks. I dunno. Very good analysis of adding Lee Resolu'ion, I knew you'd come up wi'h good ideas. Maybe discussion on page's discussion page (coining a phrase). Randy Kryn (talk) 19:22, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

 Done as to Lee. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:46, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Here's a few presents, hoping for their speedy return: . Only t'sing. Allreet (talk) 20:18, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Scooped 'em up. Chris'mas in February! Randy Kryn (talk) 21:08, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Ho ho ho. I added the Dugre paper to the Talk page of the Talk: New England Confederation article for anyone who wants to use it for research. It's already formatted for citation or "further reading" use. Either one of which can be copied for use in the United Colonies article. Just a heads-up. Allreet (talk) 21:20, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

On another topic, please address article issues on the article talk page and not on personal talk pages, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:12, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

@User:Randy Kryn You raised an accusation in your personal talk page regarding the RfC issue. I'm not going to address that on the same page with the RfC itself.

I'm not sure what to do with your latest RfC posting. While it's understandable you were mistaken regarding the citation you provided, your explanation seems to conflict with what you posted a day earlier in an edit summary. All such discussions could negatively affect the RfC process for no purpose. Allreet (talk) 08:17, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

My edit summary was in good faith, I misrecalled your words and thought you meant you analyzed the removed source much earlier and I'd forgotten. Added it at Association because I thought the entire sentence at foundingfaddas was included in the cite and not just half. I hope you realize I've enjoyed meeting you over these discussions, hold no wikigrudge (a new word?), and since our 45 round fight began (ah the good ole days when boxers would go bare-knuckle for as many rounds as it took) I've upped my already good mental map and timeline of the early days of the founding and benefited greatly in knowledge gained. Declaration and Resolves of the First Continental Congress and Declaration of Rights and Grievances, major article topics, lack data about authorship and I'd like to ask you to add a good eye (haven't done a dive into sources, will leave a talk page note on both pages). Yours in Werther, Randy Kryn (talk) 12:57, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

The proper place for discussing the revert was either in the RfC where I explained why the citation was not valid or in another section of the talk page. Instead you created an edit (that changed nothing) solely for the purpose of entering the following edit summary: "answer to last edit summary, reminded me I was told long ago in our never-ending discussion, had forgotten".

I said nothing in the revert's edit summary that related to our previous discussions other than my concerns about the changes you were making to articles under discussion: "reverted irrelevant citation...the editor was informed of this and added it anyway...meanwhile, article's contentions are under RfC and he should refrain from making related edits". My own error here is that I was incorrect regarding the timing involved; that is, you added the citation before I explained its irrelevance, so I fully understand now that you were mistaken about what the citation actually supported when you posted it. No hard feelings are in order then and hope there never will be. Allreet (talk) 14:31, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Some very good topics being discussed, and I'll always have great respect for editors who have such interest in America's founding and founders. An era of world history that emerged from the minds and actions of men in collaboration expanding individual and group freedoms. Two shakes of a lambs tail later, we were on the Moon. It's enjoyable learning more about the era, thanks for inspiring me to put even more attention on a large group of pages and leading me to others. Wikipedia really has a fine America founding collection. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:14, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello thanks for the help

Let me know what to we do next? --Likhasik (talk) 17:53, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

I posted a lengthy list of topics for getting started on your User talk:Likhasik page. The first thing to do - as an exercise and for practical purposes - is to create your user page. The instructions are on the list of topics I provided on your talk page. Once you set up your user page, you can test editing there or in your "Sandbox". The sandbox is a sub-page for "play" - that is, to just try things and see how they look. It's also a place where you can "draft" materials, either entire articles or sections of text you'd like to add to existing articles. But you can't access your sandbox until you set up your user page. So please start there. If you have any problems doing that, let's see if we can connect in real time. One way to do that is to "set an appointment" at a mutually agreeable time and then text back and forth on your talk page. So for example, we could agree to "meet" at 3 p.m. Eastern Standard Time (New York time) this Sunday. Or whenever.

I'm going to copy this to your talk page so that you have it there as well. Allreet (talk) 23:13, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Link broken?

Your Library of Congress link to the booklet not working for me, may be broken or my browser is from the Ice Age. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:34, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Hmmm. If it's the link I think you're referring to, it links to LOC's primary doc page: https://memory.loc.gov/ammem/help/constRedir.html There's a weird redirect at the end of the url, and based on other LOC pages, there's a big difference in format, so most likely this is an earlier page that they're still maintaining. However, I'm unable to access it through the current menu structure, so maybe it's headed to dead-link heaven. Meanwhile, I found a note on their migration of the "American Memory" collections to: https://www.loc.gov/collections/ Unfortunately, this is like a gateway to the Pacific, not a very helpful place to find things, the choices being vast. I'll have to hunt down a more useful link to support what I was referring to regarding "primary documents". Allreet (talk) 13:54, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

They seriously revamped their online collections. They previously had a really funky, outdated format. Stuff is still accessible but many links seem to be broken. Best I can do for now is this page: https://www.loc.gov/search/?fa=partof:u.s.+national+archives+and+records+administration&sp=1 Don't bother going to page 2. Not as relevant. I'll keep looking but my guess is they no longer have a central page as before or like the ones for the Archives and Congress.gov. Allreet (talk) 14:09, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Maybe Kamala was put in charge of it along with her full-time part-time no time job of managing the border. I like the Babe Ruth link on page 1. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:20, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

@Randy Kryn: I may have not understood your initial question. Were you referring to the LOC citation in the FF List section? I fixed the citation by closing a wikilink to the publisher (LOC). The link to the LOC page should be okay now. Allreet (talk) 17:10, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, LOC link. 'hanks, will look later. And thanks for the Peale link, will check it out too. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:28, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Gotta tell you this

Saw your masterpiece, List of train songs. When I was a kid I had a record of a train starting up, moving, going faster and faster and eventually pulling into a station. A two-sided record. I'd play it over and over. Long afterwards I met the father of a girl I was seeing, and he had a great miniature train layout and train collections. During his showing me his things I mentioned the record, and darn if he was the person who created it. A small world moment. Randy Kryn (talk) 21:35, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. This is one of my favorite genres and the article, one of the best moments I've had here. The original was cut and pasted from elsewhere, was repetitive and had no sources. It now includes 800 songs, a similar number of citations, lord knows how many artists, and about 90,000 views per year. I fantasize that most of these visitors are deejays. Allreet (talk) 22:40, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm sure train hobbyists love the page, and there are lots of train hobbyists. I've known a couple, and assume songs would be an area of interest. Nice work. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:31, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

DRN

If you have any questions about the process in the DRN discussion, address them to the moderator, User:Casualdejekyll. I am a participating editor and have no special authority. Either ask your questions at DRN, or ask the moderator on their talk page, or don't ask the questions. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:38, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

All reet" rather than "All right

Just thought I would let you know that people in Yorkshire, UK where I was born and brought up say "All reet" rather than "All right". --Bduke (talk) 07:20, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

@Bduke: That's so cool to know. My Wikipedia name is taken from the name of a music program I've hosted on a public radio station for the past 20 years. It was picked by the person who started the program in 1995. I "inherited" the show and its title song six years later when the original host moved on. He's far more knowledgeable about music than I am, which means he also knows more about Cab Calloway's song. But I'm pretty sure he doesn't know the "real world" use of the term - or a least the one you just related. Now I have a good story to tell him - and my listeners. Thanks immensely. Allreet (talk) 13:22, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Precious

Six years!

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 22:13, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. Allreet (talk) 02:25, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Discussion about ratings of states

You may be interested in the discussion at Talk:Vermont#CNBC rating of states. HopsonRoad (talk) 12:57, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 17

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Nat Schachner, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Attorney.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Fixed Allreet (talk) 06:12, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

When did the Bob Dylan World Tour 1966 start?

I've started a topic at Talk:Bob_Dylan_World_Tour_1966#Tour_dates, and thought you might be interested in contributing to the discussion. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 23:08, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. I'll be sure to respond. Allreet (talk) 18:47, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Edit warring

You've been edit warring at Constitution of the United States § Preamble, making the same changes [6] [7] [8] after I opposed them. Please stop this disruptive behavior and discuss on the talk page instead.      — Freoh 23:24, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Assume good faith

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors. I don't appreciate the comments you made about me at WP:NPOV/N § How should the Preamble to the United States Constitution be neutrally presented?.      — Freoh 23:46, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Freoh: I agree and changed what I had written as soon as I caught it (before I saw your post). My apologies. And I appreciate your letting me know. While we obviously are at opposite poles on the issues here, I believe you've been very civil throughout. Allreet (talk) 00:00, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

New book article

Looks good, and I'll probably watch the linked youtube lecture. First I've heard of the book, and am wondering if James Bevel is mentioned in the chapter on the Civil Rights Movement, talk about key omissions from most history books and discussions. Could you let me know when you receive your copy? Thanks. A belated Happy New Year, and what's interesting to me, as it seems much longer ago, is that our initial discussion of Galloway and the founding documents (Werther etc.) occurred just a year ago. Yes, seems longer, but a lot was said and much accomplished since. Been a nice and continuing ride, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:10, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Will do—I'll let you know what's in the Civil Rights essay.

I think it's important to watch some of these lectures, and particularly this one. Skimming books for passages that support what we'd like to add is not scholarship. Because of the vast body of literature that's available, even reading a few dozen works doth not a historian make. Frankly, the more I learn—and admittedly my journey's been a short one—the more I question my ability to do any of this. So while spending a few hours with top constitutional experts (Amar is one of the most authoritative) may not be equivalent to a college course, these focused overviews are worth their weight, plus being a dweeb I find them immensely entertaining. Allreet (talk) 14:40, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, and a good analysis for educational purposes. I'll get back to you when I watch the youtube link, and am wondering (don't tell me) if he's going to pull a surprise name as the constitution's father. Nice tease! Randy Kryn (talk) 14:48, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

:) Allreet (talk) 14:50, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

February 2023

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors. I've warned you before, and you're continuing to accuse me of acting in bad faith.      — Freoh 17:54, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

I have been assuming good faith throughout, except in the one instance above (acknowledged under Assume Good Faith). Thus, your accusation that I'm continuing to accuse you of acting in bad faith is misplaced. I suggested reading a relevant guideline that you apparently are not aware of. As for the guideline, it states that advocating for a POV can be damaging to WP and disruptive to the editing process.

Meanwhile, in our discussion over a footnote you added to the Preamble in the Constitution article, you indicated your intention was to make a point clear to readers. I doubt you understand that this is advocating for a position in violation of WP:NPOV and the related guideline I cited, WP:Civil POV pushing. As for the latest development, your solution is that I remove the Preamble's text from the article. Really?

In closing, I'll cite another section of the WP:Civil POV pushing guideline: The requirement to assume good faith is not an excuse for uncooperative behavior. There is a limit to how long good faith can be extended... Which is not to say personal attacks are ever justified, but it does mean at some point in a drawn out dispute we can be more aggressive in our responses. Allreet (talk) 22:31, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

As I interpreted it, your comment accused me of being a civil POV pusher, who according to that page argue politely and in compliance with Wikipedia civility principles, but also with bad faith. My goal is clarifying factual information, in accordance with Wikipedia's neutrality guidelines, not advocating for a position.      — Freoh 20:33, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Those are your interpretations. The Civil POV Pushing page mentions many behaviors that aren't tied to bad faith, but are more the product of subjective, unconscious tendencies. I won't cite what I meant specifically but instead suggest you read through the bulleted points to see what might apply. I'll do so as well, because I'm no doubt guilty of a few myself. Allreet (talk) Allreet (talk) 20:06, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Wikilawyering

I notice that you accused me of wikilawyering. According to that page, any accusation of wikilawyering should include a brief explanation justifying use of the term. Though I do sometimes cite Wikipedia policies, I always try to do so in a way that respects the underlying principles. Most of our recent arguing has been my attempt to present a more neutral point of view. Some of your recent comments suggest to me that you do not respect Wikipedia's third pillar.      — Freoh 20:45, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

I was referring to all disputes, not just this one and used Wikilawyering as a broad term for how the application of our fuzzy policies allows discussions to go on interminably, without resolution. But to understand how it might apply here, in a less egregious form, the guidelines say this: The types of wiki-lawyering vary from mild commonplace even inadvertent behavior to quite severe deliberate misuses of the Wikipiedia policies... IMO, that applies to our discussions, though Civil POV Pushing is more apropos in terms of specifics. BTW, I don't find your last two accusations of my violating AGF (WP's fourth pillar) particularly civil, that is, consistent with AGF. Allreet (talk) 20:46, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

In my second observation of Freoh today regarding the dating of the origins of science I got the impression that civil POV pushing may be taking place as well. Everyone has a perspective though, and (usually) feels that their way of interpreting the world is closest to the truth. —DIYeditor (talk) 21:07, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, though a clarification is in order. As editors, we're supposed to lean over backwards to remain objective, applying the same discipline as journalists and scholars in documenting what sources say. What you're referring to applies to political arguments, which can't help but be subjective. While I generally agree with Freoh's political views, we part ways over his use of sources and his characterizations (particularly powerful white men). Allreet (talk) 21:38, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Missing signature

Hi Allreet. Just wanted to mention that after your last edits on the Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 February 1 page (just before User:Kbdank71 edited) you apparently forgot to add your signature. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:08, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks...I'll fix it. Best wishes. Allreet (talk) 04:23, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

I was just coming by the mention the same thing. Check out my newest edit. Gwillhickers, maybe you can follow up with an image of a stamp? Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 05:20, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your determination and logical discussion points at the founder's homes category. I thought it should have been closed as Keep before the second relisting. It's usually the second relisting which devolves into scuffles and new see-if-this-sticks arguments and you continued to thoughtfully reply. Nice work. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:16, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Randy, my pleasure. I must say the disputes here can be annoying. I just saw my dermatologist last week, and we joked about songs that fit what he did. I suggested a couple classics—"First Cut Is the Deepest", "Beauty Is Only Skin Deep", "I Got You Under My Skin"—so before my follow-up visit today, I looked up some other songs and found the WP category Songs About Diseases and Disorders. Among the listings was the Disney tune "Jo Jo the Dog Faced Boy", which qualifies because Jo Jo suffered from hypertrichosis, abnormal hair growth. Okay, fine, except editors are up in arms over Homes of the Founding Fathers. Really? Allreet (talk) 00:01, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

I can picture the album now. Annoying disputes annoy. But disputes about the founders and their place in American and world history are inevitable and those who wish to lessen the emphasis on what they did will continue. The deletion attempt of the main article may have been a good thing as it shows that the topic is reputable and definable. Randy Kryn (talk) 09:56, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Read the article you were working on with interest. It presents the mystery of button, button, who's got the button? Randy Kryn (talk) 04:09, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Balance between democracy and aristocracy

Hey, you asked a question at Talk:Constitution of the United States § Discussion that I don't think is super relevant to the RfC proposal, and the walls of text there have already gotten out of hand, so I'll answer you here. This is the source that I'm using:

The American War of Independence had been fought in the name of "the people," and all the framers felt that the "whole body of the people" had to be consulted at some point to make their revolution legitimate—but the entire purpose of the Constitution was to ensure that this form of consultation was extremely limited, lest the "horrors of democracy" ensue. At the time, the common assumption among educated people was that there were three elementary principles of government that were held to exist, in different measure, in all known human societies: monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy. The framers agreed with ancient political theorists who held that the Roman Republic represented the most perfect balance between them. Republican Rome had two consuls (elected by the Senate) who filled the monarchical function, a permanent patrician class of senators, and, finally, popular assemblies with limited powers of their own. These assemblies selected from among aristocratic candidates for magistracies, and also chose two tribunes, who represented the interest of the plebeian class; tribunes could not vote or even enter the Senate (they sat just outside the doorway) but they were granted veto power over senatorial decisions.

The American Constitution was designed to achieve a similar balance. The monarchical function was to be filled by a president elected by the Senate; the Senate was meant to represent the aristocratic interests of wealth, and Congress was to represent the democratic element. Its purview was largely to be confined to raising and spending money, since the Revolution had, after all, been fought on the principle of "no taxation without representation." Popular assemblies were eliminated altogether. The American colonies, of course, lacked any hereditary aristocracy. But by electing a temporary monarch, and temporary representatives, the framers argued they could instead create what they sometimes explicitly called a kind of "natural aristocracy," drawn from the educated and propertied classes who had the same sober concern for the public welfare that they felt characterized the Roman senate of Cicero and Cincinnatus.

It is worthwhile, I think, to dwell on this point for a moment. When the framers spoke of an "aristocracy" they were not using the term metaphorically. They were well aware that they were creating a new political form that fused together democratic and aristocratic elements. In all previous European history, elections had been considered—as Aristotle had originally insisted—the quintessentially aristocratic mode of selecting public ocials. In elections, the populace chooses between a small number of usually professional politicians who claim to be wiser and more educated than everyone else, and chooses the one they think the best of all. (This is what "aristocracy" literally means: "rule of the best.") Elections were ways that mercenary armies chose their commanders, or nobles vied for the support of future retainers. The democratic approach—employed widely in the ancient world, but also in Renaissance cities like Florence—was lottery, or, as it was sometimes called, "sortition." Essentially, the procedure was to take the names of anyone in the community willing to hold public office, and then, after screening them for basic competence, choose their names at random. This ensured all competent and interested parties had an equal chance of holding public office. It also minimalized factionalism, since there was no point making promises to win over key constituencies if one was to be chosen by lot. (Elections, by contract, fostered factionalism, for obvious reasons.) It’s striking that while in the generations immediately before the French and American revolutions there was a lively debate among Enlightenment thinkers like Montesquieu and Rousseau on the relative merits of election and lottery, those creating the new revolutionary constitutions in the 1770s and 1780s did not consider using lotteries at all. The only use they found for lottery was in the jury system, and this was allowed to stand largely because it was already there, a tradition inherited from English common law. And even the jury system was compulsory, not voluntary; juries were (and still are) regularly informed that their role is not to consider the justice of the law, but only to judge the facts of evidence.
— Graeber, David (2013). "The Mob Begin to Think and to Reason: The Covert History of Democracy". The Democracy Project: A History, a Crisis, a Movement. New York. ISBN 978-0-8129-9356-1. OCLC 769425385.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)

I think that there are aspects of this argument on which reliable sources probably disagree, which is why I'm not arguing that it be stated this explicitly in wikivoice.      — Freoh 11:58, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate your sharing this and taking my request for a source seriously. Not being familiar with Graeber, I find his analysis very interesting and probably valid up to a point since the framers were well aware of the history he mentions. Beyond a doubt, they did struggle with the question of monarchy and aristocracy versus republicanism and democracy. Yet at every turn they pointedly rejected the former. While the founders knew ancient history very well, they also were painfully aware of what had happened in England and wanted to avoid it.

As far as I can see, there are few elements in the Constitution that could be considered aristocratic. The Electoral College is one, but there are other reasons for that (communications at the time: how could someone in New Hampshire vote knowledgeably for a candidate in Maryland?) Where exactly, then, is the balance? Graeber writes mostly about measures that were discussed but pointedly rejected. I did read a bit further and saw he considers our current legislative process peopled with aristocrats (lawyers) elected by the rich. I agree that's how it's turned out, but not because it's written into the Constitution or was anticipated by the framers, even though about half of them were lawyers. If their intent was aristocracy or a balance, why did they vote down the model proposed by Pinckney and Morris that would have given us a House of Commons balanced by a House of Lords?

In any event, no major scholar I know of agrees with Graeber' conclusions—from a historical perspective. That doesn't mean he's wrong, but it does put him outside the mainstream, which should be our focus. BTW, I read his introduction and will probably order a copy. I was also saddened by his death, especially given his age. Allreet (talk) 19:53, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Don't bludgeon the process

I feel like you're bludgeoning at Talk:Constitution of the United States. I've explained several times now that facts precede opinions on Wikipedia, and you're continuing to post walls of text arguing for the exclusion of facts (the low number of people who voted in favor of ratification) because they cast doubt on your opinions (the document's authority as resting with "We the People"). Could you please stop? I find this behavior disruptive.      — Freoh 02:26, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

I've simply responded to your posts, and I've been civil. Could I have been more succinct? No doubt, though the issues involved are not that simple and new ones are being introduced every few days. As for whether I should stop, if you're going to file a Request for Comment, expect to get some comments, and when you do, please respond to them on the appropriate Talk page. Allreet (talk) 07:02, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't have an issue with your civility or the fact that you're commenting. It is the fact that you are continuing to make the same point, repeatedly arguing to prioritize opinions over facts without explaining why.      — Freoh 13:08, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Again, please confine your comments to the Constitution's Talk page. Allreet (talk) 16:39, 28 February 2023 (UTC) --->

April 2023

I've gone ahead with the re-nomination with Cmguy of the James Madison article in which you've shown some interest. It would be nice to see your support/oppose comments possibly if time allows. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:33, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Shall do. Thanks for the alert. Allreet (talk) 00:37, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

There's no rush on this, and if time allows maybe you could leave some of your thoughts on support/oppose for the article on the FAC assessment page currently in progress. After this week-end is fine if your schedule allows. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:04, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm reviewing the Slavery section and found a sentence that would best be removed. After a detailed discussion of Madison's changing views, a paragraph ends with "Madison nevertheless thought that peaceful co-existence between the two racial groups could eventually be achieved in the long run." The source (Burstein 2013, p. 201) indicates this was based on a 1789 memorandum, meaning it preceded what had just been discussed about the evolution of his thinking. In fact, the paragraph's second sentence flatly contradicts this: "he believed that blacks and whites were unlikely to co-exist peacefully", which was his view later in life. Allreet (talk) 16:48, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Nice of you to make those comments on Madison. The coordinators on the FAC page are currently counting support/oppose opinions on the FAC assessment page, and they are not able to find a full statement of either support/oppose from your comment statements. Are there any more edits that could be added to the article which might help to gain your support for the article on the FAC assessment page? ErnestKrause (talk) 16:05, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

I added Support in my comment on May 13. Apologies for the delay. I must add that your work and Cmguy777's on the FAC updates have been prodigious. Looking at the long list of responses to various editors' input and the changes required, I believe the effort that went into this is amazing in terms of both the number of hours and your joint dedication to WP's editorial standards. Sincere thanks. Allreet (talk) 14:47, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks.Cmguy777 (talk) 15:43, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Some men...

Hello, and wanted to both thank you for your considerable research and comments at the U.S. Constitution talk page and to point out that, if you have minutes saved within your day (do you really need to spend time eating or brushing your teeth when you could be editing?) please have a look at All men are created equal, especially its slavery section as well as the criticism section (where Howard Zinn again plays the favored role). Randy Kryn (talk) 12:25, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

More or less, the article isn't too bad. Highlighting Zinn and his criticism of sexism is facile, though it's not worth arguing about however lame-brained it might be. Also of interest regarding the Criticisms section is that much is based on references to works that were contemporaneous with the Declaration and were published in England. Nothing written in England at the time would have looked kindly on America's independence plus slavery was still legal there, so the sources criticizing the hypocrisy are themselves somewhat hypocritical.

In the Slavery section, I added a tag for more citations since some statements are made without cites while others that do have cites include material not covered by the sources. I also found a footnote earlier that claims Jefferson's "created equal" may have influenced Thomas Paine's Common Sense. It would have to have been the other way around since Paine's pamphlet was published in January 1776. I'll change the note to reflect this possibility (even though either way we don't have a source). One more observation: some of the article's sources are extremely obscure, making verification all but impossible.

Hey, thanks for referring this. It led me to the companion article Consent of the governed which dovetails with "We, the people" and the Preamble. Might prove useful later. Allreet (talk) 15:40, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Oh, and it would help to hear your opinion. The feedback might sharpen mine. Allreet (talk) 15:48, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

And this just in. I found a source worth adding to the Criticisms section to offset what the "Zinns" of the world hop on. Jack Rakove, Pulitzer Prize winning author from Stanford, points out it was only later, long after the Revolution, that people began looking at the phrase as a statement about individual equality, whereas at the time, it referred to "all people" being equal, thereby possessing the same right to form nations as others had done. I know that's nuanced so here, read for yourself. This and other thoughts in the article relate to issues tied to the Constitution and Preamble. It also shows to go that criticisms such as Zinn's are often anachronistic potshots whose appeal is far more visceral than substantial. Allreet (talk) 16:22, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for these long notes, I'll get more into it soon. Nice work on the pages and sources, and on countering the Zinn material (he often overlooked or slanted the obvious, on purpose or not, but he did put a lot of public interest onto historical facts-even if some were not facts!). Randy Kryn (talk) 22:27, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Constitution of the U.S.: Work hasn't gone unnoticed

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		Awarded to Allreet for his extensive contributions, improvements and defense of the Constitution of the United States article. – Gwillhickers (talk) 03:37, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

-- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:37, 7 May 2023 (UTC) Allreet (talk) 12:06, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Seven years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:33, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Edit warring 2

Allreet, please stop the edit warring on Bibliography of the United States Constitution. Any contested major deletion needs to be discussed, first, and a consensus established. Simply reverting a second time without a two way discussion is provoking an edit war. Please do the fair thing and discuss matters, as I've done on the Talk page, which you have not responded to thus far.. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:31, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, I had every right to make the changes I did. I did so to demonstrate again how these listings could be condensed. You ignored my previous suggestion, entirely, except to say that the Bibliography's length did not concern you. Well, 300,000 bytes with no end in sight is of concern to me. I also asked in my edit summary that we discuss these changes, and you ignored that as well. So "warring", then, appears to be in the eyes of the beholder, and frankly, find your accusation inflammatory, meaning uncivil. Allreet (talk) 22:21, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

The issue of length and author masks was well addressed. Having an opinion doesn't justify exceeding the The three-revert rule. Exceeding the 3RR is only justified when there are out right errors, vandalism or policy violations. All you did was state your opinion and then turned around and made multiple reverts. This is not the first time I've had to deal with your multiple reverts, which is the only thing uncivil. All I did was restore the material I had added. This was simply an academic debate, nothing pressing or controversial and not a big deal until you decided to make it so. Disappointing that you had to resort to reverting. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:15, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:54, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Deletion discussion about Bibliography of slavery in the United States

Hello, Allreet, and welcome to Wikipedia. I edit here too, under the username Edward-Woodrow, and I thank you for your contributions.

I wanted to let you know, however, that I've started a discussion about whether an article that you created, Bibliography of slavery in the United States, should be deleted, as I am not sure that it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia in its current form. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bibliography of slavery in the United States.

You might like to note that such discussions usually run for seven days and are not votes. And, our guide about effectively contributing to such discussions is worth a read. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Edward-Woodrow}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 21:23, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Dimadick, Gwillhickers, Jengod, and Rjensen: I would appreciate your providing a response to the above AfD. To access the AfD page in question, please use the link Edward-Woodrow has provided. Thank you. Allreet (talk) 01:49, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

No viable or pressing reason has been presented that would justify the deletion of this great work, (not "suitable"??) so until such time, we should not even consider its outright and wholesale deletion. As much as I have reservations about how slavery is often presented in its 'flat earth' and rather narrow perspective, often by those who are trying to demoralize the United States, this abundance of sources, for better or worse, should remain. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:42, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

"suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia in its current form" But we have already started discussions about changing the format to present various subtopics instead of a chronological list. Dimadick (talk) 07:03, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I'm now starting the "great divide" (offline). Gwillhickers may have missed our discussion, so he's correct if "suitable" means "passable". But as the Scarlet Pimpernel said to the king when someone praised his new royal garments as being "not so bad": "Nothing is so bad as something that's not so bad". We can do better. Allreet (talk) 12:17, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Seeking closure on MOS:CAPS Founding Fathers capitalization issue

@Bagumba, BarrelProof, Blueboar, Dicklyon, Gawaon, Gwillhickers, HTGS, InfiniteNexus, Khajidha, Popcornfud, Randy Kryn, and Tony1: Please see the new subsection (Time to Move On) I've added at the end of the Founding Fathers of the United States capitalization discussion on the WP:MOSCAPS Talk page. I'm looking for consensus on wrapping up things. Any other editors who would like to join in are welcome to review the comments and add their input. Allreet (talk) 02:42, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

{{Historical American Documents}}

Hello Allreet and Gwillhickers. There are editors eyeing this navbox for deletion or splitting it up, although it hasn't been nominated as yet (the focus is now on another navbox which is up for deletion). To me this is one of the most interesting and full maps to the founding on the web, and is a complete guide to Wikipedia's articles on the subject. Please keep track of it and surrounding events if you can locate them, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:40, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

@Randy Kyrn: and Allreet: — Where is this being discussed? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:45, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, in the context of deleting the navbox regarding the signers of the Declaration of Independence the idea of splitting or deleting the Historical American Document navbox seems to be a major focus, even though it hasn't been alert-tagged (so it couldn't be broken up or deleted on the basis of that !vote without another discussion unless the tagging rules are tossed aside yet again). Randy Kryn (talk) 04:26, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, more people are mentioning splitting the Historical Documents navbox and it's my concern that a closer may actually think that it is included as part of the deciding discussion, so I don't think it would be over-the-line to mention that this is occurring in relationship to the {{Signers of the U.S. Declaration of Independence}} navbox. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:04, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello Allreet and Gwillhickers. The nomination to split the navbox discussed above is now in progress at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2024 April 3#Template:Historical American Documents in case you still have an interest. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:37, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Randy Kyrn — As I'm sure you're aware, there is a major consensus to split the navbox. In light of this I suggested how the split should occur -- in simple fashion. I also left a final (hopefully) comment. Sorry to see the 'clean up gang', i.e.very few writers, try to scatter this navbox. Too often, unfortunately, they only manage to leave a train wreck in their wake. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:51, 4 April 2024 (UTC).

Hello Gwillhickers. What editors are missing in what they think is an obvious solution to split is that the navbox is about the four founding documents as a group. The topic presented is 'Historical American Founding Documents", as a unit. The navbox is collapsed, but editors see it and they might think it's presented opened on each page when in fact it is a typical multi-sectioned navbox. This one takes a bit more thinking than usual to realize its sweep, and that it is one of, if not the, best map to the founding documents on the web. Dividing it four ways scatters the concept to the four winds, and the encyclopedia is lesser for it. Randy Kryn (talk) 05:31, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Just changed the visible name of the navbox to 'Founding documents of the United States'. Seems a clearer name for the topic map. Randy Kryn (talk) 05:36, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Randy Kryn — Yes, that's a more definitive title. Back at the debate over splitting, I pointed out some realities that will hopefully be considered over dismantling the major navbox. See my last comments-- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:25, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Will check out your comments later Gwillhickers, thanks. I'm holding off a bit before commenting again since I was accused of bludgeoning (but not too long, the discussion only lasts a week unless it's relisted) so haven't read the newest comments for a couple of days. Thanks, yes, the title did not specify which historical documents were being featured as a group and why (which could easily be missed by some editors who comment or have commented). Randy Kryn (talk) 23:42, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Okay, but I wouldn't worry about frivolous accusations. "Bludgeoning" is rank hyper-speak. Your comments were civil and always in response to other editors, one of whom has made about as many comments as you have, and I told your accuser as much. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:29, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll get back to it and join the discussion again soon. The combined navbox is too important to give up on, it's a beautiful and useful construction to educate each of the documents pages about the full set. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:31, 6 April 2024 (UTC)