User talk:Justbean

Your moves have both been undone. These were in no way minor edits. In fact, one of the moves has already been undone once, and it has been discussed and rejected on the talk page. Meters (talk) 18:42, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe I called them, or checked them off as being, "minor" edits. However, the edit was accurate. The notion that accuracy is turned down, in favor of an inaccurate status quo, is troubling. A "riot" doesn't result in mass loss of life and total destruction/desecration of property for one side. A "riot" implies that "everyone" is perpetrating chaos. However, that is not what happened in these events. In these events, one side killed hundreds and totally destroyed property of the other side, that had no means or recourse of fighting back. That is, in fact, a "massacre," despite "both sides" being attributed as being cause agents of the events.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Justbean (talk • contribs) 19:02, April 19, 2017 (UTC)

You certainly did mark those edits as minor. [1] [2]. They were both highly contentious moves, and you did not raise them on the articles' talk pages. I'm not going to discuss the appropriateness of the moves here. If you want to do so then raise the issue on the articles' talk pages where you should have done so before moving them. Or better yet, read the discussions that are already there.Meters (talk) 19:08, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't see where I marked "minor edit." I did fill out the "Edit Summary section" where it says to "Briefly describe your changes." Yet, I DID NOT select "This is a minor edit." Obviously, this wasn't minor. Nor was it contentious. There is nothing contentious about accuracy. It seems it's only "contentious" because it involves race. Again...troubling. Furthermore, your opinion on the appropriateness of accuracy was never sought. So passive-aggressive notes on what you will/won't discuss here are unnecessary and unhelpful. What is helpful is your advice and go to the talk pages, which I will do. Because if Wikipedia is supposed to be a reliable source...accuracy should matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justbean (talk • contribs) 19:24, April 19, 2017 (UTC)

Please indent and sign your talk page posts. And maybe you should actually look at the links I gave you. See the bold m's? These edits are marked as minor. And they clearly are contentious. Meters (talk) 19:31, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, they are not contentious. Just because you perceived them to be, does not make them so. Again, accuracy matters...and I will not allow you to label a genuine effort to reflect accuracy as being "contentious" because you disagree. Your opinion should never have been brought into this. If I misunderstood protocol, then fine...tell me how to go about fixing that, but don't tell me that my intent was contentious when you 1) don't know me 2) haven't made any effort to understand my intent. Such flippant perceptions have gravely contributed to the many inaccuracies in history that people are working tirelessly to debunk. Your biased perception is not fact. There was nothing contentious about my edit. Please stop erroneously calling it so. Justbean

It's not an opinion. The move has already been discussed and rejected. The move has already been made and reverted. That's about as contentious a move as can be. Meters (talk) 19:54, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My edit was rejected. I accept that. But, it was NOT contentious. You, on the other hand... I mean, seriously, what exactly are you looking for me to say? Do you just need to have the last word? I used Wiki's own pages in determining accuracy of riot vs. massacre. If I'm "contentious" for doing that, then that's news to me. Again, just because something involves race shouldn't make it "contentious," and let's be honest..why else would my edit be "contentious?" It is your opinion, man. It's just unfortunate that accuracy is being penalized due to the biases and opinions of others. Justbean

Objectively, the moves are not "minor" as typos and changing 'and' to & are minor, but changing the context of an article is not. When you are using a move to change the context, and that context involves the perception of a historical event involving such violence, yes, it is pretty obviously contentious. And moving three articles in such a way so quickly, without any discussion, after not having edited for months, underscores it all.

Talk • Work 20:23, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

I haven't moved pages before. I followed the directions that I found. I thought I was going about it the right way, and that any edit would be reviewed before it became "official." Did I misunderstand the process? Yes. Was my intention "contentious?" No. So, please call the mob off me. As mentioned at the beginning of this talk..."What is helpful is your advice and go to the talk pages, which I will do." Why isn't that enough? Instead, my intention is being called into question. No one asked to be of any help, or to note any merit in the accuracy of what was changed. I just got jumped on for being "contentious." Accuracy, context, courtesy. Come on, people. I know we're online...but really?Justbean

Since "accuracy" and "context" are a matter of historical analysis from reliable sources, which hasn't been discussed by the community, I think by common sense alone, the moves were hasty. And clearly these are contentious to you, else why make such drastic changes per your own opinion without consulting others? Re: courtesy, we are giving it in droves, by responding in many ways, without vitriol, to help you see what shouldn't have been done and what needs to be done. And I would say all this offline.

Talk • Work 20:47, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

The sources were reliable...as most were already quoted in the pages...and backed by virtue of Wiki's own pages of riot vs. massacre. The moves were not hasty. You were not with me when I edited them. And, as I JUST mentioned...I consulted the wiki page on moving pages...and I did consult with "others" who also found the moves to be appropriate. You are not giving courtesy in droves. Again with the inaccuracies. I mentioned, above, that I would go to the "talk" section. I also said that I accepted that my edit was rejected. So, seriously, if I'm accepting those things...what exactly is the point of your "courtesy" to me now, if not to drive home your own opinion? If you want to be helpful, then tell me how I can get, not only these pages considered for accurate changes, but also for ALL pages referring to so-called "race riots." And, what kind of support I need to supply in order to get that change made. We call what happened in Aurora, CO -- 12 people -- a massacre. Yet, when 250 people were killed, due to race, we call it a "riot." This has many implications, and it is also just factually and historically inaccurate. If you want to be helpful, please don't just point out how I'm "wrong," but tell me how I can go about making things "right." That is courteous. That is genuine. But, all I've received is self-affirming chastising. So, if you genuinely want to help me, then please...help me. But, if not...then you've made your point, and you can move on. Justbean

@Meters: You do realise that page moves are automatically marked as minor...? (e.g. [3][4]) I understand your reaction, but perhaps an apology is in order... Laurdecl ^talk 11:36, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Laurdecl: thank you! I knew I didn't select "minor edit," so it was weird that he was railing on me. But, thanks to you, now I know...and will make a note of it going forward. Appreciate it!

I apologize. I was not aware that some moves were automatically marked as minor. They certainly are not all marked as minor, and I personally think that automatically marking any moves as minor is a bug in the software.

The main concern was not the marking of the moves as minor but the making of a contentious move without discussing it first. The issue had already been discussed on the article talk page, and the move had already been undone once. Repeating the move without consensus was not appropriate. Making another such undiscussed move [5] after the first two moves had already been undone [6] [7] and being notified on teh user talkpage [8] was even worse. Meters (talk) 20:02, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Meters: I sincerely appreciate the apology, and thank you. We'll still disagree on contentious...because I simply did not know the function of Talk. In fact, I don't believe I've ever used Talk in all the time I've been on Wiki. In 6+ years, if I've made edits, they've been accepted. And the few that weren't (initially), were accepted after providing additional sources. So, from my standpoint, to make a contentious move is to do so willfully, and purposefully. As I explained, I genuinely didn't know. I thought, if there was any issue with the change, it would come in the form of an editor asking me for sources (which I obviously have). It was an oversight and misunderstanding. Had I known, I would have approached this differently. I've never had any issue with my past edits, and I take great care to be accurate in anything I edit. I'm not a rabble-rouser, and am rather saddened that the slaughter of innocents is "subject to debate" as to whether it's actually a massacre. Thousands dead, maimed, injured, homeless, and left destitute. And adding insult to injury, many of them jailed while nothing happens to the "rioters" who perpetrated these crimes against them. I suppose, what needs to happen in order to call these act "massacres?" How many sources so I need? I provide the Smithsonian, and someone just left a comment that I need "reputable sources." It's a Catch-22.Justbean (talk) 01:04, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone makes mistakes. When someone calls my attention to one on mine (or I notice it myself) I apologize and learn from it.

A contentious edit is not so much about the intention of the editor making it, but with how likely it is to be accepted by other editors. A move that has already been proposed and rejected on the talk page is contentious. A move that has previously been made and then reverted is contentious. Continuing to make a similar move after you've been undone and informed is contentious. Opening another discussion of such a move, as you have now done, is fine, but preemtively making the move before any discussion is not.

I have not looked at the whole move thread yet, but you seem to have located at least some evidence suggesting that it may indeed be time to consider renaming some of these articles. I agree with what others have said, that each article needs to be considered individually. We are very unlikely to make a blanket decision to rename all "race riot" articles to "massacres". For some of the events the common name may be (or may be changing to) "massacre" but I don't believe that change will be appropriate for all, and maybe not even for most of the article titles. Meters (talk) 04:30, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Meters:Really appreciate that...and glad we could get to a place of understanding. Even though I've been on for 6 years...this whole exchange has been a new world for me. So, am learning a lot. And hate that I can't really get a do-over. What's troubling is that so many of these massacres/events...well, there very few records of them. Scholars can't really write about limited info. So, getting their pages moved seems...like an uphill road.

I see what you're saying about contentious. I just didn't know, is all. Again, would have gone a different route if I had realized what the fallout was going to be. But...learning lesson. Maybe it'll manage to work out in the end.

As for the 16 I chose...I went through over 100 and selected these (which I'm going to make mention of in the thread). I think it might seem like I grabbed all that I could find, but no...included events that rationally fit the label of "massacre." Anyhoo...hope you'll consider that (if you have the chance to read the full thread. Would appreciate hearing your thoughts. Thanks again! Justbean (talk) 07:02, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just a word of encouragement about your proposal on

]

@Lockley: Really appreciate that...means a lot. Hope it can gain support. I really do think it's important, and believe it's definitely more accurate than "riot." But, at the very least, I'm glad people are debating and considering it.Justbean (talk) 01:08, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for initiating the proposed moves at

. I'm sorry that you got so much flak about trying to improve the names of the articles.

I recommend that you read

). A Wikipedia article about an event is most likely to be titled whatever the most common name for the event is, right or wrong.

If the names by which scholars refer to some of these "riots" are starting to change, citing a few reliable sources that demonstrate that would help you tremendously.

Also, as a few other editors have suggested, consider whether a single discussion about moving 16 articles is the best course of action. Except in its broad strokes, each one of the 16 "riots" had different features.

Please let me know if I can help you with this, or in a future project. Also, please consider drawing on the resources of WP:WikiProject African diaspora—we're not very active, but you don't know who may be knowledgeable about a subject you need assistance with. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:34, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your note. Really appreciate your kind words, help and support. In hindsight, I wish I had known more about Wiki forums/procedure. I definitely would have gone about this differently. Perhaps it was too much too soon. Am still holding out hope.

Just to note, I considered over one hundred "race riots" in making my move request. Am going to note that on the Tulsa talk page. I think it will address your note.

Also, appreciate the help you sent my way on COMMONNAME, TITLE and Project African diaspora. I don't think I've ever participated in a Talk...so this whole process has been new. Learning as I go. I just hope that accurate changes won't be barred because of my inexperience. Will keep fighting for it until the consensus period is over. But, it defintley seems like the heinous crimes will continue to be attributed to the perpetrators and the victims, which...in 2017...you'd think would be an easy fix.

Lastly, I'm not a frequent contributor, but when I do chime in, I work hard to make sure things well cited and accurate. Most of my edits have been pretty mundane, but here are a two you may find of interest: Murder of Carol Jenkins, Roscoe Conkling Bruce. Again, many thanks!Justbean (talk) 06:45, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Justbean,

I didn't want to gum up the RM even more with irrelevant-to-that-move-request commentary, but for what it's worth... Believe it or not, I am trying to *help* your request succeed. Like I said, I personally think that many of these topics are accurately referred to as a massacre (barring a few that don't have "enough" deaths and are closer to a "murder", since massacre usually implies a high death toll). Unfortunately, the arguments you're providing so far aren't what Wikipedia expects. You might be right, but not for the reasons you are stating. I am trying to see if you have sources that are of the form that Wikipedia would like for a move like this.

So. To separate this issue from race riot vs. massacre for a moment - I want to talk about Wikipedia's default philosophy with regards to both knowledge and naming, just if you're curious where I and some of the other opposers are coming from. You said to me before: " If 99 people say the sky is purple, and one person says it’s blue, are we to misrepresent the color of the sky until the 99 are ready to acknowledge it?" Well.. yes. That is a *core* insight to how Wikipedia works: it is NOT about being right, merely reflecting others. There's something liberating about that: you don't have to be right, you don't have to figure things out yourself, and you don't have to get into an extended argument with someone about what is right. You merely have to reflect what sources do. Two articles that go into this in detail are

. So... yeah. If everyone says the sky is purple, the sky is purple. If everyone is wrong, then Wikipedia doesn't need to be the leading edge of the spear; eventually people will start noticing, and Wikipedia can upgrade to "there is a controversy on the color of the sky," and perhaps later, "people now know the sky is blue, although people used to think it was purple." But that debate is done elsewhere, not on Wikipedia. The articles go into the wisdom of this policy, but think of it this way: if Wikipedia was attempting to decree what was really true from among 3 dissenting opinions, it could get into far more hot water. This is the kind of thing that sounds great when you're right and everyone else is wrong, but is terrible when you're right and one fringe proponent goes and says he's right though he's actually wrong, and then edits in Confederate propaganda to the Civil War article or some such. I know you said that your move request doesn't have anything to do with those other examples I offered (Byzantine Empire, Anti-Semitism), but trust me, it does.

Specifically for article titles, this is more of a "philosophy of language" question, but names are just that: names. It is entirely legitimate to *disagree* with a name yet acknowledge that other people call it that name, and even that some people would be confused and not know what you were talking about if you used your own preferred name. I said that "free ice cream day" was offensive, and you said it was offensive. Yes, that was the point. Sometimes names are offensively wrong but they are *still* the name used. It doesn't mean or change anything about the event.

Going back to your requested move... you're talking past some of the points other people make. You keep on raising sources about how horrible these events were and indicating they were a massacre. That's great! As far as the content of the article. It is not, however, an argument about the title. The title is not a statement about the content of the article. The title is what this topic is referred to in high-quality sources. It is NOT an assessment of the event. It is just a set of words, nothing more. The article could be titled "FSERJHSDFHDFSBJK". Do you see why I keep harping on things like introductory sentences? (And, to be clear, you can reasonably think this policy is stupid - that Wikipedia SHOULD just analyze the event and come up with its own name. But that isn't usually what's done.)

Let me stress that Wikipedia doesn't have to be biased, and if it is, it can be fixed. You are entirely free and encouraged to edit these articles, to add in sourced details that portray the inhumanity of these actions, and to make it very clear that "race riot" was only PR to make it seem like both sides were at fault. If you do this, I think your next move attempt will have a better attempt at succeeding. I do hope you don't get too annoyed at Wikipedia over this; suffice to say, policies like these are put in place for reasons that hopefully make at least some sense - there totally are plenty of "fringe" POV pushers who want to move all articles to their preferred term, and you wouldn't agree with most of them. (We could end up with "Vigilante justice on Negro Lawbreakers" or the like if we did.) SnowFire (talk) 06:44, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your addition to Cowboy has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:08, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Justlettersandnumbers: thanks for your heads-up. Can you please tell me what I included that was copyrighted? I linked to images that are already files on Wiki. I cited my sources accordingly. I am trying to go by the book here, so I would appreciate any help. Thx.Justbean (talk) 13:14, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Justlettersandnumbers: also...I made a pretty sizable edit. ALL of it was rejected? Can you please help me understand why? You didn't provide any context. I don't think it's fair to reject the entirety of the edit without giving some specifics as to any infraction. Thx.Justbean (talk) 13:19, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit contained blatant copyright violations, Justbean. For example:

The source	Your text
White Americans seeking cheap land—and sometimes evading debt in the United States—began moving to the Spanish (and, later, Mexican) territory of Texas during the first half of the 19th century. Though the Mexican government opposed slavery, Americans brought slaves with them as they settled the frontier and established cotton farms and cattle ranches.	White Americans seeking cheap land—and sometimes evading debt in the United States—began moving to the Spanish (and, later, Mexican) territory of Texas during the first half of the 19th century. Though the Mexican government opposed slavery, Americans brought slaves with them as they settled the frontier and established cotton farms and cattle ranches.

You can't just copy-paste material from copyright sources into Wikipedia. As is our normal practice, I reverted your edit without checking that every single word of it was copied – that it contained substantial violations was enough to revert it and ask for it to be hidden from view. Now I'm looking at other edits you've made … Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:36, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Justlettersandnumbers: I appreciate your example, but you don't have to be rude about it. You're not even giving me an opportunity to revise my edits. It feels like you're purposely trying to harm my ability to make any future Wiki edits. You're not helping me, but feels like you're trying to make some sore of example out of me. Can you please give point out any issues and give me the courtesy, and opportunity, to revise my edit before outright rejecting them? I made these edits in good faith. Can you please extend me a good faith chance to make revisions before, not only negating all my time and research spent to make the edit, but also harming my future ability to edit?Justbean (talk) 15:21, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I don't know where you see rudeness, but I'm sorry of you choose to read my comment that way. I've reverted your edits to Cowboy, Lone Ranger and Bass Reeves, and asked for them to be hidden in the history. However, if you act quickly you may still be in time to copy the references for future use. I'd advise against using any part of the text, as is seems substantially compromised – but, as I said, I haven't checked every word of it. Please, whatever you do, do not now add more copyvio to the project. Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:37, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Justlettersandnumbers: Thank you for your reply. Please know, it was an honest mistake. I looked at the entirety of the article, and felt that other editors had provided info in the same manner. Just a misunderstanding. Going forward, should I post my edits to Talk page beforehand? I don't want this to happen again. Thx.Justbean (talk) 15:42, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any need for that, Justbean – and we all make mistakes. The important thing is that everything you write must be expressed in your own words. It's (more or less) never OK to copy anything except the the names and titles of people and places and things into article text. As long as you pay attention to that you should be fine. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:53, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @Justlettersandnumbers: Sincerely appreciate the communication and guidance.Justbean (talk) 15:56, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alright @Justlettersandnumbers:...just took another stab at it. Would you be kind enough to take a look and make sure it hits the mark? Thx!Justbean (talk) 16:47, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry I didn't answer this sooner, Justbean. Your second attempt is really a great improvement (thank you!), but I think still not quite

WP:close following: if you go through a source, rigorously rephrasing each sentence, but keeping the same lines of thought and argument in the same order, that can still be a copyright violation;. This is much harder to quantify and much harder to avoid; writing from several sources at once can help, as can presenting the bits of material in a different order. I don't know if White Arabian Filly felt that that was what you had done, and reverted as a result. In any case, I believe your next step is a talk-page discussion. I may or may not participate in that, but I'm happy to try to answer questions if you have any. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:59, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Justlettersandnumbers...no prob, and thanks again. I am trying to go by the book, but I guess I'm just not reading it right.

I did make a good faith effort on this edit...both times. I take this seriously because a lot of people look to Wiki for information. Yet, I kind of feel that, no matter what I do...if I make any edit about "certain" subjects...it'll always be reverted for some reason -- regardless to whether the reason is actually warranted (like it was when you first pointed my mistake out), or whether it's not I've never had anyone flag me for making an edit about a celebrity, an architecture school, etc. Or, if there was an issue, I was always messaged and given an opportunity to correct it. Yet, that courtesy isn't extended with "certain" subjects.

A few months ago, I tried to edit a page. It was an edit that, like this edit, happened to be about blacks in American history. The talk page was...wow. Anyhow, no one took exception to my paraphrasing. Rather...the issues was my "sources." I provided 50+ sources (e.g. Smithsonian, The Supreme Court), but was told -- after a 7 day voting period -- they weren't "reputable" enough to make a change I was requesting. Yet, I come on the Cowboy page and see Answers.com as a source, and I'm...baffled.

White Arabian Filly didn't provide any message to me, or specifics, of what I "did wrong." I had no idea it was even reverted until I got your message.

I really have no idea what to do. Do I really need to get permission to post before I post? I feel like I'm being scrutinized...and I don't even know why. Every editor is different.

Anyhow, again...sincere thanks for your help...and for going to bat for my second attempt. I really appreciate it. Justbean (talk) 14:30, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think your article move request was very well prepared and well formulated, and that you got a great deal of support. If the request had been for one article only I think it might have passed (and you could consider trying one of them again if you think it is important).

Back to Cowboy: I read your talk-page post there. Please don't confuse good or bad citation with copyright problems. If content is copied from the source, it doesn't matter how well it's cited, it's still a copyvio and will be removed (unless it is clearly marked as a quotation). That's a different situation from content based on a poor source but written in different words; that can be rewritten or removed at will, but is not actually against policy. I've removed the answers.com source there, btw. And no, you don't need permission to edit; large edits are more likely to trigger a knee-jerk reaction than small ones. I'm going to leave you an invitation below, which perhaps you will accept. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:22, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Justlettersandnumbers...thanks for taking a look at the Tulsa talk page. Other editors also suggested a one-at-a-time approach, but if I did submit the requests individually, it seems it would be held against me that the other pages are all titled as being "race riots." A circular Catch-22.

As for Cowboy...sorry for the confusion. Wasn't equating copyvio to citation issues. Was just pointing out that there are other "violations" that seem to fly by, while my entire edit was removed. The entire edit. Without any explanation.

So, I was pointing out that my edit was treated differently than an edit from someone who used Answers.com (thanks for nixing) as a source. The point was...how does Answers.com end up on such a major page, yet ALL my paraphrasing and reputable sources are rejected? This happened on the riot page as well. For example, these sources were on the Tulsa Riot Page:

2011 History Thesis, Oklahoma City University

San Francisco Bay View

Tulsa Tribune Race Riot blog, 18 June 2014

GOOD Magazine

8-page lesson plan for high school Students, 2013, Zinn Education Project/Rethinking Schools

Subliminal.org

digitalprairie.com

Public Radio Tulsa

These sources ended up on something as major as the Tulsa riot. No scrutiny at all. Yet, when one challenges the amalgamation of such sources, the challenger is scrutinized. And though I received various "how to" suggestions from some editors...the fact that they were varied only points to the various ways in which editors would reject them. Damned if I do, damned if I don't. Justbean (talk) 16:12, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Let me say two things. 1, I have not been online in the last 20 so hours and 2, I did not mean to set off this hornets' nest. When I reverted your second edit, the content of it appeared to be the same or very close to the first edit. Furthermore, it appeared that a couple of prior paragraphs had been removed. If your second edit was not a copyvio, which I'm perfectly willing to accept, then I would support adding it back. I'm with DES and would support having a black cowboy article too. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 21:04, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Justbean, you are invited to join other new editors and friendly hosts in the Teahouse. It's a good place to meet people, ask questions and learn more about Wikipedia. Please give it a try! Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:22, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Justlettersandnumbers Thank you!!!Justbean (talk) 16:13, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

JustlettersandnumbersThanks again for the invite, but I think you might get a glimpse for what I mean. White Arabian Filly nixed my edit without any explanation. And in the TeaRoom, Nthep dismissed me without bothering to even look at all the info...if you hadn't stepped in, his/her mind would be made up. Then, DES, expresses that while he/she hasn't reviewed all the info, he/she "fully trusts White Arabian Filly," telling me outright, that the benefit of the doubt is stacked against me without any reverence to the info/facts first. Then Cullen chimes in and doesn't even mention copyvio...rather he/she says that my edit was too big, that it should have been written as a separate article (because, for some reason, black cowboys are "different" cowboys) because including them somehow "unbalances the coverage of the ethnic composition of American cowboys," and that I should move forward with my edits in the future in "easily digestible additions." So...my point is that when my edits have been, with accuracy, about black Americans...the goal post always moves.

This is what happened with Tulsa, @SnowFire voted against my request, i.e.:

@SnowFire:- Above, with New Orleans, you oppose on the grounds of there being "only" 2 deaths. Now you oppose because there were "only" 7. Again, how many people have to die for it to reach your standard of "massacre," which is obviously not aligned with scholars cited by Wiki? This only proves the kind of constantly moving goalposts I'm faced with...and because they constantly move, they can never be hit. At this point you've now given me three criteria for you to change your mind: First, you alluded that it must be more than 2 murders. Then, you say more than 7. And looming over both of those is my need to supply you with sources that you deem to be reputable...in addition to me hitting a definition of "massacre" that you have never supplied me. How can anyone possibly satisfy that? Yet...you have the audacity to say, if I do all of these impossible things, your vote can "easily" be changed. Uh hmm. Justbean (talk) 02:50, 28 April 2017 (UTC).

Justbean, we can go around for ages on this, but you're suggesting a WP:IAR move on grounds of truth & accuracy overriding WP:COMMONNAME. That's fine, but if you want to make WP:COMMONNAME less of an issue, I explained above how to do it. Most of the sources you're citing are irrelevant for internal Wikipedia standards (standards which CAN be ignored, yes, but it's easier to get your move through if you don't have to rely on that, which is something of a last resort argument). I will give another example from what you just brought up: citing this 1871 newspaper article [6] whose title is "A riot in Mississippi". Now, a random newspaper article from 1871 (and some other ones you've cited from 1921 and the like as well!) is already a weak source for modern usage, but it's not a source in your favor! I explained this before, but if you want to use something other than the IAR argument, what you are looking for, very specifically, are sources that say something like "New analysis of the Meridian massacre" or "Memorial ceremony for victims of Meridian massacre" or the like. NOT sources whose first line is "A riot occurred at Meridian, Mississippi." The point of WP:COMMONNAME is that it is value-neutral, and the name can be wrong/misleading/offensive/etc., but it is the recognized name. Let me come up with an offensively wrong example: If you cite a hypothetical article that says "The Meridian free ice cream day was an unjustified massacre of innocent civilians", that is not an argument for "Meridian massacre" no matter how long it goes on about it being a massacre, it is an argument for the ludicrous "Meridian free ice cream day." (It MIGHT be, per Herostratus, an argument for a "descriptive title" of "Meridian massacre", but these aren't really descriptive titles for the most part.) SnowFire (talk) 03:24, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

@SnowFire: There you go, shifting the goalpost again. First, can you please stop dismissing my sources based on their titles? If we only cited titles, then very little would be of use as actual citations. You cite for content, not title. Second...where, in Wiki does it say anything about "modern usage?" I've seen hundreds of pages on Wiki with nothing more than a document from like 1917 as its sole source. I gave more than that. Third, that so-called "random" newspaper article...if you'd bothered to have actually looked at it, you would have noticed that it's the New York Times! The actual article from March 8, 1871. I didn't realize The New York Times was "random?" Speaking of, last I checked, the Chicago Tribune, The National Archives, NPR, The NAACP's national magazine (that's been around for about 100 years), a Supreme Court docket, the US Senate...they're not "random" either. What is random is the way you cherry-pick something you don't bother to assess -- and hold it out as criticism of me -- or the way you ignore everything from national/highly reputable sources I provide. I got nearly 60 sources. I know you haven't thoroughly examined all of them...you just proved that. Yet, you're saying none of those 60 hold true. You know how statistically impossible that would be? And yes...your example was offensive...never mind wrong.Justbean (talk) 04:06, 28 April 2017 (UTC)Justbean (talk) 18:29, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Justbean, I am sorry if it seemed I was saying that the deck was stacked against you. I did not mean to do that. I have often heard people complaining about text (or images) removed as copyright infringements, and in the vast majority of cases, when the person removing them was an experienced editor, as White Arabian Filly is, the content is in fact a copyright infringement. But expended editors can make mistakes, and I am more than ready to listen if you say that is what happened here. I note that in one of your comments on this, you said that you had gone through the source "sentence by sentence" and reworded that. Please understand that doing that can result in a text where none of the words remain the same, but the sentence structure and paragaph struture are still identical to the source. As

]

DES, thanks again for being so thoughtful about this, and I do appreciate your apology. This whole process can be so impersonal -- handles, info, rejection, etc. So, it's nice to see the human side of Wiki...after all, there's so many people behind it, as an info engine. As for the edit, what I meant by "sentence-by-sentence" was that I went through each one and tried to make sure that there was no copyvio. However, I didn't take big liberty with the changes. That said, I now know I can go further. And :Justlettersandnumbers pointed out that I can go further, if I want to pass that cigar test ;) So, once I get a little more info from Arabian White Filly, if he/she thinks I need to go further, I'll give it a try. Justbean (talk) 13:42, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As to whether the content should be spun out into a separate article, perhaps Black cowboys, I have not carefully considered the details, and have no firm opinion. Often that is a good way to handle specialized content on Wikipedia -- in many other cases it is not the best way. As I understand it, cowboys historically were of varied ethnic and racial backgrounds: Mexican, Black, and Anglo and some others. All of these should be mentioned in the main article

]

DES, I totally understand the importance of not having a sub-edit drown out the main edit. I mentioned this in in my TeaRoom comments a bit, but, to me the issue isn't whether Black Cowboys, Mexican Cowboys, etc. should get their own pages. The issue is that the Cowboy page is about American Cowboys...and there were black, Mexican, etc. cowboys. They shouldn't have to be separated out, especially when they accounted for 40-60% of actual cowboys. The issue isn't "including" them on their own page...it's that they were "left out" of this one. By leaving them out, and re-directing users to "specialized" pages...it does two things:

1. it falsely perpetuates the inaccurate default image and understanding that [virtually all] cowboys were white
2. it relegates black, Mexican, Native American cowboys into "other" subcategories that users must specifically search for which, by default, will not receive as many views as a broad major page

So, the issue isn't inclusion, but exclusion. Justbean (talk) 13:42, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As to the page moves, i have read the comments on this page, but have not visited the articles in question. Do understand that there is a difference between an accurate description of an event, and its

]

Common Name

reversal.

Wiki is a powerful tool that those, who were barred from partaking in "society," didn’t have to correct/challenge those inaccuracies when they occurred. No newspapers interviewed them to get their accounts. Few books were published that document their own accounts on these event. So, their truths -- their common names -- of these events were largely lost, overlooked or outright ignored to perpetuate "society's view." So, how can inaccurate common names ever change if the few records that exist to challenge them are considered to be too few to even be considered?

I wrote an example of that in the comments, replying to @Herostratus. He/She did a Google Ngram that compares the frequency of occurrence of the strings "Atlanta race riot" and "Atlanta massacre" across the corpus of English books that Google has digitized. "Atlanta race riot" has way over ten times the usage, with no trend toward "Atlanta massacre" (the converse, if anything). (Interestingly, ""Atlanta massacre" has the edge in books published in the early 20th century but has lost out since then.)" However, his/her analysis had glaring biased holes. My reply:

..."since you did the NGram search, please look at it...two points: 1) between 1906 and 1921 -- when the event happened -- it was widely known as a "massacre." In 1921, that changed. Why? Don't you find, at least, some small correlation between the uptick in lessening the culpability of whites in the "riots" with the uptick in Jim Crow adoption in the 1920s?, and 2) since 1984 "Atlanta Massacre" has had a steady increase in use, while "Atlanta Race Riot" has either decreased, or plateaued, since 1998. Second, if you're going to use these analytics, please be fair in the representation of them. Your search only shows from 1916 to 2008. So, truthfully, you have no clue as to what the usage looks like for the last ten years. But you failed to leave that massive detail out when you proclaimed it as relevant fact. That's either a massive oversight or purposeful misrepresentation." Justbean (talk) 02:50, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

The point is...we have the benefit of more knowledge and a better understanding of the impact of perspective when it comes to history. To ignore that and continue giving deference to common names that were coined by people who had nefarious/biased agendas -- common names that have left, and continue to perpetuate, lasting damage to entire communities -- is lazy at best...irresponsible at worst.

My appeal was to take these things into account, along with Wiki's "Ignore All Rules" Page, where it states: "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it," and also with Wiki’s 5 Pillars — "Wikipedia has policies and guidelines, but they are not carved in stone; their content and interpretation can evolve over time. The principles and spirit matter more than literal wording, and sometimes improving Wikipedia requires making exceptions. Be bold but not reckless in updating articles."

Obviously, my appeal was denied. Justbean (talk) 13:42, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is no bar at all to making large edits, but it can be easier for others to understand and deal with a series of smaller edits with individual summaries. When an edit is perceived to include significant copyright violations, the normal practice is to revert the entire edit, at once and without discussion, but with an explanation of the reason. It is not allowed to stay in place while it is being revised, nor does the reverting editor usually try to sort through what was and was not a violation in the course of a large edit. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 19:45, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is good to know, DES, and I will keep note of it going forward. Thanks! Justbean (talk) 13:42, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is a large place, with many complicated and non-obvious policies, guidelines, and customs. People tend to mention these as they come up, or as they think of relevant ones, rather than all at once. This can feel like a case of shifting goal posts, and be quite frustrating to newer editors. But most of these policies, guidelines, and customs has been put in place after discussion to solve problems as they arose. They can be changed, or set aside in particular cases. But people are often reluctant to do that. See

]

DES Thank you so much for your time and for your thoughtfulness. Greatly appreciate it. I will definitely respond, in kind, but have to step out for a bit. Just an FYI...in the Teahouse, Cullen just said that he/she thinks this is a matter of "editorial judgment to be decided by consensus." The fact that this can go from an implied copyvio issue to "you need a consensus" is what is so baffling. That every time I make an edit of black Americans, that through accuracy, may not paint white Americans in the best light...I get directed to "build a consensus" about it. And I have no doubt how that will turn out. Justlettersandnumbers was right to call me out on my first edit, but he/she also gave me reasonable steps to take to ensure that my next pass wouldn't have the same issues. And it didn't. Which he/she noted. Furthermore, I am at a loss as to how this new edit is any more of a violation than what's already on the page, which displays a lot of instances cited one source (Malone accounts for 20% of the page's citations), which counts for a Dictionary.com as a source, counted Answers.com as a source [up till I pointed it out], and which includes "similarities" such as this:

(Just realized this was the incorrect source. I was mistaken. I apologize and retract it as an example.) Justbean (talk) 12:20, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, my 2nd edit did not do this. But, my point is...how is this up on the cowboy page, but my ENTIRE edit rejected? More later. Thanks!Justbean (talk) 20:20, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(

backwardscopy – the external site copied from us. I haven't checked every word, but I did a spot-check on "while wearing a heavy split skirt". That was added to the page with this edit in 2007, and apparently sourced to (but not copied from) this page

. The page you suspect of being the source is dated 17 September 2016, so in this case I think we can be pretty sure that it was paraphrased from our article or some copy of it rather than the other way round.

I must say I had certainly hoped that you would get a rather more friendly welcome at the Teahouse; if nothing else, you'll will have discovered how strongly people feel about copyright violation. I think the best advice to take home from there is that given by Cullen328 and DESiegel: a series of small edits often works better than a single large one. I know that, while I quite often make fairly large edits myself, I nevertheless regard large edits by others as a sign of possible problems. Why don't you add back a bit of your previous content to Cowboy (watching out for copyvio all the way), and see how it goes? If it sticks, you can try adding a bit more. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:43, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yep...it was a total

backwardscopy

. I have to say, after realizing that, it was kinda shocking how many papers/sites copy-paste from Wiki. Anyhow, lesson learned, and thanks for the copyvio tool. Super helpful.

And the TeaHouse hasn't been so bad. DES has been great, Cullen328 has been thoughtful...and now I also know that, should an issue arise, I have somewhere to go. So, again...appreciate the invite...and will give the edit another [shorter] try! Justbean (talk) 13:44, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, Justbean. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 17:03, 16 July 2017 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).[reply]

Cowboy Clarification

Justlettersandnumbers, DES, White Arabian Filly...just wanted to funnel this to one place, in hopes of wrapping it up.

White Arabian Filly, thank you for the response and clarification. But, let me explain why I was confused.

As Justlettersandnumbers initially pointed out, my first edit included some copyvio. However, it was a misunderstanding of the way things were presented on the page. Given "Cowboy" is a major page, my understanding was that reputable sources had been, more or less, copy-pasted and cited, as to minimize unsubstantiated opinion. Once I understood that this was not, in fact, the case, I changed my edit. When that edit was rejected, wholesale, confusion set in because 1) I didn't get any communication explaining the reasoning for the rejection and 2) I was at a loss as to how much liberty I should take when writing edits and 3) other editors suggested a myriad of reasons the edit may have been rejected (e.g. the edit was too "big" and wasn't "digestible," the edit "unbalances the coverage of the ethnic composition of American cowboys").

Naturally, this created a situation where it seemed as if my edit was being treated differently, not based on presentation, but on content...and that I would be put through hoops in order to have the edit accepted. However -- given a previous such experience on Wiki with an edit of similar content -- the thought I had was that, no matter what hoops I tried to get the edit through, the edit would always be rejected for "some" reason. I did not start out thinking this to be the case, as Justlettersandnumbers was correct to flag my initial edit. Yet, after changing the edit, and getting the edit rejected again (in its entirety), and hearing various reasons as to why the edit was "wrong" (which had nothing to do with copyvio)...it definitely seemed like things were headed in that direction. So, I do apologize for having that expectation, but hope you understand how/why that expectation developed.

So White Arabian Filly...if you'd be kind enough to let me know what your red flags are (e.g the entire edit, similarities with certain sources, etc.), I'd love to take a stab at the edit again.

Finally, I'm not a regular contributor, so my learning curve is still steep in some places. But when I do contribute, I want you to know that I take it seriously. And, from your willingness to communicate with me and help me out...I can tell that you all do too. And I sincerely appreciate your time, patience and your respectful willingness to help me. Justbean (talk) 12:20, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Justbean, it's precisely because it's clear that you are seriously interested in the project that I have spent a little time trying to help. I think I've given my answer to the rest of what you've written here in what I wrote two sections up. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:49, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Justlettersandnumbers! Justbean (talk) 13:43, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My red flags were the following: 1) you removed the revdel notice at the top of the article, 2) the content I saw in a quick skim appeared to be the same as the copyvio, or very close, and 3) it appeared that you had moved or removed some sources that were there. I would not revert if you attempt the edit again, and as I said before, I think we should have a black cowboy article too. If it's created I have a book source to volunteer, Charles Goodnight by Harold Bugbee. Goodnight was white, but many of the cowboys who worked for him were black, notably Bose Ikard. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 21:05, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Justlettersandnumbers, DES, White Arabian Filly. Hi all. I just wanted to thank you again and let you know that I took everyone's feedback to heart. I'm taking a chance and submitting a new edit. I tried really hard to cover everything, though I am not submitting in smaller chunks. This is one thing I decided to try, as the long edit provides context. The big do-over was really in making edits to the entirety of the Ethnicity section. Cullen³²⁸ pointed out that by only editing Black Cowboys, it "unbalances the coverage of the ethnic composition of American cowboys." While I think the balance of the ethnic composition is skewed toward white cowboys (as the "default"), and also find it an unfair burden to edit for ALL excluded minorities simply to include one, it was an issue that I wanted to take off the table. So, the new edit presents roughly ALL American cowboys...to the best of my current ability. The edits are meaty...meaty enough to be a springboard for each of their own pages (should someone else opt to write those), but lean enough to warrant their inclusion on a page about American cowboys. This was a big and sincere effort, so I really hope it sticks...and I can finally smoke that cigar! I haven't submitted it yet, but would appreciate hearing from one of you first. When I hear from you, I'll post it...and if one of you would be kind enough to look it over and give me a heads-up -- if you think I should take it down and retool my strategy -- that'd be awesome. So, hopefully I'll hear from one of you soon. If not...I'll just go all in and hope for the best. Regardless...thanks!Justbean (talk) 21:53, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You can make any edit you want, any time you want, as long as you are doing your best to comply with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. We do not use the word "rejected" with regards to edits. Instead, we say that an edit has been "reverted" and the next step is talk page discussion. Reverting happens routinely, every single day. There can often be several reasons for a reversion and different editors may have different opinions about the best course of action. This is routine and normal. No gets to write an article just the way that they want. This is a collaborative project and articles are written based on consensus of all editors interested in the topic. Once consensus had been reached, the well-referenced new content will probably stay. I am convinced that you are editing in good faith, that you have a lot to offer, and I hope that you will stick around. Please do not imagine that you are being treated differently than other new editors. You aren't. If anything, several experienced editors are going out of their way to give you a hand, because we think that you can become a very productive contributor here. Thanks. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:39, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Cullen³²⁸...appreciate the response, clarification, confidence and kind words. Definitely hope I can make some helpful/useful contributions, and I sincerely appreciate all your help. Am going to post it now. If you wouldn't mind taking a look, it'd be helpful. Thx! Justbean (talk) 22:57, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cowboy Reverted Again

Justlettersandnumbers, Cullen328, DESiegel, and White Arabian Filly...

Hi all...you likely thought you were through with me, but alas...the goalpost keeps moving. After spending hours on research, inclusive of finding photos to include in WikiCommons, (User:Montanabw) reverted ALL my edits...including edits I didn't even make. For example, Montanabw wiped out the ENTIRE homosexual section, which was there before I even edited it...I simply added to it and provided more context. Montanabw's reasoning..."Remove a lot of changes that are not supported by appropriate source material." Sorry, but that's completely not true. This was researched to death. And there seems to be no one I can go to that will call this out.

No matter what I edit, if it's an accurate historical repression, involving race/gender/sexuality, the edit is always revered for "some" reason. I mean..."appropriate source material?" There was nothing wrong with my source material and everything I wrote was supported by it. This has nothing to do with the way I submitted content on Wiki, but has everything to do about the content itself. I think we all know that this is not about presentation...but perspective.

Montanabw proudly boasts about being from Montana and owning horses (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Montanabw), and I find it hard to believe that his/her perspective did not affect his/her motivation for removing every edit that did not fit into a particular worldview. My edit was accurate –– historically and grammatically. I even used sources that had been cited in other parts of the page. Yet...Montanabw wiped out EVERYTHING –– even edits to the "Cowgirls" section –– that, through accuracy, does not reflect a particular worldview of a "cowboy." My edit was no different than any other edit on the rest of the page...in fact, I'd be happy to put my research and writing up against any other edit that was on the page.

My edits, constantly facing these kind of arbitrary obstacles that are impossible to get around, is flat-out wrong. It goes against everything I've seen regarding Wiki rules. It is also wrong that someone, with an apparent agenda, has the authority to use Wiki to perpetuate inaccurate historical biases. I made an edit to do my best to provide accurate info on ALL American cowboys. And, AGAIN, my ENTIRE edit was wiped out, without so much as a message to even explain why. An editor who had Wiki users' best interest in mind would have at least communicated with me before wiping out, what was obviously hours of work, and tons of new information on Cowboys. However, Montanabw seemed to wipe out everything he/she politically disagreed with, gave some illogical 13-word arbitrary reason for doing so, and moved on. So, beyond being wrong for doing this, it's also dangerous...given that the general public uses Wiki as a source of info.

So, can one of you help me address this? Seriously, what do I do...where do I go from here? Thx Justbean (talk) 21:37, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have several suggestions, Justbean. First of all,

assume good faith of your fellow editors. You have no evidence of any bias on the part of the other editor. Such accusations do not help matters in any way. Discuss the matter directly with Montanabw, and Talk:Cowboy is the best place. My optional suggestion is to make your changes to articles in a series of many small changes, instead of making dramatic changes in one fell swoop. My final suggestion is to stop getting upset when you are reverted. Reversions are a completely normal part of the editing process and an essential part of building consensus. Reverted does not mean "wiped out" since everything that you added is in the article's edit history, and can be restored if you gain consensus. Everyone can edit that article, or any article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:00, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Cullen328, thank you for the reply, and for your suggestions. And, I am not "upset" when am reverted. I am confused because I am reverted for a "moving target" of reasons. And every time I make a correction, I'm reverted for "some" other reason. I think anyone would be confused under that circumstance. And to be called "upset" when I'm not, exposes a bias against me. I realize reversions are a part of the process...and have no issue with them. My only issue is the various reasoning that my entire edits are reverted, based on the whims of any particular editor. That is NOT right. And I'm trying to understand why it keeps happening to me on "certain" edits. The fact that Montanabw just said [below] that there's "a lot of nonsense about cowboys out there" means that he/she views himself/herself to be an authority or cowboys, and will not accept any edit if it does not conform to his/her view of cowboys. Basically, he/she just confirmed what I said. This is not about accuracy...this is about someone's world view. It is not about presentation, but perception. So, while I'd like to believe Montanabw removed the entire "homosexual" section on "good faith," his/her response below tells us exactly why he/she reverted it.Justbean (talk) 23:39, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion is appropriate. There is a lot of nonsense about cowboys out there and a lot of bad sources. This article is in need of careful development and accurate sourcing. Montanabw^(talk) 23:31, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Montanabw The sources are accurate. There's nothing wrong with them, except your refusal to recognize them.Justbean (talk) 23:39, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Taking this to the talk page of the article itself. Montanabw^(talk) 00:04, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you are not upset, Justbean, then please do not adopt an indignant tone as indicated by capitalization, italics and accusations that another editor is bragging and has an agenda to promote historical bias. That way of conducting yourself leads people to believe that you are upset even when you say that you are not.

This is a collaborative project based on people with shared interests communicating effectively with one another to build consensus to improve articles together. I remember Montanabw reverting an edit I made about a mule show nearly right years ago. We discussed the matter, I took the advice of a more experienced editor, and I ended up writing Bishop Mule Days as a result of what I learned. Since then, it has become clear to me that Montanabw is our best and most productive editor on equine topics. Please try to work with Montanabw. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:01, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cullen328, emphasizing words is the way I express myself at times. In this instance, I've emphasized points that do not make sense to me. If you assume my tone to be "indignant," that is your assumption. I haven't "conducted" myself in any manner beyond being confused. I've been genuine about my confusion with Wiki, especially given that, twice now, when making edits that have racial components, I receive conflicting and impossible-to-achieve advice. I can point to numerous instances on Wiki where other editors are not treated in the same manner. That is what I am emphasizing –– confusion at the difference in treatment.

I know, and respect, that Wiki is collaborative. However, twice now, on edits I've made that have had racial components, my collaborative effort has been shut down and given a revolving door of responses as to why. In other words, there is nothing I can do to satisfy all the editors' suggestions.

In pointing out that Montanabw's action seemed like he/she had a perspective agenda, I was merely pointing to Wiki's own admission that this collaborative project does, in fact, have a bias problem, inclusive of a Wiki racial bias. To sum up Wiki's recognition of this:

• A 2011 Wikimedia Foundation survey found that 8.5% of editors are women.
• "The systemic bias of Wikipedians manifests itself as a portrayal of the world through the filter of the experiences and views of the average Wikipedian. Bias is manifested in both additions and deletions to articles."
• "As long as the demographic of English speaking Wikipedians is not identical to the world's demographic composition, the version of the world presented in the English Wikipedia will always be the Anglophone Wikipedian's version of the world."
• The President of Wikimedia, James Hare, noted that "a lot of black history is left out" of Wikipedia, due to articles predominately being written by white editors.
• Katherine Maher, chief communications officer for the Wikimedia Foundation, said that Wikipedia could only represent that which was referenced in secondary sources, which historically have been favourable towards white men.

So, about 9/10 Wiki editors are of the same racial and gender background, which cultivates bias. That's simply a fact, recognized and stated by Wiki. And to imply that I'm somehow over-reacting by pointing out that it seems that my edit is being scrutinized by such a biased perspective, further accentuates that fact.

Finally, while it's great that you had a great personal experience with Montanabw, yours is only one. Wiki has 70,000 active contributors working on more than 41 million articles in 294 languages (about 12% of the articles are in English). So saying that Montanabw is Wiki's "best and most productive editor on equine topics," only shows your own bias in his/her favor. Furthermore, while Montanabw may have expertise in equine topics, my edit wasn't on horses, but on cowboys –– people. So while Montanabw may know plenty to be an authority on pages about mules, that in no way qualifies him/her to be an authority on the accuracy of information about minority, female, or gay cowboys.Justbean (talk) 06:48, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Justbean, you might want to read

no personal attacks. Your implications of gender and racial bias on my part are entirely inappropriate. I prefer to keep the substantive discussion on the content of the article there, and I spent considerable time there explaining what was wrong with your edits (as did other people). So for the benefit of the discussion here, all I will say is that your problem had nothing to do with racial or gender bias, it had everything to do with copyright violations, undue weight, and poor use of source material. Montanabw^(talk) 18:52, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Montanabw,

1. I did not attack you. I said it "seemed" that way. I was conveying my perception. I did not say you were actually doing so, nor did I call you any names. Do not accuse me of something I obviously didn't do.
2. I had no copvio. I had a misunderstanding with my first edit, which I was warned of by Justlettersandnumbers. I went back and corrected everything to make sure I had no copyvio. So, tell me where my supposed copyvio occurs? I ran a copyviol tool on it (kindly provided to me by Justlettersandnumbers) when I submitted it, and it came back clean. So I know your accusation is untrue.
3. I went to the tea room and asked for help, and took editors' suggestions to heart before I wrote this edit.
4. I received the support of Justlettersandnumbers (see above), after I made my second edit, to let my edit stand. He/She even wrote to another editor on my behalf that he/she supported my edit
5. Before I submitted this edit, I messaged three editors who were communicating with me since this edit began asking them to take a look at it and to alert me if there were any red flags so I could take it down. I received no word from any of them of any violation.
6. When you reverted it, you said, "Remove a lot of changes that are not supported by appropriate source material." Yet, yesterday you said, "Discussion is appropriate." Only to come back later and state, "There is a lot of nonsense about cowboys out there and a lot of bad sources. This article is in need of careful development and accurate sourcing." So, just like that, you give varying reasons for why you reverted it...but, ironically, never mention anything about copyvio. Now today...you say copyvio. So, which is it...is my source material flawed? Was my entire edit all "nonsense?" Or does it just warrant a discussion? OR...have I committed copyvio? You can't have it ALL ways.

Again...moving goalposts. You state I did one thing, then you message me saying I did something else. So, as I stated above, and stand by...this is not about my presentation of the info. This is about something else...and no matter what way I present it my edit, it seems like it will never be accepted because there will always be "something" that's impossible for me to address.

Furthermore, if I did something so bad, why not lay out what the problem is and tell me what I can do to correct it, so that the edit may be accepted? But you did not do that. You removed everything about black, Mexican, Native American, Women and gay cowboys that I added (including some things that were not from my edit within those subjects)...and then actually said "there's "a lot of nonsense about cowboys out there." So, you are telling me that you won't accept my edit UNLESS it clears your threshold of what you know/believe a cowboy to be. So, again...we all know that this is not about my presentation, but about content and perspective because that's what you said it was about.Justbean (talk) 19:45, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing...please elaborate on my "poor source material" and what exactly makes it poor? Because before my edit, someone had actually used "Answers.com" as a source, which I pointed out to Justlettersandnumbers, and he/she removed it. So, before I came along, "Answers.com" was just fine as a source, but my sources (e.g. Smithsonian, PBS, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, etc) are somehow "poor?" Beyond that, three books are the major sources on the page. What makes them so reputable and mine so poor? Poor according to whom/what? Justbean (talk) 20:01, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Montanabw, and now you revert my edit on Stephen F. Austin, which feels extraordinarily petty and vindictive. I suppose the Texas State Historical Association (which is about the only source used for that small edit) is not a good source, which will be news to a lot of people. It seems like you're doing everything you can to get rid of any edit I put together. Again, there's NOTHING I can do to get my edits approved. Because you simply don't want them approved and, in this situation, you have the power to deny accuracy. It's outright laughable. Sad. But laughable. Justbean (talk) 20:40, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I explained what was wrong with your edits at
  WP:TNT on such edits rather than take forever going over it word by word. Now, go to the talkpage of the Cowboy article, and if you propose reasonably decent, tight, well-written, encyclopedic tone and properly sourced edits, they can go in. And yes, others will evaluate your work (not just me) anyone can edit wikipedia and anyone can revert edits on wikipedia. Montanabw^(talk) 20:54, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Your edits on Austin had similar problems, and I kept some of that content if you look at it. You are making the same mistakes there, providing the history of something from a period that exceeds the scope of the article and not citing a lot of your material. Just learn to edit properly and you will have no problems from me. Montanabw^(talk) 20:54, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Montanabw, "you are someone who hasn't quite yet learned how to edit around." Not only was that not called for, but it was also patronizing. As mentioned, my copyvio stemmed from a misunderstanding. The issue was pointed out to me, the misunderstanding was made clear, and I fixed the issue. Beyond that, I will address your notes on the Talk page. Thank you.Justbean (talk) 21:05, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discussing the content at talk is wise. You may consider my tone patronizing, my intent was to be educational and informative. In either case, we appear to be finished here. See you at Talk:Cowboy. Montanabw^(talk) 22:27, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Unspecified Infraction"

Justlettersandnumbers, Cullen328, DESiegel, and White Arabian Filly...

While I don't expect to hear from any of you further, I did want to record this with you because you've kind of seen my effort at this edit...and because it's important that people know/understand that my concerns aren't just me "over-reacting."

To add on to the litany of revolving things my edit always seems to violate, Montanabw now said I committed an "unspecified infraction." Initially he/she said he/she reverted my edit to "Remove a lot of changes that are not supported by appropriate source material." Then he/she said, "Discussion is appropriate." Then, he/she surmised that "There is a lot of nonsense about cowboys out there and a lot of bad sources. This article is in need of careful development and accurate sourcing." Then, he/she accused me of copyvio. And then, in two paragraphs on the Talk page, he/she listed off a myriad of "other" things I supposedly violated.....including several of my edits not being "very good." However, this smacks in the face of logic given that, if I was guilty of these things, at least a few of them would have been flagged by any of you.

I took the time to go through and address each one of his/her accusations last night, on the Talk page. Especially since Montanabw demanded that my edits would be accepted if they were "reasonably decent, tight, well-written, encyclopedic tone and properly sourced." However, by demanding this of me, I wanted to see if he/she held himself/herself to the same standard. And so I looked through the history of the Cowboy page....back to Montanabw's earliest edits. I noted that, for example, his/her edit on Jan. 19, 2007 failed all the demands he/she was now requiring of me. In fact, for an entire new section he/she created, he only used one source...and only cited it once over eight paragraphs. The source? The American Heritage Dictionary. Yet, despite Montanabw's lack of finesse at the time, his/her entire section was never reverted. And he/she improved this page for the simple fact that he/she edited the page several hundred times over the last 10 years...so, now it's better. So, there's concrete proof that Montanabw is holding me to a different standard than he/she held for himself/herself.

Lastly, is the level of scrutiny I'm experiencing normal? I can't imagine every edit is picked apart and given such impossible metrics to remain up. I mean...41 million Wiki articles. I just can't see this. I've fought for this because I think it's important, but can imagine many others likely walking away in frustration (which has likely happened countless times). But I'll do my best to stick around. I just hope you all will keep my experience in mind when it comes to other edits, on similar topics, in the future. Because, as volunteers for Wiki, you're not just editing for the site...but you really do have the power to shape public knowledge. Please don't be flippant with that, especially when it comes to editors who work hard to add knowledge that has previously, and purposely, been left out of the public sphere. Thanks again for all your help and correspondence.Justbean (talk) 15:19, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Mandruss You've already berated and sideswiped me. We both know I'm not that much of a novice to Wiki...a "Welcome?" I was looking for help with a complaint against someone I thought was an admin because of this. I've never sought to resolve a conflict...yet, your "Welcome" is treating me like I haven't made a single edit over 6 years. I may only know a little...but to just drop a "Welcome" into my talk page like that...that felt very was petty and insincere. And you know you didn't have to send that...you could have just left me alone. But, it's like you had to get the last word. So, ok...you got it. Justbean (talk) 10:15, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok Mandruss...perhaps you were being sincere. You have to forgive me. After the tone on the ANI page, I simply didn't know. If you were being genuine...I sincerely thank you for your help. I'm trying to navigate through this all and learn so I can be a better contributor...Justbean (talk) 10:17, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

...Mandruss It's just that I'm in an awkward phase...I know a little, but not enough. And I find myself communicating with people who assume I know -- or that I should know -- much more than I do. I really wasn't trying to file a formal complaint. Not right away. I was looking for options as to how to handle this. I suppose I'll continue to make mistakes, but hopefully, I'll get better at this project. Because I'd like to contribute more, and I think I can make some good contributions. Again, thank you for the good faith Welcome. And every little bit of info helps :) Justbean (talk) 10:21, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think you'll be an asset. My "door" is always open, although you would get more one-on-one at Adopt-a-user. Those are experienced editors who have committed to spend a substantial part of their time with mentoring. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:24, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! One of these days, I'll be showing up at your door. Till then, I'm gonna go learn what I can from the buddy system, and hope I link up with someone as knowledgeable as you :) Justbean (talk) 10:33, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If You'd Like to Know

TheGracefulSlick if you have time and/interest...please read this (specifically bullets 2, 3 and the bottom of 5). And if you care to know what led me to you... and your eyes are up for it...read this. For the record, taking criticism is what got me to this point. I made several edits, and took the advise of several editors. I have no problem with criticism...in fact, I get criticized all the time for work. Yet, I do believe in fairness and civility. That's what this is about. Thx Justbean (talk) 10:33, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Even after reading your mammoth comment at Talk:Cowboy, I still support Montanabw's rationale. At no point did she display any bias or counterproductive behavior. She based all of her points on policy and concerns for copyright as well as factual accuracy. As I stated before, I suggest you read her criticism and adjust your editing to the article accordingly. I know it probably sucks to have content removed but, if an experienced editor who has put in over a decade of quality work sees multiple issues that need to be addressed, such a thing can happen.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 11:06, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TheGracefulSlick, I appreciate the read, and the perspective. Yet, her criticisms were all over the place, she slighted my sources, and three other editors disagreed with her. And her history of combative behavior is on record. Yet, it's hard to prove when someone is needling you. As they say, the most painful pain is the pain you can't see. Speaking of not seeing, I suppose, I'd like to know why she's correct, but the other three editors who supported me, are not? I guess it's subjective, but I simply don't believe my entire edit deserved to be reverted. But, if it did...

I spent hours on that edit. Over days. I know it was solid. So, if my instincts are wrong about this...and three other editors are also wrong about this...I suppose...why bother? I've seen pages created with notes that say "Better than nothing," with one source. I've seen Answers.com used as a source. I've seen 2 sources used for an entire page as if they were 100 sources. I've see so many "wrong" edits that have no issue getting onto a Page...unless it deals with certain subjects. But this? She tells me my sources are bad. Which ones? All 54? She says my edit is nonsense, then copyvio, then accuses me of misquoting sources because she's incapable of converting mathematical words into actual math. Yet, she's right? I don't think I'll ever understand that. But, sometimes life isn't meant to be understood. Sometimes it just is.

You did provide me with some valuable insight. For that...I'm deeply grateful. Justbean (talk) 11:32, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Justbean. Voting in the

2017 Arbitration Committee elections

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 23

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited

Wilmington insurrection of 1898, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Hothead and Torched (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver

).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:27, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 2

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited

Wilmington insurrection of 1898, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Antebellum (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver

).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:45, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 10

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Springfield race riot of 1908, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Palestine (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:20, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Justbean. Voting in the

2018 Arbitration Committee elections

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lynching of Roosevelt Townes and Robert McDaniels

Thank you Justbean for your expansion and updating of Lynching of Roosevelt Townes and Robert McDaniels with useful references and new data. You've done excellent work!Jamesmcardle^(talk) 11:46, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jamesmcardle Thank you!!! Took a little time, but was a really fascinating deep dive. Glad to provide more accuracy and context. Really hope it's useful to all. Thanks again :) Justbean

Disambiguation link notification for August 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited

usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject

.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:18, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 7

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Dick Carlson, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page High society (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:05, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for all of your work on building out the Springfield Race Riots page. Wrineha2 (talk) 19:13, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much, Wrineha2!!! Appreciate the kind note, and hope the edit is useful to all :) Justbean (talk) 16:54, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Marcell Jacobs

Please don’t revert me anymore. You don’t know the rules of the Project and the MOS. If you want to follow your way anyway, before you can pass for the consensus of the project. --Kasper2006 (talk) 21:07, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Kasper2006: Reverting anyone is not personal. It is about maintaining accuracy and decorum on the Project. It is not "my way." I have been editing since 2008. I follow the rules, and it is offensive that you are suggesting otherwise. Beyond that...NO ONE is above being edited or reverted. That's why we have a community.

I explained what happened. I contributed the quote, so if anyone should be upset about it's omission, it should be me. Yet, for the sake of maintaining decorum with all editors, I omitted it. No context was changed. If anyone is unhappy about that, that is his/her personal problem. Nothing is inaccurate by the omission of that quote. So, this is not about the substance of what's on the page, but merely about ego. Can we please put ego aside and put the project first? I have no ill will toward you, and am stunned by this aggressive behavior.Justbean (talk) 21:15, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Look at this Wikipedia:WikiProject Athletics/Manual of Style/Biographies --Kasper2006 (talk) 21:12, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Kasper2006: Look at this [[9]]Justbean (talk) 21:20, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is a manual of style adopted by the project on almost all the athletes' biographies. I linked it to you. Isn't it clear why you don't have to respect it? --Kasper2006 (talk) 21:22, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Kasper2006: Seriously, please stop harassing me.Justbean (talk) 21:24, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I hope the way I solved it now looks ok to you. --Kasper2006 (talk) 22:14, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:11, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply ]

Your arbitration request has been removed as premature

In response to your request for arbitration of this issue, the Arbitration Committee has agreed that arbitration is not required at this stage. Arbitration on Wikipedia is a lengthy, complicated process that involves the unilateral adjudication of a dispute by an elected committee. Although the Committee's decisions can be useful to certain disputes, in many cases the actual process of arbitration is unenjoyable and time-consuming. Moreover, for most disputes the community maintains an effective set of mechanisms for reaching a compromise or resolving a grievance.

Disputes among editors regarding the content of an article should use structured

dispute resolution noticeboard

also exists as a method of resolving content disputes that aren't easily resolved with talk page discussion.

In all cases, you should review

contact a member of the community if you have more questions. Moneytrees🏝️^{Talk/CCI guide} 23:44, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

@Moneytrees:, thank you for very much for the follow up. However, my complaint was NOT about content. It is about harassment...intimidation, bullying, respect. And if going to the Arbitration Committee is not the answer, and you tell me that getting a third opinion about content is the answer, then I'll go there. But it seems counter-productive to file a complaint about content resolution when that is not the issue at hand. For example, some editors are "right" about content...but they are also bullies in their quest to lord over pages -- to lord over the narrative framing of history and culture. Does the project even care about the types of people it is enabling as editors in this role? If edits are made through such toxic perspective, then it puts contextual framing of edits at risk of inaccuracy and bias. For example, on the page I was recently editing, over one week, editors tried to reframe an African-American man as simply being "American" approximately eight times -- an outright denial of the man's factual ethnicity and a denial that "African American", as an ethnicity, is even real. However, my complaint was not about that, it was about the treatment directed at me from an editor [on that page] who was attempting to steamroll me (and other editors) out of the editing process. So, I looked to the avenues available to make a complaint:

Requests for comment says it is "a process for requesting outside input concerning disputes, policies, guidelines or article content discussion." It also said that "...Alternative processes include third opinion, administrator's incident noticeboard, reliable sources noticeboard, neutral point of view noticeboard, the dispute resolution noticeboard, and, for editors' behavior, binding arbitration. This is why I filed for arbitration. Not only because I was pointed there, but also because [I could find] no other avenue on the Project that addressed behavior rather than content. But, now I'm told that isn't the case. So, I looked to the other avenues suggested...

Mediation says it is a process "to help Wikipedia editors to contribute willingly together by helping to resolve their good-faith disagreements over article content." Third opinions says it is "a means to request an outside opinion in a content or sourcing disagreement between two editors." These are all about content disputes.

Is there anywhere I can go to get help specifically about toxic behavior? Sincere thanks.Justbean (talk) 17:50, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The arbitration committee is the last resort for disputes; if you have evidence of disruptive editing and harassment, I would recommend filing a report at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Moneytrees🏝️^{Talk/CCI guide} 19:46, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:19, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply ]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the

2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review

NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:33, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

]