Talk:Timothy E. McPherson Jr.

Links not needed for countries

FloridaArmy, Per WP:OVERLINKING, countries should not be linked. So, I removed the links you added for countries.–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:17, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Where in that article does it suggest linking to African countries of origin in an article about an escaped slave in Jamaica isn't helpful? FloridaArmy (talk) 20:25, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Linking#What_generally_should_not_be_linked, specifically:

The names of subjects with which most readers will be at least somewhat familiar – unless there is a contextually important reason to link:

This generally includes major examples of: geographic features (e.g., the Himalayas, Pacific Ocean, South America), locations (e.g., United States; New York City, or just New York if the city context is already clear; London, if the context rules out London, Ontario; Japan; Brazil; Southeast Asia), languages (e.g., English, Arabic, Korean, Spanish), nationalities and ethnicities (e.g., English, British, Chinese, Turkish; African-American, Hispanic), and religions (e.g., Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism).

With all due respect, I am beginning to think that you are ruled by what is logical to you, and not so much by what are in guidelines (i.e., we are all somewhere on a rule-driven continuum).–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:34, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

FloridaArmy, If WP:V and WP:RS make sense to you, would you be interested in working on one or more of the articles moved to draft?–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:55, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Ghana and Nigeria are logical links of interest for someone reading about an escaped slave in Jamaica. Obviously. Yes, I do edit based on common sense as well as policy. You should try it. Nothing in what yoi quote supports delinking Ghana and Nigeria from this article. FloridaArmy (talk) 20:57, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

I go with a combination of guidelines and common practice -- every once in awhile quoting WP:IGNOREALLRULES, but out of respect for Wikipedia quality goals and the community, not very often. And, I have never been blocked or sanctioned. Instead, I got the first kudo from the director of Wikipedia.

It's common practice not to link countries, but 1) it seems to be a BIG deal to you and 2) it's not going to hurt anything. Just as an FYI, someone may come along and remove them. If they do, it's not worth an edit war.

If you have any respect for the use of reliable sources and verifiabililty, want to work on drafts?–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:14, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

By the way, (I always think of more when I finish, it seems)... I thought the same thing that you did when I heard of OVERLINKING re: countries. Please note that some people have sensory overload with so many links. Being someone who has suffered brain injury and has sensory overload, I can understand how that is disconcerting. There have been arguments for an entire elimination or great reduction in the number of links.–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:19, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

A lot of us, like me, FloridaArmy, are eternal optimists that hope something will "click" and the reason why so many people have been making a fuss about guidelines will make sense. Based upon your comment, I am wondering if there is any purpose of bringing up the reasoning of why I revert your edits and explaining guidelines. If it's not going to make any difference, should I stop wasting your time?–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:21, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, you should stop wasting my time. You created an article about a type of window that opens out on a slant and then reverted me when I noted that. You follow me around undoing perfectly sensible edits. I have literally thousands of edits and don't need you to monitor me. Your article on the seven houses was a mess and I did a lot of clean up. All I got in return were attacks. You are not God's gift to the encyclopedia. Yes, there are several editors who don't like stub articles and Keep votes at AfD for articles on notable subjects. They are in the wrong but they are a powerful group. I'm not interested in going back and forth with you on every little thing. If you want to create an article on something you misunderstood that I corrected you, and then you want to say in the article that it's about a time period that conflicts with the very subjectwhere you stumbled on it, you are in the wrong. There is no policy that supports misinformation just as there is no policy that prohibits linking to Ghana in an article about an escaped slave in Jamaica whose herotage and background is from there. You can load me with as many templates threats and attacks as you want but you will still be in the wrong. FloridaArmy (talk) 22:44, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Good, I don't mind taking the time with someone willing to listen. We're going to have to agree to disagree on pretty much all of your other points.

I will note in edit summaries why I revert your edits. If you get much closer to 90% valid edit rate, I will stop reviewing your edits. As long as you ignore guidelines, I will revert. Even the ones I don't revert are generally your personal preference for wording, and sometimes not even for the better, not that the original wording was wrong. Anyway, thanks to you, I won't have to explain in depth. I appreciate knowing feedback been falling on deaf ears.–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:52, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Understanding how a type of window functions and why it's distinctive isn't a matter of opinion. Not is what century something was built in. These are basic facts. You don't understand what you're writing about and when your mistakes are pointed out you wajt to minimize them and attack the fixer as disruptive. You're a waste of my time. As far as moving articles to draft space and taking them to AfD when they are clearly on notable subjects, that too is disruptive. See WP:BEFORE. The policies are clesr. Whether or not you understand them is something else entirely. FloridaArmy (talk) 23:20, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Let's see. You pointed out my error in just linking to Demarara. You recommended it was linked to the full word and that an article was created, both of which have now been done. I took it upon myself to create said article. The window was, for the most part, built on houses in the 18th and 19th centuries. Everything that I found said that - and that was what was in the cited source. You wanted something to say that a 20th century house had that window - I couldn't find an architectural general statement to that fact, but I got a reliable source for a particular house. I put in the information for the common way (i.e., I looked at several sources) the window was described to be used - "ice" - you added water and a potted plant. Fine. I didn't quarrel with the addition. I asked if you'd like to add content (i.e., more information with reliable sources), since you knew about this type of window. You chose not to do that, which is fine. I'm not sure why there is an argument. Baffled. Confused. Cannot begin to understand your way of thinking (and I had a role as mediator and problem solver with 0% failure rate in getting to / summarizing people's intentions).

Can we be done now? If you need to get the last word, go for it. I won't reply.–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:33, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

You want to have the last word and be done? But what you said is false. I did add content, I explained innthe very first sentence what the freaking window is. Something yoi left oit. It has a hinged shutter than open out on a slant. You left the most essential part of the sivject out. It's covered in every single source. And what happened after I added it? You reverted. Helpful? No. About ad helpful as delwting the Old Kickapoo article. Or adding some map that says "There are several areas in Downtown Richmond, including Shockoe Bottom, Shockoe Slip, the River District, Belle Isle, Monroe Ward, Manchester, Jackson Ward, Main Street, Court End, Tobacco Row, and the Canal Walk". What does this have to do with the article subject? I haven't the slightest idea. But a historic built by the family and covered in a reliable source you took out. Like a lot of editors here you think more os better. And if something is in a source it can be included. Doesn't matter if it's correct or if you inderstand what it means, you just put stuff in. So your writing is a jumbled, muddled mess. I can't even make sense of half of it. And when O ask basic questions for clarification yoi say that's disruptive. So here we are. Anyone who wants to look can go see the article you wrote about a type of window that has a shutter that folds out. But that's nowhere in the article. What is in there are misleading dates and bunch of other stuff that's misleading and fairly inaccurate but you read it somewhere so it muc be true and important!!! Which 18th century buildings have those windows? Name one. FloridaArmy (talk) 00:10, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Oh and you also took out indication of why they are called Demerara windows. How is that helpful? It isn't. FloridaArmy (talk) 00:12, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Removal of content

There was an edit that removed a lot of content from the article, stating that the person is no longer in the position.

I returned the content here and changed the tense of "currently" to "has been". Cite content doesn't get removed just because someone's life story has advanced. It's all part of their biography.–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:39, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

I am confused as to why you are removing content from the article. This is a biographical article about his life. Content is not removed just because he's moved on to another phase of his life.

Please see Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. Once the article is reverted and someone has started a conversation, the approach is to not continue to revert the article, but to discuss the issues on the article talk page.

And, in general, content is not removed if it is accurate and cited with WP:RS.

Please help explain why this content should be removed - other than that he's not with the Maroons of Accompong in Jamaica any longer. Again, that is not a valid reason to remove content.–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:57, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

I forgot to say - that the WP:BRD process is used to prevent WP:Edit warring which is unproductive and can result in someone being blocked.–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:02, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

As said in the edit summary for the change that I made today: returned a bit of a sentence, citations - reworded a sentence a bit: use of present tense (is) and past (was) is enough to make it clear what is happening presently. changed "no longer active" to "inactive". How is that looking?–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:23, 7 March 2021 (UTC)