User talk:PrimalHawaii

February 2013

Hello, I'm Widr. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Henry E. Emerson, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks, Widr (talk) 21:07, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Henry E. Emerson with this edit. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Eyesnore (pending changes) 21:18, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding commentary to articles, as you did here. The place for comments and suggestions is on the article talk page, not in the article itself. We realise that your edits are well-intentioned, but you will not be allowed to continue editing if you keep making edits that are disruptive after the warnings that you've had. - David Biddulph (talk) 14:53, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All three of you acted very badly. Reverting edits without fixing the issue, slapping vandal tags on this talk page, etc. If you had looked closer you would have noticed that PrimalHawaii was merely trying to remove grossly negligent material from a BLP article. Because of your actions we have now lost another editor with potential to improve the project. You have refused requests to redact or edit your errors and/or admit to your faults. This simply makes all of us and the project look worse. I hope you are very proud of the damage you have done.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:48, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While I share Canoe's frustration, I wouldn't say that these editors caused the damage; they simply didn't repair the damage that had already been done by prior editors. Had they simply looked at the sources that were being used to support the subject's alleged death and date of birth, they would have immediately realized that they were completely unreliable because they provided absolutely no evidence that it was the same person. So although these editors didn't create the major editing violation, they did in fact perpetuate it. Unfortunately, they focused only on Primal's behavior - which indeed was inappropriate - but completely ignored the huge content problem. I should mention, though, that Primal's highly inappropriate rant today on the article's talk page doesn't inspire me to help him any more. Nor does this disturbing post on this talk page. He needs to learn how to behave appropriately and understand how editing on Wikipedia works. It's very sad to see him lashing out so aggressively, especially at those who did nothing but try to help him and resolve the problem. --76.189.111.199 (talk) 01:14, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think that where you are referring above to "this disturbing post that used to be on this talk page" you are referring to material in the message below, which was visible in the source but part of which wasn't being displayed because of unterminated <ref> tags. I have taken the liberty of putting <nowiki> tags around them so that the message, and subsequent ones, could be seen. The diff which shows the original source of the message is this. - David Biddulph (talk) 02:39, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, David. Actually, the link I used above is correct. He posted his newest rant - the "Comments" thread - after that. There was confusion because of how he incorrectly edited the page. He started a new section (with no title) in the middle of the page, instead of at the bottom. (I fixed that.) And while he claims that his posts are not rants, the definition of a rant is to "speak or shout at length in a wild, impassioned way". Therefore, I think it's a very apt description. Unfortunatley, he's convinced there's a conspiracy against him by numerous editors, when in fact it was simply a case of irresponsible and careless editing by independent users who were brought to the article by Huggle. And after I, and some other previously uninvolved editors, became aware of the problem, worked to resolve it, and apologized to Primal (on behalf of those who made the errors), his response on the article's talk page was, "You know you all speak as though you are prison lawyers. Your condescending apologies that have more attachments to them than serious answers are just comedic in substance."[1] Sadly, Primal's edit history clearly shows the highly inappropriate way he went about expressing his concerns; by posting raging comments in the article's mainspace. And then on the article's talk page and here. --76.189.111.199 (talk) 03:55, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, Canoe, your comments should have been made to Ursus Maior and Illegitimate Barrister because they are the two editors who originally added the erroneous death and date of birth content to the article, which started the entire fiasco. You'll see from the article's edit history that the first user to edit the article after those two was Primal. While the reverting editors handled it poorly, scolding them instead of the two who actually added the bogus content in the first place is like arresting the people who provided the getaway car to some bank robbers, but not arresting the bank robbers themselves. :P --76.189.111.199 (talk) 04:19, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Those edits may have been good faith ones and did not cause an edit war. I see no difficulty in taking time to find out the issue, discuss it, seek consensus, and then edit the article. Reverting and vandal tagging is not good faith and does not improve the project. If a new editor makes a mess of an article then fix it. I recently edited Covario from a help desk request then two new editors made a mess of it. No one lost an eye so I will just leave their username in the lead until another editor thinks it is crucial enough to remove.--Canoe1967 (talk) 04:42, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While Urus was a brand new editor (who disappeared after making only three edits that day, and one in December), Illegitimate is experienced. He's been around for three years and has made over 13,000 edits. Believe me, I'm totally sympathetic with how you feel. In fact, you know how frustrated I was when I discovered what was going on. I couldn't believe how difficult some editors were making it to remove false death info from a BLP. But whether a user is new or old, good faith or not, incompetent and damaging editing like that needs to be addressed with the violating editors immediately so that there's a record of it, in the event of future violations. But, amazingly, no one issued even a mild warning to those two editors or said a word to them. And don't forget, Primal was posting angry comments directly into the article's mainspace, which was outrageous. New or not, common sense should tell anyone that doing that is obviously very wrong and disruptive. And he did it mulitple times, even though he was warned. It's important to look at this matter in a balanced way. There was signficant wrong on both sides. --76.189.111.199 (talk) 05:20, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome

Welcome to Wikipedia. Someone may put a proper welcome template up soon. It seems you are in an edit war. Those are a big no-no here. I think you have a valid point and I think I can fix if you will stop editing the article for a bit.--Canoe1967 (talk) 04:30, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aloha

Well funny thing is that there is "no war...." I know the General personally he is 'Not dead.." i gave many many places to determine that i am correct not to mention I just recieved another letter and ome photos from him. I have been attacked, defamed, called a vandal when in fact it is whoever Widr is thatis simply ranting and just demandig he is right when he is determinably wrong on every point even on the Generals birthplace, birthdate, service terms and locations. Actually about the only thing he had right was the Generals name. My father had been Mr. Emersons very good friend since 1949 and hanging out in the Cannon Bar on the slopes of Diamond head upon which I am sitting RIGH NOW on the chair from at he enrance to the bar it self !!! I am a Rev. as well as a vet as well as a person who knows the general. Facts are facts and i me posting the ACTUAL MILITARY INTERVIEW with the General is not proof enough for people like Widr then I truly can understand why Wikipedia has slid down into the gutter not reachingthe potential goal it could have had if it were left to be corrected. My goodness you people swear at each other, you degrade each other, you act like children on a playground playing dodgeball and whining when someone wings one right at your head and you were to busy picking on someone new or smaller than you and then you runn swearing and callously calling people "vandals????" I am sorry but after 18 years of Law school and multtiple degrees in criminology I actually do not even see how some whacko with the power to delete without even researching first to see if the new info is correct is just wrong !!! Get a grip ehh !!! Here is my answer to it all. You listen to Widr, let him do as he pleases and I will continue to write to and share holiday cards and gift boxs with the General and will no longer even attempt to make corrections on a site that i now understand why is taking the plunge into the depths of obscurity due to a few little people with even smaller minds!!! I mean this guy deleted my corrections so fast i actually thought that there was a problem with my servor not letting my posts go through!!! And then trying to navigate through all your invented convaluded twisted terminology and totally insane means of communicating is just ridiculas !!! I do not even know if all this will go through with all of your <ref></ref><refilish??> on and on.... Grow up people and either pull the site together again or just shut her down !!! Simple as that !!! Sorry but this was my FIRST dealing with wikipedia and i can tell you i am a virtual encyclopedia of trivia and people i have and do know and now I will just save it all for my personal website. In fact i think it is the perfect time to open my other domain for just thos purpose,lol... FBIHAWAII.Net .... now figure that out Widr and tell me what it means so I know how to explain my own name to everyone !!!

— Preceding comment added by PrimalHawaii (talk • contribs) 15:00, 12 February 2013‎ War??? LMAO.... have u even been in a service besides the Cubscouts Widr?? Take care i am out of wikipedia for good !!!! a hui hou malama pono... Kanaka Maoli outahere !!! — Preceding comment added by PrimalHawaii (talk • contribs) 15:00, 12 February 2013‎ [1]</nowiki>

Another perspective

I regret that you are finding the way things work here on wikipedia baffling. I think almost all of us who have watched your frustration build feel the same way.

There is now a cadre of nearly a dozen editors eager to upgrade this article, so that it both informs readers about General Emerson's very notable career, the things reported in reliable sources that deail them, and his service to the United States of America on the one hand and fits into the encyclopedic format of wikipedia on the other.

There's an especially high level of frustration among these editors about the foolish insertion of facts from a wholly irrelevant obituary of a different Henry Emerson into General Emerson's article. We're on the lookout for similar errors and will correct them as quickly as we notice them. Please accept my apology for this mind-boggling error. We feel shame when the errors of uninformed or malicious editors mar our project with that kind of reckless editing behavior.

Now, here's one of our wacky rules: If you are close enough to the subject of an article, as you seem to be, you're not supposed to edit the article (with some minor exceptions). The solution is to post things to the "talk page" of the article, with your suggestions about how your material might be used. Then leave it to fair-minded editors to do the rest.

It doesn't always work, but, at this point, enough editors are alert to the stress you've been put through here and are eager to help you, as a way of making amends for your rough treatment and, also to get the article right. We really do aim to create encyclopedia quality articles about notable things. General Emerson and his career surely qualify. Best regards,
David in DC (talk) 17:14, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I want to commend David in DC for his great comments above and his very admirable involvement in resolving this matter. As I expressed elsewhere, the erroneous edits regarding the general's alleged death (and date of birth) is a black eye on Wikipedia. You can read my comments here. Regarding your personal connection to the general, you can read the conflict of interest guidelines regarding your participation in the article. By the way, can you provide a reliable source that shows General Emerson's date of birth? If so, please post it here or on the article's talk page. All the best. --76.189.111.199 (talk) 18:50, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Aloha- first i would like to say mahalo nui loa to Canoe 1967 for taking this situation and looking at it from a perspective that is unbiased. You are correct this was indeed my first attempt at trying to correct anything on wikipedia. And yes I was absolutely amazed that witthin 10 seconds I was recieving actual live replies to my post on the webpage. I never was impolite to anyone as I truly at first thought it was a bot that had responded in such an immediate manner. Due to that assumption I reposted the information. Again I was instantly attacked by a second person, so obviously these two people had communicated to gang up on me, or else they really have no lives. I was then accused of vandalism which i looked up on wikipedia and I re-read my posts and even using the definition on the site I saw absolutely no connection between my corrections and the use of "vandalism..." in wikipedia. I was not adding personal points in fact I openly stated that I would "not" cite personal imformation such as locations and addresses. So I once again went ahead and made the corrections this time useing the <ref> tags only to be again immediatly deleted and told to go to a help site which explained to use the <ref> html on the credits but on that page itself it tells people to use the close tag with </reflish> which is obviously a typo and when I tried to use it the posts would not take. At this time I began recieving emails at my personal home email requesting that i hand over both Mr. Emersons private email address and his home address, and of course the person requesting the information claimed to be a reporter yet however did not even sign the email ! I immediatly replied to the email telling the person that I would never violate a friend of my fathers privacy and that if the person was actually a reliable reporter that they could write me back and send a list of questions as well as a history of things that they had done in the past and I wouold then see to it that Mr. Emerson would get it and it would be entirly his decision to reply or not. Obviously this was not the response the person wanted and there was no more contact until of course this entire nightmare on Wikipedia began, and the manner in which it was done I felt that it was far to personal and fast to be standard operating procedure. Facts are easily verified, I explained that with multiple sites as reference points as well as with addresses and email contacts with legitimate Military historians. I apologize for not being proficient with Wikipedia rules and regulations, and truthfully I still am not sure at all how to actually reply to anyone in particular. I truly can be streamlined so that people with pertinant information can click on the contact tab and send a question or a change to a central location or head "editor.." to be reviewed and forwarded to the individual who is handling the particular topic at hand. Instead there is a scrambled up system with many many people who are all familiar with each other (now in my legal background when multiple people conspire together with imprper evidence and with some alterior motivation to keep out new people we are at that point dealing with "conflicting interests.." and it is when someone with no motivation but to ruin a reputation or simply go to a website randomly to mix up information then that would be "vandalism..". What i did was neither of those things. What the suposedly approved "editors.." for wikipedia did however did indeed violate both of the issues mentioned and quite obviously have been doing so for a few years in reference to this particular page. It really seems that these individuals have some motivation to hinder proper corrections on your websites and with blatant disregard for policies operated in such a manner that everyone except themselves were immediatly deemed to have a "conflict of interest..". It is quite obvious that these individuals are the ones who have a conflict of interest because they seem to be working together to see to it that the "only "information that could be placed on the website would be theirs. They quite obviously did not even bother to takethe references that I was providing them and look at it. For if they had there would have been no issue whatsoever. What they "did not.." take into consideration was the fact that someone "me" would dare have the audacity to correct them multiple times even in the face of their quite open threats. And by furthur researching the issue it is just as obvious that these individuals have been working together for no other purpose than to furthur their own incorrect research and erroneous information. Again thank you Canoe 1967 for your jumping in because I was completely flabergasted to find out these people were so adament in their cooperation (conflict of interest..) for such an extended period of time to put out incorrect information on such an easily researched individual as a General in the U.S. Army. To what end they had in mind I have no idea still. Perhaps they have other projects in which they have as well documented improperly and do not wish it known that they are not so much reporters as they are individuals who wish to be viewed as respected reporters and this kind of simplistic error making is not viewed well in the publishing or news arenas. I simply do not know. What I do know is that from this point on information I have on many many other friends of mine from the 60s till the present as well as all my research on the socio/economic, political and military period of time between the late 1920's until the early 40's will not be shared with wikipedias data bank. It just is not worth the time or effort to attempt to "fight-have wars- bein conflict.." with such small minded people who obviously have other objectives which may even hurt a great man and his life if taken as fact. Be it known that Mr. Emerson is alive, well, sharp, witty, engaged, and loves his home/friends/hobbies. I will assume that many many sites will be more than happy to be the ones i chose to share my personal items with "after.." Mr. Emerson does pass away (none of which is negative by the way, it is only items in reference to my father I would ever release). But still my fathers closest friends in life were many important men, of course they were just "kids in uniform.." when dad met them (except for General Clark who was much older when he gave my father his rank..". But Generals Bradley, Throckmorton, Col. Wilson, the list is long will stay within our family because I certainly do not want people such as the ones that attacked me here to ever see or use my families interesting history to their benefit or to use in a mismanaged and improper manner. Mahalo Canoe 1967... I do enjoy the nickname you have chosen. I actually have made many Hawaiian paddles in my lifetime and have a close interest in canoes. Be safe and best of luck in dealing with people whose motives are very suspect in my viewpoint.

Best & Kindest of Regards, Rev. Joseph (Joed) M.......

ps- i hate to disagree with the previous comment, i did "not " rant. Rants are full of inaccurate information and attack for no reason. What I did was "respond.." in kind. This is how civility works, they acted as though they were right and they were wrong and started calling me names as well as making accusations so before you villianize me look (as Canoe 1967 did) and you will clearly see that the people in question did not even to this time make "any" attempt whatsoever to resolve an issue that was in Wikipedia years before my even becoming involved. So thanks Canoe for your advice and setting the issues straight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PrimalHawaii (talk • contribs) 01:58, 14 February 2013‎

I have taken the liberty of putting <nowiki> tags around the <ref> tags in your message above, because, as in one of your earlier messages, the inclusion of those tags caused the tail end of your message to be hidden, and also prevented much of the subsequent content of the page from being read. I have also deleted spaces from the beginning of text lines as these upset the formatting of the display. Sadly Wikipedia's page syntax rules are not simple, and take a bit of learning. I would advise the use of the "Save Preview" button before saving, to make sure that what is seen on the page is correct. I would also gently remind you that messages on talk pages such as this ought to be signed, either by the use of 4 tildes ~~~~ or by the signature button on the edit toolbar, to enable readers to see who wrote what and when. Good luck with your future editing. - David Biddulph (talk) 02:31, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To address one specific point in your long message above, you refer to some help page telling you to use </reflish>. Are you sure that it didn't say </reflist>? If you are sure that it said </reflish>, could you please give us a link to the relevant page and we will get it changed. - David Biddulph (talk) 03:42, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another well-intentioned olive branch

Hi Joseph. I'm sorry that you've had such a rough start on Wikipedia. Another editor involved in this issue raised their concerns with me yesterday, so I thought I'd look in and see how you were doing. I'm happy to see that you seem to be getting some help at last from experienced editors like Canoe67 and Dave in DC, and to judge from your recent edits to LTG Emerson's article, you're getting the hand of Wikipedia's technical code already (I figured if you were smart enough to get your head around the complexities of the US Penal Code it wouldn't take you long to figure out Wikipedia markup!). On that note, you might find the so-called cheatsheet helpful in the future; it contains instructions on how to produce all of the most common text effects.

Thank you for taking the time and making the effort to improve Wikipedia, especially in the face of the problems you've encountered with other editors. Thanks largely to your work, the article on LTG Emerson is now more accurate and better sourced than it was a week ago. I hope that you'll stick around and continue helping out, both with this page and with any others that interest you. If you do, I'd like to take this opportunity to offer any assistance you might require; you can contact me whenever you wish by leaving a message on my talkpage. You might also find the Teahouse a useful part of Wikipedia to visit; it's a place where newer editors can ask questions and get friendly assistance.

Whether you decide to continue editing or not, I wish you the very best, and apologise once again on the Wikipedia community's behalf for the frustration you've encountered. Hopefully the future will be an easier ride. Regards, Yunshui 雲‍水 08:25, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome

Hello PrimalHawaii, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page — I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.

---

Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:

Table of contents

Department directory

Need help?

Questions — a guide on where to ask questions. Cheatsheet — quick reference on Wikipedia's mark-up codes. Wikipedia's 5 pillars — an overview of Wikipedia's foundations

Article wizard — a Wizard to help you create articles The simplified ruleset — a summary of Wikipedia's most important rules. Guide to Wikipedia — A thorough step-by-step guide to Wikipedia.

How you can help:

Contributing to Wikipedia — a guide on how you can help.

Community portal — Wikipedia's hub of activity.

Additional tips...

Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically insert your "signature" (your username and a date stamp). The or button, on the tool bar above Wikipedia's text editing window, also does this.

If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills the Sandbox is for you.

PrimalHawaii, good luck, and have fun. --Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:36, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Teahouse Invitation

Hello! PrimalHawaii, you are invited to join other new editors and friendly hosts in the Teahouse. An awesome place to meet people, ask questions and learn more about Wikipedia. Please join us! Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:52, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1. and sadly another excellent website idea just blows away into the eternal cyber winds because of small minds with massive egos, mostly due to the fact that they r faceless on the net.. and YES i KNow i type like crap and mispell 50% of wht I do type but that is because I still actually cn lift a pen or pencil... lol...poof !!!!<nowiki>