User talk:Conical Johnson

I reverted in compliance with policy as the talk page is about discussing improvements to the article, not the subject. About the only non-SA source I could suggest for finding out info on SA contributors would be too ask on the talk page of a user here who is a Goon.--Drat (Talk) 02:12, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's not much of a "story" to tell. I created the image to replace the lousy one that was there before. Since then, I have received some complements. But mostly it's just been complaints. The complaining falls into one of 3 main categories: 1. People who are just generally offended by the subject 2. People offended at the interracial aspect of the image 3. People offend because the woman doesn't look happy enough.

In any event, the image has been deleted from various articles numerous times, and usually gets reverted back in short order by another editor. Somewhere along the line, some genius got the idea of trying to turn the guy white. I don't think anybody would have minded if he'd actually taken the time to do a decent job. Anyway, that got reverted back as well.

Thanks for the feedback. --SeedFeeder (talk) 08:34, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You say it is my opinion,tell me one dishonest or unjustified statement that Chavez or Ahmadinejad uttered!(saying Israel must be destroyed is a lie he never said that) I can cite HUNDREDS of lies our top administration official told to take us into aggressive war,the supreme international crime,but you make Chavez out to be the bad guy?

I appreciate your help though in navigating wiki.

My sole purpose is to expose lies and reveal truth--WITH references! thank you again, roscoe

I have Johnson granted rollback rights to your account; the reason for this is that after a review of some of your contributions, I believe I can trust you to use rollback correctly by using it for its intended usage of reverting vandalism, and that you will not abuse it by reverting good-faith edits or to revert-war. For information on rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback and Wikipedia:Rollback feature. If you do not want rollback, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Good luck and thanks. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:20, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You tagged Gypsy jazz for OR. Could you add some got to talk:Gypsy jazz and explained what you specifically think is OR? TIA 1Z (talk) 08:10, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes, that's confusing. I guess the best course of action is to renominate them in the light that Children of the Anachronistic Dynasty was deemed to be a non-notable band. —harej (talk) 22:27, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is a bit late now, but for future reference you might find Help:Footnotes helpful. You can also place a temporary instance of {{reflist}} in the section you are editing for the purposes of previewing. Note, however, that this creates blank entries for references that are named but not defined in that section. I also find WikEd helpful, as it automatically displays a references section in preview mode. Best of luck, and keep up the good work, - 2/0 (cont.) 07:37, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ConicalJohnson – with respect to Boolalah Wikipedia article contributions, the personal tone, commentary, non-neutral POV ConicalJohnson posted on a “talk page” not belonging to Boolalah (but yet apparently meant for Boolalah) is troubling. It does not conform to Wikipedia guidelines. For instance, if ConicalJohnson wishes to directly correspondence and communicate with the subject matter of an article, Wiki is not the proper venue. Additionally ConicalJohnson’s noted postings next to multiple (Boolalah contributed) deletions appear snide, even mean-spirited and bullish, non-Wikipedian in manner. (I.e. if the robotic editor reviewed ConicalJohnson comments, the tag would be non-neutral.) The Wiki concept is for open editing, sharing of research and information, helpful deletions and guideline commentary designed to help to newcomers and all contributors become braver and more polished in their contributions, however those anointed with helping contributors are themselves supposed to have a neutral point of view as well...not the accusatory approach of personal attacks. Some editors enjoy deletions, tearing down, while other enjoy research and creating, building up. The in between balance is the fine-tuning of great article, for enjoyment and education of knowledge of many, around the world. There is room for ridicule and disrespect. Deletions should not be made with obvious personal prejudice anymore than creations should be. ConicalJohnson does not own nor control an article nor an opinion any more than other contributor does. All are subject to protocol and guidelines. To use COI allegations to defame on an open page, to address a contributor by a name, is harassing, out of line, and even threatening, that as well as it is ugly deterrent to other contributors as well, and more. Tightening of articles and journalistic contributions is a good thing, however skewered personal-attack behavior does not provide an upper hand in making deletions and edits, and deletions of references. Boolalah contributions and ConicalJohnson deletions will be double-checked, with civility, with respect to any violation of the Wikipedia protocol guidelines for the neutrality of articles and the ability of editors to feel comfortable. The note, "I'm watching this page" is particularly unwarranted, as are personal comments about ConicalJohnson’s regional/locale and bias. We all have bad days…even the robotic editors do…but…Wikipedia is not a New Orleans-based media “sandbox,” it is an international medium, that is to be approached not lightly, nor with malice or an agenda, but with serious professionalism, thought and intergrity. Boolalah (talk) 00:51, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sincerely, Boolalah Boolalah (talk) 00:52, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The whole issue is that by stating, even in passing, in the section regarding the death of Jett Travolta and the extortion trial, that Scientology disdains psychiatry and tying autism to psychiatry in that way basically amounts to synthesis by implying a connection that isn't proven. There are no sources out there to support the view that Travolta and Preston refused to admit or discuss Jett's condition because they either didn't believe in it because of their Scientology beliefs or that they kept it quiet because of Scientology. Why they chose not to discuss the problems of one of their children really isn't pertinent in any way to the death of that child, unless one can prove conclusively that any type of care was withheld from the child because of their Scientology involvement. Fact is, a lot of persons with autism have seizures, and many persons with seizures die during them. I know this as a fact from a lifetime of work in the field with developmentally disabled persons. Speaking about it publicly, or keeping it within the family, doesn't effect the outcome. We can't use the Travolta or Preston articles to discredit Scientology based on the status of Jett Travolta. Just as mentioning that Jett had autism couldn't be included without reliable sources, which would have made it speculation on the part of Wikipedia, we can't speculate on the reasons the Travoltas declined to discuss specifics about Jett's health and status. Lots of public persons have families with developmental disabilities and choose to remain private about it. It was until many many years following her Hollywood years did Gene Tierney ever discuss her disabled child. It's beyond our capacity to write about why in the absence of public statements saying why. I have followed this story for many years and have read fairly much everything that's been published about Jett's status. I have never found any evidence that he was ever denied medical care because of their following Scientology. From everything I've read, he received regular medical care - which would be appropriate for autism and seizures and had a full time caregiver to help support his life at home. That's far far more than most DD persons ever get. And honestly, Scientology has nothing to do with his dying or the present trial. Travolta clearly got on the witness stand and said that he had autism, and the trial is about people trying to profit from the death. Not seeing the clearcut connection to any religion or belief system in that. Without supporting documentation, it just can't be added in a way that makes implications about motive. Also, I'd note there is a one revert rule in effect for articles or content related to Scientology that's been in place by ArbCom for a very long time. This is something that simply must be clearly documented in a way that isn't synthesis. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:08, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say you were claiming that Jett died due to autism, though factually, no one dies from autism. I was mostly outlining my concerns that the Travolta and Preston articles not be used to indict Scientology. I'm glad you agree. To answer your last question, it is news that Jett is autistic because his death is the basis of an extortion plot in which John Travolta, a very high profile celebrity, had to testify. It would be true no matter the celebrity and the teachings he or she followed, and the more private the celebrity tries to keep his personal life, the more media will play it up. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:17, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ConicalJohnson - thank you for the Boolalah responsive posting. The tone is appreciated. Open dialogue responses to follow. Meanwhile on TJ Fisher (Boolalah contributed) article "Notability Question Tag” in re-reviewing the neutral and objective minimum Notability Wikipedia inclusion, the Fisher article meets the literary threshold guidelines alone, for the post-Katrina nationally received work: Orleans Embrace with the Secret Gardens of the Vieux Carré. It is preferred that ConicalJohnson (the originator of the tag) remove the tag.

Notability (books)

2. The book has won a major literary award.

Other considerations Threshold standards Books should have at a minimum an ISBN number (for books published after 1966), be available at a dozen or more libraries and be catalogued by its country of origin's official or de facto national library. For example, in the United States books are catalogued by the Library of Congress; Literature

Published authors are notable if they have received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work, or if their work is likely to be very widely read.

Boolalah (talk) 17:10, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conical Johnson – In the first collaborative effort, thanks for the Boolalah “Talk page” welcome. Volunteer contributors/editors should be open-minded and not war. On the TJ Fisher article “Discussion page” the Conical Johnson commentary assumingly meant for Boolalah contributions directly violates Wikipedia protocol guidelines under the personal attack category of attemptive “outing.” It is acceptable to suggest a potential COI but it is banned to muse over suspected personal names, as in a guessing game. That is serious, and an immediate blockable offense. Wikipedia places importance on both the neutrality of articles and the ability of editors to edit pseudonymously. To directly address the subject matter of the (living person) article is wrong and potentially hurtful to not only the contributor but also the subject matter. Wikipedia's policy (against harassment) prohibits editors striving to "out" and "publish" another editor's real life identity in order to prove a conflict of interest. Please self-govern here with some remedial action on posting with direct salutations. Bias appears when a hometown New Orleans-slant is mentioned in the frame of reference, as in Conical Johnson editing decision making, and references to other edited NOLA-based articles as “knowing the subject matter.” It seems like ConicalJohnson is a more effective editor if others are not attempting to pierce the ConicalJohnson identity. Anonymity is better for fair subjectivity. Any newcomer contributor can become overly involved with tending their “pet page” article, instead of moving on to more contributions elsewhere; therefore it is appropriate to tag the inclusion of excessive NPOV information (cited and referenced through 3rd party sources) as “undue weight.” But the words “puffery” and “marginal figure” and “big claims” seem pointedly mean-spirited. A portrait of a figure was drawn. Nothing more. Afterwards there is nothing wrong with reducing the content in a respectful way. “Notable” figures are often notably “odd” with bizarre characteristics and traits that come to light when piecing together and referencing a well-researched subject matter. With that said, interaction on Boolalah contributions, and all contributions, is what makes Wikipedia work. The world contributes. On ConicalJohnson deletions/edits, the perspective and input is welcomed. Collaboration is better than a soapbox or battleground with another contributor. Boolalah requests for collaboration: 1. Address/delete/strike through the direct reference to the subject matter. 2. Articles about “eccentric” people/subject matter generally include noted “color” about personal notabilities. On the Boolalah-contributed TJ Fisher article, the “Howdy Doody” memorabilia, the pink car and living on Bourbon Street have all been covered in the press (not necessarily in a flattering light). Perhaps ConicalJohnson or another editor can reintroduce those elements with stylized brevity. 3. The “Controversy” section renamed “Real Estate” is actually “Scandal.” 4. The deleted reference list should be reinserted despite missing copy, for later contributors. Thank you, and Boolalah intends to branch out and make more contributions. Boolalah (talk) 21:35, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Earlier Talk Page and Discussion Page postings directed to Conical Johnson received no reply. Yet after an 18x CJ edit of an article, and no reply to communication, 8x more CJ edits. WK says, the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources, and the notability of the article's subject should be established in the first sentence of the lead, if possible. (Including notable controversies.) Individuals are noted for what they are noted for, incomparable to others. A good-faith effort seems better than edit-wars. (PS-Fat Domino is noted for 9th Ward-living with a pink Cadillac.) Boolalah (talk) 02:28, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Thank you for your letter. I did not create the bass effects article, but when I found it, I tried to improve it, in part because I have been noticing that the "bass effects" sections in my local music stores have been getting bigger and bigger. I remember in the 1980s, there would only be a few bass effects at the back of the display case. Now, there are bass overdrive, bass chorus, bass wah, bass compressor, bass multiFX pedals, etc, many of which claim (I take your point about the marketing strategy....in that there may be little actual changes) that the pedal has been re-configured for the bass. In some cases, though, it seems to be more than marketing hype, as in the case of some bass multiFX pedals, which add some bass-specific effects (fretless bass simulator, bass synth, etc). I think you are right, though, that topic of bass effects probably doesn't need its own article. There is a tendency in Wikipedia to give every tiny subtopic its own article!OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 13:02, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Thank you for your note about references. Since effects pedals are not controversial (unlike religion, politics, etc articles), I am focusing on filling in all the details first. Then I would like to try and prioritize the referencing needs, which I guess would be any claims which are might be debated, or any technical claims.OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 22:19, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I just found some parts that need references. The claim that Les Paul invented tape echo and that the Eventide Harmonizer was the first digital delay. Is it just me, or is there a strong propensity in music articles to have unsourced claims that so-and-so invented something. If you look up any music issue, from "guitar solo" to "bass solo", you often find an unsourced claim that "the first guitar solo was in a recording by obscure legend so-and-so"....OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 22:29, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Conical Johnson. You have new messages at XSG's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. When you make a change to an article, please provide an edit summary for your edits. Doing so helps everyone to understand the intention of your edit. It is also useful when reading the edit history of the page. Thank you. A8UDI 00:55, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there. I don't know how active you still are around here, but if you get a chance, would you mind stopping by Talk:TJ Fisher and weighing in on what's going on? Boolalah is back and up to their old antics again. Thanks! — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 07:30, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:37, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]