User talk:Whithj

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 17:20, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this information. I have not done it in the past as at first I wanted to remain anonymous. In the future I may sign on. (Whithj (talk) 17:28, 5 June 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Hollywood, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you.

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Hobart Johnstone Whitley, you may be blocked from editing. Purple backpack89 18:02, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am the grandson of HJ Whitley. I have personally heard about the naming of Hollywood and also have handwritten journals with this information. Over the past 25 years many books have been written that reference a book by a Dr. Palmer. He wrote his book in the 1930 and it has many inaccuracies about the early history of Hollywood. In fact in its second addition it states this in the beginning of the book. Although Dr. Palmer lived in Hollywood he was not there in the 1880s. At this time I believe I may be the only living person who personally heard this history first hand from the founders. I do appreciate all of your effort to write the true history of Hollywood and I am sorry if my corrections have caused you any inconveniences. However I will take this matter to arbitration if that is necessary. My main purpose in doing this is to correct history. I do not believe having a group discussion can solve this issue. I know that the history I have posted is correct. I hope this will finally resolve this issue.

Johnstone Whitley

June 2010

You have been blocked from editing for a short time to prevent further disruption caused by your engagement in an edit war. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Elockid ^(Talk) 18:43, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Whithj (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

your reason here

Decline reason:

Sorry, Mr. Whitley, but you seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is and how it works. To quote one of its primary policies, that about reliable sources, "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we only publish the opinions of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves." If you decide to publish the primary sources to which you've referred, and have them assessed and commented upon by historians, it might be that they could be used to support your assertions, but as it stands you're not offering us anything that we can break all our rules and use. You seem to be editing in good faith, but you'll have to find another place to publish your anecdotal information. Accounting4Taste:talk 20:55, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I am the grandson of HJ Whitley. I was personally told by him about the naming and founding of Hollywood . I am 86 years old and probably the only person still living that has this information. I realize that over the years misinformation has been published and used as sources for others post. However this information is inaccurate. I have personal handwritten journals that explain the naming of Hollywood and when the first movie was filmed on October 26, 1911 . I do not believe having a consensus of wiki writers will resolve this matter. I am sure they feel their sources are correct but they are not. Before I die I would like to correct this error. I hope you can help in this matter. I find it difficult because young college age people seem to think they know it all and do not. I would be happy to send you a copy of the journal but do not want it posted on Wiki. They are copyrighted by the Whitley Family. Can you help me. Johnstone Whitley

The reason you received a block is that some of your edits didn't look hunky-dorry. For example, in Whitley's article, when you were undoing somebody else's edit here, you added a line of jibberish to the article, which looks like you're vandalizing, even if you're acting in good faith (a.k.a you didn't mean to). And with regard to the Hollywood article, you removed a reference and a large amount of content. In most cases, before references and content can be removed, you have to explain to other editors why that content should be removed on the article's talk page. Otherwise, it just looks vandalism, especially if it comes from an anonymous source or a new user like you. When somebody (me, I think) undid you edit, you undid it back, starting what is called an "edit war" or "content dispute", which usually leads to someone blocking you. You really should avoid edit wars. I hope this helps you become a better editor in the future. Purple backpack89 20:50, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How do you stop people from changing an edit to incorrect information. I do not want to police this plus due to my age I may not be here to do so. Is there a way to stop people from editing and placing incorrect information? Just because a book is published it does not mean the information in it is correct. For example: Chinatown the movie has nothing to do with my grandfather HJ Whitley. If I edit what someone posts to eliminate this information they just change it back - then it is like a war. Is there a simpler way to do this. I am old and do not want to spend the rest of my time policing Wiki. Also since you now know that I have the correct information about Hollywood why did you revert it back to incorrect information? whithj June 5 2010 3:18 PST

Mr. Whitley, the reason you were blocked has nothing to do with accuracy, but with form. If you remove 2KB+ of text and a reference, most page patrollers are going to think it's vandalism, unless you have a valid reason that is delinated in your edit summary (the long skinny box below the big editing box) or on the articles' talk page. (Also, the edit where you accidentally added gibberish to your grandfather's article did not help). If you said on the Hollywood talk page, "Look, I think the section on Whitley and the name should say blah-blah-blah because of blah-blah-blah" (and you'll need to say because of blah-blah-blah)(, people would be more likely to let your edit stand. I have posted the welcome template below to help you understand Wikipedia policies, including using four tildes (~) to sign your name. I can help you get your signature to come up red if you want. Purple backpack89 04:21, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I understand the process I will add sources to the site. However how does this solve the problem of people using misinformation. There was never a feud between the Wilcoxs and the Whitley. Where is the source on this? I have filed an appeal with Wiki as I am the representative for HJ Whitley and the Whitley Family. I want the information to be historically accurate. Why is Marilyn Mason referenced as an expert on early Hollywood History. Shouldn't this be removed or added in the recent history area even though it has nothing to do with the naming of Hollywood. Additionally it is not true that history was not recorded until recently. There are published articles that I will reference dated back to the early 1900s. whithj

If you put what you just said on Talk:Hollywood this afternoon when your block is up (and sign it with ~~~~), you shouldn't have nearly as much trouble making your corrections Purple backpack89 16:12, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the information I have started a post on Talk:Hollywood. Whithj (talk) 21:48, 16 June 2010 (UTC)whithj[reply]

Purplebackpress I believe you offered you help if so could you help me link sources from www.TheFatherOfHollywood.com media section to the Hollywood page. There are many articles from the LA Times Archives. I am 86 and do not find I have the stamina I use to have to get things completed. This would help in the verification process. Whithj (talk) 20:28, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Whithj, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Purple backpack89 04:14, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 07:12, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

POV pushing and COI

All of your editing on this project has been to promote your self-described ancestor, often using poor sources. I don't mind what you write in the ancestor's bio, but please do not promote the pro-Whitley cause all across Wikipedia. In particular, your edits to Hollywood have removed well-sourced assertions that contradict your POV, and you've added excessive material on what is just one small aspect of the place's history. POV pushing of this type is disruptive and contrary to Wikipedia's core policies. Will Beback talk 22:08, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting sourced material, like you did here,[1] simply because it conflicts with your POV is a serious violation of project policies. You have been warned about this kind of thing before. If it happens again I will seek remedies to prevent any recurrence. Will Beback talk 23:51, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note. But accusing me of having a hidden agenda doesn't address the issue. Regardless, I hope you'll be able to participate in this project productively, within the limits of its policies and procedures. Will Beback talk 06:03, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me you never answer my questions. I am not trying to push my point of view. I am trying to promote accurate historical information. You comment that everything must be from published sources then you use a google blog to support your opinion. If you are truly looking to correct the Hollywood page I suppose that you would have notice that if you click on #1 in the reference section you would see the link goes no where. But that is not your concern. It appears you have an interest in early Hollywood history only. Why?Whithj (talk) 14:51, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding citation #1, website links change. It's called "link rot". Thanks for mentioning it. I'll fix it. As for the Google blog, I'm not sure what you're referring to. Regarding the history of Hollywood, I don't see you making any edits to any article that doesn't concern H.J. Whitley. Will Beback talk 06:21, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Charles E. Toberman, deleting well-sourced material repeatedly is disruptive. There is a perfectly good citation. The Los Angeles Times is widely considered a reliable source. If there's a question about the source then you could either ask about it on the article talk page, or add one of the various inline templates, such as ^{[need quotation to verify]}. As for the issue of there being two men called the "Father of Hollywood", there's no rule that says one person can have that title. On Wikipedia, we report all significant points of view - we don't pick just one. Between that, and spamming links to the Keith book, your editing is getting problematic. Please take things slower and seek consensus. You've been editing here long enough that you should be more conversant with this project's norms. Will Beback talk 07:14, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I went to the Los Angeles Times Archives. Below is the result. It also appears that this is a reference to a self published book. L.A. Times Archives

Search Results Search Saved Saved Saved Help

Start a New Search | Save this Search | Search 12/4/1881 - 12/31/1984 Search: ^ Wallace, David (1990-12-30). "They Won't Let 'Sleeping Dogs' Lie" Satisfaction guaranteed! If you're not completely satisfied with your purchase, visit myPQA. Content is for personal, non-commercial use only and is protected by copyright law. The user may not distribute, transmit, market, sell, or provide this content to any third party. Preview (Abstract/Citation) Preview Full Text (No Photos) Text (no photos) Buy Page Print Page Print Not AvailableNot Available Note: Only some document formats may be available

   No Articles Found
   No articles were found for the search you submitted. Please try one of the following suggestions:

       * Make sure all words are spelled correctly.
       * Try searching for fewer search terms.
       * Try different search terms.
       * Check the FAQ for info about searching.
       * More search tips...

   Please click here to try another search. Whithj (talk) 23:08, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied at Talk:Charles E. Toberman. Will Beback talk 23:52, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hollywood History

I think the only efficient way to resolve this is to request arbitration by an administrator. Go to the Dispute Resolution page at WP:DRR and look through the various options -- I've never done it, but it looks to me like "third opinion" (which you will see part-way through the page) might be the proper mechanism. Make the same case you made to me, and on the Hollywood talk page. And explain why you don't have the "agenda" that he seems to think you have. I don't know if I would be allowed to contribute an opinion, but if so I would be more than willing to do so. I'm sure the other editor who contributed his opinion on the talk page (I think his username was Quicksilver) would be willing also. Good luck, and let me know if I can be of help. DoctorJoeE (talk) 03:27, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

September 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. If you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Toronto, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors; and
linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 15:43, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I read your comment in my talk page. I recommend that you develop consensus with other editors before adding mentions of him. Thank you. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 20:58, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. Thank you. MrOllie (talk) 21:51, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]