User talk:Monicasdude

Welcome

Good morning, cheers, and welcome to Wikipedia! Its always a pleasure to have another editor start up — can never have too many good editors.

Some useful stuff/Things to remember:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Opentasks — These are important things that aren't getting done. We need your help with them.
• Tutorial — What you need to know about editing pages.
• Test area — If you need to test an edit but don't want to do it on an article.
• If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk
• As you mature as an editor, the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines will become more important.
• Always Always Always try to maintain a Neutral point of view when you're editing.
• Try not to be anonymous. Sign your posts (like I did this one), by using the tilde '~' symbol. Three tildes (~~~) leaves your username, four (~~~~) leaves your username, plus the timestamp.
• Be bold in editing pages.
• A happy editor is an excellent editor. Enjoy yourself!

Cheers, →Iñgōlemo← ^talk 07:41, 2005 May 31 (UTC)

FAC

Just as a courtesy, this is to let you know that I have responded to your concerns regarding Pope John Paul II at WP:FAC. In addition, I just wanted some clarification regarding your concerns- see my response. Thanks for your input! Flcelloguy Give me a note! d.c. al fine? Desk 23:02, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Feminazi

Hi there, I was wondering if you could let me know explicitly which version of Feminazi you've reverted to [1]? Your edit summary ("RV to NPOV-compliant text") is a bit light on info. An An 06:55, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Ok, so you actually reworked the text, not reverted it. That's fine. An An 22:58, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Bob Dylan - it's a free world.

As far as I can see, I've only "screwed it up" for you. Last time I checked, these articles weren't owned by you. As far as I'm concerned I have improved them and added more pertinent details - all of which comes from information directly off of Dylan's LPs/CDs, and from reputatble sources such as www.allmusic.com, etc... As for NPOV, I've merely added in - as objectively as possible - what the general public perception was/is on the albums in question. To say "Dylan" was probably his least liked album is not POV - that's a fact! Besides, there's LOADS of it in his 60's albums articles, which I never wrote.

The album images have been updated to get rid of the "compact disc" logos so prevalent on Sony's 1980's CD issues.

As for the certfications, I'm sorry, but that page was messy and hard to follow. We don't need to know when "Blonde On Blonde" went gold, platinum and then double platinum. Just knowing that it's 2x platinum is good enough. If you feel so strongly, then add the www.riaa.com link at the bottom of the page so others can investigate more fully. Really, that section was such a mess. At least now it has a pleasant look.

Having the album called "Bob Dylan at Budokan" (which is how it's referred to in "Billboard") makes more sense than "At Budokan (Bob Dylan)" if his name has to be there anyway.

I spent a LOT of time working on those articles and I welcome corrections. But I'll be watching those pages for unwarranted and petty deletions - and they will be restored. PetSounds 04:40, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

In other words, you're unwilling to even consider compromise, unwilling to provide sources, and unwilling to respond to the specific errors I mentioned on your talk page -- so unwilling that you even edited them out. You've already been blocked for inappropriate edit warring once, and you're behaving like you haven't learned a bit. Monicasdude 06:02, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Er....I am offering a compromise. If you read my reply at all, I said to create a link to the RIAA so that the dates of Dylan's certs would be available to all and sundry and the page, as such, would not look cluttered. You're the one who appears to be unwilling to compromise if you switch all of my work without inquiring first. And I also said that I welcome corrections, but that I won't tolerate petty deletions (because you think you know better) when I'm using Dylan's actual CDs/LPs, the Billboard chart books and critical reviews of the time (be it Rolling Stone or All Music Guide) as legitimate sources. Saying that Blood on the Tracks is one of his best-loved albums is not POV, that is fact. Saying "I really really like Blood on the Tracks, man! It's the best!" - now THAT's POV. I have not done that - ever

Also, you are correct about myself having little to learn in my one and only brief blocking (which was lifted early once it was realized that I was not at fault), due to a very difficult member who was very hostile and stubborn, and I had no idea about the 3RR rule. I am open to working this out. A revert war is not the answer (you know the 3RR rule, and you're perilously close to violating it and getting blocked yourself). So leave let's leave it as it is and we can discuss what needs to be fixed. PetSounds 21:44, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

No. You are not offering a compromise. You are demanding that that all edits to pages you are involved in have your approval. You do not provide sources. You do not respect consensus. You have posted dishonest comments and personal abuse on my talk page. You appear to be engage in continuous edit warring on other pages. And you went whining to an admin you believe to be your buddy rather than following the established dispute resolution procedures. You are the functional equivalent of a vandal and should be treated as one. You still have provided no reference for your position on any contested points. Monicasdude 05:36, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

I have seen your message on my talk page and I have no time to reply fully now because I must return to the real world. Without commenting on the merits of your position (which I have not explored), I am worried by any message that accuses another editor of "whining" or one that asserts "appalling misbehaviour" (it is the intensifying modifier "appalling" that alarms me). To see both smacks of incivility. Both you and PetSounds seem heated over this issue so particular attention to courtesy is necessary if a swift resolution is to be achieved. I will respond more fully when I return. —Theo (Talk) 10:42, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

I have now looked at some parts of this (you can see my analysis here) and, from what I can see, most of your criticisms of PrtSounds' edits were valid but your comments were too harsh to be persuasive. Repeated reversions are very rarely helpful. In this case both of you could have stayed civil and held a more constructive conversation had you not got enmeshed in an edit war. I think that your interactions would be more effective if you paid more attention to the likely response of the reader. In most wikiconflicts both parties are acting in good faith and fight over a misunderstanding. I think that this is such a case. By reverting PetSounds early changes you led him to draw the reasonable inference that you saw no value in any of his contributions. Imagine how that feels. When he argued his case, you reflected it in a hardened form. In effect you drew battle lines instead of seeking alliance. I understand that you are now in conflict over various Beach Boys articles. I have not looked at any of this and I would prefer the two of you to resolve your differences amicably. Please set aside your past interactions with PetSounds and contribute to that resolution in a softer manner; that way we can all get on with the good work that you, PetSounds and I have all been doing. If you do wish me to review the Beach Boys articles, you need only ask. —Theo (Talk) 17:25, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

John Wesley Harding

Thank you for drawing my attention to what you characterise as misbehaviour at John Wesley Harding (album). It seems to me that PetSounds inappropriately flagged three of his four changes as minor edits. I will advise him of this. Ultimately, however, I feel that your subsequent reversion of all his edits seems unduly harsh even if he did not discuss them all on the talk page and flagged them as minor. His changes amounted to addition of album length, an assertion that the album topped the British charts "for a long spell", addition of track lengths and a series of wiki link fixes. Your reversion of all these on the grounds you cite sits uncomfortably with me.

I am also uncomfortable with what I see as the incivil tone of the message that you left on my talk page. Your "little buddy," as he seems to think of himself is demeaning and uses a phrase that noone but you has used. I would prefer to believe that PetSounds believes himself to be right (just as do you) and expects me to help him becasue he sees me as evenhanded. Your claim that he tried to sneak a disputed reference back into the article by marking the edit "fix typo errors." is not consistent with the article history unless you mean that the album length is a reference. He made a series of small but significantly incorrect changes to the John Wesley Harding page suggests that you disagree on the album length, the qualitative duration of the chart topping, the track lengths, and the wiki linking. This seems extreme; are you getting hung up on the editor rather than the edits? […]trying to cover up his actions with deliberately misleading edit summaries. is itself misleading: the misleading summary is singular; your misstatement exaggerates the position and again gives me an impression of personal animosity on your behalf. Your allegation that It's that he doesn't behave honestly, and that he's not editing in good faith. would look better were you to be scrupulously accurate and fair in your own comments. I am not defending PetSounds' mistakes; his errors are no justification for others by you or anyone else, however. —Theo (Talk) 12:15, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

I held off on responding to this initially, because I found its tone and substance infuriating; on reflection, I believe my initial impression was sound. I believe your dislike for my rough-edged style has led you to overlook/disregard the substantive bases for my editing -- for example, with regard to "John Wesley Harding," the album has been available, simultaneously, in two different forms/lengths, and neither can fairly be said to be canonical. This is true of quite a few Dylan albums (in particular of Blonde on Blonde, which has been released in no fewer than eleven variant forms). Petsounds has removed information of alternate forms from at least one other entry (Highway 61 Revisited) without appropriate notice or explanation. The wikilinking he introduced is incorrect; The Basement Tapes (album) is rather different from the Basement Tape(s) session recordings, which have been unearthed and circulated by Dylan fans, and a separate article is badly needed; the differences are set out at length in, for example, Greil Marcus' book "The Old Weird America." I had thought that using a different form of the signifying phrase and not styling it as though it were an album should have been enough to signal to anyone reasonably familiar with Dylan's work that I did not intend a reference to the Columbia album. At the very least, an inquiry was warranted before making that (quite inappropriate) edit. With regard to the chart topping, it is not simply a qualitative dispute; I've questioned the sourcing, which goes only to an elaborate but anonymous website which provides no source information of its own.

But more important than the details of a particular edit is your completely unwarranted comment that my plural reference to Petsounds' practice of using misleading edit summaries is a "misstatement." There have been comments from at least two other recently on this point, including at least one admin (their specific views may not align with mine.) I point out other examples, larger and smaller, without difficulty -- note, for example, this edit to a Rolling Stones album page, where the user deleted a full set of track annotations without explanation, marking it as a minor edit conforming the spelling of the name "Keith Richard(s)." How many more examples would you like?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Out_of_Our_Heads&diff=18358059&oldid=18302030

His practice is extensive; his response to related comments on the talk page of user Mel Etitis -- that a particular "minor" marking was just a slip -- cannot, I think, be viewed as an accurate, candid, or, yes, honest reply.

Think or say what you like about my style. But I believe you owe me an apology for jumping to the conclusion you made about "misstatements" and a lack of "scrupulous" accuracy and posted here. Monicasdude 21:17, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

I have just seen your message to PetSounds. As I have just said there, it is a paragon of restrained complaint. This is the kind of civil interaction that I hope to see in your edit summaries, other discussion posts, and use of reversion. I wish that I could praise you in a way that I could be confident would not seem patronising. Now might be a good time for me to make it explicit that I have no doubt that your intention throughout is to help create the best possible encyclopedia. —Theo (Talk) 12:32, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

I apologise without reservation for causing you distress. I misunderstood the point that you were making about the edit summaries. I understood you to be talking about the John Wesley Harding article and only about that article. I also recognise that I may have been prejudiced by what you see as "rough-edged style" and what I see as incivility. You are entirely correct to make me aware that I should not confuse abuse with inaccuracy. I will try to be cautious in my judgements and I hope that you, in turn, will try to be civil. —Theo (Talk) 22:55, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

I hope that this edit reconciles the difference between you and Brian over track times. I have initiated discussion of the Basement Tape/Basement Tapes divide at John Wesley Harding (album)#Basement Tape(s). —Theo (Talk) 10:43, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't reconcile the differences; it misses the central point. It's inappropriate to designate a particular version of the album as canonical, since it remains available in different forms, with tracks of different lengths. The original version remains on sale -- Petsounds' comments otherwise are contradicted, once again, by the official Sony and bobdylan.com sites. Monicasdude 15:49, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps I should have said that we should now seek to add the timings of the original version alongside those of the latest version with the existing note that other variations exist. I think it inappropriate to give no durations at all simply because there are several options. If you insist on only one, I can understand why the original release might be preferable but I feel that none at all is the least helpful option for the reader. Giving one of many, with a statement acknowledging it as such, is not (to my mind) designating it "canonical" (although one could argue that all official releases are canonical). Please expand the article if you have access to the original: my vinyl is inaccessably boxed. Petsounds' assertion about the deletion no longer survives in the article so I think we can let go of that. —Theo (Talk) 17:00, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

15 Big Ones

I'm not sure what's trying to happen with these edits, and the subsequent disagreements between you and Brian. But I don't think it's really safe for me to get involved. Thanks for the temptation, but I'll refuse to be sucked in eitherway. I'm going to say the same thing to him, and things will be fine.

Apologies for wussing out, but sometimes it's just gotta be done. I'll tell him the same thing. Bobo192|Edits

PetSounds 24 July

Thank you for the alert. I have counselled Brian to stop adding qualitative statements without gaining prior consensus. I imagine that your patience must be wearing pretty thin by now so I am presuming upon your goodwill to ask you to be particularly careful when discussing these changes. I fear that Brian is likely to feel a bit battered after days of continued criticism (even though we feel it to be just) and impatience does not sit well with bruises.—Theo (Talk) 18:24, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

I have edited Younger Than Yesterday to show the kind of thing that I consider appropriate. I hope this helps. —Theo (Talk) 00:39, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Moving Dylan page forward

We are in agreement on the point that articles need to move forward. I may make some changes to the Dylan page, possibly some that use earlier language (I did like the older intro a bit better). If so, I'll do so in small increments, and provide explanations in the changelog and/or talk page. I don't have any particular agenda about that page, nor have I made more than small edits to it in the past.

I did however, notice that in the talk page, you showed a bit of unnecessary rancor towards some other editors. I think all those discussions were before I ever made even a minor edit to the Dylan page; so I'm uninvolved. And you're certainly not the only one (even on that specific page), who got a little less taciturn than desirable. But I would recommend that you try to avoid argumentative digressions during the page editing. Any given change made in the future should be about the specific content, and let's let the discussion focus just on the article content. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 03:25, 2005 August 11 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. I closed the nomination on WP:FARC because it had been there for over a month, whereas a decision to remove "featured article status" is meant to be made if there is a consensus at the end of 2 weeks (you may have noticed that there was a slight back-log in the page being maintained which I have tried to address). There were six votes to remove "featured" status and five to retain its status: clearly no consensus to do anything.

As I said in Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/Bob Dylan, Maveric149 added the {{featured}} template on 15 March 2004 [diff] as part of the move from "Brilliant Prose" to "Featured Articles"; having taken a look further back, Lord Emsworth added the text "This is a featured article." on 15 February 2004 [diff] - from his contributions, this was in the middle of an early restructuring of Wikipedia:Featured articles. Looking at the history of Wikipedia:Featured articles, Bob Dylan was added by User:Gareth Owen on 21 October 2003 [2] with the comment "added two that have been on "candidates" for two weeks". It is before my time, but things were clearly very different back then - there were far fewer active Wikipedians: it seems that articles were promoted if there were no objections, unlike the present process which requires active support, and there were no specific criteria along the lines of Wikipedia:What is a featured article, just a requirement for something to be "brilliant prose". Here is a link to the discussion (such as it was) on WP:FAC. I hope this settles the matter. -- ALoan (Talk) 01:24, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that it was the last article promoted under the system that was in operation then; in any event, we are talking about an article that has been considered to be "featured" for almost 2 years, and there is now sufficient evidence for me that it passed the then-procedure legitimately. As far as I can see, no-one complained at the time. The acid test is surely whether it passes WP:FARC, which it has just done (most of the featured articles of that vintage that have come to WP:FARC have failed). Time to move on. -- ALoan (Talk) 19:41, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

DualDisc FAC

Hello. Thanks for your comments. Would you mind going to the discussion page and elaborating on what exactly you'd like to see the article have so I can address the objections? What you mentioned on the discussion page seemed quite vague. Thanks! --K1vsr (talk) 16:54, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

WP:FARC

Thanks for the message. First, let me apologise for using the word "gaming" - I didn't mean to imply that you were in some way being dishonest. What I meant was that you were complaining of something that seems out of process in a way that was itself definitely out of process, and it seemed to me that that was making a WP:POINT. The proper course, IMHO, would have been (would be) to bring your objections up on the article's talk page or FAC talk page, or to contact Raul654 (who does the WP:FAC promotions) directly on his talk page to check that he was happy that the objections to the first nomiantion had been addressed adequately.

It is a little unusual to renominate an article a day or two after it has failed FAC - the nominator is usually expected to wait a few weeks for the dust to settle - but the second nomination did include a link to the first nomination. The nominator should have confirmed whether or not the objections to the first nomination were addressed, and the old objectors should have said whether or not they were satisfied: the part that gives me the most pause is that (as far as I can see) none of the objectors to the first nomination voted on the second nomination.

I do look at WP:FAC regularly (at least once a day, on average), and the templates on Talk:History of South Carolina were updated relatively promptly (within a few hours, although not, as you say, by the nominator, but that happens all the time), so if you were watching the article and its talk page, it should not have been too difficult for you to have been aware of what was going on. If you are concerned about the actions of Toothpaste, I suggest you take it up with them directly.

Anyway, enough rules-lawyering. Time to write some articles, rather than worrying about whether they have followed procedure to the letter or not. -- ALoan (Talk) 19:41, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree with the above comments and have to say that it is disturbing what the user did to get the article through the FA process. Definately raise your concerns on the FA talk page b/c if the article was promoted before consensus was achieved that is an issue. I'd also raise the concerns on the article's talk page. State that the initial concerns raised in the first FA candicacy should be addressed and that if they are not, you will bring the article back up for removal in a month or two. If you do this and your objections are not addressed, when the article comes back up for removal I will vote to remove it.--Alabamaboy 20:25, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Abusive heading removed

You seem to be targetting Toothpaste. I have a feeling this is more some freaking grudge against History of South Carolina failing at the FARC. There is no freaking copyvio and you know it. -- A Link to the Past (talk) 02:30, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

Oi, 'kay, sorry for the usage of freaking 'n stuff, but I have a hard time believing that after all of your interaction with the History articles, that putting up a copyvio that won't allow any editing of the article isn't an attempt to thwart the FAC process. -- A Link to the Past (talk) 02:39, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

Read the copyvio procedures and stop posting personally abusive comments. Monicasdude 02:58, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Calling that a copyvio is ridiculous. Redwolf24 02:42, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Would you care to explain yourself? Two full sections of the page are essentially cut-and-pasted from a copyrighted source, without any direct acknowledgment of the source or appropriate fair use notice. Monicasdude 02:58, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

"Essentially cut and pasted"? She either c/ped it, or she didn't c/p it. I'll assume she didn't since *gasp* you can't even choose one side. -- A Link to the Past (talk) 03:06, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

No matter who is doing what, I fixed what you wanted to be fix. If your happy, remove the copyvio notice and I can post the new material at History of Arizona. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 03:12, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

I understand you thought you saw "copying," but the taking of bald facts and crafting them into prose is not in and of itself plagarism. The order was similar, but that's because it's in chronological order. And I have no doubt that these statements are just the skeleton upon which Toothpaste was building. For that matter, you have no information that the website you referenced was the pure and original creator of the timeline. There are probably multiple references out there that sequence of events, which is strikes me as both narrow and straightforward as well as totally unpersonalized. Facts cannot be copyrighted, their presentation can. For an interesting and I think relevant perspective on this, may I recommend Malcolm Gladwell's "Something Borrowed" from The New Yorker. Outside of all the accusations and so on, I think that you struck a nerve be seeming to tactlessly attacking Toothpaste in public forum. If you had concerns, you could have approached her personally. To me it's clear she's an extremely dedicated and valuable and well-intentioned part of Wikipedia, and I think the rest of us would very much like to see her stay and fear that your attack might threaten or offend her, when she should be thanked for all her good work. A lot of the reaction to your copyvio is a simple matter of interpersonal politics. The cost of your dramatic act was a dramatic reaction. I'd personally recommend thinking more about the venues you use to deal with people and problems. And, last but not least, I maintain that the listing was nonsense, but I do apologize if I hurt your feelings or if this experience has been hard for you. Sincerely, jengod 18:03, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

Please review the excerpts I've pointed out at the bottom of this page, in response to comments by another user. I noted a copyright violation not because the article presented the same "bald facts" in the same order, but because the article appropriated the exact text of the linked site, without any acknowledgment, changing the tense and, in one case, reversing the order of two items. User: Toothpaste did not comply with the applicable Wikiguideline concerning such quotations, which required her to identify the source of the material and place an appropriate notice either on the talk page or, in "hidden text," on the page itself. As for a "dramatic reaction" to my "dramatic act," the personal abuse did not begin with the copyvio notice. As for the quality of work, I think this is not a good article. And I will refer to the particular comment which led me to identify her plagiarism, the statement that "In 1992, Arizona became the first state to have voter approval of a paid Martin Luther King Jr. state holiday." This is a bizarre misstatement of history. I can understand why the State of Arizona papers over the events, but no one who in good faith writes about them should do so. Arizona was the 49th state to approve a King holiday. Its legislature refused to do so for years. In the mid-1980s, then-governor Bruce Babbitt created one by executive order, but that order was repealed by later governor Evan Meachum (whose impeachment should also have been discussed, as impeached governors are much rarer than female governors.) Despite a boycott campaign that ran the better part of a decade, including the loss of a scheduled Super Bowl, the state did not establish the holiday until the hotel/tourism industry forced the issue to a popular vote in 1992. To present this history, as the article does, with the implication that there is something laudable about its course of action, is to falsify history. It also shows exceptionally poor research. I think that featured articles should be well-researched. And I think that pointing out bad research is appropriate. I don't care about your "hurting my feelings" or making things "hard" for me. I think you behaved irresponsibly and let your opinions regarding user:Toothpaste override the criteria and guidelines that should have been applied. Monicasdude 19:17, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Okay, see, now we're getting somewhere! Post stuff like this on FAC objections or discussion pages and you'll have rousing applause. The best article edits that I've seen have been a consequence of objections like this posted on the talk page of the article in question. People can then review, react and REVISE in good time and with good faith. YES my feelings for Toothpaste are effecting my POV -- that's how humans work and I'm won't apologize for it, and from your perspective understanding that people work that way could be VERY useful. I know it seems irrational, but that knowledge can be combined into a rational perspective and make you all the more persuasive/powerful. ANYWAY, thanks for your insight, I don't think you're entirely wrong about this state history articles--I just think you're making your life so much harder than it needs to be by head-butting people. Don't get too hung on the adversarial part of the adversarial system that Wikipedia uses to refine articles--think about it from the system side of things, because the best thing we can do is work together. Worst case scenario: an elaborate but slightly undercooked article becomes featured, the attention directed to the article from its featured status brings other (slightly incensed) experts out the woodwork, they refine the article themselves or post objections and the article gets better. Next time you see a misstatement like the one described above, just fix it! You clearly have the capacity, and using your power for good (writing and editing!) rather than evil (head-butting and complaining) is, IMO, the way to go. Thanks again. jengod 19:47, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

3RR

You have undoubtedly broken the 3RR rule on August 19. I should not block you now as I have recently mentioned my distaste in your copyvio notice, but I'm leaving this here for another admin to see. Redwolf24 03:17, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

WP:AN/3RR#Monicasdude. I believe that's the link. Redwolf24 03:18, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Undoubtedly? As I did on the noticeboard 2 days ago, I am asking for a precedent that an edit dealing with multiple subjects, both inserting and deleting text, is considered a revert for purposes of the 3RR rule simply because it involves the deletion of some pre-existing text. As I pointed out there, it does not meet the definition of revert stated in the 3RR guideline. I believe you are letting your subjective opinion of me cloud your judgment on the applicable guidelines. And I am still awaiting your explanation of why you believe the insertion of two screens worth of copyrighted text, without an acknowledgment of the direct quotation, cannot fairly be viewed as a copyright violation. Monicasdude 16:54, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Because it is NOT a copy/paste job. The article did NOT contain anything taken from the website. All I see is some guy who hates these history articles, or is pissed at people who supported HoSC. You seem to hate the idea of HoA making FA status, and you hate the idea or HoSC not being removed. And, back on topic, you kept removing that line of text, more than three times. - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:44, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

"The article did NOT contain anything taken from the website"?

Article: "Motorola built the first plant in Phoenix that marked the beginning of high tech industry in Arizona"

Website: "Motorola builds first plant in Phoenix marking the beginning of high tech industry in Arizona"

Article: "Arizona won a Supreme Court decision in contest with California over its share of the Colorado River"

Website: "Arizona wins Supreme Court decision in contest with California over share of Colorado River water"

Article: "Rose Mofford became the first female Arizonan governor in 1988 after the impeachment of Governor Evan Mecham."

Website: "1988 Impeachment of Governor Evan Mecham. Rose Mofford becomes Arizona’s first female governor."

Article: "Arizona became the first state to have voter approval of a paid Martin Luther King Jr. state holiday"

Website: "Arizona becomes first state to have voter approval of a paid Martin Luther King, Jr. Civil Rights Day state holiday"

You're not telling the truth, are you?

As for the 3RR rule, read the definition of revert contained in the guidelines. Monicasdude 18:00, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

You don't seem too confident that it was a copy/paste job. "Yeah, it was copy/pasted", and then you show me lines that WEREN'T copy/pasted? Are you high? And how does it matter if I'm telling the truth? I'm acting on good faith that she did not copyvio that information, not knowingly denying fact. Toothpaste said that she never used that website, and I'm inclined to believe her, since all you've done is try to sabatoge the two history articles, and this copyvio would certainly ruin the FAC for HoA. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:44, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

Your comments on Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates...

seem to me a little less judicious than is reasonable or necessary. One need not impute a conspiracy of any sort, and I do not find compelling evidence of this after a preliminary investigation. I think some people who probably ought to know better are trying to encourage Toothpaste to contribute and are not providing adequate guidance as to the necessary quality of contribution for the ambitions they are encouraging (featured article). I am making an effort to say as much those I believe are responsible for this. I don't, however, think Toothpaste is being malicious here or is consciously gaming the system in the instances at hand thus far. I have expressed my basic reservation about the quality of contribution on the History of AZ article by noting a lack of specific references and a virtual absense of scholarly references in the level of references that have been given. Along the way, I do wonder whether anybody listens to Public Enemy anymore: "By the time I get to Arizona," anyone?

Although I've tended to agree with you on these matters and the question of civility which I have raised with A Link to the Past, I have to be plain and say that I think you need to exercise a great deal more caution in demonstrating your assumption of good faith. In all of these cases, there appears to be a simpler explanation of misguided behaviour (and I include here the problem I reckon stems from bad guidance), whatever the pernicious effects. I would strongly encourage you to distinguish the two when making objections. There is strong evidence that you know the subject matter on which you're speaking and, morever, have the wisdom to point out that neither you or another editor have adequate expertise on a subject, but I have the sense that if you continue to overstate some of the valid points you're raising (and which I would encourage you to continue to raise), you're going to be frustrated with either a growing credibility gap or what you view as a gap between the overstated parts of your accounts and the corrective actions taken.

I raise these issues above all because I really want you to remain part of the community and to be recognised for accomplishment at the level of ability you've demonstrated. Please take my criticisms in that spirit. Buffyg 21:02, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

I continue to be perplexed by the idea that referring to someone as an eight year old is any bit civil. Perhaps you could explain it to me?

Or, perhaps, you could actually consider that the continued, intense confrontational behavior against History of Arizona, History of South Carolina and those who work on it or support it is not just coincidence. He has tried to remove History of South Carolina, failed, has tried to actually prevent the editing of History of Arizona with a copyvio (of which was not agreed upon by anyone), failed. It is as plain as day that he is trying to sabatoge the FAC process. So before you accuse me of being uncivil, make an attempt at understanding that calling somebody an eight year old when they didn't explain why the FARC of HoSC was bull is the exact opposite of civil - it's just insulting. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:20, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

I don't believe that User:A Link to the Past is current on discussion of these matter, I don't see any need to reply here. I have, however, replied directly to Link via his talk page to catch him up. Suffice it to say that I don't agree with any of the characterisations he tries to advance in the above for reasons that have been given elsewhere. Buffyg 21:41, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Monicasdude, I think some of the confusion here may stem from the efforts of WP:FAD, the Featured Article Drive. I propose to follow their efforts for a while and see what quality of article they support, both in terms of where they focus their efforts as a project and how they interact with the rest of the voting process. It may be that they need some feedback on how they are preparing articles and how they present themselves in FAC voting. Let's pay attention and find out. Buffyg 02:50, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

You're making a major mountain out of a minor molehill. I am semi-aggressive towards one person, with two (taken back) aggressive comments, and you suggest the monitoring of WP:FAD. - A Link to the Past (talk) 03:11, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with the way you as an individual are behaving. My concern is with voting; in particular, it is appropriate that people from WP:FAD disclose their project participation when voting? Is it not possible that WP:FAD has some conflict of interest given that your project is to get articles featured? Is the feedback your giving recognising the efforts of participants or the quality of the article? I don't know yet, but I think attention needs to be paid. I don't know how indicative it is that project participants disparaged feedback that was legitimated by Raul, the admin of the FA process, but I do think this should give everyone pause, which should be used to reflect. Buffyg 10:37, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I've no idea whether there is something deeper here that needs investigating, but I believe Link is merely defending the project from criticism stemming from a lack of understanding. I would ask that if you have any comments to make about our process, our participants, etc. that you make them on our talk page; hiding them away could well be seen as being a bit conspiratorial. The founders of the project, as well as the other participants have only one goal in mind; to systematically bring every article in this encyclopedia up to scratch, in order to do our bit in making this the best information resource there is. Rob Church ^{Talk | Desk} 13:00, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

If anything I've said or my choice of forum were taken as conspiratorial, that would be a serious mischaracterisation. Nothing has been hidden; what I said on this page I raised immediately thereafter on the FAC talk page. I do not see any basis for confusing personal reassurance with conspiracy. I expanded my remarks here only in direct response to a FAD participant. I made further comments directly to Raul in his capacity as FAC process minder (and you may note that there I noted that I needed to take up a number of issues directly with the FAD project, which I have done today in response to your comments on Raul's page — I am not, however, a project's worth of manpower, so I do find that some of my comments have been preempted or anticipated at some level). I have, in other words, spoken separately with every entity I see as a stakeholder, and I see in this no cause for concern about conspiracy. Indeed, it is precisely to avoid a misdiagnosis of conspiracy that I argue that FAD may need to be more transparent in its interactions with the FAC process (for lack of transparency there may be some negative consequences, however unintended). I think, however, that we can continue this discussion elsewhere. Buffyg 14:44, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I've fallen out of synch in this discussion, so I'll be brief and try to catch up in other places. I didn't mean to suggest anything conspiratorial, but instead a problem with "group dynamics." For whatever reasons, when problems are raised with FACs that come out of their group, FAD members appear prone to defend the article in ways which do not encourage its improvement. As an example of such a comment, on the Arizona FAC page, after objections calling for expansions of certain sections of the article, one defender asserted the article was already at "perfect" length. (I'm not sure who's who -- this particular one may not come from FAD -- but it's an almost perfect example of the kind of comment that troubles me.) Monicasdude 15:24, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

What are you talking about? What's troubling you is FAD, apparently, and you're using a possible non-FAD member as an example? - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:01, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Please assume good faith, Link. Monicasdude has been giving good feedback; it would be appreciated if you would try to understand the substance of these comments rather than getting defensive before the stakes are clear. Speaking for myself, the sort of votes that trouble me are of this type. I'd point to feedback of the form "has worked really hard on this," where little of substance is said about the article itself. A comment of that sort can be found in the FAC in question, both from FAD members and non-members. The example is of a mode of criticsm; whether it comes from a FAD member is not the point when one can elsewhere find cases where FAD participants making comments of like sort. That a better example can be found from a non-member in no way invalidates the criticism offered. Buffyg 18:17, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

This is not "good feedback". He isn't basing any of it on the "worked really hard" comment, he's basing it on me saying he was acting trollish (as in, not pointing out ANY flaws in the article; just saying that it needs no discussion). Then, when instead of just asking why the FARC of HoSC was bull, he takes a comment Kiba made and said "Unless you're eight years old, yes, you do.", I said "Get the Hell over it". No one called him an eight year old when he didn't give any criticisms of HoA outside of it definitely not being FA quality. He seems intent on sabatoging the article; First, he gives one of those Strong Objects, then he tried to do an FARC on HoSC, and THEN he puts a copyvio on the page, of which no one, not even those who were more experienced with Wikipedia, agreed with. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:08, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

You have absolutely no basis for asserting that your "trolling much?" abuse is what set Monicasdude off, even if it seems to be another incident of provocative remarks calculated to derail criticism by disparagement. Again you mistate the basic facts by failing to do even a basic parsing of comments before replying with unjustifiable hostility. We've gone through this once before, and in that case I had the sense that you simly refuse to reconsider your perspective and placed more emphasis on self-justification than reconciliation. If you'd like to discuss this further, I'm open to mediation. Otherwise I see no reason to engage in yet another futile exchange. Buffyg 20:41, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

In this entire conversation, not a single human being has EVER justified why calling someone an eight year old is civil. Not a single person, nothing at all. And yet again, my claim that the strong object and 'quick rejection' suggestion (which would be the equiavalent of a speedy delete for the FAC) without even offering a single fix that the article could use to MAKE FA status is trolling (of which I have apologized for, which seems to hold less merit than defending calling someone an eight year old). Being apologetic of my hostility is, in itself, NOT hostile. Apologizing = mediation, so don't talk to me about that subject, 'kay? Thanks, bai. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:28, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

You have not apologized for the "troll" comment; in fact you demanded that it stay on the relevant talk page. You could have removed it and noted your apology there. If you are not going to discuss matters accurately, please stay off my talk page. Monicasdude 21:40, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

You haven't apologized for the eight year old comment to anyone, either. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:47, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

You keep skipping over the part where I explained to you that Kiba wasn't called an eight year old. If I didn't think the continuing argument juvenile, I'd argue that we should open an RfC. Shall we go for a third opinion in an effort to close this? Buffyg 22:16, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

There IS no third opinion needed! I think that he was acting in a small trolling nature, I think he legitimately wasn't interested in having the article improved, but I have apologized for expressing my opinion on that. Would it kill him to take back a comment that could be perceived as rude? Humorous jokes can also sometimes be perceived as insulting as well, you know. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:46, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism in progress: Bob Dylan

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you.

Please note that this charming unsigned message comes from User: Lulu_of_the_ Lotus-Eaters, a wikithug with peculiar biases regarding religion who insists that the Bob Dylan page reflect his and only his ideas about religious references in Dylan lyrics. His complaint was summarily deleted as inappropriate; showing his characteristic respect for and willingness to comply with Wikiguidelines, he put it back up. Monicasdude 22:49, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

History of South Carolina

Hello. History of South Carolina is on Featured Article Candidates for a third time due to recent controversy. I'm guessing that you'd be interested in voting at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/History of South Carolina due to your FARC nomination. Toothpaste 19:38, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Appointment to the Order of Canada

I am rewriting the whole article. I am now at Member, but I will be very close on finishing. If you have time, could you come back to the FAC page and see if there is anything else I could do to fix the article to your satisfaction. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 20:23, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Mediation of Bob Dylan

I would like to get this dispute resolved amicably and fairly, however disturbing you may find my views to be. Wikipedia has a limited number of administrators who are willing to deal with mediation like this, and frankly I doubt that getting another one involved will improve your situation, or the general problem with the great disruption this dispute is causing to Bob Dylan. If you refuse mediation then I will have no recourse but to suggest that User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters proceed to a request for comment.

Please let me know what you have decided. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 20:48, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

I am willing to accept mediation. However, I have asked that you explain one specific comment you made on user:Lulu's talk page before I accept this particular offer. Monicasdude 20:53, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Dylan sources

I do not recall which pages I flagged for sourcing. However, I am sure that you know what would benefit from source citation and you seem to know your stuff. —Theo (Talk) 23:16, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Sheeesh... Request.

Sheeesh, I never knew this page existed. Mdude apparently deleted his userpage upon registering and I assumed he could not therefore have a Talk page. Mdude: I've finally taken the trouble to look into your history a little and, as expected, found plenty of evidence that your truculence and love-for-reversions has disturbed many other Wikipedians, leading to disruption of the wiki process. I suspect that you were a Wikipedia editor under one or more now-retired names, and that the histories of those names will bring out further relevancies. I now ask you to list here any former names of yours so that I can collect any associated evidence for the current RfC against you. This is a legitimate request (though you will not like it) and if you refuse to provide the name(s) I will ask an Administrator to do an IP check and to employ any other methods by which ex-names can be linked to your current name. If these efforts reveal former names I will include your attempted obfuscation (and its creating extra work for me, the Admin and whoever does the actual IP check and other checking) as another bullet point in "Evidence of disputed behavior". JDG 09:28, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

You are living in a fantasy world. Stop defacing my talk page, and stop posting posting personal abuse. Monicasdude 11:46, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

A fantasy world? I believe you have edited under an earlier name. Either you have or you haven't. Which is it?JDG 14:32, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

It is now 15:55 UTC. I'll give it to 19:00 UTC. If no answer from you by then I will consider you non-responsive and proceed with my request for an IP check. Note: to avoid this becoming a charge on your RfC, you must answer "yes" or "no" to the question: "Did you edit under other names?". If you fail to give any answer you will be knowingly causing extra work for others. So, if "Monicasdude" is your only and first Wikpedia username, please answer "no" to the question. JDG 15:55, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

As I believe I've said each time you've raised this paranoid delusion, aside from a few anon IP edits well over a year earlier, I had not edited Wikipedia before registering as Monicasdude. If we're going to talk about sockpuppeting, multiple identities, etc., why don't we talk about your posting comments to UseNet as "Steve H." and then citing your own posts in the Dylan article (that laundry list of "perceived consensus" best songs, or most famous, or whatever it was? Monicasdude 17:11, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

No you've never said this has been your only username, to me at least. Thank you for finally giving a straight answer... And what on earth are you up to with your investigations of usernames I have used on Usenet? What drives this kind of obsession?... Do you believe my Usenet name must be the same as my Wikipedia name? What exactly are you saying? JDG 17:29, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

I didn't investigate your UseNet names. In response to a discussion on the talk page, I tracked down the source of a list included to the article and sourced to UseNet. But thanks for confirming that you'd been citing yourself as a source and didn't acknowledge it. Monicasdude 17:35, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

You really are one of the most interesting characters I've encountered online. Such straight-ahead level-headed writing in the service of fevered, wobbly assumptions... The list you refer to (and which you blew away from the article, thereby diminishing the article) was indeed put together by me. I also sometimes post to rec.music.dylan. It was my "perceived consensus", that is, in my review of opinions by Usenet contributors, I perceived that the listed songs were considered by them to be "the best". It was not my POV (your false reason for deleting the list), it was the POV of the collective Usenetters, which POV, embodying the combined opinions of scores of knowledgeable Dylan aficionados, I found and still find to be of relevance for the Wikipedia Dylan article... This episode is quite typical. You, with your strange blend of logic and illogic, blow away article content on the basis of well-researched, but poorly-formed (i.e. essentially incorrect) conclusions on the sources of said content. Hopefully the folks taking part in the RfC will proceed with enough care to understand the subtle ways in which you go about revamping Wikipedia content, often detrimentally and through out-of-control use of reversions. I've got to hand it to you, you're a slick one. JDG 17:55, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

In other words, it was original research, and therefore not allowed. Stop defacing my talk page. Monicasdude 19:50, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Stop accusing me of defacement when all I am doing is answering your insulting charges about "citing myself as a source", engaging in "paranoid delusions", etc., etc., . Unless you enjoy these dramatics (and I fear you do) you should take my observations to heart and change the way you deal with other Wikipedians. Your rudeness and heavy-handed editing has turned what should be a pleasurable activity into a travail for way too many people, and the disputes that are inevitably kicked up in the path of bullies of your type are a huge waste of time and effort. For your own sake, learn to play nice and all this wasteful tit-fot-tat will become a thing of the past. If you despise me too much to take anything I say seriously, then listen to people like Theo who you seem to get along with and who tell you essentially the same thing about your attitude.

About "original research"-- this is a new WP "policy" I feel is certain to be overturned. It's very misguided, but that's another topic for another day. It wasn't in effect when I added the list and I'm quite sure it won't be in effect a short ways down the road, at which time I will restore the list. JDG 20:20, 28 August 2005 (UTC)