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)

Facts and figures cannot be copyrighted. The text is not copyright-infringing and never was. Rob Church ^Talk 01:57, 9 October 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)

I'd like to suggest that discussion of that remark should be deferred until the mediation process unless you think it materially indicative that Ryan has some sort of conflict of interest or predisposition on this matter. I thin the most important thing here is that mediation should begin promptly, as I believe it is the most effective option to resolve this dispute. Buffyg 22:37, 28 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)

I would humbly submit that this back and forth is not going to resolve the matter. I would urge you all to back off the RfC process and take the informal mediation offer from Ryan. I think no clarification from any party is going to provide a single controlling principle that's going to resolve this matter, so the best way is to step back and tell your stories to a third party as opposed to arguing them here. Speaking from experience, I can tell you that an argument as harsh as this will not be resolved by user page exchanges and, speaking from conviction, I can say that starting an RfC and already speaking of having people banned is going to result in a lot of unnecessary and counterproductive upset. I think it's time for everyone to hold back on editing for a while and cool off. If you all share the same interests and intend to stay involved in wikipedia, more important than the current state of the article is your ability to come to consensus on edits without third-party intervention. Buffyg 21:08, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Buffy, I appreciate your appeal for peace, but you have not experienced the long months of frustration caused by Mdude's anti-collaboration habits. A number of us have pleaded with this user to work with us in a measured way, but he shows absolutely no sign of even comprehending why others are so upset with him. His seizure of the Dylan article took place in early June. Here in late August it is now clear that only mediation/arbitration has a chance to get through to him, as he completely and insultingly dismisses all appeals from individual editors. Thank you for trying, though. JDG 22:05, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

I have also been through trials like these. If you want your frustration to end, the most effective way is to agree on a solution. You say he does not comprehend, but you are not acting to achieve comprehension. Comprehension cannot be imposed, yet that is the implication of so many of your remarks (e.g. "I just think that if we're going to bother with this at all we should maximize our chances for a good result. Mdude hasn't committed the sorts of offenses that will lead to even a short-term user ban. The most we can hope for is something like a temporary ban on his use of the revert power on the Dylan article. That would allow us enough time to get the article back into shape, to produce a version that a properly chastised Mdude could then help us improve going forward." — you'll excuse me if I don't see this as a calculation to maximise mutual benefit). You've been talking on a talk page, but we all know how that can be. I'm as guilty of this as the next person: when the wrong buttons have already been pushed a few times and the faith isn't there, talk pages can produce a lot more back and forth justifications than progress toward agreement. You've not managed to have a sidebar yet, and you're not going to have one without someone actively trying to cool things down. Let someone do that before taking steps that will have an inflammatory effect and make it that much harder to have the best possible collaboration in the future. Someone else can find the diplomatic words to express frustrations and material concerns and set aside the overheated claims. Find the good faith to do this. Buffyg 22:32, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Lulu of the Lotus Eaters

Thank you for that bit of info! It's very valuable evidence against him - and very damning too. Thank you so much! David Cannon 21:33, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Please don't edit my words. Either delete my entry entirely or leave it intact. JDG 15:19, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

If you continue to post gratuitous personal attacks on third parties here, they will continue to be refactored in accordance with Wikipedia:Remove_personal_attacks. Monicasdude 10:57, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

The paranoia here is irksome on all sides. Why on earth would you do put a "note to self" on another user's talk page, stating that you will follow "trace these guys' doings" because you detect the "startup of apparent 'tag team'." Haven't you been posting to no small number of user pages for purposes of forming precisely the kind of "tag team" you identify here? My point is: the behaviour under your control is not to post to someone else's pages something along the lines of "big brother is watching you". This puts matters under your control. That you end up with an "expletive deleted" replacement to your post is a reasonable consequence of an unreasonable editorial remark better suited to internal monologue on someone else's user page. If you're having problems establishing good faith with a user, you cannot expect a remark like this to engender any kind of solution. Buffyg 16:09, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Monicasdude, if you feel there's a personal attack going on, you need to defuse rather than escalate the situation. "Stay cool when the editing gets hot" applies the more so to editing on user talk pages as anywhere else. The first thing to do is to state what you think is objectionable and ask for a clarification or retraction. The last resort is to strike, but you should not try to gloss the remarks beyond degree zero (as in: "personal attack deleted"). Buffyg 16:44, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Once again, external resemblances confound accurate judgment. LotLE and I have notified potentially interested parties in the disputes with Mdude, so they are aware of what's happening and can choose to cast votes or otherwise express opinions. We have not directed their opinions in any way. From what I can tell after a cursory look at what is brewing between Mdude and "David Cannon", it is a beast of an entirely different stripe. They are now stalking LotLE, reverting him just because he's LotLE. Once again, false moral equivalence is drawn between Mdude and co. and JDG and co.. Sorry, Buffy, but you have chosen a truly disruptive editor to defend and you just can't expect people to take his aggressions lying down. I very much doubt you would do so if you were in LotLE's or my place. Perhaps you think you would utilize more mainstream avenues to respond to these aggressions were you in our shoes. Perhaps you would. But we tried informal mediation, tried the RfC (which is plainly just a toothless gabfest)-- so now we're left with wrestling these guys on their own turf. If they don't like it they should quit their stalkings and reversions-for-the-sake-of-reversion. JDG 16:52, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

As I've said elsewhere, my practical experience is that the dispute resolution process is fairly heavily overloaded. People need to adhere to the core principles of wikipedia and try to work out differences amongst themselves. It's not that I've entirely given up on these avenues, but it only took one dance with the dispute resolution process to tell me that it's the last resort of last resort. (This is exactly why I made the suggestions I did to the "be bold" talk page.) Above all, this means maintaining self control, and I have to say that I've seen you slipping in that area, offering explanations of behaviour that are, frankly, paranoid to support unreasonably uncharitable characterisations and resisting self-examination where it is an integral requirement for solving the problem. Please don't confuse my distress at this with an unqualified commitment to justify Monicasdude. I've had episodes of this sort myself, and I've generally found that an explanation that allows a measure of good faith to be preserved can (and must) be found, whether by further investigation or reasonable requests for clarification. Buffyg 17:21, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Please see

new comments at User_talk:Sambostock#Why_do_you_support_Monicasdude.3F. JDG 06:13, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Also see this page. Man they sure could use your help over there, Mdude. JDG 02:00, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Dylan outside the US

Hello - I noticed you removed the sentence I added to the Bob Dylan article about his trip to London in December 1962 – January 1963 to take part in The Madhouse on Castle Street being his first trip outside of the United States. I make no claims at all to being a Dylan expert, but the information I had came from the BBC's own page on Castle Street, here. Do you have a source for the claim there being incorrect? If so, I'll correct that mention of it being his first trip which occurs on the Castle Street page here at Wikipedia. Angmering 19:14, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. I'll change the statement on the Castle Street page accordingly. Sorry I was unclear above, also – I was trying to say that the trip lasted from December to January, not that I was unsure which of the two months it took place in. Anyway, thanks for the correction! Angmering 19:31, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Mark Felt Redux

In June you voted on the featured article candidacy of W. Mark Felt, which failed. It has now been resubmitted. In the event you would like to vote on the new candidacy, it is at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/W. Mark Felt. PedanticallySpeaking 18:59, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Infobox cleanups

Hey, Album infobox two is admittedly not as widely used but I do not believe reverting from it is appropriate. However, album infobox 2 is more accepted than the old style code. In fact I created Wikipedia:Wikiproject Albums/Needs infobox conversion to this ends. You should not be reverting to the old style if you revert from infobox 2 but at least to Template:Album infobox style. Is my change acceptable now? Pleae don't revert to the old style, but at least to the new one. Sound good? gren グレン 21:26, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I will agree on this. I understand that you reverted In A Glass House based on fair-use concerns. There has been no consensus on the issue of this template, however, and it's not your job to go reverting articles based on your opinion, at least at this point. There are hundreds, if not thousands of articles that use this template at this point. Once it has been decided to delete/keep the template, then we'll see. For the moment I have reverted it back to Infobox 2. --Comics 21:13, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't believe you understood, yet my comments are quite clear. Let me re-state what I have already stated to be my position on the topic. It is inappropriate for you to change which template is used in an article when you know very well that there is a discussion going on involving this specific template and that consensus has so far not been reached. You have changed many infoboxes on the premise that they violate fair use, but this has not been determined. It is not up to you alone to dictate the policies of Wikipedia. Until the dispute has been resolved, I ask that you do not change any further infoboxes. You mention my position is unclear because I also reverted the infobox. I was simply undoing what I consider to have been unilateral vandalism on your part. I trust that you can understand the reasoning behind this and if you continue to do so, I will pressure some admins to look into the situation further. Wikipedia is all about community and consensus, and if you don't abide by this philosophy, then you should not participate here. --Comics 23:47, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I understand your position perfectly. You're hypocritical. You believe that it's OK for people who agree with your position on infoboxes, which is clearly a minority position, to change the style in one direction, but not OK for those who take the majority position to make changes in the other direction. Don't use "consensus" as an excuse to claim that nobody can make changes you disagree with without your approval. Monicasdude 14:55, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm getting increasingly tired of you making claims which are false and attempting to hurt my credibility. As far as the lack of consensus goes, please see here and here. Note the references to the lack of "consensus". The vote had 19 for delete and 19 for keep. There were also several comments which were claiming this is a grey area. Before you start throwing around terms like "minority position", at least get your facts straights, because you are doing no more than flaming. As far as your criticism of me being hypocritical, I have explained time and time again why it is wrong for you to go around reverting these infoboxes. Let me outline this as clearly as possible: 1) You base the reversions on the grounds that they violate fair use, as I have illustrated and is quite clear, there was no consensus on this. You are therefore making these changes out of your own desires and without proper justification. 2) Please note that the Infobox 2 template is no longer up for deletion, which technically means there is no problem in using it. The reason why I don't object to people converting articles over the template is because, yes, I think it's an improvement over the original infobox (though this is a matter of opinion, most people will not have a problem with this). There is in fact no reason why this template shouldn't be used in regards to current consensus and Wikipedia policy. Until then, and until it is clear Infobox 2 will be deleted, I ask once again that you do not go around reverting based on "fair use". Regarding what you claim as "changes [I] disagree with", I wouldn't talk too quickly as you're in hot water because you act as you own the Bob Dylan and related articles, there is an RfC and soon a mediation regarding your unilateral actions, and also you have continued to censor your talk page because some people don't agree with you. This might be a good time for you to look over Wikiquette. --Comics 17:48, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Your opinions aren't Wikipedia policy. In the discussions regarding which albumbox should be used, the preference is clearly for albumbox 1. The applicable template for album cover use indicates that the only generally accepted "fair use" of album covers is for illustration of the album articles themselves. As for hypocrisy, your position is that, in the absence of a consensus, it is acceptable for those who prefer the disputed box to replace the undisputed one, but not vice versa. That is a textbook display of the quality. Monicasdude 18:11, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

A question

Why is it that almost all your edits are contested by a large number of users, and generally agreed with by a much smaller number of users? feel free to reply on my talk page or here. SECProto 02:04, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

BGC

I suggest that you start an RfC on User:BGC (unless there is already one I am unaware of) because I don't see this conflict ending without some involvement from the rest of WP. Gamaliel 19:53, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I'll follow your guidance on this, although I have doubts about the productivity of it unless there's serious involvement by editors outside the immediate set of those involved in the ongoing popular music style/content disputes. Monicasdude 22:33, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

An RfC is probably warranted, though (as you say) I'm not clear what good it will do. They generally have one of two results: the subject of the RfC is almost universally condemned, and carries on behaving in exactly the same way, or is widely supported — and neither result would be helpful to you. If you do open one, though, I'll certainly add whatever evidence and support I can. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:21, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I'd have to agree with Mel on this one. Seeing the RfC's on both of you have done nothing, it certainly won't change my view on the infobox style. Only a resolution on that ISSUE on the appropriate page will do that. Therefore we need a consensus on that particular debate since it's a dead heat (19 votes to 19). Starting an RfC on me will only confirm what many editors (Theo, JDG, Lotus, Comics, myself, etc...) have long suspected: that you're merely targeting ME and that - I can assure you - will make you look worse, because that (and the failed attempts to 3RR me and report me for vandalism) will likely be added to your own RfC as an example of Wiki abuse and I know many will support that view. It's your noose. And you'll be feeling it far more than I ever will. BGC 11:07, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Boston, Massachusetts - response

I did some copyediting, but I need exact information of what is lacking in the history section. However, I can't expand it further since the section is a summary of a larger sub-article on Boston's history. Plus I am trying to keep the article under 40 kB. Pentawing 22:10, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

• I was wondering if you will respond to my inquiries on the article. Thanks. Pentawing 04:24, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I believe that it would be better for you to speak to me directly concerning the history section. As I had mentioned before, I am working under an article size constraint and some of your comments are unclear for me to proceed (I have no idea exactly what you find wrong with the section. Is it wording, incorrect or missing information, and where?) If you don't point out the problems exactly, I can only do minor corrections as I see fit (given that others I've talked to believe that there is nothing wrong with the section). Pentawing 01:40, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

• I am currently waiting for your reply to my inquiries. Please contact me through my talk page. Thanks. Pentawing 20:24, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Doctor Who missing episodes

I've tried to respond as best I can to your objections on the featured article candidates page for this article, and I was wondering if you had the time to go back and have a look and see if your objections still stand? Angmering 11:48, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Album infobox 2

I just wanted to thank you for your recent comment at the ongoing discussion about infobox 2. It helped clarify things for me, and I appreciate your objectivity and fairness. --Qirex 04:18, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

User:BGC has complained to me that in addition to reverting the template and other minor things associated with the template (which is a legitimate dispute) you are also reverting other additions to the article and is calling this "vandalism". If these changes are just getting caught in the crossfire, could you make an effort not to revert non-template changes? If you have a legitimate reason for undoing these changes, could you make it a little more clearer in your edit summaries or on the talk page? BGC is personalizing this dispute and is claiming it is "out of power control" and so forth. It would be helpful, both to show this isn't a personal dispute and to prevent this war from escalating, if you could at least leave a clear note or two about the non-template changes. Thank you. Gamaliel 01:54, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

User BGC's statements are not accurate. I've already left a longer comment on your talk page. In most cases his "additions" are simply reversions to old, NPOV-violating texts that were the subject of editing disputes months ago, and I believe each of my edit summaries on those pages properly refers to NPOV issues. I have made the effort to keep changes in place -- while my initial edit summaries are marked as reverts as recommended by guidelines, they are not simple reverts: in virtually all cases I either inserted the albumbox 1 template into the most recent page or picked up the undisputed changes and inserted them into an older page. Note the history for [[3]], where I corrected my initial failure to pick up the band template from BGC's edit. His claims are simply not made in good faith. Monicasdude 02:21, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

This happened last time, too, as I recall. Unfortunately I, with the possible exception of User:Mel Etitis, am probably the worst possible admin to do anything about it, since I am so clearly not neutral on the subject. User:Gamaliel has taken on some leadership on this issue, and is probably a better resource. Jkelly 23:52, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Beatles for Sale

Thanks for your comments on the article's FAC. Together, Jgm and I have worked to improve the article and cite more sources. Please have another look and tell us what you think. Johnleemk | Talk 16:15, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

re: WP:BOLD

I think the fact that you're the only editor who keeps reverting the page back shows that there's not much of a consensus for your position. If you want a discussion on this, go to the talk page and start one. I don't see anything there relating to this. - ulayiti (talk) 16:56, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Please take another look at the talk page, particularly under the section headed "Poll" (#9). At that point, a similar requirement was proposed for Featured Articles only. It was rejected by a 2-1 margin. Also take a look at sections 4-5 on the talk page. This has been gooing on for most of the year, and JDG keeps pushing variations on the same theme without ever getting consensus. As another editor commented in one of the earlier rounds of this dispute, "If you want to change a guideline that's been unchanged for a year, you need to get a consensus on the talk page first." And the newest version wasn't even mentioned on the talk page. And how about responding to JDG's thoroughly inappropriate, policy-violating practice of including gratuitous personal attacfks in edit summaries? Monicasdude 17:58, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry for reverting your edits - I should have looked into the matter more thoroughly - but frankly, with you as the only editor reverting the change and numerous editors backing it up, it seemed to me like a legit change. I can see now that it isn't in fact backed by consensus, but it hasn't been rejected either. Explaining why you reverted it in edit summaries or on the talk page would have helped this. - ulayiti (talk) 16:20, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

No problem; as Superm401's comments last night demonstrated, I hadn't made my argument as clear as I should have for editors who weren't involved in the previous conflicts. Monicasdude 16:52, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Tumbling Dice.

I've responded to the NPOV concern about Tumbling Dice. The section has almost quintupled in length with three new reviews being quoted. I'm No Parking and I approved this message 22:18, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

WP:3RR and User:JDG

I asked for another admin to look into the matter, and left a note at User talk:JDG. What it looks like to me is a content dispute and edit war between the two of you. I don't see the consensus that you mentioned. Talk:Bob Dylan, in fact, hasn't been edited since the 15th. That said, some kind of mediation may be necessary here. User talk:JDG seems to be entirely composed of references to you. I notice that is not the case here. To the extent that this is personal, you may need to pursue some stage of the dispute resolution process. If this has already been started, and is stuck somewhere, I trust that you'll forgive me for telling you something you already know. Thanks. Jkelly 02:01, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

That was quite the response. Your statements "it's difficult for an uninvolved editor to keep the dispute in context without considerable effort" and "The situation really requires outside intervention" both seem to be very accurate, while the former may explain why the latter has yet to happen. Beyond the Bob Dylan content dispute, there seems to be further problems that it is not obvious to me have been addressed at all. Can you give me a list of those administrators/mediators that have involved themselves? As I wrote here, I'm concerned about accidentally escalating a dispute. I would, of course, like to help make Wikipedia a better environment for everyone concerned, but it is not clear to me how to do that other than by encouraging use of the WP:DR system. I would like to at least ask after third parties to see if they have any more practical ideas. Jkelly 19:11, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Blues

I have tried to address your objections -- as far as I feel able to do so. Please don't hesitate to provide further objections. Vb 11:50, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

The west wing FAC

Sorry about that, I thought those issues were resolved. Won't do it again! -Scm83x 00:27, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

User talk:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters

Hi. User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters asked me to request that you allow that user to delete your comment on his talk page. I understand that you don't agree with his description of events, but the value of getting your disagreement posted on that user's talk page is probably heavily outweighed by the downsides of annoying him and edit-warring over it. Remember that your response is in the history, if you really need to refer to it at some point. I'd be unhappy if my nosing into this whole thing has the effect of stirring up bad feelings that were otherwise in the past. Thanks for considering it. Jkelly 21:46, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't think it's appropriate for user:Lulu to post an unprovoked personal attack on me on his talk page and summarily remove my response. He's repeatedly been cautioned about comments like those in the past, and refuses to conform to the "no personal attacks" policy. And I have to say, whatever "heat" is involved, that the dishonesty of his comments on the Dylan talk page today demonstrate his lack of good faith. Monicasdude 22:02, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I know next to nothing about Bob Dylan, and less about Lowell George. To be honest, it looks like that article, which is an WP:FA, only has five actual citations in the text, followed by an enormous list of further reading / external links. I'd be completely at sea trying to verify anything in there! I, of course, don't want to see the content disagreement escalate, but it is not clear to me what the best way of avoiding that is. Jkelly 22:59, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Vote change?

I have substancially reduced your opposition on the Dinosaur FAC. What is left you will need to explain more thoroughly as I do not know what is un encyclopedic about the section you mentioned & how there is a sharp change in tone in the Jurrasic park section. Please ellaborate... And, if you want to, you might also be inclined to change your vote, to a neutral at least? It would reduce my stress greatly. Thanks, Spawn Man 03:31, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I have left a reply under yours. I will scratch out what I see fit in order to keep trck of things. I completed your tasks, if you aren't happy, ellaborate. Please ellaborate or I'll take this to Jimbo himself. This is no laughing matter. Spawn Man 03:31, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Those comments are really inappropriate, and if I didn't have the following comments already written I wouldn't be inclined to waste any more of my time on this. Frankly, if the objections to the article candidacy are too numerous/complicated to keep track of, it's a pretty good sign that the article isn't even near FA quality.

I'm sorry, but you've missed my point on each of the objections you struck out, and I've restored them. I don't know why the Gondwanaland discussion is in the intro, since it's not otherwise mentioned in the article. My point was that the fossil evidence is insufficient, on its own, to prove the existence of a supercontinent. By the same argument, the existence of 50,000-year-old human fossils on all continents except Antarctica proves the existence of a supercontinent in the relatively recent past.

The section on "Bringing Dinosaurs Back To Life" is unencyclopedic because it has no real factual basis; it's a discussion of an idea from a novel. I don't think even Crichton would tell you it had any sort of solid scientific basis; it only has to sound convincing enough to carry a reader through the novel.

The comments about shift in tone are virtually self-explanatory; most of the text is written in impersonal, relatively formal prose, but some sections drop into informal, sometimes even colloquial language that appear to present an individual point of view or opinion.

And dinosaurs were fixtures in (mostly American) popular culture long before Jurassic Park; that section of the article is clearly the weakest, and the least sourced.

I've revised the article to eliminate the humans-contemporary-with-dinosaurs problem. Monicasdude 03:52, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

How were my comments inappropriate? Not at all! No! And are you calling me [hate speech deleted] for not being able to keep track of the dinosaur FAC?!? I find that extremely inappropriate!!!!

I have removed the shifts in tone. I have consulted people on the Gondwanaland thingy & they said if you have a written, cited source, then the information can be used in the article! So although YOU may not believe it is sufficient evidence, YOU are not the be all & end all of critics! I have a cited source, so there... THE SAME GOES FOR THE "BRING DINOSAURS BACK TO LIFE" SECTION. IF YOU ACTUALLY CHECKED THE FOOTNOTE, YOU WOULD FIND THE INFORMATION IS FROM A THESIS/PAPER THINGY! NOT SOME FAR FETCHED NOVEL! I have removed the Jurrasic park stuff up thingy also.

Don't let me hating you a lot get in the way of voting on the article. Think of what's best for the article. It would be different if you were voting on Adminship, but you're voting on FAC. Spawn Man 23:09, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Don't post hate speech on my page again. I don't care how old you are; that behavior is contemptible. Monicasdude 00:11, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

[contentious, content-free posts deleted]

User:SpawnMan

While he is entirely in the wrong with regard to his behavior towards you, I don't feel that harsh words will be as productive as gentle guidance. He is acting, in my opinion, in good faith; the occasional lapse in civility, while bad, are something which he can learn to avoid without sterner measures being necessary (in my opinion, anyway).

All of which does not excuse his remarks here, of course; and I wish to apologize for such offense as he has given. —Kirill Lokshin 01:21, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mass Rapid Transit (Singapore)

Hi Monicasdude,

Several replies have been posted to address your objections. Please have a look at them on the above FAC, and reconsider your decision.

- Regards, Mailer Diablo 11:22, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I would think some effort should be made in gaining concensus in Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mass Rapid Transit (Singapore) before attempting to enforce your POV in the article and engaging in revert warring. If your concerns are indeed noteworthy, why, then, do no one appear to show similar objections?--Huaiwei 15:04, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

That's a bad faith comment. Really. Nobody's expressed agreement with your position, either. One of the clearest signs I've seen of bad faith editing is reverting edits that one disagrees with without any discussion of the substance and citing a made-up requirement that prior consensus is required for any changes. Especially by one who is making other changes without prior discussion and consensus. Monicasdude 15:39, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

It cuts both ways. I am left wondering why you use words like "your position", as thou I am reacting based on my personal disagreements with you alone. Do you have difficulty admitting to the fact that I am not alone? The very "sign of bad faith editing" you talk about was well demonstrated by your adventures in the above page. Why do you try to do "minimal copyediting" when it is clear in the talkpage no one has agreed with your concerns and intended edits? So "someone" is making other changes without prior discussion and consensus? Which other changes you are refering to, may I enquire?--Huaiwei 16:05, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Please comply with Wikipedia civility policies when posting to my talk page. And please be accurate: I was not the only, or even the first, editor, for example, who thought the article needed copyediting.Monicasdude 16:28, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Feel free to continue to remind others about wikipolicies while you freely flout them yourself if you arent serious about assuming good faith. Meanwhile, I beg clarifications over you demands on "greater accuracy", for since when did I question the general need for copyedition?--Huaiwei 16:35, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Because you violated the 3RR rule, I posted a notice on the appropriate board, and further discussion of your behavior should be placed in that context. Continuing to post personally directed comments about me is fruitless, and further posts of that sort will be refactored inaccordance with the relevant guideline. Monicasdude 16:52, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

• 1. Don't remove in-line citations [4]. And even if you want to, please reorganise the footnotes accordingly. 2. Please refer to the FAC and answer the replies to your objection as well. - Mailer Diablo 15:50, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

• • My apology for missing the footnote. Inline citations can (and should!) be removed when the accompanying text is deleted. As for the rest, I've already responded on the talk page, and I don't see any reason to repeat my responses to Huaiwei's abusive comments. These are, for the most part, simple verifiability issues that shouldn't provoke this level of acrimony, and what seems to underlie them -- particularly in light of Huaiwei's comments, and your implicit support of them, is a failure to understand Wikipedia's "ownership of articles" policy. The point of FAC discussions is to obtain views that aren't reflected in the consensus of editors who have already worked on the article; to summarily reject those views for not reflecting that consensus is so plainly contrary to the applicable Wikipedia policies that it should require no discussion. Monicasdude 16:28, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

• Now, now, [deletion], I haven't even touched the article for the last 10 hours. My only request is for you to review my response to your objections, and see whether it meets your criteria, and to further discuss if it does not. Then make the changes. Our eventual goal is to improve the article to make it to Featured Article status, yeah? - Mailer Diablo 16:46, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Please cite a guideline or policy which requires prior discussion before editing a candidate article. If you look at other FAC discussions, you will see that it is standard practice to make such changes in an attempt to meet objections, and that those who support candidacies often complain that objectors are not active enough in making changes. Monicasdude 16:52, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

• What are you talking about? I'm only requesting you to have a look at my replies to your concerns, and reconsider your objection if they fulfill your doubts. There are other issues to look at other than just 'ensuring safety'. - Mailer Diablo 17:04, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

You said "further discuss if it does not. Then make the changes." That's not policy, and that's not standard practice. I posted a general reply in response to you earlier this morning, although it seems to be hard to find among all the inappropriate stuff from Huaiwei. Monicasdude 17:09, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

• You are in danger of violating the three revert rule. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from further editing. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 17:17, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

While I appreciate the need for evenhandedness in handling disputes, I would have thought that responding to user:Huaiwei's violation by reporting it in accordance with guidelines, and limiting my subsequent edits to relevant talk pages, should be sufficient to demonstrate my intention to comply with the applicable policy. Given his sanctioning by arbcom barely two weeks ago for similar behavior in another area, I don't think your response is appropriate. Monicasdude 17:45, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I would demand for clarification in the statement "given his sanctioning by arbcom barely two weeks ago for similar behavior in another area".--Huaiwei 17:53, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

You're really a glutton for punishment. From the notice posted on your talk page by User:Jdforrester on 4 December 2005, implementing the ArbComm decision: "You, [names of other users removed] are all placed on Probation for topics relating to China for a year. This means that any sysop, in the exercise of their judgement for reasonable cause, documented in a section of this decision, may ban you or them from any article which relates to China which you or they disrupt by inappropriate editing." Arbcomm made a finding of fact that you had engaged in inappropriate edit warring and concluded that your behavior required a year-long probation. The full arbitration ruling is here [5] . That you would even suggest in passing that the statement was inaccurate demonstrates your lack of good faith and refusal to abide by Wikipedia's decisionmaking processes -- a refusal, I would note, that is mentioned, in a different context, in the discussion on the arbitration evidence page. Monicasdude 20:30, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

• It is polite to sit down, discuss, give and take, and come to an agreement something that both parties will accept and either person to make the edit happily. That's all. I never say 'no' to make unilateral edits, but that's an open invitation to edit wars if other editors disagree. - Now on to your concerns, in which you have provided four. Fares, safety, private/public transport ratio and injury rates. I've answered to them, as follows :

1. For fares issue, yes they are put in comparison, the initial fares of 1987 are shown at the magnetic farecard section, and the current ones under Ez-link.

Not sufficient to meet my concerns, which wanted more historical information about fare changes. The article pretty much whitewashes the controversy over fare increases reported in the reference.

2. Yes they did not install the PSDs, but the authorities have decided to enforce a S$500 on-the-spot fine for anyone stepping beyond the yellow line. Tell me how is that a "promotion", and not an enforcement (to ensure safety).

That doesn't "ensure" safety, any more than strict penalties for murder "ensure" that there won't be murders.

3. Private traffic is limited by the number of Certificate of Entitlement issued by Land Transport Authority monthly. And that's another story altogether, because some families do switch to private cars when the COE market goes low enough for them to afford it. Public transport is not used by the population just because it's more convenient, but also because they have little alternative as private transportation in Singapore is much more expensive.

That doesn't line up with with the official data presented in footnote, which indicates that for the most recent 7 years of data, overall public transit use has been relatively stable, but private transportation use, particularly car/van, has increased sharply.

4. Injury rates, yes I have the data. The LTA sets the standard of no more than 0.4 injuries per 1,000,000 customers. Between 1996-2000, this number has not even exceeded 0.18 for SMRT, and I believe it still has not for either companies. If this standard is breached, we'll probably have noticed because it will be on the frontpage papers (It happened to taxi operators), including a hefty fine. If you doubt my information, I can scan the brochure.

I'm not sure what these outdated statistics are apropos of, but if the LTA is setting a safety standard that accepts several injuries per week, that can't be translated into a factual assertion about "ensuring" safety.

I shall assume good faith that you may have accidentally missed them out in the midst of the discussion. I kindly request that you strike out particular objections whre my replies that have satisified your doubts, so that we can concentrate on issues that you still have doubts on. - Mailer Diablo 17:26, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Since none of your replies have met my objections, I'm not going to strike any of them out. Frankly, this article is unverified/unverifiable on too many important points, and is a long way from meeting FAC standards, however popular it may be. Monicasdude 23:05, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

In an attempt to avoid having the discussion spread over so many different pages, I'll attempt to reply to all the concerns you've raised here.

• enhance versus ensure: as I said here, I don't believe it's worth fighting over. My preference for ensure was based entirely on linguistic considerations; I'm perfectly willing to concede that we should follow the official statements if you feel that there's a significant difference. It's a bit unfair to scold me at such length for an argument I didn't make, though ;-)
• removal of the initial sentence in the security section: I'm still not clear what your issue with that sentence is. It seems, to me, to be a perfectly valid introduction to the section. We may reasonably disagree on this point, I think—since you yourself pointed out that "I don't know enough about the the subject to be sure I'm doing that accurately", you shouldn't really assume that anyone who has a different view is automatically wrong.
• Huaiwei: I will point out that I have had absolutely no intentional interaction with him. I was asked by Mailer diablo to comment on the FAC process, which I did (one of the points I made in my response, incidentally, was that he should do his best to maintain civility during the discussion). Regardless of whether Huaiwei's behavior is a problem (it probably is, but I really don't know enough of the past history here to make a solid judgement at this point), I don't see how I can be blamed for aggravating the problem if my only involvement in the matter was giving advice to an entirely different individual.

On a final note, I don't necessarily disagree with many of your points; I just think you're being entirely too confrontational about them. —Kirill Lokshin 02:37, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

3RR dispute: User:Huaiwei

I would respectfully diagree with your opinion on the matter. I think the fact you knew full well Mass Rapid Transit (Singapore) is a FAC and at the same time concluded that your disputed edits didn't merit discussion before engaging in a revert war speaks for itself. The talk page of the article is there for precisely this reason; you don't come by later and claim that the edits were unsourced -- that certainly never showed up in your edit summary either. And in reviewing the difference, that looks like wording changes and you removing a sourced edit to me, not the other way around. I saw no lack of courtesy on [[User:Huaiwei|Huaiwei's] part during this incident. If you diagree, you're welcome to bring the issue to the attention of another admin.

Your statement that I "concluded that your disputed edits didn't merit discussion" is entirely inaccurate; I made about a half dozen posts on the FAC page, including an explanation of the disputed edit and my reasons for deleting the supposedly "sourced" sentence, before this dispute broke out. That's been the general practice with regard to FACs, followed by almost all users, for as long as I've been commenting on FACs. Note that, for example, both User:Tony1 and user:Natalinasmpf made more extensive changes to the article than I did, commenting only on the FAC page. I've subsequently discussed the changes in even more detail in various places.

And if you really see "no lack of courtesy" from User:Huaiwei, I would ask you to explain to me why you believe that statements like "from someone who appear to be placing ego above the good of wikipedia," "So you want to play the 3RR game now. I said before you are in no position to comment on the behavior of others," "So you condider it ethical to use FACs to enforce your personal POVs in articles, since contributors have not much leeway and must "bend to your demands" before they get accepted? Whats worse, you engage in revert warring if it fails to go your way in an attempt to further shoot down the article's FAC nomination?" and "his reverts were devoid of reasoning" don't meet exactly the definition of incivility in the applicable guideline, "personally targeted behavior that causes an atmosphere of greater conflict and stress."

There is too much territorial behavior in Wikipedia, too much substitution of personally directed comments for substantive discussion, and too little attention paid to verifiability and NPOV policies. Comments and actions like yours in this case encourage the continuing deterioration of the editing environment. Monicasdude 01:24, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I would like to repeat, you are very very very unfair to Huaiwei. I suggest you stay away from this page. I have a feeling you are extremely selfish and you want to make the SGpedians' effort go down the drain. Please have some thought for others. Thank You. --Terence Ong ^|Talk 05:55, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

C'mon man. What you wrote were totally WRONG facts, that is why Huaiwei reverted your edits. So stop reporting people just because they revert your edits. You have wrong facts, that is why. Understand please! Please be sensible thank you. I would also like to thank you for your kind gesture.

Please be fair and kind to other Wikipedians. --Terence Ong ^|Talk 07:04, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry for the remark. I was angry with you just now, but not now. --Terence Ong ^|Talk 14:13, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Please just don't report me to ArbCom or any sysop over here. Neither put me for Mediation or RfC. If you wouldn't mind, excuse me. Things like there are LRT stations in every neighbourhood are wrong. I was just pointing out to you. --Terence Ong ^|Talk 14:20, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to stay out of your affairs with any user permanantly, or other matters. Can you please do not report me anywhere. And I won't comment anywhere about you anymore. Thank you. --Terence Ong ^|Talk 14:32, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Monicasdude, I would sincerely appreciate it if you would stop the uncivil behavior. There is no need to continue your complaints about User:Huaiwei; you were asked to take it to another admin if you had a problem and you posted your complaint everywhere you could think to. If noone blocked him, that's a pretty good indication that they agreeded -- he did not revert further after I requested he stop. Lets try to get past this and back to editing. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 14:34, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

And I would "sincerely appreciate it" if you corrected your plainly inaccurate, inappropriate comments about my editing practices. You wrote that I "concluded that your disputed edits didn't merit discussion" even though I'd discussed them extensively on the FAC candidacy page. I think it borders on the uncivil for you to make such comments and refuse to make a substantive response when I point out your error. I think it would have been less civil for me to involve others without allowing you an opportunity to correct what was plain error on your part. As for User:Huaiwei stopping his reverts, that's a fairly silly comment. User:Huaiwei deliberately broke the 3RR rule, I followed it. Because I followed Wikipedia policy, there's nothing for him to revert. Monicasdude 14:50, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

If you consider listing your dispute on the FAC comment page and then making the changes even after three other editors diagreed to be a correct course of action, I would suggest you review WP:CON and possibly WP:EQ. Again, I recommend that you seek other opinions on the subject if you feel me to be biased. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 15:07, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I think you should take another look at the FAC page, because the objections came after I made the edit, not before. I also think you should review WP:Verifiability, an official policy which cannot be overridden by consensus. From the Consensus guideline page: "Consensus should not trump NPOV (or any other official policy). . . . a group of editors may be able to shut out certain facts and points of view through persistence, numbers, and organization. This group of editors should not agree to an article version that violates NPOV, but on occasion will do so anyway. This is generally agreed to be a bad thing." The underlying dispute is a simple verifiability issue -- in several places, the text of the article is inconsistent with -- sometimes nearly contradictory to -- the references it cites, and needs to be corrected. Monicasdude 15:24, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps more discussion on the FAC or peer review could help sort out the article sources and whether or not the facts references are in fact verifiable in those sources? If you have access to that particular source, perhaps you could post applicable sections to illustrate that the sentence isn't supported by the source? .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 15:30, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Chinese New Year

Yes, it looks like all 3 are violating probation. What you want to do is...post a request on the administrator's noticeboard, asking that they be blocked for violating probation. Make sure you site the arbcom decision and also point out the article and what they are doing. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 03:02, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Re : Wikipedia etiquette

Alter? I'm attributing your comments! You have indented the second part of the comment, and I want to be very sure that the first part is by you too. You should be glad that I actually still read your comments!

- Mailer Diablo 19:25, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

I would think that the signature, the continuous text, and the page history would make that clear. Given the number of problems and errors in the article's text, you would be better advised to devote your attention to improving its accuracy rather than insert "unsigned comment" tags into the text of signed comments. Monicasdude 19:38, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. I need time to look into your comments, it's very long. - Mailer Diablo 19:42, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

In regards to: Your inappropriate comments regarding me on user:Terenceong1992's talk page

It's really not appropriate to suggest that a user who posts inappropriate graffiti on my talk page invoke dispute resolution when I delete them. Do you even bother to check out the complaints you respond to? Monicasdude 22:08, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Its really not appropriate for you to stalk a number of users on the off chance they might mention you. I was actually responding to the entire comment he left on my talk page, not just the fact that you summarily removed his comment suggesting that you archive you talk page since its length is becoming unwieldy. Constantly labeling things vandalism and inappropriate graffiti doesn't make it so. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 23:08, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

It's not appropriate for you to make false accusations of stalking, or making false references to my "constantly labeling things vandalism." It's just too bad that you don't like accurate criticism over your poorly-thought-out actions and comments , but you'd be far better advised to take more care in your own behavior than to make inaccurate criticisms of others'. Monicasdude 23:13, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Honestly, if you cannot find a way to be civil, I'd appreciate it if you'd just refrain from commenting and bring my behavior up in the other forums available to you should you continue to have a problem with it. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 23:17, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

It's too bad you feel criticizing inappropriate behavior is uncivil. But, as you ought to recall, you posted a string of grossly inaccurate comments regarding an editing dispute and refused to correct them, instead choosing to make comments regarding me that bordered on violations of the personal attack standards. And you're repeating that behavior again. Monicasdude 23:24, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Let me try to clarify for you. I understand and appreciate the fact that you can be condescending and uncivil without blatantly being rude, but that doesn't make your continued arguing any more respectable. Your comments have been disingenuous at best and brazenly misleading at other times. Even though you started our brief experience by calling me irresponsible, I have done my best to explain my actions and suggest paths you can follow if you disagree. If you would sincerely like a complete accounting of the basis for my comments, I can provide that for you, however, I feel that would likely acerbate the issue at hand. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 23:40, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Why don't you do that? I'd particularly like explanations of why you declared that I had "concluded that [my] disputed edits didn't merit discussion" even though I'd discussed them at length on the article's FAC page, as has been the practice regarding FACs; why you said that I'd insisted on "making the changes even after three other editors diagreed" even though the disagreements came after the changes; why you thought that Huaiwei's comments above showed "no lack of courtesy"; and why you suggested I subordinate verifiability/NPOV disputes to consensus even though Wikipedia policy is precisely the opposite. As somebody else here pointed out in response to poorly advised comments, not unlike yours, regarding supposed incivility, "I was occupied with the idea that we had an encyclopedia to write, and ranked the function of Wikipedia as a discussion forum second to that function." Monicasdude 00:06, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Fine. Regarding discussing your edits to Mass Rapid Transit (Singapore) on the FAC page -- You claim here [6] that your edits came before anyone had made an objection, but earlier [7] said you had "discussed" the issue extensively on the FAC page. In fact, what happened was (in chronological order):

• You Object on the FAC and state your reasons [8]
• Another editor disagrees, but will consider the objections [9]

Not accurate. The editor responded to my objection, neither agreed nor disagreed with it, but said he or she would consider it.

• You disagree [10]

Not accurate. I pointed out that statistics offered by the editor aren't the statistics I suggested including in the article.

• The article is changed to try to meet one of your objections [11]
• You disagree [12]

Not accurate. Actually, I indicated the revision was an improvement, and explained another part of my objection in more detail.

• The first editor disagrees and looks for the information you requested [13]

Not accurate. The editor doesn't agree or disagree with any objections, but discusses the (perceived) availability of some of the date I've suggested should be in the article. Note also that the editor's comments were inaccurate in some regards, and that the statistics I initially requested were in one of the article's references.

• A second editor disagrees with your first statement [14]
• A third editor disagrees with your first statement [15]

Misleading at best. My "first statement" included a set of objections, and these responses disagree with aspects of one of the ojections.

• Information on the statistics you requested was provided [16], [17]

'Not accurate. One of the responses provides a less important part of some statistics I'd asked for, not the complete set of data. The other includes no statistics at all.

• The third editor responds to another of the points in your first post [18]
• The third editor disputes another point you made [19]

Actually, this post should make clear that there was a language problem in the discussion, and that the way the editors from Singapore use the term "promote" is rather different than the American English usage that I've intended.

• You make this edit to the article knowing that your change is still actively disputed by three editors. You also remove a previously unmentioned sentence and call it a "limited copyedit" [20]

This is a gross misrepresentation of my edit. Rather than inserting the disputed language I originally proposed, I made an attempt to compromise, inserting language from an official policy statement from a system operator rather than the language I had previously offered.

As for the "previously unmentioned" statement, my initial objection referred to the frequent use of substantively redundant/unnecessary sentences in the article, and the comments I posted essentially simultaneously with the edit indicated that this was an example of the sort of sentence I thought should be weeded out. If you had been actively participating in FAC discussions, you might have noted that this sort of edit, providing specific examples of edits suggested in general terms, has been requested relatively regularly.

Up to this point, the FAC discussion has been pretty uniformly civil. At this point, User:Huaiwei begins a long string of unprovoked, personalized, derogatory comments that you don't mention.

• Your changes are reverted by the second editor as "Restored some over-copyeditions"[21]

In other words, he misrepresents the reason for his reversion, since he has a substantive dispute, not a genuine disagreement over copyediting.

• You revert [22]
• Second editor reverts you a second time pointing out that you did not have consensus on the FAC and asking you to discuss further [23]

And he's completely out of line, since it's not Wikipedia policy to require consensus for changes in general, or on FAC candidates, or on FAs. You're an admin; you should know that. What he's actually arguing is that on "contentious" (his word) points, no one may edit an article without gaining prior consensus, and that a point is "contentious" if anyone disagrees with it. If you think this is Wikipedia policy, you're obviously not qualified to be an admin, and you shouldn't involve yourself in dispute resolution. The applicable guideline is, after all, "Be bold" and includes language like "Wikis develop faster when people fix problems, correct grammar, add facts, make sure the language is precise, and so on. Expect everyone to be bold. It's okay."

• You mention your edit on the FAC and state that you have little knowledge of the subject [24]

That is not what I said, and you know that perfectly well. I said that I did not have enough knowledge to do a unilateral, major set of deletions with confidence that I could pick out all the material that would need to be reinserted. Don't misquote my comments to make yourself look better.

• Second editor asks for clarification of the basis of your changes and points out all the objections to the wording change [25]

No, he doesn't. What he does is to falsely claim that other editors object to the compromise language I proposed, even though none have weighed in on the matter -- or even seen the proposed compromise, since I'd offered it barely a half hour before.

• You revert again claiming that the copyedit was requested (by whom?) and that the other editor is displaying ownership problems [26]

Other than user:Tony1, who commented that the article needed a good copyedit, who requested it? You also inexplicably leave out a key point in my comments, which is that I wanted the edits to "stand for comment" by other editors, since at that point it was a 1-on-1 argument.

• Editor reverts again and again requests consensus before making the change [27]

No, editor repeats his previous made-up policy about requiring consensus before making edits he doesn't like.

• You request a reference for the line you deleted (even though the reference is annotated in the section you're deleting), and claim that a wording dispute is subject to verifiability (a bit silly, no?)[28]

Are you even reading this material? This particular argument is over whether a particular safety measure has been shown to be entirely effective, therefore "preventing" unauthorized access, or whether there isn't verification on that point, therefore requiring a term like "limiting" to comply with Wikipedia's verifiability policy. It has absolutely nothing to do with the sentence you mention.

• You revert again claiming other editor is the only one who disagrees and that discussion is not a requirement (this is what I mean by failing to discuss your edits; you obviously knew the edits were being disputed)[29]

What I actually said was "An edit is not 'contentious' simply because you disagree with it, and there is no requirement that every proposed textual change have prior discussion." At this point, exactly one editor has disputed the compromise language I offered. 'Exactly why do you think it was inappropriate to advance compromise language and argue that it should stand for comments by other editors involved?

• Second editor disagrees with your claims on Verifiability and reasons for removing the sentence[30]

Second edit posts a nearly incomprehensible rant that is mostly personal abuse and insists that it is not enough to point out that a particular claim is unverified, but that Wikipedia policy requires verifiable evidence that that claim is inaccurate before removing it. That's obviously not what the verifiability calls for. Once again, this has nothing to do with disputed/deleted sentence you mention.

• You call for calm and repeat the reference request [31]

I call on the second editor to stop engaging in personal abuse, more politely than many other editors would have been.'

• Second editor reverts the article again and restates request for review of consensus [32]

You mean, Second editor makes fourth revert in less than an hour, violating 3RR, don't you? Shouldn't you?

• Third editor points out that you have yet to respond to their disagreement [33]

In a different discussion, not this particular argument. How is this even remotely relevant?

• Third editor suggests that you have not given any evidence to support your edit [34]

What are you talking about? This link just goes to a comment by the second editor that is almost entirely personal abuse.

You then reported the 3RR violation and were unhappy with the results you received:

• You report a 3RR violation and I warn both of you [35]
• You complain that I didn't block second editor, calling the decision irresponsible, claim that the dispute is over verifiability and that the edits are unsourced (By the way the WP:3RR is to stop edit wars, not to punish) [36]
• I respond pointing out that you knew your edits were disputed before you made them, misrepresented this edit dispute in your message to me and advise you of the ability to contact another admin to get a different decision [37]
• You state that you did discuss the changes (mentioning them and getting disagreement from other editors is not discussion), claim you mentioned the sentence you deleted (as you saw above, you did not) and claim I am sanctioning bad behavior by only warning.

[38]

• I choose not to continue arguing and drop it.
• I respond to another editors questions about the situation and clarify that I did not block in this case, just warned [39]
• You renewed your complaint, accused me of incivility and asked me to take back my "inaccurate, inappropriate" (and yet true as we've discovered) statement that your disputed edits were not discussed [40]
• I suggested that you review WP:CON and WP:EQ since you felt no need to reach consensus before making the edits and mentioned again that you could take the issue to another admin if you didn't agree with my response [41]
• You then claim (in error, as you see above) that the objections occurred after you made the changes, you also claim that your changes are just NPOV which trumps WP:CON (again, see above), and then claim that the reference provided is being quoted incorrectly (see above where you claimed little knowledge about this subject, also please note that you failed to provide information on this source or your claim when requested) [42]
• I suggest you discuss further and ask for verification that source doesn't back-up statement [43]
• You become strangely silent

So, I think that covers just about everything. I got into this in order to stop a revert war and certainly never expected nor do I appreciate getting drug through the dirt in this manner. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish

As I've tried to point out, its obvious that we see the issue from two very different perspectives. Everyone involved behaved badly but I don't feel you can shift all of the blame on others no matter much you act the rules-lawyer. I have no problem with your disagreement and have suggested multiple times that you approach any other admin on the subject since we do not see eye-to-eye. You know the rules quite well enough to know what your options are, so please drop the subject with me. Thanks. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 14:32, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

No. I think your responses and actions are inconsistent with important Wikipedia policies, and I think you should at least wait until I finish my response to your inaccurate, sometimes bordering on the dishonest, set of comments. Monicasdude 14:54, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Your 2nd RfC

I have filed an RfC aganist you, which has been approved. Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Monicasdude_2 - Mailer Diablo 15:24, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

It's been certified, it hasn't been "approved"; you really shouldn't make up things like that. There are quite a few spurious RfCs out there, and I and your adding another one out of spite isn't consisting with your role as an admin. Monicasdude 15:56, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Please consider taking the RfC seriously. "Approved" simply means certified by two editors as required by the process. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 16:38, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Don't make things up. An RfC is not "approved." And you should take seriously the policy that "RfCs which are brought solely to harass or subdue an adversary are highly frowned upon by the community. Repetitive, burdensome and unwarranted filing of meritless RfCs is an abuse of the Wikipedia dispute resolution process. RfC is not a venue for personal attack," which is far more applicable to this case than the nonsense you signed onto. Monicasdude 00:43, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Lets dismiss the semantics discussion for the time being. I hope you choose to participate. If this is nothing more than a personal attack, then this is your forum to bring that to the community at large. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 01:54, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

It's not a semantics dispute. It's simply your making up personal standards, policies, and rules for Wikipedia that contradict community policies and attempting to impose them to promote things your friends want. You are, I think, an extremely bad admin, and a person who does not behave terribly honestly. Monicasdude 22:40, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Per your note on the talk page, the "still working" designations have been removed. The RfC has been complete for some time, I'm sorry those were left on there. Thanks. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 14:54, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

While I'm loathe to bring this to light again, I wanted you to be aware that remedies are currently being considered based on this RfC and your failure to respond. I would appreciate any input you might have. Thanks. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 15:49, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Since I posted a response some time ago, it's impossible to view your threats about my "failure to respond" as malicious, dishonest, and a crude attempt at intimidation, like the RfC itself. Monicasdude 16:30, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I had dropped it and wasn't aware you had responded; I apologize; please do try some good faith. I find your comments to be spurious at best like most of the dealings I've had with you. I'm sorry you feel the community is out to get you -- I had actually suggested that no further action was required until several more incidents of your behavior were brought to my attention. Since you seem to believe that multiple editors who became involved through different avenues are "cohorts" and full of "personal spite", it doesn't appear that you've even considered the possiblity that your actions might be causing harm. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 16:43, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Don't misrepresent what I said. I didn't say "the community is out to get me." I do believe that, after the repeated false statements you've made on my talk page, particularly the one above and the bizarre statements in that spurious RfC, that your continuing actions are a vindictive response to my criticizing your encouraging user: Huaiwei in his incessant edit warring, with me and many others. It doesn't appear that you've even considered the possibility that your own actions might be inappropriate. Monicasdude 16:51, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I did apologize, I honestly missed your response in a sea of watchlist items. Also, I did in fact request comments on my decision and you have been the only editor so far to disagree -- I'm more than willing to listen to others opinions and change my behavior accordingly. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 16:57, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Question re discussion

Hi, I am trying to follow the recent course of events. There are a series of remarks made by you that appear on Jareth's talk page [44], [45], [46], [47], [48]. The comments appear to be part of a back and forth between you and someone else. However, I don't seem able to locate the corresponding "other half". Was this sequence half of a back and forth? If so, where is the other half? Thanx --BostonMA 14:36, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Most of it is on this talk page, under the heading "In regards to: Your inappropriate comments regarding me on user:Terenceong1992's talk page". I hadn't finishing my (interrupted) response to her last comment when the acrimony worsened. Monicasdude 16:17, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. On another subject, if you have a moment could you please take a look at Wikipedia talk:User Bill of Rights. Your input would be greatly appreciated. There was an attempt to close this proposal, together with the banning of a user who attempted to keep it open. Any help you can spare would be greatly appreciated. --BostonMA 16:55, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Smiley Smile

Please stop reverting Smiley Smile. If you think the article is not NPOV, then fix it. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater by removing the body of the article. --Chowbok 19:37, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Please take a look at the changes more carefully. What you call "the body of the article" is an extended, unsourced/unreferenced/unverifiable personal commentary that violates Wikipedia's core content policies of verifiability, NPOV, and no original research. Some sections of the article were unsalvageable.

Such phrases as "infamous album," "notoriously under-produced," "bizarre quality," "the turn of events were indeed puzzling," "albeit with a lack of ambition never seen before in him," "sticks out like a sore thumb in this over-simplified atmosphere," "Without a doubt the strangest album ever released by a major group," and "its enduring strangeness" are subjective statements, personal opinions at best, that have no place in an encyclopedic article. The extensive, completely unsourced and mostly if not entirely unverifiable about the motivations of Brian Wilson and other musicians are clear violations of Wikipedia content policies.

This is part of a set of running disputes between user:BGC and other editors (e.g., myself, Mel Etitis, Hapsiainen) over various matters related to popular music pages, and BGC has been warned by several admins that his conduct with respect to the articles is unacceptable. He has responded by removing the earnings from his talk page and describing the admins as vandals in his edit summaries.

I recommend taking a look at this page [49], particularly the early section, for some background to this dispute. Monicasdude 20:10, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Reasons are purely technical:Wanted pages

Your missing user page is high up on Special:Wantedpages. I will try keep your wishes in mind the next time I work on this list. The redirect was intended as a convenience for those who might wish to communicate with you. Sorry for intruding. -- Fplay 20:20, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

OK, not a big deal. I don't quite understand the function of Special:Wantedpages in this context. It's my opinion that what seems to be common practice in maintaining user pages encourages the creation of social circles and similar groupings that promote "tribal" behavior and personalization of editing disputes that are inconsistent with Wikipedia's core purposes. So I simply choose not to have one. Monicasdude 20:28, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Re: Smiley Smile dispute

My advice to you is to do seek nothing from the official channels (ArbCom). I understand that you are currently subject to a RfC, so Arbitration (the typical solution to hopeless cases like this) would probably place unfavourable restrictions on you too if that RfC has (and I suspect it does) any merit. I recommend Mediation – the problem though for that to succeed is that all parties must consent. Are you sure that you cannot negotiate with BGC? Izehar 21:51, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Nightwish

First of all, thanks for your constructive criticism towards Nightwish. It really gave something to work with. However, I believe significant changes have been made to the article since you voted oppose. Please consider review your vote, as I think you might want to change it.SoothingR 18:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Karen Dotrice

Thank you for your vote! I believe I have addressed every concern as best can be done, and I now have two votes in support. Feel free to revisit :) RadioKirk talk to me 22:20, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cheers

Thank you very much for you careful lookover of the article! I think I've dealt with just about everything (I'm going to go deal with the last bit, noting the technical awards Cheers won) so hopefully I can get you to change your mind! :) Staxringold 23:43, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Just a note, but I've added another written source. Staxringold 23:51, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Album infobox

Thanks for the heads up, but all the articles I created seem to have their infoboxes working fine. Are they going to break later at some point? --Malthusian (talk) 18:57, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Right. So... what was the actual difference between the templates? I'm just going through my articles deleting the '2' and noticing no difference. The only reason I used that template originally was because I copied the source text from another article (Revolver (album), IIRC) and changed the words, rather than trying to use the template from scratch. --Malthusian (talk) 19:10, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

WP:AN/3RR#User:JDG

I'd vastly prefer if someone else were to make this call. For one thing, I've been that particular user's case already this week about the whole image problem. For another, I almost never monitor WP:AN/3RR and so have no idea if users are normally given a free pass if their reversion goes back to months old material or not. If I were to say something, it would probably only be to strongly suggest that JDG (talk · contribs) revert himself; I'm not going to be around to put in the time to monitor much of anything. Jkelly 04:52, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Mdude, would it be easier if I furnish you a list of Admins I've exchanged curt words with? JDG 05:54, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Patriots FA

Many thanks for the criticism about the lack of business-related information in the history section. While I feel that it is important to have business information in the article, my initial feeling was that adding excess details would lead to more criticism. That's why I initially decided to move most of the business information to the "History" subarticle (which needs to be cleaned up). However, I will go ahead and add 2-3 paragraphs of business-releated information where applicable. Any specifics? Thanks for taking the time to critique. Deckiller 00:02, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I just posted a small list of significant issues that could be included in the article. Deckiller 00:21, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I just posted a question on the FA nomination: would you say that 4-5 key draft picks and/or trades would be reasonable? I also still plan on addressing 1-2 of those severe injuries during the 1970s. Deckiller 00:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

New England Patriots FA Nomination

Monicasdude, Deckiller and myself have attempted to adress your objections to the nomination of the NE Patriots article to featured status, and I would kindly ask if you could reevaluate your opinion of the article's potential FA status, based on the changes made Thethinredline 09:41, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Bill of Rights

Hi, I'm just reading your edit now. I notice that section 3 appears to be scrambled. Please take a look. --BostonMA 22:33, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I want to thank you for your efforts to resurrect the Bill of Rights. I made a comment about section 2, but other than that, I am quite supportive. Unfortunately, I don't think there is a venue at the momement where such proposals can be raised and discussed in a calm, reasonable way. The last proposal sparked a particularly ugly fight. I don't know if you followed it, but it was very depressing to see the level to which some people stooped. Very much a gang war in my opinion. If your proposal attracts no attention, then it won't attract negative attention. However, if it attracts positive attention, it will attract hooligans also. Unfortunately, including hooligans with admin privs and a sense that they are immune from all repercussions. So, although I am supportive, I am not at all optimistic. But, if you want to try to change things, let me know what you would like me to do, and I will try to carry on in spite of my lack of faith. --BostonMA 23:14, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi again. I was just reading the note that I left on your page 29 December [50]. I again thank you for your editting on the bill of rights, and I apologize for not keeping you informed of the result. As you can tell from my note above, I thought it ended in a fiasco, and I did not have the emotional energy to pursue it. I'm really really sorry if you have spent a lot of time on this. --BostonMA 00:52, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Vahid Rahbani

What do you know about contemporary Tehran that compels you to make this comment?

Object to deletion. If, as linked pages indicate, subject is staging plays by Beckett and Ionesco in contemporary Tehran without being hauled off by the morality police, he's notable.

Please stop with the assumptions, this isn't a dinner table setting. You might offend someone. Kaveh 10:08, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Monicasdude

Are you the monicasdude of the Dylan ROIO site? If you are, kudos to you, it's been a very useful resource to me in the past. --kingboyk 23:12, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ross C. DeVol

I refer to the above Wikipedia AFD discussion, where you voted Speedy Keep. The vote was not valid, for the reasons listed on the AFD page. Please consider revisiting and choosing another vote. Stifle 12:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

No. The nomination was vandalous; notability of the subject is clear, the nominator's claim of vanity was obviously false. Too many AfD nominations and comments, like no small number of those you make, have no real basis in the applicable Wikipedia policy, guideline, and criteria, and should be treated with the bad faith they show. Monicasdude 19:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)