User talk:JohnBonaccorsi

Welcome!

Hello JohnBonaccorsi! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Smee 19:53, 5 June 2007 (UTC) Getting started Wikipedia tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia How to: edit a page • upload and use images Getting help Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and guidelines Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Fair use • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The community Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Writing articles Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review Miscellaneous User name • User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General - Spam - Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

-- Looks like you have not yet been welcomed, so welcome to the project! Yours, Smee 19:53, 5 June 2007 (UTC).

Re: Helter Skelter

A couple comments about your lead paragraph edit on "Helter Skelter".

1. I've been using the shorthand "(credited to Lennon/McCartney)" because the Lennon/McCartney page explains the practice and the terse phrase avoids opening that topic while being accurate. I've no problem with your edit, but wanted to explain.
2. I don't think "sui generis" is accurate; there were other loud, dirty sounding songs before Helter Skelter, and in fact, McCartney was inspired by Townshend's comments about another song. I don't feel strongly enough to change it, but I encourage you to consider that issue and also whether "sui generis" will mean anything to the average Wikipedia reader.
3. Here's the real issue: I disagree with your change of "misinterpret" to "interpret." for the Charles Manson part. McCartney has described what inspired the song, and what it was about, and directly refuted Manson's claims. "Misinterpret" means "to interpret, explain, or understand incorrectly," and that certainly applies here. It's not POV because Manson is the only person who interpreted it that way, and is countered by the author of the song, musical critics, experts on the Manson case, etc. Giving equal weight to Manson's interpretation as possibly valid is not balanced and not supported by reliable sources (Manson himself is not a reliable source). Can we compromise on an edit that you approve but indicates the essential fallacy or Manson's understanding of the song? Otherwise, we lend credence to the Beatles involvement in his heinous crimes. John Cardinal 13:02, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

John -- Because I know very little about the operation of wikipedia, I had no idea I had a talk page where comments from other persons would be listed. I just stumbled onto your comments. I hope what I'm typing now will show up where you will be able to see it. Re your comments: The Lennon/McCartney shorthand would be fine with me; thanks for explaining it. Maybe the opening sentence could be: Helter Skelter, written by Paul McCartney (credited to Lennon/McCartney), etc. Maybe the bit about the album's formal and informal names should be dropped, too; it's dealt with at the White Album page, I think. The wording could be: recorded by the Beatles on the White Album. The link to the White Album page would do the explaining. Re use of sui generis: If it feels wrong to you, please delete it; but here's my thinking: (1) McCartney's having been inspired by Townshend's comment doesn't mean McCartney didn't come up with something quite different from the work Townshend was discussing -- and doesn't the wikipedia entry leave some uncertainty re the recording of which Townshend was supposedly speaking? (2) My familiarity with rock is certainly not comprehensive, but I know of no recording that sounds like Helter Skelter. (3) My inexperience with wikipedia makes it impossible for me to say whether an average reader of the page would be mystified by the term "sui generis," but I think I've seen a wikipedia dictionary-type page. Maybe "sui generis" could be linked to that. Re "misinterpret" versus "interpret": If "interpret" bothers you, then, again, please change it; but "interpret" really does seem to me to be the right word. "Misinterpret" works against your goal, I think. It makes it sound as if Manson's outlandish exposition of lyrics that don't really seem to be about anything has to be rebutted.John B of Philadelphia 07:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Postscript, re your changing "clangorous number" back to "song": I'm surprised you don't think "clangorous number" is an improvement. If you'd care to elaborate, please do.John B of Philadelphia 07:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

---

John B, I can sympathize with not knowing the Wikipedia conventions. I have been an editor for awhile, but I didn't start to learn the ropes until January when I registered a user name and started doing a bit more editing. For conversations between users, the dominant convention appears to be, "I post on your talk page, you reply on mine." Personally, I prefer an approach where a conversation that starts on your talk page stays on your talk page so that the whole thread is in one place, and some Wikipedians to it that that way. I think the former is more prevalent because users get a notification when someone edits their talk page. I have my preferences set such that any time I change a page, it goes on my watch list; if I have posted a message on someone talk page, I watch it for a few days.

Actually, this conversation could take place on the Talk:Helter Skelter page, and that way, other editors interested in that page could participate. For now, let's both edit this page and we can move to the article's talk page if we want input from other editors. (Unfortunately, input from other editors usually comes in the form of edits without edit summaries rather than talk page discussions.)

If you are new to Wikipedia, you should read some of the articles about Wikipedia content:

• Neutral point of view (NPOV) — All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing views fairly, proportionately and without bias.
• Attribution — All material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source.
• Citing sources — Include citations to reliable sources when you add content, especially regarding contentious issues and biographical material about living people.
• Manual of Style — Format guidelines
• Guide to writing better articles — Advice on how to write an effective article.

Please note that many Wikipedians think it's fine to delete anything without a citation. I'd prefer that editors make an effort to see if a reliable source exists either by looking for it themselves or challenging the editor who made the addition... it's easier to tear down than to build but we need more people building. I see the other side, however: a lot of uncited material has been added to Wikipedia, and most of it is biased or wrong or just plain crap.

When writing about music and musicians, we have to be careful to avoid fancruft. The rules for "no original research" (from Attribution) expressly disallow people stating their opinions. Even when you find a reliable source that you agree with, the Neutral point of view policy essentially requires editors to search for opposing points of view from reliable sources. In practice, the NPOV stuff matters most for contentious issues that are in dispute and for items that are essentially opinion, even from acknowledged experts. So, no one's going to object if you say an ounce is 454 grams; it should be cited, but it's unnecessary to find a disputing opinion from a reliable source. On the other hand, if you say something is first, best, worst, etc., it will be deleted or challenged, and if it isn't, it should be.

Regarding "Helter Skelter," let me start by saying that I didn't mean to insult you or anythng like that and my goal is to make articles better, not to write them myself. Also, what follows is my opinion, not the truth. (And editors don't have to cite sources for entries on talk pages!)

• My objections to "sui generis" are (A) it's not a term most people will know and (B) it makes a claim without citing a reliable source. Remember that it doesn't matter whether you and I believe/know/think it's true; it has to be verifiable from a reliable source, and if there is a dissenting opinion from a reliable, pertinent source, that should be cited, too.

• For "clangorous number", I think clangorous is a little awkward and number is a little informal. Having said that, a lot of song articles use track and similar terms to avoid the repetition of song. Taken together, the phrase seems to be an attempt to spice up the sentence and I think the lead paragraph should formal and direct.

Overall, that sentence doesn't work for me now. It's got a couple uncommon terms and uses a synonym for song that most people know but might trip over given the rest of the sentence.

Regarding what the average Wikipedia user will understand, despite my previous comment, I don't know any better than you. I think I was imprecise with that comment. I think the Guide to writing better articles is what applies here and I'll leave it to your judgement.

Regarding interpret versus misinterpret, I am OK with interpret. I still think the setence could be construed as implicitly giving validity to Manson's theories, but the best place for disavowing that is probably in the Charles Manson section of the article.

I hope you find this helpful and that you are not put off by my edits or comments. This is what editing by committee is like; you have to put up with people editing what you wrote and you have to argue for results you like and against results you don't. John Cardinal 13:38, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

---

Thanks for your reply, John, and for the helpful and encouraging words. I had hoped my reply to your original comment would not give the impression I'd been insulted, but I gather it did. I'll keep in mind your remark about editing by committee.

Re sui generis. Your strong sense that the term is too little known to be appropriate persuades by its strength alone; the term should come out. That notwithstanding, I don't think the sentence should remain what it was, a bald assertion that the recording is heavy metal. Was my characterization of the song as sui generis what prompted your remark about fancruft? True, the characterization is unattributed; but, unless I'm misremembering, so was the questionable statement that the song is an example of heavy metal. (We need go no farther than Wikipedia's Helter Skelter talk page to see that classification brought into doubt.)

Re clangorous number. Number hadn't struck me as informal, but you're probably right that it is. How about recording? Yes, the repetition of song is awkward; but moreover, the sentence seems to be about the song as presented on the album, not the song itself (which could have been presented in the style of, say, James Taylor if the Beatles had wanted it that way). I would disagree that clangorous is awkward; it's the apt adjective. Although your view that the phrase as a whole is an attempt to spice up the sentence and is thus inappropriate is reasonable, I'm not persuaded of it. Helter Skelter, as presented on the White Album, is a clangorous number.

The problem is that there is no good term for a specific recorded presentation, on an album, of a song. Number, beyond its being arguably informal, is probably best used for a song as performed live; recording is a bit broad and could be regarded as having to do with sound quality, in the technical sense; performance, again, seems best applied to a live presentation. Track -- although I myself used it in reference to Helter Skelter in Wikipedia's Charles Manson entry -- seems best applied to a particular component of a multi-track recording. Cut, which really wasn't bad, doesn't seem to work in the post-vinyl age. Record is usually reserved either for a single or for an album as a whole. Song, as I say, is a problem. We're talking about the song as presented on the album, not the song itself. (Cf. the Grammy distinction between "Best Song" and "Best Record." I think there are two separate awards.)

Re interpret versus misinterpret. Stating my view more strongly, I'll say that misinterpret is a conversation-stopper. Manson's interpretation of Helter Skelter should not be disavowed in the Wikipedia entry. On the other hand, I won't dismiss your concern that interpret somehow validates his interpretation of the song. How about the following: To the mind of Charles Manson, Helter Skelter was one of several White Album songs echoing and bolstering his (Manson's) prophetic declarations of a war to arise from tension over racial relations between blacks and whites.

---

Postscript: "Prophecies," not "prophetic declarations."John B of Philadelphia 19:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

---

John B, I think you should proceed as you see fit. I like the direction and logic of your thoughts above, and I need to give you room to breathe. I will leave you with this: cite, cite, cite, even if those before you didn't. — John Cardinal 19:43, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

---

Thanks for the appreciative words, John; but don't worry. I haven't felt you've been denying me room to breathe.

I've just posted a new version of the entry's opening paragraph. It employs your parenthetical use of Lennon/McCartney, and it is without the blather (mine) about the formal and informal names of The White Album. Sui generis is out, but so is the entire remark about the song's being an example of heavy metal. You are right to imply that I can't justify an unattributed statement by observing that a statement it replaced was, similarly, unattributed; but because I don't really know where to start in identifying, say, a notable rock critic who has argued that the song is an early example of heavy metal, I have simply presumed, as I say, to delete the remark, which seems a bit of a wild one. If you think it would better have been left in place, unattributed though it was, I'll put it back. The upshot is that the phrase about McCartney's effort to create something loud is now combined with the (reworded) statement about Manson's interpretation.

If the Manson statement still seems off to you, please let me know. I tried clangorous piece, not incidentally.John B of Philadelphia 21:02, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Postscript: And if clangorous is still bothering you, John, as maybe reflective of a point of view, please delete it. Should you get rid of it, you might want to retain piece as the noun.John B of Philadelphia 23:04, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

A response

John B, I like the new paragraph. The Manson thing is good, I think. I don't have any of the books on him and so I am no expert, but the reference makes it clear it was in Charlie's head and not Paul or John's, and that's mainly what I was looking for in that part. "Clangorous piece" is OK as is.

Re: Heavy metal and having sources... The All Music Guide (AMG) has a set of reviews on line and the AMG ratings are shown in many Wikipedia album and song infoboxes. Another source for reviews is Amazon.com. I ignore the user reviews (at least for Wikipedia purposes) but when there is an official review that's another piece of evidence in addition to AMG. For the really popular stuff, Rolling Stone has reviews online for their top 500 songs and top 500 albums. Songs are mentioned in the top 500 album reviews; so even though only 15 or 16 (I think) Beatle songs are on the top 500 songs list (a lot, but not a big percentage of their catalog), there are 7 or 8 albums on the album list and you might find things there.

Clearly, there are review books out there and I think there may even be paid subscriptions for RS or other sources where you can get more reviews. I haven't explored that much. Most of the Beatle song articles are lacking basic citations for stuff everybody knows but more importantly can be cited pretty easily from one of about 10 sources. That's mainly where my focus has been. — John Cardinal 03:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

How to create a User Page

You may wish to create a User Page. You can just click on the red "user page" tab uptop, or invariably also John B of Philadelphia (talk · contribs). There is some interesting information on User Pages at Wikipedia:User page. Here is the list of Userboxes, and this is some Wikipedia information about Userboxes. Yours, Smee 00:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC).

DYK userboxes

If you wish, you can now utilize the userbox: {{User DYK|1}}, and the number can be adjusted to show number of created articles appeared on DYK, which looks a little something like: {{User DYK}}, (plus the number inserted).

You can also utilize the user box {{User Did You Know}}, by inserting {{User Did You Know|Paul Watkins (Manson Family)}} on your userpage. Yours, Smee 10:08, 8 June 2007 (UTC).

Aside

I saw some rumblings about this, and (I assume) from your user name you might be interested in it. More info at: Wikipedia:Meetup/Philadelphia 4. Yours, Smee 00:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC).

DYK

On 8 June, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Paul Watkins (Manson Family), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

-- Great job! Is this your first article to be featured as a "Did you know?" on the Main Page? Smee 07:56, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Paul Watkins (Manson Family)

I just missed that one, is all -- I was targeting the article for the egregious violation in linking to the Blogspot site. I've removed that link as well, now. -- Merope 18:35, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I apologize, I misunderstood. Links to content that violate copyright are not permitted on Wikipedia--thus I have removed the YouTube links and the link to the transcript. I have also removed the excessive quoting of the transcript, since its length violates our fair use policies. You are free to summarize the section of the transcript you quoted. However, do not restore the links that violate policy. 01:35, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your criticism

Dear Sir: Thank you for your criticism of my spelling. It is surely "irresistible", not "irresistable", and I have corrected my user page accordingly. As for "near" vs. "nearly": you are right again! The Oxford American Dictionary, 1980 edition does indeed give "near" as an adverb in addition to "nearly". I hope that you will feel free with any further criticisms of my work. Writtenright 18:37, 10 August 2007 (UTC)Writtenright

You are right again

Dear John: I have thought about your question in the matter of "lone" versus "only" and really see no appreciable difference between the two after all. I have reverted my previous edit to restore the previous text. Once more, thank you for your input. You are truly a valuable wikipedian. Writtenright 00:04, 15 August 2007 (UTC)Writtenright

External Links

Hey John B, I emailed you, but FYI, you can actually just post the URL on the talk page of the appropriate article and say that, since it is your website and you have a conflict of interest, you are posting it for other editors' consideration. If people like it, they will link it. Cheers! --Chuck Sirloin 14:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Suspected sock puppetry

If you believe a banned editor is editing Wikipedia under another name or IP address, the place to go is Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets. You can create a report and editors with checkuser powers (which I do not have) will examine the IP addresses involved and make a decision. Administrators will then carry out any blocks as necessary. -- Merope 12:19, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Manson external links

I think it would be fine to re-add a link to the article that you mentioned. --Chuck Sirloin 22:30, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Did I figure it out?

Hi John,

I don't know if I figured out that this is the way to get a hold of you within Wikipedia, but if it is, then thank you for helping me to figure it out!

In terms of how I figured out how to e-mail you directly, if you look on the left side of the screen, there's all those Wikipedia links. Under "Toolbox," there is one that says, "E-mail this user." That's how I figured it out. Asc85 22:50, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment

I was reading through your recent revisions on Manson and wanted to let you know that I found one change a little confusing. In the Crowe shooting, Hinman murder section:

Though Beausoleil would state, in magazine interviews of the 1980s and 1990s,[52][53] that he went to Hinman’s to recover money paid to Hinman for drugs that had turned out to be bad — and that Brunner and Atkins, unaware of his purpose, went with him idly, merely to visit Hinman, Atkins would write, in her 1977 autobiography, that Manson directly told Beausoleil, Brunner, and her to go to Hinman’s and get the supposed inheritance — $21,000; she said Manson had told her privately, two days earlier, that, if she wanted to "do something important," she could kill Hinman and get his money.[50]

I know what it means, having read the article many times. (And I have an MA so I can read :) ) The paragraph is overly complex, actually, one sentence. I find that when I come across a paragraph such as this, once I find too many commas and phrases, I often end up beginning it over for clarity. I may stop reading it. Would it be possible to sort this out a bit and simplify it? Something more basic, such as:

In magazine interviews given in the 1980s and 1990s, Beausoleil stated he that he went to Hinman's to recover money paid to Hinman for drugs that were supposedly bad. Further, that Brunner and Atkins were unware of his intent, going along idly, merely to visit Hinman. However, in her 1977 autobiography, Atkins wrote that Manson directly told Beausoleil, Brunner, and her to go to Hinman’s and get a supposed $21,000 inheritance. She said that two days earlier, Manson had told her privately, that, if she wanted to "do something important," she could kill Hinman and get his money.

I think that it's important to state things in concise prose, bearing in mind that not all readers are as fluent in English or as sophisticated (think junior high school). Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I didn't want to broach this on the article talk page since it was more of an aside comment from me to you about the article. Your change is good. I didn't check back about the previous mention of the inheritance, and it did occur to me that I'd overlooked it. I added the mention of drugs supposedly being bad, because it's always seemed to me that there may well have been some drug trading along the way, and that was an excuse based on true past drug deals somewhere. In any case, this works for me. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:26, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I knew it said you wouldn't be checking this page, but I also knew that WP would tell you that there was a message here for you. I'm the person who asked for the page protection on Manson because the evening it happened, the vandals were horrible. The protection isn't permanent, but once it expires, if the vandalims returns, it will be returned, I suspect. I'd be just as happy to keep the anonymous IPs locked out, simply because that's from where the proponderance of vandalism comes. I know it inconveniences you, and for that I'm sorry. I'm not sorry, though, to relax my vigilance of the page. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

There were enough drugs floating around them, and no one has actually discussed from where the supply came, although a lot of it was probably readily available. Beausoleil has worked diligently for decades to distance himself from the Family, and why not. Did not someone say at one time that the other murders were done in order to free him? In any event, he's enjoyed a lot more leniency than the Tate-LaBianca killers - he's had the freedom to record music, make and sell art, and move to Oregon to be nearer his wife. Those are luxuries compared to the freedoms the others get. The bad drugs remark is familiar to me also, but I don't remember where I've seen it. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment re: Manson edits

John:

This is what I've been talking about - readability and succinctness. Instead of trying to win a Pulitzer Prize, give the people the info they need (otherwise known as the KISS principle of writing - keep it simple, stupid!!)

Translation - nice job with the edits!

Mike (BassPlyr23 (talk) 22:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC))

Note

One of the edits you made today may be problematic. "At trial, Van Houten would claim uncertainly that Rosemary LaBianca was dead by the time she stabbed her." It's okay in the article, but at some future point, when the article might go forth as a good and/or featured article candidate, in regard to verifiability, "uncertainly" would probably require a reference verifying she was uncertain, or better clarification regarding this. I know what you are conveying, but without support, it would be considered a POV word. Just wanted to let you know. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:56, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it clarifies it quite well, thanks. I'm quite impressed that you remember what edition of the book I have. Sometimes I don't remember and I have it next to me on the shelf. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:50, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

No, you did nothing wrong. If the editor doesn't want to respond to your note, or mine, and decides to remove it, well... so what. Apparently, he didn't like it, but has chosen to do nothing about it, so don't worry!! Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I did go ahead and removed the redlink. There isn't really an issue with redlinks in articles - even featured ones - so long as an article is likely to be created for the link. In this case, I don't really think anyone is going to write an article for a long obscure late night CBS news show, so I have no problem with removing it. Hopefully, in the near future, the article will be settled down enough to consider re-submitting it for a good article review. It deserves to be one, but it will need to be very stable in order to pass. What would prevent it from meeting featured article criteria mostly likely would be the citation format (they seem to like the templated format, which is simply a lot of work for the trade-off). It will remain stable so long as we can continue to justifying the semi-protection. No article will ever be permanently protected, but at least in this case there is an adminstrator who sees the benefit of longer term protection for an article as high profile as the Manson one. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:19, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Creative Common release

Hi. I saw your notes for the CC license for Manson's music. If the ultimate focus is to move this to a good or featured article status, the links for the references may be a problem. The LimeWire links are essentially blog posts, which isn't in keeping with WP:EL. I found another reference that isn't so much: http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,2281577,00.asp. Probably, just one or maybe two references should be enough. I expect there will be wider news articles about it in the coming days. Just a note! Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:39, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

It looks good to me. It makes sense that, if Manson wanted to release his music, he'd do it under CC license since he really isn't supposed to profit from anything. Of course, it hasn't stopped Beausoleil, Watson or Atkins, but then don't they all fit theirs in under some sort of charitable protection? In any case, it is right up to par. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:38, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Sub-headings

I think introducing sub-headings into those longer sections is a good idea, it breaks them down a bit and makes it easier reading. The sub-headings need to be very concise, definitive and neutral. I've changed some, see what you think. I was particularly uncomfortable with the headings of "Endgame" and "Never-ending tale" as they seem to me to lend an air of POV to it. Let me know. Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:16, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I wrote the "Later revelations" at 5 in the morning. I was searching for a term and knew that wasn't the one I wanted. While further sub-headings are a good idea, we also don't want to overkill (no pun intended) with them. I took out some that seemed somewhat unnecessary to me. In featured articles, most don't go from one heading directly followed by a subheading. I know there are a couple places where that happens (justice section), but that seems more logical in effect. I looked long and hard about a heading for the section you called "Contest." I too thought it needed sectioning, but I'm not satisfied with Contest either. Perhaps something that alludes to "Family trial disruptions". Could we consider changing the "Later developments" back to "Later events" and then the "Enduring concerns" could be changed to "Recent developments"? Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Disruptions work for me. The other one I'm not sure about is "Remaining in view." It's passive and doesn't really convey what the section is about, which are, essentially, shenanigans, though I'm not suggesting that. Later exploits? I don't know yet. Any other thoughts? Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:19, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks! Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed the Prosecution case heading. I haven't had a chance to do much this evening, since I managed, once again, to procrastinate in filing my taxes. I'll get back to it tomorrow. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Tattoo

The wording you've suggested is reflective of original research. The tattoo can be mentioned, if it can be cited, perhaps by saying something along the lines of "...Manson was denied parole again in 19xx, where he appeared with a reverse swastika covering the X first carved into his forehead during the Tate-LaBianca murder trial." I thought I had read somewhere it was one of main reasons he was given for parole denial when he first showed up with it, which could be used as a source. I did a cursory search for material that supports that but haven't found it so far. I'm not in favor of giving it anymore weight than that. In some ways, it's like addressing when he pierced his ear, if you follow my thinking. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I guess that mostly my hesitancy about this subject comes from a couple places. One is that, like you, I don't much care for someone coming in and suggesting someone else do some work to satisfy that person's curiosity. Another point is that in my experience with people mentioning Manson's swastika, it's usually a passing interest in whether he had skinhead or Nazi leanings and that certainly isn't the case. The primary point, though, as I said on the talk page, is that it mostly is a piece of trivia that, at least to me, cheapens the article, and by extension, the work that has gone into it. I think that it's likely that the reason there are no reliable sources about it is that no one of note has considered it worth the effort. The web hits I found on it generally tend to treat it like just one more example of Manson's weirdness, like his beard, hair and piercing eyes - they are there but they aren't significant to what he's done. I did see a dead link to an auction on a dubious site for a letter he supposedly wrote about what the tattoo means, but were that even authentic, it would be just more of Manson's BS.

What I can say about it is that without sourcing, it would throw the article out of good article potential and that I am vehemently opposed to having happen. I don't think that photo is from the Tate trial period, he appears younger than that in the photo and it is titled "MansonEarly.gif." I think it's a doctored photo. I don't know what to tell you, this is one of those iffy areas that just seem to me to be overkill, for lack of a better word. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I read the Heller piece when I was looking around for a source about the tattoo. Two things struck me. One was that he was mostly interested in rallying against network television airing a film on Manson because it isn't quality television and is bereft of subject matter (as opposed to, say, Survivor). The other was that his knowledge of Manson was also bereft of subject matter. Since it was just an opinion piece, I didn't lend it much credence. In any case, I think, as they say, we have an accord on what to do with this at this time. Thanks! Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Atkins report

I'm not comfortable with the addition of this section. I'm afraid it's venturing into original research territory. As it currently stands, the section is a compare and contrast exercise of various statements and I'm not sure that I see that it works the Manson article specific, although it may work in the Atkins or Watson. The voice of the section vastly differs from the rest of the article, and the imbedded links aren't consistent with how the rest of the article is cited. The article is already at the point for good article submission, and I think at this point, a major addition like this needs to be brought up on the talk page before it is made. Mostly, it just doesn't fit into the narrative of the rest of the page. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:05, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I understand your concerns re: the differing testimony. I think my main concern in re: to Manson specifically is that this goes a little far afield for the focus. I appreciate your reaction to my objection, and yes, it's part of the record. Again, it may fit very well in one of the other articles, since it pertains to those individuals. I'll make a note on the talk page. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:21, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Pop-culture icon

The relative issue of self-promotion is a fairly large consideration in WP due to the conflict of interest factor. If the guy is connected in anyway to the development, sales or distribution of a documentary or piece of art related to Manson, then it's considered advertising, which is a huge violation of WP:CoI. I'll concede that POV, in some cases, is... well, POV too. The article may benefit from the addition of images, but I'm not entirely sure what they might be. As I said, a copy of the Rolling Stone cover or Life might be acceptable and defensible from a fair use of image standpoint and recognizability, and certainly other photos of Manson over the years as they relate to sections.

I've been reading through your webpage and I'm drawn in. It's well integrated and has a lot that isn't assembled together elsewhere. I'm off to go read it. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:28, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Just an FYI

Just wanted to let you know that when you add material with footnotes and suddenly something disappears, it's usually because there's an error in a reference. In the case of what happened to you a bit ago, I bolded the place that caused the loss of material:

At the Canoga Park house, while Family members worked on vehicles and pored over maps to prepare for their desert escape, they also worked on songs for their world-changing album. When they were told Terry Melcher was to come to the house to hear the material, the girls prepared a meal and cleaned the place; but Melcher never arrived.<ref name="watkins13"/ref>

The "ref" is what did it. Thought that might help. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll pull out my book and read a bit and let you know my reaction to it... probably tomorrow. I don't think the revision is a big deal, though, at first glance. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Good article nomination

I've nominated the Manson article for Good Article consideration again. It's been very stable for a while now, with no big disputes over content, sources or wording. Hopefully, it will remain so while it is being reviewed for GA. Keep your fingers crossed. Wildhartlivie (talk) 11:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I think you're right. I came back today with my breath held, a little worried that a bunch of people would have jumped in and started doing screwy things to it, but so far, so good. It seemed a good time and I'm hopeful. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Helter skelter revision

Hmm, you're possibly right about the current version not being great. I'm now inclined to think the whole paragraph should go - the other uses are adequately covered in their own articles which are accessible via the linked to disambiguation page. As ever, if you disagree you can always make further edits. --BrucePodger (Lets have a beer) 21:42, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

May 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on Talk:Charles Manson. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Be aware that even in heated discussions over articles, making comments such as "In short: you're a liar" is inappropriate and less than productive. Comment on the issue, not the contributor. Also, it is inappropriate to disclose any information about other editors, even with comments as innocuous as "whose name, I've since learned, is Mike." That is for the editor in question to reveal, not you. Finally, Wikipedia makes no distinction between the amount of material any one editor contributes to an article in regard to whose work in more important or whose opinion has more weight. It is a collaborative effort, one in which you need to attempt to work more cooperatively with others. Please contain your comments in the future. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. AndToToToo (talk) 21:42, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

In regard to the editor giving his name on your talk page, you still do not have the authority to carry that to neutral talk pages. While it may be your interpretation that calling another editor a liar is justified, as an outside observer, you did cross the line by making a directed personal attack in violation of WP:NPA. The editor involved in your dispute on the Manson page raised valid questions regarding perceived ownership, which you did support by asserting that your contributions were more important and valid while implying that the other editor's contributions lessened the reliability and validity of the entire article. That is unacceptable. In my view, your actions did not stop the other editor, you only insulted her. In reviewing the history of the page and the various talk pages involved, some of these points are entirely valid. By belittling the contributions of the editor, you have discouraged her from participating on the page, which is one of the salient points in WP:OWN, which also acknowledges that while an editor may not be aware that there are feelings of ownership on an article, it doesn't preclude that it exists. I would encourage you to step back and assess your willingness to work within a group, even though your opinion may not end up being the one followed. AndToToToo (talk) 22:37, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

With every comment, you assert that your contributions are superior, to the detriment of those of others. While you have demonstrated familiarity with policies requiring referencing and the methods thereof, the primary goal is to strive for good, and then featured status articles, the manner for which is outlined by guidelines and policies that include article size. You stated very clearly disdain for the goal of obtaining good article status for this article, and in fact said that you'd prefer to keep the article as is rather than consider changes to bring down the size. Why would you want to reject the possibility of contributing to an article that could be considered one of the best?

I have been involved in projects to condense references in the manner that was done on this article. The simple fact is that such condensations are usually done based on the referencing that is already in the article, so if errors are in the referencing, they were there at the onset of condensation. One does not need to consult the source for a reference formatted to cover, for example, pages 200-212 and then include all the existing references encompassing those numbers. Again, if there is an error resulting, it was already there. The editor admitted that 'there was one issue of an error I made, which was to have typed "watkins" rather than "watson"', which apparently was caught and corrected. Given the degree to which the changes on the page are monitored, another would have been noted. I found a note where User:Wildhartlivie stated she had an older copy of that particular source and can find at no point where you questioned her ability to read it and summarize material or questioned whether she had other sources and in fact, offered assistance to her in finding a pertinent passage in the older version at one point on her talk page. In any case, I trust your assertion that your contributions and work are superior and correct, while the other editor "has lessened the reliability and validity of the entire article" can be backed up. I predict this may be taken to review, as your statements are becoming more damning as you write them. I find it most enlightening that while the other editor has not responded to the talk page since yesterday telling, in that your charges regarding her contributions and their value have escalated.

In addition, if you are saying that her decision to walk away from an article because of conflict is petulant, then you really are too involved and should consider backing away for a period yourself. As the discussion continues, the anger and possessiveness of your remarks are escalating, from someone else made an error, to that person's contributions are all suspect, from stating an opinion that some things aren't relevant to rejecting someone else's contribution. From what I can tell, someone who does not usually edit the article suggested a history of a tattoo and the other editor expressed her opinion that it was trivia and not a relevant facet of Manson's life. That would have been her opinion, and I could find no contribution to the article itself that was removed in the course of that, so you are incorrect in your charge that a contribution was rejected. A suggestion was. Further, it appears that the two of you reached an agreement regarding it, so I have to wonder how in that instance was collaboration not a factor. In fact, your talk pages are full of efforts at collaboration. If the contributions of this editor are so suspect, why would you seek out her opinion or confirmation? I did note at least one instance on her talk page where you approached her to make changes to article contributions to which you objected.

The conversation on the talk page reveals that the discussion regarding size began on May 6, and the editor agreed to work on it in her sandbox space, but you made no objection to it until late on May 10. I have to wonder why you did not bring up your objections earlier, as you were active on Wikipedia after the suggestion and before you objected.

My impression is that the other editor did not willingly lie about your reaction to a change by an outside editor, but misspoke and corrected what was said. Repeating the allegation that the editor is a liar is a personal attack that only compounds the issue and is, again, a violation of WP:NPA. That simply must stop. I can certainly understand that you are not happy with comments that you have ownership issues with the article, but at present, I can't disagree with it. Your Wikipedia contributions are solely related to Manson or the Manson family and the degree to which you are willing to defend them as the person who "promptly whipped [contributions] into shape" and does "the heavy work of actually mustering the content" supports the viewpoint, albeit unstated, that you are at least the watchdog protecting the article. I suppose it hasn't occurred to you that perhaps others would have made more contributions but have learned that it would be promptly redone? I note on the talk page that this isn't the first time contentiousness has arisen regarding a good article nomination. I saw that the other editor was approached by a third Manson editor earlier this year about submitting the article for GA nomination again, but expressed reluctance to do so I concur. I would urge you strongly to review Wikipedia policies such as assume good faith, no personal attacks, maintaining civility and etiquette. As far as revealing personal information about others, that is also covered in WP:NPA and to more serious situations by WP:OUTING and policies related to the oversight committee.

Finally, each user can create a sandbox space to work on articles. To do so, you need simply type User:JohnBonaccorsi/Sandbox to one of your current user pages and save it. At that point, you would click on the redlink and a page opens where you can paste what you need to, or start a new article. Using the Wikipedia sandbox is mostly offered to newcomers to experiment and is open to anyone. That should solve your problem mentioned on the Manson talk page. AndToToToo (talk) 04:38, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I have no intention of spending the next three days debating back and forth with you over this article. You have asserted that your contributions are superior by stating that you allowed the other editor to act as a "shepherdess", which implies to the reader than it was something you indulged. You asserted your contributions are correct in comparison to the other's by questioning whether the editor even has sources and by stating frankly that the other editor's contributions lessened the reliability and validity of the entire article. I see no other way to interpret your statements.

At present, there is no other editor routinely involved in it except you. I have already examined the changes you made today and will note that the reference "carelessly deleted" is one of four for the same sentence and I would therefore question why that particular statement is so incendiary that it needs that many citations, or that the one you returned is so vital that the other three couldn't support it. If it is that vital then the other three are redundant. I also note that the edit summary for the first of the other two edits you made at the same time states that a footnote was being removed from a place where it did not belong and in the next edit, the book was returned to the precise same place with only the addition of a page number. It appears that it was worded that way to bolster your assertion that the other editor has riddled the article with error. I spent 4 hours last night looking back over the history and checking a myriad of changes. As I noted above, the editor did admit that one reference was entered incorrectly, and I found where that was caught and corrected. One of my most salient points was that you managed to work in collaboration with this editor for a long period of time with no problem, so I really have to wonder why it is that you are exerting so much energy to discredit the other editor, unless it is out of anger. As noted, other editor(s) previously involved with the article do not appear to be so now.

While I again recognize that you do not feel you have ownership issues with the article, the other editor has indicated an opposing view, I do feel you have them, and the good article reviewer also expressed the same on her talk page and offered guidance to the other editor on who to contact regarding that. I again would urge you to step back and assess the degree of your reaction to this and your response in the last two days, both in this discussion and on the article talk page. To elaborate on reviews: A review can extend from a request for comment on an editor's behavior to a peer review of an article to a request for arbitration with the Arbitration Committee and usually stem from particularly vitriolic disputes. I have been attempting to mediate this issue to prevent it from becoming that. I'm not interested in a listing of your complaints against any other editors, or an enumeration of their sins. I am simply interested in stopping this from becoming a vendetta. AndToToToo (talk) 00:26, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Do you think that in order to cut down the length of the article, it might be advisable to create a new article (or two)? To wit, an article specifically dealing with the murders and their aftermath (call it "Tate-LaBianca Murders"), and perhaps another dealing with Manson's co-defendants and associates ("Manson Family")? This way, the goals of Wikipedia as the other editors seem to interpret them are met, the essential integrity of all articles is maintained, minimal retyping needs to be done, and the information is disseminated.

Which is more important to you - winning the war, or getting the information out there? It looks from the various talk pages that you're possibly about to lose your account because of your attacks on Wildhartlivie and for other violations (such as using my real name on a talk page, which I'll thank you not to do again). Is this what you want?

I hope you'll take my advice in the spirit in which it's offered - as a token of friendship and good will - and not add me to your apparently lengthening list of Wikipedia enemies. It's not worth the hassle in the long run. BassPlyr23 (talk) 10:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Since we seem to be on the same page regarding the breakup of the Manson article, I say go for it. The whole article is too unwieldy, what with the multiple references and hidden notes. The murders themselves merit their own article - since Manson's direct participation in the crimes seems to be limited to entering the LaBianca home, tying their hands and then leaving, the rest of that section of the Manson article is devoted to the actions of his followers (although we all know that the murders would never have occurred without his instigation). Good luck. BassPlyr23 (talk) 10:19, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Was just reviewing your proposed "Manson Trial" article, which I'm sure is just in skeletal form at this moment. I would think that you would include this in an article about the Tate-LaBianca murders - I don't happen to believe that the trial itself merits a separate article. Watson's trial and Van Houten's retrials are certainly more connected to the murders themselves than to Manson. Just a thought here. BassPlyr23 (talk) 23:15, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Note to me

User:JohnBonaccorsi/Sandbox/MansonTrial —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.242.193.13 (talk) 17:56, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

User:JohnBonaccorsi/Sandbox/MansonFamily

User:JohnBonaccorsi/Sandbox/Tate-LaBianca —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.242.193.13 (talk) 02:28, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Not the vandal

Sorry you were caught up in a vandal warning meant for someone else. A lot of IP addresses are dynamic, and your internet provider may have it set up so you're allocated a new IP out of their IP address range periodically. Looks like someone previously used the same IP as the one you were allocated and made a rather egregious edit. No one is blaming you, so no sorries on that account, we're pretty familiar with how IP addresses may be re-allocated. If you find your Wikipedia access blocked, it may be because you've coincidentally been allocated an address that was recently used for valdalism and blocked. Here is some valuable information on that: Wikipedia:Blocking IP addresses, Wikipedia:Autoblock#Ipblocklist. If you do happen to get caught in an autoblock, just follow these instructions. Dreadstar † 22:53, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Glad I could help. And, lol...thanks for the laugh...can't help but agree.. :) Dreadstar † 01:00, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Manson related articles

Just a note to inform you that there is a dedicated sock puppet who comes in on occasion and tampers with Manson related articles, striking dead links rather than tagging them as such, asserting any number of things, etc. While I was trying to find the correct archived things from mansontoday.info, I saw that you'd fixed the one on Paul Watkins. A similiar one was removed on Beausoleil, which I found and replaced from the version you put into Watkins. The sock runs a blog on Manson somewhere (LiveJournal perhaps) and is quite opinionated on things, such as Manson shouldn't be in prison since he never killed anyone, yada yada. He's come in and raised objections to the Watkins interview before. Just an FYI. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:48, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Ford assassination attempt

Looks like you took care of it for me.

You were right in saying that the Kennedy assassination prompted the creation of the law. Since there were no other assassination attempts between Kennedy and Ford, it's logical to make the assumption that Fromme was the first person sentenced under that law... and that Sara Jane Moore was the second, and John Hinckley SHOULD have been the third...

BassPlyr23 (talk) 12:26, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Manson tags

I noticed the plethora of fact tags that were placed on the article. Personally, I think the tags were added a bit arbitrarily and the reasons given for doing so are a stretch at best. It seems to me that this tagging was done from a "Manson isn't guilty" kind of perspective, with the claims of original research and factual errors, which is a personal opinion, not an OR, weasel word or POV issue. I'm a bit suspicious of this in regard to the reference I noted to you about the sock thing. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:02, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I had to chuckle. The "Official Tate-LaBianca Murders Blog" is operated by the person who is the sock puppet. That's kind of ironic. Wildhartlivie (talk) 14:08, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

My first reaction would be to wait a day or two and see if a response is even forthcoming. You've made a good faith response to his comments and we aren't obligated to give it much more time than a day or so for response. This person has made edits on perhaps 4 or 5 days total over the past year, in widely diverse articles, and doesn't seem to come back. If nothing further is heard, I would recommend doing nothing. In any case, I agree with removing the tags from the lead. There is little precedent to requiring citations for lead paragraphs, and they are very arbitrary. I really have trouble imagining anyone honestly challenging what Helter Skelter was, that it was called the Family, or that it was a commune like environment, except to be purposely difficult. I'm not clear on what he's tagging anyway. He tags the word commune, but really only discusses the use of "Family" on the talk page, which leads me to believe the postings were to just stir things up. None of the changes you suggested are controversial to me in any case. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:03, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Manson - defense rests

John -

Let's not get into it again about nitpicking re: wording. Manson's reaction was clear - he had Hughes killed, likely because he verbalized his displeasure at the turn of events - so obviously he was pretty pissed about the attempt by the lawyers to not allow him to present his version of a defense. It's cool the way it is. Let it be.

Mike BassPlyr23 (talk) 23:06, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks. All's well that ends well, I guess. Mike BassPlyr23 (talk) 23:39, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Dent May

A tag has been placed on Dent May requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.) or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. digitalmischief (talk) 06:15, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Knife found at Tate residence

John:

Was the Buck knife found at the Tate residence ever run for blood/fingerprints? (I don't have access to my copy of "Helter Skelter" at the moment) If it wasn't (or if its' use was in doubt), then we can't count that as a "used" knife and therefore my statement was correct. Didn't Krenwinkel ask Kasabian to borrow her knife? Didn't Atkins say that she had stated in the car that she'd lost hers (likely it was the one found in the chair)? I'm not going to revert - yet - because a) as I said, I don't have my book close by, and b) I don't want to seem like I'm splitting hairs.

Mike BassPlyr23 (talk) 11:44, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Dent May

Congratulations on your progress! This is looking much better. What a difference a few days makes. Let me know if you need any help. Cheers. --Digital Mischief 00:28, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Charlie & the gang

I had responded to the editor on some of this earlier and put the quotes around tearfully. I wasn't comfortable with discussion via edit summary and encouraged her to take her concerns to the talk page and allow time for editors who aren't here every waking moment and who have been involved in the page to respond. I also told her that the article has been exceedingly well researched and referenced and there is an interested block of editors who are concerned who will have a response. I was mostly troubled by the plagiarism comment. If quotes are needed, then fine, but plagiarism isn't defined by using the same word that a source does. I'm glad you responded, I can't say I'm up to a major issue this weekend. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:44, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I responded fairly quickly because I got a sense of "let's clean this baby up" in the summaries when they started and I think we both know this baby doesn't need to be cleaned up. I suppose I also resented the tone. This editor has been here for less than three months, so perhaps with time, using comments like plagiarism will decrease. I told her that over time, we'd all come to a point where we collaborated, sometimes amicably, sometimes not, but we were all acting in the best interest of the article. Let me think a bit on the sub-heading, I remember our agreeing it needed something. Perhaps the light of day will bring an epiphany. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:22, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for a well-needed laugh. [1] Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:40, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Here they come

You might check the talk page for Manson. Someone has decided that the bit about the urban myth that Manson auditioned for the Monkees is trivial and has removed it twice. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:25, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words. I'm not all that committed to the Monkees myself, but then, there are good reasons for inclusion of the inane things that people wonder and I was more miffed at a newcomer just dismissing it out of hand with no questioning. Then again, you know I'd take that stance. I think overall, no matter how heated any of our (meaning yours, mine and BassPlyr's) exchanges, we all had the same best interest of the article at heart. I hate to hear you might not be doing more on the page, I hope things are all right with you. I've always noticed the similarity of the Dave Clark 5 song and the Monkee's theme, but then again, anything done by Boyce and Hart sounded like everything else. I hope you'll stop in once in a while and say hello. I've enjoyed working with you. Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:35, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The note on the Manson scenario page

I just wanted to let you know: the user was blocked as a sock of ColScott, who is the person who writes the Tate/LaBianca blogspot page. He was telling on himself, just for the sake of stirring up controversy. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:33, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Manson again

Actually, no, seeking a GA or FA isn't at all why I mentioned them. I've come to agree with you regarding not messing up what I consider to be a very good article, and I even mentioned that when someone came along who has never edited and nominated it for GA. I knew it wouldn't pass, the size of the article notwithstanding, but because of some of the specific sources being used. I don't think that's a huge issue anymore. When I first came to the article and realized it actually bordered on being a great article, getting it promoted was more important to me. What I appreciate these days is that we've managed to keep it really stable, which is no small fete considering who we're writing about. I'm happy with the article now as it is. It's just that in discussing the forum source, you mentioned the sources to the transcripts and the Manson special interest sites and I thought it was important to point out that if it were being taken for promotion to GA/FA, they'd have to be removed or replaced. I'd rather have the stable article we have, honest to Charlie. But thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:18, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, I've learned quite a bit more than I knew back then, so I'm more aware of what is acceptable as sourcing at what level of article quality. It isn't an issue at the B-class level unless someone comes long to make it an issue. There are a couple things that could have been been brought up and them being primary sources without supporting secondary ones could be made a problem if someone was so inclined. The way we use them isn't considered interpretation, so that could be a valid argument for their use. It doesn't matter though, so long as we all tacitly agree the article is a good article already in everything but name. We certainly worked up the content to that level. I'm happy with it. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:04, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Juan quote

Yup, I wasn't paying attention. I put the ref inside the quote template. Interesting collection of comments on the website. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:13, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I saw the Watson page. I'm not sure about how you've laid out the quoted part of the book, but perhaps I'll think more clearly on it after some sleep. I took out the parenthetical statement you put in about it being amphetamine though Watson didn't clarify what it was, because it was fairly speculative. It might have been, but the description actually sounded as if was something they snorted and if my wayback still works, I'd wager it was more specifically meth, which was huge in the late 60s and early 70s and exceedingly cheap (although I can't say from personal experience, I saw it being used by friends of older friends). Have a nice night. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:03, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Manson scenario

Hi John. I'll take a look at this later tonight and respond. I've had some feedback in the past regarding potential copyright violations, but it wasn't as complicated as this. While I'm asking, are you aware of the hullabaloo someone has raised at Talk:Charles Manson regarding the use of "burgled"? He basically contends it's a British use word and improper in an American based article. I've discussed it somewhat, but I was hoping you might jump in and make better points than I seem to be making. Thanks, and if you need to, you can make use of my "E-mail this user" link. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:30, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Tex

I was a bit annoyed by the attitude myself. Of course, we are talking about a professional writer or journalist, though I can't seem to find confirmation of that beyond a blogspot. I'm not thinking copy & pasting content from other articles, most of which is not cited or is incorrectly cited from cites from other pages isn't helpful in the least. Yeah, I tagged the stuffing out of it. Why wouldn't one do that after all that was cut and salted out of the history by BLP? In any case, don't bait her too much! Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:04, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Aw geez, am I that predictable?? I did shake my head and say "John — really." I could tell how annoyed you were. The trouble is, like you, I could care less about these particular articles. :) I gave up on correcting that particular misstatement a while ago. They couldn't care less about it. Even television programs say it. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:51, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Nah, I wouldn't worry about being drummed out of the bugle corps. Besides, this is a person who put on one of her her blogs that if you like Charlie Manson, leave her be. Therein lies the problem. Liking or disliking adds a bias to editing, not neutrality that is necessary to write articles about criminals and bad guys. Like the rest, it will fade. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:17, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm so glad to see you made nice. In passing, I did revert her addition to Manson, solely because it was about the ancestry of Col Scott from the Bugliosi book, which has been, if not refuted, unsubstantiated in the past few years. Col Scott was a white man who eventually lived in Kentucky but then was once again lost. His brother was involved in a murder in the 1980s, I believe, though I can't recall if he was murdered or he was the murderer. The former, I think. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:25, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Funny, I was just assembling the links to support my removal. The mention is here on charliemanson.com and the passage in Helter Skelter is here on pages 617-618. No, you weren't hallucinating, someone did add properly cited content to Manson, although I scrapped what was said and completely reworded it. Seemed more interested in calling Manson someone's housemaid than actually being professional about it. *sigh* It's always something! Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:00, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I prefer to think of it as "great minds" rather than strange. I'll take a look tomorrow and that will give me a think on it, so to speak. I've never really considered Col Scott as being that important to the story. I'll get back to you! Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:34, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I had tests today and didn't get home until late, but after reading her revert and post, for now, I'm done with anything Manson. I had every intention of doing some research and working on that today, but I'm exhausted from the medical things and tired of condescension. I posted on the Manson talk page

And at what point did I say "he doesn't look 'colored'? But thanks for your lecture on what qualifies as African American in the United States, I'll be sure and pass that information along to my niece, so she can finally be clear about ancestry, although I believe you are misinformed. There are no longer such distinctions, nor the need for it. I posted two quick places where the Scott connection could be supported. Thanks for repeating the quote on my userpage, although it is not valid here as an argument. Thanks, also, for your pop psychology analysis of Manson's state of mind, I'll be sure and add that to my accreditation. I did not say it was hearsay, I said it was disproven. Including supposition included in 60 year old case notes is not confirmation and I dare say, based on my actual experience in analyzing such historical case notes, that they often were full of conjecture and gossip. You know, if you watch this page so closely, have at it. I'm tired of fighting off the vandals and the biased editors who stick in anything in order to have edited the article. The content is trivial, the formatting is crap, and presentation is poor. I believe I'm going to remove this page, finally, from my watchlist. Ah, and one more thing - thanks for the condescension. It's an experience of which I never tire.

I'm just worn out and tired. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:10, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Manson revisited

I'm wondering if you miss me on this article now? Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:08, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

We're fine. I take it you don't object to the changes that I negotiated with Doc last night? I felt some rather frantic efforts on your part to meet the cite tags, none of that content addition was necessary. I nearly choked when I opened the page and looked at it. Doc and I work together just fine. Any consensus needed for anything can be mustered. I intend to address the other 5000+ kb of additions Zeus has made if you don't object. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:15, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad you're glad about the intro. Like I said, I was nearly physically ill when I saw what had been done to the intro. I noticed he'd worked a lot on the Spahn Ranch section and that was large in my thoughts. Changing the intro back reduced the additional content by 1600kb, leaving 5400kb of new material. I started to leave you a note last night and then my browser bogged down and I was nearly sleeptyping. I didn't think you were happy with the changes that had already occurred. As I noted, there should be no problem with mustering consensus for what needs to be done. I've worked with Doc in the past and he really can be very reasonable. By the way, I told him basically the same thing about you. I was distressed to see that you were getting hits on the talk page. Crohnie can be relied upon to be helful when support is needed, too. Here's to whipping Charlie back in shape! Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:48, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I posted a few questions about changes to the rest of the article. What mostly concerns me is that Zeus, I would presume, rewrote and broke up sentences that basically removed some of the content from the description of being properly sourced. I would think that simply restoring the old wording would remove this concern. Thoughts? Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:20, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm fine with what you did. And by the way, §. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:01, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I was just popping in here to let you know that I think you are doing wonderful work on this article. I've had my reasons for staying away for now but I am lurking. I am sorry to say that I didn't do anything when the article was changing, sorry all. I can't say why I didn't do anything other than to say it started like minor edits and then I got side tracked with something else and forgot to keep an eye on the article. When things calm down I may come to help but for now I am too emotional about some things going on that I would be of no good use right now. Keep up the good work guys, if I can help in something specific drop over. --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:01, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

This is what I was trying to say...

But I didn't say it this well. Please read what is said here and maybe you will understand why I thought your name should be blue. I do vandal patrolling too and this is kind of a marker for the vandal patrollers too. I just thought maybe this would make me clearer and what I said that I didn't say that well. :) Have a good day and happy editing, see you around I'm sure. --CrohnieGal^Talk 19:23, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

From the Manson article

I guess you can see what I'm trying to do there on the talk page. Looking back through the discussions there, a whole lot of ad hominem remarks have been thrown around. I'm not blaming anyone for anything, nor suggesting punishing anyone for anything. I would, however, like to ask if we can draw a line under all of that, and go forward from here with a renewed agreement to use that talk page only for discussion of the article? I'm committed to being impartial regarding how everyone uses that talk page. Does that seem reasonable? -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:40, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Hey there!

Hi John, this is not a serious posting to you at all, I just thought I'd say that upfront! :) Lately around the project there seems to be all too much seriousness going on for my taste. So with that said, I found it nice to hit upon a comment that was not geared at being serious. Most of the time on the project it seems like life or death to get that edit in for a lot of editors but as we both know our edits can disappear before even hitting the save key. I've actually had this happen on a busy notice board due to an edit conflict. :) Basically I want to reaffirm what I said at Manson's talk page that I don't mind editor's reverting me if it makes sense. Just a blind revert without a reason I may ask about but if a reason is given it usually means that I didn't think far enough along. I'm not saying this very well but I think you can get the gist of what I'm saying. ;) I haven't edited with you very much at all but my contacts with you and from watching how you work an article. I am very impressed. You actually have a good way of seeing things and how you work an article would be useful if a lot of editors edited the way you do. You take tiny steps, but you seem to be able to see the whole picture which I find very impressive. In closing this nonsense type post I hope the two of us work together more often. You are a pleasure, :)--CrohnieGal^Talk 18:23, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

I needed a good laugh. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:26, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

January 2010

Please do not attack other editors, as you did against me at 21:22, on 14 January 2010 in in Talk:Charles Manson. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Whether your personal attacks occur on talk pages or in edit summaries, it is inappropriate and a direct violation of Wikipedia guidelines for user behavior. Please do not continue. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 08:28, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

AN/I

Just wanted you to know that I filed a report at WP:AN/I about the response SkagitRiverQueen left for you. LaVidaLoca (talk) 09:00, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

FYI

Just letting you know that I am working on answering/responding to each of the points you brought up on the Manson talk page. If you're willing to be patient, I should be done sometime this evening. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 01:46, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Please don't place your comments in my reply to you - it's confusing for the reader and really impolite. If you want to reply point-by-point, then do as I did. Cut and paste in your own reply. Aside from how confusing it is to read and decipher who said what, when, it's bad Wiki-etiquette to edit someone else's comments. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 03:43, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Your edits on the Charles Manson article

I'm no longer interested in editing Charles Manson. However, I was looking at your edit history of this article and I felt compelled to point out a few things.

You've made a total of 657 edits, more than any other editor and nearly twice more than the editor with the second most edits. (Since that editor is anonymous I'm wondering if that's you as well). You've also made slightly more that six times the edits I've made even though I'm in fifth place (108 edits) with respect to contributions.

You have a tendency to reject the edits of other editors (especially mine) who you feel are less knowledgeable than you on this subject. You removed many of my edits except one where I describe Manson's vision of Helter Skelter as an apocalyptic race war. You even removed the copy edit tag I posted.

You bridle at the slightest criticism from other editors. Specifically I'm referring to the conversation you had with user:Doc9871 on the talk page section I created titled "State of this article". I can't help but notice that it was your removal of the copy edit tag I placed on the article that triggered the conversation.

It seems to me you're engaging in article ownership, something that user:Doc9871 noticed as well. Please have a look at Ownership of articles#Examples of ownership behavior. The below behaviors described in the "Actions" subsection seem to fit you well:

An editor disputes minor edits concerning layout, image use, and wording in a particular article daily.

Article changes by different editors are reverted by the same editor repeatedly over an extended period to protect a certain version, stable or not. (This does not include removing vandalism.)

Despite what I've just said I want to believe that you're simply passionate about this article and, given the opportunity, you would be willing to prove you have no ownership issues. If this is the case, I'm wondering which of my edits you would be willing to compromise on. I am Zeus, king of the gods (talk) 04:39, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Dear I am Zeus, king of the gods — I have just responded to you on your own talk page, which, in case you don't know, you may reach by clicking on the parenthetical word "talk" in your signature, above.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 05:13, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Some friendly advice

John - please do those who deal with you and yourself a favor and stop chastising other editors. Your comments to me today on the Manson talk page (and others you've made in the past) show an attitude that you think you know better about pretty much everything and that you really resent having to waste time dealing with the rest of us poor dumb slobs. The fact is that probably most of the serious editors you will run into who will challenge you and/or your editing are going to be considerably older than you are - many (like myself) are old enough to be your grandparents. Just because we're *not* your actual parents and grandparents doesn't mean we don't deserve a little more respect than you are showing. I'm fairly certain I probably know why you come off the way you do in here - and that's all well and good. But if you're going to be a serious Wikipedia editor, you might want work a little harder on changing how you treat people who edit the articles you do. Being nitpicky about editing has its merits, certainly, but being nitpicky and annoying and arrogant at the same time is just plain off-putting and definitely not in the spirit of Wikipedia's standards for civility. I know I'm not the first person to say all of this to you (even though the others may have put it to you in a little different manner) - but if you don't make some changes in your attitude, I definitely won't be the last. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 04:42, 17 January 2010 (UTC)