Talk:Birmingham/Archive 3

Architecture image
Mt friend has taken quite a nice pic of some bham architecture and part of the city in the background... could we include this in the page??

I can provide the pic first for people to see! (if they want that is)

Thanks Nick


 * OK then lets have a look G-Man 22:27, 27 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Here it is:
 * http://img77.photobucket.com/albums/v235/donpablo/smooth2.jpg


 * I think it is a decent example of how the modern city in the background is mingled with the older victorian buildings that have survived, there are still loads in the city but this one is ok as a panoramic representation and from an unusual perspective that doesnt normally get 'snapped'.
 * Cheers Nick


 * The most prominent face of the most prominent building is in complete shade. Andy Mabbett 10:59, 31 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Well it's better than present... nothing there at all ;)
 * Nick.

What Nick created on Brum Wikipedia (will remove soon but wish to prove the point to Andy)
Anything that is in italic was written by myself, with the exception of a few words etc added by others, i am not boasting about this it is purely to show Andy who may not think that i have contributed anything here, i hope that G-man and Angela would confirm this if needed and i could prove these contributions by tracing my IP addresses and so on.

[a copy of the main article was posted here, by Nick Boulevard, then removed by him - see history] Andy

[as promised, thanks for lettin everyone know Andy] Nick


 * also added all the links to motor history but they wouldnt show as italic.

Now Andy, maybe you can see why i have been so p*ssed off with you, you seem to think that i have done little worth while work here, the little deletions and edits (in this case) seem to have been out of spite, that is how i have seen it whether it is true or not, i know my grammar is crap but i would rather create the article than rectify spelling etc just because that is where my interest lies so in that respect i welcome your edits and some of your re-wordings have been ok, but it is not ok to delete large parts of others work without discussing it and as i have said so many times, where is your evidence on Nick Mason? you only seem to to answer questions that you have an answer for! Why is this? You have wound me up and then become upset at my responses.

Nick.


 * that is how i have seen it whether it is true or not - QED. Andy Mabbett 20:30, 31 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Please talk English man!


 * Nick


 * By way of example; Nick Boulevard is claiming, in his latest edit on this page, to have added text on Washington Irving. That was, in fact, added by me in my edit of 13:38, 21 Oct 2003, as can be seen at . Andy Mabbett 20:51, 31 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Andy,

why can you not talk direct to me instead of trying to somehow stretch these issues by pretending you are in a court room? It's abit odd. I am not going to bite you, please try and talk to me and not thin air, you have even got me at it which is not my style.

Thanks User:Nick Boulevard


 * Anything that is in italic was written by myself, with the exception of a few words etc added by others, I honestly doubt how much you actually read Andy before posting, is that all that you could find out of all of that, i knew you would be there scrutinising, well you may well have added that but who cares, i posted the above to show YOU what i have added in the hope that YOU would be a little more respectful, afterall we are both trying to represent our Brilliant city... aren't we???

If you can show me evidence that Nick Mason wishes to distance himself from Birmingham then i will agree that Nick Mason should not be listed, OK! Is that fair? BTY I saw youre accusation of my dishonesty, i will let it go on this occassion becuase i just can't be bothered to reply! :)

Thanks Nick Boulevard.


 * This article was removed then reverted by Andy becuase he loves my work so much!

Nick Boulevard.

I'm getting very tired of this
I dont think we've made any progress at all on working out what to do since the page has been protected and frankly I am very tired of you two [Nick and Andy] bitching at each other, and of having the page protected.

So I will just have to plead with Andy, will you please let the Nick Mason issue drop. It really isn't all that important. And this is going to get nowhere if you insist on being so stubborn.

And could the two of you please come to some sort of compromise over all the other issues, you've been arguing over. Stubborness is getting you nowhere. I'm going to ask for the page to be unprotected now, and I do not want to see a repeat of what happened before. G-Man 22:34, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm getting very tired of your one-sided, ad hominem comments. Andy Mabbett 04:26, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Ok, i am going to revert the two changes that Andy Mabbett has removed without entering into a constructive discussion first, he has not provided any evidence whatsoever of Nick Mason not associating himself with the city and funnily enough there was a competition on BBC Radio 2 last week that asked... where was rock guitarist Slash born (from guns n roses) it IS important that the facts are presented without one persons opinion added on, i have had loads of uneccessary 'fluff' removed from my articles which i now see to be correc because it presents the facts then it is up to the reader to decide.

And my list of places of interest should stay as it was, informative at a glance, Andy can move the Government section as G-man suggested. User:Nick Boulevard

What is Andy Mabbetts problem exactly??? I have just added new material about the great western arcade and he has deleted it as well as reverting everything that i originally wrote again, he is disrespectful! No one is going to curb his behaviour so what can i do? How old is this guy? [User:Nick Boulevard]]


 * See Dispute resolution - David Gerard 22:11, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * If I may comment briefly on a dispute I have only briefly observed, I think this may be an excellent chance for mediation, and I hope both Nick and Andy will consider it. In spite of real differences of opinion and obviously some heated exchanges, it looks to me as though there are possiblities for a solution that doesn't require the AC to come in (indeed, they seem very unwilling to address disputes about content).  Mediation is only for the willing of course, but I mention it here in the hope that both editors have the wisdom to see this might be the best choice.  I'm afraid I only know one of you (Andy), so I can't guess Nick's response at all, but I believe, Andy, you are the kind of editor who might agree with my suggestion.  If my advice is unwelcome, I hope you will pardon my intrusion.  I want the best for Wikipedia, obviously, and I have the perhaps misguided belief that it can be achieved more amicably in this instance than in many others. Jwrosenzweig 22:22, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * I have been perfectly willing to address issues about content; and have done so. Mostly, the response has been lies and abuse. Andy Mabbett 22:30, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * Andy, I'm sorry, I wasn't very clear. The "they" I referred to is the Arbitration Committee - the arbitrators seem very hesitant to address content disputes.  I intended no attack on either of you.  I am sorry you feel the response has been lies and abuse -- I haven't seen enough of this dispute to comment knowledgably about that.  I'm just hoping this can end in a positive way, and I think a healthy, mediated conversation is a good way to start.  I hope you will indicate your willingness for this.  Failing that, I hope the two of you can avoid each other and find different areas to work (please don't either of you respond by insisting that you would leave the other one alone, but they're the one following you -- I think we know how productive that will be) and I promise the rest of us won't let anybody harm Wikipedia while you're not watching.  I think it's for the best. Jwrosenzweig 22:58, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * See what you mean about the AC & content. Do you really think mediation is likely to work, in the light of Nick's recent comments on this page? Andy Mabbett 23:02, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * Well, he does seem hot right now, but perhaps if you both take a day to cool off away from each other, he'll be in a more amiable mood. I will say that, in what I see above, Nick shows signs of being able to communicate far more calmly than most people who end up in disputes around here.  I recognize that he is not always able to remain calm (is anyone here, after all?), but I think putting him on neutral ground with a mediator whose goal was for both sides to understand each other, and for compromise to be reached, might help keep conversation civil.  I doubt very much the two of you will ever be friends, but I think you can find your way to a resolution that serves this place well, and leaves both of you mostly at peace.  I think, furthermore, that it would be a good gesture, at least, to make yourself available for mediation even if you think it likely to fail -- if Nick surprises you with his willingness to do so, I'd call that the first step to the two of you coming to some kind of agreement.  That's my perspective. :-)  Thank you, Andy, for being willing to hear what I have to say. Jwrosenzweig 23:18, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * OK. Of course, G-Man's recent, and somewhat delusional, ad hominem on Nick's talk page, and in requesting page protection (which could as easily apply to him or Nick), show that it's not smply a matter of a disagrement between two people. Andy Mabbett 04:12, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * See also Nick's latest abuse, on his talk page. Andy Mabbett 21:57, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The fact that you think it is "delusional" merely demonstrates that you have not learnt anything. I have tried to show you the error of your ways if you dont want to take any notice then that's up to you. G-Man 13:44, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * Please at least attempt to take it to mediation. This is stupid.


 * (Can other editors vote for two edit warriors to be sent to mediation?) - David Gerard 22:33, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid they have to want it themselves. However, they seem to be content to keep fighting. Tonight has not shown either of them in a good light, as far as I'm concerned. I wish it were otherwise. --rbrwr&circ; 22:41, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * Rb... i do want to resolve this, mainly because it's one person deleting my work, and i really am not joking when i say blatantly deleting!!! I have already tried the nice approach (see his user page), and (very much against the grain) i am fighting to keep work that has taken quite a while to create, i wouldn't like to see anyone ridiculed here and i am a fair man but imagine it this way...
 * I buy some bricks, cement and sand then i graft to build a wall that leads to a beautiful garden that someone else has already built, then before the mortar has even had time to harden some dufus comes along and without good (and i mean good) reason not only removes the odd brick but removes the whole wall... what would you say to that person after so much effort, in reallity you would approach them face to face and soon find out their reasons for such vandelism, but how can words describe distain like that especially when you only have good intentions yourself? User:Nick Boulevard


 * Nick, I recognize you are upset. But let's be accurate about this (and trust me, I do know what it's like to work hard on something here and have someone come through and revert).  It's more like you painting a sign and tacking it to a public pole (legally).  Andy comes along and takes down the sign, setting it beside the pole.  Then you have to come back and put it up.  Everything's saved in the page history here, so after it's typed once, it's saved and can be restored if everyone agrees that's best.  I would be very angry about the wall because of the time it took to put it up, and the fact that all that time would have to be invested all over again to restore the wall, plus I have bricks strewn about that need picking up.  That is a legitimate situation for real anger, if the wall was truly destroyed purposelessly.  But your sign (which may be very well done) is intact and waiting to be put up again.  It will cost you no more than 15 seconds and a couple of mouse-clicks.  It is a situation that may be frustrating and annoying, but which does not call for the kind of anger you seem to feel is justified.  I urge you to remain calm and try to talk things out with Andy, preferably through a mediator (request one at Requests for mediation).  I think this can be a situation that is resolvable -- you both just have to find ways of keeping yourself from becoming too angry.  As I said, your work can be easily restored if that's the result of the discussion.  More likely, it will be restored in part, based on a compromise both of you can live with.  I hope you will seek this conclusion.  I wish you luck in doing so. Jwrosenzweig 23:02, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * A more accurate analogy would be that Nick puts up a row of signs. Many spelt wrongly, and some with grammatical errors. Some breach others' copyright, or duplicate, in a less useful form, existing signs. Many do not adhere to the existing standards for the layout of such signs. I remove the worst, and fix many more. Nick then throws a hissy fit, demanding that his original signs be restored, be "respected", and not changed without (his?) prior agreement. Someone else, whose sign I also once corrected, immediately springs to Nick's defence. Nick looks for some other signs I erected, and messes them up. He becomes abusive, and erects signs with long, rambling rants. Nick and his friend claim, falseley, that there is a general agreement that his signs should be restored. Oh, and I also turn around those of Nick's signs which point in completely the wrong directions.


 * As I've said previously, I doubt that content issues can be resolved while the meta problem remains unaddressed.Andy Mabbett 23:16, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * Andy, please, I'm trying to calm this situation down, not incite it. I make no judgments whatsoever about the content you've disputing over -- he may be entirely right, you may be entirely right, or it may lie anywhere on a continuum in-between.  I think if the two of you stop trying to "score points" on each other by attacking each other, and start talking things over a little more calmly, maybe you can get somewhere.  It will have to start with both of you admitting that something has gone wrong here, and (the important part) you may be a part of that problem, as much as you may suspect you haven't been.  I'm in arbitration right now, and while I feel that I am very much the injured party, I have been very open on several occasions that if I have done wrong, I want it known so that I can correct it, and I'm the first to admit that, as an imperfect being, I may well have acted wrongly somewhere.  It's the only way conflicts resolve -- if both sides can accept that they may have not taken the optimum course.  It has nothing to do with one's criticisms of the other person, and everything to do with the attitude one takes towards one's self.  If there's a meta problem to address, then address it, but stop sniping at each other.  It's not healthy for Wikipedia, it accomplishes nothing, and it lessens community interest in and sympathy for both of you when either of you fires up the attacks.  Please, if you won't mediate, consider taking a break from each other, and maybe a break from Wikipedia.  I took a break recently and it was wonderfully healthy for me, and brought me back with a good perspective.  I hope you'll consider my advice.  I think it's the last advice I'll offer on this page, and if the two of you don't take it, may someone else with more patience offer you aid. Jwrosenzweig 23:30, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * I've appreciated your intervention (and this latest advice) though your previous read like you were acusing me of destructive behaviour towards valid content, rather than the scenario I have just outlined. I'm not trying to "score points", merely state my case, in the face of blatantly dishonest misrepresentation. Andy Mabbett 23:39, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * I certainly apologize for giving that impression -- it wasn't my intention to do so. I was trying to make sure Nick keeps the right perspective about this, and I hope you do also.  I wish you both luck in finding a resolution that leaves Wikipedia better off. Jwrosenzweig 23:55, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * "Infact, he is so obsessed with editing my work, he reverted my own user page text because he wanted to control everything i wrote then denied he did so? even when the proof was on my page history??? And you guys wonder why i keep trying to protect my work, i dont care what andy does just so long as it isnt removing my factual work or adding words like 'empty' or formerly' or 'but left after a matter of days' do you get where i am coming from?????"


 * Sorry guys but i don't have the time to represent myself here as much as others hence the typos and poor English... BUT... after reading amny of Andy's... comments i ask only one question of him which i asekd he answers as it has GREAT!!!!!!!!!!! importance to me and eventually many others that will read the Birmingham pages..........SO.. Andy, do you see yourself as a Brummie??? For the intrepid Wikipedian i ask this question as i was born n bred in Brum (so were my granparents and theirs b4) and i have (after viewing other British city run-downs) seen an overall claborative somewhat exagerated sense of pride that is allowed to stay as is (damn right) but for some bizzare reason Andy tries to make the bham page... not as i have made it but basic to the extent of bordom??? is this planned Andy? i can and will provide proof for many areas where you have edited the Brum page to it's extreme detriment and with no substantial reasoning. (it now reads like a yellow pages Andy, is that your idea of wikipeadia?


 * Please answer (why i bother to ask as you have not answered me previously in any formative manner in my convo to you?????????) User:Nick Boulevard


 * "He becomes abusive, and erects signs with long, rambling rants. Nick and his friend claim,"


 * 1. The only reason you are discussing this (with othres) Andy is because of my "long, rambling rants you ignored my polite conversation.


 * 2. Who exactly is my friend, i am trying to represent Bham?????????????????????? What are you talking about please? User:Nick Boulevard

Thanks, just to say, i gave Anddy (sic) the benefit of Nick Mason in the end and i gave up, he won, i don't care so then i started adding new material like i was advised which may need tweeking etc (please see page history) but Andy has just been deleting it now, he moved my Transport history and economy to somewhere that no one will see it (it should be on the main page as it is one of the citys biggest employers from past to presnt day) so i gave in and just added a few words on main page with a link to a new page with transport history as i wrote it, this was then completely obliterated... gone (Andy will probably say that it already exists in history because he craftily moved it there from the main page), then he deleted the great western arcade which is a fantastic victorian shopping arcade that has been there for over a hundred years, Andy didn't agree with a small part so he removed ALL of it! I give up, he has won, i can't be bothered to add to Wikipedia until he is brought into line becuase i have done as was suggested by all experienced wikipedians here (please see my talk page) and even tried to move on but one person wants me gone!

And as to regards Andys claim to a copywrite violation, my friend told me about the mac and i worded it in my own way... why would i add the link if i thought i was violating wikipedia, i mean.. how many ways can you say that the mac is the most visited arts cntre in the Midlands, my god Andy, where are you going with all this, i didn't want to say this but people may as well know that you have been stalking me on Wikipedia, any article i write or edit like Traffic, Jimi Hendrix or whatever, within minutes you have edited my work and i find it really weird, why do you find me so interesting?

At the end of the day Andy... i know who is telling the truth here and and i also know who has the best intentions for the page, that is all i need right now.

As for my abuse to Andy you can see his talk page where i ended up trying to be nice so as to resolve issues so that it didn't come to this but they went ignored unless Andy has changed the texct as he was officially warned about by deleting my own and G-mans talk text to him, surely anyone with the audacity to do this is not a fair person? p.s. sorry G-man, i honestly tried! User:Nick Boulevard

Infact, he is so obsessed with editing my work, he reverted my own user page text because he wanted to control everything i wrote then denied he did so? even when the proof was on my page history??? And you guys wonder why i keep trying to protect my work, i dont care what andy does just so long as it isnt removing my factual work or adding words like 'empty' or formerly' or 'but left after a matter of days' do you get where i am coming from????? User:Nick Boulevard

Copyright violation
Content I removed as part of my recent edits was a copyright violation from. Andy Mabbett 22:20, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)