User talk:CCS81/Archive 1

Simone
Great to see someone taking an interest in Weil. Im thinking of doing articles on Gravity and Grace and Need for Roots at some stage, there will be great need of the light therein in the years ahead. Let me know if youre planning to write either of those, despite her luminence it takes a lot of thought to distill her brilliance into encylopedic form, so I will be glad if Im not going to have to do it all myself. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:08, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, I truly enjoyed your Iliad or the Poem of Force article - it succinctly captured the content and external significance of that powerful and spiritually overwhelming essay. I'll admit that I'm new Weil, having discovered her through the ...Poem of Force essay in the context of classical studies only to recently realize the worth of her work in philosophy and theology.  It was an exciting discovery for me, but an all too recent one.  So while I'm in complete agreement that Weil warrants a thorough examination both here in Wikipedia and elsewhere, I'm afraid that I'm too new to her thought to be of much help at the moment, although I aspire to be in the near future.  Your work on the ..Poem of Force article was really top-notch though, so I don't doubt that she's in good hands as it is!  Thanks for getting in touch, hopefully we'll have more to talk about regarding Weil soon.  Best, Colinclarksmith (talk) 21:04, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * "To recently realize" is a split infinitive — no longer strictly verboten, but still not good form. Fondly — HarringtonSmith (talk) 17:29, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the tip, dad. Good thing my father studied English and learned grammatical theory so that I didn't have to but was nonetheless able to boldly move forward with writing : P  Colinclarksmith (talk) 19:02, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Guess I forgot to train you not to rudely stick your tongue out. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 19:38, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * It's never too late to wisely teach these sorts of lessons! Or to diligently learn them, for that matter.  Colinclarksmith (talk) 19:52, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * That's very kind of you to say so. The article's more accurate after your improvements as Id introduced a false note of optimism in ommiting any of her qualifiers about the use of moderate force. Im rereading the need for roots at the mo so will hopefully be creating an article for that soon, and will let you know! FeydHuxtable (talk) 19:04, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Great, I'm looking forward to your article on the Need for Roots. It's an interesting book and under-represented in the blurb it gets on Weil's biography page.  Colinclarksmith (talk) 20:43, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs
Hello Colinclarksmith! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created  is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current Category:All_unreferenced_BLPs article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the unreferencedBLP tag. Here is the article:

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 08:05, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Jindra Dolanský -


 * Thanks for letting me know that, Mr. Bot. I'll get to work on that.  Colinclarksmith (talk) 22:10, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Mentors
Great work on the Mentors article. I had reverted an edit referring to Hoke's death as murder. As it is now, the article states that his death is alternately referred to as an accident or suicide. There was quite a lot of chatter about the possibility that he was murdered. What I had removed was an outright statement that he was. Since you seem to know a great deal about this, perhaps you have an opinion about whether some mention of the possibility should be included. Mk5384 (talk) 20:28, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you kindly, it's a fun article to work on. The question of Hoke's death is definitely a sticky subject - I agree that there's no room the article for a sensationalistic, flat-out claim that he was murdered, but perhaps we can find room for an unbiased reference to the theory held by a notable minority that foul play was involved.  Good suggestion.  Best, Colinclarksmith (talk) 06:54, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay, added Colinclarksmith (talk) 03:09, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That's along the lines of what I had in mind. I just felt I would have been out of place doing it myself, after reverting someone else. Thanks!Mk5384 (talk) 04:03, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

UJD
Hello Colin. Thanks for thanks, you can find more images here. Btw, I used to be the biggest fan of UJD back in the 1990s! :)) I really love the excellent Wanek's lyrics and poetry, Dolanský's sax and the great artwork by Martin Velíšek. They performed in one of the best post-revolution Czech movies, Knoflíkáři by Petr Zelenka, that's a real masterpiece. ...ok, have a good day. --Vejvančický (talk) 15:25, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The pictures look great, thanks for pointing me in their direction. I will probably add some more to the article, if that's okay with you.  I too am a big fan UJD and have been since the '90s, their music is like nothing else I've ever heard.  They've also helped get me interested in Czech culture and history in general.  Thanks again, Colinclarksmith (talk) 21:33, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

List of vegans
Don't know you if you're aware of this, but someone has nominated List of vegans for deletion: Articles_for_deletion/List_of_vegans. Since you work on the article regularly I thought I'd give you the heads up. Betty Logan (talk) 12:18, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the tip. I submitted a vote for 'keep' - I think the case against it is pretty weak!  Colinclarksmith (talk) 17:54, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Sean Brennan entry on Vegan page- you keep removing it for some reason, Sean Brennan page IS the London AFter Midnight page; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sean_Brennan. Please don't remove legitimate entries. Blipblip (talk) 17:36, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I see the article now. The anon. IP user was trying to add Sean Brennan (musician), a non-existent article and thus unfit for inclusion (or "illegitimate", by your language), which is why I deleted it.  That is, the article should have no red links, which is what the anon. IP user was adding.  Technically, Sean Brennan still doesn't qualify for inclusion as his name is a hard rd to his band's article and he does not have his own article, but since you seem to have strong opinions on the subject I'll let it slide.  Colinclarksmith (talk) 17:57, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

SNFU Information
Hi there, SNFU's manager told me that I might want to contact you. I am currently writing the official book about the band and you seem to be their main historian on wikipedia. I figure we should chat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tystranglehold (talk • contribs) 07:25, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I would absolutely love to chat about SNFU's history with you, I've been enjoying working on their main and individual articles. See your talk page for my contact info.  Best, Colinclarksmith (talk) 21:02, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

proposed deletion of Dr. Heathen Scum
As you have contributed quite a bit to The Mentors article, you may be interested to know that the Dr. Heathen Scum article has been proposed for deletion. If, in your opinion, he is noteable enough for an article, you may wish to comment. All the best-Mk5384 (talk) 07:51, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll check it out and weigh in on the situation. Colinclarksmith (talk) 16:27, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your help. I'll see if I can get around to improving the article a bit. Of course, you're welcome to do the same. All the best-Mk5384 (talk) 10:03, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That sounds good. If I have time to take a stab at fixing it up a bit I will.  Thanks for helping to save the article. Best, Colinclarksmith (talk) 12:34, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * As the article is titled "Dr. Heathen Scum", I'm not sure why anyone would get the idea that it's about Broy. If it were about Broy, there would be little, if any need to mention Mike Dewey. As it is about the character of Dr. Heathen Scum, it's entirely appropriate to mention both band members. Do you disagree with this?Mk5384 (talk) 20:19, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * On the talk page, I've proposed renaming the article, as the situation has admittedly become confusing to all.Mk5384 (talk) 01:22, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the article should be about the member Broy, the founding bass player, not the fictional character presumably implied by the name. I absolutely agree that the article should be renamed (same with the Sickie Wifebeater/Eric Carlson article.)  I'll take it up on the article talk page.  Colinclarksmith (talk) 03:54, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Much better like that. I doubt anyone will have a problem with the change.Mk5384 (talk) 05:12, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Mentors caption
The photo is, to the best of my knoweledge, a promo from the album Up The Dose, which did feature Dr. Heathen Scum. Did Ed Danky also perform as Dr. Heathen Scum?Mk5384 (talk) 05:16, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Ed Danky had a different pseudonym (I don't have the guts to reprint it on my own talk page - it's in the article.) My impression is that, although Broy plays on Up the Dose, the photo shoot came later, after Danky had joined.  There are some YouTube videos with Danky in the band that seem to confirm his stature as looking similar to the bassist in the promo photo.  It's a minor point though, I didn't mean to harp on it, and if you don't buy my explanation then let's do it your way.  In general it seems like we're getting all of these articles surrounding this subject up to snuff, right?  Best, Colinclarksmith (talk) 13:18, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It actually appears to be the back cover of Up The Dose. It's the same woman, in the exact same clothing she's wearing on the front cover. However, your knowledge of this band is quite extensive, so if you feel relatively sure that it's not Broy, I'll defer to you.Mk5384 (talk) 14:39, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's definitely from Up the Dose, but I'm pretty sure that by the time of the photo shoot for the album, Broy was gone. It's impossible to tell through those darn masks though, eh?  Colinclarksmith (talk) 21:58, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * If you feel confident that it's Ed Danky, that's good enough for me. Here's the thing, though. If it is Ed Danky, then I think we need to remove the picture, as the article is about Broy. What do you think?Mk5384 (talk) 23:08, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and removed it. If you have any objection, feel free to return it.Mk5384 (talk) 23:12, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No, good call. Colinclarksmith (talk) 03:30, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

List of vegetarians
Hi Colin, I'm a bit puzzled by this edit:. You do know he's on List of vegans as well? Betty Logan (talk) 06:02, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Are we not doing overlap between the two lists? I saw his bandmate (and fellow vegan) Geezer Butler on the vegetarians list and figured they should both be on there if either was.  If we don't want to list people on both, feel free to remove both Bill Ward and Geezer Butler.  (I apologize for not being up on the current rules of the two lists.  It seems like they're under the care of a good group of smart people, so I've been focusing my attention elsewhere.  They look great, by the way.)  Colinclarksmith (talk) 15:07, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * We have two distinct lists now. We used to have the vegans on the vegetarian list but we took them off and put them all on the vegan list.  Sometimes the odd one will slip the net, but if you think about it we could put every vegan on the vegetarian list. Betty Logan (talk) 20:24, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Clearly. Okay, well, my mistake!  Colinclarksmith (talk) 20:33, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

For all of the work you do...
Ditto! Particularly for the graphical timeline at Nomeansno. :) -- Quiddity (talk) 22:46, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

SNFU template
Yeah, sorry about that. A bit hasty. I didn't realize how unofficial these releases were - would you be averse to a section called "Bootlegs" under "Live albums"? That way we could include all the information. Cheers! PS - is the "official" title of the live EP "Live '86" or "Live"? There's only one picture I could find online, and from the cover it seems to be just "Live" - which is fine because they don't appear to have any other albums called "Live". Thanks again for the talk! Wikkitywack (talk) 21:19, 16 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Sweet. That's actually what I meant, adding a "Bootlegs" section to the template under the "Live albums" section - just talking about ordering, not combining the two. It's funny that you mention "Via Plastic Surgery" as I just purchased a copy from Japan (through MusicStack). I was confused about what it was, so I asked and this is the response I got: "'...and no one else wanted to play' + 'if you swear, you'll catch no fish', 2 in 1, 26-tracks, Japanese pressing, promo sample". It hasn't arrived yet, so I don't have all the specifics, but it appears to be a straight up twofer. And the dang thing is brand new so I might be tempted not to open it! So I'll go ahead with the "Bootlegs" update then? Cheers, Wikkitywack (talk) 21:57, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Trevor MacGregor
My main reason for redirecting was the failure of WP:GNG. However, the way his membership of two notable bands is currently worded is somewhat misleading. "MacGregor plays drums on the Canadian punk group SNFU's ninth full-length album..." suggests that rather than being an actual member of the band, he just filled in on drums for an album. If this were the case, then WP:MUSIC would not be met. However, from further reading, it seems he was in fact a full member, albeit for a short time, and so meets the necessary criteria. If you are able to get the article upto WP:GNG standards then great! Essentially, WP:GNG is the inclusion criteria, so meeting WP:MUSIC but failing WP:GNG would mean that a topic is not considered sufficiently notable for inclusion. Cheers, Nouse4aname (talk) 14:48, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Great edit summary...
I'm melting!. J04n(talk page) 18:32, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

List of vegans
As a sometime editor on this article, your input is welcome at a discussion about a possible format change to the article: Talk:List of vegans. Betty Logan (talk) 04:19, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Mentors members list
"...should be chronological by date of joining" - okay, then why does your Past members list show no relation to your Former members list in the article? I've tried to make sense of it, but it just seems like a random mishmash of members.

Also, remember the notice at the top of the Template:Infobox musical artist page: "it is primarily concerned with explaining usage and not with matters of Wikipedia policy and style." So whoever wrote that past members should be "listed in order of joining with no other notation than names" is correct that that's one way of doing it. But I think listing the members in order of departure has a more logical flow to it (especially since there are no dates involved): first of all, you're following the list down (i.e. back in time) to the beginning of the band (likewise, the top of the list represents the most recently departed members of the band - it makes sense to have them closest to the current members); if all of a sudden a few names pop up in alphabetical order, you know those members left in the same year, etc. etc. Wikkitywack (talk) 18:29, 13 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Fine. I disagree. And I think I've changed my mind about "important" members anyway (when did I say that specifically?) - especially with a band like this that has obviously soldiered on. Sorry, it just makes more sense going back in time. "Regarding the former member listing in the article - I'm less concerned about that, and I can't even remember how they are currently listed..." - obviously not, because you got my point, apparently, and changed it from El Duce/El Rapo/Moosedick/Mike Dewey/Zippy/Wayne Daddio/Ed Danky/Rick Lomas/Jeff Dahl/Jack Shit/Sickie J (that "random mishmash" I was talking about) to it's current form which directly mimics your Former members list. So, thanks, I guess. Sorry I rubbed you the wrong way. Sheesh.
 * As to your "Also, FYI..." - I didn't even notice till you said something. No problem. Wikkitywack (talk) 20:12, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

No fights being picked
First, no fight was being picked. You are not a victim. I made what I believe to be the correct edit. You're welcome to your opinion. If it was that strong an opinion and you wanted to debate the true meaning behind WP:ORDINAL, the talk page is wide open to discuss it. Your first attempt at explaining it was wrong. So I went and checked it and made the change again based on my interpretation. There was no hostility aimed at you. You're the one who seems to be picking the fight over something you yourself have admitted to be acceptable either way. Because you personally "prefer the method of using numerals", we're all supposed to just accept that? When somebody says, "let's not get into an edit war", that's them saying, "let's not fight". As far as 3RR goes, I pointed out that we were BOTH heading in that direction. You were not singled out. You were not issued a 3RR warning. I made it perfectly clear that we were BOTH approaching it and that it was silly. If you really want to get picky though, you had the first revert and were heading in that direction first. The first R in 3RR refers to revert. Once again, if you had such an issue with it, there was an available talk page to discuss it instead of reverting a second time. Now, to address you not picking fights with me over edits I make that you don't agree with. Am I supposed to be thankful that you don't pick fights with me? I wouldn't expect anybody to do so to begin with. If you think something I'm doing is wrong, I would suggest contacting me to discuss it. Don't act like I owe you one because you didn't do something you're not supposed to do anyway. If you see a grammatical mistake that I make, point it out or simply correct it like any other normal user of Wikipedia would. I do make mistakes like everybody else. Once again though, you're not owed anything for NOT picking fights. As far as titled vs. entitled goes, I'd suggest reading articles such as and  to get an idea on why "entitled" is incorrect. Entitled can be used but not when it refers directly to the title itself. NJZombie (talk) 06:02, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

List of vegans
There is a discussion at this article regarding an editor removing the color codes. Since you were part of the dicussion that agreed to add them I thought you may like to offer your opinion. Betty Logan (talk) 03:37, 29 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the head's up. I posted my opinion on the article's talk page.  CCS81 (talk) 04:05, 29 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I've started a DR process because it's not on that someone can just force through their own edits. It's ok if you don't wish to be involved, but I'm obliged to notify you: Dispute_resolution_noticeboard Betty Logan (talk) 05:50, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Cowpunk
I'm sure it seems odd if you have never heard this term before, but the Milkmen fir pretty squarely in this sub-genre, are mentioned by name in our article on the subject, and are one of the most successful bands to have come out of it. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:34, 18 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, I associate the sub-genre with country-influenced punk bands like X, Social Distortion, the Cramps, etc., none of whom strike me as close in sound to the Dead Milkmen. But with that said, I won't fight you if you're convinced that the genre is a good fit for the Milkmen (I'm no expert on the subject), so feel free to re-add it to their article.  CCS81 (talk) 20:32, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Accept
Miketeeaccept (talk) 18:25, 13 July 2012 (UTC)Miketeeaccept: I am trying to get the info for the Accept page with newer pictures from larger venues and get rid of the band members that have never been in the band. I am new to wiki and need to know how to get these pics on there. I am working with Wolf Hoffman directly and he has photos he wants me to put on there. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Miketeeaccept (talk) 18:25, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure Miketeeaccept, I will respond on your talk page. Best, CCS81 (talk) 18:52, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Noble Lie
Wran insists on re-inserting the Curtis BBC quote in the Noble Lie article, writing on the talk page that "the documentary....includes facts and cites the matter here as such, so it stands as a FACT, unless you find a reliable source refuting it". This comment illustrates his apparent failure to understand the objections that have been raised; however, my earlier comments may have helped muddle the issue. Can you please try to explain to him why this source is being given undue weight and is not particulary notable or reliable? Thanks in advance.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 08:06, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Jim Thome
So, next year, are you going to put the 2012s back in? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:23, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * No, you've misunderstood. It has nothing to do with the fact that the current year is 2012.  Perhaps my initial edit summary confused you.  One introduction of the year is enough, and the dates that follow in the prose are logically in that same year.  When a 2013 date is added, it logically modifies all dates that follow, until a 2014 date is added, etc.  Furthermore, the section describes a single season.  Why would a date in that section be a year other than 2012?  If it is, e.g. in describing the signing of the contract in the previous winter, a year will modify the date.  Otherwise, it should be clear.  Best, CCS81 (talk) 14:28, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Given that approach, I think you've got some further work to do on the article. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:18, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that work needs to be done on most every article I've read on Wikipedia whose subject matter dates after about 2007. It's exhausting, quite frankly.  Best, CCS81 (talk) 04:29, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * No need for talkback templates, as your page is currently on my watch list. :) Yes, such changes could, ironically enough, take years. But you could do the Thome article as a model for consistency. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:32, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * That's a good idea. I think I will do that.  Best, CCS81 (talk) 04:33, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, done. If you're interested in my little pet peeve here, notice how the passive voice, redundant years, and sentences that begin with "On [say] June 20, 2008..." start becoming prevalent as the article starts being updated in real time.  Best, CCS81 (talk) 04:46, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Slightly New Topic Thanks for moving the "now" in that sentence...I didn't even notice how awkward that sounded until I saw your change. Keep up the good work--Go Phightins! (talk) 19:04, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Re:AiC talk
Hey mate, do you want to add any more ideas in favor the consensus? Bloomgloom  talk  15:32, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure, I put up a few more quick thoughts there. Best, CCS81 (talk) 15:48, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for your cleaning up of my mess at Jim Thome's article. That was supposed to read "pretty good" year rather than "pretty" year. Thanks for all that-- Go  Phightins  !  17:46, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for all the work you've been doing on the Thome article overall. I am rooting for it in the GA nomination process.  Best, CCS81 (talk) 17:48, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Menon
Hi CCS81, I think it's very eurocentric, when you say "Menon" would be just a Greek&Roman name. I'm concerned about the last entry of the list, since Menons are prominent people in India as well.--Dravidianhero (talk) 01:51, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, that is fair enough. Feel free to reinstate the change, if you haven't already.  Best, CCS81 (talk) 03:10, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Regards --Dravidianhero (talk) 03:38, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

joe parisi mention...
Re: the update about the name Joe Parisi. From what I've gathered, he is a former radio host & artist in St. Louis, MO. Here are a handful of board postings and articles etc. that make mention of him having ties to the tiles. The last just mentions that he was known throughout the radio industry as being a bit odd. Thanks.

http://alibi.com/blog/w2638/CONSPIRACY.html http://gammablog.com/2009/09/28/house-of-hades/ http://www.cravescavesandgraves.com/2011/02/toynbee-tiles.html http://www.allaccess.com/net-news/archive/story/110064/joe-parisi-offers-free-audio-documentary-about-geo Bigscarygary1 (talk) 12:51, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * This is interesting stuff, for sure, but it all qualifies as original research, as none of these are reliable sources. Furthermore, it's important to avoid confusing the Toynbee tiles and the House of Hades tiles. House of Hades tiles are copycats, not original Toynbee tiles. CCS81 (talk) 05:40, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

GA Thanks
On behalf of WP:CHICAGO, I would like to thank you for your editorial contributions to Jim Thome, which has recently become a GA. --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:11, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Steely Dan
No big deal. And thanks. It could probably use some more work (I haven't touched the lyrics section), but I'm pretty happy with what I've done so far.

So I'm pretty new to Wikipedia. I've had an account for a while, but this was my first major edit. What's the deal with featured articles and all that? I see that people have been talking about getting Steely Dan promoted (promoted? evaluated? featured?) for a while. What does it need to move up in the Wikipedia world? A7592 (talk) 21:21, 31 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Yeah, the guide to promoting articles to Good Article status can be found here: WP:GA. If you want to begin tweaking the article to get it closer to these standards, I would certainly support it and help in whatever capacity I could.  To be honest, I've never been one to push articles towards that higher level, and tend to prefer to do lower-level cleanup of esoteric subjects in my own editing.  Nonetheless, I think the Steely Dan article is a good target for GA status and would encourage you to go for it.  Cheers, CCS81 (talk) 19:08, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Whoops, sorry, I should have added that Good Article status precedes Featured Article status, so that's your first step. CCS81 (talk) 19:11, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Reverts at Merle Allin
Hi,

It appears that you and a few other editors have been in an ongoing revert war at Merle Allin since September or earlier. My reading of it is that you are removing unreferenced content which they insist on re-adding, but it is not entirely clear on a quick read. In any case, as repeated reverts are seen as an edit war, even if you are right, rather than keep reverting, this should get some administrator attention. If you post the problem to Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring, an admin could protect the page from anon IP edits or come up with some other solution after discussion. If you have any questions, let me know. Dialectric (talk) 11:16, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks for checking in on this. The problem is indeed that an editor is repeatedly adding unreferenced content.  I tried many moons ago to attract attention to the problem but failed.  If you can help bring attention to the issue, I would appreciate it.  Thanks, CCS81 (talk) 05:36, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Merle Allin
Hey, I just semi-protected this page and I really am not sure what is going on there tbh. Could you check that the version that is cited is currently visible? Thanks. Thingg &#8853; &#8855; 19:57, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for doing that. The current version looks good, yes.  Thanks again, CCS81 (talk) 14:52, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

WP:APPENDIX
Hello. Congratulations for your great work. Please note this. Cheers. --Omnipaedista (talk) 12:09, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Please also take note of this. --Omnipaedista (talk) 14:56, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you very kindly. And both are noted, thanks.  That's good advice.  CCS81 (talk) 19:24, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

this page
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Notavulgarusername

that page has been deleting sourced material and material that is actually in the story of the page here at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hardcore_punk, with no reason or explanation or discussion .Im going to reach out to a few who maybe able to help being the only things that page has ever done is change genres to "his/her" point of view. Thank You ahead of time. There was another page doing the same this then after it received warnings from another editor this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Notavulgarusername page sprung up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.39.152.45 (talk) 22:03, 30 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid that I won't be much help here. I have faced similar situations with trolls and never quite knew how to address the issue other than the brute force method.  It sure can be frustrating though.  Best, CCS81 (talk) 23:46, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Morasco
Thanks. Agree with your reading of events there, but the ABC source we're citing on that first paragraph explicitly says "Several websites have also pointed the finger at a James J. Morasco. The sites we examined claim he is a Philadelphia social worker who died in 2003" - I don't think we have a source supporting our current claim that the tiler was "thought by several websites to be James J. Morasco, a Philadelphia carpenter"?

Since the sourcing is vague on what these "sites we examined" actually were (it could just have been the ABC researcher finding some websites quoting the 1983 story and nothing else), maybe we should just drop that first paragraph and open with "In 1983..."? --McGeddon (talk) 22:40, 18 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm fine with dropping that first paragraph and the mention of the carpenter who died in 2003 whose middle initial is J. The ABC News article is mistaken in calling the Chestnut Hill Morasco a social worker; they got a few other details about the Chestnut Hill Morasco wrong in that piece as well.  As for sources, this is all laid out in the documentary Resurrect Dead, which seeks to differentiate between the unsubstantiated social worker Morasco and the substantiated carpenter Morasco.  Best, CCS81 (talk) 22:46, 18 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Okay, that's great, I didn't realise the documentary addressed this. If you've got access to a copy, can you include some of its conclusions in the article? --McGeddon (talk) 11:14, 19 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I think the article generally reflects the findings of the documentary as is, although a few subjects remain a little hazy, e.g. the confusion surrounding the "two" Morascos. I'll add a sentence or two plus a citation of the movie on that subject.  CCS81 (talk) 15:54, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Steely Dan
You should be aware that when there is a content dispute on Wikipedia, the text is returned to the last consensus version until a new consensus emerges. There is not a consensus for your proposal. Please undo your changes and return to the discussion. Thanks. --Ring Cinema (talk) 16:04, 22 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the policy clarification, Ring. You'll be happy to know that the changes have already been reverted.  Hopefully we can get some more opinions from other editors on the topic.  Best, CCS81 (talk) 23:55, 22 July 2015 (UTC)