User talk:LaVidaLoca/Archive1

Response to the note you left on my talk page
I just saw the note you left on my talk page. I recognize the tone that must be maintained in talk-page discussions; I don't think I violated it. Two points:


 * 1 — I didn't reveal the name of editor BassPlyr23. He gave his name right here, on my talk page.  In mentioning it, I was simply trying to indicate that, whatever conflict he and I might have had in the past, we had managed to get onto good terms.


 * 2 — My statement that the editor with whom I was having an exchange is a liar was neither inappropriate nor unproductive. If you will examine the exchange, you will see that it was, in fact, she who was making the exchange personal, while I was trying to discuss the article's content.  When she finally went too far, I stopped her.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 22:01, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I still don't think you're making a valid point. Where did I state that my contributions are more valid and important than that of the other editor? She insinuated I am unfamiliar with Wikipedia's goals, and I indicated that my contributions to the article reflect an awareness, on my part, of those goals. I didn't imply that the other editor's contributions lessened the reliability and validity of the entire article; I stated it frankly. She undertook a wholesale reformatting of a large article's footnotes. That is a hazardous undertaking, particularly when the editor who is involved does not have access to the source material. (The editor has made clear that she does not have a copy of the 1994 edition of Bugliosi and Gentry's Helter Skelter, which is the source of many of the footnotes she reformatted. It's possible she also doesn't have access to other relevant items.)  If the editor has lessened the reliability of the article, she is obliged to acknowledge it; she is not entitled to react petulantly to the charge.

I didn't insult her. In response to the suggestion that the article be revamped for Good Article considerations, I posted a recommendation that it not be. All she had to say was, "Well, I'm going to give it a try; let's see how it works out." Instead, she petulantly cried that the article "is obviously not [her] article." In that, she was correct; the article is obviously not hers or anyone else's. Her reflexive use of the possessive adjective says all that need be said.

I reject your statement that a review of pertinent pages supports the conclusion that I have an ownership issue. I don't think there has been any point at which I've undone another editor's revision simply because I thought it didn't belong in the article. On the contrary: What has often happened is that an editor has made an unsourced, carelessly-worded contribution that, although it might seem to me hardly to be worthy of inclusion in the article at all, I have promptly whipped into shape and have provided with a footnote. If you will check the article's history, you will see that of the two-hundred-plus footnotes, probably all but maybe four ancient ones have been my contribution, very often in support of text contributed by other editors. If, on the other hand, you will check the article's talk page and the revision history, you will see that, on more than one occasion, the editor with whom I've now had this conflict has rejected a contribution simply because she thinks it unimportant. If you would like an illuminating example of the difference between her approach and mine to "working within a group," examine the following:


 * Swastika tattoo on Manson talk page.
 * A resultant comment I promptly posted on her talk page.

If you will examine the article's revision history further than I must think you have so far, you will see, too, that at every point at which the editor with whom I've had this conflict has needed help with the article, I have provided it promptly and thoroughly. There is much history there, and it reveals that I have been happy to let her act as the article's shepherdess while I have been doing the heavy work of actually mustering the content she has needed.

And again — I reject the assertion that I insulted the editor. She insulted me. Unwilling to discuss the issues having to do with the article's content, she began making personal remarks that culminated in the outrageous assertion that, in an instance in which I'd acted promptly to provide a proper footnote to a contribution that was completely unsourced, I had somehow acted unreasonably. The statement was right there on the talk page and was an outright lie flung out simply as a continuation of her effort to discuss anything other than the issues having to do with the article's content. I was entitled to respond as I did. And lastly: What is the basis for your statement that an editor who has identified himself on my talk page may not be referred to by name on an article's talk page?JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 23:44, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Remark One from JohnBonaccorsi

 * I've just seen your extended response to my preceding comment. Rather than assemble one long reply to it, I'll go through it and respond one at a time to remarks that I think call for a response.  In other words — you'll probably see several comments posted here, one after another, for a while.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 05:14, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

You state:
 * With every comment, you assert that your contributions are superior, to the detriment of those of others.

That is not true at all. I have deliberately offered you statements that might superficially be interpreted that way. In remarking on the nature of my comments, I have not been commenting on their quality; I have been indicating that they demonstrate how well I have "worked within a group." I say again: I don't think there is a single instance in which I have simply thrown another editor's contribution out of the article. If there is such an instance, it would be a rare one. Many, many — quite possibly the vast majority — of my contributions to the article have been made under IP addresses, not my Wikipedia account. If you would like information that will help you assess my editing, I will try to determine those IP addresses. (I don't know why they change; maybe I would have to ask Verizon, my internet-service provider.) You state:
 * 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.

For the record: I've made a few stray contributions to non-Manson articles, but maybe they've all been made under IP addresses. You attempt to use my statement about "whipping other editors' contributions into shape" against me. That is a prime example of a statement that I made with the full awareness that you might use it thusly. In the first place, there is nothing objectionable in my making such a statement if it is true. I could probably cite several instances in support of it, but here's one that comes quickly to my mind:


 * At 5:30, 22 January 2008, an editor contributed the following:


 * Additionally, iconic rock symbol Marilyn Manson used lyrics from Charles' song Mechanical Man for a song on his first LP Portrait of an American Family called My Monkey. The lyric's from Charles song are repeated "I had a little monkey/I sent him to the country and I fed him on gingerbread/Along came a choo-choo/Knocked my monkey cuckoo and now my monkey's dead."

The contribution, as you may confirm, was in exactly that form; there were no internal links, nothing. Later that day — at 14:41, 14:43, and 14:45, 22 January 2008 — I put the passage into the form that, essentially, it still has. I contributed internal links and detailed footnotes, as well as necessary quotation marks; I eliminated "iconic," a word that, I believe, Wikipedia warns against; I eliminated such fractured wording as "his first LP Portrait of an American Family called My Monkey" (not to mention the inappropriate apostrophe in "lyric's"). Additionally, I added a helpful reference to Manson's LIE album, which the article had already mentioned; and I inserted a parenthetical passage to indicate that Marilyn Manson and Charles Manson are not related. (I inserted that last detail because, throughout the internet, I'd seen questions about that subject, i.e. the relationship, if any, between Marilyn and Charles.)

I suggest you examine those three revisions, to see the care I took. They are far from unrepresentative of my work. I return to your statement:


 * 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.

That statement, too, is fractured, if I may say; but you seem to have meant that, though I have not stated it, I regard myself as the watchdog of the article. Allow me to state it: Yes, basically, I do. What is the objection? Would you prefer me to have left that revision and similar ones as they were? I should think Wikipedia would be very pleased to have such a careful and hard-working editor. In the above case, as is obvious, the original contribution was made by a rock-music fan who had no scholarly aptitude but who had something he wanted to say. I helped him (or her) say it. I'm pleased I did — and I am pretty sure I could give you many more examples of similarly-humane editing I have undertaken.

Incidentally, I see that I made the above-noted revisions under the IP address 71.242.195.148. I've had a number of IP addresses, as I've indicated; but that, at least, is one of them.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 06:34, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I am in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, where it is approaching 3:00 A.M.; and I still have some non-Wikipedia matters to deal with. At some point tomorrow, I'll address some of your other statements; but before I sign off for the night, I would like to present your above-quoted statement a third time:


 * 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 will have more to say about this tomorrow; but for the moment, I'll say that I don't appreciate your taking my "heavy work" comment out of context. I specifically referred to the "heavy work of actually mustering the content she has needed."  In other words, I was addressing the narrow subject of support I've given the other editor when she has been expressly acting to get the article into Good Article condition, which, as you know, I personally couldn't care less about.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 06:55, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Remark Two from JohnBonaccorsi
Once my previous remark was posted, I found that I was able to gather my concentration again and respond to another of your comments. Re a topic that seems to be comparatively minor at this point, you state:


 * 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.

I've just taken a quick look at those links. In the latter one, I found this:


 * Posting of personal information
 * Posting another person's personal information (legal name, date of birth, social security number, home or workplace address, telephone number, email address, or other contact information, regardless of whether or not the information is actually correct) is harassment, unless that editor voluntarily provides or links to such information himself or herself. This is because it places the other person at unjustified and uninvited risk of harm in "the real world" or other media. This applies whether or not the person whose personal information is being revealed is a Wikipedia editor. It also applies in the case of editors who have requested a change in username, but whose old signatures can still be found in archives.

As far as I can see, nothing there suggests I was in violation of Wikipedia policy by mentioning the first name of an editor who mentioned it himself on my talk page, which, in the manner of every other Wikipedia page, is available for perusal by — what? — four billion persons?

You will believe that, even with a broadband connection, it is taking me quite a bit of time to track down information such as the time and date of the "Marilyn Manson" revision of which I spoke in my previous entry; so if you don't mind, I'm not going to return to those links you provided. If I have missed something — if, in other words, you know of a passage that suggests that my mention of the editor's first name was inappropriate — please bring it to my attention.

Now, I am definitely going to bed.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 07:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Remark three
You write:
 * I predict this may be taken to review, as your statements are becoming more damning as you write them.

I have no idea what review is; when the time comes, please let me know. I am not damning myself at all; I am speaking unabashedly, as is my right. Having entered heroically into this fray, you are obliged to pay attention.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 23:13, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Remark four
You write:
 * 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.

Your sense of fair play is very interesting. The phrase you have placed in quotation marks was originally yours; I employed it in responding to the remark in which you had included it. I take it this is the sort of evidence you will be presenting at "review."JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 23:22, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Remark five
But let's stick with the substance of your remark. Again — you wrote:
 * 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.

Where have I asserted that my contributions and work are superior and correct?

Re the other editor's contributions, I wrote as follows on the Manson talk page:
 * The article is presently an accurate statement of fact. If I may be blunt, I’m no longer sure the footnotes are entirely accurate. I vaguely recall that recently, in examining some element of the article, I noticed that one of the footnotes you had reformatted with the "name=whatever" code was somehow mismatched with the statement it supposedly supported. In other words, the Bugliosi pages that were indicated in the footnote had nothing to do with the statement to which they were attached.

As you can see, I didn't say there is definitely a case in which a wrong footnote is matched with a statement. There very well could be; I simply can't remember whether that was exactly the problem I encountered. There was definitely some kind of problem. But, yes — I've already backed the statement up. Examine the revision I made today, at 17:32, 13 May 2008. You will see that the editor carelessly deleted the footnote to Bugliosi and Gentry's sole textual mention of the "Political piggy" that was written at the Hinman house. I don't know how many similar errors, if any, she made; that is precisely the problem. Having encountered that problem and whatever other problem I vaguely remember, I can no longer be sure the footnotes are reliable. I'd have to review all of her footnote-consolidation to find out.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 23:44, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Remark six
You write:
 * 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.

This statement is so dishonest it's offensive. Let's go through it:
 * 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 simple fact"? I take it that you see, in other words, no hazard of typographical error or of oversight — the sort of oversight that yields, for example, the lost "Political piggy" reference I mentioned in my preceding remark. I see such a hazard — which is why I am not surprised to have found that problem, with which I've made my case. And, yes, obviously, one doesn't need the source to carry out the consolidation; I simply observed that access to it limits the hazard. You are not struck that, for instance, access to the original source might be helpful if, say, one momentarily gets confused while consolidating individual page references into a range-reference, such as the 200-212 you gave as an example? Regardless, the hazard is there; and as I say, I've already made my case with an example of an error that the editor caused.

She has an "older copy" of the book? I presume you're familiar with the concept of "editions" and that you realize that different editions of one work can have different page numbers. Actually, inasmuch as the Manson article is (thanks to me) possibly the only Wikipedia article that cites clearly and consistently to specific editions, I suppose it's possible that I'm the only Wikipedia editor who is mindful of such things. There are, by the way, several instances in which — either on the Manson talk page or on the other editor's talk page — I was careful to fashion Bugliosi citations in such a way that she would be able to find them in her edition; that's one more bit of evidence of the degree to which I have extended myself to "work within a group." You continue to speak about things that you have not even examined. (And how dare you snidely remark that I didn't "question her ability to read" her copy of the book? Obviously, the concern is that her edition has different page numbers.)

I really don't know what the "watkins" and "watson" thing was, although it sounds as if it was an error that I brought to her attention. When I posted my original GA remark on the article's talk page the other day, I was using "name=watson12" simply as a specimen; I should have used "name=[whatever]."

And this:
 * Given the degree to which the changes on the page are monitored, another [error] would have been noted.

Let's see: The error I corrected today, May 13, was made on November 21, 2007? What's that? About six months? There is no reason to think it would ever have been caught. Once I saw that the editor had reformatted the footnotes en masse, I gave up on them, even though I had spent hours and hours and hours assembling and formatting them. Obviously, the only reason I caught the "Political piggy" problem today is that you raised a question about the charge I'd made. I went back into the article's history and began going through the editor's footnote consolidations until I found an error. It didn't take long.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 00:25, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Remark seven
I have just seen the most-recent comment you posted on my talk page. I could respond to several of your points; but I, too, am weary of this. Unless something changes, I won't be posting anything more here.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 00:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC)