User talk:TheoClarke/Archive 004

Back to Theo's Archive Contents and Index

'''DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.'''

This archive page covers approximately the dates between 5 Jul 2005 and 25 Jul 2005.

Post replies to the main talk page, copying the section you are replying to if necessary. (See How to archive a talk page.)

Proto
In find your attempt to hide my complaint (less than one hour old) about your and Proto's recent behaviour, by archiving it, disingenuous to say the least. Andy Mabbett 5 July 2005 14:36 (UTC)


 * I am sorry that you feel that way. Was the matter not closed? &mdash;Theo  (Talk) 5 July 2005 15:02 (UTC)


 * No. Andy Mabbett 5 July 2005 15:28 (UTC)
 * What do you wish me to do?&mdash;Theo (Talk) 5 July 2005 15:30 (UTC)
 * Ditto. Andy, what do you want to happen?  My comment was removed (by me) as it was stupid and ill-judged. Again, could you take this to my talk page, instead of clogging up Theo's. Thanks. Proto t c 5 July 2005 15:37 (UTC)

Category:Quebec culture
I've updated links to point to the new category; there are still several links, but they are part of discussion pages which mention the transition between old and new. The category can be deleted now. (Note that Wikiportal/Quebec reads a template that has been updated, but the cached version of the article may contain info from the old template.) Mindmatrix 5 July 2005 19:00 (UTC)

Deletion help
Hey, thanks for the offer. At the moment, I know of Conlon. But part of the problem is that looking up a VfD ruling for the 10+ articles that need transwiki to Wiktionary alone every day is a big hassle. If you're really bored, you could check out WP:TL and look through those for previous rulings. It seems like the entire maintenance of the page is me. And I just finished resolving the old archive from the initial burst of transwikis when it was just getting going (2003), so the current page is a rather long and unfinished mess. --Dmcdevit July 5, 2005 19:28 (UTC)
 * Disambigs for names are good. May I ask you some advice? Yogananda Image Gallery, (see the discussion here), was decided to transwiki and delete (although now that I look at it again, it looks like it was never closed...) But when I look at all the images that are supposed to be transwikied to commons, thy are all marked as "fair use." But Commons doesn't accept "fair use" images, I think they're deleted on sight. So what do we do? --Dmcdevit July 5, 2005 20:39 (UTC)
 * Ah thanks. (PS, there's also a redirect hanging around in the article namespace, Yogananda Image Gallery). You know, if you transwiki an article a day, may I suggest you start with this list, as those can probably be considered the most urgent. Oh yeah, and I don't know if you know this, but you don't need to to any Wiktionary ones, as I've got the bot to do that (at least I will if I can ever get it back online since the upgrade), and hopefully I'll have a bot that can do all transwikis soon. Anyway, thanks for your hard work! --Dmcdevit July 5, 2005 22:08 (UTC)
 * Okay, take a look at Hydraulics demonstration (there's a redir, too). Has been transwikied to Wikibooks per the VfD. --Dmcdevit July 8, 2005 23:11 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Now give me some chocolate! (testing out that "your wish is my command thing," maybe I should have asked for money...) --Dmcdevit July 8, 2005 23:56 (UTC)
 * Oh, great! Now you got drool all over my computer screen! Well, I guess I did, but it was your fault! --Dmcdevit July 9, 2005 00:02 (UTC)
 * Ey up! (Votes for deletion/Ey up!), Navarose (Votes for deletion/Navarose), Percussive maintenance (Votes for deletion/Percussive maintenance), Pulsen (Votes for deletion/Pulsen), Serous (Votes for deletion/Serous- looks like it was never closed but I see a majority of delete/transwiki votes), and I'll keep looking. Thanks. --Dmcdevit 22:20, July 9, 2005 (UTC)
 * Okay, I delinked pulsen, (except for the logs and talk pages) is that right? Also found Verboten and Rolf (not closed?), Choda, Ego surfing, Meh, Automagic, Copacetic (never closed?), Cheche, and I think that's all for now. Now I guess I'll have to look into helping to close "keep" VfD's as penance. Thanks again. --Dmcdevit 00:02, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

CSD Proposal 3-B
You voted or commented on Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/3-B or  Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/3-A or both. I have proposed a revised version, at Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/3-C. This version is intended to address objections made by many of those oppsoed to 3-A or 3-B. The revised propsal refers explicitly and directly to the criteria at WP:MUSIC. If you have not already done so, please examine the revised proposal and vote on it also. Thank you. DES 6 July 2005 06:12 (UTC)

re: Redlinks in dab
That's an interesting question - do redlinks belong in disambiguation pages.

Let me start by saying that I did check every one of the redlinks using "What links here". (Thankfully, that feature works even if the article hasn't been created yet.) At the time that I did the check, I can say with certainty that three of them had exactly one inbound link - the Conlon disambiguation page. Of the other redlinks, only one had more than three inbound links.

What's the harm of allowing a redlink to stay in place? Well, there are several arguments. How you weight them or whether you believe them at all depends on your assumptions about the user experience. I'll lay out a few that I find compelling. Note that these arguments are in some ways independent - some of the underlying assumptions even contradict each other. Agreeing with any one argument can be sufficient.

First, the redlink is an implied request for the article. Finding lots of inbound links can be evidence that the article is a requested article which will be valued by the community. Finding very few inbound links can be evidence that the creation of the link was the opinion of a single editor whose edit(s) will be quickly reversed in the source article(s). (To be honest, even a lot of inbound links can be a link-spam from a single editor. To really show that it's a desirable article, you have to check history and make sure that the redlinks came from different authors and that they have been in the source articles for a reasonable period of time.)

Why do we care? Because that request may or may not be appropriate. If it's an person who others in the community find to be non-notable, the article is very likely to be deleted. Deleted articles too often lead to ill-will and frustration on the part of the new user who just thought they were doing what we asked. The redlink after all takes you to a page which explicitly asks you to start the article.

Why doesn't that apply to all redlinks? Well, it does. We worry about it less on article pages because we trust that the people writing, reading and editing the source articles tend to weed out the irrelevant links. Since those people have content knowledge to contribute to the source article, they are able to make an informed decision about whether the drill-down article will be appropriate. Unfortunately, the disambig pages don't/can't get the same scrutiny. While many people have Guildford Four on their watchlists and presumably some subset are watching the redirect Gerry Conlon, they are unlikely to watch the disambig page - it's just not close enough to their core interests. So if someone adds an irrelevant link to the source article, it will get reverted quickly but if the irrelevant link is in a disambig page, it can sit unfound for a long time.

Second, until the article is actually created, there is a fair chance that the title will change. Will Patrick Conlon (politician) ultimately be created there, at Patrick A Conlon, Patrick A. Conlon, Patrick Conlon (city councilman), Pat Conlon, etc? Until the article is created, we don't really know. The redlinks in the articles are much more likely to be changed before or as the article is being created. The links on the disambiguation page are unlikely to be updated.

Third, when the redlink turns blue, will it really be the same subject? Will Patrick Conlon (politician) be about the Australian politician or some minor US politician? If you guessed wrong, you can be sure that no one will remember to update the disambig page. Both these last two effectively argue that it is better to wait until you know for sure what article you are really disambiguating.

Fourth, it's pretty clearly stated in the third paragraph of Disambiguation that "Adding links to non-existent articles should be done with care." The section goes on to discuss more guidelines and best practices. The Talk page archives have much more on the topic.

Will users return to the disambiguation page to add their article to the list once it has been created? All evidence says that the answer is yes. Users interested enough to create the first article will usually create links to it in other articles. One of those links will almost inevitably be malformed and will take them (or another reader) to the disambig page. Once there, it gets added to the list by the first person who sees it (and, if it's working right, the source link corrected so the disambig page is again an orphan).

To me, that says there's no harm to deleting the redlink but a small harm (magnitude depends on your philosophy and assumptions about the user experience) to leaving the redlink in place on a disambig page. It's a close judgment call, though. I hope that helps. Rossami (talk) 6 July 2005 15:33 (UTC)

Limewire
I don't understand what you doing ???? YOu remove NPOV template but leaving article FULL LOADED with SPYWARE words  - your edit !!!!!!!!!! Thats what you call NPOV ?????

LimeWire is a free/shareware Gnutella peer-to-peer network client, with an open protocol network. '''When released in 2001 the software included spyware elements and gained a reputation for destabilising other applications. With the removal of the spyware in May 2004 (Release 4), these objections have been addressed.'''

The program allows users to share files using the Gnutella peer-to-peer protocol. It was the first file sharing program to support firewall-to-firewall file transfers, a feature introduced in version 4.2, which was released in November 2004.

The client is proprietary, which until recently was "distributed with many spyware/adware products bundled in"  and is well-known to computer experts as a source of computer problems.'

LimeWire is written in Java and hence runs on any computer with the Java virtual machine installed. To facilitate installation for casual users, the developers release installation packages for Microsoft Windows, the Mac, and for Linux, in rpm format.

LimeWire uses the SHA1 hashing algorithm to ensure that downloaded data is uncompromised. Ed Felten and others have identified possible vulnerabilities in this algorithm that have adverse implications for the security of LimeWire.

The Windows version of LimeWire installer includes a stripped-down version of Sun's Java installer which will download and install version 1.5 of the Java Runtime Environment (JRE) if it detects the machine doesn't have Java, or has a version of Java below version 1.4.1.

LimeWire LLC, the developer of LimeWire, distributes two versions of the program; a basic, free version, and an enhanced version sold for a small fee, which is said to offer faster downloads. Prior to April 2004, the free version of LimeWire was distributed with a bundled program called "LimeShop" (a variant of TopMoxie), considered by computer security experts as malicious spyware.

According to a 28 June 2005 report in the The New York Times LimeWire LLC may stop distributing LimeWire due to the outcome of MGM v. Grokster.

Category:Spyware

Vorash 8 July 2005 16:41 (UTC)

I still don't understand why are you removing NPOV template on disputed article, which is a subject for frequent Edit wars !!??? Vorash 8 July 2005 16:54 (UTC)

You talking about bold text, but i am talking about violation of official Wikipedia policy - NPOV. Removing NPOV template on article, whose actual accuracy is desputed is violation of Wikipedia policy ! Vorash 8 July 2005 17:02 (UTC)

I don't believe that this was an "error". I see it as a case where two Administrators trying to enforce their opinion on other "regular" users. One Tanin - rudely violates 3RR rule, the second one - you - rudely violates NPOV rule ! Vorash 8 July 2005 17:30 (UTC)

Well, you ashamed of me, but i ashamed of Wikipedia where article about absolutely clean program can be overloaded with the word SPYWARE !!! Vorash 8 July 2005 17:54 (UTC)

The bold text was used in order to underline dispiuted POVs. Why are you calling it "Shouting" ?? About what exactly "error" are you talking about ? Here is your edit Revision as of 15:57, 8 July 2005 . In your edit you added addtional info about Spyware and said qoute "Focus on the present whilst acknowledging the past in attempt to restore "NPOV" and in your attempt to "restore NPOV" you removed an NPOV template . THis is what you call "ERROR" ????? You also accused me of accusing the User:Milk of sockpuppetry. I didn't accuse anyone of sockpuppetry !!! Using wrong word is not an accusation !! The correct world would be "Annonymous" IP address. I am the one who was accused of Vandalism for doing nothing but "too much edits" !! THis is an additional violation of Civility policy. Calling for Blocks on Disputed article is considered a violation of official Wikipedia policy ! Vorash 9 July 2005 16:33 (UTC)

Congratulations
On all the work you did to get David Helvarg on to the main page. All the best! --Scimitar 8 July 2005 21:47 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, I'm hiding the fact that I'm a baboon. I went through a somewhat gloomy phase after reading RickK's user page, and found myself in a couple of bitter vfd events. (I wasn't bitter, but some vandals were, and made it known on my user page). I've since tried to minimize information about myself, and reformatted the page, because I'm not sure I'm going to stick around.--Scimitar 8 July 2005 22:18 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Theo, for the encouragement. I know there are a lot of good people here; one only has to look at the project to see the vast amount of good faith and near-super human effort put into it. I'm simply unsure as to whether it is enough to counteract the dark underside of the project, which may render it unworkable. I suppose only time will tell.--Scimitar 8 July 2005 22:37 (UTC)

Congratulations on taking David Helvarg from VfD to featured article. --Dcfleck July 9, 2005 01:15 (UTC)

Wikibreak
Hey Theo! No, I don't think I'm going to give up on Wikipedia just yet. Refreshed or not, I plan to be around for a good long while. --Scimitar 13:36, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Fred Conlon
Great article! Notjim 23:27, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Help again Theo
Hey there....

Listen, I've run into a Mike Garcia-type problem again, and I was wondering if you could help sort it out....

There's this rather persistent (and incorrigible) user named User: Monicasdude who has become a real self-righteous thorn in my foot. I have spent the last several days fixing (in some cases, literally creating) loads of album articles for The Beach Boys (please go to that page to find the studio album discography). This anonymous user has repeatedly vandalized my work, by reverting it to before I had even touched it. He has done this twice now (and likely will continue to do so) starting with Smiley Smile to Love You. His reasons are really because I improved upon his Bob Dylan pages (because, you see, I learned over the last few days that those album articles actually belong to him, not Wikipedia - no one can edit his work without it being reverted it seems). He'll maintain that I've got loads of POV in the Beach Boys articles now, when in actual fact I'm merely summarizing the general impressions of the albums based on official reviews or historical views. I'm not putting MY view on things. The laughable part is that he's reverting everything I do (it's almost like I'm being targeted on purpose) and what remains are short and, in some cases, badly written blurbs with POV to begin with! Which leads me to consider this to be petty vandalism. I've explained and offered my authorized sources and told him I was open to collaboration, discussion, etc... but it's to no avail. He stubbornly wants the Dylan pages HIS way, and now has seen fit to come over to the Beach Boys pages to purposely fuel the fire (and pages which I had previously discussed fixing with another user, User:Bobo192). Theo, I've put LOADS of time into these BB articles and I feel they are well-written, informative and as objective as possible. I fixed song timings, album timings, song credits, added improved album graphics and even created whole new pages. What's more - I've had fun doing this and have had possible feedback. Look for yourself and see if what I've done is so awful that the whole page needs to be wiped from all my articles and compare them to what the other fellow is subtituting them with (in particular Wild Honey or 15 Big Ones). Surely, they can't be better?

Also, he persists in harrassing me on my home page by resubmitting an immature and self-righteous message.

Thanks Theo.... Sorry to imposition you...

PetSounds 03:52, 17 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Please stop posting personal abuse about me (or any other user) on the talk pages of individuals who are not involved in the disputes. You comments about me are demonstrably dishonest. You have posted false claims about me being a 3RR violator in several locations, although you know they are not true. This matter began when I asked you, a bit brusquely given the problems you were creating, to stop revising the Dylan album pages, as it was apparent you were unfamiliar with the extensive, well-documented, and reliable references available online and in print, and citing in some detail the errors you have introduced. In response, you have cited only the AllMusic Guide and an anonymous, wholly unsourced page regarding unidentified British popular music charts, initiated a revert war, and posted personal abuse on my talk page and on the talk page of uninvolved admins and editors. Every other editor who commented on the Dylan pages disagreed with most or all of your changes. It is an undeniable NPOV violation to describe an album as "hilariously sub-par." It is an undeniable NPOV violation to describe an album as "wonderful." It is an undeniable NPOV violation to describe an album as "Without a doubt the strangest album ever released by a major group." Virtually every page you have worked on seems to defy the applicable standard in the NPOV guideline:


 * "Wikipedia articles about art, artists, and other creative topics (e.g., musicians, actors, books, etc.) have tended toward the effusive. This is out of place in an encyclopedia."


 * You also devote an astonishing amount of space to entirely unsourced and undocumentable speculation about the motives of various musicians. This led you, for example, to construct an entirely fictive history of one Bob Dylan album (Greatest Hits II) even though an accurate history was well documented in several Dylan interviews and in Clive Davis' autobiography. None of such material that you have invented/presented is appropriate for an encyclopedia.


 * And for all your whining about being open to collaboration, etc, etc, your initial response to my edits was not to address substantive claims, but to call for interventions by various admins because I was a bad character and a 3RR violator. It was only after your requests were ignored that you even pretended to be open to compromise, and your offer was conditioned on my promising to leave all your edits in place unless we agreed on alternatives. That is not a good faith offer.


 * Other people, myself included, have worked hard on the contributions they have made to Wikipedia. You place a unique and excessive value on your own contributions, and do not show an appropriate regard for the efforts of others.


 * And you have no right, as you have done at least once in the last day, to unilaterally edit a third party's talk pages to remove my comments. That is appalling misbehavior. Monicasdude 06:50, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Hi Theo, I apologize for any wrongdoings.... Won't happen again. PetSounds 13:31, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Archiving
Yes please. I don't know yet how to do that, and I don't want it to look like there's anything to hide, although I resent being pestered by certain people on my own page (you excluded, of course). Thanks... PetSounds 14:01, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your archiving help... It's appreciated. PetSounds 15:56, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Reply to advice
Thanks for your response, and I hear you and will be more conscious of my actions. I suppose it's fine with The Beach Boys articles, but if they are reverted again then I will contact you. Actually, have a look - just so you can see my frustration - at the Love You history page and click on his reversion to see how he wiped everything back what was really a stub - without discussing anything with me first. And it was done to at least 12 album articles. Thanks for your help, Theo. I appreciate it... PetSounds 17:27, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Hi Theo, thanks for the lookover on the article. I've modified elements to make them more specific and less POV (even though I didn't have that many POV's in there, as you witnessed). I do hope others can improve on the pages - I just think reverting back to album stubs is a bit harsh, and I'm glad you can understand where I'm coming from.... Thanks for your assistance... PetSounds 18:19, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

PetSounds renews misbehavior
Your "little buddy," as he seems to think of himself, couldn't go a day without returning to his old ways. He made a series of small but significantly incorrect changes to the John Wesley Harding page, trying to cover up his actions with deliberately misleading edit summaries. No talk page activity whatever. Among other things, he tried to sneak a disputed reference back into the article by marking the edit "fix typo errors." The issue isn't who's right on the disputed points, or how important the disputed matters are. It's that he doesn't behave honestly, and that he's not editing in good faith. Monicasdude 06:07, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Hi Theo,

I saw your message at Monicasdude's talk page, and while I admit I could have waited to make the additions, I'm pleased that you acknowledged the fact that my clear attempts to improve the article by adding song timings and fixing a glaring typo (it's "Basement Tapes" with an "s" - just click on the faulty link and it'll take you right there) and compromise on album length timings were instantly wiped, mostly without just cause. As I mentioned before, these pages appear to belong to someone else - or, I'm merely being targeted. Nonetheless, I'm going to stay away from those pages for a bit. Thanks Theo PetSounds 13:56, 18 July 2005 (UTC)


 * After reflection, I have posted a reply on my talk page to your comments there, which also addresses some of the matters discussed here. Monicasdude 21:19, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Ward Churchill
Dear TheoClarke: I have never made any pretense to be non-biased. I clearly am biased and I have never, ever claimed to be objective. And that is the difference between myself and most of the Wikipedians that have beeen editing the Churchill article. All of the other Wikipedians either attempt to be objective or they claim that they are objective and they are truly biased. However the problem with this situation is that no one can maintain complete and total objectivity (no matter how hard they try) or they are just faking being objective while they bend some article to the right or the left. I however am being honest and straightforward in with my bias however I try to edit with my personal experience in my mind while I work on the material. In my personal experience I know that he is FAKE Indian and I am going to edit the article with that personal experience in mind. While you on the other hand do not have personal experience with man and you are attempting to maintain what you believe to be objectivity--which may seem admirable--however for someone who has first hand knowledge of the person and has been involved in Indian politics and Indian Country for 30 years I find your attempts to "clean up" the the man's arrogance, smugness, hatred of those who disagree with him to be just another well-meaning but ultimately hurtful actions of the do-gooder liberal paternalism. You find it objective and professional but I find it degrating to the all of the real Indians that are working in the worlds of academics, law, medicine, etc. that deserve the kind of attention that Churchill steals from real, hard-working Indians. You and SlimVirgin's attempts to pretty up the criticism of Churchill makes him look like the date-stamped, pre-approved liberal Indian that the Amy Goodman's of the world want to be believe that all Indians are like--when in truth Churchill is far from the normal Indian. Why? Because he is not an Indian at all but a radical (not even liberal) white guy pretending to be an Indian--his fake Indian-ness provides him with a platform to criticize America and the Left applauds him as if he has some kind of insight into the Native world, which he doesn't. Let's face it. You don't have respect for my opinion. You never have. You and SlimVirgin and the others who have been attempting to take the FAKE Indian issue completely out of the article do not believe the issue should even be mentioned because it puts a dark cloud over the myth that you want to believe that Churchill is: The mighty Indian warrior fighting America, fighting the conservatives, fighting Bush, etc. You and SlimVirgin have more respect for the words of Churchill and his nasty comments that the people in the WTC deserved to die, comparing them to Eichmann, etc than you do with the perspective that quite possibly your mythical Indian just might be a FAKE Indian. Don't lecture me. Of course you and SlimVirgin are biased. I just have the honesty to admit it.-Keetoowah 20:32, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

''I am not surprised that SlimVirgin has concluded that you hate Churchill. You have repeatedly denigrated the man as much as his behaviour. One example of this is your repeated use of the appelation "the FAKE indian" [the use of uppercase is yours]. TheoClarke''

Since you feel compelled to fight the fight of SlimVirgin, let me response to this nonsense that you have put forward. First of all there is a difference between the words that I have used in the actual article and the words that I have used on this Talk Page. I have never, ever attempted to put into the article the phrase, "Churchill is a FAKE Indian" even though I want to see it in the actual article, but I know that it will never be accepted and is clearly over the top. What we have here, my friend, is an example of a Red herring argument or, if you will, a Straw man argument. You are diverting attention to the comments that I have made on the Talk Page to attempt to censor the writing in the actual article. If we go back to the original issue that brought on this discussion it was about the proper quotation of the Tribe. I never, ever wrote any hateful speech in the article about Churchill I was just attempting to make sure that the article quoted the Tribe properly. If you review the changes  it is abundantly clear that I was merely quoting directly from the Tribes's official Web site and I did NOT add my own commentary at all. It is abundantly clear that SlimVirgin repeatedly reversed me even though I was not violating any Wikipedian rules--I was NOT engaging in non-NPOV commentary, I was not engaging in original research or commentary and I was being completely factual, professional, and I was providing a citation for the changes that I was attempting to make. And finally it is abundantly clear that SlimVirgin did not attempt to explain the wholesale reversals and it is clear to me that SlimVirgin, and SlimVirgin admits as much, that SlimVirgin simply liked the sound of the second statement of the Tribe better, not that it was the definitive point of view of the Triber but it sounded less mean--taken out of context of the first statement. Is that the proper way to decide how to quote the Tribe? Being accurate or what SlimVirgin finds subjectively less mean sounding??? That is a non-objective way to decide. It is clearly subjective and bias. It is based upon the standard--if I can loosely use that word--what does SlimVirgin feels today? What mood is SlimVirgin in today?? That is biased and it is NOT objective like your and SlimVirgin like to claim. It was NOT even my comments, but the comments of the Tribe of which Churchill claims to be a member. I want to know where you see in the article or in the changes to the article where I was engaging in "hate speech" Where??? Show me when and where I did this. Also, ask SlimVirgin when and where I was engaging in this behavior--since you have decided to defend SlimVirgin also. The only hate speech that is in the article is the hate speech of Churchill towards the people that were trapped in the WTC on 9-11-2001.-Keetoowah 21:11, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your extensive comment. I will respond at Talk:WArd Churchill, where you psoted the same text. &mdash;Theo (Talk) 23:00, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Petsounds again renews misconduct
Despite his promises, this user has resumed his misconduct with regard to both the Bob Dylan and other pages. Aside from his inexplicable determination to assert that the album called "Dylan" is not available in the US (despite the album being offered for sale at bobdylan.com and the main Sony site), he has, inter alia:

deleted a lengthy paragraph devoted to prominent criticism of album lyrics, tagging the edit as "minor" and inaccurately characterizing the deleted material as "redundant";

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Smile_%28album%29&diff=prev&oldid=19331244

Without explanation, fully reverted another user's revision of an album page, restoring obvious NPOV violations and deleting all links in the personnel section, tagged, of course, as a "minor" edit;

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Opel_%28album%29&diff=prev&oldid=19332781

He continues to mark virtually every edit as minor, and rarely if ever accurately identifies substantive changes. The examples are from a random sample of this afternoon's "contributions."

And, of course, he has restarted the John Wesley Harding edit dispute, again directing the "Basement Tape" link to a page which it does not refer, and insisting that the original form of the album is not available, even though it is listed on the official Dylan and Sony sites. (Sony has kept the pre-SACD versions of the 1960s albums in print, although it currently offers them as CDs only in 3-album packs in the North American market.)

This is getting tired very quickly. A user who consistently refuses to provide sources or provide factual explanations with regard to disputed changes, and misrepresents the nature of a significant number of his substantive changes in his edit summaries, should not be encouraged in his misbehavior. Monicasdude 03:17, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Hi Theo,

I have fixed my default setting for editing (it was checked). Also, thanks for initiating a compromise on the JWH page. God knows I've compromised (on the BD discography page and many others). It's too bad some people's arms have to be twisted to do likewise. That's what I consider misbehavior.

Thanks... PetSounds 12:13, 22 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Your John Wesley Harding edit doesn't reconcile the differences; it misses the central point. It's inappropriate to designate a particular version of the album as canonical, since it remains available in different forms, with tracks of different lengths. The original version remains on sale -- Petsounds' comments otherwise are contradicted, once again, by the official Sony and bobdylan.com sites.


 * And I once again find Petsounds comments disingenuous at best, and fairly described as deliberately misleading. His idea of a "compromise" is to accede to changes that are not subject to any good faith factual disputes (in the cited case, whether a particular list was complete) only after lengthy and abusive reistance, and to reintroduce other disputed language sub rosa after annoucing the arguments over.  Monicasdude 15:56, 22 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Here's the proof that the original 1990 edition of JWL is deleted: link. If it's only available from amazon as a used item, that means Sony has stopped pressing the outdated CD. Having just checked the sonymusicstore site link, JWL is only available in its 2003 SACD and regular 2004 CD release (as well as cassette).  The 1990 version is undebniably out of print.  I don't know what else to say. PetSounds 17:27, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
 * And here is the proof that it is still availble as part of a three CD set: Amazon page for Dylan Box Set. So, the 1990 version is not (yet) out of print. Either way, there is still merit in including the durations from the original vinyl release in the article. &mdash;Theo (Talk) 17:34, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Again, thanks for interceding Theo. I know dealing with difficult people who only see things in a one-sided manner can be frustrating. PetSounds 16:21, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Alert of petty revisions once again
Theo, as you indeed suspected and pointed out to Monicasdude, he appears to be targeting my edits and undoing them with harshness. Have a look:link. These works are either providing historical backgrounds/critical opinions (as per reputable sources, not my own) or presenting better layouts, all which are repeatedly being undone. I am not propogating my POV. I find all this repetitive pettiness to be counterproductive and deliberately provoking, and clearly I'm not the only one that has been bothered by his lack of consult in the past. Have a look at this: link. I find User: JDG's comments to be interesting (dated 01:06, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)). The 3RR rule has already been broken by him as well (see "Younger Than Yesterday" & "The Byrds' Greatest Hits" in his special contributions page). In addition, I've tried discussing things in the past, as you already know, but to no avail. In light of that, I have to follow protocol and bring this to you in order to protect my work, since you are - perhaps unfortunately - quite familiar with the history involved.

My apologies... PetSounds 23:11, 22 July 2005 (UTC)


 * This is getting very tired. User:Petsounds' claims of 3RR violations are plainly false; he knows they are false; and he makes these claims only to harass.  As for targeting, User:Petsounds, according to his special contributions page, came online and spent most of an hour doing nothing but reviewing and reverting pages I'd recently worked on.  If you review my special contributions page, you will note I spent time today working on a variety of pages related to 1960's musicians related to Dylan, and I have no idea what percentage of them Petsounds has worked on, or what his specific contributions were.  If you review the pages, I expect you will find that I have not treated whichever pages he worked on the substance of any differently than the ones to which he had not worked (or had made no substantive contributions).

I note that if you review these items from today's activities, you will find specific guideline/policy/practice violations by User: Petsounds

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sticky_Fingers&diff=prev&oldid=19404195

Misleading edit summary. Edit summary refers only to conforming the spelling of Keith Richard(s). Edit also deletes an extensive set of annotations by a third party editor, as well as a reference to a restaurant owned by Bill Wyman.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Out_of_Our_Heads&diff=prev&oldid=19369391

Revert not properly identified; no substantive explanation provided.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Rolling_Stones_discography&diff=prev&oldid=19369282

Revert not properly identified; no substantive explanation provided.

And so forth. It is clear from User: Petsounds comments in recent edit summaries that he either does not understand or is unwilling to comply with NPOV policy/guidelines. It is inappropriate to write my esthetic opinions, his esthetic opinions, the esthetic opinions expressed in the AllMusic Guide, a supposed public consensus of esthetic opinions, or any other set of esthetic opinions into Wikipedia entries as though they were factual. I am certainly not the only user who has objected to his inserting such comments.

As for the cited dispute regarding the Bob Dylan page (which spilled over into the FA and Be Bold guideline pages, I note that, if I remember correctly, not a single editor supported user JDG's position, and when a consensus was established that his procedural position was incorrect and that he should address substantive matters, he withdrew.

Frankly, and bluntly, I believe that User:Petsounds sustained refusal to abide by NPOV guidelines is a greater act of incivility and disrespect toward the many, many users who refrain from writing their own opinions into articles, respect the consensus process, and work scrupulously toward accuracy.

I see no way in which this dispute will be resolved by discussion. Monicasdude 00:08, 23 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Edit Conflicted: Brian: I have been working through Monicasdude's edits and I find that in many cases I agree with the changes that he made. For example, I cannot verify your assertion of rumours about Rock of Ages coming from soundchecks.  I think that you could help yourself by citing inline sources for every assertion that you make. I have a feeling that I may have mentioned it before, but if I repeat it, this is because you did not take up the suggestion when first made. Reading Monicadude's detailed rebuttal, which edit conflicted with the first part of this paragraph, I must concur with him.  If you do not start citing sources for assertions (particularly for assertions of opinion) I will initiate an RFC about this. &mdash;Theo  (Talk) 00:19, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

I never made any assertions about Rock of Ages recordings coming from soundchecks. You must be mistaken. PetSounds 00:22, 23 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Ah, yes, I see that that was a statement by someone else that Monicasdude deleted (quite correctly, in my opinion). Perhaps the suggestion that "Why" was included on Younger Than Yesterday at David Crosby's insistence is a better example, since you reintroduced it through reverts. &mdash;Theo  (Talk) 00:35, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Because that is what's stated in the CD booklet of Younger Than Yesterday. I wouldn't have placed that interesting bit of info in there otherwise. PetSounds 01:25, 23 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Excellent! Now cite that as the source in the article and include the information. You should cite the booklet as a "Reference" and use Template:Inote or something similar to cite it inline. &mdash;Theo  (Talk) 03:05, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

I've re-added all the pertinent info - and officialized it with the sourcing. I'm currently in a rush, so I probably didn't do it right, but the point is, it's there. PetSounds 13:22, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Also, please see the YTY talk page where I proved the validity of the contemporary works of the time. PetSounds 13:25, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Younger Than Yesterday
I've put some comments relating to a factual issue on the article's talk page; I don't believe one paragraph you restored, which on its face certainly appears pertinent, has a sound factual basis. Monicasdude 07:09, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

IP 'registering'
Why are you going around anonymous users' talk pages, including the IP that I am currently inhabiting, and claiming that they are 'registered' with Energis? I must unwittingly be an employee of Energis, then? --195.92.67.74 00:20, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Because, according to WHOIS, those IP addresses are owned by Energis. Thus they are made available to employees and customers of Energis (who include some ISPs). More significantly, a range of addresses of that nature are often assigned dynamically and individual addresses may be shared by several users. The template draws this to the attention of admins who should, in consequence, be more cautious with blocks than they might be for a static IP address. Blocks are applied for repeated violation of policy. One of our policies is Civility. Sarcasm to a stranger is one form of incivility. &mdash;Theo  (Talk) 09:11, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Another round of NPOV violations from User:Petsounds
The early Byrds pages have beeen substantively returned to their previous condition, with virtually all the NPOV violations reinstated. Long citations of opinion from a CD's album notes are not NPOV, whether or not they are cited to a named author, and obvious value judgments about the relative merits of particular albums. Occasionally a critical superlative may be appropriate -- it's probably worth noting, for example, that Lester Bangs said "Love You" was the Beach Boys best album in a discussion of the album's critical reception -- but presenting the comments of what is, typically, a hired hand for the label or the artist/band as the principal evaluation of a release is so plainly inappropriate that it should require no discussion.

This is simply one facet of the user's modus operandi; he is apparently determined to introduce a conclusive value judgment on the clear majority of pages he works on. Some of the more egregious excamples from the few days:

Yesshows: "a fitting live momento of their late 1970's era."

Drama: "It was an unlikely partnership, but it worked - for one album, at least."

Tales From Topographic Oceans: "Tales From Topographic Oceans's unconventional nature truly challenged their audience (and continues to), and separated the true believer from the casual fan."

Pacific Ocean Blue: "this album, alongside his pioneering work with The Beach Boys, remains a focal point of Dennis Wilson's legacy."

The Madcap Laughs: "The Madcap Laughs stands as a highly inventive album, full of melody and playfulness, though underscored by a sense of personal torment that makes the listener feel almost guilty for enjoying the recording."

The Beach Boys Today: "Still, with The Beach Boys Today!, Brian Wilson and The Beach Boys had joined the rock revolution, and they would never look back."

Little Deuce Coupe: "For an album recorded so quickly, the quality was amazingly high."

And so forth.

18:04, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Theo,

May I point out that I added a fresh round of chart and sourcing info on The Byrds' pages, which were all wiped deliberately on the pages cited? Is that not a source of vandalism? Also, I have returned Younger Than Yesterday to the way it was. The anecdotes on the album being overshadowed commercially and Crosby's insistence on including an old track on the LP were verified by you and OK'd, since I sourced them.

Secondly, for what's supposed to be a friendly and co-operative site, I don't appreciate that Monicasdude is using, for lack of a better word, stalking measures, by disecting the articles I've worked on (some from DAYS ago). I don't need to be chaperoned by someone who has already driven a user away for his tunnel vision and holier-than-thou character, which is in evidence even in the way he has talked with you (i.e. "your little buddy"). Not all of his input is 100% correct (I've seen a good share of POV but I don't want to be petty), so perhaps he could be more productive by working on articles in a constructive fashion, rather than - clearly - stirring the pot.

If I'm truly appreciated here, as you stated earlier, then I shouldn't be made to feel targeted the way I am. I can find much more satisfying ways to spend the time I freely give here. PetSounds 21:41, 24 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I take it you have no response to the substantive claims and believe that pointing out your sustained practice of refusing to comply with NPOV policies and guideline justifies personally abusive responses. There's no statute of limitations on correcting errors, certainly not three "DAYS ago." And for someone who not so long ago spent an entire online sessions reviewing and substantively vandalizing articles I've worked on, any comments about stalking are dishonest at best. Monicasdude 17:50, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

YTY re-edit.
I really like what you've done by incorporating my input instead of discarding it outright. Seeing as the CD now has a new catalogue number (the old one being discontinued in 1997) and the fact that I've arranged dozens of articles in the same format, could I poosibly move the chart/bonus track info beneath the tracklist as it was before? Otherwise it tends to clash with every other article. Thanks... PetSounds 00:58, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Goodbye.
That's it. I'm tired of constantly being harrassed especially when those who accuse me have committed the same "crimes". Why don't you go look at Monicasdude's first post to me again? Didn't you call it "overly harsh" yourself? It was certainly far stronger than what I wrote to that other user who repeatedly re-introduced redundant info that I explained SEVERAL TIMES - and nicely - had already been inserted into the text - for at least a week. When it's done repeatedly (thus, on purpose with disregard for others' point of view), I consider it a form of vandalism. God knows some of the reverts of my work by that self-righteous MD were labelled "vandalism". Go look yourself.

I also gave a strong indication yesterday of feeling purposely harrassed, yet I see the antagnoizing is continuing - with your full blessing apparently. Funny how it's OK for MD to attack me, but the minute I express sentiments with a user who has repeatedly (and anonymously) re-introduced info, without attempting to reply or discuss things, suddenly I'm the asshole again.

How would I feel about being bullied that way, Theo? I've been feeling it for the last 2 weeks. What a hyprocrite MD is to talk about breaking civility codes! He is the last one who should be admonishing others for rude and narrow-minded behavior. Just laughable.... Perhaps he's scared to look into his mirror.

Don't bother replying Theo.... I won't be back here - not in this antangonistic atmosphere anyway. I have far better ways to spend my time then being attacked over petty issues, when others break the same rules and are backed up. This site just lost a good contributor.

PetSounds 21:53, 25 July 2005 (UTC)