User talk:Viriditas/Archive 6

Overthrow and other Hawaii articles
Aloha, Viriditas. To your request for justification of the POV tags on the Overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy (and one or two other) articles, I tried to address this by demonstrating that the articles as they currently exist reflect a biased POV. Unfortunately, the other editor seems to refuse to accept that the POV of those articles -- as I tried to give in my very preliminary but I hope nonetheless sufficient summary -- is disputed, and not just by myself but many others over an extended period of time. A review of the talk pages and histories will verify this. Anyhow, I think JK and I have come to an impasse. I do not have time, or the desire, to get into another edit war with him. His tenacity is indeed admirable. All I seek at this stage is to have the POV tags stay to alert naive readers that the articles reflect a POV that is disputed. Given the nature of the material, I hope and think this is a reasonable request, but your assistance would be much appreciated. Cheers, Arjuna 10:04, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Aloha Viriditas, Arjuna is correct in describing our impasse, although we disagree on the nature of it. He has provided some commentary about certain aspects of the article he believes are POV pushing, but has been unable to provide any citations for his assertions, which deeply concerns me.  I have politely asked him to remove the POV tags himself, and he has politely, albeit vehemently, refused.


 * For example, he stated, The statement that "The 1887 constitution, drafted by Lorrin A. Thurston, Minister of Interior under King David Kalākaua, was in response to what was seen by his critics as Kalākaua's abuse of power" is not untrue, but is highly selective in its attribution of motivation; clearly Thurston et al were motivated by factors other than simply Kalakaua's incompetence or corruption: most scholars agree they also wanted a greater share of power. Not to include this fact is a tendentious presentation of history.


 * I would like him to provide a reference to "most scholars", instead of referring to them in general. I would also appreciate some sort of clarification as to what "wanted a greater share of power" means in the context he is using it in, preferably with a direct citation.  Without these details, his complaint seems to have no appropriate solution.  It is my contention that Kuykendall, Daws and Andrade represent strong examples of mainstream and balanced presentation of Hawaiian history, and all of them make quite clear the 1887 constitution was primarily a result of William Gibson's undue influence on Kalakaua, and the corruption of Kalakaua's administration.  The "missionary party" never had any complaint under the Kamehamehas, and to assert that there was some sort of grab for power for power's sake doesn't seem supportable - although I would welcome any citation and evidence that may make that claim.


 * Your help in mediating this issue would be greatly appreciated. Mahalo! --JereKrischel 10:15, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Aloha Viriditas, your help is requested again. I spent several hours tonight making very meticulous citations, additions, and thoughtful revisions and copy edits to various Hawaii articles (Apology Resolution, Kingdom of Hawaii, Liliuokalani, Morgan Report, Overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy, and Legal status of Hawaii), all of which JK reverted wholescale. In addition, of late he has taken to contesting the very definition of "overthrow", arguing that the events of 1893 were not such, but rather a "change in government". Needless to say, such an assertion violates not just WP:OR, but basic common sense, but unfortunately it seems to be indicative of a certain thought process. Unfortunately, JK seems to feel he owns not only the articles, but evidently, the Webster dictionary as well. Though tedious, a look at [] may be instructive. All of this, btw, is a precursor (fact-checking and research) to my making additions to the matrix you created on Talk:Overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy. In short, I do not believe I can work with such a person, for even when I make careful contributions, they are rejected as "blatant POV". Clearly I feel the shoe is on the other foot. In any case, mahalo in advance for your help. Arjuna 09:36, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I concur with Arjuna's request for mediation, but of course disagree with his description of the events in question - my problem was that he created an in-line editorial, and then cited, without page references or quotes, a number of books he seemed to imply would back up his POV pushing statement. He then copied that exact phrase wherever he could find the phrase "Morgan Report" in a number of articles.


 * I also have a problem with his insistence that it be called an "overthrow of the government", rather than an "overthrow of the monarch", since, as I have pointed out to him, the historical record shows the only people in civil service throughout the kingdom who lost their jobs were the queen, her ministers, and her marshal. Every other judge, legislator, and government employee continued to work under the same constitution, with the same laws, but simply with a replaced executive branch.


 * I am hopeful that despite Arjuna's inability to work with me in his present attitude, that he is willing to continue contributing constructively - he has an important POV to present, and I believe that POV can be presented fairly...he just seems to be unable to do so lately. He seems to have been upset at some writing I did outside of Wikipedia that used the examples of nazis and south african apartheid as assertions of collective racial claim to supremacy analogous to claims of collective racial supremacy made by hawaiian sovereignty groups.  The exact quote which seems to have caused so much strife in Arjuna's attitude towards me was, "The Nazis did not have any collective racial claim to supremacy in Europe during WWII, the white South Africans did not have any collective racial claim to supremacy during the era of apartheid, and neither do people with the smallest fraction of ancestry traced back to pre-1778 immigrants to Hawaii have any just claim against their own peers, neighbors and cousins."  Frankly, I don't see how he managed to become so offended by my writing, but nonetheless, it has touched an unharmonious chord, and here we are again.


 * Your help in bringing us closer together in a constructive manner is greatly appreciated. Mahalo! --JereKrischel 04:19, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Viriditas, aloha. Unfortunately, JK has reverted a very meticulous and carefully cited addition of mine from yesterday to Blount Report, which he reverted, most recently, with the demand that I "be more specific". Actually, I could not have been more specific, as the relevant page numbers used were in the citation reference. At this point, JK's efforts amount to little more than vandalism.


 * As for my attitude, I would hope that he would please refrain in future from trying to characterize my opinion or thoughts, since, unless I am mistaken -- in which case he should send me over his tin-foil hat -- he has no particularly keen insight into that. Rather, my inability to work from him stems from issues that WP:CIVIL prevents me from fully explaining in detail, but which is illustrated by his attempt to problematize the definition of overthrow. I find it insulting even to have to discuss such basic concepts, but: Dole, Thurston et al. abrogated the monarchy and established a Provisional Government, which by definition is a change in system of government, not a change in administration (in which case Dole would have become king). A govermental system by definition is the structure, not the people, as any PolySci 101 student will tell you. I'm sorry if this sounds insulting, but -- duh. Not even JK's go-to guy (Bruce Fein, whom I do actually respect as a scholar even as I heartily disagree with many of his arguments) makes such an assertion. In fact, the very suggestion is laughable, regardless of how one feels about the events of 1893.


 * FYI, my additions last night were/are part of research for filling in the matrix you so helpfully put together last time. I am gathering material from all the major scholarly sources and will fill that in as time permits. However, given JK's rejection of even carefully researched and cited material as "biased, POV editorializing", this does not bode well I'm afraid.


 * Please pardon the rant, but things really have gotten to a place that I feel is insurmountable. My constructive additions to try to bring balance to a weasel-word-riddled, POV series of articles, is summarily rejected by someone who consistently behaves as though he "owns" the articles. In short, though I continue to respect JK as a human being, he has used up all his good faith credits. Mahalo nui in advance for your time in trying to mediate this. Arjuna 04:51, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks Viriditas for your comments on my talk page. Even though I feel the aggrieved party, as a show of good faith I will pledge to a unilateral 24 hour non-revert moratorium. If JK chooses to self-revert after his previous one to Blount Report is demonstrably unfounded Q.E.D., then so much the better, but it is not a qualification on my end. Note for the record that I generally try to keep the metadata (ie. explainations of reasons for editorial changes) on the subject line of the page itself, rather than gumming up the talk pages, for the very reason you highlight (hard to read and keep track). Again, mahalo! Arjuna 05:01, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * As a show of good faith, I've found specific references supportive to Arjuna's POV in Russ and elsewhere, and put them into the Blount Report article. I hope these references at least partially refer to what I believe Arjuna was trying to get across.  Arjuna, one request - please "gum up" the talk pages instead of using comments in edit summaries to explain yourself - the edit summaries are not as easily tracked, even though they are at first more convenient.  Mahalo to you both! --JereKrischel 05:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I already gave specific references. Although my unilateral pledge as above still stands, you are certainly welcome to self-revert to my previous, superior (in terms of citations, though others may judge the content as they wish) version as a show of good faith -- should this be reflective of actual proclivity.


 * As for "gumming" -- I prefer the other way, but will defer to Viriditas on this. Viriditas, which is preferable to you? Thanks, Arjuna 05:34, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * As per Arjuna's specific references, such as "Daws, Gavin (1968). Shoal of Time: A History of the Hawaiian Islands. University of Hawaii Press, 279-280. ISBN 0824803247.", no quote on that page justifies the statement, "The accuracy and underlying political motivations of the Morgan Report have been disputed by many historians and researchers.". Not once on those two pages does Daws question the accuracy or "political motivations" of the Morgan Report.  He does state that Morgan was "as much an annexationist as Blount had proved a royalist", but that hardly justifies an in-line editorial implying that the factual accuracy of the Morgan Report was impugned by Daws at all.  I'm afraid that my problem is that the references do not justify or support the blanket statements Arjuna put in, and are therefore inferior to the good-faith references I've placed instead, with specific quotes to specific works, and a clear avoidance of in-line editorializing as to what was meant or intended "between the lines". --JereKrischel 05:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

First, perhaps we should move this discussion off Viriditas' talk page and on to one of the article pages so as not to clutter his page. V, your call. Second, JK as usual is cherry picking. The full text of the relevant material from Daws is:



Granted, Daws' work is a popular, straightforward narrative history rather than an analytical piece of scholarship, but not to see that he is suggesting flaws in the MR (as well as in the BR) is a reading that fails to perceive his tone of subtle irony: "was an annexationist" (questioning M's underlying political motivations); "got a good press" (rather than a sober, fair appraisal); "accepted affidavits where he could find them" (rather than being comprehensive or balanced in issuing calls for evidence); "no one was to blame except the queen" (clearly ridiculous as it is contradicted by the bulk of the other material in Daws, and thus it was ironically stated. Thus accuracy of MR is questioned). If anyone has doubts (guess who will!), I can ask Daws what he meant exactly, although unless he prints it on his blog (!), to use it would violate WP:OR.

Finally, perhaps JK is unfamiliar with how scholarly writing works. Is it only permissible to say in a published work that, for example, "Daws questions the underlying political motivations" if Daws actually writes the words "I question M's underlying political motivations"? No, that's not how it works -- an intelligent but sober reading can discern what Daws is suggesting, which is that M's motivations were less than transparent and that the report is flawed (as was Blount's). Unfortunately JK does not seem to pick up on this, for whatever reason. So I stand by my statement that Daws supports the assertion that "The accuracy and underlying political motivations of the Morgan Report have been disputed by...". Certainly the other scholars I cited do, even more than Daws. Anyhow, this is a good peer-review, so if others (aside from JK) disagree that my statement is supported by Daws, then that reference can be taken out and the statement still stands as valid. Happy to provide further support on those citations as well. Anyway, perhaps all this is more appropriate on the Talk:Overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy page matrix, to which I will now devote my attention as time permits.

One last thing: Viriditas, if you would find it useful and agree to keep it strictly confidential (for reasons that hopefully would be clear), I would be happy to reveal my real-world identity to you. I can also send PDF scans of the specific pages of material if you don't have easy access to the books. Shoot me an email if so. Anyhow, mahalo nui! Arjuna 09:24, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Viriditas, quick one before I hit the sack. Thanks for the comments on my talk -- will get to the more substantive ones tomorrow, but as for why level one headings -- don't know, it just came out formatted that way! I'm not a coder, so these things escape me -- if there's some better way to format, please advise. Thanks, cheers, and more tomorrow. Arjuna 12:15, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Arjuna sould be very careful of reading in subtle irony into a straightforward and well respected work of a professional historian. By his claim, we could, in every mention of the Blount Report, state that "many researchers and historians dispute the accuracy and political motivations of the Blount Report", because Daws, and others apparently, can be read with an interpretation of subtle irony.


 * If Arjuna would like to present the actual passages from the books he'd like to cite, I'd be more than happy to help characterize and summarize their statements. However, I would be highly suspicious of taking straightforward passages, and independently determining that they are written with "subtle irony".  That's definitely WP:OR.  And given the mischaracterization of Russ and Daws that Arjuna has already made, I'm suspicious that his characterizations of Tate, Loomis, et. al. are similarly inaccurate.  PDF scans would be very helpful in working these details out, if Arjuna can provide them.  --JereKrischel 21:53, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. It would be nice if JK were to bring himself up to speed on standards of social science research. But to do so is not my job. He is incorrect in asserting that I have mis-characterized Russ or Daws, but it is perhaps telling that he thinks so. JK, as for the material, perhaps you can hit the library, as I have. Arjuna 22:20, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * If Arjuna could please provide some reference to the "standards of social science research", which preclude my criticism of his self-detection of "subtle irony" in a straightforward work of history by Daws and Russ, perhaps I could understand his point more clearly.


 * As for the material, since Arjuna seems to reference material on the pages he cites that has no connection to the editorial comments he makes in-line, it is very difficult to follow his rationale without his explicit statements and decomposition of "subtle irony". I have looked up his references, and am more than happy to do so for books I don't have in my own library, but in any case, I believe it will improve the process if he will specifically cite passages he believes are supportive of his in-line editorial text, rather than simply citing entire books, or pages that without his detailed irony-analysis, do not on their face seem to support his writing.  --JereKrischel 23:40, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

To impart such knowledge is, I'm afraid, not my job but yours. As for the lack of connection he cites, I have already addressed this unfounded assertion elsewhere. Arjuna 00:39, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Aloha, Viriditas. Thanks for your comment, and I accept that. I will amend my comment (I'm removing said material), which was admittedly gratuitous, and offer my apology to JK. Arjuna 00:48, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

It seems as though we only get big breakthroughs when JK and I are both about to reach through our computer screens and try to strangle the other! Thanks to JK for the compromise on the Apology Res article -- the good faith is appreciated. I do also think that we do better when someone else (that would be you, Viriditas) is watching, so I hope you will remain engaged. We still have some ways to go, but I'm encouraged. Arjuna 19:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Aloha. For the record, here are the specific page numbered citations I made, but did not have time to finish (viz., to update the rest of the articles too), before the reverts started last weekend. Viriditas, I'm not sure what you meant in your comment here -- did you mean go ahead and add the citations back in, which Eekadog also seems to support -- but minus Daws, which is a concession I will make (Daws also criticises Blount)? Given the dispute between myself and JK, I want to proceed with consensus first. And JK, adding this is is obviously not the final word, so please try not to take this as defeat. This is a step in a process. I will email you back when I have a chance and hope our exchange may be illuminating as well. Lastly, I don't have the time to devote to all this as last week -- death in the family, I'm afraid. No need for sorrys, just saying. Cheers, Arjuna 09:44, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Viriditas, JK and I have been having a discussion on usage of the term "Hawaiian". I think we're at an impasse and need other people to add their two cents. Do you have any thoughts on this? Thanks and aloha. Arjuna 10:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Mahalo for fixing the header levels on my talk page -- such coding things usually escape me, so I do appreciate it. Cheers, Arjuna 20:24, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Aloha, again
Hey Viriditas! Thanks for cleaning up the formatting of my references on Gödel, Escher, Bach. Muchly appreciated. I also just wanted to say 'hi' again - it's nice to see a familiar face (er... name?) after a bit of a hiatus on Wikipedia. Cheers! --Culix 03:49, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Space music
Hi. It seems like you have an interest in ambient music. I wonder if you wouldn't mind taking a look at Space music when you get a chance. There is currently an ongoing issue there with one editor trying to suggest that space music is not a genre of ambient - and the discussion would certainly benefit from outside opinions by knowledgeable parties. --Gene_poole 07:17, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your feedback. The current version, to which I've just added a number of citations, does a fairly good job of explaining what the subject is about - although it could do with some expansion. Unfortunately Milomedes seems to consider himself the rightful owner of the article since creating this version of it (which he constantly, inexplicably refers to as the "classic version") in July last year. As you can see it's basically a POV essay totally lacking in sourced statements. My work on the article since then has resulted in it being rewritten in compliance with WP:V and WP:NPOV - and Milomedes has resorted to name-calling, threats, personal abuse and pop-psychoanalysis of the lowest order whenever he encounters me, ever since. He needs to understand that he does not have ownership rights over this or any other article, that incivility is totally unacceptable and that eccentric personal opinions unsupported by cited references do not belong in WP. --Gene_poole 08:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


 * He now seems to have decided to engage in overt sockpuppet abuse on top of everything else. Note this diff (only the 5th edit by this new account), where he reverts all the changes made by both of us to his preferred version, removing virtually all cited references in the process. Presumably this account can be blocked as a sock? --Gene_poole 23:48, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi again. You should probably take a look at my comments here. It shows exactly what's going on. --Gene_poole 02:14, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Hello Viriditas, if you would like to review Gene's comments on Chrislk02's talk page, perhaps it would be more useful to review the current version here, rather than the historical diff Gene provided that does not include my response to his unfounded accusations.


 * Also, in response to your reqeuest to Milo below about stating the problem without referring to Gene, I don't think that's possible. There is no ongoing edit war at the Space music article between any of the other editors.  Now there is an RFC.  I hope it brings lots of new people so we can define a direction for the article by consensus and get to work improving it.


 * In the past though, so far, any time there has been one editor who did not agree with Gene, he reverted them and told them they were wrong. As soon as a second editor joined in, unless they agreed with Gene, he started with the sockpuppet accusations.  He did that a few months ago and the RFCU checkuser determined that Milo and I are unrelated. So he knows the current accusation is false.  He's just doing it to get us off of editing the article.


 * Well, that won't work this time, because the RFC will bring more people and eventually a consensus will arise. I have no agenda for the article other than that it be an accurate report of the information on the topic.  --Parzival418 Hello 06:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Viriditas, Check the record — no WP:Ownership by me. I've edited the article very little since last year, when I graciously stepped aside and allowed Gene to edit the article as he pleased. His version also turned out to be an unsourced essay with a different POV. Gene often accuses other editors of things he himself does (noticing such things is what he calls pop-psychoanalysis). Things did gradually change as I woke up to who I was dealing with, and I saw what he was doing to other New Age topics editors around me. Just to give you little taste of the real Gene, here's a statement that just shocked me when I saw it, about an editor who made a number of sourced edits that Gene has recently removed:  Who knows, you could be next. (reply here) Milo 15:52, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


 * (Copied from User:Milomedes) Milo, could I ask you to explain the problem (as you see it) on my talk page without referring to Gene? Just refer to the arguments, not the editors. Thanks. —Viriditas 06:11, 27 June 2007


 * No problem if you post the same message to Gene. So far you haven't, and above he's already started in on his revolving sockpuppet obsession. Everyone that disagrees with him, he believes to be a sock. I've been cleared by checkuser from one of Gene's previous socks accusations.
 * Now that you too know who you are dealing with, I suggest that you delete everything here that's off the Space music topic. (reply here) Milo 07:10, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I read you loud and clear re the trolling issue. I'm happy someone else has finally noticed what's actually going on. The involvement of other unbiased third parties should hopefully stop this nonsense in it's tracks once and for all. --Gene_poole 04:16, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I really appreciate all your help at space music. It seems that we are finally cutting through the tidal wave of crap that's been threatening to overwhelm common sense and civility there. Truly you have the patience of a saint! --Gene_poole 13:58, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Dearie me! It seems that you've roused the ire of you-know-who by having the temerity to hold an opinion supported by third party sources that he does not agree with. How dare you, you presumptuous little poppinjay! Don't you know that any content that He does not agree with must be rewritten to reflect His personal opinions, irrespective of what mere documented facts or reliable third party sources might have to say on the subject? This process is called "consensus". Apparently. :-) --Gene_poole 13:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Parzival etc is solely responsible for his own frustrations, and he can easily solve them by (a) editing with one account, (b) complying with the 3RR, (c) stopping the ongoing sniping, attack rants, threats and associated incivility which he seems to feel he has free license to post whenever he feels like it, (d) offering succinct, cogent arguments supported by reliable references in all content dispute discussions (e) accepting that his pet music theories are largely original research, and may well be ill-conceived or just plain wrong, and (f) understanding that original research cannot be "voted in" to WP via "consensus.


 * Gene_poole, please stop insulting me in your comments. Everyone knows that your accusations are false.  Do you think you're scaring me?  Do you think that Viriditas believes you?   --Parzival418 Hello 16:39, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


 * As far as the article goes I see that he's persisting with the attempt to include everyone from Lisa Gerrard to Tangerine Dream in the artist list, despite the heavily cited definition of "space music" in the article that inherently excludes the majority of them. If he accepts that the cited definition is right, then these artists have to go - yet he seems to be trying to make the list even more extensive and complicated than before while at the same time accepting a definition of "space music" that renders his efforts meaningless. --Gene_poole 14:24, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Viriditas, I have detailed replies to all of the above concerns, but I'm not posting them here because this is not the talkpage of the article, and also I'm not interested in having a conversation with someone who insults me every time he says anything to me. The references in the article are all self explanatory, including the ones for the artists listed. I've already posted a template to split the list off into a separate list article per your suggestion. But we'll keep those artists (in the article or in the separate list article, whichever is best) because they are reliably sourced. If you would like me to share further reasoning with you about these points, please let me know and I will do so. If User Gene_poole wants me to share them with him, I would be happy to do so on the article talkpage if he addresses me in a respectful manner. Thanks again for your help. --Parzival418 Hello 16:37, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Parzival, if you believe that automatically labelling every comment I make as a personal "attack" or "insult" somehow exempts you from having to adhere to WP content policies or respond to content-related issues you are misinformed. Either address the concerns raised by myself and Viriditas or keep your opinions to yourself.


 * I have only used those words in relation to your comments that have been deserving of that characterization. Since you did not do those things in this particlar comment, I'm not labelling your current comment in that way (as you put it).


 * If you would like me to respond to your points regarding content-related issues, I would be pleased to discuss those with you on the article talk page as long as you discuss the issues and not me as a person. --Parzival418 Hello 00:00, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Viriditas, concering the latest likely sockpuppet, as far as I can see it's pretty much an open and shut case, and I'll happily open a request for checkuser if you jointly certify it. Lack of joint-certification due to the limited interest in the article subject by the broader WP community is the only reason the issue has remained unresolved for so long. --Gene_poole 22:20, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Regarding the sockpuppet question, Gene_poole has already filed a checkuser report. It was closed with a determination of "unrelated".  Here is the link to the archived report:.


 * Checkuser cases do not require certification. The new report he is asking you to certify is an WP:RFC/U, a "Request for Comment on User Conduct".  He has tried in the past as well against another editor (not me), but it was dropped because no other editor would certify it.  So now he knows he needs to certification from a second editor to get that report considered.


 * Also, it's not for reporting sockpuppets. Here is the specific definition from the WP:RFC/U instructions:


 * WP:RFC/U redirects here. You may be looking for Request for checkuser (WP:RFCU).
 * This process is for discussing specific users who have violated Wikipedia policies and guidelines. In order to request comments on a user's actions, follow the instructions to create a subpage in the section below. Disputes over the writing of articles, including disputes over how best to follow the NPOV policy, belong in Article content disputes.


 * The link for "Article content disputes" goes to WP:RFC, like the one we currently are doing. Here is the part that explains why a second editor is needed to certify the RFC/U dispute about policy violations:


 * In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page.


 * All of this is just a big waste of time that has nothing to do with improving the article. That's the purpose of the tactic. But it's nothing compared to the time and energy that would be put into a complicated RFC/U procedure.


 * You and I have had some friction, but we both handled it well and we have a positive working relationship. If you feel any of the above applies to me, please let me know and I'll be happy to address your concerns.  --Parzival418 Hello 00:00, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Milomedes is back. Take a look at this. --Gene_poole 12:28, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm pleased that Parzival418 has discovered how to cite sources at last. One wonders why it has taken so many months for this to occur. The article looks pretty stable, and I think the neutrality tag should definitely be removed. Now that the definition of the term in contemporary usage has been clarified we can also start pruning the artist list to something that matches reality, per the comments I just posted on the talk page. Thanks again for your assistance with this. --Gene_poole 00:35, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

June 2007 WP:FILMS Newsletter
The June 2007 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Please also, if you have not already, add your name to the Member List. Nehrams2020 09:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Image size
I would consider an example of an artist's work in an article about the artist to be "a lead image that captures the essence of the article". This is one of the exceptions to the general rules on image size. Wmpearl 04:42, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:IASC_logo.gif
I have tagged Image:IASC_logo.gif as a disputed use of non-free media, because there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please clarify your fair use rationale on the image description page. Thank you. Videmus Omnia 03:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Pūnana leo added info

 * I added info to Pūnana leo; submitted it to WP:DYK. Do think it is still a stub, or perhaps a Start-class? --Ling.Nut 19:23, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the edits to Pūnana Leo. They look nice. Now why didn't I think of making those subsections? :-) Brain cramps maybe. Thanks again! Ling.Nut 02:23, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

space music
When I think of space music i think of The Orb.. but otherwise.. the term is so obvious that it could have been used by Sun Ra, subsequently forgotten, then used again by others. I doubt it has a single point of origin! Ling.Nut 02:57, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Brian Eno? Ling.Nut 03:09, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Henry Brant? This is fun... Ling.Nut 03:12, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

of sun ra &amp; space music
Hi Viriditas and Parzival418,

Regarding this comment by Pazival418, and earlier comments by Viriditas: Actually the whole Space Music question is just a topic of casual chit-chat for me; I'm more interested in Linguistics and Chinese History [Commercial plug: If you know anyone who is interested in endangered languages or the Three Kingdoms Era in Chinese history (or the relevant pop culture shtuff) please send them to WP:ENLANG or WP:3K respectively]. But I do have two cents to share: Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. Verifiability always and everywhere trumps Truth. So don't even waste time trying to establish who really was the first to use the term "space music." Just write a paragraph with a bland, NPOV intro sentence like "There are several possible points of origin for the popular usage of the term 'space music'" and then lay out the verifiable facts making each case. Let the readers decide for themselves what to make of the info. 'Nuff said! Ling.Nut 15:07, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you Ling.Nut. That matches my understanding and your advice is well-taken.  --Parzival418 Hello 19:05, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Hawai'i or Hawaii
It must have been Loukinho who changed the file names, because before his edit those pix were displaying just fine with Hawai'i spelled correctly. I guess changes to file names don't revert when changes to the article are reverted? The better action for you to have taken would have been to revert the file names to correspond to the correct spelling. In fact, if you want a useful project, how about collaborating on making those changes throughout? So far I have been leaving pictures and links alone because I don't yet know how to tie up all the loose ends. Awien 16:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Ooops! Guess it was me, even though I was trying to avoid causing those kinds of problems, so I apologise. But I'm afraid I disagree anyway about omitting diacritics in file names: correct spelling of the names of the people, places and things should be the starting point, and everything else follow from that. Spoken like a linguist not a techie, I guess! Awien 14:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The Novels WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XIV - July 2007
The July 2007 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 17:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Veganism GA review
Hi there, I've reviewed the article and put it on hold until some corrections and clarifications are made. If you could help out with this that would be great, particularly with expanding the religious views of Veganism section. All the best Tim Vickers 22:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi there, thanks for the kind words. I thought it best that the GA process was uninterrupted by any possible wikidrama. Tim Vickers 03:27, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Once more into the breach...
Hi there again -- just wondered if you'd like to have a look over the article Yakuza for copy edits and do your usual magical "thing". The grammar and prose is quite poor and the majority of the article past the "Origins" requires lots of copy editing. I appreciate it if you can do it :-) ♥♥ ΜÏΠЄSΓRΘΠ€ ♥♥ slurp me! 13:22, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you!
Aloha Kaua, Ka pono Viriditas :-) Now; Ua pili anei keia 'ohune i ke komo hawele li a me ka holo wawae ma kahakai? ♥♥ ΜÏΠЄSΓRΘΠ€ ♥♥ slurp me! 22:40, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Space music - back to the future
Parzival has gone completely off the rails and re-introduced his original research concepts throughout the article - even going so far as to mis-quote my own comments in an interview. The article now starts off by saying that spacemusic is "contemplative", and makes no reference to the fact that it is a term applied to specific types of ambient music. His obsessive ownership issues on this subject are completely out of control and need to be halted before he starts trying to infect related articles with the same "bury everyone else in an avalanche of content" approach to editing. I'm not the one to do that. --Gene_poole 23:36, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Viriditas, please read what I added to the article and make your own decisions about the content. Here is the link to the version I posted, prior to whatever edits will follow.
 * I have no agenda other than accurately reporting what the sources state.  It's not my doing that Anna Turner, co-founder of Hearts of Space, wrote in an essay - published in a book -  that Space music is New Age music. She wrote it, not me, I'm just reporting it.  Likewise for all the other references. In particular, the quotes by Mr. Cuikshank are included word-for-word in the footnotes, directly from his interview in a published magazine that is linked from the Wikipedia page about his radio show.   If I did misquote anyone, including him, it was not intentional and it can be fixed.  Thanks.  --Parzival418 Hello 00:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC) Re-edited this note later to correct the link to the updated article. The link in the note above is now correct.--Parzival418 Hello 02:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi again - Thanks for the copyediting and Manual of Style improvements today. And good idea to move the usage section into the intro, since it gives more perspective; it was too short as a separate section anyway.  Too bad the photo had to be removed, but I do understand your reason, no problem - it wasn't directly on-topic even though it's a cool photo.
 * By the way, in case you haven't seen it yet, there's a new comment in the RFC from an experienced music editor, concurring with the new version of the article. --Parzival418 Hello 22:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * (I think our edits might have crossed... I've now replied to your comment about the photo on my talk page.) --Parzival418 Hello 23:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Tendentious editing

 * Please take note of the latest example of tendentious editing and personal attacks by Milomedes.

The technique of ignoring my valid discussion points and instead responding with long, incoherent off-topic personal attacks involving mis-applied attempts at Wikilawyering is an established pattern of behaviour with this account.

Clearly it is being done to deliberately disrupt WP by misdirecting the discussion away from content-related issues. As a result I will not be making any response. However, if you could deal with it by posting the appropriate warning to the account in question I'd appreciate it. --Gene_poole 02:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * He wasn't being sarcastic; as you've obviously realised, he was sitting under the bridge awaiting the arrival of the third billy goat gruff :-) --Gene_poole 04:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * All your claims above are obviously false. Though addressing others, I directly rebutted your discussion point (genre creation of Memphis Soul Music on WDIA), and then I looked behind it to a COI motivation. What's this? — you are quoted in the article footnotes as saying "I also detest the term 'spacemusic'". Then you refused to disambiguate the term spacemusic, so you are now caught in the crosshairs of a Wikipedia commercial conflict of interest. This is a directly content-related issue. My calling for the other editors to discount your opinion on this point is standard COI procedure, and not a personal attack. I agree that you don't like it, but that's not a PA.
 * The potential COI/noticeboard case against you is very strong, and you are at risk of losing your Space music article editing privileges entirely. I suggest that you back off and cooperate with "spacemusic" disambiguation. Milo 05:21, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * What was it I was just saying about wikilawyering, threats and personal abuse? --Gene_poole 07:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * What you said was incorrect.
 * "wikilawyering" Citing rules and warning you of the procedural consequences of your behavior is lawyering (not wikilawyering). Use of authentic legal skills is routinely practiced and encouraged at Wikipedia.
 * "threats" One reads this notion a lot at WP. It isn't a bone fide threat unless it's a menace. Coloquially "threatening" to call the cops isn't a menace and is therefore ok. Likewise, warning you about the COI/noticeboard and other procedures is not only ok, it is encouraged to get editors to be aware of their behavior so they can change it to avoid the noticeboard procedure. Be smart. Cooperate and avoid punishment.
 * "personal abuse" There wasn't any. Warning you about rule-breaking is not abusive. I agree that you don't like it, but that's not abuse. Milo 08:53, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yet more ranting, wikilawyering, threats. As if we needed to hear the same broken record again. Unfortunately, you lack both credibility and the respect of your fellow-editors, so you're really in no position to threaten anybody. The sooner you start showing some respect to others, the sooner you'll find people willing to listen to your opinions. It's a very simple concept. --Gene_poole 12:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Is it too much to ask the two of you to be civil to each other? &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 12:30, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

As soon as Milo apologises for the 5 months of abuse, hysteria, fruitloop fantasy accusations, paranoid rants and generally incoherent poppycock he's been spouting about me for simply challenging his ownership of Space music, and start complying with WP civility, NPOV, verifiability and other editing guidlines like any other editor, I will be perfectly happy to work with him as I do with anyone else. Whether that happens or not is entirely up to him - but I can assure you if he continues along the present trajectory I will be taking the matter to arbitration, because the WP acceptable use policy does not require anyone to tolerate the level of abuse that he's been dishing out with impugnity for months, with equanimity, indefinitely. --Gene_poole 12:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, there is indeed a very very long, very very complicated historic dispute with the editor in question, extending as far back as the early part of 2006. I will attempt to document things as simply as I can and give you an overview in due course. --Gene_poole 01:14, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

John Tesh Live at Red Rocks
Viriditas, yes I was serious about the quality of John Tesh's Live at Red Rocks 1995 PBS concert. I'm aware of the tendency to dis John Tesh on general principles, and I'm not familiar with his other, perhaps lesser works. Red Rocks is an impressive stage in the video I saw, so that might have influenced my response. But I still recall how much I enjoyed the music, even though it was "New Age". At the time (circa 1995) Tesh was expecting a child, and I think that brought his best abilities to the surface. PBS used that video to raise national pledge money, so I assume they also thought it was pretty good. Milo 05:21, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Melochord
Hi -that's cool that you found the Melochord already mentioned in Electronic art music! I got curious when I saw the redlink turn blue... so I clicked it and saw the redirect you added. I googled the inventor and found an article on German Wikipedia. I used Google translate and did a bit of editing, and now we have a new stub article, at Harald Bode (it's awkward but it's a start), plus a reference for Melochord in Electronic art music. --Parzival418 Hello 10:20, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * In case you haven't seen it yet... I replied to your note about Harold Bode on my talk page yesterday. --Parzival418 Hello 21:00, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Sicko
Will you kindly advise me on something. When the Sicko (film) protection is lifted shortly, Ted Frank plans to cut the Synopsis section, as he did once before here, removing lots of detailed information. I proposed (twice) that we move this material into a 'detailed summary', 'content' or 'subject matter' section, rather than deleting it, but failed to receive an answer. (Presumably he intends to proceed with the cut.) Can you tell me, is my suggestion worthy and legit, or must we lose this information? Thankyou. smb 00:53, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Ta. smb 23:16, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Niihau
That's a pretty puzzle! If you wanna avoid WP:OR, you can't choose between those options (even tho they are mutually exclusive) unless you can find good references to help you choose. I might be able to help you there... Your message seems to suggest that a top-down decision of missionaries removed t from the language..? That would be... remarkable... I can help you after mid-August, if you wanna email me the sources... (or just tell them to me; I'll see if I can find them, and if I can't we'll work out an email deal) but now I need to study... Later! Ling.Nut 12:30, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * PS I'm gonna work on Hawaiian language a little bit here, a little bit there for the next two weeks or so, then send it through WP:GAC. A little of the stuff in that article needs to be deleted, but from reading its Talk page, it seems people get irate when that's done. I need to find my Teflon underwear.... Ling.Nut 14:00, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Cross-linguistically, the most unmarked phonemic consonants are the voiceless labial, alveolar, and velar stops (/p/,/t/, and /k/ respectively). Hawaiian is somewhat remarkable in that it has two of the three, but not the third. You mentioned that "all of the islands used the interchange of T and K", which makes it sound like the contrast was not phonemic... I would have to read all this stuff to see what was really going on... but what seems strange is the suggestion that it was a top-down imposition of a writing system by linguistic outsiders that caused Hawaiian to lose the (non-phonemic?) "t." Similar things have happened before.. Finnish lost its voiced labiodental dental fricative due to a spelling reform based on the Swedish model... but... it seems strange. If/when I get time, I'll read everything you have.. but.. that may be a month (or more!) from now... Ling.Nut 22:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Choke (film)
In case you were unaware, there is a film article for the book now. New director, though... not sure if it's going to be a "perfect storm" like Fight Club. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:26, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Who knows, maybe Fincher didn't see Choke the same way as he did Fight Club. The latter was a bit more redefining than the former.  Gregg's making his directorial debut, so I have no idea what to expect.  Rockwell seems like a great choice, though.  At least it's being made for sure; I had my doubts with the early iffy headlines from a fan site.  We'll see how it turns out.  Now, if only they could make a film adaptation of Survivor... I believe development on that one halted because of 9/11.  But Live Free or Die Hard came back after a similar stall, so Survivor should be able to as well. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:20, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Meh, someone's adding information off a printed sheet here... is such a reference really reliable? I personally don't doubt its accuracy, but I don't know if it meets Wikipedia's policies. It also seems fancruftish to boot, to report such miniscule detail. I'd revert myself, but I need to go, so I don't want to revert without explanation. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:15, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Sigh, it's happening again. I wish these new editors would at least review policies before they contribute to Wikipedia. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Duplicate categories
Can you do something about the 2 categories Hawaii art and Hawaiian art? Category:Hawaii art Category:Hawaiian art Wmpearl 22:35, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: Citing in Leads
I have it saved. Though I'm still not sure what everyone's opinion is. It almost appeared as if everyone was agreeing on the same thing but jut with different terminology. I don't think anyone was saying "you have to cite everything in the lead", and everyone agreed that there are certain cases which may require a citation in the lead...it just seemed like no one could agree on how to say it, or if they needed to say it at all.  BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  19:39, 21 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Probably is the best place for it. When I had Aquaman (TV program) up for FAC, one individual came in and opposed it just on the fact that it didn't have citations in the lead. Raul, the director, informed them that their opposition had no merit because citations are not required in the lead. So I've seen the two sides combat the issue, and I think there might just be a need to have something that clearly states if you do or do not need them in the lead, and if it's a matter of subjectiveness, then it needs to be clear on when you do need them. To me, if somethings comes up to that point that you actually need a citation in a lead, then maybe you didn't summarize the lead all that well. There will be the occassion when you have to state something with descriptiveness, but I don't think this is a common problem.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  19:45, 21 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm usually pretty hesitant to touch guideline, policy, etc type pages. It usually causes a big stir. Right now I'm concerned that people are focusing on one type of article, when we have many types.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  20:58, 21 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I never do. I'm following the discussion, and though I might not do an actual edit to the page, I'll be sure to voice if I don't agree with something. The recent comment by Malkholm is pretty well articulated. It seems to me that if editors are writing leads the way the lead should be written, then there shouldn't be a need for citations to begin with.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)


 * LOL, ok that last comment had such ironic connations in it that I had to laugh out loud. To fill you in, I recently rewrote the entire Jason Voorhees article from scratch, so your comment about machete-sharp was rather funny to me. It seems someone's trying to tear it down though.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  03:21, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

It can always use a good copy edit. Plus, I generally like people who are either unfamiliar with the character/movies, or at least the page itself to read over it. Since I know the movies like my own hand, and I read the books front to back before I started writing the page, I generally don't see problems as I read over them as if they there right.  BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  03:27, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Sicko
Please confine comments about edits to this article to the relevant talk page. Thanks. --Ryan Delaney talk 18:18, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I just posted a response on Talk:Sicko (film). Thanks. --Ryan Delaney talk 19:36, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: Recommended Books?
Regarding your query on WP:HAWAII, I'm going to take a second look at Kamehameha, by Walter F. Judd to see if it has the information you need. There's also The Warrior King by Richard Tregaskis, and Kamehameha and his warrior Kekuhaupio by Stephen L. Desha (translated by Frances N. Frazier). BTW, I'm doing research on Niihau, and I ran across the Battle of Pali Kamakaua, which is extremely obscure but very interesting if you can find any information on it. &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 02:35, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I just started to read Kamehameha and his warrior Kekuhaupio, but I'll try and track down the others.  Never heard of Pali Kamakaua, but found a link that might help:  Palm_Dogg 22:36, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Your comments invited
I've updated the Space music subsection of Ambient music to match the new consensus version of the Space music article. That section in Ambient music had still referred to Space music as a subgenre of ambient, which we now know is not accurate according to references, so I substituted a modified version of the intro from the Space music article into that section. I copied the relevant references along with the text so the footnotes are there too.

To fit better in the Ambient music article, I re-edited the spacemusic intro to emphasize the ways in which it connects with ambient music.

There was a notable artists paragraph in that sub-section but the choices didn't quite seem right, so I changed a few of the artists listed there to focus more on space music artists who approach space music from the ambient music direction. This part did not have references previously, and I didn't have time to add them. I think I picked a good set of artists for this, though there may be other choices that could be better. I omitted Brian Eno who had been listed previously, because he calls his music "Ambient" and does not call it "Space music". If you or someone wants to add Eno back in to this section, that would be OK with me, though I don't think it's a good fit for him.

Here is the diff if you'd like to check it out. Your comments or improvements are welcome of course. --Parzival418 Hello 00:19, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

PS. ... the sentence about Hearts of Space in that section was already there, I didn't add or change that part. --Parzival418 Hello 00:29, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Follow-up - about the Space music article - hello again. Gene_poole has started to make changes to the space music article today. I'm not going to assume in advance that they will all be improper, but I would appreciate it if you would keep an eye on the changes so if they are improper you can make note of that, or revert them yourself if you see that he is not following the references.

So far, he changed the main definition to remove the fact that space music draws upon a wide range of styles. In his edit summary, he wrote that the text needs to match the references, and in fact it does, so the information he removed was valid and should not be removed.

This is one of the techniques he uses regularly - in other words, to write something in an edit summary that does not match what is in the references, but state that it does. You have probably already seen him do this, but you've never seen me do it because I don't.

He also added in the intro that "Many commentators use the term interchangeably with ambient music and new age music" when that is not what the references say. Some commentators do, and some don't. We do not have any way of measuring which is more. So if that is added in the intro, it needs to also say that some commentators do not use it that way, otherwise the NPOV of the article is damaged. But there is an entire section about what various sources say about this, so what would the point be to add to the lead part that some do and some don't?

For whatever reason, this is personally important to him and he's trying to find a way of modifying the article to his POV, even after multiple editors all agreed that the article should state the multiple viewpoints.

Viriditas, please understand, this is not "sniping". I don't have anything against him as a person - I am not interested in that stuff at all. I am only interested in the articles being correct. You've seen the way I edit since we started working together, and you've never seen me have any conflict with anyone (other than Gene_poole, and even then, only when he makes the first move to start a dispute). You've also seen that when you or anyone else has pointed out a place where I made a mistake or misread a reference, I have been willing to accept the changes without argument.

I believe you know I'm coming from the right place. I'm just giving you this information so you can see what he does and make your own decision about what is appropriate. Thanks. --Parzival418 Hello 02:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I've re-written the introduction to space music so it reflects what the weight of the quoted reference sources actually say - as opposed to what Parzival wants them to say.


 * As you have probably already noticed, Parzival has openly stated that he can "interpret" sources in whatever way he wants if they say something other than what he wants them to say. This is typical of his pattern of behaviour - as is constantly making the claim that "numerous editors" support his position - when in fact the only person supporting his position is himself - and possibly one other account used mainly for trolling.


 * Obviously the article will need to be reviewed line-by-line, because even a casual glance reveals numerous instances where reference sources have been selectively mis-quoted or quoted out of context so that they comply with Parzival's POV.


 * For whatever reason it is personally important to him to try to promote the notion that space music is a "contemplative" music genre separate from ambient - even though the great weight of reliable sources (which he himself added to the article) clearly and unequivocally demonstrate that virtually all music identified as "space music" by anyone whose opinion matters on the subject, is nothing more than works from the quieter end of the ambient music spectrum.


 * I'd appreciate it if you could take a look at my changes and comment accordingly if you think there's a problem. --Gene_poole 07:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Viriditas, I don't care about the word "contemplative", that's just a word, and it came from Stephen Hill not from me. We could substitute "relaxing and inwardly focused", or whatever, though "contemplative" seems to say it very well.


 * My focus is to make sure the article does not make a conclusion that is original research.  That's why instead of summarizing the sources in a single sentence, I added a whole section showing the many different viewpoints, with quotations.  If they were all the same, this would be easy, but they're not.  There is a range of differences, so we need to present them all, according to policy.


 * "Parzival has openly stated that he can "interpret" sources in whatever way he wants if they say something other than what he wants them to say."  --ummm... that's just absurd and needs no response.


 * "constantly making the claim that "numerous editors" support his position" -- I've never used the phrase "numerous editors". I have used the word "consensus" and the phrase "multiple editors" - but "multiple" does not imply "numerous", that would be an exaggeration.  Three editors so far have agreed that space music is not the same as ambient music, or a sub-genre:  Myself, Milo, and Cricket (a respected music editor with at least one Featured Article to his credit).  Viriditas, I don't claim to know where you are on this and was not making any assumptions, since you stated you are trying to stay neutral.  Though I do get the impression you've been pleased with the direction of the article (other than the notable artist list that still needs to be pruned and made into prose or into a chart with specific albums).  If I'm mistaken about that, please let me know.  So far, we've not seen a comment from even one  other editor supporting Gene_poole's idea that space music is the same as new age or ambient music.


 * Well, for now I'm not going to write more about this here. Gene_poole has posted his opinion on the article talk page.  I'll add something there when I have the chance.  --Parzival418 Hello 08:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Parzival has now progressed to openly vandalising the article, reverting my fully-referenced changes while describing them as "original research". True to expectations, Milomedes has also suddenly reappeared and posted another incoherent talk page rant - as he magically does every single time Parzival starts mentioning the word "consenus". Frankly, neither of these accounts appear to understand simple English sentence construction at a level sufficient to enable any sort of meaningful analysis of their POV, nor do they appear capable of constructing a rational, coherent, referenced arguments in support of their position (such as it is); other than trolling, there can be no other explanation for their persistent inability to comprehend what the references sources quoted in the article actually say. This insane business of wildly misquoting references needs to be stopped before it starts infecting ambient music and other related articles as well - which is clearly what Parzival is intending. --Gene_poole 11:00, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Gene_poole: I know from history I'm wasting keystrokes here, but for the record, I respectfully request that you discuss the content of the article and the edits without including lists of insults to other editors. While your colorful language is somewhat entertaining, your comments above violate multiple policies including WP:CIVIL,  WP:SKILL, and WP:NPA.
 * There is nothing magical about Milo appearing after I mentioned consensus A simple matter of a watchlist or a talk page note does not qualify as either magic or what you are really implying, sockpuppetry.   You are already aware the Milo and I are not sockpuppets, because you filed a case and we were cleared by checkuser as unrelated.  Viriditas is well aware of this also, so why even bother mentioning it?  --Parzival418 Hello 19:18, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * To start with a touch of agreement, "Space music typically evokes a sense of spatial imagery", really is more correct than "Space music often evokes a sense of spatial imagery". If it wasn't typical, it wouldn't be one of the defining characteristics.
 * "Many commentators use the term interchangeably with ambient music and new age music." "Many commentators" is weasel wording, to which I'm not much opposed in subjective topics. But here there is a controversy that weasel-wording makes worse. When there is a controversy, it should called a controversy and be spelled out. One way is a vet and count of the references (x) say it is, (y) say it isn't, (z) are ambiguous. I have done so on the Talk:Space music page. The appropriate weight ratio for the article is 1 supportive to 1 ambiguous to 6 unsupportive of this statement. Parzival's reversion of the unsupported weight of "many commentators" for 'spacemusic interchangeable with ambient', is well-justified, as is mine on follow up.
 * Whether space music and/or spacemusic is interchangeable with "New Age" should be handled the same way: vet and count the available references. I didn't have time to do this, so I added a {fact} tag.


 * "This article is about the music term " That phrasing doesn't disambiguate because two or three of the other disambigs could also be music terms. "This article is about the contemplative music genre " is better because up to three of the other disambigs could be space genres, but not contemplative ones.
 * "an umbrella term that brings together music from a broad range of genres with certain characteristics in common to create the experience of contemplative spaciousness." and "...a term applied to certain types of slow, relaxing music - particularly music which is characterised by space-creating imagery or atmospherics." Both of these edits have some good phrases, so I have combined them and included my phrasing as follows:


 * ... is a collective musical term for album libraries or assembled radio programs that facilitate the experience of contemplative spaciousness, from a range of genres having slow, relaxing music pieces with space-creating imagery or atmospherics.


 * However, I question the opening phrase which was not reverted: "Space music, also spelled spacemusic,..." If we consense that both spellings refer to a form (whether genre or not is a separate issue), which is not entirely ambient, then I have no immediate problem with co-identifying them.
 * On the other hand, if we consense that "space music" is now entirely ambient, then "spacemusic" needs to be disambiguated as the classic form which preceded ambient. (Reference 63, Billboard 1996-01-27 acknowleges existance of a classic form of space music.) To the present time, "spacemusic" remains only partly ambient, because Celtic, religious, etc., are not ambient. If so, classic "spacemusic" is now only practiced, or mostly practiced, by Hearts of Space. Either approach is acceptable to me.
 * "Originally a 1970s reference to the conjunction of ambient electronics and our expanding visions of cosmic space ..." I have removed the first half of the ellipses footnote because it was misused from the first day that Gardener inserted it in an unencyclopedic attempt to justify his POV rather than negotiate. "Ambient electronics" is not ambient music. As inserted, it's intentionally misleading, which is a serious violation of academic referencing.


 * About the OR claim on space music "album libraries": What is it that a space music producer uses to assemble a space music radio program? An album library.
 * I'm not certain, but it seemed like that space music albums were all that Gardener had, as though he had never heard an assembled radio program of space music. So if space music consists of an umbrella or collective of several genres, what is it if you collect these several genres at home? An album library, of course.
 * The existance of common knowledge can be inserted into Wikipedia without sources, and everyone who listens to music is aware of owning a CD collection or an album collection. For encyclopedic writing, formal language is used so that a colloquial "CD collection" becomes an "album library". Milo 13:23, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Incidentally, thanks for removing that insane sockpuppet attack from the talk page. Someone obviously did too much acid in the 1960s. By the looks of things they're probably still doing it. --Gene_poole 11:13, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

If you look at the references you'll see that major authorities like Stephen Hill, Lloyd Barde + other reviewers and commentators + a large % of retailers all use "space music" fairly interchangeably with "ambient" and "new age" to a greater or lesser extent, so I think that using the term "many commentators" accurately reflects reality. What we do not have is any source claiming that space music is not part of the ambient music continuum.

The single purpose account Shadowsshadows is an obvious sockpuppet of Doktor Who, who has been proven to be a sockpuppet of Sky-surfer (compare their identical user pages here and here), who is a known sockpuppet of Brian G. Wilson. All of these accounts share identical behaviour, interests, opinions, writing style and even spelling errors. All have an obsessional interest in ambient and related music, and have engaged in personal abuse and tendentious editing over more than a year. All have relentlessley attacked me at every possible opportunity and then loudly protested their innocence when challenged. All have constantly refused to cite sources supporting their POV. I think you can figure out the rest... --Gene_poole 12:02, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * We are now officially in the twilight zone. Take a look at the insane definition Milomedes has just imposed on the article. Some barely comprehensible idiocy about "album libraries". No sources of course. Just pure original research as usual. Funny how he's always on hand the moment after Parzival finishes reverting me for the 3rd time, dontcha think? --Gene_poole 12:11, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Gene_poole: Once again, I respectfully request that you omit the insults and not-so-veiled sockpuppet accusations from your comments.


 * Discuss the article and the edits, not the editors. Wikipedia can do without words like "insane" and "idiocy" and "barely comprehensible".  I and others have no trouble understanding Milo's writing, so if it's incomprehensible to you, it would be more appropriate to state that you don't understand his point and ask for clarification, or that it seems to you his definitions are original research.  Please omit the disruptive and inappropriate insults.  Without those, it would be much easier for us to see and respond to your actual points about the article.


 * Regarding my reverts to your changes yesterday, to be clear about it, I did not revert three times, only twice. I acknowledge that it would have been better to add a talk page comment to discuss the changes, but since you brought it up I just thought we should be accurate - two is not the same as three.


 * Regarding the article content discussion, I will post a reply on the talk page later today. I think that kind of discussion is better there where other interested editors can also find it.  --Parzival418 Hello 19:28, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

2005 Hawaii Data Book
Nice! Thanks for pointing that out. I found it via Google and then eventually thought to alter the URL and tried 2007 and 2006 before giving up. :) Time to update those references I guess. --MattWright (talk) 08:39, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * No problem, I don't think the data I've been adding/updating thus far will have changed much, but it will be nice to reference the more recent year and for potential future edits. Some day I would like to add  to my userpage. ;) --MattWright (talk) 08:48, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Space music article is a disgrace
In my absence of a few days Parzival / Milomedes has now managed to turn the article into what must surely qualify as one of the most bizarre and insanely incomprehensible examples of deliberate, acutely disruptive content perversion on WP. How do you propose to rectify this ? Surely this matter has reached a point where serious attention needs to be given to it by the broader community ? Unfortunately I don't have as much time as those who should properly be consigned to lunatic asylums to sit on WP for days at a time fighting battles of this nature - so I'll leave it to you to deal with as you think appropriate. If you need my assistance prosecuting an appropriate community-based response please get in touch. --Gene_poole 23:01, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry but I won't be making any further contributions on this subject until the other party's accounts are indefinitely blocked. --Gene_poole 02:42, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I've already pointed out above which accounts are (a) known, and (b) very probably, sockpuppets.


 * As far as content problems go, they start with the first sentence of the first paragraph and continue from there. For starters I suggest you compare the last version I edited with the current version.


 * Another issue is Parzival's misquoting of my own interview comments. I suggest reading the source document to confirm what was actually said and the context in which it was said.


 * I look forward to seeing some progress on these issues when I get back from my holidays in 2 weeks. Best of luck with it. --Gene_poole 03:17, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Something quite fascinating I just noticed... See how Shadowshadows posted his "raving-lunatic" trolling comment on your talk page barely 3 minutes after Milomdedes posted one of his equally incoherent comments?


 * Makes you wonder just how many mentally retarded Gene Poole-hating Germans with a poor command of the English language and a manic-obsessive interest in ambient music there are on WP, doesn't it? Answer: 1. --Gene_poole 04:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * There are no "guys"; there is one very very woo-woo crazy guy; that's the crux of this issue. In reality "angry" is a long way from what I am; I'm actually having quite a lot of fun screwing with this Teutonic halfwit's mind (if that's the right word to describe the shrivelled cerebral ruin which decades of drug use have imposed upon him). Eventually he'll explode in a volcanic fit of insanity - like he's already done several times before - and then we can all go back to editing like normal people... then, a few months later, after another stint in the asylum, he'll invent another few sockpuppets and start the process all over again. :-) --Gene_poole 04:51, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I've just returned after a 3 week break, and note that Spacemusic is still a complete disaster, on top of which Doktor Who has returned from his latest stint in the asylum and started spouting his usual paranoid delusional ravings, personal attacks and even threats of violence - which finally earnt him a long-overdue block. On top of that he's now progressed to vandalising Ambient by selectively blanking content about my radio show. Lord only knows what other damage he's doing that I'm not aware of. We need to accept that this is an insane person whose incoherent ravings have wasted hundreds of hours in editing time of dozens of responsible editors over a period of some 18 months. How do you suggest we go about blocking him? Do you know if Wikiscanner might be useful in finally exposing his many socks ? --Gene_poole 14:13, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I've no intentions of editing Space Music at this stage. I have a full time job and various other commitments, and can't waste 3 or 4 hours a day responding to the avalanche of gibberish that's being used to stifle real consensus-building there. What I do intend doing is personally inviting other radio producers (including Stephen Hill, John Diliberto and others) to take a look at the article and contribute to the discussion, in the hope that sanity may eventually prevail. --Gene_poole 14:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Despite my best intentions I've made one final attempt to rewrite the introductory paragraph so that it says something a bit more rational than "spacemusic is a term applied to every type of music under the sun". Please take a look and let me know if you think this is on the right track. --Gene_poole 07:02, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Parsival is playing reversion games already - making changes that destroy the well-established link between ambient/new age and spacemusic by claiming it is "outside the scope" of the article - while at the same time implying that the term is applied across the board to ambient, electronic aned new age music, which is factually incorrect and unsupported by any source. I'll leave it to you to revert. --Gene_poole 07:07, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not playing "reversion games". My only purpose is to make this article as accurate as possible, and to avoid any original research that might imply information that is not based on reliable sources.


 * In my edit summary, I mentioned that the question of a link between "ambient music" and "new age music" is not relevant to this article about "space music." If there is a link between those other two terms (not so far established), that should be discussed on those pages and not on "space music".   For the "space music" page, we need to stick to what the sources have said about "space music".  That's my focus.  --Parsifal Hello 07:21, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * There is no "question" about the link between ambient / new age music and space music. The link has already been established (as has the link between new age and ambient), and is supported by the overwhelming weight of third party reference sources. Most people who use the term "spacemusic" in the world today use it as a synonym for "ambient" and/or "new age" - and that includes Stephen Hill. Your attempt to claim that there is no link is deliberately misleading and is not supported by any rational interpretation of the sources. --Gene_poole 08:26, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * No matter how many times you repeat your idea, that does not change what the references show, or make your idea into a fact. Also, the relationship between new age music and ambient music is complex and is not the subject of the "space music" article.  That relationship can be discussed on the relevant articles, but it does not fit in this one.


 * What did you mean when you wrote this: "Your attempt to claim that there is no link is deliberately misleading"?   Are you suggesting I am lying?    I'm sure that's not your intention, and that you assume good faith on my part.  So please explain what you're saying about me.  What possible motivation would I have to mislead?     --Parsifal Hello 09:19, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

My so-called "idea" (whatever that is) is not the problem here. The problem is your insistence on claiming on one hand that there is "no link" between spacemusic and ambient/new age (despite the fact that that is exactly what the sources and the list of artists show) while simultaneously attempting to revert my edits such that the article intro paragraph actually strongly implies exactly the opposite of your previously stated position. This is a complete logical inconsistency on your part, and your attempt to simultaneously support two diametrically opposed positions inevitably raises questions concerning the nature and purpose of your edits to this article. --Gene_poole 03:51, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for explaining. But your description of my comments does not match what I've written.  Those are your conclusions and not mine.


 * I reverted your edit only once; the other two reverts of your change were done by other editors, not by me. Also, I discussed the edit on the talk page and invited consensus collaboration.


 * Regarding your "questions" about the "purpose" of my edits, and your statement that I've been "deliberately misleading"... I'll leave that bait on the hook. --Parsifal Hello 05:35, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


 * My description of your behaviour is a precise summation of reality as it is documented in the page history. There is no possible alternative interpretation, so either explain your actions or cease reverting or encouraging others to revert changes that introduce unsourced errors of fact into the article. --Gene_poole 06:52, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Please note the latest piece of vandalism by Parsifal here. Note how he reverted my changes using a misleading edit summary, while neatly removing 2 cited references that supported the version he didn't like to another location. --Gene_poole 05:50, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I have no interest whatsoever in any "friendship" with Parsifal. He has consistently stalked and attacked me for months, while simultaneously misinterpreting cited reference sources in order to impose and insinuate his own unique, unreferenced interpretation of what ambient music is into a whole raft of articles, deliberately introducing factual inaccuracies into WP. He as also encouraged several others to attack me in concert in order to create an illusion of consensus for his POV. He should properly be offering me a grovelling apology for his appalling behaviour if he wishes me to reconsider my low opinion of him and his motivations.


 * You've also completely missed the point concerning his edit summary. He did not "screw it up" - he deliberately removed the citations I added that specifically supported my wording in the opening paragraph when simultaneously reverting to the previous version, then blandly stated words to the effect that "these references are good but they belong somewhere else". That was not some innocent "slip of the fingers". It was a deliberate ploy to conceal cited references supporting a view not in line with his POV somewhere amongst the 60 or so citations at the bottom of the article. --Gene_poole 10:00, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Parsifal can "patch things up" anytime he wants to by (a) offering me an apology for his many attacks and weird accusations and (b) adhering to WP civility, NPOV and verifiability policies when editing articles in future. --Gene_poole 10:09, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

The bottom line here is that irrespective of how Parsifal has behaved in the past or chooses to behave in future, my editing activity will not be affected because I've always adhered to WP policies. He can apologise for his behaviour and stop it, or he can elect not apologise and continue as before. It's entirely up to him. That's all I have to say on the subject. --Gene_poole 10:15, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

40,000 edits!
I award you, Viriditas, the Tireless Contributor Barnstar on the occasion of your 40,000th edit, which you duly deserve for your noble, generous and outstanding contribution of high quality writing. -- M P er el 16:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Harrogate hoard
Thanks for your edits to Harrogate hoard. --Neutralitytalk 04:08, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Pretentious user
I kindly ask you to stop GP vandalizing my page, I'm not a puppy-puppete-blablabla, as a checkuser can easily show. I'm sure that anyone that tries to edit in the field of micronations and ambient music is targeted by that hypocrite guy. If you were a serious editor you would have reported him for his long term harrasing behaviour. There is nothing German-related in those users' language, on the contrary, GP's English showcases some latin influence, maybe he's just an Italian working for the secret services (hahahahahah....), or a member of a former italian Royal house, and that has come here just to harrass and  troll? This would be a logical deduction: read his self desription at the "Empire of Atlantium" article. As of today, for sure we know that GP was refused to become an administrator, was found guilty of socketpuppetry, (his sockpuppet was Centaury) and has been blocked once. I can't believe that Jimbo Wales hasn't banned him yet. what is he waiting for? He knows that there is no George C. - GP that lives in Australia, Jimbo Wales travelled to Australia right a few weeks ago, and he KNOWS that GP is a hoax. Anw, I just want to forget, it's not my business, with all due respect for this fantastic site. I'll be here just to delete anything he posts on my current user and talk pages. Good luck and cheers, Bye.--Shadowshadows 10:55, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

George Russell
I was surprised by the "see also" link to Tristano which you added to this article. Can you say a bit more about what the linkage actually is? I've never really seen a relationship between the two, aside from secondary linkage of a couple of musicians who played with both. AllyD 21:20, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: Vacation
Thanks, I was just gone to Boston for the weekend. Gotta work tomorrow. Hope your weekend was good as well! —Erik (talk • contrib) - 03:46, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

The Silence (1963 film)
No awards or even nominations, no 3rd party coverage listed, no enduring social commentary. Criterion collection does not equal high importance. Nothing there to really show that it's of 'high' importance. SkierRMH 17:42, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Great rationale! However, none of this is reflected in the article, so why not add it there??  SkierRMH 00:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

July 2007 WP:FILMS Newsletter
The July 2007 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This is an automated delivery by BrownBot 20:05, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

The Prestige
I don't understand what you actually want. Alientraveller 12:18, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Good luck. Alientraveller 12:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Empire ' s articles are only avaliable in print: the whole magazine isn't online like Entertainment Weekly. Alientraveller 12:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm very sure Empire itself is a verifiable source. Alientraveller 12:30, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Sicko RFC
Hi - I'd appreciate some comments regarding this dispute if you have time. thanks Ripe 16:11, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

In response to your comments on my talk page, both things you cited were simply oversights on my part and have been corrected. I'll make it a point to use the edit summary. Sorry about that. Best, Waterthedog 04:59, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Sicko (film)
It is a violation of Wikipedia policy to remove an NPOV tag while there is an NPOV dispute, and four separate editors have identified NPOV problems. If you ever expect me to assume good faith with you again, you will return the tag immediately. I am very offended at its removal. THF 00:21, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll return the tag when you return my comments to the talk page discussing your removal of the tag. &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 00:26, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Are you admitting that you violated WP:NPOVD because you wanted to violate WP:POINT? I'll be happy to take it up with an administrator. THF 00:27, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Talk page trollwarning
NB that it is counterproductive to the purpose of a if you're going to simultaneously add a provocative intemperate comment. THF 12:45, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

RE: notice
Thank you for your warning, but that really doesn't change anything, nor does it justify your undiscussed mass reverts. I'll be back later. Corticopia 01:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

"two links" and "major crow"
You only had one link pasted twice, but what makes you think I didn't see the-numbers.com link, given that I refer to it in the article and criticize it as inaccurate and inconsistent? THF 12:18, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

The Novels WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XV - August 2007
The August 2007 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 14:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you
...for restoring the article "Pacific Biological Laboratories", and for your contributions there. While we had a very heated exchange going, I believe the article has gained for it. I will be doing extensive research in the next few weeks with the help of a historian that I have been put in contact with and will be looking further to the labs contributions to California history as well as ocean biology.--Amadscientist 11:45, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

THF COI RFC
Hi - if you have time please add your thoughts here, particularly regarding my editing at work points near the bottom of the discussion. thanks Ripe 16:42, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok
I'll stop editing non-mainstream-music related topics, are you and your friends satisfied now? Of course, you didn't win the war, just this battle. I'll win the war, because I'm a winner, and you all are losers.--Doktor Who 21:01, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Memento (film)
Hey, thanks a bunch for the Memento copy-edit and additions. I agree that the neuroscience info should be put in a new section, but I was thinking of placing it into an "Analysis and Themes" section which I am working on at the moment. What do you think? And feel free to look over the rest of the article and perform some more copyediting-my eyes are sore and a fresh pair would be great. Thanks again.--Dark Kubrick 15:44, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: Dark City
In reviewing my talk page, I came across your comment and realized I hadn't responded to you (though I intended to twice before). I haven't progressed beyond the research phase for the article. I attempted some clean-up in removing what seemed to be non-justified images, but there's an editor on the prowl there that thinks they should be kept. Since my focus isn't on the film article right now to provide content to justify these images or any replacement images, I've left the issue alone. I have my guide, of course, but I've been doing similar research for other films to improve my learning curve. I think that Dark City will be on hold for some time; I want to see about getting Fight Club up to FA status with the critical analysis I've found for that film, as well as implementing the critical analysis for Schindler's List for a fellow editor. I won't be able to use the DVD commentary from Dark City for the article; might need to request help from other editors to jot down notes for implementation. My wiki-activity is limited to smaller tasks right now; I'm in a transition phase (going back to school in a week), so I don't want to get into anything major at the moment. Apologize for the belated response, and I hope all is well on your end! —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:54, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Random Smile!


WarthogDemon has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message. -WarthogDemon 04:05, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Smile
Thank you for the smile - it's made my day all shiny! --kateshortforbob 11:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Daniel Moore reference
The Daniel Moore reference referred to mention of the dramatic arts. At one point this reference immediately followed "dramatic arts," then someone moved it to the end of the sentence. I didn't see where you added it back in to the main body of the article. Apostle12 16:41, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Template request
I'd thought something along the lines of, "This user is preparing to take a wiki-break from DD.MM.YY. to DD.MM.YY. Just thought you'd like to know."

I did think about copying a template, but the wording is different to what is there now. Thanks for the prompt response. THE  DARK LORD  TROMBONATOR 09:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Awesome. Thanks for your help. Now the world will know that I will be thrust inside a tin can and flown to Europe and Asia for 6 weeks this summer (which may or may not be your winter). I give you this for it:


 * THE  DARK LORD  TROMBONATOR 08:21, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Dispute resolution
I absolutely want to elevate the dispute resolution process with Doktor Who. Given that there is documented evidence that Doktor Who = Sky-surfer (an incontrovertible fact about which he has repeatedly lied), given that we know Sky-surfer = User:Brian_G._Wilson (by his own admission), given that Sky-surfer admitted to being on medication to control a paranoid condition after one of his first known WP meltdowns, given that his abusive behaviour has been recurring periodically for over 18 months, and given that it's clear that it's not going to be possible to resolve any content issues while he's around - it seems pretty clear that there's a major problem in need of resolution. How do you suggest I take this forward? Is a checkuser to prove that he's using multiple sockpuppets the best way to start? --Gene_poole 03:35, 30 August 2007 (UTC)