User talk:Wisdom89/Archive 1

Wisdom, supposedly I hear that my name is Dino. Find me a source on the Internet that tells me my name is Dino. Mehicdino 19:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great job replacing the Rush history with brilliant prose. Deckiller 23:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Mostly I found that the history section was just lacking in detail and volume. It's extremely more informative now. Wisdom89 01:25, 7 February 2006 (UTC) ==[reply]

I could sure use some help here. This individual is so unbelievably ignorant. Even the grammar changes are being reverted. I'd appreciate it if you helped me out with reverting this article to what we know is the better version. Thanks.

I reverted you about Rush's compilation Gold. Look at Amazon.com for proof that there is a compilation album called Gold. Mike Garcia 03:28, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed Borgunter rm'd your Trivia section. I can see the ends to the means in trying to shorten things up. But I also thought the Trivia section was a nifty little read inside the article. Perhaps a 'see also' for it like you did with the 'in popular culture' section? Or even combining them somehow?...Just a thought. Excellent work on the entire article BTW. When it gets FA status you can give yourself a ton a credit for it. Anger22 04:38, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I was disappointed to see that section go, but it may have been a necessary evil for ascension to FA status. I was thinking about making a subarticle to house that section - many of the tidbits were interesting 04:42, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

The subarticle idea makes sense, but there are a lot of references that really aren't encyclopedic. Alas, nifty does not a good encyclopedia make... —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 04:44, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you work on the things that need cites there? I tagged a few with {{fact}} (just Ctrl+F for "citation needed" to find them), but I'm sure there are more. I guess the references were not as robust as we thought... —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 04:31, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, incidentally, while we're on the topic...

		The Original Barnstar
		For exceptional work on Rush (band), regardless of if it gets featured or not, I hereby award this original barnstar to User:Wisdom89. —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 04:51, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congrads! Well earned! Kudos for all your efforts to BH. It's the best music article I've read on Wikipedia. And I've read hundreds of them. Anger22 04:57, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When you've finished responding to someone's objections for a FA candidate, it's usually best to drop them a line on their talk page so they know to come back and reevaluate it. Keep this in mind as Rush goes through it, as supports tend to pile on if objects get crossed out. Thanks! —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 02:17, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well....sort of an attack, I guess. 204.183.88.3(an anon IP with an agenda) has pushed his POV on the section headings on the Rush article. I tend to neither disagree/agree with his opinion(everyone has one) but his belligerent attitude toward what he feels and how he intends to battle for it are beyond what Wiki is for. And uncalled for at a time when the article is close to FA status. His intentions were made clear on the talk page when he wrote Thats why I merged the ridiulous 2 year era titled "A new direction" with Prog Rock era. The new direction described was prog rock, hence why i merged them. I will also continue to do so, until this change is permanent. Not sure what route to follow here? He seems to push POV first and use the talk page after the fact. He has been banned before for ongoing RV wars. Perhaps an admin should be alerted to keep an eye on him. I don't know who to contact myself.....you??? Anger22 18:04, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar with the proper channels for handling this sort of situation. If he becomes troublesome then an administrator will need to be notified for page protection. However, it may be possible to reason with him before going to those lengths. Deckiller or BorgHunter may have more experience with this kind of thing. Wisdom89 21:33, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I expect either of them can handle an abusive user quite well. And he isn't exactly a vandal. Just someone not faliliar with the proper channels on this site. Judging from his apology following his last banning...I don't think he wants to go through it again. I hope. Cheers! Anger22 22:14, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If he pushes the POV again, I'll warn him and direct him to proper policies. He continues after that, he'll be taken to the next level. I think he'll stop now, especially since there's consensus. — Deckiller 22:17, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I think it's great that you are taking the time to copyedit the Fenix*TX article and to fix the things that were criticized in the recent FA nomination. I've been meaning to thank you for your excellent work since you started, I just didn't get around to it yet... :D

However, I really think this last alteration of the fanbase paragraph should be changed again, for two reasons:

1. I don't know if you are/were a follower of the band and the two offspring bands, but the phrase "dispute over" is IMO not appropriate in this context. See, I would say you cannot really dispute over which band was the first to get signed, or the first to release a CD for that matter. Both are facts (Denver Harbor both got signed and released their EP before STBE self-released their EP) and if, in retrospect, the fans started disputing over which band released their EP first, STBE's fanbase would verifiably be wrong.
2. The information I just listed in the brackets (of Denver Harbor being the first band both times) was present in both my initial version and your first revision, but is omitted in your last version. I don't think the information is necessary, but I also don't see a reason to leave it out, as it is neither POV nor original research, but verifiable fact.

I think we should be able to maintain both a better style than my initial version, and the information that is at the moment omitted. I'm going to think of a new phrasing and, if you like, you could also re-think the sentence. Thanks again. --HarryCane 19:34, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I think I understand what you are saying now. I misunderstood initially. I was under the impression that it was just a generic argument between fans, but you're right, because of the facts the wording may be off just abit. I was just trying to clean up the prose for formality purposes - I suppose that got in the way of being accurate. Also, I appreciate your thanks. I really felt the article had/has enormous potential and felt like contributing. Wisdom89 20:08, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I find it interesting that you insult me first (to wit describing my writing as "flowery, unencyclopedic fandom" and that was the nice part) and then hope that I take "[n]o offense...at all." Which is the rhetorical equivalent of slapping in the face and then offering to buy me a drink. Hunh?!?!?!

I've been a Rush fan probably longer than you've been alive--1983. (I didn't notice an age in your profile, so I could be wrong). I've owned all of their albums in multiple formats, have seen them live multiple times and have read extensively about them.

Much of the information I provided was from radio interviews the dates of which I do not have and it would probably be difficult to ascertain (them) especially since I made the cassette (those little square things your parents have underneath the old man's Playboy's in the attic) recordings of the interviews in high school in the mid-80s. The one concrete citation I could provide, I did. Something tells me you probably removed that too.

I reject your criticism of my edits. They were no different than the ones they preceeded except that mine were far more accurate and showed a far clearer understanding of their music, lyrics and career.

One thing I've noticed about wikipedia: there are definitely cliques that have formed about certain issues. If an outsider such as myself dares to submit an edit deviating from the party line, people like you instantly step in to stomp on the dissident opinion.

Do you have NOTHING better to do in your life that watch the Rush article to make sure some "heretic" doesn't disturb your skewed view of, and complete inability to understand, Geddy, Alex, Neil and their work.

I don't hold grudges but I don't back down either. Had you been professional and polite, instead of condescending and insulting, things would be much better between you and I.

Why didn't you take BorgHunter's approach? That I can accept. Or, for example: "You know, Pain_Man, I really disagree with your edits to that section of the Rush article. Here's why...." Why fling down the gauntlet? Homey don't play dat.

What's the wikipedia motto? "Merciless editing." I intend to adhere to the wikipedia "philosophy" to the letter.

And my edits are going right back in. Period. And they'll go up the every day after you take 'em down.

To quote a certain lagomorph (look it up): "Of course, you know, this means war."

Je suis prêt, monsieur. Et vous-même?

PainMan 09:10, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh calm down. An obstinate "retaliatory" response in the form of a revert war is the best course of action for a featured article? Are you absolutely sure? Wisdom89 15:01, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wisdom: Keep cool when the editing gets hot. Yelling at people will accomplish nothing. Instead, might you try to understand where PainMan is coming from and understand A) his change to the article, and B) the reason he's getting angry at you? You were a bit incivil to him at first, and I don't think an apology (from him as well) would be out of line. Come on, let's all work together to make the article better. —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 16:38, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BorHunter, I'm sorry, but I am not the one yelling and placing phrases in bold face to indicate heightened anger. I have not lost my temper in light of recent events, yet PainMan has made it a point to rant about me at various locations. I have no problem with mending the situation and focusing on fruitful discussion with him or any of the other authors, but please be fair - I am not angry, and I am certainly not yelling at anyone. It might have been just semantics.

Yes, I was initially very direct and frank about his drastic emendations to the article, but there was hardly any malice in what I wrote. PainMan, personal attacks are things such as "you're stupid", "&%$%* you", "you're ugly" "You have the social skill of a...." etc..etc. I said nothing that resembled anything even remotely similar. Sorry, I stand by my opinions regarding your rhetoric and syntax. I believe they are unsuitable for wikipedia, at least in their previous condition. I'm not saying you don't have the ability to conform, just telling it like it is. I didn't invent these policies. These articles are intended to be concise (not verbose), NPOV (which you absolutley did not care to address), and substantiated by citations (again something not done). Wisdom89 18:20, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

However, I will apologize for being too tactless at our initiatial encounter. I could have toned it down. Wisdom89 18:21, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop reverting the Children of Bodom article. By doing so you are violating WP:NPOV, WP:CITE, WP:RFC, WP:VANDAL, WP:NOR, WP:OWN and WP:FAITH. The reverts your making also are in violation of an admin warning on the article itself. Further edits such as these will be reported to an admin and may lead to a ban from Wikipedia for any given length of time. Ley Shade 23:21, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Completely unfounded and uncalled for Leyasu. Wisdom89 18:10, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rush trivia I voted to keep and merge with the pop culture article. It'd be a shame to see it go. There's a ton of intersting content that could go in there. Anger22 18:09, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the future do not revrt the removal of unfree images used outside of Wikipedia:Fair use criteria. Specifically, never use an unfree image when a freely-licensed one is available, and never use unfree images to decorate list articles. Jkelly 19:06, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice tidy up as always. However my knowledge of Peart/Rush peters out after Signals so you or someone else will have to take it up from there. Anyway continue to edit furiously? No, dangerously? Hmm, maybe not. Mercilessly, thats it!--KaptKos 22:09, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've been watching your favorite "blocked user" all day. I don't have a login account so I can't tag the MetalsMainLady user for what it really is. I think its just {sockpuppet|Leyasu} (only with the double {{ }}'s) Maybe an admin can help? Leyasu's constant circumvent of the ban is starting to get annoying. Good luck! 216.21.150.44 02:19, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I had my suspicions due to the reasonless revert on the Speed Metal article. I've been watching him closely for some time now, and I have zero interest in sparring with him like he does with other users in the Wikipedia metal community. I refuse to get sucked into that. However, if it becomes a problem I have no reservations enlisting the aid of an administrator. Wisdom89 02:23, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you monitoring the "Smallville (tv series)" page? There is some person that keeps wanting to add his "trivia" section. It's unencyclopedic for one, a lot of it doesn't pertain to Smallville, but to Superman and the comics, what does is already mentioned on the Season pages. This person won't listen to me and keeps reverting it. There is also a discussion on the Talk page. I'd appreciate another mind on the subject, if you could help. Thanks. Bignole 18:41, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed the incorporation and removal of said section - I will give you a hand if the individual refuses to take his proposed changes to the talk page. Wisdom89 18:44, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That was my bad, I was reading the part about Clark, and for some reason thought they were refering to him as evil. Bignole 00:28, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I suspected that, no prob. Other articles made reference to "Kal-El" as evil and that always perturbed me, so I know why you were hasty to change it.Wisdom89 01:07, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, well, well,..... What have we here? So no wonder-lah you all both guys are talking some "conspiracy"-like discussions and schemes against me, isn't it!!??? Hhmmm... This is none other than the worst (which I think) I have encountered in my life for the very first time that such counteractioned plans of alliances are "gossiping" behind back! NOW I KNEW IT!!! You all better watch-out and be forewarn about this!!! Hahaha!

Are you away that there is a List of Smallville episodes? I'm curious as to why there is, especially when we have Seasonal pages already, ones that are much more detailed and of better quality. I have left a message on the Talk page informing them that I will most likely submit it for deletion, since we have pages for that already, and they are listed in the Smallville Template. I'm afraid that they might have also created individual pages for each episode. I don't know what your stand on that is, but I find individual ep pages to be a waste of server space and unnecessary. Bignole 22:13, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I checked, no individual ep pages, but they don't even have the correct titles for the Season 5 episodes. Your thoughts? Bignole 22:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, how come you reverted my revert, but then put my note back in? The reason I removed the superpower is because that episode hasn't aired, none of the season 6 episodes have aired. Even if they say "this is going to happen", it doesn't matter till it actually does. That's why we don't put in plot summaries for episodes that haven't aired. Bignole

Nevermind. I mistook "super hearing" for "super breath"...my bad. Bignole 16:49, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

why did you remove my addition of a recurring character on Smallville without explaination or discussion? M8gen

Yes, in fact, you did misunderstand me when I used the word "opinion" in reference to the Rush article. "Opinion" was not the word I had intended to use (you try doing some serious writing with a six yr old bouncing off the walls!). Though I noticed it was quickly jumped on by the claque who feel that they own the Rush article--and have consistenly treated me as some unwanted interloper with no write (pun intended) to contribute to the article.

Unlike some people, I have a life to run and can't spend every day all day crossing swords with the nasty and narrow-minded who have little or no understand of Rush's work or their creative ethos. (These words are not directed toward you, but if you take umbrage all I can say is, if the shoe fits...)

I have no interest in some petty little edit war, I just want to contribute. And let's face facts: there is no such thing an "objective" article. All writing contains opinion whether overt or covert. The best any of us can do is stick to the truth. Calling Stalin a bloodthirsty tyrant, for example, isn't "POV" it's a fact.

PainMan 21:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's where we differ then I suppose - of course it isn't possible to create a purely objective Wikipedia article. But instead of forgoing any hope, throwing our hands in the air and essentially saying "well, if there can be no objectivity...etc...etc.." we should make an attempt to ensure that the existing articles don't ooze POV. Wisdom89 23:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but some of the information you removed was necessary to maintain an out of universe perspective :-P See WP:WAF. — Deckiller 22:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I added a few of the removed points back in to maintain the perspective. — Deckiller 22:41, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem Dec! Appreciate the notification though Wisdom89 23:34, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rush will be on the main page. We all better be keen to monitor the article that day. I expect my VandalProof rv count will spike pretty high. Cheers and take care! Anger22 12:44, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No need to remove it, we have a clear consensus to delete the page. All we need is time now. Bignole 02:28, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Understood - it was just so crufty and informal that I felt compelled to remove it on the spot Wisdom89 02:30, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What's your stand on the two Lex Luthor pages. There is currently a Lex Luthor main article page, and then a Lex Luthor (Smallville) page. I placed a "merge" tag on the Smallville one. I saw there was a discussion that caused the separation, mainly because the Smallville version was "too long". I've been there and it's too long because it's entirely written in an "in-universe" fashion, and details of things that happen to him in the episodes. I made a comment on the original article that not even Batman has several articles devoted to his different incarnations, and at best there is a separate "Batman in other media" article that chronicles in more detail the different variations. One use seems particularly interested in keeping the page, and doesn't understand what "in-universe" and "verifiability" means. Bignole 17:37, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to let you know that the Megadeth article is a FAC here, and as someone that previously voted against this article back in August (before I assumed control) I'd like to ask if you could take another look at it. Thanks! Skeletor2112 05:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So I just wanted to say thanks for your constant vigilance against the pinheads, knuckledraggers, and short-bus warriors who continue to vandalize the page in new and more cretinous ways than the previous puddingbrain. You do a great job of protecting it aginst people who think that only MTV's top 10 have skills... or 'skilz' as they probably prefer to say. ThuranX 03:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I appreciate the appreciation - at least somebody is paying attention to these things - I will continue to do my best in fending off the hordes of slanders, maligners, and vandals that seeks to disrupt the article - with a little help from the community of course. Wisdom89 04:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just wondering if you could pop by that article and read the latest additions about Peart's libertarian leanings. It has a ref(which I haven't read). The text itself is really shading the WP:NOR/WP:AWW/WP:NPOV areas. It may be a valid entry but I believe the wording needs a solid copyedit and a check for WP:V on the ref. My Wiki'ing" is currently being interupted by "life" otherwise I'd review it myself. Thanks, cheers anf take care! Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 15:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see it's been added into the main article now....and in the lead in paragraph. Was their prior discussion on this? Cheers! Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 15:31, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How come you yanked the: "In 2007, Peart had a role in Aqua Teen Hunger Force Colon Movie Film For Theaters."? IP4240207xx 02:27, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because while it's true, it doesn't really fit anywhere in the article..it's like trivia or miscellaneous information Wisdom89 03:17, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The additions were made by IP contributors (24.208.182.253‎ (talk · contribs) in Columbus, Ohio & 24.5.172.145 (talk · contribs) in San Mateo, California) so we might not see from them again. I'll try to find some sources. I don't have the A Work in Progress DVD, do you? I might get it. WikiDon 20:36, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I can't find anything about the tips being cut off, I have found several tourbooks that state the varnish has been sanded off the gripping area, some by Allen. WikiDon 05:51, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any chance you may have a wiki-stalker....pending that is. see new user account: Wisdom998 (talk · contribs). That one is close enough to warrant a query over at WP:ANI I think. Cheers! Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 04:40, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[1]. PhilWelch has REnominated the article. I know you're a dedicated Rush page editor, and would appreciate your voice in this. ThuranX 00:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just got the email from Rush's publicity mailer system. It IS Snakes & ARrows, it DOES drop may 1 2007. I've added it to the page.

Maybe it would be helpful to let the newbies know why you are reverting their contributions. I have found that they respond better to encouragement than getting reverted without knowing why. Your edits are pretty darn solid, so i am sure they could benefit from your - to coin a phrase - wisdom.Arcayne 03:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah - sorry about that - sometimes I find myself in a rush to undo an edit that I find inappropriate. I'll be more mindful of that in the future! Wisdom89 04:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From AN/I, please read: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Rush_tours. thanks ThuranX 22:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Salutations! I'm the propellerhead who keeps trying to shoehorn a section on Alex/Geddy/Neil's use of MIDI triggering and samplers into the main Rush article. As a fan, I want to see the band recognized for this ingenuity and adroitness that goes above and beyond "mere" musicianship. But I also want to be a good NPOV editor. I wanted to let you know that I appreciate you trying to help me do it correctly. I've learned a lot in the short time I've been editing. And I think you've already begun helping me by example. (Not all editors are as merciful with their edits as you have been with mine! : )

I completely respect the changes you made, and I think I agree with all of them... But my gut is telling me that I miss the quote from NEP that you removed. If I read you right, you want to see how the article "breathes" without it. That's totally cool. I see you've been at this a long time, and you've done a tremendous amount of work keeping the Rush page up to standard (among many others, I see). I defer to your decision... I'm watching and learning. But let me know after a spell if you think that the NEP quote has any place in the article. I'm not lobbying for it; I'm interested in the best Rush article by consensus. Just letting you know, that a big part of me misses that NEP quote. Clearly, I've been working on it so long that my NPOV may be diminished. But I guess this is the place to tell you that I pared it down as much as I could... But Neil just describes the "work ethic" as well as the technology (in simple terms) so damn well, that part of me still thinks... "Isn't it best said in his own words?" Well, that's my current take on the subject. The World Won't End Tomorrow, and I know that the quote isn't necessarily gone forever. Anyways, it's been lovely having this one-way chat with you. I think I can get a better NPOV if I move on to other things... like maybe the fact that I play guitar too? Get away from this Internet thingy for a while maybe... -- ManfrenjenStJohn 09:04, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Hey, thanks for taking the time to comment - In reality, the only reason I removed the NP quote was because it was rather bulky and made the section kinda distended, if you know what I mean. It probably could be replaced with paraphrased prose which described everything you felt was relevant. It's nice to see a fresh face working and making an effort to maintain NPOV on this featured article. Keep up the good work and bring any of your ideas to the talk page so we can all have a looksy at 'em. Wisdom89 17:19, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • After sleeping on it, I agree. Thanks for your encouragement. I realized that I don't NEED NEP's quote, as long as I link to it (which I already did). Goes to show, I should have more faith in my own writing (as long as it's backed up by sources). -- ManfrenjenStJohn 23:07, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • BTW, I think we had an edit conflict on Geddy's wp page just now, at about 3pm pacific time. This is the first time I've experienced an edit conflict. Can you help me assure that the best combination of our changes makes it into the article? Thanks Again -- ManfrenjenStJohn 23:07, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • I'm concerned that I might have unintentionally overriden (or overwritten) your changes. Please feel free to inform/instruct me on how this situation is properly handled. Thanks. -- ManfrenjenStJohn 23:10, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • • I thought I wrote this already but.... I was able to figure out whose changes were whose. Furthermore, I noted the changes you'd made to *my* changes on Alex's page, and I tried to learn from you and not make the same mistakes -- or rather, learn from you the proper way to do certain things -- as I continued to work on Geddy's. Always a learning experience...! -- ManfrenjenStJohn 02:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to turn this into a social forum, but...your opinion? — Deckiller 19:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• you are referring to the actual recording? If so, if the single is even a minute indication of the rest of the album, I will be more than satisfied with the finished product. Wisdom89 19:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • I liked it, although I wish Geddy's voice was not so overproduced. Nevertheless, they are still excellent musicians. — Deckiller 19:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • • Yeah, I know exactly what you're talking about - does sound a little "processed" - At least the production of the new album seems to far exceed what was heard on Vapor Trails. Wisdom89 19:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey dude.

It seems like every day, an anonymous user changes the lead abstract for Snakes & Arrows. Usually by replacing

"Snakes & Arrows is the eighteenth full-length studio album..."

...with...

Snakes & Arrows is the nineteenth full-length studio album...

I'm the one who came up with the phrase "full-length studio album", which I'm very proud of because it is perfectly un-ambiguous about the issue that seemed to vex everybody. ("Is it the eighteenth? Is it the nineteenth? Do we count Feedback? But it's an EP! And it's not original material!"... and so forth)

So when I conceived ""Snakes & Arrows is the eighteenth full-length studio album..." I was very proud of myself, because i thought that would end the (albeit probably unintentional) editing war. Yet every day, someone -- usually anonymous, unfortunately -- comes along and changes it to "nineteenth".

So I'm sure you've seen this situation before. Any advice? I've done all the explaining I can do, but someone (the same person or a different person, I don't know) keeps making the change, and I just keep reverting it. The only thing I'm doing different at this point is NOT explaining it, because I've done so so many times already.

What's your advice?

-- ManfrenjenStJohn 19:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Besides, of course, "Don't take it so seriously!" That's probably the first lesson to be learned here. : ) -- ManfrenjenStJohn 19:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, I have (like the countless other denizens of Wikipedia) encountered this before - and it can be troublesome, not to mention beyond frustration, so I can be sympathetic. Unfortunately, as a free encyclopedia where anyone is at liberty to edit, there is nothing in the rulebook that prevents a user from making such changes - even if they are aggravating. The constant back and forth edit warring becomes counterproductive to what we're all trying to accomplish. My suggestion to you is (if you haven't done so already) point these users in the direction of the talk page by placing a note within the comment box. Alternatively, and with civility, put a notice on the anonymous user's talk page explaining your case. Also, please be mindful of the WP:3RR policy - as you yourself might be subject to a temporary block for violating it. Try and enlist the help of other editors of the article by bringing your concerns to the talk page to achieve consensus. I hope this helps..Wisdom89 19:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Firstly, I can't thank you enough, if only for the fact that you have "boldly gone" down the same paths that I find myself on, and even then, if just for the fact that you've undergone some of the same frustrations. You were right-on-the-money with your suggestions. I reviewed the WP:3RR, which I needed brushing up on, and today might as well be that day. Since we last communicated, I've done a second revert on the S&A page. Different user, different misguided but probably well-intentioned erroneous edit. I may need your more direct support if I have to do a third rv in 24 hours. Again, this is largely a strange new world for me (editing), and your assistance is invaluable. Is your talk page your preferred method of communication? I think I need to let sleeping dogs lie; if I have to do another revert, I think I'd best just take a vacation from editing for 24 hours. It's really nice outside anyway. : ) I noticed you aren't pref'd to take email, but if you do feel like talking in real-time, or at least in a more accessible way than talk pages -- such as by IM -- I'd be up for it. The lesson here is probably patience. I don't know why I seem to be falling victim to the "The World Will End Tomorrow" mentality. Clearly, I'm not the first to experience such frustrations! : ) P.S. - If at first blush, your username of Wisdom89 seems presumtpuous, allow me to assure you that it is in fact perfectly apropos! Deepest Thanks, -- ManfrenjenStJohn 22:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey dude. You're giving me a run for my money this week -- with some of your more "merciless" reversions of my edits. : )

Please don't take offense; I know our goals are the same. Your removals of some of my additions are actually quite educational for me. But there are a few edits that I'd like to provide a rationale for -- standing behind them, if you will -- and in so bringing them up with you, I'd like to see what you think of my reasons.

I know I'm picking nits. I'm not taking this overly seriously. But I call upon your wisdom (heh) to see what you think.

Specifically, the adjective "influential", to describe Rush in the very first sentence of the lead. Since your rv, I've now versed myself in WP:PEACOCK. And I'm still not 100% sure I agree. The example given in WP:Peacock is "the most influential", which is clearly a subjective claim -- and as such, as PEACOCK states, should be said with facts rather than peacock words. However, I feel the word "influential" by itself is a simple portend to the list of "influencees" that come later in the article.

I like my distinction, and I hope I've rationalized it well. I completely understand if you disagree, but I've decided to poke the bear (you) to see if my rationale might have some value.

(Is it just me, or is it a delight that a staple of PEACOCK reasoning is the edict, "Show Don't Tell"? : )

I realize that I may be taking the same risk here, but again, I did indeed play devils advocate. I see my edit as an important description of the significance of Rush's instrumental songs (which is objective, as opposed to their "greatness", which is subjective). It wasn't my idea to mention the fact that there are multiple instrumental tracks on S&A in the first place, but when someone else did, I added the "Rush's instrumental tracks [significance]" sentences because of this: The prototypical, unbiased reader might think, "Why is this mentioned, why is it significant?" I sought to answer the issue of significance by stating as much about Rush instrumentals. Again, I'm caught in a grey area where I realize that this is important information for a reader to know, but it's hard to get it across while still speaking objectively.

I'm now versed enough to not take any of this too seriously. In fact, if you didn't respond at all, I wouldn't care. : ) But this is Wikipedia editing for the sake of Wikipedia editing, so, I thought I might as well ask.

If you're too busy with more important things to discuss this, I won't take offense. :)

This could be nothing at all. :)

Thanks again for your guidance,

--

ManfrenjenStJohn 23:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. - I compared the leads for Led Zeppelin, Queen, The Who, Rolling Stones... They ALL use terms that you would find far MORE Peacock-y under the same set of criteria you're applying to the Rush lead. I know this isn't the sharpest point to make the argument, but... Rush has been overlooked and undervalued for so long in so many different media, that it seems almost criminal to continue the "discrimination" here. :) Simply put, there's got to be a way to impart the significance of These Guys in the article without selling them short, and still do it in an encyclopedic way.

--

ManfrenjenStJohn 00:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the sources on Peart, I'll just turn around and use these for Bonham's article.

However, if somebody STILL takes away those sources on bonham's aticle I'm afraid I have to do the samef or Pearts. Pie76 03:23, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree, they shouldn't be removed from either article - you're more than welcome. I won't touch the Bonham article and I'll even help you take it to the talk page on there if needs be if others decide to revert. However, please..wikipedia is not about revenge and getting back at people. I don't recognize any of the individuals who are editing the Bonham article Wisdom89 03:26, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, you provided links to show how he is one of the greatest drummers of all time, right? Well I used the SAME link on Bonham's article yet they still refuse to accept he one of the greatest. So what's the deal here? If those links does not justify Bonham's article...Then why should it do it on Pearts? Can you semi lock Bonham's article or something..I mean look if this continues to do so then I mean you know I gotta get rid of Pearts. Pie76 19:57, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The way that you worded the sentence about John Bonham being the greatest is very good, and i thank you for resolving the conflict, if you would please cite the refernce that you are saying supports your claim in the text i would greatly appreciate it! Thank you, Tiptoety 23:02, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you removed the contradict tag. I specifically asked for it to remain (for about 48 hours) until the adding editor could review it. By now, you're aware that I'm not one of the screwheads who fould that article with fancrufts and such, so I would appreciate in the future, if you're going to ignore my edit summary, please at least follow up on the talk page. I'm sure you were just acting in a WP:3O manner, seeing one editor make a suggestion and a second implement, you, as a third opinion, considered it done, but I prefer to get tagging editors to review a situation, to either get an 'all clear now', or to get detailed feedback about what problems persist. I'm not worrying about it returning till she drops it, but in the future, can you reply at talk page for some of these sorts of fix-ups? even a 'Hey, I looked at it, and it's good, so i'm pulling the tag' would've been welcome. Thanks. ThuranX 11:55, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing Wisdom89 13:55, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, about half an hour after I left this note, she dropped me an 'all clear' note. so... but thanks for listening. ThuranX 16:22, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Geddy Lee article received heavy editing today by new/unregistered users, which I noticed at WikiRage.com. The article may benefit from a good review. According to Wikipedia Page History Statistics, you are one of the top contributors to that page. If you have the time, would you please read over the article and make any necessary changes. Thanks. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 19:56, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who says that naps are a bad thing? Oh, and thanks for changing the headers for "A boy alone" and "The Long Dark Tunnel," that trite has been bugging me for a while. To the beautiful and the wise, the mirror always lies. IP4240207xx 03:15, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're mistaken. My edit doesn't violate Wikipedia's three content policies, because the plagiarism in Conservapedia can easily be verifiable by checking those entries I cited (on Conservapedia itself), and countless others. There's no bias, only truth. Thus, there's no violation here, except on the 3RR by yourself. Sincerely, -- Dukered 12:31, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say anything about bias or truth. The truth is "irrelevant" on wikipedia when you ignore policy. Using conservapedia as your primary source without citation does not comply with WP:V. It's also plainly original research and it appears I am not alone in my assessment. As for the 3RR, we both "violated it" Wisdom89 13:10, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]