User:Backburner001/Archive01

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following page is preserved as an archive of previous comments left on my talk page. Please do not modify it.

Contents

[edit] A welcome from Sango123

Hello, Backburner001/Archive01, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions; I hope you like the place and decide to stay. We're glad to have you in our community! Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Though we all make goofy mistakes, here is what Wikipedia is not. If you have any questions or concerns, don't hesitate to see the help pages or add a question to the village pump. The Community Portal can also be very useful.

Happy editing!

-- Sango123 (talk) 17:00, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

P.S. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you need help with anything or simply wish to say hello. :)

No problem; have a great time at Wikipedia! Cheers, Sango123 (talk) 17:24, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:HiramTerrierLogo.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:HiramTerrierLogo.gif. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images on Wikipedia is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. You can get help on image copyright tagging from Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags. -- Carnildo 18:51, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Userboxes

Hi. I've noticed that you're making use of political or religious userboxes on your user page. They can be a nifty way to share about one's personal preferences, but I realized, after a while, that they often detract from the real purpose of Wikipedia, that is, writing an encyclopedia. I'm inviting you to consider these words from Jimbo Wales, the site operator:

I wonder if you might consider simply removing your political/religious/etc. userboxes and asking others to do the same. This seems to me to be the best way to quickly and easily end the userbox wars.
Userboxes of a political or, more broadly, polemical, nature are bad for the project. They are attractive to the wrong kinds of people, and they give visitors the wrong idea of what it means to be a Wikipedian.
I think rather than us having to go through a mass deletion (which is what is likely to happen if the userbox fad doesn't go away), it will be better to simply change the culture, one person at a time. Will you help me?

Thank you for your time. {{User:Vacuum/sig}} 02:28, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I would just like to note that my removal of userboxes from my talk page should not be construed as support for your position on their use. -- backburner001 15:54, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lindsay Lohan Punk'd reference

I have to admit, your logic utterly loses me. It happened, it was a television appearance, it got significant contemporaneous press—thus far, you haven't really explained why you deem the reference irrelevant. Edit: Also, I don't follow what you mean by "sat across from"—if memory serves, she was the featured celeb of the three who were Punk'd in that episode. I hope to hear from you soon. RadioKirk talk to me 21:04, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I feel that the Punk'd reference is irrelevant because I do not consider appearances on such shows to be substantive information about the career of an actor/actress. Mentioning that Lindsay Lohan appeared on a TV show where celebrities have pranks pulled on them tells me nothing about Lohan's career or significance as an actress. It instead functions as nothing more than a subtle advertisement for Punk'd, which I believe is bad for the encyclopedia. It is possible that the Punk'd reference is significant in demonstrating her friendship with Kutcher and her later connection to Valderrama, but the re-write does not explain that in a manner that connects the two appearances. Until this is re-written to make the connection clear (which should make it relevant), I'm removing the reference altogether. -- backburner001 06:48, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, I have to admit I'm a bit off-put by your insistence that information that survived the PR and FAC processes is irrelevant—"I do not consider" demonstrates this is your own opinion—and therefore must be removed until it suits you, as opposed to discussing the intended move first. To be honest, it's irrelevant how Lohan and Kutcher met and became friends; since Punk'd only targets celebrities, it only matters that Kutcher had determined Lohan's celebrity sufficient to feature her on the show, which is a relevant career milestone as it says, "Lindsay Lohan is officially a celebrity, according to Punk'd. (I still maintain that both her Punk'd appearance and the later cameo on That 70s Show are relevant for no more significant reason than they happened.) Therefore, I have restored—with another minor rewrite—a paragraph that survived the PR and FAC processes. In the future, may I ask that you please discuss concerns on data before purging it? RadioKirk talk to me 15:40, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
The fact that you are off-put by my edits is not my problem. I am not aware of any Wikipedia guideline, which grants immunity to articles that have survived the PR and FAC processes. Though these articles might have survived those processes, they still might have the potential for improvement. If I see a problem in an article, regardless of what process it has survived, I will edit it in an attempt to improve it. Furthermore (if I remember correctly from my brief look at the PR and FAC done on this article), the Punk’d reference was only discussed as an example of a broader suggestion – it was never addressed specifically and you made no further comments on it. Correct me on this point, if I missed something.
Yes, this is my opinion. Yes, this reference must be removed until it suits me. My action in this respect is no different from anything you have done throughout this dispute. You think the Punk’d reference is relevant and therefore you will keep adding it because it suits you. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia anyone can edit. As a result of the nature of this encyclopedia, editors will sometimes disagree on particular edits. Furthermore, if an editor is determined to push his edit forward, the conflict will continue until that editor decides an edit suits him. If you aren’t prepared to deal with this kind of interaction, go start your own version of Wikipedia where you always have the last word. If not, then don’t point fingers at people for doing the very thing that is encouraged here.
I have made attempts at discussing the issues by justifying my edits when they were contested. My edits are no secret as I made it clear on the history page.
I have already expressed that the Punk’d reference is not sufficient because the connection between the show and her later friendships/relationships is not explicit. The mere fact that they happened is not relevant enough to be included because it tells me nothing about her life or her career, aside from the fact that she was on a show that pulls pranks on celebrities. It is my opinion that biographical articles should highlight the important parts of a person’s life – not necessarily every appearance they made, but the ones that were significant to their success and notoriety.
For this reason, I will keep removing this reference until it remains removed or until a connection between Punk’d and Lohan’s later relationships is made explicit. -- backburner001 20:18, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Wrong answer. You have never attempted to discuss this; never once have you said anything such as, "I think this is irrelevant, let's work together to fix it." Instead, you simply remove the data and justify the move after the fact by saying, essentially, "I don't like it. Fix it, or I'll remove it again." This does not constitute a discussion— it is antagonistic, and my reverts are justified as they restore information that was already there prior to your removal. I am restoring the reference and taking this to WP:RFC/ART. RadioKirk talk to me 20:35, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm fine with having others comment on the issue. But, let's look at the way you wrote the entry on WP:RFC/ART:
Dispute over whether content can remain until it "satifies" the user who keeps removing it. "Discussion" by User:backburner001 essentially consists of "I don't like it. You fix it. If not, I'll keep removing it."
You aren't even posing the dispute nuetrally, as the second guideline on WP:RFC/ART asks users to do. Who's the one truly being antagonistic? -- backburner001 23:15, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
The posting is neutral; "I don't like it. You fix it. If not, I'll keep removing it" paraphrases with an identical meaning your own words, "Yes, this reference must be removed until it suits me." (The meaning is identical because you apparently cannot say, "Let us fix it.") Even better, let's go straight to your user page, where one of your stated goals is to "[r]emove irrelevant/trivial content." Note that you don't suggest working together with other editors to "improve" content, but that you, alone, intend to remove it, based on your—and only your—criteria therefor. First, I cannot think of a purpose in simply deleting data unless its factuality is under dispute, or it is obviously false, or it clearly has no relevance to the subject (and this case is anything but clear). Should we "improve" data, as you claim? Absolutely. Reject it out of hand? Absolutely not. Second, did you even attempt to learn who the author was? Did you ever post a message on the talk page saying, give or take, "Why is this here? Is it relevant? Can it be removed if it's not?" No, you did not; you took it upon yourself to determine, "this is irrelevant, good-bye," click. Done. This violates the "working together to create an encyclopedia" spirit that is supposed to embody Wikipedia; it is arrogant, egocentric and unproductive. You wonder why I'm off-put? Because "let's fix this together" (seemingly) never even occurred to you. Naturally, I feel my reaction to your actions is perfectly justified—and, I would go so far as to say I've been far more civil than many other editors would have been. RadioKirk talk to me 00:05, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
The posting is not neutral. You chose the parts of my responses that bolstered your image and slanted the description of the conflict in your favor. My description was neutral. It stated that there is a dispute and the nature of that dispute (whether content is relevant or not). Other Wikipedians who wish to comment on the matter have the intelligence to determine the rest when they read the content of our dispute on the Lohan talk page.
Contrary to the image you are attempting to paint, I have never suggested that we should not work together to improve the article. What you fail to see is that sometimes, removing content is part of that collaboration and improvement. I did my part – I removed content I felt was not significant and I made suggestions for improvement when I was asked for them. If you are interested in working together to fix this problem, do your part and improve the Punk’d reference or give me a legitimate reason for keeping the reference that was in there before. The above statements you made provided no good counter-arguments. Instead of focusing on the discussing the reference I removed, you decided to focus on the fact that the edit occurred and took great offense to it.
What you are asking me for is preferential treatment. In effect, though you probably won’t acknowledge this, you are telling me that I need to ask your permission before changing your work on Wikipedia. I’m not going to ask your permission before editing articles here. You have the ability to look at the history page, examine what edits have been made, ask questions about changes to the people who made them, etc. -- backburner001 03:52, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Alright, I've tried being nice. What I am demanding is that you abandon the confrontational style of "I'm removing it until I like it and you'll get over it." I will not be bullied. The reference stays. Period. RadioKirk talk to me 04:00, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Identify exactly where you found the sentence, "I'm removing it until I like it and you'll get over it." --backburner001 04:04, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
You are confrontational. Your idea of "working together" is, paraphrased (got it this time?), "I don't like it. I'm deleting it. You fix it." I have laid out the case for the information's inclusion (it happened, it received massive press, it demonstrates Lohan's celebrity status, etc.); your entire case is, paraphrased (I can keep this up...), "I don't care. I say it's irrelevant. Gone." If I worked with someone IRL whose idea of "working together" matched yours, his butt would be fired. You have forced me to respond in kind, so that's what I'm doing. I intend to stop your attempts to vandalize this article by purging it of demonstrably relevant material if it gets us both repeatedly blocked for WP:3RR and/or banned from Wikipedia. "My soul's prepared. How's yours?" RadioKirk talk to me 04:23, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
I am requesting a Wikipedia:truce. As a condition of this truce, I request that you do not edit the description of this dispute on the WP:RFC/ART. In return, I will not make additional edits to the Lindsay Lohan article until we resolve this dispute. Do you accept these conditions, RadioKirk? -- backburner001 06:49, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. I am, however, placing you on notice: Your professed "I did my part – I removed content ... (you) do your part and improve (it)" style of "working together" is the real-life equivalent of taking a co-worker's report, tossing a random page into the trash, telling them "I did my part, now you do yours and fix it" and then taking credit for "helping" to "improve" it. If you weren't fired, your actions would make you the most despised person in the office; they are antagonistic, confrontational and wrong. This is not about me; it's about equity, and your "work" on Wikipedia as a whole. I intend to keep an eye on your future edits to this and other pages until you've learned what "working together" really means. Yes—it's your turn to satisfy me. RadioKirk talk to me 13:56, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Good, then we have a truce.
I came to Wikipedia fully expecting that not only you would scrutinize my edits, but that many others would scrutinize them as well. If you are trying to intimidate or scare me by placing me “on notice,” it won’t work. I’m already on notice, as are you, and as is everyone who edits this encyclopedia. It’s the nature of Wikipedia. Stop dramatizing the situation and stick to the discussion of the content being disputed.
What you call confrontational, I call confident. I am willing to work with people. What I am not willing to do is appease them at every turn by giving them preferential treatment.
Now, I would like to add a condition to this truce. From this point forward, both you and I stop discussing peripheral issues – such as who was wrong, who did this and that, etc. Instead, let’s stick to the dispute – namely whether or not a reference to Punk’d is relevant/significant in this article – and resolve it. Do you agree to this condition? -- backburner001 15:29, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
If—and only if—you intend to learn from this experience. You continue to proceed from an egocentric platform—your "confidence" has manufactured from whole cloth my "asking ... for pereferential treatment", which does not and never did exist. Simultaneously, my "dramatizing" is no more or less than your own. From here forward, your first step must be in the spirit of mutual cooperation, not your confidence. Do you agree to this condition? RadioKirk talk to me 16:22, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
The whole reason why I would like to add this condition is because I would like both of us to learn from this experience. I thought this would be apparent by the very nature of the fact that I initiated a truce to begin with.
I am willing to learn from this experience. Are you willing? If you are, will you let issues about our editing styles sit until we resolve this content issue? -- backburner001 07:04, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
My sentiments exactly—and, agreed. RadioKirk talk to me 13:46, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. -- backburner001 19:18, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Truce?

It was my understanding you were going to stick to a content dispute.

Then, I read (much to my bemusement) on Talk:Jena Malone the following passage:

My apologies for not getting to this earlier. Before I discuss the reference, I’d like to thank you for the way you chose to address this issue. I’ve run into the same disagreement with another editor about the same reference that has evolved into a rather unpleasant dispute. I agree – neither you nor I can make a final determination on the issue as the nature of Wikipedia demands that we reach some sort of agreement or compromise on these matters. I appreciate your willingness to discuss this issue with me in a calm and civil manner.

On the one hand, this demonstrates that, indeed, you have changed, from "Until this is re-written to make the connection clear (which should make it relevant), I'm removing the reference altogether" (a direct quote from you) to "I agree – neither you nor I can make a final determination on the issue as the nature of Wikipedia demands that we reach some sort of agreement or compromise" (another direct quote from you). On the other hand, it demonstrates a clear willingness on your part to slap me from behind—after you'd called for a "truce"—you could not say "look at me, I can play nice, unlike that other editor" any more clearly if you'd actually used those (hypothetical) words.

Prior to this—but, still, after your call for a "truce"— you'd made this statement at Talk:Lindsay Lohan:

My only concern is that our suggestions to make the reference relevant will not be taken seriously. How might we address this?

Given that a total of seven editors were contributing to the discussion, this was a direct slap to the five to whom you did not address this comment, not just to me.

The question that remains: Do you plan to stop talking out of both sides of your face and abide by the terms of your own "truce", or do you plan to continue taking not-so-subtle slaps at the person who taught you the difference between "bold" edits and "my way or the highway" edits?

Your call... RadioKirk talk to me 06:25, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I did not break the terms of my truce. The conditions of the truce were as follows:
  • “do not edit the description of this dispute on the WP:RFC/ART”
  • “both you and I stop discussing peripheral issues – such as who was wrong, who did this and that, etc”
In the first block of text you quoted, in which I thanked Azathar, I did not discuss who was wrong in reference to the Lohan Punk’d dispute. I merely stated that a dispute exists and that it was unpleasant. You can read further into it, if that is how you choose to read it, but the text I wrote did not explain anything more.
In reference to your second quote, I still did not discuss who was wrong or who initiated an action in our previous discussion. I made a comment about a concern I have for the future of the content dispute and sought input on how to deal with the situation if it arose.
You could make the argument that my second comment (about taking suggestions seriously) did not assume good faith in you as an editor and you wouldn’t be incorrect. However, I believe I did enter this content dispute by assuming good faith in your editorial intentions. Furthermore, I believe your conduct since the beginning of this dispute gives me good reason to scrutinize your editorial intentions closely and not assume good faith anymore, at least for the duration of this current dispute (but, in accordance to the conditions of our truce, I won’t discuss the specifics of my reasoning until after the Lohan content dispute has ended).
Now, let’s get back to the Punk’d reference, shall we? -- backburner001 17:39, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
You can stop the spin machine; yes, you did break the terms, to wit: "I’ve run into the same disagreement with another editor about the same reference that has evolved into a rather unpleasant dispute ... I appreciate your willingness to discuss this issue with me in a calm and civil manner" is a direct violation of "both you and I stop discussing peripheral issues – such as who was wrong, who did this and that, etc" as it slips the issue of cooperation into what is supposed to be strictly limited to content, per your condition. "My only concern is that our suggestions to make the reference relevant will not be taken seriously. How might we address this?" presents an identical violation.
Further, the unwritten tag to "I appreciate your willingness to discuss this issue with me in a calm and civil manner" cannot be more obvious: "(unlike that other discussion)." This is an affront, and suggests that the two disputes were begun by you in the same manner. If this is your suggestion, that is not spin; it is an outright, bald-faced lie.
Do not lecture me on "good faith" when you exhibit nothing but bad faith and worse spin tactics. You want to get back to the Punk'd reference? Then stop with the not-so-subtle attacks and actually take your own advice. RadioKirk talk to me 18:44, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
I still contend that I did not break the terms of the truce. I never posted any value judgment of your prior behavior after our truce agreement. You are making implications that are not explicitly stated in the text that I wrote in response to Azathar and in reply to the comment posted by Rossrs. Whether or not I agree with the implications you made does not change the fact that those implications were not explicitly stated, which puts me within the bounds of our truce. -- backburner001 19:45, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
"Instead, let’s stick to the dispute – namely whether or not a reference to Punk’d is relevant/significant in this article – and resolve it." (backburner001 15:30, 24 February 2006 [UTC]) A "value judgment" was not required to violate the truce; any discussion of cooperation over content qualifies. In the spirit of maintaining this truce and in keeping with the possibility that we find differing meanings in your words, I have edited (here and here) the passages that offended my interpretation of our truce. I trust you are in agreement. RadioKirk talk to me 20:03, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Your edits on both the Lohan and Malone talk pages are not acceptable. I do not take kindly to editing of my comments on talk pages unless you have an extraordinary reason to do so. You may disagree with my interpretation of the conditions of this truce, but your attempts to make me conform to your interpretation demonstrates your lack of mutual cooperation and desire for reaching consensus. Your edits have been reverted. Please do not edit them again. -- backburner001 07:19, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
You have violated both the spirit of this truce ("I didn't actually type it, so it must not be there," paraphrased) and the letter of this truce ("let's stick to the dispute"). Is there an actual human being on your end of this conversation, or an unthinking, unfeeling, spin machine? We both agreed to the terms of this truce and, as such, if either of us disagrees with its implementation, it can be considered a violation thereof and called off at any time. You will edit the above comments to my liking, immediately, or this so-called "truce" is off. This is your final chance to make it right; don't blow it. RadioKirk talk to me 18:32, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
I will not simply conform to your interpretation of this truce. If you wish to discuss or modify the truce, we can do that. In the spirit of mutual cooperation (something you claim to champion in the comments above), I hope you choose to discuss the terms of the truce and our differing interpretations of it. If not, I will abide by the terms of truce as I interpret them unless/until you call it off. Decide how you would like to proceed and act accordingly.
As you can see, a request for moderation has been filed. Hopefully, you will agree to have this dispute moderated.
Edit: Disregard the last statement, as you have already agreed to moderation. Thank you for your agreement to moderate. -- backburner001 01:22, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
It takes two parties (or more) to reach a truce. All parties thereto must agree to the terms. As such, all parties thereto must agree with the implementation thereof. I find your posts to violate both the spirit and the letter of the truce; therefore, I do not agree with its implementation. "Truce" means "agreement"; no agreement, no truce. You made the decision, not I. This "truce" does not exist. RadioKirk talk to me 01:30, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Stick a fork in you... you're done... RadioKirk talk to me 03:25, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Please remain civil and stop harassing me. -- backburner001 05:11, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, good luck with that one. Don't you have moving parts to go lubricate? RadioKirk talk to me 05:51, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Lindsay Lohan Punk'd Reference, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible. Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. Voice-of-AllT|@|ESP 06:56, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Question about Lohan and Ashton Kutcher

Did Ashton Kutcher introduce Lohan to Wilmer Valderrama? -- backburner001 00:54, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I have not found a reputable source one way or the other. RadioKirk talk to me 01:43, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Are there non-reputable sources that allude to the same? If there are, can you direct me to those sources or re-write the Punk'd reference including these non-reputable sources (with a disclaimer of some kind that lets the reader know that the claims made by the non-reputable sources are speculative or questionable)?
I'm trying to reach some kind of compromise here that will satisfy both of us. I'm not willing to let the current Punk'd reference stand on its own, but if it can be put in a context (even a weak context), I'll let it stand as relevant. -- backburner001 19:08, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
I, too, would prefer to reach a compromise; however, I have to mention that my opinion that "it's irrelevant how Lohan and Kutcher met and became friends; since Punk'd only targets celebrities, it only matters that Kutcher had determined Lohan's celebrity sufficient to feature her on the show" ([1]) has not changed. This opinion was echoed by Rossrs ([2]), who absolutely nailed it when he added, "I think the sentence is ok as it is and I don't think it absolutely must be changed, but I also think that any opportunity to improve/strengthen an article should be taken". On the other hand, maclean25 agreed with you ([3]) which, in terms of a discussion only, leaves a 2-2 count. If nothing else, this underscores a lack of consensus, which supports the promiment opinion: it could be better, but it shouldn't be removed. Thus, I believe it's fair to reiterate that, as I continue (and, I do continue) to look for ways to improve the reference, I will restore the data if it's deleted and, because Lindsay Lohan is a Featured article, I will remove any "speculative" additions. Meantime, I just checked again, and I don't currently find any reference to Kutcher introducing Lohan and Valderrama. RadioKirk talk to me 19:58, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I remember you stating your opinion that the issue of Lohan and Kutcher meeting is irrelevant. Although, I should first note that your re-statement of the Kutcher-Lohan connection is imprecise. Mentioning how Lohan and Kutcher became friends is not my concern; mentioning that Lohan was introduced to her ex-boyfriend through a friend was what I was trying to get at. That said, I was actually quite surprised when you expressed the above opinion, since it seems to me like the connection between Lohan and Valderrama is the only thing that gives Lohan's appearance on Punk'd any more significance beyond simply stating that she appeared on the show. I still don't understand how the appearance alone deems the reference relevant.
The reference tells us nothing significant about Lohan that we don't already know from the rest of the article. The reference tells us something about Punk'd, which makes it relevant if the article were discussing the Punk'd series. A list of celebrities who have been Punk'd already exists. If Wikipedia users want to find out whether or not she appeared on the Punk'd series, they can view this list. Why do we need an additional reference to Punk'd in the Lohan article itself? -- backburner001 15:47, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Using the introduction angle at all pushes the envelope of relevance, in my opinion, harder than does the Punk'd reference. As has been noted more than once, the appearance in Lohan's case "does demonstrate her achieving a particular level of celebrity" in an episode that marked "a 'rite-of-passage' of sorts". That, in a narrative explaining Lindsay's popular ascent, is its relevance, as it has been from the beginning. The only remaining avenue for improvement (of a reference that "is ok as it is and I don't think it absolutely must be changed" in a "paragraph (that) should be taken in context with the target audience") is a verifiable source for why she was chosen, and for the Season 2 finale, and/or its showing in the ratings. RadioKirk talk to me 19:54, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
After re-reading the current reference more carefully (as you’ve re-written it), I’ll let it stand on the basis mentioned by you in your last comment. I still find the basis of your argument about the relevance of the reference extremely questionable. However, at this point, I would be repeating myself by explaining my reasons for this. If you wish to actually discuss this issue, let me know and I’ll discuss it further with you. Unless or until you express such interest, stating that I disagree with the relevance of the reference will have to suffice.
Regardless of my opinion of the reference, you have attempted to improve it as a result of this discussion. In particular, I think incorporating Rossrs’ suggestion improved the reference (even if only slightly). At this point, I’ll assume good faith and hope that you can strengthen the reference further with new information, if you can find such.
I would be interested, in the future, in attempting to mediate the personal differences that developed as a result of this dispute. Since we are both editors here, it isn’t unlikely to expect that you and I will run into each other again as we continue to contribute to this project. Since this is the case, I think it would only be helpful to either resolve our differences or at least reach some kind of agreement about how we will address each other on Wikipedia in the future. Let me know if you’re interested in this as well. -- backburner001 23:01, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
To be honest, since we're both rehashing, it likely would be a waste of time for either of us to discuss the instant issue further. We will, I presume, agree to disagree (pardon the cliché).
As for the future, I'm guessing you're aware via this discussion that I make every effort to treat each issue as a separate entity based on its own merits or demerits. I tend to believe, based on the same discussion, that you make the same effort. If that remains the case for us both, I see no issues ahead. Agreed? RadioKirk talk to me 23:31, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Although I was trying to avoid cliché, it's appropriate here. Your presumption is correct; we'll just agree to disagree.
Yes, the smoking discussion does seem to make it apparent that you treat seperate issues seperately and I am appreciative of that fact. I do also make the same effort and I'll continue to do so in the future. -- backburner001 19:35, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Looks good. RadioKirk talk to me 20:08, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Figured I'd point this out (the first comment on the page) as it pertains to this discussion. Consider it my way of attempting to make ammends for getting off on the wrong foot with you earlier. -- backburner001 21:37, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
I have replied. I appreciate the notice. :) RadioKirk talk to me 21:46, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jena Malone Punk'd reference

I've replied to the above topic on the Discussion page.--Azathar 04:20, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I've replied there as well. -- backburner001 20:21, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


templates substituted by a bot as per Wikipedia:Template substitution Pegasusbot 21:39, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oberlin

I'm dropping you this note because you recently edited either the Oberlin page or its talk page. I'm planning to split out the list of notable alumni to a separate page and leave only a short list of "very notable" folks on the main page. Opinions are eagerly sought at the talk page as to who are the most notable. Thanks! Matchups 04:21, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the message. I'll have a look at the list when I have a chance. Does Wikipedia have any suggestions or guidelines that help users determine notability of alumni? If not, perhaps it would be a good idea to get consensus on a basic list of characteristics that can help determine notability. -- backburner001 18:54, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Eric's penguin has done some research on this, and there have been some additional comments made. Matchups 11:34, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
And these additional comments are on the Oberlin talk page? -- backburner001 15:57, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Cleveland steamer

Please don't accuse me of vandalism. That's a highly inflammatory thing to say. Reverting me because you disagree is fine, but justifying your revert by calling it vandalism is just over the top. Cleveland steamer has no reliable sources, and no one can be bothered to find any, if they exist. The reason I removed everything but one sentence is because that one sentence was all I believed to be true, and personal belief of veracity is all you have without reliable sources. Urban Dictionary and its ilk are not considered to be reliable. Also, I don't believe that these variations of the Cleveland steamer are anything but private jokes people have put in for fun. How do I know that something like the "Filipino Flipside" is real? I don't, because the article isn't sourced. Therefore, it needs to be removed. I removed the pop culture trivia because it's completely irrelevant and doesn't help in explaining the topic. If you really can't help reverting me, that's fine. If you just want to be rude and sling baseless accusations, I'd thank you to keep them to yourself. Brian G. Crawford 03:01, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

DigitalPimpette reverted your content removal once and requested, in the edit history, that you give the article the benefit of the doubt while the AfD is occuring. By removing all of the content a second time without justification, you are making a bad-faith edit and stalling the AfD process. I will revert any further attempts to blank the content on Cleveland steamer on the grounds that such is vandalism. Furthermore, please use the proper templates to identify the dispute in progress. By stating that, "Urban Dictionary and its ilk are not considered to be reliable" - you are framing the dispute in a manner that is different from the dispute identified by the {{originalresearch}} template. -- backburner001 05:25, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Since you have consistently refused to assume good faith with regard to my actions, I'll just assume that you're a total crank who likes to call people names with no justification. If you'd reverted me and then explained that you think that there should be no editing of the article during the AfD, in spite of the fact that the template says that anyone can continue to edit, I probably would have been okay with that. Instead, you leave two messages on my talk page accusing me of vandalism and bad-faith even though I've explained why I made good edits. Apparently, you'd rather insult me than find reliable sources for these variations on the Cleveland steamer. If your own warped worldview insists that I'm a big, bad vandal and I need to be punished, then take it to WP:ANI and quit trying to tell me what to do. Brian G. Crawford 19:01, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Your Most Recent Comment

Quit leaving threatening and insulting messages on my talk page. If you want to try to have me blocked for removing unsourced and unverifiable material, then you should follow my suggestion above and go to the admin noticeboard. In any case, you really should quit insulting me and threatening me, or I might just want to report YOU and have YOU blocked. Brian G. Crawford 21:01, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Please quote the portion of my messages that insulted or threatened you. -- backburner001 21:05, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Calling me a vandal. You called me a vandal straightaway, without even asking about my reasons. Then, after I explained myself, you did it again by linking to the page on vandalism. Then you threatened to try to get me blocked. For what? For making good faith edits? That's not something people get blocked for. Brian G. Crawford 21:13, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Again, please quote the portion of my messages where I insulted and threatened you. I will not respond until you identify, explicitly, how I insulted or threatened you. -- backburner001 21:16, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Also, I would like to you remain calm as you continue to reply to my comments. -- backburner001 21:19, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't have the time or the inclination to quote your comments. I also find it odd that you're asking me to remain calm after accusing me of vandalism without even asking why I made those edits and and then threatening me. If you're trying to put a case together for having me blocked, do it yourself. Brian G. Crawford 21:27, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
If you don't have the time to copy and paste quotes to my alleged insults or threats, you shouldn't state that I made accusations or threats to begin with. Contrary to what you said, I'm not trying to mount a case against you; I am trying to get you to support your statements. The truth of the matter is, if you are indeed editing the article in good faith, you will have the time to support your statements. Otherwise, I can only assume you edits are being made in bad faith and that your statements about my supposed threats and insults are false. -- backburner001 21:32, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Again, you're telling me what I should and shouldn't do when you have no authority whatsoever to do that. What it comes down to is that you like all the unsourced, unverifiable variations on the Cleveland steamer, and I don't. It's a matter of personal preference, and it's got nothing to do with anything else. Slinging baseless accusations of vandalism is apparently just your special way of making a point and trying to get your way. If you'd only been honest instead of engaging in rhetoric and trying to insist that I'm a vandal, I probably would have listened to you in a fairly sympathetic manner. Instead, you're just being a bully. At this time, I'm not interested in continuing this pointless discussion in which you insult me and try to tell me what to do. Brian G. Crawford 21:44, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
I have one simple question for you. Why did you remove nearly all of the text on the Cleveland steamer article when you were asked to give it the benefit of the doubt during the AfD process? -- backburner001 00:21, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you!

Hello, Backburner001/Archive01, and thank you for vote on my recent RfA! With a final vote of 62/2/4, I have now been entrusted with the mop, bucket and keys. As I acclimate myself to my new tools, feel free to let me know how you believe I might be able to use them to help the project. Thanks again! RadioKirk talk to me 05:44, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Footnotes

I suppose that we could use the standard outlined on Wikipedia:Footnotes for the emergency management article? --rxnd ( t | € | c ) 15:49, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Now that I've had a chance to look at this citation format, I really like this style of creating footnotes. With this style, we should be able to move around text without having to re-organize or footnotes all the time. I'll start working on switching over to this style of footnote notation. Thanks. -- backburner001 21:01, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Footnotes done. Have a look and make sure I didn't miss anything. -- backburner001 21:41, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
The following page is preserved as an archive of previous comments left on my talk page. Please do not modify it.