User talk:BassPlyr23

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Image:Yossef Romano.jpg listed for deletion

Admrboltz (T | C) 19:06, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image Tagging Image:Munich 9 living.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Munich 9 living.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{GFDL}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Abu Badali 15:13, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image Tagging Image:Munich 11.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Munich 11.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{GFDL}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Longhair 01:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image Tagging Image:Romano and Weinberg.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Romano and Weinberg.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{GFDL}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Abu Badali 02:42, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image Tagging Image:Joe Perry.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Joe Perry.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{GFDL}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Abu Badali 02:45, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image Tagging Image:Moshe Weinberg.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Moshe Weinberg.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{GFDL}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Abu Badali 02:46, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Snark on RHPS

Hi. I'm the one who made the rude comment about "silly virgins" when correcting the RHPS article. I'm sorry that I offended you. I did not intend to - the edit summary was meant in jest, largely poking fun at me for being able to quote almos the entire movie verbatim. I realize that it was, in this context, a rather tasteless joke :). No hard feelings, I hope. ^L_Wizard @ 01:30, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Munich

I'm fine with the stuff you restored. I edited it because a lot of odd material had been added, so I went back to the last stable version I was familiar with. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:46, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] License tagging for Image:1972 Israeli Olympic Team.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:1972 Israeli Olympic Team.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 16:04, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image tagging for Image:1972 Israeli Olympic team.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:1972 Israeli Olympic team.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 17:04, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Munich FA

I've noticed that you've worked for a while on the Munich massacre article and first just wanted to congratulate you on fixing it from what it used to look like a while back. I could definitely see this going the Featured Article sometime soon, but above all it needs a lot more inline citations. Keep up the good work!. Joshdboz 21:05, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Munich Massacre

The section will likely keep being challenged by editors until there are references that back up the facts, always a common niggling insistance by Wikipedians to make it encyclopedic :-) . I see that you now added a source. You may want to use a couple of direct quotes and yes, list page numbers. Also editorial comments ("It is clear that", "Incredibly", "It should also be pointed out that") and adjectives like "egregious" are subjective and need to be avoided so that the article is simply reporting what sources say in a neutral voice. Thanks for your efforts there. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 22:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Looks good to me, thx! --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 22:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Btw, page numbers would be helpful so that others can find where this information is specifically found in the book. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 23:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, "It is indicative of ..." should be reworded or directly quoted, otherwise it makes it the voice of Wikipedia making this analysis and not neutral. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 23:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi, you asked in your recent edit summary "Why all the edits?" I argue, that this article needs to be trimmed for length and copyedited for tone and style. As another editor (Chrisfow) argued elsewhere in this Talk page, this article "...reads like a novel or account, rather than an encyclopedia entry. It also follows a logical, hierarchical structure." This editor also argues that there are sections which lack references (e.g., "Security was kept deliberately relaxed, and it was not uncommon for athletes to come and go from the Village without presenting proper ID." ...the editor asked "How do you know? Which source did you get that from? Remember, no original research!"). As well, the editor argued that a person could "...not come to this article without prior knowledge of the event or its wider context. Who were Black September? Why did they target the Israelis? . As well, the editor notes that there are statements like "The mistakes made were mind-boggling" which are "neither neutral, nor referenced. This is not an essay!" I would like to work with other editors to improve this article. SlimVirgin, in particular, I would like to hear your views on whether the article needs to be improved (posted to talk page of Munich Massacre article)Nazamo 16:17, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi, you also said "As I've said many times, facts are not POV." I wish to quote the Wikipedia Neutral Point of View policy. “By "fact" we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute." For example, that a survey produced a certain published result would be a fact. That there is a planet called Mars is a fact. That Plato was a philosopher is a fact. No one seriously disputes any of these things. So we can feel free to assert as many of them as we can." ...By value or opinion, on the other hand, we mean "a piece of information about which there is some dispute." “ That the Beatles were the greatest band in history is a value or opinion. That the United States was wrong to drop the atomic bomb over Hiroshima and Nagasaki is a value or opinion.” “Wikipedia is devoted to stating facts in the sense as described above. Where we might want to state an opinion, we convert that opinion into a fact by attributing the opinion to someone." Nazamo 16:17, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unspecified source for Image:1972_Israeli_Olympic_team.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:1972_Israeli_Olympic_team.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self-no-disclaimers}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 14:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Abu badali ^(talk) 14:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:1972_Israeli_Olympic_team.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:1972_Israeli_Olympic_team.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Abu badali ^(talk) 20:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:1972_Israeli_Olympic_team.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:1972_Israeli_Olympic_team.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Abu badali ^(talk) 21:50, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tex Watson's marriage

As shocking as it is, his marriage to Suzan is listed on his own Ministry's webpage where you will findf a photo of him with his ex-wife kristin and his new wife Suzan. As I said, I know it is shocking and I didn't believe it either, but it was sourced properly. I will go back and put the coruced info in where it was. LiPollis 21:38, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

On second thought, I will not put the info back in since the few sources are not clear on the subject. If you know for a fact that this is not true, could you help me out by referring me to a source that specifically denies this? it would really help the articles out. I was not the original source of the marriage fact, I merely went online and found sources that appeared to confirm it. Your edits removed the links to those sources. i will try and go and fine them again. Please do help with this since it of interest and is a controversial fact. By the way, Suzan and tex have been very close for a number of years, promoting their reconcilation as a testiomny of Christian forgiveness. Would it be so odd that they would fall in love and marry? I don't think so.LiPollis

OK, it seems that the original factoid was posted on an earlier version of THIS pageManson Timeline but they have since reverted it. I would guess that the erronious fact then drifted all over the net. It was included in the Wikipedia article long before I came along and then its inclusion there gave it a new legitimacy which caused it to spread even wider over the net. Sveral pages which once had it have since removed it, perhaps at your suggestion? I will contact the page oweners and ask them where THEY got the info originally and see if I can get to the bottom of this. In a way it's a shame Bill nelson is dead, he would have been all over this (not necessarily in a god way mind you). Please remember, I acted in good faith and did have what appeared to be confirmation.LiPollis 21:57, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] No harm - no foul

hey, no problem with regards to the weird thing about the alleged marriage to Suzan. I too was initially taken aback when I saw the info but I DID find that timeline page and it DID list their marraige. Since it doesn't list it anymore, i think we can be assured that it was not a fact. Just goes to illustrate how important it is to get things right here on wikipedia, huh? Sorry if I inadvertantly helped the rumor gain legs.

I've also been a student of the case and did some legwork for a proposed canadian documentary called Valley of Shadows that sought to cover a number of unusual religious and social movements that flourished in the San fernando valley and surrounding environs.  I don't know if it ever saw the light of day.  They covered Fountain of the World and a number of other groups that predated Manson and who manson and his group had some peripheral contect with.  it was fascinating. Folks don't realize what a swirling pot of mysticism and social experiment that area was for decades.  How about you and make some good out of this and work on the manson related articles together and try to get the references improved?  That's a small goal but a workable one.  I'd love to have a helping hand in this.  Do you frequent any of the particular forums or blods devoted to the cases?  I used to but gave up around 2000.  I had other academic work keeping me busy.  Nice to meet you.  I'll do what I can to see if there's any other wild factoids littering the Manson articles.  You've inspired me.LiPollis 22:28, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Non-free use disputed for Image:Spitzer and Shorr.jpg

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Spitzer and Shorr.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 08:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Responsible for that mess

Because you have asked, I'll mention that I am the person responsible for the mess you have undone at the Charles Manson page. I don't share your view that the material you have eliminated was inaccurate or unsuited to this encyclopedia. As far as I can tell from a quick look, the material you have reinserted is not entirely accurate, is not carefully sourced, and has no shortage of poor syntax. (Come to think of it, that probably does make it better for Wikipedia.)JohnBonaccorsi 21:20, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I reverted the sweeping changes you made at Charles Manson because 1) you didn't discuss them (although you did use edit summaries, some of which were not very civil) and 2) because you removed a number of properly sourced items and replaced them with unsourced items. Per WP:BLP, we need sources! Lets discuss this on the talk page and we can reach a middle ground. --Chuck Sirloin 21:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

If the changes you are making are indeed sourced, then you should be in-line citing them as was done in the version you are erasing. As it stands, it is unsourced. Please take it to the talk page to discuss your specific problems with the article. Your assertion that you are an english teacher does not add or subtract any weight from your contributions' value. I can say that I am Charles Manson and it doesn't mean anything on the internet. What does subtract from your contributions' value is that, while they may seem to read better and be more encyclopedic to you, they remove citations and months of consensus-driven work by a number of editors. Again, this could easily be resolved by discussing it at the talk page. --Chuck Sirloin 12:42, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Manson

Thanks for stopping in to help with this article. Do you have sources for the information you added for Steve Grogan? If so, please add them, as this article is currently in process of being evaluated for Good Article status. Also, I removed a comment you added about Leslie Van Houten (although this in no way lessens Van Houten's guilt one iota) as this isn't an encyclopedic comment. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:59, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the reference. Re: Van Houten, technically, yes it's true that it doesn't lessen her guilt. It may, or may not, be a subject for inclusion in her article, but it isn't wholly encyclopedic and would probably be the first thing a GA reviewer would jump on as a problem. Her conviction pretty much says that it didn't matter whether Rosemary LaBianca was dead or alive when Van Houten stabbed her insofar as her guilt was concerned, and her continual parole denials extends that. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:50, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

No need to thank me. I'm just interested in making it the best article it can be. People get emotional over things all the time, I think the best way to deal with it is to be calm. Well, WP has guidelines for it - stay calm, assume good faith. Sometimes we get caught up in the minutia and overlook the big things (aka can't see the forest for the trees). The other editor has put a lot of time into the article since I decided it should be submitted for good article consideration, I see it as he is invested in seeing through that also. By the way, I'm the one who made the comment about people coming out of the woodwork when an article goes up for consideration. It wasn't directed at you specifically, I see that you've worked on the article before. But there have been those whose name doesn't much appear on the history list at all who have suddenly come in since the nomination. There are those who collect the accolades, for lack of a better word. RE: wording: I did like his wording of ..."Leslie van Houten’s equivocal contention that Rosemary LaBianca was dead by the time she stabbed her." Anyway, I just want the article to be accepted. :) Wildhartlivie (talk) 18:16, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Note

I'm beginning to become concerned that when reviewers for GA status come in, they are going to see this recent back and forth editing & the lengthy talk page entries as evidence of edit warring & reject the article without due consideration (that's one of the quick-fail criteria). I really would urge everyone involved to discuss this on the talk page before charging in to change it back, if for no other reason than to avoid the appearance of edit warring. Discussing it is evidence of collaboration. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:02, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] On Manson page

I've seen the note you posted on my User Talk page at 11:27, 26 November 2007. I've responded to it on the Manson talk page.71.242.203.167 (talk) 18:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

P.S. On the Manson talk page, my response to your note is now in its own section, headed "Deaths on the lawn." That will make it easier to keep the discussion there.71.242.203.167 (talk) 18:35, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Manson

I have tried to encourage editor cooperation and an atmosphere of collaboration on this article. To be quite honest, I resent and find offensive the last comments you added to the talk page, which say "revert the article to the horror that it was before I fixed it - and that's what I did, I FIXED it." You are not the only editor who has worked on this page and you are not the only editor who has an opinion on what the article should contain and say. You are also not the only editor who has an education which includes skills in English grammar and composition. Apparently, you feel you are the saving grace of the page, which just isn't true. There have been a LOT of good articles which made it through the process without you. I've withdrawn the article from GA consideration because the extent to which the disagreements, personal snipes and nitpicking, on both parts, will cause the article to fail. I would encourage you to rethink the attitude and hostility that you've shown, especially over the last day or two. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:30, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Burgled versus burglarized

I've left a note on this subject on the Manson talk page.71.242.203.167 13:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Manson -- Shaved heads

Having taken a quick look at the pages you cited, I think you're right that the heads were not shaved in response to the guilty verdicts; I misread the caption of the photograph between pages 340 and 341. -- Does the text indicate when the Family members other than the defendants shaved their heads? You've written that they waited until the penalty phase was almost over; but on page 455, which you cite, only the female defendants are mentioned.71.242.203.167 22:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. I've just worked up a revision that eliminates the reference to the head-shaving by the sidewalk girls and that also specifies that the female defendants did not show up with shaved heads until the penalty verdicts were ready. I'll post it, and you can see what you think.71.242.203.167 00:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I personally am not worried about footnotes for the infobox; I don't know whether other editors think they're necessary. The addition of the children's names was good. — Your addition of "almost" was good, too. After I got your note, I went back and read Bugliosi's paragraph. It is, indeed, impossible to say when the female defendants shaved their heads; maybe Bugliosi himself didn't even know. As far as I can tell from page 455, the girls still had their hair when the jury left the courtroom on Friday, March 26, to deliberate. The hair was gone by the time the girls returned to the courtroom on Monday the 29th, to hear the verdicts. It could have disappeared at any point in the interval.71.242.203.167 01:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

How about:

"did not follow suit until after the jurors retired to decide the penalties."

71.242.203.167 01:26, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Hadn't heard from you — and saw another editor had already noticed the passage; so I went ahead and made this change. After getting your note, as I've said, I took another look at Bugliosi and Gentry's paragraph. After a few minutes, I caught its logic: Because the girls didn't want to sink the exoneration attempt by looking like Manson's slaves, they refrained from shaving their heads until the jury went out.71.242.203.167 02:26, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I figured you had a reason for not replying; I was just letting you know why I'd gone ahead with the change without a reply from you. Two things:

1. I changed "motive" to "narrative" because the witnesses were trying to exonerate Manson with the story of the motive, not with the motive itself. Actually, it seemed to me both words were needed: "via the story of the copycat motive." I won't change it, but I ask you to think about it.

2.Possibly, Bugliosi knew exactly when the girls shaved their heads; that wasn't my main point. I ask you to look again at those passages on pages 439 and 455:

From page 439:

On March 4, Manson trimmed his beard to a neat fork and completely shaved his head, because, he told newsmen, "I am the Devil and the Devil always has a bald head."

Interestingly enough, this time the three female defendants did not follow Manson's example. Nor, when he occasionally acted up in court, did they parrot him, as they had in the guilt trial. Obviously it had got across to them, albeit belatedly, that such antics only proved Manson's domination.

From page 455:

[The jury] left the courtroom at 5:25 P.M. on Friday, March 26, 1971.

. . .

When I received the call [that the jury was ready with its verdict] on Monday afternoon, I knew there could be only one verdict.

. . .

[T]he jury was brought back into the courtroom at 4:24 P.M. on Monday, March 29, with their verdicts.

Manson and the girls had been brought into the courtroom earlier — the three female defendants now, when it was too late to influence the jury, having shaved their heads also.... (Emphasis added)

On page 439, Bugliosi has indicated that the girls did not follow Manson when he shaved his head; they don't want Manson to appear to be dominating them. — Why? Because his defense — specifically the copycat-motive defense — depends on his not being dominant. Bugliosi expressly says now — i.e., when they return to hear the verdicts — the girls are sporting shaved heads. At this point, they don't have to worry about influencing the jury against Manson — because the jury's already been out and made its decision.

Your placement of the shaved-heads passage between the synopsis of the copycat motive and the reading of the verdicts is just right. That's where it belongs; that's the whole point: they didn't shave their heads until the jury went out.71.242.203.167 12:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Not sure whether you're simply unavailable to discuss this further, but I'll be placing a note about it on the Manson talk page. I'll give it the title "Shaved heads."71.242.203.167 18:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA nomination

I've thought it over since you wrote about the article, and I've watched the page, and to be honest, I don't want to get into it again. Every time someone adds to the page, or does anything to it, it's reworked, reverted or an internal note gets put in. I've tried to explain to the guy that 3/4 of the internal notes are unnecessary, as they are usually to clarify a change that was essentially either vandalism or just simple tampering and an internal note won't change that, but it's like talking to the wind. Every time I see that another internal note has been inserted, my stomach knots up and I have to stop myself from getting angry. As long as this sort of thing is going on, it will never pass good article review, because reviewers will see that sort of thing as meaning the article isn't stable enough. It's a decent article, and yes, it probably should be further up the quality scale, but that won't happen until it's left to settle. What I would really like to see happen is it be semi-protected, which would get around a lot of this kneejerk reaction to tampering and/or vandalism, but that has to be done while an article is being vandalized. I keep it on my watch list and I do check all the changes that happen on it, which maybe isn't the best thing for me sometimes! Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I did request the semi-protection (and got it!), because so much vandalism was happening night before last. At least for 3 weeks or so, editors will have have to be registered, which helps a lot. You hadn't answered, so I wondered if you understood my reluctance to get into it again right now? Wildhartlivie (talk) 11:35, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Manson - revolver

At the Manson talk page, you might want to weigh in on "Revolver," a section I've just put there.71.242.159.196 (talk) 18:17, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Postscript: You might also want to weigh in on "Clothing discovery," which I've just added to the Manson talk page.71.242.159.196 (talk) 19:00, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Manson edits

Mike --

Glad you like the edits. For the record: The awkward sentences that have regularly concerned you have generally bothered me, too; there’s hardly an instance in which I’ve been surprised you’ve gone after a sentence. The problems have usually been a result of attention to the article’s byte-count: in trying to keep paragraphs brief, I’ve sometimes constructed sentences that simply don’t work. In some cases, I’ve seen the solution after a few days, sometimes only after weeks; sometimes you or someone else has reached it first. One of the reasons I’ve been able to attack a few of the problems over the past few days is that the semi-protection from vandals has relieved the pressure on the article. Anyway -- thanks for the note.

John —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.242.159.196 (talk) 00:36, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your correction to "Mick Fleetwood"

Thanks for your comments on my talk page. You are, of course, correct that my "correction" was wrong, and I was somewhat mortified to see what I had changed it to... Clearly "it's" is a contraction of "it is", and is not appropriate here. I have even corrected other people on this, so I am annoyed with myself.

But "its'" is also incorrect, no matter what you think. The edit I have made now ( to "its") is grammatically correct. The construction "its'" does not actually mean anything as far as I can see... Being an English teacher does not make you immune to mistakes. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:23, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Manson

I apologize in advance if I said anything on the talk page that might offend you. I'm officially finished with this article. I can't take it anymore. Maybe you can look in once in a while to see if everything is okay. Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:22, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I apologize for anything that was said last fall that offended you, I was incredibly frustrated at the time, and probably should have just left then and dropped it entirely. I'm glad you feel vindicated, really! I can't take the stress that I've felt the last few days over this article, which is why I've stopped dealing with it for now. The GA reviewer echoed my feelings over this article and the issues I outlined, as have 3 others who contacted me or responded. I just don't know what to do about it, or if I want to deal with it. I thought a Manson break was warranted. I have an MA in clinical psych and part of my thesis covered Manson, so I'm really not ignorant about the subject, but my health is at risk with added stress and that is more important. I did move a copy of the article to my userspace and have worked a bit with it. I noted ... somewhere ... that I dropped 5 kb of size from the article by removing all of the extensive internal hidden notes, which in the long run don't discourage vandals or the random passerby from changing things arbitrarily anyway. I actually have it down to 76 kb with not all that many changes, but at the moment, that's where I am going to leave it for now. At least until my blood pressure drops and some time passes. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] My mention of your name

Thanks for the note. As I'll comment in a moment, I think your idea for breaking up the Manson article might be a good one; but before I get to that, I want to address, in this separate note, my mention of your name on the article's talk page:

I didn't intend to offend you — but maybe you know that. As you can see, another editor, AndToToToo, has entered the discussion on the Manson talk page. I want to put on the record here — on your talk page — the details of an exchange he/she and I have had:

1 — When AndToToToo first contacted me about the dispute that erupted on the Manson talk page, he/she said, among other things, that I was not permitted to "reveal" your name. In responding to him/her, I indicated that you had given me your name on my talk page. I wrote as follows:

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

2 — AndToToToo responded that, even though you had given your name on my talk page, I didn't "have the authority to carry that to neutral talk pages." I asked him/her the basis for that statement.

3 — AndToToToo directed me to WP:NPA and WP:OUTING, where, as I subsequently informed him/her, I found only this:

Posting of personal information

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

4 — I told AndToToToo that:

As far as I can see, nothing [in the above-quoted paragraph, headed "Posting of personal information"] suggests I was in violation of Wikipedia policy by mentioning the first name of an editor who mentioned it himself on my talk page, which, in the manner of every other Wikipedia page, is available for perusal by — what? — four billion persons?

I asked AndToToToo to bring to my attention anything else he/she knows of that does, in fact, suggest my mention of your name was a Wikipedia violation. I have heard nothing more from him/her on the subject. In short: To the moment, I know of nothing that suggests that, in mentioning your name on the Manson talk page, I committed any sort of Wikipedia "violation," to use the term you yourself have employed. Unless you have information to the contrary, please do not state as much. Naturally, I will honor your request that I not mention your name again.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 01:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Postscript: And kindly do not presume to refer to "[my] attacks on Wildhartlivie and ... other violations." To my knowledge, nothing I have done at Wikipedia has been declared a violation by anyone with authority to declare it such.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 07:21, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Manson revamp

I myself had been wondering for some time whether the article should be broken up. In fact, I think I am speaking truthfully when I say that I have vaguely imagined it in just the form you have suggested:

1 — Charles Manson

2 — Manson Family

3 — Tate-LaBianca Murders

That really is the way to go — although I suppose there could also be a "Trial of Charles Manson."

The nice thing about this is that it would allow us to address the subject of variant accounts of the murders. Maybe you are aware that I temporarily addressed that here. Wildhartlivie and I had a discussion about the material, here and here; and I quickly told her simply to delete it, as she wanted to. (I suggested that, on the Manson talk page, she place a note about the exchange she and I had had. She did.)

At the time, I told Wildhartlivie that, even though the material was about to be deleted, I was glad I had made it "part of the Wikipedia record." I think I was basically anticipating a Manson-article revamp of the sort you have now suggested. In other words, I was assembling the information for an eventual separate article about the murders alone.

I'm not sure how we would coordinate the revamp. Is it possible to place the reworked material in a sandbox where we can all see it and deal with it?JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 02:12, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Postscript: I didn't want to mention this suggested revision at all on the Manson talk page before you would respond to me; but when I discovered that another editor — AndToToToo — was making helpful suggestions about the article's size, I decided to post some sort of mention, just to relieve the tension on the page. My post is in the subsection headed "Article size." Here's what I wrote:

Another editor has given me a suggestion that the article be broken up into smaller articles. I've responded that (a) that might be a good idea, (b) I'd been thinking similarly, and (c) maybe the article can be broken up even a bit more than he has suggested. Because I haven't yet heard back from him, I won't get into details; he might prefer to bring the suggestion to [the Manson talk page] himself.

Just wanted to give you this heads-up.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 05:09, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Saw your note a little while ago. You might be right that the trial material should be part of a Tate-LaBianca article. — I'm out of gas either way. Good luck doing anything you might choose to do with the Manson article; I can't work on it any longer. I'll say again what I said on the talk page the other day: the article has the facts right. They should provide a good basis for any revamp.

There's always a possibility I've missed some factual problem, of course. Also, sources are not always consistent with each other. (Small example: Bugliosi says Manson asked to go to San Francisco on the day he got out of Terminal Island; Manson in His Own Words says he asked the next day.) Lastly, sources are not always internally consistent; but I won't get into that.

Despite all of that, I'll say again that the article provides a solid basis for further work. (Don't trust anything you might have seen in the "Manson Trial" piece I was working on in my sandbox. It was, as you say, skeletal; sometimes, I just rough a pseudo-fact into place to keep myself going.) I'll post pretty much this same note on the article's talk-page, to say that I'm out of energy, as I thought I might be. Again: Good luck.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 03:09, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Postscript: Here's some information that I once assembled and that might be of use to you for a "Manson Family" article:

Characterizations of the Family's ultimate size vary little. Bugliosi writes as follows: "[Thirty-five] was our [i.e., Los Angeles law enforcement's] initial estimate of the size of the Family. We'd later learn that at various times it numbered a hundred or more. The hard-core members — i.e., those who remained for any length of time and who were privy to what was going on — numbered between twenty-five and thirty." (Bugliosi 1994, 147-48.) Tex Watson, who did not become associated with Manson until 1968, writes that "even though later estimates of the Family's size were exaggerated, there were eventually about thirty of us" (Watson, Ch. 7); he speaks of an "inner circle" of "eight or twelve of us" (Ch. 8) and a "Family of less than forty" (Ch. 11). Paul Watkins, another 1968 newcomer, refers to a "Family of twenty-five" (Watkins, Ch. 11); after naming nineteen adults, including Manson and himself, Watkins says, "While there were fluctuations in size from time to time, new faces coming and going, this nucleus remained fairly consistent" (Ch. 4). See, too, Watkins's remark in his 1989 CNN interview: "[T]here were a lot of people who came in and out of the group throughout the time."

Re 1989 as the year of the CNN interview: That's the date given at the mansonfamilytoday website, which presents a third-party transcript of the interview. A year or so ago, I saw an official transcript, so to speak, at CNN's website; but I haven't been able to find it since. My rough memory is that Watkins mentions his cancer diagnosis in the interview and that that made me think 1989 is right, but I really can't say. Good luck yet again.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 12:24, 16 May 2008 (UTC)