Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Closed Cases Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] (many, many pages (mostly involving the Teen Titans (animated series) or Invader Zim)

Who's involved?
User:Angie Y.
What's going on?
An apparently well-meaning n00b, she likes to add references to her own fanfiction to articles, and likes to create dozens of articles about minor characters from tv shows, then expand them with useless trivia in an attempt to avoid merging a la WP:FICT. Despite several comments by several people on her talk page, she shows no sign of slowing down on any fronts. Between all the reverting of her edits I've been doing and all the merging I'm going to need to do, I'm almost to the point of tearing my hair out. I've been unable to do any work of my own, and she simply refuses to see any point of view except her own (once commenting that an article should not be deleted because, "I wrote it myself").
What would you like to change about that?
I have no quarrel with the user personally, just her edits. User is clearly well meaning, would just like her to acknowledge wikipedia's policies and community consensus as well as WP:FICT, and understand what kind of material belongs in an article (and what article things belong in). Mainly, the thing that needs to happen first and foremost is there needs to be SOME sort of acknowledgement on her part that there ARE issues, instead of her just continuing to do as she pleases.
If you'd prefer we work discreetly, how can we reach you?
My talk page or IRC is fine. --InShaneee 21:10, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mediator Response

Left a note on InShaneee's talk page and we will go from there. Inter\Echo 15:04, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
Mediation is now underway. Inter\Echo 10:39, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
This case is solved for the time being. TheoClarke has agreed to mentor Angie. Inter\Echo 13:53, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:Fenice on Wikipedia talk:Infobox standardisation (as well as forks, VFD pages, user talk pages, etc.)

Who's involved?
User:Fenice
What's going on?
I think User:Fenice is totally on tilt over this Infobox thing. On some pages, he (she? I dunno, gonna go with male for the time being) alternates between arguing stridently against standardizing infoboxes, and sarcastically exagerrating on Wikipedia talk:Infobox standardisation.
The dialogue in Wikipedia talk:Infobox standardisation is a trainwreck and Fenice's exagerrated, unsigned comments aren't helping Plus, I'm starting to worry that Fenice is losing perspective, to the point of attacking me for pushing POV when I was arguing for the POV that Fenice seems to hold.
I don't bear any ill will toward Fenice, despite the baffling comments on my talk page; instead I'd rather see him/her helped to calm down and get some perspective.
What would you like to change about that?
Well, I'd like someone to help Fenice calm down and start contributing in good faith, instead of muddying things and attacking everyone who disagrees even on trivial technical points, like the role of VFD as it pertains to proposed policies.
So far, everything I've suggested has been taken as an attack or a push of a POV I don't hold, so I'm at a loss.
If you'd prefer we work discreetly, how can we reach you?
Well, talk comments would be fine, but you can always hit my talk page and leave a note scheduling a meeting on IRC. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 13:10, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mediator response

It would seem that Fenice has left Wikipedia. Kelly Martin 22:22, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
That's a shame. I was hoping it wouldn't come to someone storming off. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 23:15, 16 August 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Harassment from User:Davenbelle & User:Karl Meier

Mediation requested by
(sign below)
--Cool Cat Talk 19:58, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
Who's involved?
Cool Cat (talk · contribs)
Davenbelle (talk · contribs)
Karl Meier (talk · contribs)
What's going on?
I am being "HARASED" and arbcom is showing no sign of discoraging the harrasers, instead imposes restriction after another on me. --Cool Cat Talk 19:58, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
What would you like to change about that?
I would like User:Davenbelle & User:Karl Meier be keept a light year away from me. --Cool Cat Talk 19:58, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
If you'd prefer we work discreetly, how can we reach you?
IRC is fine, not that I want to hide anything, I just don't want their rant. See: Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Coolcat, Davenbelle and Stereotek/Proposed decision.

[edit] Mediator response

I'll pick this one up and see what I can't do. I'll contact all involved parties. Fernando Rizo T/C 17:44, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
I've asked all the parties involved to basically give each other some space. I think that with a pending ArbCom decision that directly impinges upon this matter, it wouldn't be appropriate for the Mediation Cabal to go any further than that at this time. For further detail, see User_talk:Fernando_Rizo#Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal_is_here_to_help. Fernando Rizo T/C 20:10, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Comments by others

This has all been discussed at length on the proposed decision talk page (+archive). I would draw your attention to the section *Monitoring* User:Coolcat for my statement as to why I feel that terms such as harass do not apply here.

Please note that Fred Bauder has said that frankly I think many of the problems originate with you [Cool Cat].

I would also like to comment that Kelly Martin has made a number of comments on the talk page and has not acknowledged my replies to her.

If this "cabal" would like to talk with me about this request, you know where to find me.

 — Davenbelle 09:56, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bogdanov Affair

[edit] Request made by User:XAL

I need some admi to look at this case involving abuse of wikis security system and tools against vandalism, where they have been used to:

I.

1) sabotaged a user who was victim of vandalism.

2)A possible identity theft, and technicians research to confirm/infirm that.

3) The misleading of an admi, in order to convince him/her of doing as planed, hera again an abuse of wiki tools for user protection, as våben against them, in the hands of a well rutined vandaliser and manipulator. b) the subsequent abusiv attitude of the admi c) The following chaos and chain of misunderstandings and frustrations and unadequat, unpolite , provocative, respectless, and unproductiv communications mode.

4) why was I banished without warning? 5) why was I unable to found an admi of the site nor redirected to him/her? 6)why was I banished without warning when 3RR had not been infringed by me but by YBM? 7)Why was ybm not banished nor warned from the beginning. 8) why was the admi uninterested to hear both parts, and didn't suspected anything when she could see something wasn't right in the history of the site if YBM was right? 9) Why it was so difficult to have people talk together? 10)What could have been done in that case to hinder it to happen and what can be done in the future on wiki to hinder it to happen again?

II.

1)The necessity of having clear direct links from a site to its administrator, 2)and a clear link to warn about rampant vandalism, 3)a clear chain of who to contact in case of abuse and need for mediation, 4)The creation of a User Board for the defense of users being discriminated by admi 5)A clearance meeting between admi in wiki english concerning the use of banishment and its rules, 6)Guidance to users as what to do in case of revert or deleete abuse by an admi.

III.

1: I will need the same administrators to look at the ideological part of this Bogdanovs affair as being in fact a fonny, a doughnuts lie, a chain of chaotic events used random against the same people, and who consequently crave a complete change of the actual Bogdanovs affair site, to be renamed, and also that all who has been written in it and other get preserved as an historical evidence of the fordgery who took place, and that all the Bogdanovs sites get assembled in an aggregate of parts, including the diverse parts or links/ pictures of them, under the same site who will describe the psychology of a scandal, with its build up, its submits, how small piece of informations get together and suddendly used like a bomb, and how unlikely scenario appeared, and how falsh evidencies are created.

2) It will help the understanding and perspectiv of this mediation and this affair to know that the revert stof begin with an article about this ideologie, denouncing this Bluff and giving links to the postsutuationistics site. It was deleeted for so long and so many time that when it could finally stay on the site so much time had passed that nobody could read it, and it could stay unseen.

So i will conclude that those revert attacks had as single aim to hinder all to know the truth, by hindering me to express and show the informations I was in possession of. Wich he seemingly achieved, and keep building up the one doughnut lie after another for each day that pass.

For all parts best this insanity must cease to be, and the truth must now prevail. The way to that will be to stop denying the facts, and to begin looking at them as they have look us in the face from day one: An manipulation of scientists used to talk to other scientists assured that they can relate on each others declarations and allegations, confident that the one presenting them some facts had checked its sources, and thereby easely fooled by a lyer.


Mediation requested by
User:XAL has posted previously
Who's involved?
I...YBM, BISHONEN,

Which participation here is Not admissible for the time being.

II.Cereal Killer, Nicholas, Kelly, Angela from the foundation board, Sam Houcevar

III. All the user and people involved in this affair for the past 2 years and an halv, to whom all the debates refer to again and again and on which it apparently buil up.

IV. Igor and Grichka Bogdanov.

What's going on? Referee
...I have been the victim of violent attacks made by user YBM on my edits on a very long period of time, as this person harrassed me but didn't accepted any answer to his attacks, and gave me to others as being hysteric or creazy, or as can be read down again in his own mediations, using the latest word he has learned.

He suddendly begin to make a revert war, (attak as I never used the revert function my self) that I was not immediatly aware of, as I thought it was just misplacing my articles. but later on he just deleeted all I ever wrote and even encouraged ob the site, all other users to make abused of the revert function and by that infringe the 3RR of wiki. Can still be seen on archive 1 of the site. Day after days during 5 days, hour after hour he deleeted my articles and hinder me to put it back by reverting all each and every time. I have tried to get help from admi, who were busy at that time. Then I threaten him to stop or I will also deleete his article, but he continue his deleetion work. Then I told him that this was against all rules and infringed the regular freedom of expression and that it could end with a court case. He used that to contact Bishonen, who was where? all those days? who immediatly blocked me, and banished me from the site for 24 hours. I didn't knew who she was, I didn't knew there was an admi, I didn't knew why I had been bannished. There was a message signed Cereal@killer with a c-cédille on the c of Cereal, and the messaged sayed "you have been banished from the site by admi cereal@killer." I contacted him, he denyed having anything to do with that. The day after, the message was signed Bishonene and CésarB, but without explainations. Later on I tried to explain the revert attaks from YBM and she denied listening to it or answer to anything. then she banished me for 1 week after having pretended that I had deleeted her answer (?!) and put my name as the title of her article saying: Sophie deleeted my article, and made me a warning. I asked her to remove that affirmation, she denied and banished me for a week. This article about me having deleeted her article and my answer to it, are out of circulation, thought Bishonen deny having deleeted anything. I am having quiet a serie of hallucinations those days! I didn't receive any satisfying explaination for this banishment, and thought bishonen knew about YBM reverting syndrom, she didn't banished him nor mentioned it to him, she just refeered to it as deleeting some article but not abuse of revert, as it was: MORE THAN 7 REVERTs A DAY, every day for a week, sometimes 20, during to to 3 hours on track. I didnt knew of this revert function at that time. As the accused YBM had before and for a very long time blamed the Bogdanovs for having make use of the revert function or more for having performed some adjustments to their own biography of the Affair, I founded cynical and paradoxal that the same person should at the same time do it without reason to a user, go free with it, and even complain about vandalisation of the site to an admi! That was the top! And now is back at blaming fox about editing articles, using for that a mediation site that he knew I was using to mediate against his giga abiuse of revert function. This is absurd theater. It took me 3 weeks of activ contact actions to different admi and dealing to achieve to my genuine request. And I do not like it being abuse by YBM to make entertainment of the mediation tool, as he did of the security tools against vandalism using it against the user he had sabotaged

What would you like to change about that?
...Part 2 of the mediation: i do firmly believe after active researches and analyse of the sites and of the whole Bogdanovs affair, and of its principals actors, and through contacts who gave me informations and first hand evidencies, that the affair against the Bogdanovs was artificially created and sustained for the amusement of a philosofical/ideological intellectual group, who follow a path of creating scandals on line and are rutined at keeping up running.

I showed the links to the previous case, who constitute the antecedent of the actual Bogdanovs affair and is made of the same stoff, people, arguments, and follow the same developments path. It is the second time that YBM is building a fonny story scandal with make believs around 2 writers close to each other. last time it was a couple. Therefor i declare the existence of the site The Bogdanovs Affair for being caduque, and ask for the compleete remake of the site who will present the part of this fake for what it is, without hidding it under seemingly very serious scientifical talk, when de facto we have to do with a mass manipulation and abuse of people faith, through a patient build up of the story based on hasardous events happenings, as they are commun on the internet and chat room and forum, and who constitute one of the basis of this ideologie. Those people called themselves postsituationists, and it is about time that this pot aux roses get revealed to a larger public and that all see how much they were abused and for so long: 2 years and ½. We could all laugh if it wasn't for the damage this has caused to a large number of person and to the primary concerned parts: Igor and Grichka Bogdanov. The new site will reclaim a serious work to get the psychological angle of the story, and how this aspect onlt was the cement of the all architecture from foundation to top, science being an excuse, and making it easy at keeping appearences. Each and every point of error, or mistakes was brought up like a scandal and as the scandal press deal with this kind of stof, noisy, deforming , and with an all tricks go attitude, and a shameless selfinsurance and a ton of lies and of remake that YBM used with a revenge. This is the real affair, a laugh at the sokal Hoax, where here it is mostly the scientist who got trap at being belligerent at climbing on petitesse and arguments for nothing, completely and resolutely blind at all the very obvious stagings and repetitions all around them. An analyse of the discussion site of the Bogdanovs site could be for coming and existing psychologists the task to perform to understand how so many people and scientists could get deceived by 3 young fire crackers looking for some way to occupied a rather dull sequence of days.

[edit] Request made by User:YBM

Mediation requested by

YBM

Who's involved?

YBM, all editors on Bogdanov Affair, especially 82.123.39.41 (usually 82.123.*.* or 194.206.212.1) aka User:Bogdanov (Igor Bogdanov most of the times, Grichka sometimes)

Please note that I won't consider User:Xal as a "key party", she never edited the aticle, nor she never proposed anthyng about the article on the talk page. Every post she made is personal abuse and psychotic (it's not an insult but a diagnosis) rant. Anyone considering dealing with User:XAL could do so, but do not consider myself involved : I've no time to lose with fools. --YBM 01:39, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Please note that "fool" is an insult. Sam Hocevar 09:13, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
What's going on?

People directly involved in a scandal/affair are anonymously editing several times a day their own page by "reverting" most factual information. During the last hours, days and weeks they reverted editing from the original article writer, User: Defenestrate, User:Bishonen, User:Pjacobi, User:EE Guy and myself. Given the harrasment I got from this story I do not consider being involved in the editing process itself. At the time of writing this the last neutral version is this one

Major update to "What's going on"

User:82.124.82.72 is very very likely a sock puppet of the Bogdanov.

The Bogdnanov are playing now there good old trick of using sock puppets (as they did dozens of times on Usenet, scientific blogs and forum, e-mails, etc.) (some english references are given on Talk:Bogdanov_Affair/comments.

Please, could an admin check all relevant issue about a recent post from "adb"

You could, especially, check the content of the pre-reverted Talk Page : 23551818 and 23553949, as well as their source content by going in editing mode : 23551818 and 23553949.

If you want to know why I'm quite confident that "adb" (not "adp" Igor is always forgetting his puppets' names) is in fact Igor, could easily check by opening this page in editing mode. Check any punctuation sign in "adb"'s post, count the number of real spaces typed after them, you'll notice that there are always at least two or three of them, sometimes more (up do five usually).

Now check any post from Igor here or on another wikipedia's page with the same method, or on Usenet or any system which preserve the number of spaces typed. It is a detail that has been pointed out on french scientific web site, blog, forums for monthes.

I especially apreciate one of the last Igor's comments :

"Well, I am pretty certain that most of the people (95%) are leaving a double space after a comma of a point."

--YBM 22:55, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Due to the number of comments by other parties, comments relating to this case have been placed in a subpage: Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Bogdanov Affair Comments. Please leave all new comments on this page.


[edit] Mediator response

[edit] Assigning Case

I have been speaking to User:XAL via e-mail at considerable length, and have reviewed all the appropriate matters relating to this case; I am consequently assigning myself as I already have some degree of understanding with Sophie/XAL. However, some help would be appreciated in this case from other mediators, if anyone would be so kind as to join me. --NicholasTurnbull 01:21, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

I'll help in any way that I can. Fernando Rizo T/C 01:34, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
Not a cabal but a request was made at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Burnout_warning:_would_anybody_else_like_to_keep_an_eye_on_Talk:Bogdanov_Affair.3F and I sorta jumped in to try and help out. Let me know if I can assist here. --Terry T | @ | C 17:56, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Separate requests for both key parties

Sophie: please fill out the blank request template that I added under your name so that you can present your own mediation request following your own point of view; that way the request is presented more fairly. However, I must please ask you to keep your request under 500 words so that we can review it for you. Also, please place comments in the sub page listed rather than directly on this page. Thank you. Best regards, --NicholasTurnbull 01:21, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestion of electronic mediation meeting

It would appear that this particular dispute is quite "active" and there is a significant level of contention in the matter regarding differing points of view. I propose that some form of electronic mediation meeting, possibly over Internet Relay Chat or similar, in a formalised agenda format with moderation, might gain some ground in this matter. I would be grateful for any thoughts on this. --NicholasTurnbull 01:21, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Request presented by User:XAL

Dear Sophie: I am most grateful to you for making a proper request to us for mediation, as I requested you to do. I would, however, like to remind you that we ask that all requests are preferably kept less than around 500 words, and your present request is well over that length. Moreover, a great deal of what you specify above is not directly related to this mediation and is beyond the scope of what we can do for you. I would be most grateful if you would do your best to condense the above request down to a reasonable length and removing superflous text; alternatively, if you would be comfortable with me doing so I shall edit your text for you. Please advise me on what would be acceptable. Many thanks, and best regards, --NicholasTurnbull 23:21, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Closing of case following discussion with User:XAL

User:XAL (Sophie) and I have recently discussed this case at length via an Internet voice chat, and I have recommended to her that she make a request to the Arbitration Committee if she feels that the allegations she has made are correct. Since it is clear that no further discussion between the parties is either desired by all concerned, nor appears to be yielding any progress, this case has in my opinion escalated to the point where only the Arbitration Committee would really be able to bring it to a close. Consequently, I am hereby closing this case. --NicholasTurnbull 17:12, 20 September 2005 (UTC)


[edit] User:Anakinskywalker

Mediation requested by
(sign below)
Image:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 02:18, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
Who's involved?
Image:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 02:18, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
User:Anakinskywalker
What's going on?
He's harassing me on Talk:University of Ottawa, his talk page, and my own talk page.


What would you like to change about that?
I want his attacks removed from Talk:University of Ottawa and for him to be banned for life. An admin has banned him for harassment for the time being, but it's obnoxious.
If you'd prefer we work discreetly, how can we reach you?
Email.

[edit] Mediator response

Hmmm, the cabal can't ban people (officially at least), unfortunate though it is. Would reasoning and seeing if you folks can cooperate be helpful? That's what mediation is. If it doesn't help at least it doesn't hurt, and you can always take other dispute resolution steps later (and we can advise with that too) Kim Bruning 11:04, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Dear Spinboy: Thank you for your request. As Kim quite rightly pointed out, the Cabal cannot ban users in official terms - our role as mediators is to create peace between parties (or reduce the kicking and screaming, at least) by neutral intervention, not the implementation of punitive sanctions (which is the Arbcom's job). Let me ask you a question: would you be prepared to settle this with Anakinskywalker on neutral ground via discussion without recourse to disciplinary measures? If the answer is yes, then we can help you, since we can act to mediate between the two parties in order to create a neutral negotiation platform. If, on the other hand, you do not feel any kind of restorative action would be worthwhile, then it is the Arbitration Committee (see WP:Arb) whom you need to make a request to. Best regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) (e-mail) (cabal) 03:58, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

User:Anakinskywalker recently blanked this mediation, with the summary that mediation is no longer required. Since he was not the initiating party, I have reverted it; however, since Spinboy has not so far responded to either my talk page message nor my comments here, I take it that Spinboy is no longer active in this dispute. If I do not hear any further response from either party within 7 days, I shall close this case without further action. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 08:05, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Closing mediation, since the matter appears to have petered out. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 01:22, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Comments by others

[edit] Greek Reconstructionism

Mediation requested by
Cyberdenizen 22:52, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
Who's involved?
IP 65.182.172.*
IP 71.116.133.*
AdelaMae
and whomever else has attempted to get a word in edge-wise on the talk page of Greek Reconstructionism but been gagged or brow beaten.
What's going on?
An anonymous user IP 65.182.172.* is controlling the entry and deletes and then personally attacks any who dare edit his /her prose. Needless to say there is a POV conflict here. There is an ongoing edit war. This has been mentioned by another editor here. IP 65.182.172.* is maliciously posting personal information (names, personal e-mails and headers, etc.) in the talk section over at Greek Reconstructionism. IP 65.182.172.* has edited the talk page to the point were it is almost impossible to read other user's comments or even navigate. IP 65.182.172.* has also deleted the entry Hellenic paganism and redirected it to his /her baby Greek Reconstructionism
Anonymous user 65.182.172.* seems to have a track record for such bullying behaviour. He /She has engaged in similar behaviour at Italian Beef, Green Tortoise, Chicago-style hot dog, Burning Man and several other entries. For someone who is so passionate about so many divergent topics, it seems odd that he /she has the same type of interaction with almost everyone who has any opinion which differs from his.
What would you like to change about that?
I am requesting someone who is impartial clean up the talk page to some sort of readable format as well as give advice on how best to deal with this malicious person. I would also like uninvolved third parties to critique the page and inform me about what further actions should be used to get a cogent and accurate representation of Greek Reconstructionism without it being dominated by one user like it's an entry about scientology. I would also like to know what thus far warrants mod or arbitration committee involvement.
If you'd prefer we work discreetly, how can we reach you?
Here, E-mail or my user talk page.

[edit] Mediator response

Adela, diffs help. I've done some cleanup, and I think avoiding Original Research will avoid any problems there in the future. My personal rule with that is "if it doesn't seem evident, try to put in an external link or reference to show that it's not me saying it" or explain why you're an expert from personal experience with the subject making it possibly OR and ask for some Verification or ideas on if it should be included/modified/scrapped. karmafist 20:02, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Comments by others

  • HappyCamper appears to have stepped in to sort out the talk page and monitor the involved parties. Rob Church Talk 01:32, 16 November 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Nothing Gold Can Stay debate

Request made by (please sign below):

MagicBez 04:51, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Status: New request
Where is the issue taking place?
Nothing Gold Can Stay
Who's involved?
MagicBez 04:51, 20 November 2005 (UTC) and User:HarryCane
What's going on?
A discussion has begun concerning the article 'Nothing Gold Can Stay'. This title comes from a (relatively famous) poem by Robert Frost. The title was later used as an album name by the pop-punk band, New Found Glory in reference to the poem. I believe that as the poem was the original source of the name that information regarding it should occupy the 'Nothing Gold Can Stay' article, whilst the New Found Glory album information be put under an article entitled 'Nothing Gold Can Stay (album)'. It seems to me that the original work should take precedence over a work which simply references its title. As such I created an article for the original work and created a new article for the album (as well a moving the article I also tidied it up a bit). I also linked from the poem page to the album page and corrected all links that had originally gone there, as well as linking the article about the poem to various pages that were related to it (particularly the 'The Outsiders (novel)' article and the 'Robert Frost' article). HarryCane strongly disagreed with my view and reverted my changes (but did not fix any of the pertinent links or keep any of my unrealted improvements to the album article) and messaged me to say so. I would appreciate some impartial (and more experienced) input into the discussion as I don't want the whole thing to descend into a battle of constantly reverting articles and repeatedly redundant links on the pages that mention the poem or the pages about the band.


What would you like to change about that?
I feel that the article should be about the work that created and originally held the name 'Nothing Gold Can Stay' rather than an album which later chose to reference it. It seems wrong to me that an original work be treated as a subsiduary of a work that took its name.
If you'd prefer we work discreetly, how can we reach you?
N/A I feel that the discussion should be held where everyone can see it.

[edit] Mediator response

I'll see if I can help out with this one. I left a note on both of your talk pages. Robert T | @ | C 05:26, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

For the record: The note I left on the talk pages suggested that the current article be turned into a disambiguation, the current text moved to Nothing Gold Can Stay (album), and that Frost's poem be placed at Nothing Gold Can Stay (poem). I am awaiting a response from MagicBez. Robert T | @ | C 15:13, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Comments by others

In my opinion, the article about the poem should definately go to Nothing Gold Can Stay (poem). The album article might stay at Nothing Gold Can Stay with a disambig notice on top, or be moved to Nothing Gold Can Stay (album) with Nothing Gold Can Stay turned into a disambig page. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 11:37, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

I reverted the edits by MagicBez to the Nothing Gold Can Stay article, since all he did was overwrite the album article with a short stub about the poem and create a new one for the album, thereby not transferring the old history to the new album article. I only reverted the linking articles that were in my watchlist, which was a bit messy, I must admit. But in my defense, I was going to go through the other article pages as well.

As far as tidying up the album article goes, I doubt including false information qualifies as 'tidying up'.

I think when someone searches for "Nothing Gold Can Stay", he should find both the poem and the album, which is why I agree with Robert to create a disambiguation page, which in my eyes should have been done in the first place. HarryCane 12:49, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

This all seems good to me, sorry for not using the 'move' link, you live and learn and all that.

I'd be curious to know how what the "false information" I put into the New Found Glory article was, as I only fixed some grammar, added links to the poem and the poet in question and mentioned that it was the origin of the album title.

I also feel that HarryCane has misrepresented his original views on this article by agreeing that 'Nothing Gold Can Stay' be a disambiguation page for both works, judging from the message I recieved it seemed clear to me that he felt that the album article should remain at its current location and the poem be mentioned as a disambiguation at the top.

But all of that's petty crap anyway, glad we got it sorted - though won't we need an admin to move Nothing Gold Can Stay to Nothing Gold Can Stay (album) as the latter page now has an edit history?. MagicBez 05:22, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I took care of the move. Thank you both for helping get this sorted out! Robert T | @ | C 23:58, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Philadelphia County and other Philadelphia Pages