User talk:Wyss/a3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] AH, populist-nationalist

Why did u revert my edit, I think it would be better to let the reader to decide whether this is a propaganda or not. Pics like this are presented in George W Bush article and nothig about propaganda is mentioned there. --Haham hanuka 17:00, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You plainly know why, please take this to the appropriate talk page. Wyss 17:28, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"If people don't realize that some of the most dangerous sociopath politicians have come in seemingly attractive packages (i.e., charasmatic people who don't let slip they're quite willing to see tens of millions die and hundreds of millions suffer for whatever reason), how might they be prepared to spot one in the field?"
how does it settle with this quotation?, and no why my edit was reverted, I turn to you because you was the one who reverted my edit. --Haham hanuka 18:04, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

(Haham hanuka has copy pasted an earlier passage of mine) That's the pith of it, however the caption refers only to AH's well-documented populist-nationalist image. Please see the article's talk page for more information on this. Wyss 18:12, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It occurs to me that you and others may be thinking I used the term populist-nationalist as a compliment. It's a neutral and highly accurate description is all. As with many things in life however, there are helpful populist-nationalists, and unhelpful populist-nationalists. On the talk page I've placed a couple of Google searches which bring up tens of thousands of pages describing AH as both a populist and a nationalist. He was also an Austrian. This does not mean that all Austrians are genocidal sociopaths. Wyss 18:26, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

So that you know, I have been lurking here (and elsewhere) trying to make a comment, not knowing what to say. I don 't agree w your deleting of the new user/anons/socks comments. I don't think they were personal attacks. And yet... I do think you were largely on the moral right of things, and that he was trying to provoke you... Quite an awkward predicament for me. I really appreciated your rewrite of the caption, it is much better now. In conclusion, no matter how awkward or confusing the situation was, (and it was very much so, for myself) it did conclude w a better article, which is what we are here to do ... let me know if you are ever interested in my wikipedia:Don't bite the newcomers lecture ;) Sam Spade 23:36, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In contributing to WP, I've found that in general, among people whose first goal is to improve articles based on encyclopedic principles, even if they disagree on stuff (like we do on AH's death, big deal), better articles wontedly come out of it. By the way, if you ever can point me (or anyone working on the article) to some hard documented evidence AH was alive after 30 April 1945, I'd be fascinated to see it. So far all I've ever seen has been tabloid-quality rumours and fantasies. Also, Linge (who found the bodies with Bormann) turned out to be a rather reliable and consistent witness throughout the 1940s, 50s and 60s, and Gunsche, who helped burn them, also never waivered from his story. Wyss 09:24, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] These trolls are vexsome

I used your "These trolls are vexsome" in my own user page, and left a link to your user page. I happen to like it. Can you tell me more about that short piece? (contributed by Technogiddo)

Sure you can. Tell you more about what short piece? Wyss 03:06, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Song titles

Hello, I'm not sure whether you are editor responsible for this, but in The Beatles article there is some inconsistence of song titles.

According to Manual of Style article, song titles should be written like this: "Yesterday"; not Yesterday --Josef Sábl cz 12:33, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you for the revert

Thanks for reverting the silly vandals on my user page. Sometimes I wonder why I bother signing the comments I drop on vandal talk pages..... Kelly Martin 13:43, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

Leaving comments almost never helps and often provokes more trouble (why would any vandal or troll listen?). I believe in quick, silent reverts and zero dialog... no attention = no reward and so on, although I understand why one might want to try talking them out of it. Wyss 14:17, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hitler

Thanks for your insightful comments on the 1932 letter issue. I hope that we will over time be able to present a very coherent picture of Hitler's rise to power, where this will just be one small, but memorable step on the ladder to totalitarianism. I think we agree that telling this story is important, if we can find a way to not overwhelm the main article with minute details.--Eloquence* June 30, 2005 06:51 (UTC)

That's the pith of it... succinctly telling the documented story in all its dimensions without overwhelming the article with tangents which could distract an encyclopedia reader. Wyss 1 July 2005 09:00 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR warning: Natalie Wood

Note: The following is a true life example of why so many helpful, cooperative and knowledgeable editors flee Wikipedia. Readers might also wish to read User_talk:Mel_Etitis#Nick_Adams along with the Wikipedia article Nick Adams and its talk page.

You are in danger of violating the three revert rule. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from further editing. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 3 July 2005 20:34 (UTC)

I have not broken the three revert rule. I'm curious why this admin didn't offer to mediate or help in some other way. This is another example of WP admins spending more time trying to intimidate benign editors than working on an encyclopedia. Wyss 3 July 2005 20:55 (UTC)

It was a formal warning; I didn't say that you'd broken the rule, but that you were in danger of doing so. That is trying to help, as your revert-warring on this and other articles (using this and your other account) is disruptive. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 3 July 2005 20:57 (UTC)

You are seriously mistaken. I have no other account. I'll let this pass as an honest mistake on your part, but if you continue harassing me I'll be happy to take this immediately to an RfC or any other appropriate, formal mediation. Wyss 4 July 2005 06:04 (UTC)

Calm down a bit, both of you. Mel, Wyss' editing history suggests to me knowledge of WP's rules and adherence to their letter and spirit; I don't think a "formal warning" was necessary. Wyss, I don't think Mel's comments have been harassment or intimidation.
Incidentally, I haven't looked at the editing history of the IP (and also know little about, and have little interest in, James Dean and the sexual preferences of Hollywood stars), but I did notice an odd contrast between (a) his/her casual mention in the Wood article of Dean as gay and (b) the mention in the article on Dean of mere rumors of bisexuality. If something about a person is verifiable and worth saying, it should normally be said in the article on that person, no? -- Hoary July 4, 2005 07:10 (UTC)
The reason is that the Dean and Presley articles are well-patrolled. The anon wants to eventually get an edit into the Elvis Presley article asserting that he was gay. His current tactic is place into the Wood article a mention that she hung out with gays, and dated Nick Adams, therefore Mr Adams was gay. Aside from the flawed logic, there's zero documented evidence Adams was gay, and loading the short Natalie Wood article with stuff about one aspect of her social life throws it so out of balance as to be misleading. Adams is obscure enough that the anon thought he'd be an easy target in his quest to build a WP article trail supporting his assertion Presley was gay and so on. All this is such a waste of time. Wyss 4 July 2005 08:37 (UTC)
That does seem plausible. It makes me wonder, though. A lot of people do derive a certain pleasure in reading about the less humdrum aspects of the private lives of celebs. (In Britain, where I recently spent a year, front page tabloid stories suggest that the desire for this stuff is insatiable.) But what's the motivation in writing it for WP? And really, what does it matter what (aside from Mom, kitsch, and sugary snacks) turned Presley on? Ah, but wait -- this is, after all, the US, land of litigation. Preparatory footwork for "Jilted gay lover sues Presley estate for [fill in the blank]"? Incidentally, I'd never heard of Nick Adams (other than as a character in stories by Hemingway, which I find unreadable), and now that I read Nick Adams I don't recognize him and he seems pretty unremarkable. -- Hoary July 4, 2005 09:26 (UTC)
I knew about Adams only from the movie Picnic (movie), the article for which I've been working on lately. He plays an obnoxious paper boy (rather effectively!). As a result of editing the Picnic article, I wikified his name and stumbled across the mess that was his article (it had a disputed tag on it). I cleaned up the article and left in a reference to the rumour that he was gay. The anon showed up and tried to make the reference much stronger again. I got curious, did some research, and discovered:
  • There is zero evidence Adams was gay... that means no letters, no first hand accounts of any trysts, no public outing, not even any documented gossip from the era that I'm aware of... nothing
Sorry. This is what you have repeatedly claimed. There are several independent sources (books, reviews, articles, internet sources) I have quoted which support the view that Adams was gay. See Talk:Nick Adams. The unbiased reader may also have a look at the history of the James Dean article. Significantly, user Wyss has repeatedly deleted the assertion that Dean may have been bisexual, which was placed by others on that page a long time ago. For sources supporting the view that Dean may have been gay or bisexual, see Talk:James Dean. 80.141.192.66 4 July 2005 19:29 (UTC)
  • The 1990s book Hollywood Gays (a questionable source to begin with, according to the reviews) apparently mentions a Hollywood hustler label in passing as the only support for any such assertion about Adams, but a cursory look at his bio shows this to be an obvious corruption of pool hustler (which he was as a teen) combined with the creative and aggressive tactics he used, including exaggeration and other stunts, to get acting jobs.
  • The anon doesn't care about Adams. He's trying to do this so he can assert Elvis Presley (and I assume James Dean) were gay or whatever.

I have no problem with including that sort of content when it's documented and bears some relationship to a public figure's career or how they interacted with their fans. For example, I've contributed most of the Liberace article (he denied his whole life through he wasn't gay but the article makes it clear that he was... through documented references). Anyway content needs to be documented by reliable secondary sources and the anon has not provided them. Never mind considerations of balance and context. Wyss 4 July 2005 09:57 (UTC)

Yes, my distant memories of having once seen Liberace on the boob tube suggest that the Liberace article is excellent. It does indeed relates the fact that he was gay this to other matters, and doesn't go on about it. Meanwhile, I've looked at the history of Nick Adams, and it certainly seems that the IP got carried away -- even if all the allegations were founded, so what? Incidentally, somebody (hint!) might keep an eye on Sal Mineo; I shan't offer to do this myself, as I know little about him and find the Rebel period+genre combination a rather uninteresting one. (Last night we watched Michael Caine in Get Carter -- much more enjoyable!) -- Hoary July 4, 2005 10:19 (UTC)
From what I've heard (both from people I know and in reading about it), Mineo was gay and it affected his life and career. Rebel Without a Cause is enjoyable enough to watch I guess, but for me, it's more a north American social and cultural artifact, sorta like anthropology (sorta like Picnic (movie)!) Personally, I like L'avventura :) Wyss 4 July 2005 10:28 (UTC)
Yup, it seems that he was. But the article on Mineo could be taken as an opportunity for some heavy-duty nudge-nudge wink-wink stuff about Dean. I got the DVD of The Misfits the other day. Beautiful photography; but ugh, the "authenticity", "sincerity", etc. is dolloped on by the ladleful: the missus and I were rolling our eyes and when we got to the point where the wild spirit (?) played by Monroe drunkenly embraces a tree, we gave up. I don't think I've ever seen L'avventura but years ago, when it was new, I was so keen on Professione: Reporter/The Passenger that I saw it in London, Paris and Budapest. (So that dates me. Hey, my name is "hoary"!) Incidentally, the article on Antonioni is a bit feeble. -- Hoary July 4, 2005 11:09 (UTC)
The Misfits! Truth be told, the critics weren't kind to it either. Monroe was married to the playwrite, and after the release, they got divorced and Gable dropped dead. Not a bright spot for either of them. Professione: Reporter/The Passenger is also near and dear to me. Yes, the Antonioni article is a bit thin... :) Wyss 4 July 2005 15:09 (UTC)
Guessing that there might be an article for The Passenger, I went there and yes there was. I read it with gradually increasing disbelief and finally put it up for VfD. I also started Professione: reporter, but I'm depending on feeble memory and odds and sods on the web; for one thing, I have no memory whatever of Hendry's role. I'm sure you can improve it.
I believe that Gable dropped dead before The Misfits was released, as his wife Carole Lombard had died before To Be or Not to Be was released. Now, To Be or Not to Be is my kind of film. -- Hoary July 5, 2005 08:41 (UTC)
I'd seen that. When I have time I'll try to do something with your new version and with Antonioni (which seems ok but as you said, a bit "thin"). Carole Lombard... I've had a "thing" for her ever since I first saw My Man Godfrey :) Wyss 5 July 2005 08:48 (UTC)
My Man Godfrey -- great film! If you don't have the DVD, I can assure you that the cheapo "Key" edition advertising the first [please put down your drink before you drop it] colorized version is pretty good. I mean, the B/W version on the reverse is pretty good. For all I know, the phony color version may be as well, in its bogus way: I'm not bothering to look. -- Hoary July 5, 2005 09:00 (UTC)
Colourisation... let's not go there (sigh and grin). Wyss 5 July 2005 09:18 (UTC)
Right. Oh, on my (particularly unhurried) way to work this morning I put a roll of B/W through one of these. Different! -- Hoary July 5, 2005 09:41 (UTC)
I'll bet. Makes me think of the camera itself as a special effect. Wyss 5 July 2005 11:45 (UTC)
Very recently acquired via fleabay: old Soviet hardware, direct from the former Soviet Union, is one of the few things for which that overhyped site is useful, as there's such an abundance of it. Its very arrival is a joy. -- Hoary July 5, 2005 12:10 (UTC)
For several months in high school I was awakened in the morning by a genuine, standard wind-up Soviet alarm clock made in the 70s. I think I'm the one who threw it away (wah). Wyss 5 July 2005 12:16 (UTC)

[edit] Nick Adams

I'm concerned about this edit. I'd rather not revert, because in light of what I've read above on your talk page, this is part of a larger issue, one in which I am not well versed. Perhaps a more productive approach would be to mention briefly the Lambert bio of Natalie Wood biography or this book, and then add a sentence stating that these sources may not be accurate. --Arcadian 4 July 2005 15:46 (UTC)

Yeah, but that content is what both the troll anon and admin both seem to want. It seems that although there is zero documented evidence to support it, they want it to be so.

Sorry. It seems as if you want it to be that there is zero documented evidence, as you constantly claim. There are several independent sources (books, reviews, articles, internet sources) I have quoted which support the view that Adams was gay. 80.141.192.66 4 July 2005 19:29 (UTC)
Sorry, everything you've cited is undocumented hearsay from interviews (some of which appear to have been made up) published several decades later for the tabloid market. Wyss 5 July 2005 07:52 (UTC)
This is not true. In his biography on Natalie Wood, Gavin Lambert has included the most striking information that Nick Adams was gay. The book clearly is a reliable source. The author coedited the film magazine Sequence with Lindsay Anderson, was the editor of Sight and Sound and wrote film criticism for The Sunday Times and The Guardian. He is the author of four biographies (On Cukor, Norma Shearer, Nazimova and Mainly About Lindsay Anderson) and seven novels. He's known Natalie Wood and Robert Wagner for 40 years. The facts he presents are based on statements by Adams's contemporaries. His book, Natalie Wood: A Life (2004) includes interviews with the people who knew Wood best, for instance, Robert Wagner, Warren Beatty, Paul Mazursky, and Leslie Caron. Many of these stars are still living and would have protested if details published in the book were wrong. The author, himself deeply involved in Hollywood's gay scene, writes about the sexual dalliances of Wagner and Wood and their friends, both gay and straight, and clearly says that they "had many gay friends" throughout their life and that Wood frequently dated gay men in Hollywood circles including director Nicholas Ray and actors Nick Adams, Raymond Burr, James Dean, Tab Hunter and Scott Marlowe. The book clearly states that Adams was the first person among the Hollywood gays she met. Wood even did her part for gay history by supporting Mart Crowley in a manner that made it possible for him to write his Broadway play, The Boys in the Band (1968), which was praised as "the first truly honest portrayal of the lives of contemporary homosexuals". 80.141.180.89 5 July 2005 14:21 (UTC)
That's hardly "striking". As I mentioned on the Adams talk page, please provide a direct quote from the book (not the ambiguous paraphrase from the Advocate) if you'd like to move forward. Wyss 5 July 2005 14:30 (UTC)

Since I'm not as motivated as the anon to play you find your troll admin and I'll find my "elitist, judgemental, rude, bitchy and knowledgeable" admin, I chose to edit that section of the article according to the PoV being asserted by the trolls, thus making it sparkly clear and helpful to all (at least I got it all into a separate section). The troll says it's proof? Ok, now the header for the inaccurate section says it's proof. How's that for polite cooperation? WP can't patrol itself with an admin system that elects trolls. Meanwhile, the rest of the article is accurate, based on solid, real-world documentation (not that I think this will last). Wyss 4 July 2005 16:17 (UTC)

Yes, I've just reverted it to its 2 July state, previous to the wodge of tabloid style factoids, which would be trivial even if true. Do let me know if I've got it wrong and this is CelebrityGossipoPedia. -- Hoary July 5, 2005 08:22 (UTC)
Thanks Hoary and yes, even if true, it would be trivial (for other readers, that's what I mean when I clumsily use the terms balance and context). Hmmm... CelebrityGossipoPedia... I like it! Wyss 5 July 2005 08:29 (UTC)

As for gender identity confusions, etc., how's this frock? -- Hoary July 5, 2005 11:37 (UTC)

Shivers! It suits him! Wyss 5 July 2005 11:44 (UTC)
Yah, he's so butch and yet so stylish. Somehow he reminds me of Misima Yukio. (Not totally unrelated nutty far-right views, too, of course.) But back to serious matters. Why is there no DVD of Ruggles of Red Gap? Damn. -- Hoary July 5, 2005 12:05 (UTC)
This is rather shocking. When a DVD for a film is unavailable, it's because I'd like a copy (and not any of the two hundred DVDs in the low cost bin at the supermarket). I've never heard of Ruggles of Red Gap! Wyss 5 July 2005 12:09 (UTC)
As I vaguely remember it, the comedy's rather broad; the film is pleasant but not great. Have you seen Bringing up baby? I vaguely remember that as yammer yammer yammer: excitement laid on with a trowel. However, I also vaguely remembered My man Godfrey as a bit similar; and when I came to see it again (after years and years) it turned out to be better than I'd thought. Preston Sturges' films need no recommendation; but if you can recommend any other "screwballs" I'd be grateful. And so, good night! -- Hoary July 5, 2005 13:14 (UTC)

Philadelphia Story isn't quite screwball but has its moments. Written for Kate Hepburn from scratch no less. Wyss 6 July 2005 07:31 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. I note that Pauline Kael clearly disapproves yet is entertained. I'll take a look. (I'm also waiting for a lower-priced The Lady Eve, but might cave in and buy the one that's available now. No, rental here is not an option: it's a desert of "special effects", sentimental, and other "blockbuster" drivel.) -- Hoary July 6, 2005 08:23 (UTC)

Likewise here (except for the specialty shops and so on, fortunately there are several!). Pauline, btw was articulate but had very narrow tastes. When I agree with her I do so rather strongly, but sometimes I don't. Wyss 6 July 2005 08:30 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

Thank you for reverting that vandalism to my user page.

James F. (talk) 5 July 2005 00:01 (UTC)

[edit] Why are you here?

I have no objection to multiple accounts per se, but if they're used to subvert Wikipedia policy then people call them sockpuppets and start calling for permanent bans.

Whatever you're up to, why don't you just come clean and tell Uncle Ed all about it? If you have any desire to help me and my friends make an unbiased and comprehensive encyclopedia, I can exercise a little leverage and keep you around. And if you have some contrary purpose, you can save a lot of your time by just being elsewhere.

I'm not particularly interested in outing celebrities, but if you can convince me it has a valid encyclopedic purpose, I'm willing to listen. Uncle Ed July 5, 2005 20:00 (UTC)

First, I'm not sure you understand what's been happening here (or maybe you do, either way it's ok). I have zero interest in outing celebrities. Null. I don't even think Nick Adams was gay but maybe he was and if so I wouldn't hesitate to let the article reflect it somehow in a scholarly way. I only mentioned Liberace (if you noticed that) because it's the only example I can remember of another article I've worked on about anyone who was gay. I worked on the article because I met him several times when I was little.

Here's the heart of it:

I have, and have always had, only one account (this one). When the anon suggested to user:Mel Etitis that I was also user:Ted Wilkes, and user:Mel Etitis believed him, I flipped out. I shouldn't be so proud about it, but after having gone through the Sollog wars and dealing with Ennis' sockpuppets, it became a matter of ethical fidelity or whatever for me to forever edit from one, single account. If you guys have any doubts, please look at the IPs, log in times, language styles, whatever you like. I have never edited under any other account than this one, no weasel words, ban me if I'm lying. This is a very big deal to me.

The fact that your reply starts out on the subject of multiple accounts confirms my worst fears about the unfair effect of user:Mel Etitis's rash decision to believe the anon. To think that an admin has such an opinion of me is devastating, because that opinion is mistaken and reflects poorly on me and the credibility of my edits if they come under discssion.

I'm not up to anything here other than writing articles, except that when I write them, I have, like, this fricking radar for single-agenda, PoV warrior types. Too sensitive sometimes for a wiki, I guess. I truly believe in using only credible secondary sources based on the documented record. I am so self-confident about my ability to use them that I'm sometimes drawn to edit controversial, bias prone topics which could easily lead people to get the wrong idea about me. I don't care, because I believe that in the end, the quality of my contributions to Wikipedia will shine through.

All I want to do here, spot on, in your words, is make an unbiased and comprehensive encyclopedia. This is why I said I'll do as you suggest. Say it, and it's done. I can figure out why or rationalize later on if need be. Wyss 5 July 2005 20:39 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Now chill out a minute while I go talk to Mel, okay? Uncle Ed July 5, 2005 20:45 (UTC)

[edit] Your message

Thank you — that was decent of you; I accept wholeheartedly, and hope that we can start again on a different footing. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 5 July 2005 22:01 (UTC)


Thanks! It's very cool for you to say that... let's. :) Wyss 6 July 2005 07:29 (UTC)

[edit] Jesse Owens

Hey Wyss! I understand from your many comments and contributions to Adolf Hitler, that you are interested and well informed about Hitler and Nazi Germany. Could you please have a look at Jesse Owens and check the info there? I just put the "POV check" template, but I don't have any written materials here to check except for the internet. I hoped maybe you could check it. I think I remember reading Hitler refused giving his hand to Owens, but I want to keep out of edit wars this time, especially when I am not sure and when it's about Hitler. I think you could also find a very good way to put the "myth"-part. Ben T/C July 6, 2005 11:15 (UTC)

Done :) Wyss 6 July 2005 12:46 (UTC)

I expected nothing less. Very neat. -Ben T/C 09:33, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] James Dean

Hi there, sorry for the late reply - I've been ill for a few days. By the time I looked at the James Dean article, I noticed that you've already edited it, and I think your version is fine. I don't know very much about the other guy, I'm afraid. The subject only came to my attention because the Germain Greer article linked to it, and it was a very poorly-researched article, full of speculation.Thansk illWill 7 July 2005 12:53 (UTC)


[edit] Eugenics

I'm not sure how to insert references into the template. Maybe you could do it for me? The following could be linked to that sentence i added about disability activists.

Shakespeare, T. (1995) ‘Back to the Future? New Genetics and Disabled People’ Critical Social Policy 46:22-35

Cheers,--Nicholas 7 July 2005 14:37 (UTC)

Thanks Wyss, I am sorry if i've been slightly OTT, at times, but i'm sure that you understand how emotive this topic can be. All the best ... --Nicholas 8 July 2005 08:48 (UTC)

For some reason, as an editor I'm drawn to these controversial topics and I'm used to the emotional aspects :) Thanks for the kind words! Wyss 8 July 2005 09:10 (UTC)

[edit] verses

Hiya,

you recently voted to delete John 20:16

Uncle G has made a wider proposal covering a much larger group of verses.

would you be prepared to make a similar vote at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Individual Bible verses, which covers the full list of verses in Uncle G's suggestion?

~~~~ 9 July 2005 16:42 (UTC)

[edit] Sources for articles

I don't mean to pick on you, but:

Please note how the anon demonstrates an utter lack of understanding of how Wikipedia and the historical sciences work. Only the anon's assertion requires proof (or at least some sort of primary source documentation cited by a secondary source). As an editor I don't need to prove anything (never mind prove a negative).

I expect a bit more from signed in users. Is that fair? Maybe not, but I've leaned that way these past few years.

Anyway, unless an assertion is utterly uncontroversial, it's going to need some back-up. Especially, if one of more contributors challenge the assertion. Then, it's better to move the disputed passage to the article's associated talk page.

Regarding assertions, that's exactly what I said on your talk page. I know you're busy. Maybe you misread it? Wyss 18:47, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

A good way to deal with disputed ideas is to attribute an assertion to a source. Like:

  • Nick Adams says James Dean screwed Natalie Wood while Elvis watched (note: this is a made-up example); or,
  • Nick Adams says Elvis Presley paid X to cover up his homosexual affairs with Y and Z (another made-up example)

Note the common theme here. Wikipedia is not saying Adams is right, it's merely passing along his claims clearly attributed to him. Uncle Ed 18:40, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

"Adams is right"!? We're not talking about any claims attributed to Adams. Anyway, I only posted on your page because the anon has been copy-pasting there. If you have ay more questions though, please feel free... and thanks :) Wyss 18:47, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mk in Chicago

Hello WYSS: I have just returned from a road trip and discovered your inquery about the MK photo at the Haymarket article. The photo was taken on or very near the 100th anniversary of the event, so that would be early May, 1986. Your 1990 guess was pretty good. Carptrash 18:04, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

and while I have you here, I notice from looking over your user page that you are one of the original research bloodhounds. Much of what I do, particularly in my art, architecture and sculpture writing is . . . . ..... dangerously close to being original research, and thinking, fretting, worrying about it has slowed down my production quite a bit. I travel a fair amount around America and as I do so I stop at sites that are interesting to me and am putting together a sort of Big Picture about sculpture in America that is not found elsewhere. If you look at my articles - of Rene Paul Chambellan, or Corrado Parducci for example, you'll notice that I have resorted to quoting my own "unpublished manuscript." Another Major NO-No in wikipedia. Since this is an area that you seem to have to experience in, what do you think that I should do? Keeping in mind that life IS supposed to be interesting. Carptrash 19:52, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
Your "big picture" may be a mosaic that you can replicate to a large extent through a patchwork of secondary sources... since rather often, at least bits of one's original research has been duplicated in the past: One can usually find secondary sources for an encyclopedic assertion that isn't controversial or false, often on the Internet, usually in a library or in academic journals and publications (most of which still aren't available on the Internet except as catalog entries). Also, you can cite some primary sources directly if you can find a credible secondary source that ever cited the material, even if it was used for a different purpose. For really esoteric stuff, newspaper articles can serve as secondaries but beware, newspaper articles are notorious for having a wide sweep of general accuracy replete with erroneous detail... use with extreme caution. Someone else's website can also be cited, but if the primary sources don't match up a persistent editor like me can get it bounced off the page ;) You should probably get rid of those "unpublished manuscript" citations since they don't actually cut it. On the other hand, if the article is helpful and uncontested by other editors, cites like that could last for years. Wyss 20:11, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation

80.141.180.79 has requested mediation between himself/herself and you over the issues pertaining to Nick Adams and Gavin Lambert are you willing to enter into a mediation? -JCarriker 12:19, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

  • I take it that your post means you are declining the mediation process; please confim this on my talk page. A Sockpuppet test is beyond my current abilities, you should ask Angela for help with that, as she knows everything about wikipedia. -JCarriker 23:29, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
I accept, happily. What I posted to your talk page was my accectance. I would rather you asked Angela to run the sockpuppet test as part of the mediation process. I believe the anon is aware that I am not a sockpuppet, and is editing in bad faith. However, another user has privately suggested to me that the anon is so familiar with WP procedures that he may be an admin. Wyss 23:44, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Well let's try to assume good faith anyway. I'll ask Angela. Let me see: you are willing to include the content about homosexuality briefly, with attribution and with the note that its controversial and disputed. I need this confirmed so I know what to tell 80.141.180.79? Also please note that since this request wasn't filed at Wikipedia:Requests for Mediation, and will remain informal until it is. Thanks. -JCarriker
    • The anon has set up an account for at User:Onefortyone, he has gone on vacation for the next rwo weeks as such I am suggesteing a truce until 6:00 UTC August 6, 20005; if mediation are not resumed within two days of the expiration of the truce I will consider the mediation closed. - JCarriker 01:58, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
20005?! I don't think I can wait 18,000 years (heh heh... keep reading pls). Wyss 02:43, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
I know you're doing what you think is most helpful according to WP policy. I respect that and think your response is appropriate and in line with your role.
I think the anon is lying. I think the anon is an existing, previously registered WP user, likely with multiple sockpuppet accounts. I think the anon may be an admin. I think the anon was caught by surprise with your request that he adopt a username and has taken his "vacation" as a means to thwart a sockpuppet/user check through CheckUser.
I believe the anon has evaded the groundrules of this mediation in bad faith and I won't abide that, or this abuse and "gaming" by the anon of the Wikipedia process. I hereby withdraw my participation in this mediation and request that the article Nick Adams, along with the anon's edit history (which would also include Natalie Wood, James Dean and Elvis Presley), be sent immediately to RfA. Thanks. Wyss 02:31, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
Understood. I didn't request the mediation, so I don't think it would be helpful for me to request the RfA myself. All I'm requesting is a secondary source citing documented evidence supporting the anon's assertion, which I'll keep on doing. Thanks again, for trying :) Wyss 02:48, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

I thought I made it plain that I did understand your role. Do you understand that the anon attempted to manipulate you into helping him subvert Wikipedia policy? When he failed, thanks to your careful approach, he went on "vacation". You're at least the third admin/bureaucrat he's attempted to misuse on this issue. He'll be back, though ;) Er... he's still here, somewhere... likely an often-seen registered user, maybe an admin. Wyss 04:33, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The bible

Firstly let me say that I am sorry to have to bother you.

Secondly, I wish to let you know that a recent VFD that you took part in has closed. The result was that 32 people voted to keep all individual bible verses as seperate articles, and 34 voted that they shouldn't (2 abstensions, and 3 votes for both). This is considered by standard policy not to be a consensus decision (although the closing admin stated that it was a consensus to keep them).

Thirdly, the subject has now been put to a survey, so that it may remain open until there is a clear consensus for what appears to be a difficult issue to resolve. You may wish to take part in this survey, and record a similar vote to the one you made at the VFD there. The survey is available at Wikipedia:Bible verses.

~~~~ 18:10, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] SE and MR

You really must have been around awhile. You have archived talk pages.

Just curious, who are SE and MR supposed to be? Cunado19 05:15, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Re: LvMI

Unfortunately I believe you are correct. Various political biases and friendships with certain editors appear to have substantially skewed many of the responses to the RfC away from any substantive attempt to enforce the Wikipedia editing standards that were being violated and into political viewpoints. I have seen this before on other articles, and often from the very same crowd of editors who have given there endorsements to some of the very sloppily written and entirely unsourced "rebuttals" on this RfC. There are many of the "usual suspects" involved here. One editor - and an administrator at that - has a bad habit of disregarding any evidence that is critical of his friends (among whom he counts Willmcw - one of the main perpetrators here) and asserting that friendship in its place. I saw him do this exact same thing a few weeks ago when I requested mediation on another article where the same editor - Willmcw - was engaged in POV pushing and personal attacks. It's a true shame that wikipedia policies are so readily shunned in favor of personal allegiances and personality politics. Nonetheless, some editors are making genuine attempts to find a solution here including yourself and a few others. Each is greatly appreciated. Rangerdude 17:46, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Meanwhile, I think a separate crit section in the article would do it. Wyss 17:53, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Re: AH and make-up

Ok, thanks. I shouldn't have been so quick reverting. That he was a vegetarian is of course wellknown, but him not liking make-up for that reason was new to me. Shanes 02:16, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Actor, actress

Believe it or not, the actress lived in times when this word was allowed and widely used. Even now there exist backward countries where people are educated in those bad old ways and where actor is only and always male. Pavel Vozenilek 23:11, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Way... I doubt anyone referred to her as an actor then. However, language and usage evolves, sometimes helpfully, sometimes not. Not to sound provacative or shrill, but she's stereotyped enough, even without the mildly sexist ess suffix tacked onto her job description ;) (Thanks) Wyss 23:38, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

To me, for example, it is very confusing to se word actor here. Wikipedia should use the most common conventions, IMHO, not the newest. Pavel Vozenilek 00:08, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Is English your first (childhood) language? Also, genderless naming conventions have been in growing use throughout Anglo-saxon culture for at least thirty years, it's not so new. Wyss 00:18, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Weimar Republic

Hello , Wyss . I Guess you know hello means I hear you in Hungarian... to say that was going to change just one word but then I interposed precis from my stand-by History of the German Republic by Arthur Rosenberg , Methuen , 1936 . Just his explananations , which are good . he was ex- pof of History in the Univ of Berlin , then . Check as needed . Ill go back for rest .

Famekeeper 23:20, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

The WR is sometimes sort of forgotten by history, given what came after. I'll go through the prose when you're done so no worries there, the article is turning into a truly helpful resource! Wyss 23:44, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Spam

Is it really spam if I put it on talk pages? If it is I am sorry and I didn't know. Hopefully no harm done.Rentastrawberry 01:54, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

I'll reply on your talk page. Thanks for answering so promptly ;). Wyss 01:55, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Would it still be un-wikipedia-like if I kept the survey going but only had the boxes on my user page and talk page? If the answer is no, would you like to contribute? Rentastrawberry 02:07, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

It's totally ok to put them on your user and user talk pages! So far as me contributing, I could never narrow down my taste to ten faves. I do find surveys like that interesting though. The Guardian newspaper in London (I think) did something similar a year or two, it was very entertaining to read. Wyss 02:12, 1 August 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Sam Spade and the Skybridge

[I'm re-formating this a bit... here, User:Sam Spade first quotes a remark I made on the incidents page.]

When I commented on his talk page that the article is about a bridge, and the photo is about something altogether different with the bridge in the background, part of his long, victimized response included references to censorship and the remark, "I thought they wanted happy girls displaying breasts in front of their bridge." Wyss 03:00, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

That was not "trying to be polite". It also added nothing to the discussion. It was meerly an unflattering summary of your conversation with me, where I was unlikely to ever see it. Frankly I think this issue has been pretty well beat to death. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 03:29, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
I was trying to be polite and truth be told I thought you would see it. The reason so many people have taken an interest in this is that an editor with over 20,000 edits wontedly knows that a picture of two happy, topless girls (with a bridge off in the background) will not be mistaken for a descriptive, helpful picture of that bridge suitable for an encyclopedia article about it. However, the picture will likely be taken as an effort to disrupt and ruin the article and Wikipedia's credibility. Wyss 03:42, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

I did not then, nor do I now, think that image was likely to disrupt that article or otherwise bring the wikipedia into ruin. Toplessness is legal in canada, and not in the US. The bridge separates the two. If I had any support, I'd still be arguing for inclusion of the image on those grounds. But thats not the case, this is not a divided issue. Concensus is against me, the article is doing ok, and I am ready to move on. If this circumstance has proven to you that I am a malicious ne'erdowell, out to ruin the wiki, I'm not sure what I could say to change that. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 03:58, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with censorship or comparative nudity laws. Such an image might be ok for an article about the difference between nudity laws in the US and Canada but this is an article about a bridge. Either way, whether you are sincerely clueless about the difference or are being deliberately disruptive to make a series of points about nudity along with the nature of Wikipedia's content and its policies, I think you're being unhelpful. Let's not even get started on the copyright issues. It's spelled consensus btw. Wyss 04:08, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Double spacing

I disagree that the double spacing makes articles harder to read and to the contrary feel double spacing between sections and footers enhances the aesthetics of the page. when i noticed that most articles however do not have double spacing i checked to see what wiki policy on the matter is. as you surely are aware, there are no rules that prohibit such double spacing. i shall therefore continue to add the spacing as i will hazard to guess you will continue to delete them. shall we call it our little war in pedantics? -Mayumashu 01:25, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

a consensus, in the sense that ALL users (besides me) single space?? a good 10% of pages i ve encountered have double spacing. but anyway, i do not wish to debate semantics. the truth is there is simply NO rule against double spacing, i like double spacing, and i shall continue to go against the flow on this one and double space. -Mayumashu 17:42, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Famekeeper Seeks Arbitration re:Str1977 Disputes

Wyss, I cannot proceed with the reasoning or innuendo or defence on the controversy/disputes with user:Str1977 . I am going now for user Arbitration(ie to sort the disputes between us as users , I suppose ) and have composed a summary which is going today onto my user-page , and , the discussion page for the substantive relevant authority , Pope Benedict XVI .

I ask you because I seem to see a very reasonable attitude emanating from your editing. The very reluctance you shewed towards religious controversy, recommends you . I have written this to User:Robert McClenon:Robert McClenon as well as asking him to post arbitration . If you accept my invitation I would be most grateful if you would instruct the relevant boards and users on WP . You may wish to read the Summary first and it shall be up within a short space of time . I regret that I have to ask you , as there are other angles which you are already stongly covering, but historical fact demanded my attention given the appearance of the Wikipedia , and one has a duty . Today in Japan the children said that only by remembrance can peace be served , and this dispute concerning the quid pro quo of the Holy See with AH has to be remembered now to obviate further damage to both the faith and the civil order of mankind . Famekeeper 13:25, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

With the understanding it was only realpolitik (but with a genocidal sociopath who was under the false impression he was saving the world at the helm), sure. I think it's sad though, so much stuff going into arbitration and mediation at WP these days. Wyss 15:01, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

I will be glad to cooperate with any outside look at this dispute. Robert McClenon 15:56, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
Please note that I don't consider myself to be involved in it. I think both perspectives can easily be presented in the affected articles. I also think there is a slight language barrier involved. Wyss 15:59, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for your support

Hey Wyss, my fellow "wiki asshole"! Thank you for supporting my recent RfA. I was surprised and humbled by the number of positives votes. I'll be monitoring RfA regularly from now on and will look for a chance to "pay it forward". By the way, have you been handed the official mop and broom yet? Cheers, --MarkSweep 01:44, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Congratulations (I was way happy to see it happen with overwhelming consensus btw)! No wiki broom yet, if and when I think I truly need it, I'll drop a few hints ;) Wyss 02:04, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
Alright, but you better make sure they aren't subtle hints, because I don't easily pick up on online subtlety. BTW, has the double spacing thing been resolved? Sorry for butting in, it just seemed like there would be an easy technical solution, since this is more of a user-interface/stylesheet issue rather than an editing issue. --MarkSweep 02:43, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
It seemed so trivial compared to other stuff I deal with here. He was manually, deliberately (his response makes that clear) inserting double spaces between all the page elements as he surfed through articles while adding simple categories. What does one do? Block someone for being a rude bonehead? :) So... other users will eventually- mostly- cleanup after him and I didn't want to revert his work because the added cats seemed helpful enough. I presume he'll either get bored with his double spacing fetish (which seems related to a fondness for no-caps text) or move into something more plainly unhelpful, so I dropped it. Wyss 02:54, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User talk: JCarriker

I'm not sure what to make of your comment on my talk page. If you are concerned that I will review the information that OneFortyOne asked me to, likely in the hope I'll side with him, I have already informed him that would be inappropriate and I have no intention of reviewing the articles. I can only assume since you pulled out of mediation, you already know there is no mediation to begin. If you are requesting to start a new mediation, then I decline, as my style of mediation was rejected last time you would be better served by another mediator. If you do not desire mediation and continue to have problems, try filing an RFC on the articles in question or if worst comes to worst, an RFC against OneFortyOne and his known IPs. Another thing: please use polite, or at least diplomatic language on my talk page in the future. I'll will refrain from reverting you're sarcastic comment from my talk page, because I too can breakdown and breach wikiquette in dealing with users who frustrate me. I'd also encourage you to reword your post, but I won't insist on it. Thanks. -JCarriker 03:54, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

My comment on JCarriker's talk page was not sarcastic in any way. He may have misread it. Onefortyone requested mediation, then when asked to get a registered username, disappeared for two weeks (IMO to avoid any hits on a sockpuppet check). Now he's back and I'm willing to go forward with this. If JCarriker has now decided not to mediate that's ok, but I would ask that he refrain from unhelpful and possibly negligent remarks. If I have violated Wikipedia policy in any way, please let me know and I'll conform to that. Again, now that Onefortyone is back, I'm willing to participate. If Onefortyone disappears again, I will again withdraw. Wyss 04:07, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

  • When OneFortyOne went on his vacation you withdrew from the mediation process [1]. As such I closed the preceedings and notified OneFortyOne of your decision. There is no mediation to contiune. A new round can begin, but as I said earlier I think you'd be better served by a new mediator for a new round of mediation. If I misread the tone of your comments I apologize, in my native dialect of English the wording of your post would be interpreted as having a sarcastic tone. No harm done. -JCarriker 04:29, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks and likewise. Only to let you know, I grew up speaking (and was educated in) English. I'm sorry you have declined to mediate this matter. I am willing to participate in mediation in the future, if asked. Wyss 04:38, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Runestone template

I can't find any other runestone articles which use the template. However, I didn't look at all of them.

There are as of now 9 other runestones on English Wikipedia that use this template. It is the standard template for all runestones on the Swedish Wikipedia.--Wiglaf 06:44, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

I think the template is ugly and distracting. I also think it's too big and contains redundant information. Confining the primary illustration inside the template is IMO unhelpful and also distracting.

I actually think that it is elegant.--Wiglaf 06:44, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
Uh oh! A clash in taste! :) That's ok... if it's elegant to you, my own esthetic reaction's not enough to dwell on. Thanks for addressing my concerns. Wyss 06:52, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Deal FK-Str

I have two comments: First, to a native English speaker (like me) McClenon's edit of Pope Pius XII is way less than flattering so far as the pope's dealings with the Nazis and reflects what I've long read and gleaned about this: There was blatant accomodation followed by a growing realization, mostly through the war and under wartime circumstances that the Nazis were far more murderous and ambitious in their more radical goals than most people realized. The article is no endorsement for canonisation.

Second, what specific items are missing from the article as it now stands, which you would like to see included? Keep in mind (for perspective), this is an encyclopedia article written for a general English-speaking audience living in an Anglo-saxon context, not a chapter in a textbook written for German college kids studying 1930s German politics. Wyss 09:42, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Deal

Str is offered this:

What-say-you to this: You get your strictly ecclesiastical article . We remove controversy out of it completely - but both ways. All Cornwell?Mowrer?Centre whatever OUT.

We remove all defence as exists OUT.

We leave it as strict biographical listing of his life , so it looks like any other Pope. All Concordat politics becomes only v briefest references, with no conclusions whatever either way political . Leaver it Only to cover canon law and that which the Reichskonkordat covered . No refs to Hitler controversy nor Kaas nor no one . No letters of accusation, no defence .

Then we agree between you and me , that you have a [See also: whatever defence page u title it.....

Equally I put a [see also:Hitler's Pope ] link .

Both to be prominently included at the point where the Concordat story is briefly touched upon . Pius X! will need however to have equal see also .How about that ?Famekeeper 10:03, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Oh-and you get McC to drop the Rfc...

Wyss , I havent got too much time to waste . It is valiant to go in here and slug a paragraph or a word , but that's a wear-down . Can't be like that . I deleted here old question, is that not best ? ByeFamekeeper 15:01, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Let's try stabilizing the main article a bit longer. I don't like forks, and "Hitler's Pope" is not an accurate title. He gradually came to realize that AH was more than unhelpful to the church's interests. Wyss 15:19, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Maybe you don't like them, and yes the title is inaccurate . That was the problem I ran into there .I can see PPXII being stable their(?) way or in the above , but I can't recommend you take on the kind of hassle I have been through . I think I have been pretty patient all in all considering . Again I notice strange behaviour . I go for a total rv to me now, just to see who's awake out there .I offered a deal , no one wants to answer , yet. I wan't to wake them up . You state cogent reasons, you are not the problem . Where are those two editors who have both got attitude. I tell you nor Cornwell nor the acc's can get or be given airspace . Thats always the bottom line . Agreement or doing like I'm asked and justifying further doesn't change that bottom line . The edits return like a tsunami , a few nibbles then a big munch-up . Let me rv once more to count the time, OK. We won't lose nothing, and this is published source, so legal . I have to always figure this is like an order going on , there's a line somewhere and it can't be crossed . If I rv now the score is this {Str 2 :2 FK } Next it'd become {Str3 2 FK} . Sounds silly but then it could become 3 'ALL' .See this, one more anyway .Famekeeper 20:34, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't get it - you have upset my apple cart . I was being frank with you , and I was not being frivolous when I restored to source . No reason of source was provided to justify the reversion of my addition to the article This is not at all the way it should have to be that I am to tell you what you hould do . I can only tell you what you are already absolutely aware of : this is pure Cornwell that now even you , have reverted . What am I supposed to say is really not the point . The point is on what basis is Cornwell not allowed entry ?
Your revert like that now puts you as you yourself see under the responsibilility to justify the action against topical published source . This has to be dealt with of and in itself . I was entirely aware that you had and were suggesting reasons and movement . This rv however has simply a quality of denial , of going against a wikipedianess . Would you kndly justify your rv of source , as much as Str1977 would have to justify should he have done it ? Famekeeper 23:49, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wake Island

I wasn't trying to cover-up the atrocity, just to shrink the battle section of the article since I was duplicating it. Most people who go to the Wake Island article will be looking for something related to World War II, so I guess we should leave the extensive section on the battle there. I wouldn't recommend doing that in most cases, say for England or Crete, islands with much longer recorded histories that have seen numerous battles which have to be summarized in the main article. I guess I was just operating from that mind-set.

The Battle of Wake Island could still use some improvement. I'll keep working on it. We'll need to coordinated changes there with the portions of the Wake article devoted to the battle. One thing that needs to be changed at the Wake Island article is the commander: Devereaux was in charge at first, but then naval Commander Winfred S. Cunningham took over and he was in charge when the actual fighting broke out. This is relying on memories of a book I read fifteen years ago - when I was 11 years old - but I believe there reason for Cunningham taking command was that here were plans to reinforce the island with a navy fighter squadron delivered by carrier and an additional Marine battalion delivered by transport, and eventually a squadron of Catalinas and B-25's and B-17's to do patrols and bomb the crap out of any Japanese invasion fleet etc. etc. There was a relief fleet sent out, commanded by Halsey, I believe, but it had to turn back. There was also a flight of B-17's sent to reinforce the Philipines garrison that stopped over right in the middle of the fighting to refuel. There's an old movie about the crew of one of those planes that I saw once on late-night TV; I'll have to find out the name so that we can mention it in the article.

I did a little reading at those Marine historical center links I posted while I sipped my coffee this morning, but I had to get to my dentist's appointment and couldn't finish. I just grabbed a cool picture for the battlebox. I'm focusing on the Battle of Crete right now, but I'll try to keep developing Wake. --Jpbrenna 00:31, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

I know- I'm so habituated with reverting vandalism and misinformation on the articles I watch that sometimes my first reaction is wrong (which is why I looked at your contrib history and quickly understood) and yeah, I should have said Wake is an exception to the "battle article" convention. Anyway your contributions are much appreciated! Wyss 11:52, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Self-Censorship Advice ?

Just out of curiosity, did you counsel Famekeeper to tone down his responses in the RfC that I posted against him? If so, he was acting on reasonable advice. If not, I will have to capture the diffs to show that he is first making a hostile post and then changing it.

[edit] Thanks

Thank you for informally mediating the dispute about the articles on the Catholic Church in the Weimar Republic. Robert McClenon 04:07, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

I felt bad reverting him back to your version but yours was by far the better written and helpful. I think Famekeeper has a few valid content points but two things get in the way. The first is, never mind his strong PoV, he makes sweeping statements as if he's involved in a political activity rather than editing an encyclopedia. The second is his writing style. While his vocabulary is more than ok, his writing is so disjointed, turgid and manifesto-like that everything he contributes has to be re-written into standardized, encyclopedic English. Sometimes he sees these efforts as a brutal stripping away of his message (though he does seem to appreciate my cleanup efforts on his prose), other times he doesn't seem to realize how much work he's creating for others who must slog through his work both to clean it up and integrate it into an NPoV article. I asked him to leave me a list of specific items he wanted to see in the article, he responded with his note to Jimbo. I'm happy to help if Famekeeper wants to try again. All the Pius article seemed to need was a single criticism paragraph, which I inserted. Meanwhile, as time allows, I'll go through the Weimar article again and if you have any thoughts or suggestions please let me have them! Wyss 12:19, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Underhand pOV play is making my contributions to WP impossible . So much for "wonderful" , Wyss . I am wanted out , and it seems this whole affair is a classic of all the criticisms levelled at WP . Famekeeper

==JWales Final Responsibility re:Auschwitz Testimony Against Pope Pius XII etc== cc Wyss

I'm sorry Jimbo , but I see the responsibility to settle intractable disputes rests with you . I seem to run into intractable dispute on your WP , so I ask you to take responsibility . No one else can take this your place . I refer you to the articles Pope Pius XII and Hitler's Pope as the centre of this dispute and ask you to put yourself into the position of final arbiter now, OK ? I particularly think that the surviving Roman Jewess's words be taken as an issue : I wish you therefore to show or not show , that an Auschwitz survivor be called POV ( rv'd ,Pius in WWar 2) . You will see that the difference between the two articles at this minute is simple : one (PPII) is the 'censored' or whatever version of the other (H's P).

Having been battling to and beyond the brink for 8 months on the one article , I say that only you can survey this with any authority to do anything about it . Let you be the judge of all the WP requisites, knowing that your judgements are real , and that ultimately you yourself will equally be judged . Auschwitz survivors are definitely in a minority and this responsibility for arbitration I lay at you because you are the organ . I will consider myself in-active until you please let me know that I am required . As various users may find this disappearance odd , I post this letter to you for them to see elsewhere . Famekeeper 09:36, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Informal follow-up to you, RE:Beatles

Hey Wyss, first my hats off to you! In some informal browsing around I see the role you've played as mother hen, managing to keep sites somewhat normal (like the Elvis page). Holy Cow! Given the tedium of going back and forth on main pages and the level of work required in so many other areas I've put in a little more time adding content to areas currently open.

Regarding the poll - saw no other comments added since you put that up. Just a final thought on the image - the early67 image is abit more consistent with other bio articles which include simple-yet-professional headshots. But your exchanges have been supportive and pleasant, so I'll defer to whatever final choice is made there. -- Barrettmagic 13:10, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks :) I'm not sure the photos used on other sites should be a guide (though I understand your point). For example, the Sullivan shot puts them spot on in the context of Beatlemania, which I think is helpful. I'd say let's wait a bit longer to see if anyone else wants to take part in our little informal poll. If they don't... I'm sure we can figure out something. Question: Do you personally, esthetically prefer the 1967 photo (you can be honest, nobody will see this ;) Wyss 20:52, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Image:Beatlesbeatles6.jpg
sample one
Image:Beatlesbeatles7.jpg
sample two
You're welcome! And thanks for asking the question. Probably wouldnt belabor it if the page wasnt so high profile and the image up top does such a nice job of anchoring the article. To your point, 'Esthetically prefer' is good way to put it - however there may be a compromise here. Seems you arent a fan of the later period image - perhaps an earlier period image equally strong would work. I've posted two here as examples - equally strong compostions, simple, straightforward. :) - Barrettmagic
I prefer sample two, over all of them. Can we change it now? :) Wyss 11:50, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ted Wilkes is [personal attack removed]

See what kind of stuff he wrote on my page and laugh your ass off:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:129.241.134.241

[copy pasted material removed]

The above was posted by User:129.241.134.241

[edit] ABBA

Hi there! I noticed you recently made a lot of edits to ABBA. Most of them I agree with and I think the article is the better for it, though as I wrote most of what's there originally there are a few changes I wasn't so happy with - but since overall it's an improvement I have modified very little. However I would caution against making changes that merely change, rather than add - I do feel in one or two places that you got carried away with just changing things to suit your own style, rather than really improving the article. In a couple of places it actually worked against the sense of what was originally intended - in those few places I did change it back. Case in point - "The Album" wasn't 'somewhat panned' (can something be partially panned?) it was just less well-received, which is what I meant and what I wrote. Overall, a good job, and I don't want this to sound like I'm complaining just because my own writing has been extensively edited - I really don't mind that, as long as it's for the general betterment of the article! Hope to see you around... Graham 23:12, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Oh, one more thing - I don't know if it was you put it there but I changed 'arguably' - it's something I was taught at university: never use 'arguably' unless you're prepared to argue it. To me it comes into the category of Wikipedia:Avoid weasel terms.Graham 23:12, 16 August 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Nick Adams disputed page

I began working a bit on the Nick Adams article but just realized that you had reverted my dispute notice and made other edits without discussing it with me. I reverted the article back to the point where I had inserted the dispute notice as I need to document the various matters and I commented appropriately on the Talk:Nick Adams page. Thank you. Ted Wilkes 02:47, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] RE: David Bret on Wikipedia

The same thought had occurred to me. How sad would that be? --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 16:25, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Not necessarily so sad, if his work is objectively presented as a result (I can cite Sollog as a previous successful example). Wyss 16:34, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

I mean sad as in pathetic. Sollog was also very sad in this respect. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 17:04, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
It's way pathetic :) I originally voted to delete that article, then stayed involved to ensure it at least debunked him... now I think the article's something of a public service.
So all I'm saying is that this whole thing was resolved (partly through my informal mediation with 141, partly through my segregation of the Bret stuff into a Was Elvis Gay? section) until User:Ted Wilkes came back from his block determined to eradicate 141 and his edits from WP entirely. I'm all for tweaking WP policy to make it even more difficult to include dodgy sources like 141's but truth be told... I'm even tempted to again restore the Was Elvis Gay section and be done with it until (or if) user consensus overwhelmingly and unambiguously calls for its removal, which I wouldn't mind either. Wyss 17:28, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Your Name

Your first name wouldn't happen to be Otto would it? If so, you probably remember me :o — HopeSeekr of xMule (Talk) 21:09, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Not, sorry :) Wyss 22:16, 18 August 2005 (UTC)