Misplaced Pages

User talk:Bus stop: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 05:00, 26 April 2007 editMatt57 (talk | contribs)8,665 edits Your edits to Lists of converts to Christianity← Previous edit Revision as of 18:00, 26 April 2007 edit undoJohn Carter (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users176,670 edits →Your edits to Lists of converts to Christianity: commentNext edit →
Line 145: Line 145:


In your edit , you keep removing sourced material. Have you proven that these sources are not reliable? Have you participated in the Talk page of the article? No you have not. Why do you then ask other users to use the Talk pages when you are not? I'm reverting your change for now. I'm seeing other users are having issues with you as well. --] <sup>(]•])</sup> 05:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC) In your edit , you keep removing sourced material. Have you proven that these sources are not reliable? Have you participated in the Talk page of the article? No you have not. Why do you then ask other users to use the Talk pages when you are not? I'm reverting your change for now. I'm seeing other users are having issues with you as well. --] <sup>(]•])</sup> 05:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
:I also agree that your actions regarding this matter have been much less than completely rational. As I have stated, if you can point to any evidence in reliable published sources to rival the '']'' and '']'' citations in place, then perhaps your contention would be one I would even support. However, without such sources, I believe that the sources already provided can be included, and should be included to ensure NPOV. ] 18:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Revision as of 18:00, 26 April 2007

User_talk:Bus_stop/Archive 1

Kinetic

Hi! Just want to let you know I'm not bothered by the sculpture/art thing. It happens. We'll end up with a stronger article(s) however it comes out. --sparkit 23:16, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm looking it up right now in a book I have. A lot of interesting stuff. It's all surprisingly interrelated. Yes, Op art is said to simulate movement, or at least to create the illusion of movement. Interestingly, the term Op art was coined by a Kinetic artist, George Rickey! It is said that the first Kinetic sculpture was Marcel Duchamp's Bicycle Wheel of 1913. Anyway, Op art and Kinetic art (or sculpture) are separate things. I don't see any indication of any overlap. Bus stop 23:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Neat! I'd read that about Bicycle but hadn't added to any of the articles. I, too, think of only the actual moving stuff as kinetic, but because op art is sometimes referred to as kinetic some mention is warranted, but like I said on the kinetic art talk page, dunno if a whole section is needed. --sparkit 12:54, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I really want to see some of your art

Is this possible? You need to convince me you are actually a painter. You can just e-mail me some samples.AlainLa 23:42, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Bus stop can answer as he wishes, but I've seen your comment on the AfD, and I want to point out categorically that there is no need for any editor to prove anything, other than their good conduct on wiki. He may or may not be a good or not good artist, but he is making proper judgements according to wikipedia policy as an editor. No harm in asking to see work, but if you get a polite refusal, then don't press any further please. Misplaced Pages also has a strict policy of preserving editor's anonymity if they wish it. New talk goes beneath old talk by the way, so I've moved your post. Tyrenius 01:09, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I don't share pictures of my art online. But thank you for asking. Bus stop 12:20, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Paul Pfeiffer

Oops...thanks!--Ethicoaestheticist 19:54, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Canvas Made with Rabbit Skin Glue & Oil-based Primer

Bus Stop I will accept that you are a painter. Have you ever made a canvas using rabbit skin glue? The primer dries much more slowly than regular artist quality paint. I have made hundreds of canvases for myself and others and it takes weeks--every single time--to dry. The "rabbit skin glue" article is about just that, not about regular paint. Your desire to change this point does not seem to add any more value. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.110.196.19 (talk • contribs).

Regarding reversions made on April 22 2007 to Bob Dylan

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. The duration of the block is 24 hours. Nishkid64 17:57, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Nishkid64 -- You point out that I should "please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future." To which I would respond, "How much more of an effort to discuss my changes further in the future would you think would be advisable?" In point of fact I have discussed my editing extensively on the Bob Dylan article Talk page. Have you looked at the Bob Dylan article Talk page? Bus stop 19:46, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Unblock

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Bus stop (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

there was not three reversions

Decline reason:

See below // Pilotguy radar contact 18:53, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

By my count:

Clearly 4 reversions in just over 22 hours. Part Deux 18:18, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

That was hours ago. The last of the four edits you refer to was 5 hours ago. I don't think I was reported for those edits. Those were in the lead paragraph. I think I was reported for correcting the unbalanced assertion (in the body of the article) that Bob Dylan had converted to Christianity. I think I was reported because I tried to add balance to the assertion that Dylan had become a "born again Christian." There has simply been no reliable source put forth for that. That has a place in the article, but undue weight should not be given to it. I think the reverts from more than 5 hours ago were just an excuse. Bus stop 18:41, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

As Part Deux showed here, you made 4 reverts within a 24-hour period, which means you violated WP:3RR policy. Nishkid64 18:23, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. I have only made revisions to the article.

This is ridiculous. I have only made revisions to the article. Apparently I have offended some people by pointing out that they were introducing untruth into the article on Bob Dylan. There is no source whatsoever that Bob Dylan actually converted to Christianity. They have found biographers who have referred to Dylan's "conversion" and so they think that gives them license to blithely refer to his conversion. Similarly, writers have referred to him as a "born again Christian," so they think that provides them with a source to refer to Dylan in the article by that terminology. I have no objection to these things being pointed out. But they have to be balanced out against factual definitions. Misplaced Pages has articles on Conversion to Christianity, and other relevant articles. I merely argued to introduce balance into the article, and endeavored to rewrite a couple of paragraphs a few times. That is not reversion. That is attempting to rewrite in order to have all views represented. They can feel free to use terminology and language that puts the assertions of some Dylan biographers into a well balanced context. But that is apparently what they do not wish me to do. Bus stop 18:48, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

You weren't blocked for trying to introduce balance, you were blocked for 3RR violation. If you believe there's something to be contributed and others disagree, it should be worked out on the talk page. And herein lies the problem: everyone thinks they're bettering an article. But breaking 3RR is simply forbidden. Part Deux 18:26, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Have you looked at the article's Talk page? I do believe by word count my contribution to the Talk page of the Bob Dylan article exceeds that of anyone else's. Unfortunately, I didn't say anything about trying to improve the article. You should try to pay attention to what is said by others, before trying to respond to them. Bus stop 18:46, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

unblock|This is pathetic. The reason for the block is over five hours old. The reason for the block concerns edits to one word in the lead paragraph. That is a bogus reason for blocking my edits.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Bus stop (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

This is pathetic. The reason for the block is over five hours old. The reason for the block concerns edits to one word in the lead paragraph. That is a bogus reason for blocking my edits. The real reason is because I have been, since the time of the last of the cited edits of five hours ago, been making edits in the body of the article. That is the only reason I've been reported. Those are legitimate edits and it is those edits that someone wishes to block.

Decline reason:

Your claim that if you get away with violating WP:3RR for five hours, nobody is entitled to block you is quite disturbing. — Yamla 20:24, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Yamla -- Are you equally disturbed that unsourced information is being written about a living person (Bob Dylan)? Are you aware of the following: all content must be verifiable. Bus stop 22:35, 22 April 2007 (UTC)Bus stop 19:00, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

If you agree to cease edit warring your block will likely be lifted. (→Netscott) 19:39, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
  • (→Netscott) -- There has been no edit warring. I use the Talk page. There has been just as much reversion by others as there has been by myself. Right now you can see an editor asserting that a blog page indicates Dylan's conversion and "born again" status. (When I look at the blog, it's guess what -- written by a born again Christian.) No one is particularly interested in what does or does not constitute "conversion." No one is particularly interested in whether a source is valid or not. They leap to conclusions that Dylan's momentary persona is the equivalent of actual conversion to Christianity. There may be some continuity between these things, and there may be a place to point that out in the article, but it calls for nuanced wording. Blatant references to Dylan's "conversion," without any balancing wording is out of place, in my opinion. Bus stop 21:08, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
  • You were blocked for clearly violating 3RR. The diffs above are just some of your reverts during this period. That constitutes edit warring on your part. No other editor violated 3RR or they would have been blocked as well. Use of the talk page does not justify your behavior in any way. It does not excuse or provide a free pass for edit warring by you. However, an examination of the Dylan talk page does show that your views have been opposed by multiple editors. --JJay 21:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
  • JJay -- It doesn't matter if other editors disagree with me. There is a rule as follows: unsourced information in biographies of living people can be removed immediately. Bus stop 21:28, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
  • It's good that you brought up rules. You should review WP:3RR. The four diffs above show that you were not removing unsourced information. You were adding a statement concerning religion to the Bob Dylan article lead. Four editors objected to that, yet you persisted in your stubborn edit warring. That is why you are blocked. --JJay 21:40, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
  • JJay -- You are correct about that. In that instance others were removing well sourced information. Thank you for pointing that out. Thank you for coming here to visit me on my Talk page. It is always a pleasure. (A pleistocene type of pleasure.) Bus stop 21:52, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I've looked at the article and I understand the valid point you are making. You need to calm dowm a little bit about it. I think (→Netscott) has given you some great advice here. I'm coming to the conclusion, that I may have misjudged him - because it would certainly appear that despite all "our" differences, he's really trying to help you here. You can be as right as rain - but if you break the rules you diminish your position. I'm sure you didn't necessarily mean to break 3 RR, but that is what you did. Don't miss the forest for the trees. You can still argue your points on the page, while abiding by Misplaced Pages's rules. I think that you should appologize for inadvertantly breaking 3 RR and move on from here. You and I have seen far too many Wiki rules which are not enforced. It hurts when legitimate editors, like yourself, are blocked on a trivial first offense. That hurts. It's very obvious that you were engaging in legitimate talk page discussions on the matter. Unfortunately, an administrator has chosen to take a hard line approach on this matter - failing to recognize you for the good faith editor we all know you to be. Although JJay's manner and approach can be somewhat abrasive, I have little doubt that he is also trying to help you - in his own way. This, too, shall pass...Peace! Cleo123 06:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore...

As of five minutes ago, on the Bob Dylan Talk page, we have an editor asserting that I am acting "hypocritically." This is the second time he has made that assertion. Of course, I can't respond, at this time. But throughout our interactions I can say I have been acting civilly. I have not made any personal attacks, as he or she is doing now. Bus stop 19:36, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Ahh, busstop, I'm not trying to be uncivil when I mentioned you are asking us to provide sources (which we have, many time) while you provide no sources. My source was not "some blogger" but an article on the official bob dylan website. In any case, though, Mick Gold found a much better source, and posted it as a citation within the actual article - he also mentioned several others on the talk page. I'm sorry if you felt I was attacking you when I called you hypocritical, I didn't mean it in a hostile way. However, I was feeling pressured by your rocksolid perspective which was not supported by any external source, and to date, still isn't. all the best, SECProto 23:43, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
As I said, Mick Gold found a different, much better source. And as I said, Countless sources state his becoming a born again catholic. I have never seen any source state something to the contrary - except you. You need to cough up a source. SECProto 03:46, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Unblock

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Bus stop (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

The Bob Dylan article is a biography of a living person. Guidelines say remove unsourced material in such cases. That is simple. There is no source saying that Bob Dylan actually converted to Christianity. The references that were in the article to his "conversion" are not supported by sources. I was perfectly understanding of a balanced approach -- indicating that some felt that there was a de facto conversion. (Not that I agree with this.) But you can see right now that on the Talk page the same assertion is being made that some blogger's reference to Dylan's conversion is a valid source for that claim. I do not believe the block against me is for the reason stated. The block against me is more likely because I was altering the article to remove unbalanced references to Dylan as a "born again Christian" and such. I do not like such point of view pushing, and no administrator at Misplaced Pages should countenance it either.

Decline reason:

No POV pushing is apparent in your block. The blocking admin, Nishkid64 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), has apparently never edited the Bob Dylan article. Additionally, you did violate 3RR through your edits to the article. The dispute about Dylan's religion appears to be one of source interpretation; WP:BLP does not warrant overaggressive editing in this case. — Sandstein 05:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

"Religious conversion" is a meaningless term in the hands of proselytizers pushing their point of view.

"Religious conversion" is a meaningless term in the hands of proselytizers pushing their point of view. Bus stop 13:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Careful. "Not a religious conversion" is just as meaningless and POV... --Knulclunk 14:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


What are you saying? I can't even understand what you are trying to say.

Jimmy Wales has said: "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons." He considers "no" information to be better than "speculative" information and reemphasizes the need for sensitivity: ''"Real people are involved, and they can be hurt by your words. We are not tabloid journalism, we are an encyclopedia."

See: WP:LIVING

The above is posted by me, Bus stop. Bus stop 14:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

The Dylan "conversion" paragraph that all the fuss is over seems quite solid as of your (bus stop) last edit, except for the statement "No actual conversion process took place", which needs to be removed. --Knulclunk 14:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


Knulclunk -- There is zero source that any actual conversion process has taken place. Unless, of course, we accept the assertion of one of the editors there that it is an "internal" process, and therefore there can be no source for such a "process." Bus stop 14:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

That maybe so, but if there is no source for the negative either, then we should not comment on it at all.
There are sources for:
  • Christianity ... imagery used on such albums as Slow Train Coming (1979), and "Gotta Serve Somebody" (1980).
  • Some publications asserted ... Christian.
  • Dylan won "Best Male Vocalist" for his song "Gotta Serve Somebody".
  • When touring from the fall of 1979 ... "sermonettes" on stage...
  • "Dylan's apparent embrace of mainstream religion irked some.
  • John Lennon, for example, recorded "Serve Yourself"...
  • But for Rolling Stone editor Jann Wenner...
  • In the 70s he became good friends with Christian singer Keith Green...
So why comment either way?
--Knulclunk 15:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
What don't you get about the fact that this wasn't a block based on the content of the article. You violated WP:3RR, which receives automatic blocking. Period. There's a saying (to which I will not link for WP:BITE issues): If you've been told something, especially by several people in the community, it might be wise to consider the possibility that it is true. BLP doesn't apply here. End of story. Part Deux 15:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

The blocking wasn't automatic. There was point of view pushing, and there was resistance to point of view pushing. Do you see any relation between the removal of Dylan's Jewish-American status in the lead and the insertion of Dylan's Christian conversion process in the body of the article? They are related. No matter how many "people in the community" you might bring to tell me the two are unrelated, I don't think it would sway my understanding of such a thing. One does not put on blinders and refuse to see what is eminently relevant. From the point that the following was posted, I made no further edits to the lead:

▪ It is not standard practice or really appropriate to reference religion in bio leads. No one here has supported your position to date. You have been reverted by a host of editors and have now violated 3RR. --JJay 14:13, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

For the next few hours I only made edits to the body of the article. I was rewriting the paragraphs to introduce some balance. The block was also related to that. Bus stop 16:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Yes...and what you are persistently forgetting to mention is that you reverted the article lead 4x in less than 24 hours despite nine talk page messages from four editors who objected to your action. See . That is edit warring. It is why I reported you . It is the only reason you were blocked. Breaking 3RR will get you blocked consistently. You need to move beyond the denial stage and accept the reality of your actions. --JJay 17:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I do not think that is why you reported me. I do not need to "move beyond" any "denial stage" because I do not accept that I am in any denial stage. I think you reported me because you found it frustrating to discuss the issue with me on the article's Talk page, and you did not want to make edits to the article at the same time that I was making edits to the article, and you did not like the outcome of the combined edits to the article of the other editors and myself, in the five hours that transpired from the time of my last edit to the lead and the time at which the block went into effect. I am not in denial, but perhaps you are. Bus stop 17:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Your edits to Lists of converts to Christianity

In your edit here, you keep removing sourced material. Have you proven that these sources are not reliable? Have you participated in the Talk page of the article? No you have not. Why do you then ask other users to use the Talk pages when you are not? I'm reverting your change for now. I'm seeing other users are having issues with you as well. --Matt57 05:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I also agree that your actions regarding this matter have been much less than completely rational. As I have stated, if you can point to any evidence in reliable published sources to rival the Encyclopedia Britannica and New York Times citations in place, then perhaps your contention would be one I would even support. However, without such sources, I believe that the sources already provided can be included, and should be included to ensure NPOV. John Carter 18:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)