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.
One more thing: This dispute was going on long before I got here. I doubt if I've even added anything new to it. The Talk page of the Bob Dylan article is chock full of disputations concerning the placement of Bob Dylan in the ] article. That leads me to believe my thoughts on the matter are not so off base. ] 18:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
One more thing: This dispute was going on long before I got here. I doubt if I've even added anything new to it. The Talk page of the Bob Dylan article is chock full of disputations concerning the placement of Bob Dylan in the ] article. That leads me to believe my thoughts on the matter are not so off base. ] 18:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
::Then at least bother to '''learn''' something about those matters which "interest" you before deciding that wikipedia has to abide by your own ill-informed opinions. And try to learn something about the in-place dispute resolution process. It might even prevent you from being barred again. How many times has it been now? I would have thought that you might have learned something simply on the basis of having been repeatedly barred. Evidently I was mistaken. ] 18:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
::You're never going to get unblocked at this rate. Try and summarize your reasoning to 4 or 5 sentences. ] ] 18:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
::You're never going to get unblocked at this rate. Try and summarize your reasoning to 4 or 5 sentences. ] ] 18:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
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. --sparkit23:16, 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 stop23:43, 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. --sparkit12:54, 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.AlainLa23:42, 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. Tyrenius01:09, 9 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).
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. Nishkid6417:57, 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 stop19:46, 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).
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.
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 stop18:41, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
The block was put in place more than five hours after the last of those reversions. Do we live in the Information age? How long does it take to act on such a violation? Bus stop19:58, 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 stop18:48, 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 Deux18:26, 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 stop18:46, 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).
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. — Yamla20:24, 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 stop19:00, 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 stop21:08, 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. --JJay21:17, 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 stop21:28, 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. --JJay21:40, 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 stop21:52, 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! Cleo12306:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
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 stop19:36, 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, SECProto23:43, 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. SECProto03:46, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
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).
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.
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 stop13:31, 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."
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. --Knulclunk14:43, 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 stop14:50, 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...
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 Deux15:22, 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 stop16:12, 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. --JJay17:13, 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 stop17:51, 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. --Matt5705:00, 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 Carter18:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Born-again Christians don't have a formal ceremony that indicates conversion. Demanding proof that such a ceremony happened is a red-herring. The sources provided on the talk page prove that it happened. Arrow74004:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Arrow740 -- It is not a "red-herring." All that you are arguing is that the term "born-again" is without meaning. I will not address whether the term has meaning or not. But if you are arguing that the term has no meaning, then what justification could there be to pin it on someone? It is not just the term "born again." Dylan is blithely being referred to by some editors here as a "convert to Christianity." That terminology is not being given any qualification, either. Dylan is being categorically referred to as a "convert to Christianity" by some editors here. If, as you say, there is no formal ceremony, then on what basis are we making this leap in understanding to put a born Jew on a List of converts to Christianity? You have to come up with some basis for that. Not just figurative language, but some real, hard basis for assuming conversion. Change of religion is not a light issue. Yet you seem to be arguing that such a transition occurs based on nothing tangible. I feel that if there is nothing tangible to clearly indicate actual religious conversion, and so far no editor has been able to point to anything in that area, then isn't it just point of view pushing to put Dylan on a list of converts to Christianity? And I am hardly alone in this thinking. This has been debated considerably on the Talk page of the Bob Dylan article. In fact, I've joined this debate late. It was going on long before I began participation in it. Just look at this: Proposal - Remove Bob Dylan from Category:Converts to Christianity, which took place long before I got here. Bus stop16:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't think 3R applies. For an extensive explanation, please see this on my Talk page. But, in a nutshell, Bob Dylan's status as a convert to Christianity is very much in debate, not just by me, but by many. (The previous link precedes my involvement in this issue.) I endeavored to do two things, engendering this block: 1) remove Dylan from List of converts to Christianity, and 2) add language after his name indicating that no real conversion ceremony or ritual can be pointed to by anyone. (This is a fact.) I think what I did is justified. WP:LIVING seems to me to say, for instance, "Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Misplaced Pages:Verifiability, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source. Where the information is derogatory and unsourced or poorly sourced, the three-revert rule does not apply. These principles apply to biographical material about living persons found anywhere in Misplaced Pages, including user and talk pages." I request that you unblock me. Bus stop17:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Notes:
In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.
If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:
{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=I don't think 3R applies. For an extensive explanation, please see ] on my Talk page. But, in a nutshell, ]'s status as a ] is very much in debate, not just by me, but by ]. (The previous link precedes my involvement in this issue.) I endeavored to do two things, engendering this block: 1) remove Dylan from ], and 2) add language after his name indicating that no real conversion ceremony or ritual can be pointed to by anyone. (This is a fact.) I think what I did is justified. ] seems to me to say, for instance, ''"Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Misplaced Pages:Verifiability, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source. Where the information is derogatory and unsourced or poorly sourced, the three-revert rule does not apply. These principles apply to biographical material about living persons found anywhere in Misplaced Pages, including user and talk pages."'' I request that you unblock me. ] 17:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}
If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.
{{unblock reviewed |1=I don't think 3R applies. For an extensive explanation, please see ] on my Talk page. But, in a nutshell, ]'s status as a ] is very much in debate, not just by me, but by ]. (The previous link precedes my involvement in this issue.) I endeavored to do two things, engendering this block: 1) remove Dylan from ], and 2) add language after his name indicating that no real conversion ceremony or ritual can be pointed to by anyone. (This is a fact.) I think what I did is justified. ] seems to me to say, for instance, ''"Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Misplaced Pages:Verifiability, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source. Where the information is derogatory and unsourced or poorly sourced, the three-revert rule does not apply. These principles apply to biographical material about living persons found anywhere in Misplaced Pages, including user and talk pages."'' I request that you unblock me. ] 17:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}
If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:
{{unblock reviewed |1=I don't think 3R applies. For an extensive explanation, please see ] on my Talk page. But, in a nutshell, ]'s status as a ] is very much in debate, not just by me, but by ]. (The previous link precedes my involvement in this issue.) I endeavored to do two things, engendering this block: 1) remove Dylan from ], and 2) add language after his name indicating that no real conversion ceremony or ritual can be pointed to by anyone. (This is a fact.) I think what I did is justified. ] seems to me to say, for instance, ''"Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Misplaced Pages:Verifiability, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source. Where the information is derogatory and unsourced or poorly sourced, the three-revert rule does not apply. These principles apply to biographical material about living persons found anywhere in Misplaced Pages, including user and talk pages."'' I request that you unblock me. ] 17:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}
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).
WP:LIVING states: Editors must take particular care adding biographical material about a living person to any Misplaced Pages page. Such material requires a degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to our content policies: Verifiability, Neutral point of view (NPOV), No original research. We must get the article right. Be very firm about high quality references, particularly about details of personal lives. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just highly questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Misplaced Pages articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space. This policy applies equally to biographies of living persons and to biographical material about living persons in other articles. The burden of evidence for any edit on Misplaced Pages, but especially for edits about living persons, rests firmly on the shoulders of the person who adds or restores the material. Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Misplaced Pages:Verifiability, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source. Where the information is derogatory and unsourced or poorly sourced, the three-revert rule does not apply. These principles apply to biographical material about living persons found anywhere in Misplaced Pages, including user and talk pages. Administrators may enforce the removal of such material with page protection and blocks, even if they have been editing the article themselves. Editors who re-insert the material may be warned and blocked. See the blocking policy and Misplaced Pages:Libel. Administrators encountering biographies that are unsourced and controversial in tone, where there is no NPOV version to revert to, should delete the article without discussion. 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."
Given the above, why does it presently say next to Bob Dylan on List of converts to Christianity: "Bob Dylan - popular musician (current religious status disputed)?" And equally important, why is his name on the List of converts to Christianity if his "religious status disputed?" Shouldn't his name at least be provisionally removed from the list until this issue is resolved? WP:LIVING seems to clearly say this. Concerning Bob Dylan, all of the editors involved in many days of discussion agree that no actual conversion to Christianity ever took place. I am stating that more forcefully than many others would state it, but in many days of discussion no editor has found any source indicating any event constituting conversion. There has been no citing for such hallmark signs of conversion as Baptism, religious ritual, public and/or formal acceptance of the new religion. All arguments have been based on the figurative use of language that is in abundance in many sources. Obviously sources are going to refer to his "born again phase" and his "conversion." But that is no reason for Misplaced Pages to put him in a List of converts to Christianity. (Lists and articles are different in several significant ways.) This is not just my issue, either. This has been hotly debated here, here, here, here, and here. And there are many additional places where this contentious issue has been debated. Given this atmosphere, why does Dylan remain on the List of converts to Christianity?
Here we have people using Misplaced Pages as a soapbox to advocate for the recognition of a Jewish convert to Christianity. WP:SOAPBOX says: "Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda and advertising. Therefore, Misplaced Pages articles are not propaganda or advocacy of any kind. Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to approach a neutral point of view. You might wish to go to Usenet or start a blog if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views." A list is unlike an article in a very important way. In an article more than one point of view can be conveyed. Not so with a list. A list is an either/or situation. Either a name is on a list or a name is not on a list. Given that dispute, why does Dylan's name remain on the List of converts to Christianity? Shouldn't that information be deleted immediately? Why was I blocked for trying to either alter the comment next to Dylan's name on that list or trying to remove his name from that list entirely? Isn't this issue sufficiently in dispute for at least temporarily removing Dylan's name from that list? My personal opinion is that the List of converts to Christianity should be deleted in it's entirety. My personal opinion is that it's raison d'être is crowing over converts, so I simply find it in poor taste. But I have not let my personal opinions guide me in attempting to specifically modify Dylan's relationship to the List of converts to Christianity.
I don't think I've violated much, if any, Misplaced Pages policy because of WP:LIVING, above, especially that: "Where the information is derogatory and unsourced or poorly sourced, the three-revert rule does not apply. These principles apply to biographical material about living persons found anywhere in Misplaced Pages, including user and talk pages," and also that: "We must get the article right. Be very firm about high quality references, particularly about details of personal lives. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just highly questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Misplaced Pages articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space. This policy applies equally to biographies of living persons and to biographical material about living persons in other articles."
While making my edits to remove and/or modify the "poorly sourced" information I also made considerable use of the Talk pages on both the Bob Dylan article and the List of converts to Christianity article. My edits have been made in good faith, to try to improve Misplaced Pages, and I have not spoken in an uncivil manner toward anyone. I think blocking me from editing is uncalled for, and I request that I be unblocked at this time. Bus stop 15:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Your request is much too long. Please be more concise. Admins are volunteers and have limited time, especially for a block of only 31 hours. — Sandstein16:19, 27 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.
A statement from me (concerning this most recent block to my account)
WP:LIVING states: Editors must take particular care adding biographical material about a living person to any Misplaced Pages page. Such material requires a degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to our content policies: Verifiability, Neutral point of view (NPOV), No original research. We must get the article right. Be very firm about high quality references, particularly about details of personal lives. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just highly questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Misplaced Pages articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space. This policy applies equally to biographies of living persons and to biographical material about living persons in other articles. The burden of evidence for any edit on Misplaced Pages, but especially for edits about living persons, rests firmly on the shoulders of the person who adds or restores the material. Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Misplaced Pages:Verifiability, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source. Where the information is derogatory and unsourced or poorly sourced, the three-revert rule does not apply. These principles apply to biographical material about living persons found anywhere in Misplaced Pages, including user and talk pages. Administrators may enforce the removal of such material with page protection and blocks, even if they have been editing the article themselves. Editors who re-insert the material may be warned and blocked. See the blocking policy and Misplaced Pages:Libel. Administrators encountering biographies that are unsourced and controversial in tone, where there is no NPOV version to revert to, should delete the article without discussion. 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."
Given the above, why does it presently say next to Bob Dylan on List of converts to Christianity: "Bob Dylan - popular musician (current religious status disputed)?" And equally important, why is his name on the List of converts to Christianity if his "religious status disputed?" Shouldn't his name at least be provisionally removed from the list until this issue is resolved? WP:LIVING seems to clearly say this. Concerning Bob Dylan, all of the editors involved in many days of discussion agree that no actual conversion to Christianity ever took place. I am stating that more forcefully than many others would state it, but in many days of discussion no editor has found any source indicating any event constituting conversion. There has been no citing for such hallmark signs of conversion as Baptism, religious ritual, public and/or formal acceptance of the new religion. All arguments have been based on the figurative use of language that is in abundance in many sources. Obviously sources are going to refer to his "born again phase" and his "conversion." But that is no reason for Misplaced Pages to put him in a List of converts to Christianity. (Lists and articles are different in several significant ways.) This is not just my issue, either. This has been hotly debated here, here, here, here, and here. And there are many additional places where this contentious issue has been debated. Given this atmosphere, why does Dylan remain on the List of converts to Christianity?
Here we have people using Misplaced Pages as a soapbox to advocate for the recognition of a Jewish convert to Christianity. WP:SOAPBOX says: "Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda and advertising. Therefore, Misplaced Pages articles are not propaganda or advocacy of any kind. Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to approach a neutral point of view. You might wish to go to Usenet or start a blog if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views." A list is unlike an article in a very important way. In an article more than one point of view can be conveyed. Not so with a list. A list is an either/or situation. Either a name is on a list or a name is not on a list. Given that dispute, why does Dylan's name remain on the List of converts to Christianity? Shouldn't that information be deleted immediately? Why was I blocked for trying to either alter the comment next to Dylan's name on that list or trying to remove his name from that list entirely? Isn't this issue sufficiently in dispute for at least temporarily removing Dylan's name from that list? My personal opinion is that the List of converts to Christianity should be deleted in it's entirety. My personal opinion is that it's raison d'être is crowing over converts, so I simply find it in poor taste. But I have not let my personal opinions guide me in attempting to specifically modify Dylan's relationship to the List of converts to Christianity.
I don't think I've violated much, if any, Misplaced Pages policy because of WP:LIVING, above, especially that: "Where the information is derogatory and unsourced or poorly sourced, the three-revert rule does not apply. These principles apply to biographical material about living persons found anywhere in Misplaced Pages, including user and talk pages," and also that: "We must get the article right. Be very firm about high quality references, particularly about details of personal lives. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just highly questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Misplaced Pages articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space. This policy applies equally to biographies of living persons and to biographical material about living persons in other articles."
While making my edits to remove and/or modify the "poorly sourced" information I also made considerable use of the Talk pages on both the Bob Dylan article and the List of converts to Christianity article. My edits have been made in good faith, to try to improve Misplaced Pages, and I have not spoken in an uncivil manner toward anyone. I think blocking me from editing is uncalled for, and I request that I be unblocked at this time. Bus stop15:28, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for having made your own complete and utter failure to abide by NPOV clear above. I quote you above: " personal opinion is that it's raison d'être is crowing over converts, so I simply find it in poor taste." Nobody really cares about your personal opinion, despite the fact that is your basic reason for your edits. In this case, your "personal opinion" and your own insistence upon acting upon it is a clear violation of WP:AGF and is inherently a violation of WP:NPOV. You don't like the Encyclopedia Britannica and the New York Times, but a music reviewer in Rolling Stone you see as an unimpeachable source? Hello? There are proper ways to handle such disputes, and they have been enacted, not by you by the way. Personally, I have no objections to your remaining an active editor, but your clear POV in this matter makes you clearly unqualified to work with this subject. I note that the only project you see yourself as a contributor to is Visual Arts, and that you seem to have some more basic familiarity with it than with matters of religion. I respectfully suggest that you confine your future edits to subjects which you know better than you do Christianity, which you seem to be at best ill-informed about. I wish no harm to you or anyone else, but your own ill-informed and unilateral actions are what get you in trouble. Please learn from these events, and don't put yourself in the situation where your actions will get you into trouble again. John Carter18:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
John Carter -- I also said, "But I have not let my personal opinions guide me in attempting to specifically modify Dylan's relationship to the List of converts to Christianity." Did you notice that?
And, what are you referring to when you say, "but a music reviewer in Rolling Stone you see as an unimpeachable source?" Did I say something about a music reviewer in Rolling Stone being an unimpeachable source? Maybe you are mixing me up with someone else. I don't recall saying that.
As for my being qualified or unqualified to involve myself in the articles and issues that we are discussing, I don't think that is for you alone to say. I notice that some other people have supported my point of view. I recall a couple of comments from others explicitly saying they agree with one point or another that I made. So, thank you for your discouragement, but I think I will participate in Misplaced Pages where my interests lead me. I think that is consonant with the basic philosophy of Misplaced Pages and also consonant with common sense. I live my life pursuing those subjects that spark my interests. Try it some time. You might like it.
One more thing: This dispute was going on long before I got here. I doubt if I've even added anything new to it. The Talk page of the Bob Dylan article is chock full of disputations concerning the placement of Bob Dylan in the List of converts to Christianity article. That leads me to believe my thoughts on the matter are not so off base. Bus stop18:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Then at least bother to learn something about those matters which "interest" you before deciding that wikipedia has to abide by your own ill-informed opinions. And try to learn something about the in-place dispute resolution process. It might even prevent you from being barred again. How many times has it been now? I would have thought that you might have learned something simply on the basis of having been repeatedly barred. Evidently I was mistaken. John Carter18:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
