Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Wisdom89 (talk | contribs) at 13:15, 8 May 2006 (→Bodom). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Hello Wisdom89/Archive 1 and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Hope you like it here, and stick around.

Here are some tips to help you get started:

• To sign your posts (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type ~~~ (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use ~~~~ (4 tildes).
• Try the Tutorial, and feel free to experiment in the test area.
• If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk
• Follow the Misplaced Pages:Simplified Ruleset
• Eventually, you might want to read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
• Remember Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view
• Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!

Good luck!

Excellent work

Great job replacing the Rush history with brilliant prose. Deckiller 23:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Mostly I found that the history section was just lacking in detail and volume. It's extremely more informative now. Wisdom89 01:25, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Bodom article

I could sure use some help here. This individual is so unbelievably ignorant. Even the grammar changes are being reverted. I'd appreciate it if you helped me out with reverting this article to what we know is the better version. Thanks.

Rush

I reverted you about Rush's compilation Gold. Look at Amazon.com for proof that there is a compilation album called Gold. Mike Garcia 03:28, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Rush Trivia

I noticed Borgunter rm'd your Trivia section. I can see the ends to the means in trying to shorten things up. But I also thought the Trivia section was a nifty little read inside the article. Perhaps a 'see also' for it like you did with the 'in popular culture' section? Or even combining them somehow?...Just a thought. Excellent work on the entire article BTW. When it gets FA status you can give yourself a ton a credit for it. Anger22 04:38, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I was disappointed to see that section go, but it may have been a necessary evil for ascension to FA status. I was thinking about making a subarticle to house that section - many of the tidbits were interesting 04:42, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

The subarticle idea makes sense, but there are a lot of references that really aren't encyclopedic. Alas, nifty does not a good encyclopedia make... —BorgHunter (talk) 04:44, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Rush (band)

Can you work on the things that need cites there? I tagged a few with {{fact}} (just Ctrl+F for "citation needed" to find them), but I'm sure there are more. I guess the references were not as robust as we thought... —BorgHunter (talk) 04:31, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, incidentally, while we're on the topic...

The Original Barnstar For exceptional work on Rush (band), regardless of if it gets featured or not, I hereby award this original barnstar to User:Wisdom89. —BorgHunter (talk) 04:51, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Congrads! Well earned! Kudos for all your efforts to BH. It's the best music article I've read on Misplaced Pages. And I've read hundreds of them. Anger22 04:57, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

More FA stuff

When you've finished responding to someone's objections for a FA candidate, it's usually best to drop them a line on their talk page so they know to come back and reevaluate it. Keep this in mind as Rush goes through it, as supports tend to pile on if objects get crossed out. Thanks! —BorgHunter (talk) 02:17, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

An attack on all your hard work

Well....sort of an attack, I guess. 204.183.88.3(an anon IP with an agenda) has pushed his POV on the section headings on the Rush article. I tend to neither disagree/agree with his opinion(everyone has one) but his belligerent attitude toward what he feels and how he intends to battle for it are beyond what Wiki is for. And uncalled for at a time when the article is close to FA status. His intentions were made clear on the talk page when he wrote Thats why I merged the ridiulous 2 year era titled "A new direction" with Prog Rock era. The new direction described was prog rock, hence why i merged them. I will also continue to do so, until this change is permanent. Not sure what route to follow here? He seems to push POV first and use the talk page after the fact. He has been banned before for ongoing RV wars. Perhaps an admin should be alerted to keep an eye on him. I don't know who to contact myself.....you??? Anger22 18:04, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the proper channels for handling this sort of situation. If he becomes troublesome then an administrator will need to be notified for page protection. However, it may be possible to reason with him before going to those lengths. Deckiller or BorgHunter may have more experience with this kind of thing. Wisdom89 21:33, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I expect either of them can handle an abusive user quite well. And he isn't exactly a vandal. Just someone not faliliar with the proper channels on this site. Judging from his apology following his last banning...I don't think he wants to go through it again. I hope. Cheers! Anger22 22:14, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

If he pushes the POV again, I'll warn him and direct him to proper policies. He continues after that, he'll be taken to the next level. I think he'll stop now, especially since there's consensus. — Deckiller 22:17, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Fenix*TX article

Hi, I think it's great that you are taking the time to copyedit the Fenix*TX article and to fix the things that were criticized in the recent FA nomination. I've been meaning to thank you for your excellent work since you started, I just didn't get around to it yet... :D

However, I really think this last alteration of the fanbase paragraph should be changed again, for two reasons:

1. I don't know if you are/were a follower of the band and the two offspring bands, but the phrase "dispute over" is IMO not appropriate in this context. See, I would say you cannot really dispute over which band was the first to get signed, or the first to release a CD for that matter. Both are facts (Denver Harbor both got signed and released their EP before STBE self-released their EP) and if, in retrospect, the fans started disputing over which band released their EP first, STBE's fanbase would verifiably be wrong.
2. The information I just listed in the brackets (of Denver Harbor being the first band both times) was present in both my initial version and your first revision, but is omitted in your last version. I don't think the information is necessary, but I also don't see a reason to leave it out, as it is neither POV nor original research, but verifiable fact.

I think we should be able to maintain both a better style than my initial version, and the information that is at the moment omitted. I'm going to think of a new phrasing and, if you like, you could also re-think the sentence. Thanks again. --HarryCane 19:34, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok I think I understand what you are saying now. I misunderstood initially. I was under the impression that it was just a generic argument between fans, but you're right, because of the facts the wording may be off just abit. I was just trying to clean up the prose for formality purposes - I suppose that got in the way of being accurate. Also, I appreciate your thanks. I really felt the article had/has enormous potential and felt like contributing. Wisdom89 20:08, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Rush "reverts"

I find it interesting that you insult me first (to wit describing my writing as "flowery, unencyclopedic fandom" and that was the nice part) and then hope that I take "o offense...at all." Which is the rhetorical equivalent of slapping in the face and then offering to buy me a drink. Hunh?!?!?!

I've been a Rush fan probably longer than you've been alive--1983. (I didn't notice an age in your profile, so I could be wrong). I've owned all of their albums in multiple formats, have seen them live multiple times and have read extensively about them.

Much of the information I provided was from radio interviews the dates of which I do not have and it would probably be difficult to ascertain (them) especially since I made the cassette (those little square things your parents have underneath the old man's Playboy's in the attic) recordings of the interviews in high school in the mid-80s. The one concrete citation I could provide, I did. Something tells me you probably removed that too.

I reject your criticism of my edits. They were no different than the ones they preceeded except that mine were far more accurate and showed a far clearer understanding of their music, lyrics and career.

One thing I've noticed about wikipedia: there are definitely cliques that have formed about certain issues. If an outsider such as myself dares to submit an edit deviating from the party line, people like you instantly step in to stomp on the dissident opinion.

Do you have NOTHING better to do in your life that watch the Rush article to make sure some "heretic" doesn't disturb your skewed view of, and complete inability to understand, Geddy, Alex, Neil and their work.

I don't hold grudges but I don't back down either. Had you been professional and polite, instead of condescending and insulting, things would be much better between you and I.

Why didn't you take BorgHunter's approach? That I can accept. Or, for example: "You know, Pain_Man, I really disagree with your edits to that section of the Rush article. Here's why...." Why fling down the gauntlet? Homey don't play dat.

What's the wikipedia motto? "Merciless editing." I intend to adhere to the wikipedia "philosophy" to the letter.

And my edits are going right back in. Period. And they'll go up the every day after you take 'em down.

To quote a certain lagomorph (look it up): "Of course, you know, this means war."

Je suis prêt, monsieur. Et vous-même?

PainMan 09:10, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh calm down. An obstinate "retaliatory" response in the form of a revert war is the best course of action for a featured article? Are you absolutely sure? Wisdom89 15:01, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Wisdom: Keep cool when the editing gets hot. Yelling at people will accomplish nothing. Instead, might you try to understand where PainMan is coming from and understand A) his change to the article, and B) the reason he's getting angry at you? You were a bit incivil to him at first, and I don't think an apology (from him as well) would be out of line. Come on, let's all work together to make the article better. —BorgHunter (talk) 16:38, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

BorHunter, I'm sorry, but I am not the one yelling and placing phrases in bold face to indicate heightened anger. I have not lost my temper in light of recent events, yet PainMan has made it a point to rant about me at various locations. I have no problem with mending the situation and focusing on fruitful discussion with him or any of the other authors, but please be fair - I am not angry, and I am certainly not yelling at anyone. It might have been just semantics.

Yes, I was initially very direct and frank about his drastic emendations to the article, but there was hardly any malice in what I wrote. PainMan, personal attacks are things such as "you're stupid", "&%$%* you", "you're ugly" "You have the social skill of a...." etc..etc. I said nothing that resembled anything even remotely similar. Sorry, I stand by my opinions regarding your rhetoric and syntax. I believe they are unsuitable for wikipedia, at least in their previous condition. I'm not saying you don't have the ability to conform, just telling it like it is. I didn't invent these policies. These articles are intended to be concise (not verbose), NPOV (which you absolutley did not care to address), and substantiated by citations (again something not done). Wisdom89 18:20, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

However, I will apologize for being too tactless at our initiatial encounter. I could have toned it down. Wisdom89 18:21, 6 May 2006 (UTC)