Talk:Version 2.0 - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lapadite (talk | contribs) at 17:35, 3 February 2015 (→Revisions to Critical reception: re). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 17:35, 3 February 2015 by Lapadite (talk | contribs) (→Revisions to Critical reception: re)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Version 2.0 article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Albums

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AlbumsWikipedia:WikiProject AlbumsTemplate:WikiProject AlbumsAlbum

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Alternative music High‑importance

	Rock music portal This article is part of WikiProject Alternative music, a group of Wikipedians interested in improving the encyclopedic coverage of articles relating to alternative rock. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project's talk page.Alternative musicWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative musicTemplate:WikiProject Alternative musicAlternative music
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Dead external links to Allmusic website – January 2011

Since Allmusic have changed the syntax of their URLs, 1 link(s) used in the article do not work anymore and can't be migrated automatically. Please use the search option on http://www.allmusic.com to find the new location of the linked Allmusic article(s) and fix the link(s) accordingly, prefereably by using the {{Allmusic}} template. If a new location cannot be found, the link(s) should be removed. This applies to the following external links:

http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=Akyaqoayaiijx

--CactusBot (talk) 10:13, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Removal of Reviews section as per: Template:Infobox_album#Professional_reviews

| Reviews =

I will use these in the critical recpetion section at some point soon - I am in the middle of a massive rework of the Version 2.0 article. --Breakinguptheguy (talk) 20:29, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

not a sentence

At the beginning of the Promotion section, it sez: "The entire visual campaign for Version 2.0 was tailored to play off the album cover artwork, the icons designed to represent each single release, provided point-of-sale and the band's videogenic sensibility." This is not a sentence, and I couldn`t make enuf sense of it to turn it into one. Fp cassini (talk) 17:56, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Revisions to Critical reception

Dan56, as I stated in the edit summary to the revert, you were removing multiple reviews added in prose from the album ratings box and while I'm augmenting/improving the article (which is disruptive at best); moreover, contrary to your arbitrary objection to quotes here, per the guideline WP:QUOTEFARM (as you cited), the quotes used are not long, comprise of "smaller portions of quotation", are "provided an appropriate context", they do not remotely "dominate the article" and much paraphrase is already used; "Provided each use of a quotation within an article is legitimate and justified there is no need for an arbitrary limit". --Lapadite (talk) 13:21, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Regarding About.com's reliability, there is a table of About critics linked in the very section you cited. The writer sourced in the article is considered reliable. --Lapadite (talk) 13:30, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

"Commanding and seductive" is not a proper paraphrase of "cybertronic lustfulness", which is what Bobbitt says in her sentence about how it was innovative or groundbreaking --> "Her cybertronic lustfulness, coupled with the sleek production from drummer/mix master extraordinaire Butch Vig, embodied the futuristic path music and technology were racing toward." Ditto with "singular electronic rock sound"; it is Vig's production specifically she cites as a reason it was innovative. You're being redundant by writing "hookier and more melodic"; they mean the same thing and are paraphrasing the same idea in Considine's review, i.e. an "emphasis on melodies". There are already other critics summarized as having "commended the songwriting and vocals", so that adds little and just overemphasizes that viewpoint. "Pushes the improbable" says nothing to readers about what Farber meant, which is, according to what he wrote after that quote, that the band experiments with unexpected sounds: "... the foursome push the improbable, mixing the ghostly sound of a theremin with serrated guitars or working up a series of screeches and bleats into a sturdy pop bridge." Sheffield's point about her sounding like new wave icons is mentioned across the two last paragraphs of his review; Farber draws a comparison to one of those new wave icons, so I'd say it's a relevant enough viewpoint. There really shouldn't even be a discussion about keeping a score from a reviewer summarized in the prose as opposed to one that is not, which I don't feel you would have done if the grade was higher than a "D". On a related note, the same source citing the Milano quote I added is the same verifying "Other reviewers lamented the production effects and Manson's singing." So that is verified, unlike the assumption that the album "received generally positive reviews". I have yet to find a source that actually said that, but you're more than welcome to help out and find one. Dan56 (talk) 15:08, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

First, your words, in an edit summary: "summarize what they say in your own words" (WP:STICKTOSOURCE)

Second, you don't raise a concern in a talk page and then start making edits/reversal right away as if replies are irrelevant to you, unsurprisingly.

In response to your issues (reviews in link):

· "scary-sexy" → "commanding and seductive" in article; also supported by "cybertronic lustfulness"

· "Its robust electronic-rock wall of sound was so unique and grabbing" (which is immediately followed by the feminism bit you included as part of the review excerpt) → "singular electronic rock sound"

NOTE: "Hookier" and "melody", aren't by any standard, the same thing. Hooks are "ear worms", "ear candy", "studio tricks", "effects", et al, and can come from anything, rhythm, a phrase, vocal scratch; melody is melody. Can't say melodic death metal is "hooky" because it's melodic.

· "commending the songwriting and Manson's multifarious vocals and lyrics" is what the reviewer did. Just because one reviewer (not "other critics", just one) opined that the songwriting's improved from a past album does not mean another review's opinion of strong songwriting is void for the article. There being an agreement between reviewers does not at all = incompatibility in article, nor does it remotely violate neutrality or undue weight (again, Wikilawyering). None of the excerpts comment on the elements in the same way or in the same context. The "commending the songwriting and Manson's multifarious vocals and lyrics" pertains to the preceding statement and is succinct: "said the album is an impressive, hookier and more melodic version of the approach exhibited on Garbage, commending the songwriting and Manson's multifarious vocals and lyrics."

· You're right; in the spirit of succinctness, the "push the improbable" quote doesn't explain much what he meant. Of course, you're solution was to remove it, the review entirely, as opposed to clarifying it. WP:TE, WP:PRESERVE.

· Sheffield states: "Manson steals the show, of course, preening with enough slinky wit in her voice to win you over even when she's rhyming "happy hours" with "golden showers."" → article currently (your version) reads: "Manson remains the highlight because of how her seductive singing evokes new wave greats and helps appropriate the band's complex sounds into a well-crafted, original rock album." Sheffield does not say Manson is the highlight because she evokes new wave greats, so it is not appropriate to have it in that context as it's original research/not sticking to source. The following sentence in Sheffield's review is an additional opinion, unrelated to the former: "It's also sweet how she honors so many of her female New Wave icons." Farber (Entertainment Weekly - which you disruptively deleted again) doesn't draw a subjective option on some similarity he found or evoking of a new wave artist; he, like most reviews might and do, mentions Chrissie Hynde as the reference she was, since, news flash, a song samples her. Sheffield says: "It's also sweet how she honors so many of her female New Wave icons. Manson turns herself into the Pretenders' Chrissie Hynde in "Special"". Writing that the singer evokes the new wave artist whom she sampled is a waste of space, especially when "brings to mind the late 1970s music of Blondie" (Blondie, a new wave icon) is already in the prose. Funny, you insist on keeping another new wave comparison (contradicting your above songwriting complaint), but removed the excerpt that made comparisons to Nine Inch Nails and Radiohead. WP:TE, WP:POV

"The same source citing the Milano quote I added is the same verifying 'Other reviewers lamented the production effects and Manson's singing'" — One reviewer lamented the singing in that paragraph. That introductory summary statement as I rewrote it ("Other reviewers lamented the studio effects and diminishing returns of the production.") represented two reviewer's notable complaints (Newsweek's and Allmusic's). Saying "other reviews lamented...Manson's singing" is misleading, as only one reviewer here did. And again, the contradictions. You insist on another new wave-comparison mention yet one review disproves of the singing style but it's enough to give it an introduction as if it represents more than one view - a minority one - in the paragraph or the complaint is given by multiple critics.

"There really shouldn't even be a discussion about keeping a score from a reviewer summarized in the prose as opposed to one that is not, which I don't feel you would have done if the grade was higher than a "D"." — In all actually, there's no reason why you would remove a sourced score, that is positive, two add in 2 negative one with equal score while there are already negative scores in the box, other than WP:TE, WP:POV. And you have the audacity to talk about POV and undue weight. I don't care if you feel I restored your inappropriate, tendentious removals because this or because that; here, like many instances before, you're strictly tendentiously editing. One WP:PRESERVEs appropriate content, you do not remove and/or add things to suit your biases or prove a point.--Lapadite (talk) 17:35, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Is this revision an improvement to the article?

Please consider joining the feedback request service.

An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following list:

Media, the arts, and architecture

When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

It is my contention that this revision by Lapadite77 does not improve the article, for the reasons I've outlined below in my comments. This is the current version of the section in question, after I tried to condense what was added accordingly. Dan56 (talk) 13:41, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Votes

Oppose this addition/revision. Dan56 (talk) 13:41, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Support per first bolded comment below. --Lapadite (talk) 13:56, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments

I feel it overloads the section with quotations used without pertinence, with regurgitated praise from any reviewer available. Lapadite77 did not even paraphrase these overlong quotes or fragments from the source, which present nothing new or unique from what had previously been in the section and amounts to redundant guff. Using too many quotes is incompatible with encyclopedic writing. (WP:QUOTEFARM) A criticism or reception section is not meant to be a complete list of all praise or criticism, but rather to provide readers with a representative sample of how this album has been received. (WP:NIF#Red flags) Furthermore, whatever paraphrasing was done in this revision is poor and non-neutral, particularly the paragraph given to the Baltimore Sun reviewer, at least half of which comprises quoted material, as does the four-sentence quotation from a review by About.com. The section should be readable and representative of the unique points made about this album, not comprehensive and bludgeoning readers with the same thing being said in a different way. Erroneous also was moving a paragraph on the album's rankings in critics' polls out of the "accolades" section. Dan56 (talk) 13:41, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Comment: I will repost my comment from the above section regarding Dan56's edit:

Dan56, as I stated in the edit summary to the revert, you were removing multiple reviews added in prose from the album ratings box and while I'm augmenting/improving the article (which is disruptive at best); moreover, contrary to your arbitrary objection to quotes here, per the guideline WP:QUOTEFARM (as you cited), the quotes used are not long, comprise of "smaller portions of quotation", are "provided an appropriate context", they do not remotely "dominate the article" and much paraphrase is already used; "Provided each use of a quotation within an article is legitimate and justified there is no need for an arbitrary limit". Regarding About.com's reliability, there is a table of About critics linked in the very section you cited. The writer sourced in the article is considered reliable.

(bolding the following as Dan56 put forth a misleading "revision" in the RfC which is not actually the revision in question, this version of the section is - improvements Dan56 does not want - vs Dan's version (excising reviews)): I had already restored the erroneous removal of an equal Rolling Stone rating in the album ratings box, so why bring it up? Clearly not relevant to the issue raised. The section is perfectly readable and representable, not repetitive, not remotely POV-hindered; all but two reviews used are directly from those cited on the album ratings box. Newsweek's was already there, a reliable source, and the About.com writer sourced is reliable per Misplaced Pages as noted above. However I do find suspect your insistence on removing these reviews (which are positive in nature, but represented fairly) with claims of POV, particularly given your prior edits here seemingly pushing certain reviews that contained particular genres (e.g., ) + this claim of retrospective reviews not being valid here when you added one yourself. Regarding the article's subject, It should also be noted that this is evidently a major, famous album with plenty of media coverage, major publication reviews, and accolades, and it should not remotely be subjected to a diminutive reception section, especially if this were to be considered for a GA or FA status in the future. The implication that there are too many reviews is just ridiculous. --Lapadite (talk) 13:56, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Follow up comment: an RfC is going on and Dan56 is continuing to make edits on this matter without waiting for at least a partial consensus or middle ground to be reached; against WP:BRD, as pointed out in edit summary --Lapadite (talk) 14:05, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

The burden is on you to achieve a consensus to support your change, @Lapadite77:. Your bold edit was reverted, not mine (WP:BRD). I originally restored it to the original version, which had been in the article for months. Dan56 (talk) 14:07, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)2nd Follow up comment: Dan56 reverted such edit ^. Dan56, discussion is just starting, do not make further edits until an understanding is reached here (per WP:BRD) when multiple editors weigh in; make use of the talk page and do not edit war. Let's wait other editors' input. You did not just restore it, you made 3 edits after RfC was created. --Lapadite (talk) 14:14, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Comment: I don't see Lapadite's revision as problematic per se. I'm unaware of a strict limit to the size of reception sections, and WP:QUOTEFARM is kind of vague, so if Dan56 feels it is too long, he can make it shorter by cutting excesses. He could even take out a couple of reviews if they make the section too repetitive, but simply removing everything Lapadite added seems drastic. Victão Lopes 16:03, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Victor Lopes, I am not at all opposed to trimming certain quotes, making it more succinct and paraphrasing further - it's what I'd been focusing on as I started to improve this article, which needs serious improvement, before Dan 56 began removing my edits - while still retaining what is conveyed by the reviewers (all). As detailed above, what Dan56 has done however is remove the reviews I added in the prose (which were were from the album ratings box, that he himself augmented time ago). He apparently only wants to keep certain reviews, the ones he added, and which curiously contain particular genres he immediately used for the infobox, which is part of the reason why I suspect these recent edits and his inappropriate claim of POV, along making a misleading statement in the RfC and a misleading link to an inaccurate revision. --Lapadite (talk) 16:16, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

If you favor making the section a bit shorter, then I guess that'll be the best option to satisfy both sides of this dispute. Victão Lopes 17:36, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Adding various sources of opinion is usually a good thing. But the more succint, the better. Lumping all negative reviews together and denoting certain aspects reviewers highlighted are ways to employ\justify so many quotes (the two Garbage albums listed as Good Articles are great examples). igordebraga ≠ 02:33, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Igordebraga, third GA. Also note (all editors) some of this band's contemporaries' album articles: GA, FA, , , GA, , , GA, FA, GA --Lapadite (talk) 08:16, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Nice to see that one passed (with a review that didn't ask too much of you). I have enough experience with album GAs (including other Garbage contemporaries) to know how to improve reception - and I've been asked to cut on quotations before, it's not that hard. And if reception was mostly positive, then lots of gushing reviews won't help a lot (a few of dissent, on the other hand...). igordebraga ≠ 18:55, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Igordebraga, I've said that I'm not at all opposed to trimming and paraphrasing further. What I opposed was Dan's removal of the reviews added in this revision, which Victão Lopes objected to here as well. For this album, it appears reception was mostly positive, and many of the positive reviews aren't gushing, but describe what works and in some something that doesn't. Like I said above, "this is evidently a major, famous album with plenty of media coverage, major publication reviews, and accolades, and it should not remotely be subjected to a diminutive reception section, especially if this were to be considered for a GA or FA status in the future. The implication that there are too many reviews is just ridiculous."

Again, this RfC created by Dan56 came after his reverting of extra reviews added from the ratings box. The version he objected to added 2 more reviewers from the ratings box and the version he reverted to is what he'd added before and, notably, who's linked genres he immediately took to the infobox. The version objected to is not completed as it needs copy editing, something I was't given the chance to start with Dan's quick and disruptive reversals. Igordebraga, the reception section you cited is another good example. --Lapadite (talk) 00:56, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

As far as the FAs Lapadite referred to, both have only one paragraph dedicated to the critics' reviews. Dan56 (talk) 19:08, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Your point merely indicating that they are grouped into one paragraph, because they have multiple reviews and quotes cited, like the GA Igordebraga cited above and the rest linked above. --Lapadite (talk) 00:56, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

A paragraph is defined by the unity and coherence of ideas discussed (writercenter.unc.edu); one paragraph deals with reviews of the album in those FA articles, while your revision in this article offers three on positive reviews before a fourth which ends with another positive review being overquoted--quotes of more than 40 words require a block quote btw. That is non-neutral in form, and this section is "not (emphasis added) meant to be a complete list of all praise and criticism" (WP:NIF). Dan56 (talk) 04:08, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

In the revision there was one quote with over 40 words, in a review I didn't add. Paragraphs in the linked GAs and FAs comprise multiple reviews and quotes. --Lapadite (talk) 04:59, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I'd personally would begin copy editing the section but I rather not before an understanding is reached in the RfC in case Dan56 continues disruptively reverting.--Lapadite (talk) 07:52, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Lapadite, the condition of an another article is irrelevant to this one (WP:OSE), particularly since the "third GA" you pointed to has noticeable issues in grammar and citation consistency in its #Critical reception section that went overlooked in the GA review--the first paragraph refers to "the album" and not the proper noun "Beautiful Garbage", which is what a new paragraph should do, while the ratings template has a mix of inline citations and external links (which should not be in the article body). More importantly, I reverted your additions, then refined them (including prose from the reviews by Spin, The Baltimore Sun, and The About Group), because they were given undue weight (i.e. overquoting points already brought up by other sources paraphrased in the section, and in several cases more than two sentences up to a paragraph given to one review source), and came off as a jarring, awkward read for a general audience ("The Baltimore Sun noted the deliberate eschewing of reinvention" is an overblown way of saying the album wasn't much different from their first, and "...acknowledged how the group..." isn't appropriate because that verb applies to facts, which is not what "push the improbable" is, it's the critic's opinion). These are just two issues, but most of what you wrote wasn't readable, even for a person who has more than a general interest in music topics, and it overemphasized points of view. You're claim in this comment about me is silly and confusing btw. Dan56 (talk) 18:00, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Those other articles are GA and FA; you yourself commented on them above. In the third GA, I see the reference style on the ratings box was overlooked; easy fix. The reviews were not given undue weight; the quotations used only specified what reviews thought worked and/or didn't. Nothing quoted was brought up by other sources used. Nothing was overemphasized, as all reviews received about the same prose length. "Baltimore Sun noted the "deliberate eschewing of reinvention" is an overblown way of saying the album wasn't much different from their first" - "Overblow" is subjective, your opinion; the introductory phrase concisely conveys what the reviewer initially noted in the review:

In terms of general sound and sensibility, it's not all that different from the band's 1995 debut. We get the same blend of guitar crunch and automaton thump in the instrumental tracks, the same fondness for exotic textures and sudden bursts of noise, the same combination of sex and sass in the vocals. ... except that it's better the second time around .... That's pretty much the effect Garbage is going for with its sophomore release ... This is definitely not an attempt at reinvention ... the album does make improvements, and good ones at that.

You stating "the album wasn't much different from their first" does not convey what the review said, and it's not NPOV → "All encyclopedic content on Misplaced Pages must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." We should not be Chery picking and we should be Sticking to Sources. And again I have no problem with rephrasing and paraphrasing further where needed, as long as it still conveys what reviewers have say.--Lapadite (talk) 00:56, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I was pointing out how poor of writing "deliberate eschewing of reinvention" is, not to mention how you didn't place quotation marks around "reinvention" since you took it from the source, which makes me wonder how many other instances of close paraphrasing there are in your revision; the current revision encapsulates Considine's points and omits his remark on Manson's singing because Sheffield is already paraphrased regarding her singing. Sticking to sources makes it a point to "summarize what they say in your own words". 350 of the 550 words in your four-paragraph summary of the reviews are quoted, which simply is a problem, for copyright issues, readability issues... it's just bad, uninteresting, jarring writing: "he deemed it 'great to find it'"? The third paragraph--the one with noticeably undue weight given to The Baltimore Sun--begins with a sloppy run-on sentence and touches on the guitar, melodicism, beats, noisy sound, and Manson's singing in ways Christgau, Sheffield, and Erlewine are already summarized as doing. Dan56 (talk) 04:08, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

First off, your claims are remarkably rich coming from you. (In case you fail to assume good faith again and throw out accusations, the xx is one of numerous bands that are on my watch list and I'd done some copyediting on their page before.) And on the subject of the xx album (in the spirit of examples given) - and I'm telling you because you said you wrote it (it's "the best article I've written") - there is considerable POV, undue weight, and cherrypicking issues in the reception section. But back to this album; there's never risk of copyright violation in adding quotations, and there's no potential violation in correct paraphrasing, which, from what I contributed, is exactly that. Regarding this reception matter, everything's been said and cleared. I shall continue copyediting and adding information to the article, you know, to improve it.--Lapadite (talk) 04:59, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Extensive quotation of copyrighted text is prohibited, you know... (WP:COPYQUOTE) Dan56 (talk) 05:04, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Nothing 'extensive' here, as already stated above. And, as you willfully pointed out, block quotes exist for a reason. If you thoroughly read the articles you cite, dial back the Wikilawyering and quit cherry picking, (which, one could assume, may be driven by some sort of vendetta or frustration), you'd see that the principles of such guidelines are not violated; e.g., WP:COPYQUOTE → "The copied material should not comprise a substantial portion of the work being quoted ... What constitutes a substantial portion depends on many factors, such as the length of the original work and how central the quoted text is to that work ... In one extreme case, Harper & Row v. Nation Enterprises, 400 quoted words from a 500-page book were ruled to be infringement ... The quotation must be useful and aid understanding of the subject. All quotations must be attributed to their source." --Lapadite (talk) 05:16, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Much of what you quoted reiterates existing viewpoints in the section, making it unuseful. If you are still trying to make "a complete list of all praise and criticism", then nothing's changed as far as this discussion is concerned. Dan56 (talk) 05:22, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

And after all the fuss regarding my addition of reviews, you add some more ... augmenting it as if it's, wait for it, "a complete list of all praise and criticism" ^. Unsurprisingly, it's a negative review stating something that partly contradicts another review present. I haven't checked the sources of your recent edits; again, avoid tendentious editing, cherry picking, POV, original research, and making a point. --Lapadite (talk) 06:39, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Likewise. Dan56 (talk) 06:48, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Note I'd like to note, before any uninvolved admin closes this discussion, that Lapadite77 solicited comments (, ) from editors they had worked with on other "Garbage" articles and had solicited comments in a non-neutral way (, before in another content dispute, (WP:RfC#Publicizing an RfC, WP:CANVASS) or for their known opinion or viewpoint, considering Coemgenus had reviewed and passed () an article Lapadite77 cited above as precedent for justifying their edits here. Dan56 (talk) 09:04, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

My response to this, another one of his accusations. Evidently, Dan56 has no plans to change his behavior, which has been, unsurprisingly, called out by multiple editors in the past. Is there one RfC that's not a battleground with you?--Lapadite (talk) 14:16, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

That's cute and all, but I stand by what I said. Dan56 (talk) 14:43, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Of course you do. Your actions and attitudes, current and past, speak louder than any twaddle. Excuse me, leaving another eventual inane exchange as I get back to my only focus here: improving articles. --Lapadite (talk) 16:20, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

My user page speaks louder ;) Dan56 (talk) 16:28, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I have no opinion on this dispute. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:18, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Categories: