User talk:Tvoz

If I have left you a message: please answer on your talk page, as I am watching it. If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, so please add it to your watchlist. Please click here to leave me a new message.

Archives
1 October 2006-May 2007 2 May-December 2007ish 3 December 2007- July 2008ish 4 July 2008- December 2008ish 5 2009 6 2010 7 January-June 2011

For good humour and excellence in editing, I present this barnstar to the multitalented and admirably coherent Tvoz. Rossrs 06:26, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		Making a Washington Post story for your vandalism reverting skillz is worthy of a barnstar.[1] Congratulations! B 02:33, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		The Special Barnstar
		To Tvoz, on the very special occasion of an NPR program, for outstanding contributions to Wikipedia. -Susanlesch (talk) 05:41, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

		The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
		For going above and beyond the call of duty to deal with the Hillary Rodham Clinton FAC when the nominator didn't follow up. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		If only more Wikipedians saw things with the reason and cogency in this talk page edit, this would be a far better project indeed. So what if I'm a little biased because you agreed with me twice...nice job anyway!  Frank  |  talk  00:13, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

		The Epic Barnstar
		For another multi-year veteran of the 2008 candidates biographical articles and always-relevant music articles, for continuing to maintain a roaring presence. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:26, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

		The Half Barnstar
		For your efforts in collaborating with User:Utahredrock (who holds the other half of this barnstar), to bring Mark E. Kelly up to GA status. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:58, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

		Cents for Sense
		Sometimes two cents is worth alot more than it seems. Your comments about paid editing broaden the base for communication and discussion and widen the circle of ideas. Thanks for giving yours and providing some personal insight at various WP locations. ```Buster Seven Talk 14:28, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	Thank you for making sure the Trayvon Martin case had sufficient oversight and neutrality. I greatly appreciate your input. HectorMoffet (talk) 12:55, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	I like the way you think. ArishiaNishi (talk) 06:33, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

		The Resilient Barnstar
		No one deserves to be jumped on like that for simply speaking their mind, especially off-site. Don't let the drama hounds get you down. You do good work here, and you don't deserve to be discouraged from being as candid as you like about your own personal opinions. 66.87.4.63 (talk) 02:19, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

		Mind the Gap Award
		For saying the right thing, at the right time, in the right place. andreasegde (talk) 09:53, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

	The Copyeditor's Barnstar
	In appreciation for the scrutiny and high-caliber copy-edit work to the betterment of Wikipedia, I present you with this award. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 12:28, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To start a new thread, please click here.

Thank you, T. Voz., .... for all the (uncompensated!) time you put into making Wikipedia the incredibly useful resource that it is. .... Deacon John. DeaconJohnFairfax (talk) 04:37, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gee... thank you, Deacon - nice of you to say so. I'm curious - any place in particular that you've encountered my work? Tvoz/talk 05:09, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...that you're awake at this hour! Hmmm, guess I'll take a listen to your NPR interview... Regards, ProhibitOnions ^(T) 09:08, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I canz notz believzing it!!11111!111!!one1!11!11eleven11!!1!!11111

Now I know why you've such a POV about you that nobody can figure out ;-D

Happy editing none the less. Digital^Ninja 21:49, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Am I really that mysterious? Cool! Tvoz/talk 23:25, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If there are any other editors on Wikipedia that can give advice as Tvoz does, about turbulent subjects in a such a well-reasoned, intelligent, and clear way, I would like to know who they are. They (if there are more) should form The Good Club, and charge admission for their worthy advice. Respect is due. :)--andreasegde (talk) 21:28, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aw. Thank you. And I definitely like the idea of charging admission. Tvoz/talk 22:50, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kirk, ok I guess. But Ringo??? Tvoz/talk 05:31, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The Beatles did not become the Beatles until Ringo joined them
• Think about it: George was an amazing lead guitarist and Paul and John each were very strong and different kings of musicians - yet everything worked, they all melded together ... I think the drummer in any band plays a major role in achieving this, s/he provides the basic rhythm against which three other people play off of, and Ringo never screwed this up
• The dramatic climax of A Hard Day's Night is when Ringo is arrested/disappears - and the band can't play! The point is, "without Ringo, they are helpless"
• The WHOLE plot of "Help" is "As long as Ringo is in danger, the whole band is in danger"
• At the same time, the band was encouraging all these "Paul is dead" rumors - and Paul was at the time the most popular Beatle. What were they saying? I think the band was making it clear: we could still make records without Paul, but we can't do anything without Ringo!"
• In terms of record sales and charts, Ringo had the most successful post-Beatle career.

He is one of Rock and Roll's greatest drummers and is overlooked in part because he devoted himself to building a rhythmic platform that let Paul and John shine, and always put professional competence over flash (Max Weinberg of the E-Street Band is similar in this) I think every Beatle was a great musician, but it was Ringo that made then "th Beatles" It is even in the name of the band. You know, who sets "the beat?" Slrubenstein | Talk 15:37, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My readers can find my reply on SLR's talk ... and I bet the drummers among you might not agree, but hope you'll forgive me. Andrew, you know I mean you... Tvoz/talk 21:22, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

here it is, for when I finally archive:

Well, you make some interesting arguments, but consider the idea that perhaps the emphasis on Ringo in the films was a combination of tongue-in-cheek and guilty feelings that he wasn't getting as much adoration or credit as the rest of the boys. I actually agree with you that in general the drummer is the heart of a group - Levon Helm, Don Henley, Graeme Edge, hell, even Dave Clark come to mind - and I think Ringo often didn't get enough credit for his contribution. But I can't agree with you that he "made" the Beatles - the beat was certainly important, but the songs, the melodies, the harmonies, the transformation of old styles into new styles is what made the Beatles, and that's Lennon and McCartney far and away first, and Harrison and Starr notable, but clearly seconds. But I can recall having had this same argument in junior high over 40 years ago, and the Ringo and George lovers among us were as adamant then as you are now. Meanwhile, Ringo seems to have slightly lost his mind lately, but hey, he's a survivor, so no complaints from me.

Now, about Kirk.... Yeah, sure, there wouldn't and couldn't have been a Picard without a Kirk, and as a first-run TOS watcher and fan I give him his props, but no comparison in terms of depth of character or intellect. Much as I love "City on the Edge of Tomorrow", "The Inner Light" was pure poetry and incomparable - and Kirk never came even close.

So, any views on Ochs vs. Dylan? Cheerio Tvoz/talk 21:18, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, nothing I wrote was meant to in any way diminish the greatness of one of rock's greatest lead guitarist, and arguable rock's best rhythm guitarist and best bass guitarist. But if one has to pick a favorite, it is still Ringo, and I was just explaining why.

Now, "The Inner Light" is in my opinion an absolute work of art, one of the finest hours ever broadcast on television and up there with many great films. For what it is worth, I think "Tapestry," "Parallels," "Cause and Effect," "Yesterday's Enterprise," "I, Borg," and "The Most Toys" are better than any original ST show (yes, with the probable exception of "City on the Edge of Forever," and "The Naked Time" a close second). I mean it, I think those episodes demonstrate just how great science fiction, and television, can be. But that just means Picard was given a better episode than Kirk. I still favor Kirk as captain. While I like Patrick Stewart a great deal, I frankly share Q's general view of Picard as pompous and humorlessly pretentious (Picard's brother's view of him too, as I recall). I must admit too that for a variety of reasons I do not like the prime directive, at least as it is often employed in TNG, and thus dislike Piccard when he is (as he often is) an especially pretentious mouthpiece for the prime directive. Kirk loved his ship and his crew but knew how to have fun and how to bend the rules when necessary. Piccard learned valuable lessons in "The Inner Light" and "Tapestry" and if he always displayed what he learned from those experiences I might like him a lot more. There are lots of things I like about TNG. It had a longer run and for this and other reasons more truly great episodes. But sorry, in my book, there is no substitute for Kirk, not by a long shot, and I would go even a little further and say no relationship in TNG came close to the complexity and depth of the many things that bound Kirk, Spock, and McCoy together.

I think Ochs and Dylan are a little more apples and oranges, but if you must ask (I must, I must!), then, Dylan (caveat: Ochs was better specifically at protest songs).Slrubenstein | Talk 22:02, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I can't even bring myself to write anything negative about Kirk or TOS, but Shatner v. Stewart as actors is a slam-dunk to me. (I actually saw Stewart in a 2-man Mamet play in London a few years ago with Joshua Jackson of all people, and Stewart was just incredible.) But that's not what you were talking about - as Captain, I can see your point. And you hit on the greatest of the great TNG shows for sure.

Back to the Beatles for a moment - to me it's really all about the songwriting. I don't know, Octopus' Garden v. Eleanor Rigby v. Across the Universe - or so many dozens of other less obvious choices.... that's what convinces me. But don't ask me to pick between Lennon and McCartney because that's brandy and cognac or something like that.

And finally.... while an orange is juicy, textured and satisfying, a good apple is, well, sublime. So I'd be taking the Ochs cds to the desert island. Tvoz/talk 23:18, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah - well, on song-writing, I would just say Ringo is not even in the running (although he contributed some great lines). He is my favorite Beatle, but certainly not my favorite song-writer, by any means. As for his post-Beatle career, I can't honestly answer your question, it is something i read somewhere. But it was based on either record sales or highest rank in the charts. The stats may have changed since I last checked which was at least ten years ago. Lennon's "Imagine" became an anthem for a generation but when it was first released it actually didn't chart well. Personally, Double Fantasy is the only post-Baetles Lennon work I really like, but thinking about all that makes me very sad... I am glad we are close on TNG episodes - if only I could get DVDs of just those episodes ... Slrubenstein | Talk 23:56, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way - how do you figure that Ringo had the most successful post-Beatle career? (I'm not asking sarcastically - I don't see what you're talking about.) Tvoz/talk 23:28, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...and, really, BeeGees? And not Peter Frampton? Slrubenstein | Talk 23:59, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bee Gees of course! Harmony perfection - the best blending of voices I can think of that rivals the best of the Beach Boys (actually I like the Bee Gees harmony better). The disco days not my favorite of their incarnations, but overall brilliance. And some of their songs - not all - are also genius. But please, no Frampton. Ever. Under any circumstances. I have nightmares about the Sgt Pepper movie. Back to Ringo - I haven't done an analysis, but I know McCartney had numerous number one singles and albums, as solo and with Wings - and many, many more releases than Ringo, so I am reasonably sure that his post-Beatle career was more successful by any standard than Ringo's - I'd even think Harrison's was as well. Lennon, I'm not sure since it was so tragically short, although I am certainly with you on Double Fantasy. Tvoz/talk 01:50, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've posed a couple questions to two of your posts in the article talk page. I'm was hoping you might find a moment to answer them (in the talk page). Thanks. Jbarta (talk) 23:56, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I responded to your answer with another question. I know, I can be annoying and need a hobby really really bad, but I hope you'll indulge me in an effort to put your feet to the fire. Jbarta (talk) 01:05, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you're interested, I commented on your recent response where you state you don't wish to legitimize this garbage. Jbarta (talk) 15:11, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you indent so much when you post?

Instead

of this

in the normal fashion

you do this and screw up the natural ordered flow of the universe.

Jbarta (talk) 01:08, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, I do that if I'm inserting a response to a post that has already been followed by other posts, if you must know. Or sometimes I'm in a hurry and don;t take the time to count the colons. As for the natural flow of the universe, I have faith in equilibrium and stasis. Tvoz/talk 04:57, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have stumbled across comments you've left for various persons and just want to say thank you for your incredible patience and generosity of time and spirit in helping folks. I aspire to be more like you as an editor. Kmzundel (talk) 01:02, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I really appreciate that. Tvoz/talk 02:27, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed some of our overlapping interests as well.  :-) Drop me a line if you can at kmzundelatcomcastdotnet. Thanks! Kmzundel (talk) 17:47, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Email awaits. Tvoz/talk 23:23, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody's commented here, but I guess it's okay. Thank you so much for keeping this light shining in honor of four people who were just going about their business on a college campus. Others, the people who allowed the guard - apparently some of them quite inexperienced and skittish on all levels of decision-making - to carry live loaded rifles probably should be given the blame, or at least one of those "What were you thinking!" reverse-awards. But yes, thank you. Feel free to remove this post or move it somewhere in case you are purposely keeping this space free of comment. A nice light kept on in honor of four martyrs from the era. Randy Kryn 20:52, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Supportive comments like yours are more than welcome Randy - I just moved it outside the box. Have to say that although I'm not one to censor on general principles - and always willing to entertain a good argument - less so on this topic which remains to me a painful reminder of what was so wrong about those days. As I've said here and elsewhere - I was also a 19 year old college student protesting the war on a campus (in NYC) that day, and when we heard the news we all knew that but for the grace and sensitivity of our mayor, John Lindsay, it could have been any one of us. Yes, I put the most blame on Richard Nixon and Spiro Agnew who set the tone of contempt for student protesters and on the governor of Ohio, Jim Rhodes who sent the National Guard in with loaded rifles and rhetoric that inflamed rather than calmed the situation. So many years have gone by, but it is fresh and still hurts. Tvoz/talk 00:04, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"My son saw Macca at Shea/CitiField on Friday, and he'd probably say "band", but he doesn't get a vote because he took his girlfriend to the concert instead of his mother."

I think it's time to start spending his inheritance. There again, it's probably the same effect we had on our parents. My sympathies. :)--andreasegde (talk) 23:29, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did your young spraffer write the review?--andreasegde (talk) 12:45, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes! He writes for Entertainment Weekly - print and online - mostly about music, but sometimes other stuff too - does reviews, interviews, features, etc. A dream job, for an eclectic music/pop culture junkie like him. Writes as easily about McCartney as he does about Jay-Z or Pete Seeger. Makes his mom and dad proud for sure! Tvoz/talk 04:45, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there stranger! Great to hear from you again --- I'm devoting more and more time to Wikipedia as of late. Will be graduating next semester and have already gotten a head start on my masters. You're advice from over 3 years ago went farther than you will ever know!--rocketrye12 ^{talk/contribs} 18:48, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:30, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Tvoz/talk 22:34, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Your account has been granted the reviewer userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 01:29, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brilliant! :) --andreasegde (talk) 10:41, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And for my loyal readers, if any, here... http://music-mix.ew.com/2010/07/08/ringo-starr-birthday-mccartney/ Cheers! Tvoz/talk 16:55, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lovely, lovely, lovely, and brilliant. --andreasegde (talk) 22:36, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! This is a note to let the main editors of this article know that it will be appearing as the main page featured article on December 8, 2010. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/December 8, 2010. If you think it is necessary to change the main date, you can request it with the featured article director, Raul654 (talk · contribs). If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions of the suggested formatting. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :D Thanks! Tbh®tch^{Talk ©} Happy Holidays 05:57, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John Lennon (1940–1980) was an English musician and singer-songwriter who achieved worldwide fame as one of the founding members of The Beatles. Lennon and Paul McCartney formed one of the most successful songwriting partnerships of the 20th century. Born and raised in Liverpool, Lennon's first band, The Quarrymen, evolved into The Beatles in 1960. As the group began to undergo the disintegration that led to their break-up at the end of that decade, Lennon launched a solo career that would span the next, punctuated by critically acclaimed albums, including John Lennon/Plastic Ono Band and Imagine, and iconic songs such as "Give Peace a Chance" and "Imagine". Lennon revealed a rebellious nature and acerbic wit, and he became controversial through his work as a peace activist. He moved to New York City in 1971, where his criticism of the Vietnam War resulted in a lengthy attempt by Richard Nixon's administration to deport him. His songs were adapted as anthems by the anti-war movement. He took a sabbatical from the music business in 1975 to devote time to his family but reemerged in 1980 with a comeback album, Double Fantasy, but was murdered three weeks after its release. (more...)

		The Half Barnstar
		For your efforts in collaborating with User:Utahredrock (who holds the other half of this barnstar), to bring Mark E. Kelly up to GA status. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:58, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ta very much, like, Tvoz. D'ya wanna a chip butty an' a cuppa tea? It's on me... :)--andreasegde (talk) 20:49, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Next time I'm in Linz... Hmm, do Linzer tortes come from Linz? Tvoz/talk 23:58, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

YES THEY DO! (I forgot I was on Wikipedia, where the answers to all questions reside.) Tvoz/talk 00:40, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They do, but they're very dry. :) BTW, you have a son who is an editor for Rolling Stone? How cool is that? :))--andreasegde (talk) 07:58, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The coolest! Tvoz/talk 02:33, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The end of the video (it's at the bottom of the page) might make you laugh.--andreasegde (talk) 09:58, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1367832/Comic-Relief-2011-James-Corden-George-Michaels-Red-Nose-Day-Smithy-sketch.html

Brilliant! Tvoz/talk 02:32, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, just wanted to say I respect your work and point out my comment at the talk page about why I instated my own version. I invite your comments there. Best, Abrazame (talk) 17:56, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - nice of you to say that. I did see and respond on the article talk page and haven't yet had a chance to look at your proposed wording. I have no doubt that mine could be improved - I just wanted to try to get it on the right track and keep it in play, because it's pretty obvious to me that it belongs there. Nice to meet you - although I've seen you around for quite a while, I'm not sure if we've interacted directly before. A glance at the topics on your user talk page shows me that you also jump between pop culture and politics - whenever I've found the arguing on the political ones too intense I jump into the latest round of the The/the Beatles wars and the like and am reminded that crazy is everywhere. (By the way, FYI, it's "she"...don't worry, you're far from the only one to get that wrong!) Cheers Tvoz/talk 18:58, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

or what? 74.111.13.100 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:08, 5 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]

You must be kidding. Tvoz/talk 08:01, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

moved and responded on Talk: F. Gwynplaine MacIntyre

Hi Tvoz, I'm a French journalist and I'm writing an article about the inside debate between Wikipedia contributors about the Dominique Strauss-Kahn page. You might not notice but there's a great difference of treatment between the French WP and the English one. I would like to ask you a few question about that if you can give me a little bit of your time today. Here you can contact me : [email protected]

Thank you. Regards, Antoine

--Guaranaseven (talk) 14:25, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, Antoine - email coming to you. Tvoz/talk 14:34, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks great, Antoine! Tvoz/talk 16:01, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it up, Tvoz, and soon you'll be notable enough for an article of your own. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:41, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that some people follow the rules too closely. Technically, an article shouldn't be in a category unless it is clear from the article. ("It should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories.") The article doesn't say Ochs was a pacifist. I'll look for a source that says so explicitly. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:05, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Care to help out editing this article? I feel you would be great at it. I'm planning on adding some information about the publicity and aftermath, and that's probably it. Flyer22 (talk) 14:32, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya - thanks for the vote of confidence  :) Actually I did a fair amount of work on this article a few years ago, but got caught up in other things and didn't look at this one much since then - also had some frustrating talk page exchanges so moved on. But I'm sure it can use some work now - so I will take a look later today - I'm on the way out. Glad it is still semi-prot. Tvoz/talk 17:17, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. Thanks. Your opinion on some of the current talk page discussions would be especially appreciated. I can understand wanting to leave this article up to others, though, certainly. Flyer22 (talk) 09:05, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An a single purpose IP user apparently is starting an edit war about the Obama quote about his mother's difficulty getting health care because of "pre-existing conditions". Won't listen to reason; won't look at Janey Scott book. Can you help? You're better at this than me. Thx Bellagio99 (talk) 01:50, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. Not sure I have the strength to go through another presidential campaign on Wikipedia......Tvoz/talk 16:19, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non carborundum est Bellagio99 (talk) 21:22, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't, for example, Christian Bale was born in Wales but is not Welsh, same with Tommy Cooper, The Edge was born in England but is not English, Dave Snowden was born in England but is not English. It goes on. Why? Because they simply arne't. --Τασουλα (Almira) (talk) 22:48, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, that was shorthand edit-summary-speak, so not really explained. Had I written a fuller comment on the talk page I would have said that he was born on the Isle of Man and that they self-identified as Manx, and the Isle of Man claimed them as their own. See some of the material in Bee Gees that talks about their recording of Ellan Vannin, the commemorative stamp issued by the Isle of Man, their naming as Freemen of the City of Douglas, etc. I don't know what your criteria are for determining who gets the label, but since there are multiple supporting sources, the identification would seem right. But more importantly for this set of articles is that there have been bloody conflicts on the talk pages about whether these guys are to be called Manx or English or Australian, or even American, so we long ago agreed to describe them as "Born in the Isle of Man to English parents, the Gibb brothers lived their first few years in Chorlton, Manchester, England, then moved in the late 1950s to Brisbane, Queensland, Australia, where they began their musical careers." and avoid the characterization of them as Manx or English or Australian, or anything else. That has kept the peace, more or less, and allows us to not have the endless arguments of British vs English, et cetera ad nauseam, which is pointless and tedious. The only place that identifies them as any nationality/ethnicity/etc, are the categories, then, and I don't personally see any harm in that. Nice to meet you, by the way - I see we have some overlapping interests and background. Cheers! Tvoz/talk 23:47, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you :) once explained it does make total sense. I'm afraid when I read your message it was very late and I could barely read! MY eyes, they die (And the goggles do nothing) Oh that's cool, I enjoy talking to people with the same interests with me xD --Τασουλα (Almira) (talk) 20:29, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Tvoz. You have new messages at Fat&Happy's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

01:21, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

You et alia have destroyed my faith in the ability of wikipedia editors to listen to, let alone recognize, extremely simple self-evident facts about the observable universe. I'm a scientist by trade and have believed for some time that Wikipedia might be that last bastion of hope for conserving the sanity of philosophical realism in popular culture. Today I am proven wrong. It's unfortunate that I can't delete my WP account, otherwise I would. Instead, I think I'll rename it, vanish, and never edit on WP again. This experience was, literally, that bad. Congratulations. (and, no, I doubt he could've read a paragraph of Joyce) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quophnix (talk • contribs) 21:46, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. I'm sorry Quophnix - that was not at all my intention, and hope you'll reconsider. I don't know that Wikipedia can conserve any sanity, but I do think it is important to try to adhere to some standards and across-the-board guidelines, or else it will easily devolve into anarchy. This guy is at the moment a hot topic - almost 1 million views of that page this month - and I have been through the joys of editing these hot articles and know that we need to be as clear and accurate and sourced as we can, in the face of inevitable attacks - usually partisan. I know your intentions were good, and I don't even disagree with your conclusions - I just know from a lot of experience that if we want to include material that will be contentious to some people, we need to be bulletproof in terms of sourcing. I want to include his academic prowess, as I think it tells us something, but only if we can back it up with solid, non-partisan (as much as that is possible) outside sources, preferably several. Had we had such sourcing - and I expect we will find some soon enough - then the arguments of "undue" would not get any traction, nor would the BLP arguments. I take a long view - I am sure that if this is a real issue in his background, there will be responsible journalists discussing it - for all I know there already are, and I'll see what I can find. And then we will be in a good position to defend the inclusion of such negative information. Now, it is seen as just smear, even though that may not have been the motivation in adding it. Do reconsider your departure - we need editors who can carry on a cogent discussion, and I am sure you can continue to make a real contribution here. My advice would be to go easy on the toxic articles - in 2007/8 when editing the presidential candidate articles became too stressful, I would move over to Beatles articles. until I found out that they have their own furious fights - like the infamous ones over whether the prose should read The Beatles or the Beatles - so I'd come back to Obama and company and pick up the fight again. It goes with the territory. Hope to see you staying around. Tvoz/talk 22:18, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is a discussion occuring here involving debate about whether or not the Beatles were "active" during 1994-1996. Your input would be appreciated. — GabeMc (talk) 22:50, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, there is a vote taking place here, and your input would be appreciated. — GabeMc (talk) 03:18, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I saw your name in the archived discussion at Sopranos talk page. I would like to get your feedback there on a disagreement between myself and another editor. Thanks. -Anon98 98.92.183.93 (talk) 09:47, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! As you've probably realized, MediaWiki's flawed diff system made it appear as though the changes were significantly more extensive than they actually were (largely because I added a line break, I think).
The main purpose of my edit was to undo a change made yesterday (the insertion of the article's title in bold, which isn't MoS-compliant in this context).
Sorry about (and thanks for correcting) the "January" typo; I don't know how that slipped past me.  :) —David Levy 08:52, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - yes, I did realize that, a little late. Sorry about the initial knee-jerk revert. I'm not sure I agree about your change to the first sentence, however - SBE is far from policy, and even MOS:BOLDTITLE is a guideline, not cast in stone. The thing is, this article is in the midst of the GA process, and the reviewer (SilkTork)is the one who reinstated the bolded title wording in the first sentence, so it probably would be a good idea to talk it through and see what the consensus is on that one - it's been discussed before and we've had it both ways. I did a fair amount of editing on this article a while back, but haven't looked at the recent discussions, so I'm not sure what the sense of the group is right now. Anyway - nice to meet you and sorry for the fast trigger! Tvoz/talk 17:02, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Having checked in on the article periodically, my impression is that it's been fairly stable in this respect (with insertions of the boldface title occasional and short-lived, as demonstrated here).

The style enjoys consensus at the MoS level, but it's taken time to work its way through the encyclopedia, largely due to the other style's inertia; editors unfamiliar with the guideline instinctively emulate the format that they see in most articles. It's common for one to mistakenly assume that the boldface title is "missing" and edit accordingly, which appeared to occur yesterday. (Note that while Steve made numerous improvements, he also introduced a non-U.S.-formatted date, an Easter egg link, and the phrase "Tucson, Arizona USA" [sic].)

I regularly examine newly created articles appearing in the main page's ITN section, and I've been pleased to find the MoS style present increasingly often as awareness of the guideline spreads.

Indeed, SBE isn't a guideline in and of itself, but it accurately describes the reasoning behind the guideline. "2011 Tucson shooting" is merely a description of the event, not a formal or de facto name. In fact, there never has been strong consensus for the article's title, which is retained because alternatives have even less consensus.

Of course, if someone reverts or raises an objection at Talk:2011 Tucson shooting/GA1, I'll gladly discuss the matter further. Nice to meet you too! (: —David Levy 18:16, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I happened to be swinging by another article and happened to notice some vandalism, then figured I'd check on the watchlist. I see not much has changed since I ladt stopped by the Obama article. Still the same "He's not A-A!" and "OMG!! Why aren't all the criticisms of him covered in detail!!". As for the vandal.. Maybe try the escalating vandalism tags? Even then it is going to be hard to get the ban hammer dropped because he only does it once every couple of days.--Bobblehead ^(rants) 23:56, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The one I reverted was pretty clear vandalism. I didn't look at his other posts and just assumed. Oh well. If he isn't vandalizing the article, nothing you can do, but keep hitting the undo link. Hate when that happens. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 05:19, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Tvoz, since your reply on Callista Gingrich's discussion page, vandalism has indeed continued to be a problem, and some is still there now. Would you please look again and consider adding back the semi-protection? Joe DeSantis Communications Director, Gingrich 2012 (talk) 03:09, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See my reply on Talk: Callista Gingrich. Tvoz/talk 07:26, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I shared your concern recently at the above article along with other editors. Jimbo seems to be Ok with it See User:Joes talk page...so end of story....or is it? Check at campaign article history since some discussion was removed. Stay in touch. ```Buster Seven Talk 07:15, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look when I have a chance. I'm glad that Joe is now identifying himself and confining his comments to Talk pages - and I actually appreciate it when anyone points out any factual errors - but my concern, as you saw, is about micro-managing how we write articles, our procedures, etc., for the spin. I think it bears watching, but he does get points for seeming to understand our need for transparency, which I think is what Jimbo was responding positively to. Tvoz/talk 09:28, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My concern continues about the Major issue of paid operatives. I'm reading a lot of support from surprising sources for PR involvement but PR is not Political Communications directing. I am not offended or dissuade by those that think all is well, "Jimbo says its Ok so it must be OK!". Its not OK. Slanted editing to twist an article into a campaign sticker, by anybody of either (all) parties, corrupts the product and ruins our reputation. Its too bad Jimbo can't see the "behind the 8 ball" mess he has generated. Above and beyond the Newt pages what can be done to engage editors that see the dangers of paid editors and their volunteer corps? The Newt pages just result in arguing which gets nowhere. The general election are around the corner. User:joe may be the last operative to step forward with a sign, "Here I AM" ..Any ideas? ```Buster Seven Talk 02:22, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have engaged Jimbo in a discussion about paid operatives, etc. See User talk:Jimbo Wales#Paid operatives. Tks.```Buster Seven Talk 03:13, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/02/06/gingrich-spokesman-defends-wikipedia-edits/

You have some more media mentions to add to the top of your userpage. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 22:02, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I just saw it. You can tell that the political silly season is underway! Tvoz/talk 22:13, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 23:32, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All of a sudden Ive become a bother. But, an important project WP:WEaPOn (about Paid Operatives) I have initiated is up for speedy. Can you assist? I want to play by the rules but they seem stacked against an honest effort to record a history of an event as it happens. Urgent. Any comment you might offer would be greatly appreciated. TY. ```Buster Seven Talk 06:48, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No action is required. An admin has restored the page. Thanks for you time. ```Buster Seven Talk 06:58, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

		Cents for Sense
		Sometimes two cents is worth alot more than it seems. Your comments about paid editing broaden the base for communication and discussion and widen the circle of ideas. Thanks for giving yours and providing some personal insight at various WP locations. ```Buster Seven Talk 14:28, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is a discussion taking place here, and your input would be appreciated. — GabeMc (talk) 04:18, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At the risk of being accussed of canvassing, I know you may be interested in a current request for comment regarding the COI guideline and this noticeboard: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/COI. ```Buster Seven Talk 04:01, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Meant to reply here - policy debates tend to give me a major headache, as they are overly long and dense and hard to get into if you weren't there at the outset. Also, this one refers some to an Arbcom case that I'm not familiar with, so that makes it hard to weigh in. I'll see if I can, as I am interested in the subject, but not sure if I will be able to. And to allay any worries about canvassing, I was already aware of the RFC, so the effect of your note is merely as a reminder. (Canvassing accusations, anyway, tend to be leveled by people who are not secure in the rightness of their positions, it seems.) Tvoz/talk 08:40, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Jose Antonio Vargas#Immigration status. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:07, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Tvoz, what did you think about this addition? I'm steering clear only for the moment because I don't like even to get close to 3R. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:52, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is a coatrack - designed to get the phrase "illegal immigrant" in come hell or high water. The sentence also didn't logically follow the text where it was shoehorned in. There is no consensus for this - and it is a misunderstanding of what is meant by balance and NPOV. This is a BLP, not an article on immigration, and it is irrelevant how a given article refers to him. The editor does not seem to understand that just because one can find a source for something does not mean it has to be included in an article - unless reliable sourcing produces some kind of discussion that talks specifically about how Vargas refers to himself, it is just not appropriate to this article to shoehorn in alternate terminology to make a point. This is getting tedious. Tvoz/talk 04:41, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just wondering if our guidelines remain the same. I ran into Metric by accident. See the references at the bottom of the article- the use of You Tube video music. I know we can use videos when they are interviews or documentaries, but this is different. What do you think? --Leahtwosaints (talk) 21:59, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Leah - I'm probably not the best person to ask because I haven't looked at that issue in a while - but see WP:YouTube which seems to be saying that we of course still have to be aware of copyright issues and other guidelines, but that there is "no blanket ban" on YouTube. Maybe ask the question on one of the noticeboards. Cheers Tvoz/talk 23:28, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Tvoz. You have new messages at Fayenatic london's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Please help a newb get it right. Sumthin changed when I wasn't lookin..... how references are done

In Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin

Persons Involved section

Neighborhood Watch subsection

first paragraph...

Both sentences were flagged as needing citations. I found a source for each. The second sentence was from an article in the Orlando Sentinel; a person or bot corrected/reformatted my input to the changed format.

The first sentence was from a, to my knowledge, previously uncited source: http://www.philly.com/philly/wires/ap/news/nation_world/20120321_ap_wasflashooteravigilanteorgoodneighbor.html?c=r

When I inserted that citation in my usual way, it created a new reference "1" that didn't automatically create a footnote down in References. The new/current reference format is much cleaner but... How do I put the new source into the existing references in proper format/style?

If it were still the weekend, I'd have time to research, maybe find the answer myself, but I'm about to get busy with two 12-hour day shifts and then two 10-hour swings on Wed and Thur (and then get a 3-day weekend).

Thanks,

DocTree (talk) 12:21, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Doc - ok, I'll take a look later today. Cheers Tvoz/talk 15:43, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Tvoz. You have new messages at Gaijin42's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hey there Tvoz! I just ran across your response on Talk:Barack Obama and I don't think it was as civil as it could have been. I haven't examined the archives, so maybe the IP's point had been brought up many times before, and you were getting tired of it, but I just think you could have phrased things better. One of the things that makes Wikipedia great is that most of the time everyone treats each other with respect and good faith and no one gets driven away. Let's strive to keep it that way please! Best, Jesse V. (talk) 02:36, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jesse - thanks for your note. I'm sure I could have phrased all comments I make better - that's true for anyone - but let's take another look at the comment I was responding to, line by line:

No I do not "own" the article, but if I could look at the histories of some people then I bet I'd see strong evidence that you think you do.

civil?

I just read the "professor" article on the US, and they show lecturers as being distinct from professors. They also make clear the distinction between capital letter "Professor" and the lower-case informal "professor" and in this case the latter applies to Obama, but the former is the one actually used in the article, which is more evidence of intentional lying to promote Obama.

except that accusation is completely wrong - the Obama article in fact does use only the lower case professor, as had been said in the thread, and as is plainly in view in the text

I assume this is because the professor article states that a real professor has more prestige than a mere lecturer. It seems like you aren't actually reading my arguments and your mind was made up before I even posted so I'm not sure why I'm bothering. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.220.196.64 (talk) 16:26, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

civil?

And the IPs earlier points in the thread include these phrases:

• Why aren't we using his actual job title instead of some fluffed up title he gave himself? Is it wikipedia policy to simply give people achievements when they declare they have them rather than going by the evidence?
• The statement by his university says he was "regarded as a professor" (whatever the fuck that means),
• using a deliberately deceptive description,
• Leading people on to believe he has an advanced degree in law is blatantly dishonest.
• intentionally misleading

Are these comments ok with you? Respectful? You see, yes, this minute rightwing talking point has been raised many times before and it is utterly without merit, raised almost as a tic, so regular editors are tired of it. You'll note that a few other editors responded with similar annoyance to mine. But in fact this IP SPA did not ask a reasoned, balanced, respectful question. Instead he cast aspersions on the people who work quite hard at this article, trying to keep it current, fair, and well-written as befits a Featured Article about an important individual. He accused us as a group of being blatantly dishonest, deliberately deceptive, intentionally misleading. WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL are foundational to Wikipedia, and I believe in them. But they are a two-way street, and there is nothing in AGF or CIVIL that requires us to assume good faith or be civil to someone who is being uncivil and attacking us. We are not guided by "turn the other cheek" - we 're supposed to try to work together in a hospitable manner and foster mutual respect. I appreciate and share your concern about keeping Wikipedia great, but I part company with you on this one, and am not hesitant to say that I hope this exchange has driven him away. We don't need to encourage editors who come on and just attack. It's not as bad as vandalism, but it is detrimental to the project as it drains energy and distracts from the important work we need to be doing.

But, sincerely, thanks for the note - I hope my response opens your eyes a bit to the reality I've seen here over the years that some people are here to make trouble and in my view are not entitled to the usual standards. Tvoz/talk 04:51, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. I appreciate your explanation. I've guess I just lean more towards the "turn the other cheek" end of the spectrum than you do. I would agree that the IP's comments were not as civil as they could have been, and in general I think that regular Wikipedians are more respectful to each other than random IPs. It could be anyone after all and they don't have their own Talk page, contribution history, etc to worry about. I can see where you're coming from, and why you responded the way that you did. Hopefully the IP will learn and come back to make encyclopedic contributions and collaborate in a positive direction. I appreciate the time that you spent with your response. Best, Jesse V. (talk) 05:09, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I might have had a different, longer response to an account-holding editor, but honestly if the account appeared to be commenting to disrupt, likely not. I don't take kindly to any editor who lobs unfounded accusations of deliberate deception at other editors as this guy did. And he was wrong on the facts to boot! Cheers - nice to meet you. Tvoz/talk 15:07, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I have read your latest response on the Obama talk page and wanted to let you know that I have responded to it. Look forward to further discussion.' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.2.129.220 (talk) 19:46, 27 March 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Thank you for your recent edits on the Shooting of Trayvon Martin article - they are sensible and much appreciated. – Teammm ^{Let's Talk! :)} 06:20, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gee - thank you very much - really nice of you to say so. This is a hard one to keep on track, so I'm glad to know that what I've been doing is working. Cheers! Tvoz/talk 06:24, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm logging off for now; the lead is a mess and no one bothers to fix clear issues of undue weight and needless political framing even when we discuss it on the talk page. I'll leave the twitter one up for tonight; but its a clear WP:UNDUE and it keeps ballooning in size every day. Seriously, it has a reference with Twitter's rules for privacy. When will the line be drawn? I work hard on it, but I'll comment your post on the talk page before I go. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:16, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it is late - I don't know what you mean by your twitter reference, but I'll look at that - I know your edit was in good faith, I just think you threw out the baby with the bathwater. Reading it objectively - as I tried to do - it is not neutral, it is favoring the version that Zimmerman apparently convinced some of the police with - but that is, obviously, very much in contention. Anyway, tomorrow is soon enough. Cheers. Tvoz/talk 06:23, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh - that Twitter reference. Not in the lead, thank goodness! Yes I agree that section needs pruning to say the least - I'll see what I can do. I am not at all against streamlining when appropriate, but not in the lead which I think was pretty carefully crafted to get the story out fairly. Tvoz/talk 06:28, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was only cleaning it up; race matters aside in the lead, the actual issue of 7-11 and the NBA half time are well... hearsay. They weren't even home, the game hadn't started by the time of the incident and its been said, but never confirmed which store. What is clear was Zimmerman spotting Martin whilst driving through the community and the events which unfold in the accounts. Yes, Martin was unarmed, but I also kept out that reports say Martin went for Zimmerman's gun. Neutrality and verifiablity (even in the sensational media) should be noted for a clean lead. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:43, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chris, 7-11 and the NBA game were not in the long-standing lead, which is what I am talking about. I'm all for a clean lead, but actually it is only Zimmerman's "report" that Martin went for his gun - no witnesses to that - and if he did go for the gun, wouldn;t that be Martin's attempt to not get shot by an unidentified man who was following him? Try seeing it that way - this guy wasn't in uniform, wasn't a cop, had absolutely no authority to follow or question someone he found suspicious - he was just supposed to call it in and stay in his car and not follow. And Martin would have no idea who he was - he could well have looked dangerous to Martin. Look at the map of the scene - the altercation and shooting took place nowhere near where he would have left his car. Trayvon was going toward the house where he was staying. Why was Zimmerman there? Logic says, he was there because he was following Trayvon. Very likely it was because he did find him suspicious, and wanted to make sure he wasn;t one of the "assholes who always get away" - quoting him on the 911 tape. He was an armed man coming after an unarmed man and even the police acknowledge that Martin was unarmed - it is a central point of the story, and not in dispute or contentious, and not equivalent to a claim that Martin tried to take away Zimmerman's gun. I don't think we should speculate in the lead or anywhere, but you are skewing this to line up completely with how Zimmerman described it to the police, and that is POV, even if you didn't intend it that way. Let's see what others think about this - but I really am against the way you edited the lead. As for the race/ethnicity, I want to discuss that some more and see what other editors think - i am not sure what I think would be best on that. I am pruning Spike Lee however. Tvoz/talk 07:22, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're absolutely right Tvoz and I couldn't have explained it any clearer. The wikipedia article is not a court trial. Simply because the clear, undisputed facts of the situation show that Zimmerman was a random stranger to Martin, who logically could very well have been intimidating to Martin since Martin was walking at night by himself in the rain, and followed by Zimmerman with a gun as if he was an authorized police figure but didn't identify himself, people editing, who may feel some type of way about the media's portrayal, feel that they need to make Zimmerman look more positive and place his narrative where it shouldn't be. I think it's unfortunate and creates a hectic environment when our main goal is to just give the facts of events, nothing more, nothing less. Zimmerman's account of the event doesn't belong in the lead because that it something that is not undisputed or even witnessed by anyone else. That's something Zimmerman would need to prove logically happened in a court of law. Giving his account in the lead is not constructive to explaining the facts of the shooting event, but leaning the so-called argument towards Zimmerman, which is POV whether you like it or not. This isn't a courtroom. I think people need to calm down. – Teammm ^{Let's Talk! :)} 08:36, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your explanation to User:Chris is well-stated. The article and our readers benefit from your guardianship. The varied accounts give different timelines to the actual event. We may never know the actual chain of events, who did what and why. But, till we do, the article must remain neutral.```Buster Seven Talk 13:34, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• (To Tvoz) I'm glad you're working on the article. Some of the attitudes repeatedly expressed by Wikipedians about this incident are disturbing enough to me that I don't think I can maintain enough equanimity to edit it. But thank you for your work on it, and cheers. MastCell ^Talk 17:02, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, all of you. (And hi MastCell - it's been a while!) The fact is, this is an emotionally charged subject, and it is often hard for any of us to be objective, even when we are trying hard to do so - but that's all the more reason why we need to set it out as clearly and neutrally as we can, and not edit out undisputed facts in an attempt to be fair to the other side. I commented on the article talk page last night about the lead (Talk:Shooting of Trayvon Martin/Archive 3#Cutting the lead) and haven't looked yet there today (the volume there makes Talk: Barack Obama in its 2007/2008 height look like a leisurely stroll in the park - and trust me,, it wasn't!) - so I hope we can reach some clarity about the lead in particular, and that people will chime in. There also is the question - which started the discussion about the lead - about whether and/or how we identify the race/ethnicity of the two protagonists. Any ideas will be appreciated - I think it is a sticky matter of navigating usual policy and the specifics here, where race is clearly a part of the overall story (the reaction to the event if not the event itself), even though one side would prefer to downplay that. Fun and games... Tvoz/talk 17:30, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why does that seem a little tongue in cheek at me; I specifically fixed it according to verifiability; which even the RS have not met. Why are they twisting words to equate that my understanding is different from the reports. I don't think user pages should be the place for talk page style discussions so I am moving it there, but after the last personal attacks I've taken I rather not find more put downs when I try to follow up with Tvoz with concerns. Seems rude to off put other editors in the talk pages of others, which that said editor actually was speaking. Its not a forum. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:55, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Chris if it sounded that way to you - I was not attacking you, and I don't read Teammm, Buster or MastCell that way either, if you meant them. Also, I don't know what you are referring to regarding verifiability - verifiability in the context of writing articles on Wikipedia means one thing: our readers need to be able to go to the source themselves to verify that the source says what we claim it says. So we can't use personal correspondence, for example, or a private conversation we the article writers had with a person, or our personal knowledge of a fact - even if it is true. It has nothing to do with whether we can verify the accuracy of the claim that is being made in the reliable source (although I'd say that if one RS has some odd claim that none others have, we should at least try to find more than one RS making a claim). So I sincerely don't know what you mean when you say you "specifically fixed it according to verifiability; which even the RS have not met". Finally, I think this conversation was an aside, not meant to be the determining conversation about how we proceed - you know that I'm talking over there about this, and there are discussions going on at WP:BLPN#Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman and likely elsewhere and what matters is how we proceed. No one is going to go over to edit and claim consensus based on the conversation on my talk page, and I do want people to not feel attacked here, but I really don;t think you were. Tvoz/talk 19:26, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Critical Race Theory". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 8 April 2012. 

Obviously, I disagree. What relevant reason would there be to call a 17 year old male a "boy", other than to create a biased opinion against the "man" Zimmerman.Isaidnoway (talk) 02:55, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In what universe is that vandalism? You may disagree with calling a minor a boy, but that doesn't explain why you also removed "unarmed", an undisputed - and very relevant - fact, nor why you called it vandalism. I don't have a problem with discussing a word choice, but I have a big problem with labeling it vandalism when it clearly is not. Tvoz/talk 03:14, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anytime you use a deragotory, rude and inflammatory term to describe someone, that in my universe is vandalism. What possible difference does it make whether he was unarmed or not. Are we implying, that on any other given day, he usually walks to the store "armed". This seems like to me it is an obvious slant against Zimmerman. Bias as well as deragotory, rude and inflammatory terms do not belong in this article.Isaidnoway (talk) 12:19, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Isaidnoway, you clearly have no basis to this argument because Trayvon was a boy, he had just turned 17 a few weeks before he was killed. He was not an adult, he was a minor. I don't see one logical argument that a reasonable person would use to claim that calling a minor a boy is vandalism or derogatory. The fact that Trayvon was unarmed is one of the basic facts in the shooting incident, so I don't know where you're coming from with that as well. I hope this is an April Fools joke. – Teammm ^{Let's Talk! :)} 16:35, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit conflict] To Isaidnoway: First, "boy" (yes, a minor male) was meant only to indicate that he was male, according to the editor who put it in, as you saw, not in a derogatory way - although I don't think it's the best way to handle that. And "unarmed" is a fact - we could look to see if it's in the best place in the paragraph but it is central to the story, whether or not you think it slants against Zimmerman. The fact is Martin was unarmed, every news story in a reliable source refers to him as an unarmed teen - it is the point. To take it out bends the story around to a place that is distorting to the facts. Even the police acknowledge he was unarmed, just as they acknowledge Zimmerman killed him with the gun he was carrying. Like it or not, those are the facts. And, one last time, it is not vandalism to present the facts - you may disagree with how they are presented, that's fine, but vandalism means something specific here on Wikipedia, as you well know, so it is not the way you should describe it in edit summary. And surely even you don't think "unarmed" is a rude or derogatory term, and if so, rude or derogatory to whom? All y ou had to say is you didn't think a 17 year old male should be called a boy, and then you could have come up with a better way to address the issue of making sure it's clear he's male. Calling it vandalism is out of line. Tvoz/talk 16:41, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure Trayvon Martin (if he was alive) would be vehemently opposed to being called a "boy" as well. If you feel the need to identify his gender, then why not use young man (which technically he was). In this day and age it is hard for me to believe that someone would not know the connotations of calling an african-american a "boy" is deragotory, rude and inflammatory, you can justify it any way you want, but we are not the only people who look at this article. We must consider the readers as well, who may or may not realize that "no harm was meant." I have no objection as to the inclusion of unarmed, but it seems like the lead is not the appropriate place for it. I would disagree that "it is the point". To me and a court of law (if it gets there) the "point" will be was if Zimmerman was justified in using lethal force in his claim of self-defense.Isaidnoway (talk) 16:59, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[