If I have left you a message: please answer onyour talk page, as I am watching it. If you leave me a message: I will answer onmy 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.Rossrs06:26, 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!B02:33, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		The Special Barnstar
		To Tvoz, on the very special occasion of anNPR 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 theHillary Rodham Clinton FAC when the nominator didn't follow up.Ealdgyth -Talk14:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		If only more Wikipedians saw things with the reason and cogency inthis 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 withUser:Utahredrock (who holds the other half of this barnstar), to bringMark 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 Talk14:28, 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, pleaseclick 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/talk05:09, 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^Ninja21:49, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Am I really that mysterious? Cool!Tvoz/talk23:25, 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 formThe 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/talk22:50, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kirk, ok I guess. But Ringo???Tvoz/talk05:31, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The Beatles did notbecome 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 ofA Hard Day's Night is when Ringo is arrested/disappears -and the band can't play! Thepoint 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 thatmade then "th Beatles" It is even in the name of the band. You know, who sets "the beat?"Slrubenstein |Talk15:37, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My readers can find my reply onSLR'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/talk21:22, 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? CheerioTvoz/talk21:18, 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 |Talk22:02, 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/talk23:18, 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 |Talk23:56, 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/talk23:28, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...and, really, BeeGees? And not Peter Frampton?Slrubenstein |Talk23:59, 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 onDouble Fantasy.Tvoz/talk01:50, 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/talk04:57, 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/talk02:27, 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/talk23:23, 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 Kryn20:52, 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/talk00:04, 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 aboutMcCartney as he does aboutJay-Z orPete Seeger. Makes his mom and dad proud for sure!Tvoz/talk04:45, 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 toreview other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing atwo-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are notautoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to onlya 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 atSpecial:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obviousvandalism orBLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (seeWikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be foundhere.

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/talk22:34, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are notautoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to onlya 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 atSpecial:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obviousvandalism orBLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (seeWikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be foundhere.

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/talk16:55, 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 ofthis article know that it will be appearing asthe main page featured article on December 8, 2010. You can view the TFA blurb atWikipedia: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 ofthe suggested formatting. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on theMain Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :D Thanks!Tbh®tch^Talk©Happy Holidays05:57, 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 ofThe Beatles. Lennon andPaul McCartney formed one of the most successfulsongwriting 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, includingJohn Lennon/Plastic Ono Band andImagine, 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 theVietnam War resulted in a lengthy attempt byRichard 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 wasmurdered three weeks after its release. (more...)

		The Half Barnstar
		For your efforts in collaborating withUser:Utahredrock (who holds the other half of this barnstar), to bringMark 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/talk23:58, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

YES THEY DO! (I forgot I was on Wikipedia, where the answers to all questions reside.)Tvoz/talk00:40, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The coolest!Tvoz/talk02:33, 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/talk02:32, 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!) CheersTvoz/talk18:58, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

or what?74.111.13.100 (talk)—Precedingundated comment added07:08, 5 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]

You must be kidding.Tvoz/talk08:01, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

moved and responded onTalk: 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 : guaranaseven@hotmail.com

Thank you.Regards, Antoine

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

Sure, Antoine - email coming to you.Tvoz/talk14:34, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks great, Antoine!Tvoz/talk16:01, 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/_Stalk18:41, 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/_Stalk19:05, 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 somefrustrating 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/talk17:17, 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. ThxBellagio99 (talk)01:50, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. Not sure I have the strength to go through another presidential campaign on Wikipedia......Tvoz/talk16:19, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non carborundum estBellagio99 (talk)21:22, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't, for example,Christian Bale was born in Wales but is not Welsh, same withTommy 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 inBee Gees that talks about their recording ofEllan 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/talk23:47, 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 atFat&Happy's talk page.
You canremove 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 ofphilosophical 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)— Precedingunsigned comment added byQuophnix (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 readThe Beatles orthe 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/talk22:18, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is a discussion occuringhere 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 placehere, and your input would be appreciated. — GabeMc (talk)03:18, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I saw your name in the archived discussion atSopranos talk page. I would like to get your feedback there on a disagreement between myself and another editor. Thanks. -Anon9898.92.183.93 (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 Levy08:52, 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/talk17:02, 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 demonstratedhere).

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, anEaster 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 reasoningbehind 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 evenless consensus.

Of course, if someone reverts or raises an objection atTalk:2011 Tucson shooting/GA1, I'll gladly discuss the matter further. Nice to meet you too! (: —David Levy18:16, 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 DeSantisCommunications Director, Gingrich 2012(talk)03:09, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See my reply onTalk: Callista Gingrich.Tvoz/talk07:26, 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 Talk07:15, 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/talk09:28, 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 Talk02:22, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have engaged Jimbo in a discussion about paid operatives, etc. SeeUser talk:Jimbo Wales#Paid operatives. Tks.```Buster Seven Talk03:13, 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/talk22:13, 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 projectWP: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 Talk06:48, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No action is required. An admin has restored the page. Thanks for you time. ```Buster Seven Talk06:58, 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 Talk14:28, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is a discussion taking placehere, 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 Talk04:01, 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/talk08:40, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Tvoz, what did you think aboutthis 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/talk04:41, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just wondering if our guidelines remain the same. I ran intoMetric by accident. See the references at the bottom of the article- the use ofYou 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 seeWP: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. CheersTvoz/talk23:28, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Tvoz. You have new messages atFayenatic london's talk page.
You canremove 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. CheersTvoz/talk15:43, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Tvoz. You have new messages atGaijin42's talk page.
You canremove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hey there Tvoz! I just ran acrossyour response onTalk:Barack Obama and I don't think it was ascivil 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 andgood 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 factdoes 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 andWP: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 exchangehas 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/talk04:51, 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/talk15:07, 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.'— Precedingunsigned comment added by129.2.129.220 (talk)19:46, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your recent edits on theShooting of Trayvon Martin article - they are sensible and much appreciated. –Teammm^{Let'sTalk! :)}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/talk06:24, 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/talk06:23, 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/talk06:28, 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/talk07:22, 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'sTalk! :)}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 Talk13:34, 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 ^Talk17:02, 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 makesTalk: 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/talk17:30, 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 theaccuracy 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 atWP: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/talk19:26, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TheMediation 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 therequest page, theformal mediation policy, and theguide 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/talk03:14, 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'sTalk! :)}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/talk16:41, 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)[reply]

Court Holds Calling Black Men "boy" is racially offensive.

NYPD Sergeant Accused of Calling Officer a Racial Slur

What is the worse word you can call an African-American?

Isaidnoway, how about you just relax a bit? People of all races are called boy, young man, and man, all the time. You seem to want to find a problem here. Trayvon Martin was a boy in many people's eyes. He was not yet 18 years old, and therefore not fully a man in the eyes of the law. Charles M. Blow with the New York Times had this to say:“That is the burden of black boys in America and the people that love them: running the risk of being descended upon in the dark and caught in the cross-hairs of someone who crosses the line.”

By the way, Mr. Blow is a man of color. In another story, written by the Palm Beach Post, they say 'Trayvon's family says 911 tapes show the boy was the one yelling for help.' There is an obvious distinction between using a term to insult someone and just using the term. If I asked a black person, "how many boys do you have?" It isn't an insult. If I say, "He's my boy," whether I am the father of a black child, or whether I am referring to a friend, it is a positive thing. When you see the stereotypical southern sheriff in a movie address a member of a chain gang and say, "boy, you better get to work," it's clearly an insult, but when people use it in a thoughtful and careful article here in Wikipedia, with the best intentions, and then even go out of their way to change it after you make a complaint that it might be taken out of context.... its time to lay off and move on. No one used the word the way you imply, and only someone looking for racism in every word would even find that meaning. So take a nap or whatever and come back ready to support your fellow editors. --Avanu (talk)18:03, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• All I can relate to you is that I was offended, and we owe it to our readers to do a little research before we use words that have varying connotations. Like you said, only those who are looking for racism in every word would even find that meaning. But unfortunately we do not get to choose our readers. Like I said earlier, justify it how you want, but the word "boy" was not used in the same context as you wisely point out in your description's in the sentences provided. In this instance it was a descriptive definition of an african-americanteenager which as you know can be interpreted in various ways, one of which is offensive. I would just request that I be extended the same respect for my opinion as other editor's are for theirs.

Martin Luther King Jr. once told me

"There comes a time when one must take the position that is neither safe nor politic nor popular, but he must do it because conscience tells him it is right.”---Isaidnoway (talk)21:08, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Very well put and explained, Avanu. You hit the nail squarely on the head.Rollo V. Tomasi (talk)21:54, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit conflict] Since you've inexplicably invoked Martin Luther King here to support your claim of offense - which I find quite extraordinary - I have just one more thing to say on this and would like to end it: I am completely sure that when President Obama referred to Trayvon as a boy, Trayvon's parents were not offended. Any parent with a heart felt and feels the same way - and African American parents more than any - that it could have been my boy. The only way your interpretation of the original edit, and its reinstatement, would be believable would be if the situation had been reversed, and Trayvon had been a 28 year old black man to whom we referred as a boy. I think the more likely explanation of your objection is what you said above, including your removal of "unarmed":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. In other words, you weren't offended because it was derogatory, you were concerned because you thought it was slanted toward Zimmerman to suggest he killed an unarmed 17 year old boy. Next time, say just that and don't raise red herrings.Tvoz/talk22:27, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for engaging in this discussion with me. It certainly has been an eye-opener for me. You are right, MLK was an extraordinary man and another fave of mine isOur lives begin to end, the day we become silent about things that matter. This is my final post too, as I have neither the time nor the inclination to continue this debate either as it doesn't require your belief for it to be true as to what my POV was about this subject.--Isaidnoway (talk)01:01, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• NP! It was not your edit I was trying to fix. Namaste! —DocOfSoc •Talk •21:57, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I thought so! CheersTvoz/talk22:27, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Therequest for formal mediation concerning Critical Race Theory, to which you were listed as a party, has beendeclined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see themediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to theChairman of the Committee, or to themailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, seeWikipedia:Dispute resolution.

Hello, Tvoz. You have new messages atWikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation/Critical_Race_Theory#Reason_for_rejection.
You canremove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--The Red Pen of Doom20:47, 2 April 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]

Thanks Hector - I appreciate that.Tvoz/talk17:38, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the backup/sanity check. I realize people aren't going to agree on things all the time, especially in such a charged topic like this, but I really wasn't expecting as big of a blow up for saying "we don't all agree".Gaijin42 (talk)21:03, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome - no one would accuse you and me of being in agreement about lots of things on this article, but I think we've more or less managed to work together without beating each other up, and I figure when you're right you're right, so I'll say so. After all, you'll likely be wrong minutes later, and I'll say that too! <jk> CheersTvoz/talk23:02, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as far as I am aware, the only major issue we have butted heads on is the BLP inclusion of the bio info or not (which I have mostly given up on, but am going to police making sure that zimmerman's is not included if martin's isn't as well). Other than that, I haven't seen much. Contrary to lots of the accusations against me by others, I am trying to be very neutral and sticking to relevance in the article (although I do include quote a bit of synth/or in the talk page, just to discuss reasoning WHY I think things are relevant)Gaijin42 (talk)00:01, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have to apologize for adding the marijuana and suspension material without realizing there was an editing note. I didn't see it at the time I added the material. I'm still new and learning the ropes. From now on, I will make sure to look for such notations. No hard feelings?Rollo V. Tomasi (talk)02:08, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, could you please take a look at the Shooting of Trayvon Martin talk page and the latest comment from "Doc of Soc": "IMO it has always been reasonable to believe that Zimmerman was bound and determined to get himself a "F'ing Coon". Total Bias acknowledged. I feel better now. Back to trying to be fair and balanced. Namaste — DocOfSoc • Talk • 00:46, 4 April 2012 (UTC)" Can a comment like that be made and allowed to stay on an article's talk page? Aren't the rules for biographies of living persons the same on the talk pages for biographies of living persons? I still can't believe he said what he did and no one else has done anything about it. Thank you for your help.Rollo V. Tomasi (talk)02:11, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) The comment was out of line, but I am not sure it was actionable, BLP rules absolutely do apply to talk pages, but he was careful to state it as his opinion, not as a fact. Not sure if that is a formal breaking of the rules or not.Gaijin42 (talk)02:17, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit conflict]{tp stalking is ok with me, Gaijin) It's ok, Rollo, I can understand that you might have missed it. This particular material is in contention because it is seen by many editors as being irrelevant, since this is not a biography and Zimmerman could not have known it and it therefore has nothing to do with the shooting. Others disagree, but frankly I don't understand their argument. As for the talk page, I'll take a look. Yes, BLP applies to talk pages as well, but this seems to be a statement of Doc's opinion, not posted as a fact, and while for NPOV reasons it would probably be best for us to not give our opinions of what happened, it's sometimes very hard to avoid doing that, and lots of comments are on the talk page that strictly speaking should not be. I don't see that comment by Doc as being a violation of BLP, but I'll have to look at it in context. In general this is a highly charged page, and we all have our prejudices and opinions and have to work hard to set them aside when we're editing. Don't worry - of course no hard feelings! We all miss things and write things that to other people's eyes may seem POV. Best we can do is try to think before we jump. Cheers!Tvoz/talk02:49, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your kind words and understanding.Rollo V. Tomasi (talk)02:55, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not actually trying to make the argument, since I have given up, but here is my logic for why the Martin bio stuff is relevant (And zimmermans). I think the logic is very parallel between the two people.

• Zimmerman has history including some violence (assault charge, domestic), the past violence may be categorized as unjustified (since administrative/legal action was taken, but no convictions)
• It was accused that zimmerman was unjustly violent in this case (by family, and media)
• Zimmerman was violent in this case
• The accusation is plausible, in part because of the past history (note, I mean plausible here, not fact, not probable, etc, just that it isn't an implausible accusation)
• The zimmerman bio is doubly relevant to the page, because his "clean record" was used by police as justification for not arresting him, when his record was not actually clean, which lends evidence towards screwups/bias on the part of police

• Martin has a history including some behavior that if observed would be suspicious (drugs, graffiti, evidence of theft)
• Zimmerman accused Martin of acting suspiciously
• (We do not know what Martin's actual behavior was, as the only evidence to this is Zimmerman's word)
• The accusation is plausible, in part because of the past history (same as above)

You brought up the "zimmerman didnt know" point above, and my logic in no way requires Zimmerman to know the history. Martin may have objectively been acting in some way that was actually suspicious that Zimmerman observed. (Please be clear, I am not accusing Martin of doing anything, just saying that Zimmerman's accusation that he was is not implausible, in part because he has a history of such actions)

If someone says they saw lindsay lohan drunk or high, we probably believe them, based on past experience, even if that particular person has no idea who lindsay lohan is, or her history (foreigner who saw her without recognizing?). If someone makes the same accusation about someone with a known "good reputation", we do not believe them. Thereforeour knowledge of the past is relevant, even if the observer did not have such knowledge.

I realize this entire chain of logic is synth/or, and I was not trying to include this chain in the article, but the chain is used to explain why I think the information is relevant to the article. Ultimately every piece of information must be determined to be relevant by some level of synth/or as we are making choices of what to include and exclude out of the superset of information that is included in the media.

Anyway, I hope that explains what my argument was.Gaijin42 (talk)03:14, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But there's absolutely zero evidence that Martin was "acting suspiciously" on the night in question. He wasn't carrying spray cans, or burglary implements, or drugs, oranything that suggests he was doing anything other than going to the store for snacks. The only person who claims Martin was "acting suspiciously" in this particular case is George Zimmerman, who obviously has a rather vested interest since it's central to his self-defense claim. And school suspensions arein no conceivable universe equivalent to an actual arrest or criminal conviction. There's just no comparison between the two, and it completely boggles the mind to see this treated in a tit-for-tat way. We're talking about an act of violence. A history of violence is relevant; a school suspension for carrying a dimebag isn't. Trying to treat these two things equally makes no sense, because they're not equal.MastCell ^Talk03:45, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[ edit conflict] Thanks for that Gaijin. My problem with it is that if Trayvon's body had been found with a marker or "burglary tools" or weed, it could be believable that Zimmerman noticed something about him that was suspicious, and we'd be justified in putting in that he previously had experience with graffiti, weed, and a screwdriver (that he said wasn't his - all school suspensions, nothing to do with the police - teenage stuff, remember). But as far as we know he was not found with anything the least bit suspicious, and that suggests that the story may be, shall we say, created ex post facto. So it is wrong for us to say that hey, hecould have seemed suspicious because after all, he has some high school incidents in his past that if he had been doing them the night of the shooting, would have been suspicious. But as far as we know, he wasn't. Or at least we've been given zero evidence that would lend credence to the claim. So whatever he did in high school has no relevance here, and is just prejudicial and BLP-uncomfortable. As for Zimmerman's past, as you said, a false version of it ("squeaky clean") allegedly was used as a reason for not charging him, if Tracy Martin's story is true - so the facts about his past suddenly become quite relevant if they contradict the story the police initially gave out about why Z wasn't charged. Do you see why the two are therefore not parallel, and it is not right to insist that either both are out or both are in?Tvoz/talk04:00, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

short (well, I meant it to be short when I started) response to both of you, who claimed an "ex post facto/self interest" reasoning. Zimmerman said suspicious and up to no good on the phone call, prior to the shooting, so unless you think he was per-meditated, and setting up an ex ante alibi/justification, that logic won't fly.

I am less interested in the marijuana suspension than the one for being in an unauthorized area, with jewelry. Zimmerman may have been violent in the past (no convictions, he said/she said), but it is only an accusation that his violence is unjustified in this case.If his version is correct, then it is probably entirely justified self defense (although personally, I think he deserves a lot of the blame for creating the situation in which self defense could be justified - on the other hand, that seems awfully close to blaming the rape victim for being drunk).

Violence (which is justified) is not a crime, and in that case the background is irrelevant. But based on the accusation of unjustified violence, it is relevant. Also Zimmerman has been accused of racism, so past incidents (pro and con) involving race are relevant, based on just the accusation (with no evidence in this case). Martin has been accused of being suspicious. The same logic that past history (pro and con) should be relevant.

You both have made good arguments about why you think the information should not be used to judge Martin. I don't actually disagree - I just think we should be letting the reader make those same decisions for themselves, rather than us filtering the information that they can see.

Also, one thing I have been accused of in the past (unjustly imo) is saying that if Martin was doing somethign wrong (at the time, or in the past), he deserves to die. I do not think this at all. The only information relevant to the actual shooting is what was happening in the 30 seconds or so prior to the shot. Either Zimmerman had legitimate fear for his life/major injury, or he didn't. Martin's character has nothing to do with those 30 seconds.

But he is also being attacked for having suspicions, calling the police etc in the first place (walking while black) - and for that part of the discussion Martin's character is relevant. The two parts of the story are obviously muddled in our article (and in reality), but I think we should be breaking down our logic for what parts are relevant to each separately.

In an alternate universe, Martin was not shot, and the police showed up. At that point the "walking while black" would be the entirety of the issue (probably not notable, but lets say it was) and we could debate what is relevant to Zimmerman's suspicion and our opinion of the credibility of that suspicion (Martins Character, Zimmermans possibly racist/paranoid past). I think we should still have that debate on the same terms, separate from the shooting itself.

Basically, there are two separate "justifications" in play. Was Zimmerman justified in being suspicious in the first place and calling the police (I will state for the record he wasnot justified in following, but that is unrelated) . Regardless of if he was justified in being suspicious, was he justified in a self defense shooting later. Why Anyway, I am really not trying to start up this fight again, so I will stop here.Gaijin42 (talk)14:06, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

YES I know I have to do it here. I will, promise. Real Soon Now. But I don't want any bots botting around here, so don't any Good Samaritan add one. Thank you all, and sorry for the time it must take to load....Tvoz/talk04:03, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tvoz, I wanted to thank you for kind words towards me :). I'm sorry I got all huffy about deletion possibilities, and I'm so glad you helped me. :) This is what Wikipedia is about. I just want to alert you-- the Chief Bill Lee and the Rep. Bobby Rush images are being disputed under copyright. There seems to me something fundamentally immorally about public images being deleted because of "copyright claims". How can footage of a public body in a public chamber be considered under "copyright"? How can an official, publicly distributed portrait of a city police chief be under "copyright".

This is absurd. I believe both are public domain images since they are public records of democratic processes (rather than artistic works). Surely the people of the United States have the right to use images from the US House of Reps.

Any help greatly appreciated. I don't know the wikibureaucracy, but know that if we lose images of the chief and the rep, our article is less educational and less neutral. Help me Tvoz, you're my only hope. :) --HectorMoffet (talk)08:39, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) The copyright of the photos is more complicated. I thikn the "Bobby" photo is from c-span, in which case it is actually copyrighted. the image was not produced or published by the govt, but by a private entity.cspan copyright policy. Regarding the "headshots", we also do not know that those were not taken professionally, many companies/organizations let high ranking people use their own photos for publicity type photos, and the photos in question are clearly not "stand against the wall for your security pass" photos. Im not saying they must be deleted, I am ok with them staying. But it is not the only possible conclusion.Gaijin42 (talk)14:12, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Hector - I have to tell you, the way Wikipedia handles images and fair use has long been bizarre and convoluted to me, and with little in common with my understanding of the "fair use" standards usually applied to educational, non-commercial work that Wikipedia is. My opinion on this dates back way before this article, or these pictures, so has nothing to do with my personal views about this event or which images I might like to see added to or taken out of the article. And my view covers the whole spectrum of images - from musicians to criminals to politicians to record covers and beyond that too. My way of dealing with Wikipedia image policy, honestly, is to as much as possible stay out of it, because damned if I can predict what they will accept or reject outside of obvious copyright infringement. And even there, "fair use" generally is defined differently than the very restrictive definition Wikipedia employs. So I can't really explain it, and I'm not the one to challenge it - I have so many other things that I do here, that I long ago decided to stay out of image stuff for the most part. So I don't think I'm the best person to help on this one. If I see something that I can respond to, though, I will. Good luck with it! CheersTvoz/talk18:48, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While wikipedia itself is non commercial, we require contributions to be compatible with commercial usage, as there are people who re purpose wikipedia content for commercial uses, including photographs uploaded. That said, we could probably be more liberal with the fair use policies than we are and not get into legal trouble.Gaijin42 (talk)18:55, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I posted an explanation about my removal of the detective bit and why I think it is a Verifiability problem, among others. If, for sake of form, you would like me to revert my revert, I will do so, but I would like additional sourcing to be added since it is very thin on supporting information at the moment. --Avanu (talk)04:49, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I replied there and included at least one other source - yes, I would like you to revert the revert, but it's up to you - if you do, you could add the washpo reference too (or I will): <ref name="washpo-serino">{{cite news|url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/martin-familys-attorney-seeks-justice-dept-investigation-into-police-actions-after-shooting/2012/04/02/gIQAnD2prS_story.html|title=Martin family’s attorney seeks Justice Dept. investigation into police actions after shooting|last=Horwitz|first=Sari|coauthors=White, Josh|date=April 2, 2012|work=[[The Washington Post]]|accessdate=5 April 2012}}</ref> Thanks for asking - we should be able to work this out to mutual satisfaction.Tvoz/talk06:26, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I reworded it and put it back with new references - hope that will suffice for now. If different facts come out, it can be adjusted, enhanced, or removed, of course. And we can keep talking about it.Tvoz/talk07:49, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look at some of my edits and stances. I am neutral and not pro-Zimmerman.

Martin

• Against unarmed in the place where I just recently removed it. From March 30th.[2]
• Countering 'drug possesion' for inclusion.[3]
• Nickname Slimm removal.[4]
• Against adding Previous suspensions.[5]
• Against Gangsta photos[6]
• Against adding Email hacking incident to article[7]
• Against race prominence in lead[8]

Zimmerman

• Removal of Mugshot per WP:MUG[9]
• Removal of Political affiliation[10]
• Racial slur used? (Oh ya this is before CNN in which I cite 'goon')[11]
• Weight issue[12]
• ABC's no visible wounds vs visible[13]
• 46 phone call issue[14]
• Against race prominence in lead[15]

Other

• NBA Game statement.[16]
• Double info box removal.[17]
• Removal of pseudo-bios and irrelevant negative bios[18][19]
• 7-11 distance[20]
• Spike Lee Tweeted address[21]

Times accused of POV: MANY

Notice how I take both Martin and Zimmerman issues even if they are unpopular? Why would I argue to keep off negative attacks Martin if I was pro Zimmerman? Why would I argue to keep off negative Zimmerman attacks if I was pro Martin? What about the other issues unrelated to them? I've acted with the flow of info, and been attacked for my stances on both sides. Yet as a whole, my stance and edits are neutral and careful.ChrisGualtieri (talk)05:59, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did you remove this source by mistake? I added it to the end of the section.

Florida Special Prosecutor
On April 11, Florida State Attorney Angela Corey, the special prosecutor, announced that George Zimmerman had been charged with second-degree murder. In Florida, that charge carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment and a minimum sentence of 25 years. She reported that Zimmerman had turned himself in to law enforcement and was arrested and placed in custody.http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2012/images/04/11/zimmerman.charges.pdf

Intrepid(talk)03:13, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - it wasn't me who took that out - looks like it wasthis edit by Whywhenwhohow. Your original placement after "25 years" makes sense to me.Tvoz/talk05:18, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Tvoz.Intrepid(talk)14:33, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tvoz, I added the Affidavit of Probable Cause in the External Links section if you want to look at it. –Teammm^{Let'sTalk! :)}22:59, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.scribd.com/doc/89120165/Zimmerman-Probable-Cause-Document-2

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

Thanks ArishiaNishi - sometimes I feel like I'm talking to myself, so it's good to know someone is hearing me! CheersTvoz/talk19:54, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: A 5 minute review. ```Buster Seven Talk09:08, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously? Ok.Tvoz/talk07:40, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently editedAdriano Giannini, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pageMissing (TV series) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles.Read theFAQ • Join us at theDPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow theseopt-out instructions. Thanks,DPL bot (talk)11:30, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Bot, I fixed it.Tvoz/talk06:10, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you have made edits to theSeamus (dog) article. There is a survey to determine whether the Seamus article should be kept, renamed, merged, or deleted. Thank you.HHIAdm (talk)16:38, 24 April 2012 (UTC)Talk:Seamus (dog)#Consolidated survey[reply]

There is a Straw Poll taking placehere, and your input would be appreciated. — GabeMc (talk)23:44, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that your contributed toWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seamus (dog). Please note that there is a new AfD for the same article.Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seamus (dog) (2nd nomination)HHIAdm (talk)22:00, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They don't give up, do they. Actually, this is the third nom that I am aware of - I commented on the first in January and avoided the second, if memory serves. I'll think about it.Tvoz/talk22:25, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

hv bn noticed. Well, yet again. This time @ Yahoo News:LINK (in a bar graph showing the monikers of the users with the most edits during the U.S. Pres. Primaries so far to Wiki's blp pertaining to candidate Gingrich).--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk)10:16, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ha - thanks, I hadn't seen that! I see you made the Romney Hall of Fame. Funny which articles they picked as articles we also like to edit - they were probably thrilled to get in that Mao article for Wasted TimeR!Tvoz/talk18:36, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I was curious because others have actually made the claim that a redirect would be bad, but I haven't been able to get a good justification for it. Glad I could help you clear that up. And nice to meet you as well! -RunningOnBrains^(talk)04:59, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, there is a straw poll taking placehere, and your input would be appreciated.--andreasegde (talk)11:39, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ThePaul McCartney article has now beenthoroughly copyedited top-to-bottom by numerous editors includingUser:Lfstevens, who is a member of theWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors. If you can find the time in your busy schedule, please consider stopping by and taking a look, and hopefully,!voting. ~GabeMc^{(talk|contribs)}04:09, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This notification is to inform you of a straw poll being conducted at the talk page ofShooting of Trayvon Martin, your comments would be welcome and appreciated on the allegations of witness #9.[22]Note: If you choose to comment, please mention you were contacted via this notification. Thanks!--Isaidnoway(talk)08:02, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I haveadded your name to the list of involved users at the Beatles Mediation. I hope you will agree to the mediation. ~GabeMc^{(talk|contribs)}22:52, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did, although I have to tell you that I am dismayed that this issue continues to be flogged. It is not that important and I think it had been settled (more than once) in a reasonable way some time ago. I haven't been as active on those articles in a while as I used to be, in part because of what turned from a good-humored, even while contentious, atmosphere to a more toxic place where compromise and consensus were ignored and insistence on one's own position became what it was about instead of improving the articles with a sense of humor. That, to me, is regrettable.Tvoz/talk18:07, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please send a Wikipedia e-mail toUser:Feezo, orUser:Mr. Stradivarius to confirm that you are indeed part of the mediation. The link can be foundhere.--andreasegde (talk)23:30, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I missour VC&D.Tvoz/talk18:14, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Per your contribution rankhere, please consider adding your thoughts to theBarack Obama on Twitter DRV if you haven't already done so. Thanks. --Uzma Gamal (talk)17:12, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done - thanks for notifying me.Tvoz/talk18:15, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thejury is almost out.--andreasegde (talk)16:02, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Themediators have come up with a new idea, which seems good. It's under "Episode IV: A New Poll", and "Your thoughts".--andreasegde (talk)10:09, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could you look atthis proposal and make a comment? I know it doesn't allow for arguments for/against, but it is as "simple as possible". Ta, --andreasegde (talk)17:06, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have been "asked" to leave the mediation, which is what I expected at some point; even a blind man would agree. Apparently, the last straw was that one is not allowed to complain aboutWP:Wikihounding. Ho-hum... :)--andreasegde (talk)11:25, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you're doing good work on the article. I generally don't have a sustained interest in any particular topic, so if you run into problems with that article and need another opinion, don't hesitate to drop me a line, since I probably won't be paying attention otherwise. --John Broughton(♫♫)21:25, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I upsetyour plans for the article. I just saw that everything that was in the "Political positions" section was really just his votes on issues, not his positions, (I don't see them as the same thing.) so I moved the votes to the already existing "Voting record" section. Besides, those votes had been placed underneath his the "2012 Vice presidential campaign" section, but they occurred during his Congressional career. So it made more sense for them to be with his other Congressional work. Perhaps there should be a "Political positions" subsection under the "2012 campaign" section that describes the positions he espouses as a vice presidential candidate. This would naturally expand over the course of the campaign. In any case, more discussion might lead to less dissatisfaction.Mesconsing (talk)21:47, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, ultimately that is what I think it should be too. I don't have "plans" for the article - I just saw a problem with the way it had been set up, based on years of working on the articles of political figures. I especially object to the idea that we need a forked off separate article for his political positions - unnecessary and premature seeing as we had next to nothing in the main article. The real problem is we have little about his political positions beyond his votes - which one hopes reflect his positions - so it was a starting point, with the request to expand as I was able to start to do on social issues, and hoped others would do for other aspects of his positions to the extent that anyone knows what they are. The main problem I have with the positions being subsumed into the voting record is you can't see it when you arrive on the page (ToC only goes 2 levels down), and I think readers come here looking for that type of info and need to see it quickly. It's not partisan - see, say,Eliot Engel andSteve King and many, many others. So I can agree that the votes are the votes and should be a part of his House section, but we need narrative on his positions, as I started to do with social issues. Probably should have this conversation on the article talk page in hopes other editors will get engaged in it, because now we are working at cross purposes.Tvoz/talk22:07, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your ideas about having more narrative about his positions, but also understand the difficulty in doing that at this point because he hasn't spoken out much about anything but budgetary issues. If you look at the Talk Page, you'll see that I was the one whoinitially requested some expansion of his views on the issues. Without further discussion,JamesMLane then unilaterally created thePolitical positions of Paul Ryan article, which seemed unwise to me. But after looking at thePolitical positions of Sarah Palin article, I can see how a separate article like that could be developed in the future. Also agree that there should be more discussion on the talk page so everyone understands what's going on.Mesconsing (talk)22:23, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, eventually it may make sense to have a fork - when the main article can no longer support the amount of material and detail that such a section would need. But now it makes no sense. I suggested over there that we merge it back, and last I looked there is no disagreement. But as for the main article, there is starting to be more information available on his political views (again, one hopes somehow connected to the way he has voted, and if not, why not) so I think we need to create the section and fill it in. Maybe a heading change from "voting record" will help. I started a discussion on the main article Talk.Tvoz/talk22:37, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The first few paragraphs ofthe recentNew Yorker profile contain a useful overview of his voting record and political positions. Specifically, it contrasts his position during the Bush Administration (as "a reliable Republican vote for policies that were key in causing enormous federal budget deficits: sweeping tax cuts, a costly prescription-drug entitlement for Medicare, two wars, the multibillion-dollar bank-bailout legislation known as TARP") with his position after Obama's election, when he began striving "to reintroduce himself as someone true to his ideological roots and capable of reversing his party’s reputation for fiscal profligacy." But good luck gettingthat into the article. :)MastCell ^Talk22:20, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah - I'm still trying to work through the concept of his having positions as VP candidate that differ from his votes as Representative - some of which I believe were after Obama's election, e.g., auto bailout. I've briefly looked at Lizza's piece - will read it more carefully. Thanks. Come on over there, MC - it'll be fun!Tvoz/talk22:37, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TheNew Yorker piece was pretty good, although Lizza couldn't resist closing it with a zinger (he goes back to Ryan's hometown,Janesville, Wisconsin, and demonstrates that its economic recovery is due almost entirely to the sort of federal assistance that Ryan views as anathema).

On Ryan's voting record, there's also this aptly titled piece fromPolitico:"Paul Ryan’s voting record: Big-spending conservatism". Of course, Ryan voted for pretty much every big-government budget-buster that crossed his desk. Right up until... I dunno, let's sayJanuary 20, 2009, when he suddenly became deficit-hawk crusader. But that reality will probably prove unpalatable, and unsayable, in his article, no matter how many reliable sources attest to it.MastCell ^Talk02:30, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What was that beautiful line thatColbert had about reality again? :)NW(Talk)02:52, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So I was just reading and lightly editingUnited States presidential election, 2012 and I realized the article doesn't even have as much as a full sentence on Paul Ryan yet. That's surprising enough, but what's even more surprising is that the article doesn't include information on anything that has happened since Romney won the Texas primary in May. I know that summer is generally the dead season for presidential politics as both parties gear up for the fall, but surely something more can be added. Do you have any suggestions on how best to go about improving that article?NW(Talk)02:47, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I guess they fell asleep sometime during the long Republican primary run... I haven't actually looked at that article in a year and a half, so I can't really say what's happened, but a look just now at history shows that it has been edited right along. Maybe put a note on the article talk page with your concerns? I'll take a look when I have a few minutes, but I'm a bit overbooked and wary about getting involved in too many election-related articles again, remembering what it was like last time around. But let me know if something specific comes up that you might need some input on.Tvoz/talk05:59, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently editedMartin Donovan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pageStarz (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles.Read theFAQ • Join us at theDPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow theseopt-out instructions. Thanks,DPL bot (talk)04:54, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Bot. Fixed.Tvoz/talk05:11, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since the cover of his own book says he was born in Kenya, I have a verifiable source, his own words.

So this is not vandalism. You can shut off my editing privileges, but it doesn't change the fact that his own words incriminate him.

I will just get some other friends to edit it for me.

Take care.— Precedingunsigned comment added by99.6.3.90 (talk)17:08, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, no, it most certainly does not.Barack Obama SENIOR, the president's FATHER, was born in Kenya. The author of the book, oneBarack Obama who is the president of the United States, was born in Honolulu, Hawaii. He wrote a book about his father. Who was born in Kenya. Am I getting through to you? How about you show us where exactly, in "his own words", the president says that he himself was born in Kenya. On the cover of his book, or anywhere else. Please do. There are journalists who watch this page, and I am sure they would jump at this story. Would you kindly share your source? Thanks so much. Tell your friends that the same thing goes for them, by the way, about adding false information to articles.Tvoz/talk19:21, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the other editor is talking about the PR booklet that was a breitbart news item a few months ago. Its not strictly "his own words" but his PR persons, and they have since been repudiated as a mistake, but they are there. (Non RS source for clarity)http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/05/drudge-headline-shocker-obama-born-in-kenya-and-raised-in-indonesia-and-hawaii/Gaijin42 (talk)19:30, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what the editor has in mind, but as you know, extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources. This is false, and there wasn't even an attempt at providing sourcing for it, so I think you are being generous in coming up with a bogus one for him. This is just troublemaking, and you know as well as I do that it's going nowhere other than to a block for the IP if it continues. And I'm laughing at referring to anything that Drudge or Breitbart reported as "a mistake" - these aren't mistakes, they are deliberate lies. This is not a time for assuming anything other than bad faith.Tvoz/talk19:40, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was clarifying for you, to say that he wasn't making something up out of thin air, not trying to help him with a source for inclusion. You misunderstood me regarding the mistake. drudge/breitbart did not make a mistake. Their story was 100% accurate. The pamphlet is 100% real, and says Obama was born in Kenya, and has been admitted to by Obama and his PR people. Obama and the PR people are saying it was a mistake in the printing/writing of the pamphlet(made in ~1991). Here are an RS discussing the pamphlet, the overall controversy and its identification as a mistake.http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/born-kenya-obamas-literary-agent-misidentified-birthplace-1991/story?id=16372566Gaijin42 (talk)19:52, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gaijin, please. You don't know that he was referring to that, but in any case, did you look at his edit (which he made three times todayhere,here, andhere)? His edits did not say that a pamphlet claimed (erroneously or not) that Obama was born in Kenya, nor certainly did he say that this was false. Instead he just changed Obama's birthplace in theDreams from My Father article without explanation except for the nonsense here when he was reverted and I warned him about it. It's 2012, and unless he is 5 years old or living under a rock, he must have heard somewhere from someone that this so called information has been debunked over and over again so to include it and insist that it is quoting Obama is disingenuous at best and, I think, troublemaking. I didn't think you were trying to give him a source to add, but you are explaining something that I don't think deserves your explanation. Read what he said at the top of this thread. And finally, this pamphlet has nothing to do withDreams - so I don't know why you think it is what he was referring to anyway.Tvoz/talk22:36, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is most certainly what I was referring to.

How convenient that the president's publicist said it's a mistake NOW. Why didn't the president catch the mistake YEARS ago? I think Tvoz is just a liberal that doensn't like that there are people like me out here that see the president for what he is, a fraud and a liar.— Precedingunsigned comment added by99.6.3.90 (talk)16:48, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Even the original breitbart stories were not claiming this was proof of Obama's birth in Kenya, merely that we was willing to change his biography to whatever was most advantageous at the time. In any case, I am in agreement with TVOZ that your edits were inappropriate - this is not valid sourcing for changing his birthplace to Kenya. At most it would be sourcing for a statement about the pamphlet itself. This would in fact be a great addition toBarack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories where it could be discussed in detail.

I am no fan of Obama, but the entire birther thing confuses me. His mother was clearly a US citizen, and assuming for the sake of argument that he was born in Kenya, under current citizenship law, he is a natural born citizen. Using a loophole of "his mother was too young to qualify" that existed for a brief period of time to disqualify him is desperate (and futile since he is currently president, and 0 chance of getting him kicked out except by losing the election. ) There are plenty of things to dislike Obama for. His birthplace shouldn't be one of them. Under the same birther logic, McCain was also inelligible since he was born in Panama - are the children of every US citizen born overseas inelligible for the office?

That said, I think the various legal technicalities of how all of those laws could work is very interesting - but we updated those laws because they were bad.Gaijin42 (talk)17:10, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think birtherism is particular confusing. It's is one of the more poisonous and ridiculous manifestations of a deep-seated belief on the right that Obama is somehownot "American" enough nor a "legitimate" President. It's never been clear to me why Obama's presidency is less legitimate than that of, say, his predecessor, who lost the popular vote only to be installed by a party-line Supreme Court decision, but that's politics. Frankly, on some level one has to wonder whether this obsessive fixation on Obama's legitimacy, birthplace, religion, etc. is a socially acceptable vehicle for an underlying discomfort with the concept of an African-American President. But who knows - it's not particularly easy to understand irrational psychology.MastCell ^Talk17:55, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Demanding honesty of political argument works in boths ways. The "selected not elected" meme is bullshit. Had the supreme court ruled for Gore, grinting him the recount he requested, Bush won. It is possible (but not sure) that a full statewide recount would have gone to Gore, but nobody asked for a full statewide recount (telling, Gore only requested recounts in counties he thought he would gain votes in). Now it is further possible that votes in Florida were confused, and meant to vote for someone other than bush, but idiot voters not being able to vote correctly using the same ballot they have used for decades is not a crime or to Bush's blame. Futher, if gore had ultimtely won, because the supreme court changed election law, DURING the election, to favor him, that would have been a REAL case of illegitimacy - don't like the results? retroactively change the rules. The popular/electoral issue is interesting, because prior to the election, several people were predicting the opposite (bush winning the popular vote and losing the electoral), and saying telling bush that he would have to suck it up.http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,998330,00.htmlGaijin42 (talk)18:09, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry - I can tell that struck a nerve. It's not my intent to re-argue the 2000 election. My point was simply that Obama's election was unquestionably legitimate, yet on various levels the right refuses to acknowledge his legitimacy, for reasons which I find interesting.MastCell ^Talk18:55, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@ IP-99.6.3.90. Prejudice is embarrassing especially when it is visible on a screen and requires a signature. The dis-comfort shows up in other less obvious attacks but the intent is not so hidden. Did anyone really think that prejudice toward Obama and his skin color would go away after 4 years? ```Buster Seven Talk19:06, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Accepted. the nerve was partially pre-struck by tvoz above - I was trying to be helpful and identify what was being discussed (so that it could correctly be refuted (vs just the normal platitudes)). I felt like tvoz didnt give meWP:AGF and that I was being lumped in as a birther. so I was perhaps oversensitive to your comment.

The nerve is also a result of the tendancy by many to ignore real arguments against Obama and his policies, and accuse any disagreement as being race based. Prejudice and Racism are real. Accusing everyone of it willy-nilly cheapens the accusation, and makes the true instances of it harder to deal with.

As I said to the the IP above, I have lots of reasons I don't like Obama, but neither the legitimacy of the election, nor his race are among them. As an aside, I read that article you posted for DrMies. While certainly the issues discussed are real, I think they are blamed for more than they deserve - there are vocal minorities on all issues and sides that can be used as a distraction and scape goat. I also thought the author was somewhat disengenious in his claims that Obama had avoided race. Although I was dissapointed that he won, I was certainly hoping that his tenure could serve as a milestone/opportunity for racial healing. instead I think he has played the race card every time it would be advantageous for him (and in many times he didn't need to be involved at all, like the "beer summit" incident) - I can't really blame him for that, all politicians use whatever tricks they can - but it does make "Hope" a lot more difficult to come up with. (and to be fair, it is undeniable that race issues have come back at him the other way (but as stated, direty tricks are to be expected in all directions), but I don't think it can be honestly claimed he avoided race as asserted in the article).

@Buster7, if your intent is to call me prejudiced, then I think you need to ponder if you are part of the solution, or part of the precipitate.Gaijin42 (talk)19:14, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@User Gaijin42. I never had you in mind. Sorry for your misunderstanding. I ponder prejudice daily, as we all should. ```Buster Seven Talk21:57, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But every time an African-American President talks about race, in any context, he's immediately going to be perceived by his political opponents as "playing the race card". (In fact, any timeanyone discusses an issue related to race in America, they're generally accused of "playing the race card", as if the only possible motivations for raising these issues are cynical ones). The politically smart thing to do (and the thing Obamahas done, mostly, since he's politically smart) is to avoid mentioning race as much as possible, because every time he does, it makes a significant portion of the white electorate uneasy. He's not allowed to express his sorrow at the shooting death of an unarmed teenager, or the arrest of an African-American Harvard professor who was just trying toget back into his own house - because if he does, it immediately stokes resentment.

I thinktheAtlantic article did a nice job of outlining the way this played out in the Trayvon Martin case - it was really Obama's statement of sympathy that triggered the huge backlash of vitriol from the right - most of which, let's remember, was aimed at a teenager shot dead while walking home from the store with snacks. The message is simple - Obama can't address any racially tinged issue, unless he wants to immediately and irretrievably polarize it. That's not exactly fertile ground for "racial healing" - it's more conducive to simply pretending that racial issues don't exist or magically disappeared on January 20, 2009.

About the demise of "Hope", well, I guess it depends on your viewpoint. I think a case could be made that Obama tried hard to govern in a bipartisan manner - to the extreme of jettisoning the eternal progressive goal of single-payer healthcare in favor of a conservative-authored free-market healthcare reform package. But there was clearly a decision on the GOP's part, from the moment of Obama's election, to oppose him tooth and nail oneverything. The last 4 years don't make sense in any other context - certainly the GOP abandoned a lot of its perennial policy positions the second Obama made a move to adopt them. It seems obvious that partisanship comes first, and public policy is just a tool to bludgeon the other guy with. I mean, how cynical is it to see things like the DREAM Act or the individual mandate -conservative ideas - being anathemized by the party that originated them, solely because Obama took a shine to them? But anyway... I'm monopolizing Tvoz's talk page and I should stop.MastCell ^Talk19:31, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're always welcome here, MastCell. I'm not going to respond to everything, but I will say to the earlier comments by the IP that he is absolutely correct that I don't like that there are people out there who ignore the truth, perpetrate lies, deliberately distort facts, and otherwise do anything they can to undermine the legitimacy of Obama's presidency - and I agree that it is because he is black. There are many people in this country who are horrified that we elected a black president, and all they can do is seize on discredited nonsense about his birthplace, which is irrelevant anyway because his mother was a US citizen. But the point remains that if the IP was referring to this pamphlet he surely didn't say so in his edits, or anywhere else, and instead pretended that a Kenyan birth was a fact and slipped it into a very peripheral article without comment or source. That is troublemaking. Gaijin, I said that you were generously giving him some justification - explaining what you thought he was talking about - not that you signed on to it or agreed with it, and that I did not think that he deserved your retroactive explanation of what he did. I was not lumping you in with birthers. Also, fyi, the pamphlet stuff is already in theBarack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories article - I clarified it yesterday but it was there already - and that article on idiotic fringe garbage is the only place this belongs.

As for Bush v Gore, I don't want to go over this again either, except to say that the fact is that the Florida Supreme Court ordered a statewide recount, and the US Supreme Court stopped it, stepping on their customary practice of respecting states' rights. The count should have been allowed to go forward, statewide as the Florida Supreme Court ordered, and the chips would have fallen where they fell. Instead, the election was decided by one person's vote and this cast a permanent cloud over the end result. In other words, the US Supreme Court did not have to accept the case at all, thus allowing the Florida Supreme Court ruling to stand and no question of which counties should be recounted would have arisen. If Bush won that way, it would at least have not been illegitimate.

Finally, back to the birthers - now Romney is using this racist crap as a crowd-pleaser, and his campaign's attempt to pretend that he was only talking about his own birthplace is offensive. No one asked to see his birth certificate? His presidential-candidate-father, born in Mexico, would turn over in his grave at this new low.Tvoz/talk20:22, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Along these lines... I foundthis piece on race and the election very interesting. The question was why Mitt Romney's campaign ads focus overwhelmingly on the issue of welfare (to a much greater extent than they focus on healthcare, the economy, or anything else). It's an odd focus, since welfare policy hasn't been a focus of the Obama Administration in any way, shape, or form.

One answer, perhaps not surprisingly, is that talk of welfare is a powerful trigger for racial resentment. A political scientist (quoted in the article) did some interesting research demonstrating that the ads had little bearing on policy attitudes or other political questions, but were very powerful primers of racial resentment.

Klein put it this way: " Romney’s welfare ads are not racist. But the evidence suggests that they work particularly well if the viewer is racist, or at least racially resentful. And these are the ads that are working so unexpectedly well that welfare is now the spine of Romney’s 2012 on-air message in the battleground states." Anyhow, I thought it dovetailed with this discussion thread nicely.MastCell ^Talk20:50, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, Tvoz - I dropped by to leave you a very brief note... and since it's been a while, I thought I'd take areally quick glance at your talk page to see what you've been up to. Hah! Should have known better!! Of course, I ended up immersed in reading some good-size chunks. The craziness never ends, does it?!? <shakes head> As you know, I'vemostly stayed clear of really contentious articles - and CFD - for the last couple of years; there's just too much to deal with in real life to involve myself in protracted, stomach-churning disputes. So I have to say, I'm in awe of your stamina, girl - don't know how you do it!! :) You seem to be in the middle of everything (loosely speaking) - from the major political bios to Trayvon Martin to... what else, The Beatles. Not to mention becoming a minor media star in your own right. LOL! One last thing before I get to the item that brought me here in the first place: I enjoyed the hell out ofyour reply to the accusation that you had been less than civil in your response to a particularly irksome editor. My sentiments exactly!!

Okay, here we go: I thought you might like to put in your 2 cents regardingthis CFD that I spotted purely by accident. (I've got a completely unrelated CFD on the same page.) I know we don't see eye to eye on this question, but who cares?? Regards,Cgingold (talk)14:39, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! Nice to hear from you C - yes, I keep busy here..... Thanks for letting me know about that CFD - I pretty much stay away from all of that too, but you are right, this one is a particularly annoying one to me. I made my point about the difference between adjectives and nouns and rather like my explanation - women painters are people who paint women, female painters are painters who are female. How could you possibly argue against that? Now I'm off to a convention of men inventors, to see what they are up to. Cheerio!Tvoz/talk19:58, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PS - I know I should archive here....Real Soon Now (but no good Samaritans, please! I'll do it. Really.)Tvoz/talk20:00, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I take offense to your tactics, which seem to be, tell the lie over an over again without ever providing any proof and people will eventually believe it. If I have been pushing this for years as you have repeatedly claimed, then please address these simple questions: 1) when did I make my very first talk comment in this regard 2) when was the very first talk thread I ever opened on it? ~GabeMc^{(talk|contribs)}22:01, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My tactics? Oh for God's sake I don't care enough about this to have tactics - stop it Gabe. I am not going to spend one minute poring over diffs, and I am not going to engage in this conversation. I'm far from the only editor who has commented on your disruptive behavior, and you ought to think about why this is so important to you - but please spare me the explanation. I'm not interested.Tvoz/talk07:36, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Many editors have commented on GabeMc's behaviour, even at ANI, but each time the subject was closed or deleted and even some edit histories removed in support of his rude and bullying bahviour. Many editors have been gagged, banned and labelled as sockpuppets to disqualify them from disagreeing in his plot to change MoS to suit his obsession. Please note that most of the disagreeing edits in "his mediation" have been removed and yet none of Gabe's edits. You are not the first to identify this railroading.99.251.149.32 (talk)13:19, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Tvoz. You have new messages atFeezo's talk page.
Message added09:06, 20 September 2012 (UTC). You canremove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

—Mr. Stradivarius^{(have a chat)}09:06, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tvoz. Sorry, but would you mind removing the notifications you posted to non-Beatles-related band talk pages about theBeatles RfC? I can appreciate that you would like the poll to be seen by as many editors as possible, but as Feezo saidhere, there was no consensus for notifications on other band talk pages, and there were legitimate concerns with putting them there. It's also not just one editor who thinks this, as you can see from Qwyrxian's posthere. Sorry to ask you to do this, but if you could self-revert it would be really helpful. Best —Mr. Stradivarius^{(have a chat)}14:55, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mr. Stradivarius - welcome to my always exciting Talk page. I didn't have a chance to see or respond to your request or even consider if I thought self-reverting was appropriate, as Ghmyrtle reverted my notifications (for examplehere) on the small handful of band pages where I had posted your neutrally worded notice - 6 bands both with and without the "The" in their titles - saying that the posting had"nothing to do with improving this article". I have no reason to think that was anything other than a good faith action on Ghmyrtle's part. Subsequently, Mlpearc reinstated my notifications on some of those pages (for example,here), saying"This is Publicizing an RfC within Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Publicizing an RfC", correctly, I think, and was reverted as well. Clearly there are different viewpoints on what is allowable and what is not, but unless I missed it, I am not seeing a similar request to GabeMc to revert his 35-40 non-Beatles-related notices (posted in the early hours of Sept 24 UTC time), which are far more extensive and applied to band pages like Wilco, Rush, U2, and exclusively "non-The" articles as well as unrelated artists like Gwen Stefani and Janet Jackson (and a host of Wikipedia policy pages including the noticeboard on fringe theories, which is pretty amusing actually). A few of these were reverted by individual editors on those band/artist pages, but the majority stand as of this writing. I am wondering why this is, in light of your request to revert to me, Andreasegde, and Mlpearc. Thanks for any enlightenment. (By the way, I am assuming that my posting on two related Wikiproject pages - Musicians and Rock music - were not included in your request, as they are analogous to Feezo's post at the Music wikiproject.) Cheers - having fun yet?Tvoz/talk19:41, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Replied by email. —Mr. Stradivarius on tour^{(have a chat)}00:46, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Three cheers for transparency!Hot Stop(Edits)01:18, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was just coming here to followup on these edits, and I think you need to revert yours as well. I am talking to the mediators do determine the next step, but, in the meanwhile, if you will simply revert any remaining notifications (and I see in your contribution list that some remain), it is likely the matter can be put to rest on your end. Note that there is one critical difference between GabeMC's notifications and yours and Andreasegde's--Feezo explicitly stated, before either of your notifications, that no one was to notify "The/the" band pages--seethis comment from Feezo.Qwyrxian (talk)01:33, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Qwyrxian, first, Feezo didn't say in that posting you referenced that "no one was to notify" - he asked editors to "hold off" until we reached consensus - and my focus was on the matter of posting on non-Beatles-related pages, not on The/the vs non-The/the. I respected that request to hold off, waited, and posted afollowup four days later, pointing out that there had been no consensus against posting on non-Beatles pages, and that time for seeking participation was slipping away. Then I waited another day and a half (while many comments on other aspects were being posted on the mediation page, but not on this topic) and when there were no further comments on this point, I said that I was going ahead with posting some notifications to try to widen the scope of commenters, following the basis of the mediation poll which was to seek as wide a dissemination as possible. I started by posting on six band pages - 2 without the "The" title (some other non-The-title that I was going to post on already had the notice) and the others a random, mixed bag of articles that had a mixture of upper and lower case "the" usage throughout their texts. I had intended to come back and post more, but I saw that many had already been posted by other editors, and then saw the discussion on Andreasegde's talk, so didn't proceed. The pages I posted to wereTalk: Bee Gees,Talk: Eagles (band),Talk: The Frames,Talk: The Doors,Talk: The Peanut Butter Conspiracy, andTalk: The Moody Blues. (I also posted on 2 Wiki project pages, following what Feezo did previously, and which had been encouraged.) But to respond specifically to your post, all six of my non Wikiproject notifications have long been reverted by Ghmyrtle - done at 9:00 Sept 24, 10 hours before I saw and responded to Mr S's request above which was well before you posted the above here - so I don't know if I've overlooked something or you are just mistaken or missed the exchange above. (I am assuming that you were not referring to the two Wikiproject notifications which no one has suggested were out of line.) So, I'd appreciate your clarifying your request and your comment "I see in your contribution list that some remain." Thanks.Tvoz/talk05:27, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I see now that they have all been reverted; I'm not sure why I read your contribution list incorrectly. Sorry for the misunderstanding. While I don't quite agreement with your argument above, the fact that the edits have been undone means the matter on your part can be laid to rest. Sorry to trouble you.Qwyrxian (talk)09:25, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks - understood and appreciated. There are layers of issues here, and it is sometimes more complicated than it seems - I'm interested to see where this goes, and hope it can be settled amicably and fairly for other editors.Tvoz/talk18:58, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello.You havea new message at Gareth Griffith-Jones's talk page.

Will reply on your Talk - but just want to thank you here for "whisperback" above - I never saw this one before - and {{wb}} seems to work too! Much better than the usual loud {{talkback}}!Tvoz/talk20:11, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I prefer it too. Replied to you yesterday morning and, hope you don't mind, but brought your strand there into a fresh one with User '78/26'. Perhaps you would care to read it and if you want me to edit it in any way, do tell me! --Gareth Griffith-Jones/GG-J's Talk03:45, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another Hello.You havea new message at Gareth Griffith-Jones's talk page... a comment for you to read added to the end of your "Vandal" strand ... and for theother end, please go tothis ... so we have more support for the cause.

All the best! --Gareth Griffith-Jones/GG-J's Talk17:41, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just because they look good..... and you work hard!78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!)20:37, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks - like on the streets of Brussels!Tvoz/talk22:14, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DonnaHalper (talk)03:31, 2 October 2012 (UTC) We seem to share some similar research interests. I have spent many years in media; and anyone who likes McLuhan is okay by me! (I'm a Neil Postman fan, myself.) Again, my apologies on the Barry Soetoro question. Let me know if there's any entries I can help you with-- I'm normally pretty good at fact-checking, or so I've been told![reply]

No problem!Tvoz/talk04:07, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you editedBobby Cannavale, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pageShowtime (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles.Read theFAQ • Join us at theDPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow theseopt-out instructions. Thanks,DPL bot (talk)11:30, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, bot - I've fixed it. Glad to get the notification - that error was unintended. Must say I particularly like the "We noticed" in your post -robot personification has become quite popular lately.Tvoz/talk22:54, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I just came upon this, and saw there's a history of discussion to which you contributed. You might still be interested. Thanks,76.248.149.47 (talk)21:37, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Old age creeps in - the name Dave Camp isn't even familiar... but I will go over and see what it's all about. Thanks for the heads up!Tvoz/talk22:41, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah - yes - it was an RfC. Got it.Tvoz/talk22:47, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You took some time to elaborate the topic's problems, and it doesn't look--er, kosher--when someone drops the contested material in again without engaging at the talk page. Rather than reflexively revert I thought I'd do the civilized thing and reopen the discussion, but I don't see a compelling rationale for the section to stay.76.248.149.47 (talk)22:52, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah -I just looked at it, and I do remember this one. There's no reason to let that text stand, in my opinion - no consensus to re-add at all. I'll remove it, and re-affirm my thoughts on it. Then if the editor who posted it wants to discuss, fine.Tvoz/talk23:34, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WikiWomen Unite!

HiTvoz! Women around the world who edit and contribute to Wikipedia are coming together to celebrate each other's work, support one another, and engage new women to also join in on the empowering experience of shaping the sum of all the world's knowledge - through theWikiWomen's Collaborative. As a WikiWoman, we'd love to have you involved! You can do this by: Liking theWikiWomen's Collaborative on Facebook and share your tips, projects, and connect with other WikiWomen Join the conversation on ourTwitter feed Reading and writing for ourblog channel We can't wait to have you involved, and feel free to drop by ourmeta page (under construction) to see how else you can get involved! Can't wait to have you involved!SarahStierch (talk)00:59, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

... here since it's increasingly off-topic on [Tt]he Beatles poll.  :-)

I must admit I agree with some others about the impropriety of the "testosterone" bit (even though itwas witty). There is no question that Wikipedia could use (a lot) more women editing, but blaming the existence (or nature) of editing disputes on the putative nature of men is... well, I find it offensive. Honestly, this is no better than if someone claimed that disputes are worse when women are involved in it because they are too emotional for what would otherwise be a rational discussion!

Yes, I know that's the current MWF party line; it doesn't make it any less wrong or offensive. That kind of bullshit faux-differences between the sexes that "everyone knows" and propagates does much moreagainst women participating online than most of the earnest sexism few people take seriously nowadays. Sexism will go away when people stop evencaring about gender; not by replacing one set of idiotic stereotypes with a different one. Nothing about disputes on Wikipedia requires having a vagina or penis. — Coren ^(talk)14:31, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Coren - As I mentioned at thepoll on The Beatles, my quote in the Wall Street Journalarticle was one phrase in a much longer conversation about the nature of disputes on Wikipedia and what fuels them. What I was talking about was a particular kind of attempt at one-upmanship that I see frequently here, and I'm sorry if this offends - that's not my aim - but it is typical ofadolescent boys, or super-annuated ones. Those words weren't included - probably would have irritated even more people if she had included them - but it may clarify what I was saying. There is a need towin, or out-shout, bully, all opponents, regardless of their gender. It's sometimes territorial, although not expressed as such - a "this ismy article" attitude. It's a way of approaching conflict that you may not agree has anything to do with maleness, but in my experience, and I'm far from the only one who has described it, it is a common attribute of adolescent boys, a trait that some don't grow out of. That is what I observe here too often. There are many male editors here of all ages who don't engage in that kind of argument, and I have great working relationships with dozens of them, with whom I may disagree on points but not on style or approach. Reasonable people can disagree and discuss, compromise, understand one another - but that is not what we often see here, and I do think that more women involved in all aspects of Wikipedia - and, as I said at the poll about The Beatles, government - would change the conversation. Thereare differences. Same thing for more older editors with more life experience - the demographics of Wikipedia do not reflect the larger society, and this skewing affects more than the quality of the writing and research. You can now say I'm being ageist, when I say that there are differences in argument between young people and older people, but then you'd be missing my point.

As for sexism going away - I'm glad that you think few folks take earnest sexism seriously any more, and I'd like you to be right, but that's not my observation. You describe a scenario that is so far from where the society is, that it is more in the realm of a hope than a reality. I don't expect people will stop caring about gender - it is even more ingrained than caring about race. If sexism is going to end - like racism - it will be because people hold up a mirror and call it out, not because we pretend it doesn't exist. And the people in the minority - whether it is gender, or race, or sexual orientation, etc. - are in the better position to recognize and identify it than those in the majority, no matter how well-meaning and how sure they are that they are not sexist or racist or homophobic. Again, I wasn't trying to offend people, just to get them to think.Tvoz/talk19:42, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So I'm an adolescent male, and I'm even more offended by this. I understand that you may have been taken out of context, but to attribute certain traits to a group (especially negative ones) is, at least in my view,offensive. Yes, it would be better to be a better representation of the worldwide English-speaking community here, but unfortunately that is not true, although it should be attempted. I also think such discrimination is against Wikipedia policy in that you are notassuming good faith in adolescent male editors.RedSoxFan2434 (talk)23:18, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's adolescentbehavior I am talking about, Red, not discrimination against teenagers - and the behavior I'm talking about is neither limited by chronological age, nor a universal trait of adolesence. (But as a lifelong Yankees fan I might be tempted to consider sanctions against Red Sox fans, but I'd never go through with it. That was a joke, in case you were wondering.)Tvoz/talk00:32, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I get it. I guess I was somewhat confused by your wording. (I'm told I misread or misunderstand things more often than most people.)RedSoxFan2434 (talk)00:49, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I, of course agree 100% with Coren. Tvoz, your insulting comments were quiteoffensive. To air Wikipedia's dirty laundry (asyou see it) for all the world to see was very poor taste in the least, and potentially damaging to the project in the worst. You really should apologise to the male members of the Wikipedia community whom you have disparaged with idiotic stereotypes, and to the community as a whole for giving us all a bad reputation in the national press. Also, for the dozens, if not hundreds of potential female editors who may never attempt to join our community based on your negative assessment of the Wikipedia culture regarding male editors vis-a-vis disputes.

[Tvoz] says disputes have become more frequent over the years. She blames"an overabundance of testosterone running around the pages."

I repeat, imagine if I had said this dispute aboutthe Beatles would have been settled several years ago if it weren't for so many women editing Beatles articles. Or that estrogen is well-known to cause Wikipedia editors to act snarky, dishonest, vindictive and uncompromising. I predict that I would be asked/forced to redact immediately. Tvoz, your comment was rude and sexist, plain and simple. I am offended, disappointed and surprised that you would stoop so low for a scapegoat, and in a major national publication!Question. - Do you think your comment willhelp bring female editors to Wikipedia, or will it helpscare them off? What was that about driving editors away? Besides, this disputeobviously crosses genders, as evidenced byyour significant leadership involvement in it going back more than 4 years.

• Also, your assertion is at face a logical fallacy known ascum hoc ergo propter hoc, as you seem to be assuming that a correlation (90% male editors) proves causation (frequent disputes). If Wikipedia were 90% Catholic, would it also follow that Catholicism is contributing to an increase in Wikipedia disputes? Of course here is a prime opportunity where Icould take the low-road (as you did) and make awitty observation that women generally don't understand logic as well as men, but alas, I have too much class, as well as an innate abhorrence of idiotic stereotypes and logical fallacies. ~GabeMc^{(talk|contribs)}23:13, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

← Not for the first time, Gabe, you have totally misunderstood and/or distorted what I said. My reply at the poll and to Coren above spells out what I was talking about (which was not about this specific mediation) and your nasty comment here pretty much proves my point. Nowhere did I say anything about anyone or any group evenremotely similar to your strawman example ("imagine if I had said ... that estrogen is well-known to cause Wikipedia editors to actsnarky, dishonest, vindictive and uncompromising.") - you give your own biases away, and argue in a personally insulting way. Since you can't engage in a civil conversation, please go play somewhere else - I had about enough of your mode of discourse at the poll.Tvoz/talk00:38, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Question. - Do you think your comment willhelp bring female editors to Wikipedia, or will it helpscare them away? ~GabeMc^{(talk|contribs)}01:47, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One answer: neither. Frankly your question is ridiculous - do you think there's some kind of drumbeat network out there that women have their ears to, waiting for the all-clear, safe-to-come-into-the-water or head-for-the-hills signal? Seriously - what world are you in? I hope to help shine a light on a real problem here, open an eye or two, and move the conversation along. But enough. I'm glad to have this conversation, but, honestly, not with you, Gabe. I gave my reasons in the comment above that you, as usual, ignored.Tvoz/talk02:38, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Really? "And the people in the minority[...] are in the better position to recognize and identify it than those in the majority". Perhaps. But it just so happens that Iam "in the minority" as well: as a gay man I am well aware of societal systemic oppression of minorities (and – in the West – of one of a considerablymore vicious and violent nature). Would a comment that "straight men (which form the vast majority of Wikipedians) are the cause of much of the disputes becausewin, or out-shout, bully, all opponents to prove their masculinity" be any better?

Ido understand where you're coming from, but you're simply substituting one prejudice for another. Women are no less apt to bully, intimidate and browbeat than men in a dispute – even if our cultural mores tend to have createddifferent modalities for expressing them. The volatility and habitual idiocy of disputes on Wikipedia is endemic to themedium; facilitated as it is by distance, anonymity, and detachment. Pretending that the cause is "male" in origin (even if you qualify it with "adolescent" – last I checked women had puberty too) is simple, unadulterated sexism. No better than the morons who claim women have no place in gaming "because they aren't driven enough", or that they have no place in hard science because "they don't have the analytical capabilities". — Coren ^(talk)02:14, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regretfully I must agree with Coren. Your comment was plainly sexist, Tvoz. As an outside observer having done extensive research not only of the question but the dispute and its long history, your own lengthy involvement is largely indistinguishable in quality and intent from the very people you accuse of testosterone-driven adolescent one-upmanship. If male hormones explain the behaviour of your adversaries, what explains yours? As Coren points out above, the driving factor in low quality disputes on Wikipedia is the same driving factor that appears in low quality disputes all across the internet - anonymity as provided by the medium. The quality of the Beatles dispute is no more attributable to male involvement than it is to your own female involvement, and I personally find it highly disappointing not that your prejudices have been exposed here, but that you refuse to see that you have any.–NULL‹talk›
‹edits›05:31, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Coren, Null, yes, I am quite familiar with flame wars on the Internet - I've been actively working online since 1985, well before the Web as we know it now, both professionally and recreationally, on close to a 24/7 basis. And I've encountered similar adolescent behavior online too many times to count. I don't disagree at all that anonymity adds to the problem - when I registered here in 2006 it looked like people used nicknames more than full names, so I chose one pretty easily identifiable to my real name and I've never attempted to hide my identity as you can see in the media interviews I've participated in. In fact I've always maintained that we should require registration here and my personal preference would be for no anonymity. I was asked about why I think in general disputes here are so prevalent and why they often get nasty and my answer (again, not specifically about The/the Beatles, but not excluding it either) was that I see it as caused by a certain brand of adolescent behavior that I, and many others, associate from experience and observation with adolescent males, and sometimes extending well beyond adolescence. My long ago background is in anthropology - and it is standard, common, everyday practice to identify behaviors by various factors including gender, age, and other things, without worrying about being PC. So that's right, I don't think it is sexist to do so. It would be sexist to apply these observations to, say, not allowing male editors to participate in dispute resolution - which before you go crazy I am NOT at all proposing. The fact is, from my observation, there may be other issues that come up with women in disputes, but I don't see it manifested online in quite the same way. And of course here there is such a disproportion that women's influence on the style of discussions is by definition a lot less. So my point to the reporter was that I believe if more women were here, the conversation would be different.

One thing about The/the Beatles - it is a misconception that I have been in some kind of "leadership" role in this dispute over years. I have participated in straw polls about it some of the times I was asked, and the reason I was asked is because I had been a fairly active editor on some of the articles related to The Beatles and am familiar with some of the consensuses (consensi?) and compromises that had been reached in the past. In the last few weeks I was a bit more involved in the discussions mostly about procedural matters when it seemed to me the mediation was not being promoted to the wider, interested audience as I understood was to be the basis of this exercise. I expressed my opinion on the merits once in the poll, explained or clarified it a couple of times when other people commented on the particulars of the point of view I have (that The should be capitalized when talking about the band as a whole and lower cased when talking about the individual members - context - the same position I have always had about what I have always described as an extremely unimportant matter not worth the volume of commentary generated or the time spent on it). I made 33comments edits at the mediation, in comparison to over 700 from the editor who describes himself as the defacto leader of his position. Mine is hardly a leadership role even now, and far less any other time this has come up.

And finally, Coren, I don't know you - we've had minimal, but cordial interaction - but yes I do truly believe that people in a minority are in a better position to identify ways that the majority's actions and attitudes harm the minority and so I would not be at all surprised if you saw behavior here that is homophobic that I might have missed - and I would hope that you would call it out as such. The truth is, I wasn't even saying that the "testosterone-driven" adolescent behavior I see here is used to oppress women, I was saying that it fuels the need to win an argument at all costs, and it works, often because it drives people away from the argument. That's one-upmanship, bullying, and it just isn't particularly a trait of women in arguments that I have observed. Or, as I said, of many or even most men here. And by the way, I also never said that if there were 90% women and 10% men we would all get along with no conflict. Of course not. But I think the nature of the conversation would be different, as many social scientists have long observed. And once again, I have heard this same point about different ways of solving disputes from women in all kinds of spheres, from government to corporate America (with which I also have personal experience) to even Occupy Wall Street. Feminism has matured since the 1970s - it's ok to talk about the ways we are different, as long as those differences aren't used to oppress or treat anyone unequally. I didn't make it up - we are not all the same, and I think it is instructive to understand and talk about the differences.Tvoz/talk08:27, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody here makes the argument, I think, that women are identical to men (though if you have a background in anthropology you are no doubt aware that much of the literature ascribes much of the differences to societal shaping rather than sex). What I, at least, am saying is that by painting the editing environment with a gender-based prejudice you are being needlessly divisive (and, more importantly, completely inaccurate). Go take a look at Facebook, for instance, where participation by women is vast and you'll see the same kind of one-upmanship from both genders. It's a feature of the medium not of the gender of the participants. The discourseis currently dominated by men, but that's a consequence of men being overrepresented in technical fields at the inception of Internet – not the cause. It shaped the behaviour conventions online by mirroring those of the fields from which the early participants came; not by their gender.

Look, I'm not saying you're a man-eating sexist or that your intent was to discriminate. You're simply mistaking causality with correlation: "the environment has feature X and the (vast) majority of participants are male" does not imply "X is caused by males" unless you make a prejudicial – inherently sexist – leap. — Coren ^(talk)13:02, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do apologise, but the tone of this conversation reminds me of some very sage advice that an admin gave me:"You are free to express any opinion you wish. Wikipedia is, however, in no way obligated to offer you a platform for doing so: communication here is limited to that which is useful in building an encyclopedia, and is subject to a number of rules and restrictions. If you feel the need to express yourself beyond these boundaries, you may freely exercise your right to free expression in some other – appropriate – venue. There are a number of social network and blogging services available where you could go." I accepted that advice. Time to step back?--andreasegde (talk)17:09, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You make a good point, Andreasedge, but please remember that Tvoz didn't initially offer her opinion on the Wikipedia platform, but in a different, and wholly appropriate venue -- an interview in which a reporter asked for her opinion as to why this long-time dispute has generated so much acrimony. The same reporter also asked for my opinion, but my reply was too feeble to be newsworthy. Tvoz, on the other hand, came up with a pithy and totally on-point response. We could argue back & forth as to whether testosterone really causes aggression or not, but, as Tvoz has pointed out, this was just her "shorthand" way of pointing out the status-seeking behavior at the root of the controversy.Jburlinson (talk)19:15, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't making a point about Tvoz's comments, I was only repeating what an admin said to me (look at the quotation, which is now in italics). Let's finish this now, and stop making statements that are not about Wikipedia, as I was advised. End of. (BTW, if anybody ignores this, they're just looking for an argument, and it will be reported. I thank you).--andreasegde (talk)19:39, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

←I wrote this without seeing andreasegde's last, so it's not a reply to it. I didn't think he was directing that previous comment at me, but I agree with him that the conversation does seem to be getting a bit repetitive. JBurlinson has it exactly right, that is indeed what I was trying to do, and thanks for getting it. I'm glad the reporter chose that quote, because it encapsulates my sense of what happens here and maybe gets people to look at it from a different perspective.

I'll give this one more try. Coren, it's not just the nature of the medium - in fact I see remarkably little of this type of behavior on Facebook. This is likely because of the nature of Wikipedia vs Facebook, where Facebook is a social-interaction site and Wikipedia a task-oriented place. Dispute resolution, what I am talking about, doesn't even come up on Facebook - their policies are not determined or even affected by what their users have to say, and surely not in some kind of quasi-democratic-like way as Wikipedia purports to be. My observation continues to be that the goal in disputes here for some people is to compromise and for others to win. The need to win - the status-seeking - territory marking - is what I've been talking about, and like it or not, it is widely associated with adolescent male behavior, hence, in a word, testosterone.

One last point - of course I agree that social shaping has a lot to do with this - my shorthand was not making a genetic, "they-can't-help-it" argument - but that doesn't refute what I'm seeing, and certainly does not refute it from an anthropological perspective: genetics play a large role in much of who we are, but society also shapes our attitudes and approaches to everything. I'm not going to get into a diatribe about the patriarchy here, but you can guess what my conclusions are regarding society's role in shaping the attitudes of boys (and girls), which I see on display here, not unlike a peacock display (another way of saying testosterone). Dispute resolution on Wikipedia has become a battleground for who can out-shout whom (volume, not quality), and this discussion ought to be happening all over the project, not isolated to my talk page just because my quote got it some attention.Tvoz/talk22:32, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Clarification - Tvoz, I deserve the right to defend myself against your false accusations. I did not make 700comments at the mediation, I made 700edits, the vast majority of which were accumulated as a result of constructing 90%+ of the evidence for lower-case, which involved over 250 book entries alone. Also, anyone who knows my editing habits will concur that I typically make one comment, then 2 or 3 more edits, adding to and correcting my spelling and/or grammar errors in the first comment, so please don't spin "facts" into half-truths intended to smearme whenyour sexist and discriminatory attitudes are being scrutinised by the community. Your sexist comments were offensive and insulting and the only way for you to save any face at this point is to apologise to the 90% of the Wikipedia community which you have disparaged. ~GabeMc^{(talk|contribs)}22:39, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct, Gabe, that was imprecise of me. I misspoke, after a quick look at the stats. I made 33edits, while the "over 700 from the editor who describes himself as the defacto leader of his position", who I didn't identify, wereedits, not comments. I realize it is difficult for you to see this, but I didn't identify you by name because my point actually was aboutme, notyou - it was about correcting the misconception (that you have promulgated) that I was in a "leadership" role on this, by demonstrating that a person who actually considers himself the defacto leader of his position - and appropriately so, you are certainly the leader of the lower case brigade - had made many, many, many moreedits than I had. I was imprecise in my language, that's all. The point is identical, with the correction of "edits" rather than the incorrect "comments". Do you want me to go back and count your comments? I'm betting that will still make the point. But then, as usual, you go off on a nasty personal attack against me. Gabe, I have no reason to bother to "smear" you - if I did, surely I would have called you out by name - and I think it is evident that I don't argue that way unless I am attacked, although unfortunately you do, and have been asked to pull back on your comments, or had them hatted many times because of the outrageous way you address other people. Would you like me to bring out those stats too? As for my face, it's perfectly fine, thank you, and in no need of being "saved", nor do I need any advice from you.Tvoz/talk23:59, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Per your comment:"this discussion ought to be happening all over the project". Well, I agree, that's why I startedthis thread at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention andthis thread at Jimbo's talk page. Also, I would be more than happy to bow out at this point and not commenthere further, but I think the very least that you could do to help facilitate this is to stop mentioning me in your comments in the thread, and by mentioning me I really mean blaming, disparaging and smearing my reputation. Show us how much more evolved, compromising and nurturing you are, as a female editor, and educate us about your advanced skills of dispute resolution which male editors, in your estimation, lack. FTR, I agree 100% with Null above, your comments/actions during 5+ years ofthe Beatles dispute are indistinguishable from others in the dispute, giving absolutely no indication that you are female and others in the dispute are not. ~GabeMc^{(talk|contribs)}23:12, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I asked you earlier in this thread to stop commenting here, because of this typically nasty personalized comment. You raised a fair point about "edits" vs "comments" just now, I see that I misspoke and I immediately corrected it. I suggest you read this entire thread - I mentioned your name exactly two times, both in comments replying to you and asking you to please stop commenting here. And I mentioned your 700 edits, but not by your name, to make a different point - see above. I have not mentioned youat all otherwise, not in any way - I am speaking in a much more general way about what I see in disputes - not justyour dispute - not attacking individuals. Not smearing you. If you think that when I talk about adolescent behavior, bullying, one-upmanship, territorialism, etc., that I'm talking about you, well, it's you making that connection. (By the way - try using your sandbox to perfect your comments before posting them - it's a lot more considerate to other editors.)Tvoz/talk23:59, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said above, I won't comment here again, but its not right for you to continue tomention orrefer to me at all if you won't let me defend myself. FWIW, I really hope we can work through our differences, whatever they may be, and move on from this dispute in a healthy and amicable way. Other thanthe Beatles dispute, I'm not aware ofany bad blood between us. Are you really holding such a virulent grudge over a bit of minutia that barely concerns you? ~GabeMc^{(talk|contribs)}00:19, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gabe, cut it out. You will not find satisfaction continuing in this manner, only discord. I support Tvoz's right to speak her mind to reporters without any repercussions here.Binksternet (talk)00:43, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Binksternet. I do have to wonder at the sheer audacity of someone posting personally nasty comments here, scooting off to shout alarms hither and yon about a quote in a newspaper that I'm clearly not hiding from, and then coming back, suggestingI'm the one holding a grudge and he just wants to get along? Bizarre.Tvoz/talk06:31, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lysistrata (c. 400 BCE). There is nothing new under the sun. Get over it, haters.Viriditas (talk)01:50, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One of my favorite plays in high school. Even then I knew...Tvoz/talk06:31, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Tvoz. This male editor, for one, agrees with what you said, and for having the courage to say it and stand by it.First Light (talk)02:23, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that, F L, and hope it moves the conversation forward. Nice to meet you.Tvoz/talk06:31, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm very sorry to see the aggression you're getting from some people here, Tvoz. I'm just about to go afk, so I don't have time to flesh this out, but I wanted to say that you voiced a thought I think many of us have had, and that I'm saddened to see that response from at least some people was on the lines of "how dare you voice a thought about how aggressive Wikipedia is, now I shall call you names!" It's almost as if some people on Wikipedia are...I don't know, needlessly aggressive? Almost as if their hormonal or adrenal systems are responding differently than those of others!A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk)15:42, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• @Tvoz: I think this discussion just proves your point. I'm also amazed at the number of people who seem to assume that only males have testosterone!Kaldari (talk)01:15, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Fluffernutter and Kaldari - hormones can be a bitch, can't they? I would have answered sooner, but I've had all kinds of magical realism to read all over the place on Wiki today. They should make a movie - it's good fiction.Tvoz/talk05:27, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• What Kaldari said. From my perspective, Wikipedia is a "masculine" environment. This is not so much to do with biology but all to do with societal norms: in the westernised societies that provided the people who gave Wikipedia and other projects its impetus, men are expected to be aggressive and adversarial, women are expected to be more passive. This is (obviously) not to say that either is a uniformly negative trait, nor that there are not passive dudes or aggressive women, but it is something we shouldrecognise. Wikipedia is fundamentally an adversarial system in a lot of its processes: you vote support, or you vote oppose. Discussions tend to be largely structured as a decision between two views rather than an attempt to form a compromise in the middle. I think this system has some advantages, particularly in the field of content where a middle ground may be improper, but I also think that it has the potential to drive off people who have been societally conditioned to be more passive, many of whom are women, thus perpetuating the system. And I'm not going to rage when people actually point out the Emperor is naked ;p. The fact that "I FIND THIS OFFENSIVE RARGH" is the typical reaction to the quote is sort of proving the point.Ironholds (talk)04:55, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Well said, Ironholds. I largely agree with this statement.–NULL‹talk›
  ‹edits›00:28, 20 October 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]

Thanks - not much discourages me when it comes to speaking my mind, but I appreciate your comment and the star! CheersTvoz/talk07:01, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep up the good work!Raystorm(¿Sí?)09:49, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A cookie! Thank you!Tvoz/talk06:19, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Mind the Gap Award is awarded to contributors who have worked to close the gender gap on Wikipedia and related projects through content contributions, outreach, community changes and related actions.

		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]

Thanks so much andreasegde - love this one!Tvoz/talk06:17, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded: surprised no-one's called you a misandrist yet. Ahh, the joys of privilege blindness...Sceptre^(talk)14:24, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it was said upstream that I wasn't a "man-eating sexist", so that's something!Tvoz/talk06:17, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's easy to excuse prejudice against the majority party by denigrating the majority as being unable to see The Truth of things. The bottom line is prejudice is prejudice, whether it is from a majority or minority, against a majority or minority, and in very few forms is it acceptable. I'm sure you can agree with that, Sceptre.–NULL‹talk›
‹edits›22:37, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, prejudice is not good, but identification of traits by observing behavior is not prejudice, which is making a decision about someone or something without any evidence - that's the "pre" part. Pre-judging, without experience. My comment, my opinion, was based on a whole lot of experience and observation. And the really bad thing about prejudice, Null, is how it is applied. We all have our prejudices, but if we discriminate based on them we've moved into unacceptable territory.Tvoz/talk06:17, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if people think that your (Tvoz's) comment was the most sexist thing, they need to read up on the Bedford saga. And, really, when it comes to minority vs. majority, the Majority often enforce truth by consensus/wikiality way more than the Minority try to introduce The Truth (often in violation of V and MOS, and often under the guise of All RSes Are Equally Reliable).Sceptre^(talk)09:48, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I maintain Tvoz's comment was sexist, but I've made no comment on its severity. Personally I think it was fairly minor, but nonetheless something that should be challenged, as should any observed prejudice. Tvoz, I believe you're confusing correlation with causation, as I think Coren? pointed out above. We know Wikipedia's population is made up in large part by middle-class white males, and we know Wikipedia is subject to reasonably frequent low-quality disputes, but you have no evidence connecting the two. If it were an article we'd call it out as synthesis, in essence what you've done is create a connection between two as-yet unrelated facts based on your opinion, uninformed by causal evidence. This is where the 'pre' comes in, and it's what makes your comment prejudiced.

To paraphrase a source, only really in the last decade has female aggression, in the form of social or relational aggression, been properly recognised. As Coren pointed out above, even in female-dominated areas of the internet, the same kind of jostling for perceived victory or superiority happens there that we see here. The methods vary, women are more likely to use indirect aggression while males are more likely to use direct aggression, but it's naive in the extreme to believe there are sufficient differences between the genders to override the much stronger influences of anonymity, minimised communication (lack of body language, tone of voice and expression) and reduced culpability inherent to the medium of the internet to attribute the general cause of disputes on Wikipedia to 'testosterone-driven adolescent male one-upmanship'.–NULL‹talk›
‹edits›22:59, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tvoz's comment was neither sexist nor creating any kind of connection between unrelated facts. Her comments reflected the state of the current research on the gender gap in Wikipedia:

Studies on gender and personality have shown that females tend to have more agreeable and less aggressive personalities, which suggests that they may tend to avoid conflict if possible. Therefore, a possible explanation for the gender gap is that females may find conflict among Wikipedia editors to be distasteful and unappealing, and may simply choose to not edit Wikipedia as a result. As a partial test of this explanation, we hypothesize that Wikipedia's existing female editors tend to do their work in less controversial areas....Female editors are more likely to have their early edits reverted...Female editors are more likely to stop editing and leave Wikipedia when being reverted as newcomers...Research in multiple domains indicates that males are more likely to violate rules and that they are more aggressive, especially when provoked....[23]

Any particular reason you and Coren are choosing to ignore this research while accusing Tvoz of sexism?Viriditas (talk)02:02, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All of the authors of that paper are in computer science, not psychology. The paper they cite for the statement you quoted actually argues that differences in gender are less pronounced than believed.

"Males were found to be more assertive and had slightly higher self-esteem than females. Females were higher than males in extraversion, anxiety, trust, and, especially, tender-mindedness (e.g., nurturance). There were no noteworthy sex differences in social anxiety, impulsiveness, activity, ideas (e.g., reflectiveness), locus of control, and orderliness. Gender differences in personality traits were generally constant across ages, years of data collection, educational levels, and nations."

It's also largely contradictory to most recent studies. As I pointed out, manifestations of female aggression are a relatively recent study point. Fromthis source:

"Further, they indicated that, as predicted, girls were significantly more relationally aggressive than were boys."

Or fromthis one:

"[F]emales reported perpetrating more psychological aggression than males; there were no gender differences in reported physical aggression; and psychological and physical aggression tended to co-occur."

Most studies, particularly in the last decade, find that males show higher physical aggression, while females show higher relational aggression. Wikipedia, as with much of the internet, has no physical interaction. Interaction between editors is almost entirely relational or emotional, which most current studies agree is a domain in which females are notably more aggressive than males. If anything, the evidence supports females being more aggressive in environments such as this, but one study in particular concludes that the difference in aggression due to gender as low as 5%. In essence, gender is an extremely weak causal influence in online interactions and suggests women are more likely perpetrators than men in this type of environment.

Because gender is so weak as a causal factor, it gets easily eclipsed by direct factors of relational interaction such as the ones I mentioned in my last reply - anonymity, weak communication and lack of culpability. It's not a gender issue at all.–NULL‹talk›
‹edits›03:10, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no evidence whatsoever showing that women "are more likely perpetrators than men" on Wikipedia. None. Zilch. You can't take findings from a study that has nothing to do with Wikipedia and interpolate it into a discussion about a study of Wikipedia.Viriditas (talk)03:25, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The study you quoted misrepresented its own source, perhaps a result of having no psychologists or behavioural experts as authors. Current studies indicate women are more likely perpetrators of relational aggression than men. Implying those studies must name Wikipedia in particular to be applicable is absurd. There is no evidence to suggest Wikipedia is any different to other relational environments; even the study you quoted exclusively references other work on psychological gender differences, unrelated to Wikipedia, without conducting any of its own.–NULL‹talk›
‹edits›04:21, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Null, I'm sorry, but your statements above are just plainwrong and there's really no other way to say it. You cannot, I repeat,you cannot continue to claim that a 1993 study of childhood aggression in children between the ages of 8-11 published in 1995[24] is "recent", nor can you get away with claiming that such a study contradicts a study about adults on Wikipedia published in 2011.[25] It's fine if you're interested in living in some kind of Fox News-reality distortion field on your own private time, but it's just not going to work here. A study from 1993 (an unproven hypothesis about childhood development) does not "contradict" a study about the gender gap in adults from 2011. You're not just comparing apples and oranges, you're comparing two different studies about two different subjects, none of which have any overlap. I would also like to point out that you cherry picked a quote out of just the abstract and ignored the overall findings of the 1995 study, none of which have any bearing on the gender gap. I didn't mention the 2003 study about sexual aggression you cited because it is absolutely ridiculous for you to even mention it. Do you understand that the subject is the gender gap on Wikipedia and not childhood and sexual aggression?Viriditas (talk)09:43, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you often make use of strawmen, Viriditas? I didn't link the study you did, I linked a study from 2003and a study from 2008, both specifically dealing with behavioural psychology and aggression. One of the authors involved won the award for 'Distinguished Scientific Early Career Contributions to Psychology'. These are recent studies, as I'm sure you can plainly see. Within the last decade, as I've been telling you all along. On the other hand, your GroupLens Wikipedia study references psychology papers from 1994 and 1996. Oops.

Viriditas, you formed your opinion on this issue well before you came here, and you have no interest in actually reviewing the research materials. There's no point in engaging someone who has closed themselves off as you have. I'm quite familiar with modern perspectives on gender differences, particularly as they relate to aggression. The study you quoted misrepresents its source, simple as that. Wikipedia doesn't go to a chef as a reliable source for quantum mechanics, and it doesn't go to a computer science major for reliable research into behavioural psychology. If that's how you treat sources here, I dread to think what damage you've done to the rest of the encyclopedia. In any case, I'm not here to convince you of what you don't have any interest in believing, I'm simply saying that Tvoz's comments were off the mark, without causal evidence and prejudiced to the point they could be seen as sexism. She doesn't need you to white knight for her, she's more than capable of reading and reviewing current papers. I've made my point, I've outlined a handful of the myriad studies that back up what I've said. You're locked into your viewpoint of choice. There's nothing more to say.–NULL‹talk›
‹edits›23:13, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you brought that up. You have said repeatedly, that the 2011 study about the gender gap on Wikipedia "misrepresents its source". Could you please tell me the names of the studies and show me how they are misrepresented? In your reply, please don't change the subject to an unproven hypothesis about childhood development between the ages of 8-11 or sexual aggression on college campuses. To remind you, we are discussing the gender gap on Wikipedia and its causes,none of which have anything to do with children between the ages of 8-11 and sexual aggression in college.Viriditas (talk)23:18, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't even read the source you're arguing so vehemently in favour of? The source for the aggression claim isA. Feingold. Gender differences in personality: A meta-analysis. Psychol Bull, 116(3):429–456, Nov. 1994, a study conducted 18 years ago. The quote I gave you above, beginning 'males were found to be more assertive', is verbatim from the abstract for that study. Above, I provided you with two much more recent studies.–NULL‹talk›
‹edits›23:23, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, but you haven't even mentioned the name of any source that the study misrepresents, and considering they cite quite a number, you actually have to name the source. And for the record, you did not link to a study from 2008, you linked to a study from 1993 that was published in 1995. I'm disappointed you haven't been able to figure that out, even when I gave you the direct link to the study. The reason you are so confused is because the 1995 study wasn't uploaded onlineuntil 2008, and you confused the electronic upload date with the publication date. This also tells me that you haven't actually read any of these studies beyond the free abstract. If this kind of sherlocking is indicative of your argument, it might be best for you to just concede the point and admit that neither of the studies saysanything about this subject at all, and that in the future, you will make an effort to actually read the studies beyond the abstracts. Please stop making stuff up and accusing me of your own errors.Viriditas (talk)23:28, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, apologies for being slow to respond, my internet is quite unstable from here and I have no access to PubMed here to pull down actual papers and finding links to web-accessible sources is proving tedious. The misrepresented study is written in italics in the second sentence of what I just said to you above:A. Feingold. Gender differences in personality: A meta-analysis. Psychol Bull, 116(3):429–456, Nov. 1994. My apologies on the first of the two studies I linked, I misapplied a publication date filter. You're right that it was first published in 1995 (I will note this was after the study used by the GroupLens paper). I misinterpreted it to be part of Nicki Crick's 2002 work on a similar topic (childhood causes of adult aggression), which contributed to the award I mentioned above. I'll strike part of my comment above and I'll try to find a more recent one of her papers for you next time I have access to PubMed. From Google, I did findthis paper she contributed to in 2009 indicating "gender differences in overall levels of relational aggression were not observed". If you're interested,here is another one reaching similar conclusions, also from around the same time. The second source,Gender Differences in Psychological, Physical, and Sexual Aggression Among College Students Using the Revised Conflict Tactics Scales was indeed published in 2003 and has the strongest of conclusions regarding gender-based aggression. Since you seem interested in more sources, a paper from 1997 (15 years)[26] concluded "the only aggression scale showing a significant sex difference was indirect expressive aggression on which women scored higher than men. There was also a significant sex difference on Expagg with women showing a more expressive representation of aggression". An old but stillwell respected study from 1994 indicated that across adults, males displayed more physical aggression while females displayed more social manipulation/relational aggression. I can't find a link right now but Hershcovis et al did a study in 2007 that indicated counter-productive work behaviour (CWB), something that impacts systems like Wikipedia quite strongly, showed no significant variation between genders. Related, you might findthis paper from 2008 on physical aggression specifically interesting, which suggests "recent research has found that this [gender] discrepancy is better attributed to conformity to gender roles rather than to biological sex" and that women placed in male-oriented gender roles display similar levels of physical aggression, and indicates the difference is societal, not testosterone-driven.

For the sake of disclosure, one of my aunts is a behavioural psychologist. She was the one who provided me with papers on the subject when I expressed interest in her field about 6 years back, and she's done a good job of keeping me up to date thus far on the general consensus in the scientific community. Psychology to begin with is a somewhat soft science, which is why most of its research and conclusions work on sample groups and statistical analysis of observed behaviour. In general, presently (and it may well change), it's considered that males show significantly higher physical aggression than females, and females show equal to higher relational and social aggression than men.–NULL‹talk›
‹edits›00:23, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And here it is, an argument about testosterone. Somebody will have to tell me if that's ironic or not.--andreasegde (talk)10:10, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a conversation about the causal effects of disputes on the internet and Wikipedia, not sure where you're getting 'argument' and 'testosterone' from.–NULL‹talk›
‹edits›23:13, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From you. :))--andreasegde (talk)04:42, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thirded. Enough said.Raystorm(¿Sí?)23:24, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And tea to go with it. Perfect!Tvoz/talk06:20, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I didn't figure you were a technical guy but... after cruising Wikipedia for a half an hour I thought I would ask somebody, at random. Apparently IPs cannot create articles. Could you create a new article called "MC3 connector" for me? It is a predecessor of theMC4 connector that I have been messing with. The initial article could just include a redirect toMC4 connector as I have started a section there and it woud get teleported to the new article. I could post a picture, if I ever figure out how, also. If you are not the right way to go with this can you direct me to someplace? (not tell me were to go lol). Thanks174.118.142.187 (talk)20:17, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Right you are, I am not at all a techie. Normally I would hesitate to create an article - even a redirect - about something I truly know less than zero about, but this seems pretty straightforward and non-controversial, so I did it. What you can do in other instances is (1) make a comment on the target article's talk page, asking for the redirect to be set up, and/or (2)go to the page history and choose an editor who seems to have an interest in the topic (not just someone passing by and correcting spelling) and ask that editor to do it. Or (3) set up an account - there are other benefits to having an account as well, and you can maintain anonymity if that's important to you. Good luck with your editing!Tvoz/talk20:49, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I was surprised to see so little edit action on the existing article. Not enough controversy for most, maybe! Now to figure out how to u/l pictures to WP. Any info on that?174.118.142.187 (talk)02:06, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a good person to ask about photos here - trythis help page.Tvoz/talk03:19, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again! You have been a good person to ask, so far. You seem to be able to laugh at yourself, too. So it's pro gest your own? :>P174.118.142.187 (talk)12:04, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good afternoon Tvos. How are you? Thought you might not have spottedthis and may want to advise. All the best! Sincerely, Gareth

--Gareth Griffith-Jones/GG-J's Talk12:36, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, interesting - I wasn't sure if the editor was questioning that Sirhan killed RFK or that Williams was there - but looking back at the earlier edit I see. I'm looking for sourcing too for Andy's presence in the hotel - he was in LA, he did go to the hospital where Kennedy lay dying, but I haven't yet come up with a definitive source that couldn't be a loop from our article (like the obits could be). I am moving the tag now, to be clear about what info might need sourcing. thanks for the shoutTvoz/talk03:14, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --Gareth Griffith-Jones/GG-J's Talk06:52, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Moved toUser talk:Leahtwosaints

 –to consolidate discussion in one placeTvoz/talk20:22, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Thanksgiving, Tvoz!
As we all sit down at the dinner table and say our thanks, I would like to give thanks toyou for your wonderful contributions and wish you a very happy Thanksgiving. May your turkey, ham or beast of choice satiate you until next year! TRA! ```Buster Seven Talk

Hey, Buster - thanks! Same to you and yours.Tvoz/talk23:34, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Coming up on six year ago :-) you posed the question I reached tonight, namely,: "... is there a ... template to be used in warning IP addresses not to vandalize?" (...again, in my case). I'd foundTemplate:uw-biog1 just a few days ago for one eventhere. Tonight I encountered another unrelated event and in addressing it realized the template wasn't quite right for IP #s (where one doesn't wish to accuse however politely any old or young person at the IP of vandalism; even the language in your question, looked at closely, doesn't distinguish well, if I may say so; "IP addresses" don't vandalize, users at IP addresses vandalize, and quite possibly only one or some of the users at the IP address). So I adapted the wordingthere (first draft, let's say) and then went back and retrofit my first one.

I could just jump toTemplate talk:Uw-biog1 to carry this further but, somehow I'm hazy on, I found my way here and like paying homage to the long-ago. Any thoughts? Just tell me to jump and I'll do so. (I've thought aTemplate:uw-biog1a, even the whole 1-5 series. ... Or maybe my zeal will fade.)

But I was warmed to see the "Skip to the TOC" template in use on your talk page. I discovered that template fairly recently and now apply it on talk pages when blocs of templates seem (to me) to thwart, potentially, interest in "talk"ing.

And I'd say you're maybe ready for another archive of the ol' Talk Page. Pretty voluminous for my (still dialup) download capac., it was. Will do so as thequid for being here if you say the word.

Pleasure to find this corner of the Wik. Cheers.Swliv (talk)02:08, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello - nice to meet you! I've seen you around of course, but don't think we've communicated before.

First, I know I need to archive here, but please don't do it for me - I am opposed to bot archiving, and don't feel better about other editors doing it for me. I appreciate the offer, but I will get to it. Whenever I start on it I get lost in reliving all these lovely moments from the past and just hate to move any of it off. But I will - Real Soon Now. Sorry if it's bombing your download - dial up? Really? I thought the dinosaurs were extinct! Sometimes I miss thosemodem squeals...

I add skiptotoctalk on talk pages all the time - helps with the sanity. A favorite new template - new to me I mean - is {{like|username=Tvoz}} - looks like this:Tvoz likes this. and comes in handy. Also enjoying {{wb|Tvoz}}, courtesy Gareth Griffith-Jones. See your talk for how it looks.

Now to your main point - I still like some of the old vandalism warnings better than the new ones - {{Test3ip}} , seems to me, was to the point and pretty much appropriate. The old ones have been replaced and are notofficially welcome any more, but they are still here. I guess you could askhere how they feel about using your own tweak - or just do it. I think yours was fine, and I never quite saw the need for some of the rewrites or rules about how to use them. For example, I personally object to using the extreme good faith ones (levels 1/2) when it is clear that the edit was vandalism, and not a "test" that they need to be gently shown how to avoid. Good faith goes only so far - and especially with BLPs I don't always follow the suggested levels. Just my opinion - I am not one to bend over backward for the rights of anonymous editors - if I had my way, IP editing wouldn't be allowed, because of the extreme lack of accountability. But that's just me - I also think it is appalling that the long-agreed-upon "flagged revisions" or "pending changes" (or whatever the name-of-the-day is) has not been implemented here, especially for BLPs, and would make me feel better about IP editing. It would protect the integrity of the encyclopedia, at least to some extent, and help protect the project from embarrassment or legal action - I cannot understand why this hasn't happened and find it very discouraging and wrong. So I call out vandalism as vandalism, not with euphemisms.

I don't know if this helps - you had to dig pretty deep to find that quick question I asked all those years ago! Sadly, things haven't improved in that arena - hence my previous paragraph.

Again, nice to meet you!Tvoz/talk09:27, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just stumbled on a lead back to ...#Gillibrand above and conclusionhere. What do you know?

I think I'll be sticking with manual adjustment of the vandalism template text to my taste for now. Your explanation is worthy of framing but more than I can take on. The risk of digging way back, right? Thanks for your efforts on it. Part of the long-term improvement plan, we or I'll have to make it. For now, nice to meet you again too and cheers.Swliv (talk)04:17, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That Gillibrand thing is vaguely familiar - a lot of water under the bridge since then. So I guess we've talked before. Good luck with your vandal fighting.Tvoz/talk04:45, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You know, you really shouldn't mark page moves as "minor edits". Just saying. (hell, it's been a while but I didn't even realize that youcould mark them as minor...)
— V = IR(Talk • Contribs)02:19, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of course not. I did not mark the page move as minor, and in fact I also don't think there even is a way to do that. (I use the old Wikipedia interface, and it ain't there.) So I don't know how or why that "m" is there, but it was not from me, nor would it be if I had had the choice.Tvoz/talk03:01, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah -here's a 2009 discussion on this - apparently that's how page moves are marked. I never noticed it before, and didn't choose it, and think there should be a choice to distinguish correction of typos from name changes of some significance. Live and learn.Tvoz/talk03:09, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Hey, Tvoz. Sorry to leave you hanging for a couple of days, but I'm not here that often any longer (at least not logged in). I guess that it really has been a while, cause I had no idea that page moves were being marked as "minor" by the systems. That's a bit crazy! This obviously wasn't your fault though, so... sorry about starting this, I guess (although, you seemed surprised yourself and you obviously looked into the issue).
  Anyway, I can't deal with Wikipedia any more. The people here (on the whole, as a group) are impossible to work constructively with. I've had some good (if not great!) interactions with a few individuals here, but just about everything that requires interaction with people here is confrontational and just plain emotionally draining. Quite a few Wikipedians are intellectual bullies, and the "governance" (haha!) is driven by ad-hoc committee decision making, which leads to massive bureaucratic discussions and interminable delays (during which participants tend to get beat up for said bureaucracy and delays). I love Wikipedia itself, and it continues to be a valuable resource to me and many others, but I refuse to deal with the people here any longer, as much as that is possible. Regards, Nolan.
  — V = IR(Talk • Contribs)23:22, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Nolan - no problem. I hear you and I've heard the same thing from too many good editors, conscientious editors, editors who want to work collegially - I expressed my opinion about one of the reasons for it and got a load of, shall we say, negative feedback - but also a good deal of positive feedback - some of both you can seeabove. Maybe you need a break, but I hope you'll decide to come back and increase the numbers of folks who push back against this unfortunate trend, and get back to what can be a rewarding task of writing an encyclopedia.Tvoz/talk02:52, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!
 –
 –Gareth Griffith-Jones |The Welsh Buzzard|
gives you thispuppy!
Puppies promoteWikiLove and I hope this little fellow/girl^{(your choice)} has made your day better.
Remember! Your puppy must be fed three times a day and will be your faithful companion forever.

Merry Christmas and a happy 2013
10:24, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Gareth - the very same good wishes to you!Tvoz/talk17:41, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for cleaning up my citations,etc onAndrew O'Rourke. I'm really rusty.J. Van Meter (talk)

Any time! Hope to find more info so we don't rely so heavily on the one obit, but at least this is a start. Please jump in with anything you find - don't worry about the technicalities - they're easy to fix. Date of birth would be good.Tvoz/talk18:18, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

-Yes - just found/added dob.J. Van Meter (talk)

Great, saw it.Tvoz/talk18:42, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, sorry to be the bearer of bad news... Though your application was perfect and your account fully approved, we ran out of access codes 7 short of the total who signed up in round 6. I've gone ahead and moved you to the top of the list for round 7. If and as soon as we are given access to more accounts, you will be first to receive it. If you need help accessing sources,WikiProject Resource Exchange is a great place to go, or for HighBeam specifically, you might try asking one of the other1000 editors who have HighBeam access this year. Again, I'm sorry, and I'll keep pushing for more access to these valuable resources. Cheers,Ocaasi^{t| c}18:21, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]