User talk:Clashwho

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Clashwho, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Yao Ziyuan 05:10, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome! Clashwho 00:57, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Talk:The Who

Can you tone it down a little? "Dipsticks" is not encyclopedic language. I (and other users) would like to improve the article by making it better referenced. Will you help? --Guinnog 02:43, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Of course I'll help. Most of the existing references are mine, anyway. Clashwho 05:17, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. --Guinnog 03:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Controversies in the Leads

Just wondering when you're going to fix the leads for Woody Allen, William Burroughs, Chuck Berry, James Brown, Jerry Lee Lewis, Hugh Grant, Russell Crowe, Mel Gibson, Jimmy Page, Winona Ryder, Sean Penn, George Michael, etcetera. They're all lacking mention of their very notable "controversies" in the leads.Clashwho 04:50, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

The answer is "never" as I have no interest in these articles. Feel free to have a go yourself though! --Guinnog 12:02, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Why would I? I disagree with your opinion that all controversies deserve lead coverage. If you truly believe they do, there are a lot of articles you should be fixing. So what is your special interest in Pete Townshend?Clashwho 22:27, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Oh, he was a hero of mine when I was growing up. In fact I got my first kiss listening to a Who record. Woody Allen is the only one out of those I might be interested in. What about you, what's your special interest in Pete? --Guinnog 00:39, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm a fan who wants to see him get a fair shake. You appear to be holding him to a different standard than all the other celebrities with controversial pasts that I have mentioned.Clashwho 03:19, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Appearances can be deceptive. I assure you all I want is to improve the article, in line with our policies. It is a very common defence of POV and other problematic edits here to say "Article X contains certain errors; why not fix that first before touching Article Y, which I like". As I'm sure you can see, this approach is logically flawed. We need to make all the articles as good as they can be. It is natural to focus more on articles which deal with subjects close to our hearts, but this can be a disadvantage as much as an advantage sometimes, as you are perhaps beginning to appreciate. --Guinnog 22:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] August 2007

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on The Who. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. Sasha Callahan 23:25, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Who says I'm doing the reverting? The way I see it, whoever is deleting art rock from The Who's genre list is guilty of exceeding the three revert rule. I have backed up my argument with citations. You and the other editor have backed up nothing. Clashwho 23:32, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
I suggest you read the rule for yourself. This is the important part: "A revert, in this context, means undoing, in whole or in part, the actions of another editor or of other editors. This can include undoing edits to a page, deleting content or restoring deleted content" (bolding was done my me to emphasis the part relevant to you). Sasha Callahan 23:38, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
I am also an editor. You are undoing my edits and deleting my sourced and properly referenced content. Continuously. Your edits are backed up by nothing. My edits are backed up by multiple appropriate sources. You are the one who ought to be in danger of banning. Not I. Clashwho 23:45, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Except I only made two reverts (and one wasn't even of your edit), while you have made 3. Plus, it is standard to issue the warning I did to help reach a compromise. For the record, the source you listed used the term "progressive rock" so I added that to The Who genre. Sasha Callahan 23:51, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Then it's the other guy who is being completely unreasonable. Thank you for attempting to help in a constructive way. Clashwho 00:03, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Civility and vandalism

My apologies for the misunderstanding, but please watch what you say, especially on my talk page. No one has accused you of vandalism, certainly not me. Had I accused you of such, you can be certain there would have been a warning on your talk page. There's a problem with one of the anti-vandal programs we use, and the reason your username was mentioned in the reversion is explained here. Dreadstar † 05:51, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying, but, really, "civility"? How would you like it if the history of your pet project page that you've spent years improving featured the following: (Reverted edits by Dreadstar (talk) to last revision (155710883) by using VP)
And then you click on the VP and see it stands for "VandalProof". Not cool. Clashwho 05:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
It's certainly not my fault, so save your righteous wrath for someone else. There's no need for cursing and no need for the bad attitude, which is unwarranted and not cool at all, dude. So yes, WP:CIV and WP:AGF both apply. Dreadstar † 06:02, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I can read your posts here, no need to duplicate them on my talk page. Dreadstar † 06:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

There. All better now? Dreadstar † 06:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Ha! Yeah, thanks. :)Clashwho 06:21, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Cool! Dreadstar † 07:08, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: The Who Wikiproject

I think the article is quite good right now, but of course we have to maintain the current quality. I've seen it be both better and worse in the past and it's our just job to make sure it doesn't get too much worse. My major contention is that the infobox is a bit crowded which isn't really aesthetically pleasing. -MichiganCharms 19:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes the genres need to be cut down, for sure. We should try to keep it to only two or three... I'd imagine rock, hard rock and power pop. Also the years active: maybe we should keep it down to major activity, I mean is one show in 1985 really being active? We should do it like the page on Led Zeppelin has. And if there is a way to cut down the record labels, that would also help... -MichiganCharms 15:48, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] civility and tone

I've been pursuing some of your recent contributions. These recent edits in particular have caught my eye: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]. I think you would find it profitable to moderate your tone. Much of what you have said comes across as arrogant and condescending... if not plain insulting in a few cases. You might find reading WP:Civil helpful in understand wikipedia's behavior requirements. An essay on meta-wiki is also a very interesting read: "meta:Don't be a dick". Thanks, ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 00:37, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I think all the comments you noted were richly deserved. Thanks for caring. 74.77.222.188 04:07, 8 October 2007 (UTC)