User talk:

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search



I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or type {{helpme}} here on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 10:31, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

New message from Gareth Griffith-Jones[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, You have new messages at Gareth Griffith-Jones's talk page.
Message added 10:18, 12 February 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Your query has been answered. — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 10:18, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Storylines para 1 & 2[edit]

Editors Barnstar Hires.png The Editor's Barnstar
For your good editing in recent days. — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 12:12, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

You have new message/s Hello. You have a new message at Gareth Griffith-Jones's talk page. – The Welsh Buzzard —  at Talk:The Queen Victoria Storylines para 1 & 2 09:49, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

The English Patient[edit]

Good observation here by both you and the following editor. — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 21:30, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

BBC Breakfast[edit]

Gareth--could you take a look at the history to see if it is a clearer form than before and that I have not imposed any Americanization's on it. Also, did not quite know what to make of the following as are they of two different happenings are the result of one from the other? It remains in place in the article. I was not much of a Maggie-ite so did not take much notice at the time. Thanks.

"On 12 October 1984 Nick Ross presented the show on his own as live coverage came in from the assassination attempt on Mrs Thatcher at the Brighton bombing. Breakfast Time lasted 2 and a half hours, initially being transmitted between 6.30am and 9am, moving to a 6.50am to 9.20am slot on 18 February 1985." (talk) 08:32, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Great improvements. Thank you!
I have made a number of small revisions working down from the top to make it easier for you to compare. Just reached the bomb; you are correct—it was a mess! Thanks for drawing attention. It now reads:
"Breakfast Time was the first BBC breakfast programme, with Ron Neil as producer. It was conceived in response to the plans of the commercial television company, TV-am, to introduce a breakfast television show. Breakfast Time's first broadcast was on 17 January 1983,[3] featuring multiple presenters: Frank Bough, Selina Scott, Nick Ross and Russell Grant. The atmosphere of the set was intended to encourage a relaxed informality; a set that mimicked a living-room rather than a studio, with red leather sofas, and Bough and Ross wearing jumpers and open-necked shirts. This allowed for an unconventional mix of authoritative and highbrow news and informative and entertainment features that made the show dominate the new genre and trounce the anticipated threat by the star-name commercial TV rival. So, a senior government minister might be subjected to intense questioning while sitting on the red sofa, to be then included in the presentation of a food cooking demonstration. Breakfast Time lasted 150 minutes, initially being transmitted between 6.30am and 9am—moving to a 6.50am to 9.20am slot on 18 February 1985."
"A bomb detonated at 2:54 a.m. on 12 October in the Grand Hotel, Brighton, with the purpose to kill Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and her cabinet, who were staying at the hotel for the Conservative Party conference.[4] Nick Ross presented Breakfast Time on his own, as live coverage came in from Brighton."
I have put a template (in use) for us to continue hopefully without interference. — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 10:12, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Just read through the current text and no problem with the changes as with some of these edits I am good for at least two run troughs but after that little things can get by. Figured that "smart" would fit instead of what was there before to further describe the more conventional studio set and atmosphere of seriousness which I believe was more oriented toward the guys dress than women's but then smart dress for women is appropriate for women. American "suit and tie" just is not the same. If there was any jump and hop writing there before the changes, it should have been eliminated except for the reference of the return move to a studio mentioned further down that had been used by the programme previously. (talk) 10:48, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
I shall carry on down the section, but a bit busy with real life today. You are up late! Can't you sleep? [1]— | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 11:10, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Sort of yes and sort of no. But got some sleep. and now back to marching on. (talk) 16:31, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

G--Is this normal in WP for this type of personal attack?[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might like to see:

You are welcome to continue editing without logging in, but you may want to consider creating an account. Doing so is free, requires no personal information, and provides several benefits such as the ability to create articles. For a full outline and explanation of the benefits that come with creating an account, please see this page. If you edit without a username, your IP address ( is used to identify you instead.

In any case, I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your comments on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your IP address (or username if you're logged in) and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on this page. Again, welcome! 7&6=thirteen () 01:54, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I was until I was insulted by TC presumption. Is this normal of participants to lash out at others especially in this way? That contributor needs to learn some manners. I have asked a fellow contributor here Gareth for some advice about this situation. (talk) 01:57, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
  • What contributor are you talking about? Gareth thinks you are angry with HIM, I think. He thinks you have a conflict with him because ha said "old world", or what do you mean? Hafspajen (talk) 21:59, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Hafspajen--Thank you for writing. That can be nothing but what is the truth and I am glad that I have been told before waiting to write and thank Gareth for his help when his rugby is over on Monday. I thought that I had included the flow of what prompted me to contact him. That follows:

Perform What? " Evelyn Mulwray (Ladd) hires private investigator J.J. "Jake" Gittes (Nicholson) to perform surveillance on her husband " Never have heard surveillance expressed as perform. It almost gives one the feeling that surveillance might be a code word for falatio. Good thing private dick was not used. (talk) 23:24, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

English is not your first language? I'm starting to recognize something here. --Ring Cinema (talk) 00:52, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
What, that you have a fledging career in double entendre porn screenwriting? (talk) 01:06, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Again, you don't know English, so you have no basis to make a judgement. I wouldn't edit a page in your language, whatever it is. I'd suggest you edit the pages there. --Ring Cinema (talk) 01:13, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Is it natural for you to exhibit so much hatred toward others? You react as if someone has made a personal affront to you. You really should seek treatment for your own sake. Now, instead of making personal attacks, please stay on topic. (talk) 01:22, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Suggest that we focus on the edits and not the editors. WP:Civil and WP:No personal attacks. We all look smaller when we diminish the other editors. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 01:46, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
That is exactly what I called for after that vicious uncalled for attack.[Something is missing from this particular post since it does not show the end script.]
Just the facts. You are not a native English speaker and don't know ordinary usage. --Ring Cinema (talk) 03:37, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
The fact remains that the wording as it stands sounds very double entendre. There is no escaping it. That is why the right words need to be selected instead of insisting on words that give impressions that are not appropriate for the article. (talk) 01:51, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
It's just ordinary English usage that any native speaker would recognize. --Ring Cinema (talk) 03:37, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Well, I guess I will just have to eliminate this article from those viewed by my children since that phrase is rather risqué. And to think, an article about a movie that is set in a place that exists and has a thriving porn industry presence. Such irony. (talk) 03:44, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Another editor changed the phrase, so that your children can now use this article before they watch the film. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:47, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Well, sometimes one just has to make things happen for all to be well in the world. Cheers! (talk) 19:21, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Connotation means to me far more than anything. It amazes me how someone that does not know me would react in such an especially alarming manner. It reminds me of when the state government released all these patients from the mental health facilities and on the streets all of a sudden someone would come up to you and start arguing about something that there was absolutely no idea as to what caused it or what was the subject. At least in the hospital they would regularly take their meds and being on their own and some being homeless without support systems they would stop taking their meds and that would bring on their psychosis. Thank god the state then started developing programs and housing for those that better functioned in public when in group housing facilities where they could get counseling and reminders during their stay to take their meds.

I've reviewed some of the edit summaries of Ring Cinema as well as reactions towards others and they can be rather caustic and upsetting. My first reaction is, what is up with this person? That if RC perceives to have such a great understanding of composition then why is that RC presents as if the intent is to put one off AND be insulted? It appears to me that RC predominately edits the contributions of others. That unto itself is not bad but when you are attacking and insulting people then contributing content to the article then someone is either misplaced, is not aware of what it is they are doing and needs some guidance which if they are of the mind not to realize it then what can you do to eliminate the disruption? If that reaction is RC's soul coming through then there is possibly the great absence of compassion. That makes me wonder for just what is it that they are involved in what basically is a charitable effort?

Well, as in the movie Lincoln about the preacher, he would write shorter sermons but when he gets started I get too lazy to stop. But I will write Gareth and please reiterate to him by your own message that all is okay with us. One of the ways to better understand a language is to understand just how is it that others express themselves for the same intent. And I must have missed something where it says that participate in WP as long as you meet the acceptance of RC. THE END76.170.88.72 (talk) 01:25, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

First of all, I must explain to my dear and loyal friend, Hpj, that he completely misunderstood the post I left here, and on my Talk,on Saturday morning,
Chinatown (1974 film) Just in case you have not seen my note to you on my Talk ... I had intended keeping away from contributing since my last edit at lunchtime yesterday until Monday due to the rugby this weekend, but in view of this post, and another here last night—both have made me feel very angry—I must at least acknowledge them.
I have made the following revision on Chinatown (1974 film) with this edit summary
/* Plot */ Rm. "perform". Replace with "carry out". English as we speak it in the old country See dialogue on article Talk and User Talk:Gareth Griffith-Jones
My thanks to Stan for your welcomed involvement both here and on Chinatown's Talk.
Jim, I am sorry and understand how you must be right now. — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 12:54, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
and that the anger I was feeling is aimed entirely at Ring Cinema,
and, secondly, @ IP:, your post on my Talk caused me no confusion; I understood it perfectly and my brief reply was to let you know that I would apply myself to the matter after the weekend. I had no doubt that it was distressing you, and I wanted to let you know that you had my support. Over the past weeks, you and I have worked together on different articles and I know that you have an excellent command of written English; far above the standard of the average contributor to this project. I do not know what you mean by, "by TC presumption" (here, above) but the flow of your extract on my Talk was abundantly clear to me.
I have edited in collaboration with this editor many times over the past two years and while we have disagreed at times, I believed we respected each others point of view. I do not comprehend how Ring Cinema can accuse you of editing in a language foreign to you, when you have yet to show me an indication that you are not a natural English speaker and that English is not your first language' His remarks are derogatory and malicious. An apology is in order. — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 23:43, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
"TC" was a typo. It should have been RC (one key over) about presuming English a secondary language. I just assume at this time to let this go and see if there may be another incident then address it then rather than if this is an adoration. I am well aware of how LADWP feels toward the movie Chinatown because it create an image that the LADWP would rather not exist, although the historical record supports some of the nuances in the film. But the LADWP could always object to an association beyond the act of bringing more water to LA because there are so many ways that people could have been used by name and instead even from what I remember about the model homes used in the tract development were not of the architecture of the time during which the Owens Valley water was brought into LA. That architecture was the California Bungalow instead of the adapted California style that came about after WWII. In fact, it was not until after WWII that the manner in which housing was developed was not tract but individual. But the innovation of the LADWP was that instead of each individual plot owner having to contract with the LADWP for extension of the utilities to their property, the LADWP would work with the real estate agents while the streets were being out in to run the utilities lines, the cost of that activity would already be included in each parcel and since done at one time would cost tremendous less. All each new homeowner after the completion of their house was to pay for the utilities connection. So when odd terms started showing up after being included by RC, I never remembered them in the movie and had they provided LADWP with a means of denial. So when they started to show in the plot got me to look at verifying what was being included. So with a script identified with that being filmed and an essay that included all the deviations I started to run through it then go to the movie to confirm. All of a sudden there these fundamental statements in the film's plot that either did not apply or the connotation might be improved if changed and maybe it just ticked RC off. But I would think that someone who holds such a high opinion of their composition skill would also have as developed a skill of communication and attitude. But that is not what happened in that incident. But if this is an aberration then let it go but if it continues then the situation should be addressed regardless whether that is with me or another contributor. So let it go for now. But if it happens again then we know it an inherent problem that is not recognized or admitted by RC. Any ways, it is always great fun calling attention to those word choices that have a delightful double entendre to remark upon in the edit summaries But thank you for your concern, assistance and support. I hoped you enjoyed the games. (talk) 00:52, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! I see problems arising tonight over on No Country for Old Men (film) caused by an editing IP who has just posted on the Talk as Hopesick and has reverted back to his earlier plot version. Another thing, you posted on the Talk page of someone who is on my watchlist, a cryptic message which referred to some other user in code and of whom you wrote, "I do all I can to avoid that username." I am intrigued. Of course I would understand if you feel unable to enlighten me. Cheers! — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 01:10, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
No problem Gareth. I had noticed, when reviewing the history of edits so that I would not replicate that which had already been suggested and removed, that when people made significant changes to the article RC tended to revert so I really should have said that I avoid reverting because to me that is a somewhat aggressive action although needed at times especially when edits set back the progression of an article. I just avoid reverting since there always seems to be someone in the article development that will use it instead of, what I tend to do, is list each change with a reason for that change so that someone would not necessarily think that their contribution was useless. I do not remember the particular contributor but I am not surprised that they have reverted because in a way it can be interpreted as an WP way of saying to the other party (please excuse my expression) "Fuck off!" The anonymity of the internet seems to bring out in some people that which they would not do face to face. The problem that I occasionally have is that not being a professionally trained typist my thoughts get ahead of my clicking the keys and when I do not notice something before sending. As far as I can remember, the plot was to a great degree hashed out so as to what specific changes that are involved with the revert I'll have to review the article but I do remember that I just left a message to RC about the difference involved with connected and shared when it concerns buildings, especially structures as multiple rooms and floors. (talk) 03:02, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Your observation is accurate. That is an excellent approach. Since September 2011, I have maintained 100% Completion of the Edit Summary Editing Box. I too have edited more in the manner you describe here in recent weeks. That manner also has another benefit for me as a registered user. The coded/cryptic message is on [ [User Talk:JTBX] ]. Like you I am not a typist and dearly wish that I had been trained to touch type. You will see that I have made some Info' box corrections to Zulu ... trust you approve! — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 10:24, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Well, when it concerns that upper starting section I leave it to those that are familiar with it until I get a chance to start looking it over and see what goes where. As far as other changes, go for it but don't be a fool. (talk) 17:37, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Who? Me? Can never guarantee that! I have an apology too; see [2] — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 19:30, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
One of the things I do when I come upon an article is to check the citations along the way because, especially with the internet cit's, they disappear all the time. All the cit's for the Golden Globes can be obsolete after ten years when they list only the winners rather than also the nominees. I had read in another source that the book did result from their discussions during the editing phase of TEP when they became friends. But sometimes when people check into something they may not get the full impact or worse yet, make a typo that can change things. I'll go back to check what I wrote the next couple days to see if I was just too tired at the time and did not catch it. That is what I still need to do with the South Africa articles I have looked at the past couple days. Now there are always the times when someone just does not get that what they "think" is something is really not, such as in "No county for old Men" and the "vent/duct" example. I do not know when "vent" showed up in the plot but when the satchel is being hidden in the vent I know that this cannot be possible because the satchel is an object and a vent is a very limited "space" that might be as thick as the sheet mettle from which the screen is made. But who ever was advocating vent rather than duct even gave a description that a vent was the surface not the inside of the wall and yet were not able to accept that there is a difference between a vent and the duct. What can you do but give them the time to come round. So when someone justifies keeping something that existed before just because it has been a long time makes little sense to me. But why come to blows. BUT, have some fun with them and give them an occasional bad time to see if they have a funny bone in their personality--many don't. All, I can say is that this stuff does not put jingle in my pocket and it does not pay my bills so I do not let it be the way that I measure my self image and ability. Oh, well. (talk) 23:04, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Well said. Would be difficult to disagree. — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 00:41, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. And yours as well. (talk) 01:10, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

That fellow you have on your watch list certainly is free with his assessments. If what I wrote was not better than before then why are my phrases and words remaining in the article plot? Another Ms. Lana experience. (talk) 12:58, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Just had the most amusing incident with another user: reverting a comment on their talk page about the use of story/storey. Talk about a Ms. Lana experience. What I posted follows:
But storey should be absolutely correct when the article concerns a British-related article such as Eastenders or BBC or related such subjects that are British rather than another nationality. If all that can be said about someone's spelling is that what is used is that of another country then good luck with the Asian and eastern European languages. Also, it should not always be assumed that someone has intentionally offended you if by chance an additional key is it and spell check in your language is set for your country of usage thus storey is storey and story may well just be wrong. (talk) 12:55, 12 March 2014 (UTC) (talk) 22:31, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Ha! Well said!
We use storey in the sense of floors: Basement; Ground Floor; First Floor et cetera. The pronounciation notice the spelling! is different too and reflects the two forms of spelling; not a bad thing in my opinion. I am now going to search through your contributions.
Re- your former post:
"That fellow you have on your watch list" [the coded/cryptic message] is not editing Zulu—as I said above, he is [*[User Talk:JTBX]*].
I take it you noticed my little spat about the distributor/s concluded satisfactorily? — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 10:27, 13 March 2014 (UTC):::Well he did not leave it there for long so it must have touched a nerve. — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 10:47, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Anonymity can bring on a pinched nerve far easier than if face to face. Some changes need a TALK page explanation rather than an edit summary. In the film industry, it has been said that a film made for $100,000 and had box office of $1,000,000 was a financial failure once all the bills came in because someone decided that expenses normally covered by the studio would be charged to the production. I am not an accountant but it would be nice to have explained the difference between "Single-Ply Toilet Tissue Domestic Studios" and "Single-Ply Toilet Tissue International Studios" -- And of course the special features subsidiary, "Two-Ply Toilet Tissue Exclusives Studios". (talk) 15:42, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Look what I woke up to this morning![edit]

Good morning! Look at this: [3]
Any comments? I found it rather amusing under the circumstances of my not receiving any acknowledgement to the thread titled [4]. — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 10:15, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

The thread is ever-growing and I have never edited the article; read my edit summary—not the edit. here. — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 14:00, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Talk about getting credit for that which you both did not due and with which you wish were not associated. Well, at least you are not in a criminal suspect line up or before a firing squad! (talk) 16:07, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
That's funny. Thanks! — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 18:31, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
And now it has moved [5] — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 09:47, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I appreciated this — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 10:59, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

British terms[edit]

Is there a similar term for the designation "anchor" such as a shop being a draw for the leasing of locations to other businesses such as in a shopping center. The Rovers Inn in the programme Coronation Street anchors one end of the block on which stands the pub. Would it be incorrect or os there a better British term for such a business designation? Also, what would be the equivalent British term for a pub that was established and owned and product supplied by a particular brewery when that pub becomes privately owned? Would it be incorrect or is there a better term to designate that the establishment is stocked by the products of a particular manufacturer such as in the US, businesses that carry Coca Cola products generally do not carry PepsiCo products. Thanks! (talk) 19:16, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Not entirely certain that I am answering your query, but here goes: a pub that was established and owned and product supplied by a particular brewery when that pub becomes privately owned and continues trading is A Free House, whereas a pub that was established and owned and product supplied by a particular brewery is A Tied House — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 20:55, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
This is why I like to seek out someone outside my circle because in all likelihood they may not have the same experience as myself and something new can come out and then I can go to my circle to refine my understanding. I guess there really are two questions here. 1) is that in the US a major retailer that leases a store site in something such as a large shopping arcade/mall and that "achievement" is used to entice other retailers either smaller or larger to lease is called an "anchor" shop/store or retailer. Is there a similar term with the British.
2) A tied house can become a free house? And can a free house carry product from another brewery? Or is that a different category? At what point are public houses public? Or are all of these public houses? (talk) 01:43, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
1) Not that I have heard; although it may be regarded as a "flagship" in some circumstances.
2.1) Yes. This is the trend in the UK, much encouraged since the Conservatives returned to power. Some large brewers have relinquished all of their houses.
2.2) Yes, that is considered an attraction, although they would normally continue with the more popular bitters because of locals' preference.
2.3) Public House is a term used regardless of ownership/tenancy/freehold.
2.4) That goes back in history to when their was a distinction between beer houses and those serving spirits only
I hope this helps. All the best! — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 10:19, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
One of the problems when dealing with those that are part of a group is that they do not recognize the nuances of a situation since there is so much going on subconsciously. Your explanation is very good. I call it "mental agility" since it takes more than mere knowledge of something to understand a situation, maybe akin to the effectiveness of an attorney/solicitor/barrister. The lawyers have to be cleaver when it comes to business much the same as I say of politicians that when it comes to the time that the politicians are unwilling to wheel and deal then what purpose do they serve, even if doing so makes them look like slime. (talk) 03:27, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

WP policy about "#" use and designation of number ranks on lists for movies/songs/etc[edit]

The case in particular is Sounds of Sunshine where the comment was made that text for a rank such as #1 was more preferred than ranked at 1st? What is what with the WP policy since I was under the impression that "#"'s were discouraged? Thank you. (talk) 03:18, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Editing style[edit]

Please review Wikipedia:Writing_better_articles. A lot of your edits seem to be about stuffing a bunch of information into a long, run-on sentence at the beginning of an article. This style guide says:

The article should begin with a short declarative sentence, answering two questions for the nonspecialist reader: "What (or who) is the subject?" and "Why is this subject notable?"

Your preferred style in not consistent with Wikipedia style.

Also, you must check you links. You linked to Steve Harper, who is a goalkeeper in English football, not a porn star. Mandate is not a useful link in the article from which you linked it. Ground Zero | t 08:36, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes I was about top back to that article to check on a few things but got distracted. (talk) 08:40, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Please stop it. Take a look at this edit you just did: [6]. You messed up the coding badly, and added four incorrect links. Your editing is becoming disruptive. Slow down, and read the Wikipedia style guides I've linked for you. Ground Zero | t 08:48, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

And take a look at the sentence you wrote:

"Michael Lucas is the gay and adult entertainment industry name of the Moscow, Russian SFSR-born (March 10, 1972) gay Andrei Lvovich Treivas (Russian: Андрей Львович Трейвас), is an American-Russian-Israeli gay pornographic film actor- gay pornographic film director-activist-journalist-founder/CEO of Lucas Entertainment, New York's largest gay-adult-film company."

How is the reader supposed to understand that? In addition to it being long and confusing, the article is about the film director. It is not about his industry name. See WP:LEDE. Ground Zero | t 08:59, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

You seem to be upset? His name; it is not his birth name so just what is his story about that as well as the remainder. That is how someone understands what is there. (talk) 09:03, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
I do not know about you but that is just the beginning of the article. Maybe one would lear more by reading the remainder of the article. I seriously doubt that the average academician is going over these adult industry articles as if they have to be a creative writing short story or full length novel. (talk) 09:05, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Any ways, I did not add anything new; just rearranged in an order what someone may be interested in learning ab.oput someone else. Most of thses adult industry articles are stubs of just a dew short sentences. (talk) 09:07, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
It is true that academics (as we say in English) will not be reviewing these articles. They will be read by ordinary readers, so they should be written in ways that ordinary readers can understand them. Your "re-arranging" of these articles is making them more difficult to read. Wikipedia has numerous style guides that focus on making articles clearer and easier to understand. Your edits are not consistent with Wikipedia style. Ground Zero | t 09:12, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Now you have reverted all current links that had not been changed over time and were amb. You call that effective editing? (talk) 09:15, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
And, in addition to making the sentences longer, or in places incomprehensible, you have repeatedly added incorrect links and screwed up the coding. Updating links is a good thing to do, but not at the expense of all of these other problems you are causing. What does "amb" mean? Ground Zero | t 09:17, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Ambiguous; no longer a direct link? You are being emotional. (talk) 09:19, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for the clarification. I am trying to get you to understand the damage that you are doing to Wikipedia here, and to stop doing it. I will review my reverts to see where you had disambiguated links. I did not see that you were doing that. Ground Zero | t 09:23, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
I don't see where i have reverted current links. In this edit, you added a link to Grunts, which is incorrect, in a sentence that already had a link to Grunts (film). That is not useful.
Here is another edit of yours that messed up an article -- the following does not make sense:
"gay pornographic film director
"Kristen Bjorn is the stage name of the British-Russian London, England-born (12 October 1957) gay pornographic film director-producer and former gay pornographic actor. gay pornographic film director William Higgins dedicated in his book devoted to Bjorn, "[in] the relatively brief history of hardcore gay videos, Kristen Bjorn has emerged unchallenged as the best director to date.""
Ground Zero | t 09:30, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
OH MY GOD. THE WORLD'S COMING TO AN END. ""gay pornographic film director" was the qualifier that was applied to the link but unfortunately I forgot to delet my temporary note. How relieved I am that out of the thousands of articles you found it. Now will, in your haste, be able to determine when spelling corrections were made with those changes? (talk) 09:36, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Now you tell me, just how more effective asre the links that existed in the first paras of Chad HUnt verses those I edited? No the math. At least the profession related link goes to the list of actors that has his name in it rather than the subject of apornography actors, etc76.170.88.72 (talk) 09:45, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Let me know when you have finished reverting so that I can go back and re-establish the appropriate links that I updated. (talk) 10:02, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Your edit to Chad Hunt created this mess:
Chad Hunt is a Wadsworth, Ohio-born American (1973)[1] List of performers in gay porn films#H|former gay pornographic film actor]-[2]pictorial model on such publications as, Badpuppy, Jock, Honcho, All Man and Unzipped.
The links to Jock, Honcho and Unzipped are misdirects. There is a misplaced comma after "such publications as". And there is the mess that you created in failing to link "List of performers in gay films". Can you not understand why I reverted this to the previous version that did not have all of these errors in it?
As far as you continuing to edit, I will continue to revert if you screw up coding, create run-on sentences, and add grammatical or syntax errors. Ground Zero | t 10:06, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Challenging is not a very effective or merit use in the WP tradition. It seems that regardless of what changes are made to articles you will unilaterally revert if for any thing but to show that if you cannot play with the toys then no one will. Do you think that that attitude has long term benefits except to label you as a bully? And whatever happened with the test on the link I asked about? Again, you tell me the benefits of unilateral willy nilly reverting that seems to be a specialty of yours? (talk) 10:12, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
I don't understand some of your comments above because they don't make sense. I will revert the sort of errors you are making. Your edits are often careless and damage the articles. It is not up to other people to clean up after you. The few edits you have made since posting this included at least to two grammatical errors. And, what test? Ground Zero | t 10:43, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) (talk page stalker) Uh! Is, "The few edits you have made since posting this included at least to grammatical errors." grammatical? Not in my book! BOOMERANG — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 10:51, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

  • "A American actor" is grammatically incorrect.
  • "... is an actor in the 1990s" doesn't make sense. The verb tense is wrong.
  • If someone has retired from the business, he is not an actor, but a former actor. Ground Zero | t 10:48, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Gareth, Sorry to have thrown WP into such a frenzy. I guess my style of throwing the index cards into the air then picking them up and thus leaving to chance the structure of the writing just does not work any longer. I am just limiting my work to updating old links. Being American, all I hope is that when I walk up so someone on the sidewalk they at least understand English. Oh, it does not seem to be very encouraging to learn the language when one gets nit picked. That is why I keep my hair sort 'cause I have made it home with one too many crabs. (talk) 10:58, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
You were doing fine on those we worked together. Do not allow the bully admin. put you off your stroke! All the best, — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 11:01, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
I must have struck a goal ... [7]! — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 11:05, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Gareth, I apologise for my inadvertent revert on your talk page. With respect to bullying, I would appreciate your advice on how to deal with this editor who is editing bunches of articles in quick succession, adding in grammatical and syntax errors, and messing up the coding. Some of his edits turn an understandable lead sentence into something incomprehensible. I have done my best to explain the problem to him, but he does not see the problem in his editing. Ground Zero | t 11:16, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Okay ground zero, just how wrong can someone go with the following: "former gay pornographic film actor" (talk) 11:17, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Ground zero: Is the following your work?
"Heart lives in West Hollywood, California, after ending his seven- ear-long relationship with fellow porn star, Benjamin Bradley. In 2009, the couple created a commercial blog with insights on their life together.[3]"
Yes, it was. I have fixed my typo now. Thank you for pointing it out. Ground Zero | t 11:30, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
I JUST HOPE IT WAS NOT POINTED OUT IN AN UNAPPRECIARIVE, DISRUPTIVE AND INSENSITUVE MANNER. Oh, gareth. cleaned out my computer messages. found an interesting lesson for capitalization: Helping Uncle Jack off a horse or Helping uncle jack off a horse. That would definitely get one on the sex offender's lists if said to children but it certainly would get across the point like a red hot branding iron. Pity the horse just to get kids to learn! (talk) 11:38, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Gareth--The past couple hours all I changed in the articles were the ambiguous links that had not been updated in the articles and he comes up with these "better grammar with this one" that he did making it appear that I had somehow changed the whole article many of which were never changed over the past year. What gives with some of these people? (talk) 14:53, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, G0--Maybe if you approach something in a pleasant way you could have better results. You had the attitude that regardless has to what was there it was wrong. I know your time is precious and I live for you to be on WP but I have seen on WP people with this attitude and it comes across as if YOU are the one being inconvenienced. That someone is actively working against YOU. I've seen children raised with that type of emotional stress in their lives and not to get into it but there is some level of logic missing. There is this automatic JUMP to a conclusion and then the resulting willy nilly reverting. Get some perspective. Oh, by the way, I do find your name rather insensitive toward those people that had a personal association with 9/11. It just goes to sow that even you have a level of insensitivity toward others. (talk) 15:09, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Groundzero--does the following mean that you sanction that with every gay porn actor link should also have a performed in porno movies as well. That soulds like wearing two condpms kust because the first one may be too loose?

'Chad Hunt' (born in Wadsworth, Ohio, United States, 1973[1]) is a former gay pornographic film actor[2] who performed in pornographic movies.
otherwise in what films would he be in that qualify with beiung q porn actor? (talk) 15:39, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

This edit to my talk page was offensive. There is no excuse for this sort of behaviour.

After I notified you of the problems with your edits, you continued editing in the same manner -- adding in grammatical errors and coding errors. You were doing damage to Wikipedia articles, and you do not seem to be concerned about that. I do not take edits to Wikipedia articles personally. I am only concerned about protecting Wikipedia from damage, whether intentional or unintended. I do not believe that you were seeking to damage these articles, but you were doing so nonetheless. As you stated above, "I guess my style of throwing the index cards into the air then picking them up and thus leaving to chance the structure of the writing just does not work any longer." You are quite right in that. It is not the job of other editors to clean up after you.

With respect to the user name I chose, as I explain on my user page, it was not chosen to give offence to the victims of 9/11 or their families, and I note that the phrase has been used in many circumstances before and since. It is not unique to 9/11. Ground Zero | t 19:19, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Ground zero--This is just a quick note to tell you that you may be unaware that someone is exhibiting subconscious tendency of idiocy by sending incoherent and fallible statements about actions under your user name. (talk) 01:56, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

If you are going to continue to edit in Wikipedia, please respect stop the personal attacks, including the implied ones. They violate Wikipedia policy. Keep the discussion about the editing. Even unregistered editors can be blocked from editing for engaging in personal attacks. Ground Zero | t 10:32, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Please discontinue your harassment. (talk) 10:36, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Asking you to correct your errors and explaining Wikipedia policy to you does not constitute harassment. Constructive criticism is how we improve. Indeed, when you pointed out my typo in Benjamin Bradly, I corrected it and thanked you for drawing it to my attention. Ground Zero | t 10:53, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
I reiterate, Please discontinue your harassment. (talk) 11:04, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Adult film actor vs. pornographic film actor[edit]

WP:EUPHEMISM tells us to use words that are clear and unambiguous. "Adult film" can mean a porn film, or a film targeted to an adult audience. This is why Wikipedia articles uses the unamibiguous term -- for example, Adult film star redirects to "Pornographic film actor", and you are adding a link to List of performers in gay porn films, which does not use the "adult" euphemism.

I want to emphasize that this is not a matter of my preference versus your preference. This is what the Wikipedia community has decided.

Your point that the "adult film" euphemism is used in lots of places in Wikipedia is valid, but let's not add to that number of articles. Let's use the unamibiguous term instead of the euphemism. Regards, Ground Zero | t 13:18, 1 April 2014 (UTC) Is this an operatic farce, an Alice in Wonderland. So much for WP policy and practice. Just how does one explain, '[[pornographic film DIRECTS < ADULT FILMS' . You burden me with much too much credit concerning one pursuit of perfection and then when I follow that a quick slap on the face of reality. You cannot have it both ways; you really will have to come to some understanding as to what is what even within the great WP community. And to add all that with your unilateral reverts of what conversions were made of obsolete link terms76.170.88.72 (talk) 13:34, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand your comment here. If you enter Adult film in the search box or link it, it takes you to the "Pornographic film" article because that is the terminology that the Wikipedia community has chosen to use. When you were rolling through bunches of edits with errors in them, I reverted en masse. Now that you are taking more care, I am only reverting where you include errors in coding or grammar or edits that violate the Wikipedia:Manual of Style. You will see that where your edits do not include these things, I am working to improve your version, rather than reverting. I do believe that we can work together, and am trying to demonstrate that to you. Regards, Ground Zero | t 14:02, 1 April 2014 (UTC)


Reference Errors on 1 April[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:40, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

When a logged-in editor makes an edit that another thinks is good, the second editor can "thank" the first by tapping on a button, similar to the "like" button on Facebook. This isn't available for edits by editors who are not logged-in. Today and yesterday I've wanted to thank you for a bunch of edits that I thought were useful or worthwhile, so I'm leaving this message instead. Regards, Ground Zero | t 10:30, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I hinted at this feature a few weeks ago in one of our threads on my Talk. The main advantage, apart from the ease of "hitting the button" on the article history page, is that it is the only private way of corresponding with another editor on WP — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 12:28, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I understand what was intended by that hint but I have found it less "inviting" of some WP contributors about their views toward others to remain a user of my IP rather than a user name. It is not the best in what seems to be the hoped for WP environment but in those situations in which the anonymity of the internet seems to encourage the worst behavior in others. If what little I can contribute to "world peas" is the relative anonymity of an IP user name rather than non de plum then I am willing to sacrifice my identity. Any ways, "Wallflower" has already be claimed. LOL. But thank you for the hints and compliments and, my now new saying use, boomerang. That and, to indicate one is right on the mark, "BINGO! Let me get you another card and marker." (talk) 12:52, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Of course there are three categories of user ID:
IP address (anon)
Nom de plume (e.g. Ground Zero)
Own true identity (e.g. Gareth Griffith-Jones)
For my part, I registered using my own name before my first edit. I have not regretted it and believe it offers credibility over and above that of a made-up user name. — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 14:25, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Another typo: it's not "world peas", it's spelled "whirled peas". Ground Zero | t 15:45, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
At least one should avoid hurled peace. (talk) 15:46, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Silly me; I thought you had meant "world peace" (!) — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 19:50, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
"world peace" is the plural world pieces? (talk) 04:52, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Ha, ha! That is funny ... but I find this odd. When could you use it? — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 08:55, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

The Godfather[edit]

Further to your suggestion on the article's Talk, you now have two replies [8]. I have made this [9] revision. — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 14:20, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Any thoughts [10] (?) — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 08:31, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I have been revising links that many have been outdated by change in the linking[edit]

I have every right to delete those portions of my talk page as well as providing the edit summary. "redundant" has been my normal edit summery for all deletions. So to imply that I have disrespected someone is their perceived misconception. I have done only that which has by style been done on other similar articles. That is worthy of being blocked? (talk) 01:03, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I've never said any thing about removing from any of your pages. It is from mine that I can when the insructions say so. (talk) 18:59, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
I write wherever the screen comes up so I guess it landed in anther place. I see what is going on with the comment to you about deleting. YOU don't have the right to delete? This is all getting very unappealing for pointing out who is US and the admins thinking that it is not necessary although all the UK have it. Typical. As if everyone in the world will know who is US even from years ago. Well,, I seriously think that I'll be taking a good break from all this "don't step on my toes" reactions. (talk) 20:06, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
The following post was removed by another editor purporting to be an admin.
Of course you do. Take no notice! I should remove their post above, if I were you. I have taken the liberty to delete the template about "shared IP address",knowing that it does not apply here. Cheers! — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 1:19 pm, Today (UTC+1)
This is precisely why I find the WP experience all the more disturbing when someone can what is done as a usual practice make it perceived that they are in their own misguided efforts disrespected. And then what does it lead to blocking with virtually no recourse regardless what the WP instructions present. This is a level of "squabbling" that is nothing but someone imposing their will upon others. It is not for me and makes participating in WP all the less of my priorities as well as sustain the views I get when WP is mentioned in public. The anonymity of the internet is just all that more inviting of those people that view it as a mark of their realm and those that follow have to fit within that context. Virtually anyone without comment from the person that the comment concerns can lodge a complaint that seems to be automatically accepted as the rule for all. (talk) 03:38, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
When the notice of your short block popped up on my Watchlist yesterday, I was furious. Please don't let it distress you—you are bigger than that and the idiot involved should be ashamed. You have made valuable contributions.
It is an unmovable factor here that all IP address editing is met with suspicion, because the dynamic portion if IP editing is so uncontrollable. But you have a static IP address which means that a relationship can build in a similar way to that with a username.
I have enjoyed our alliance and trust it will continue. You have always reacted positively whenever I have made suggestions or criticisms regarding your contributions. Please do not stop editing—to do so merely allows your nemesis a victory. Best wishes, — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 07:09, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

User:76 could be a much more productive contributor if s/he were willing to take advice from other editors, and be willing to learn about Wikipedia policies and style. And by that, I don't mean reading all of the guides and policies. I mean that when an editor says "stop doing this because of the following Wikipedia policies", User:76 should stop doing those things.

In this case, the admin who blocked User:76 provided warnings and explained what User:76 was doing wrong. The admin applied the block after User:76 carried on without regard to what the Wikipedia community has decided. Wikipedia is a community project created by a large group of people. Like any community, it needs rules so that people can work together and get along.

Whether registered or not, User:76 is always going to have trouble getting along in Wikipedia if s/he insists on doing what s/he feels like and ignoring the will of the community. I hope that s/he will think about what I have written, and try to work with us instead of on his/her own. Ground Zero | t 00:42, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Participating constructively in the Wikipedia community[edit]

I encourage you to take a more constructive approach to Wikipedia than Gareth is recommending to you. His approach seems to me to be combative and confrontational. I am referring to his advice to you that stopping editing "merely allows your nemesis a victory." Wikipedia is a community, not a battle. Editors should be encouraged to work together, rather than to fight each other. Also, his comment that "the idiot involved should be ashamed" violates the Wikipedia policy on no personal attacks. I have encouraged him to remove that comment, but he does not seem to be concerned about Wikipedia policies. User: 76, I urge you to aim higher and to be a constructive editor. Ground Zero | t 16:21, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Let me attempt to get across to you and ALL the others that have been involved in this situation. I am not stupid, an idiot or about to put up with insulting behavior. Before you and the others lecture someone about being combative and confrontational then look at your very own actions. There has been nothing but that very behavior directed toward me from the start; if you believe that WP is a community effort then you all cross the line of the very policies and practices that have been repeatedly thrown at me as if I were the enemy, making a personal affront toward all. If there is one thing in this world that I will not allow to stand is the mischaracterization of what others say or do. Why would I not recommend Gareth not change one single word is that it is part of the record. Cleaning up the record to suit your ends is not going to erase how I believe that this situation has been handled. I have seen far too many times when reviewing the electronic records of article development that there seems to be an automatic rush to destroy rather than work with people that they perceive to be out to destroy WP. If you wish to at this time provide guidance and advice then you and the others should have acted so from the beginning instead of unilaterally reverting EVERY article change with which I was involved regardless as to what was that change, even to the point where spelling mistakes were being re-established. Is that an indication of logic? Do not attempt to make it appear that you and the others are not combative and confrontational when in fact it was that very behavior that has caused me to no longer participate in the WP community. And mind you, this was merely standardizing what was in the various articles that was already existing. So if you and the others want to lecture someone then start with yourselves because the actions toward me have already established just what I have seen happen to others. So maybe you all should take a lesson from Gareth and, in the spirit of WP that you so forcefully put forth, not be so robotically reactionary. So if you all wish to present yourselves as proponents of the WP community of involvement then stop yourselves and imagine just what is the long term effect of your immediate actions. Do I expect for any one to accept this? No, because it seems to be that there is a us and them mentality. That is my experience and nothing is going to take away that it happened. That is why it is so very important that some level of introspective thought be given to how one reacts in a manner that constructive rather than the destructive manner. Why do I say destructive? Because I have since this experience no longer worked on any articles. So, please pass along my compliments to those that have been so gracious and cooperative in the WP value of community involvement. So many seem to exemplify it so well. So direct your efforts towards others that you have yet to treat badly or have the influence on others that do not have as strong views about how others are treated. Is this going to be a disappointment to you and the others? I seriously doubt it. In fact the view that I have now started with the mischaracterization that was put forth to have me blocked was based on my right to eliminate and provide an edit summary of my own actions based on how in previous actions I had done; and instead were presented as if I was disrespecting someone. So again, think about the long term prospects of your very own actions before acting in a very insincere manner to characterize your actions as championing the WP effort. This is what I have seen with others, this is what I have experienced and this is what I have taken away with my time with WP. So, when ever WP is the topic of conversation or comment in my presence then this is what I will remember especially in the misguided effort to lecture me about behavior. So, next time that you are in a card game (metaphor for how you treat others) make the best effort not to play your cards badly. As far as I am concerned, this card game is over. You and the others do not need my permission to think the way that you do, or act. But remember that people will carry away that which they believe has been their WP experience. WP does not put jingle in my pocket. It does not pays my bills. And, I do not use it to indicate my self-esteem. I have moved on to other things where my WP experience is much less likely to occur. The problem to be seen with the internet is that its anonymity makes some people to full of their own actions without taking the time to think about their reactions. If your efforts are an attempt to make WP perfect then you are set for a long journey that will never be accomplished because that is the nature of the beast. So make the choice over just what will never be perfect regardless of what efforts are made (as things change ALL THE TIME) or pay more attention to how you do control--your own reactions. Nuance means everything. (talk) 10:58, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Is it common in WP to coerce others "I have encouraged him to remove that comment, but he does not seem to be concerned about Wikipedia policies." How much different is that from actions taken by Totalitarian governments on others? Or is it thought that the "wholesome" endeavor of WP negates that connotation? There are strings of former governments that now have a better understanding of just what was the long term implications of that organization's actions. To change the record does have some level of controlling/manipulating others. (talk) 16:36, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
You might want to look up the meanings of "encourage" and "coerce". Or you might not want to. You don't have to. I am just encouraging you to. If you don't, there is nothing I can or will do about it. Compare and contrast that to the sort of coercion exercised by Stalinist or Fascist regimes. I think you will find that it is different. But that's just what I think. You can think whatever you want. Ground Zero | t 20:31, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Godwin's law -- Reductio ad Hitlerum -- Ground Zero | t 22:32, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
What makes you think that I have not as of yet? It is wonderful that the WP community has your assurance that nothing more will be done about it but I take that as a conscious decision that very well may be exhibited subconsciously. The problem with people so entrenched in something is that they fail to understand that what they attempt might not be done in the best of ways. The record stands that you or someone else in WP has attempted to distort the record. Nothing can change that, That has happened. People who do not have a sense of proportion may find coercion an acceptable means of conduct. I do not and it makes me question conduct within WP especially when aspersion is used to create some discord that just could b left alone and disappear without any additional effort. The manner in which you respond could very well support the allegation that there is coercion that results when one does not abide by the views of those that have influence. Lacking proportion will most likely result in someone being all the more less likely to let things be. I have not suggested any thing that has not already been expressed. It was not me that said that someone had been encouraged to change what had been said. I called into question just why would someone encourage someone to change what they had publicly stated. Was that an attempt to hide from others what someone of the WP community said and thought? And thus might have a less then beneficial effect on WP, or how WP participants might be viewed by others? It could be? Why else would there be a concerted effort to alter the record? The record is changed as easily as "archiving" portions of someone's record for whatever reason that may be justified. It takes someone with the ability to search and manipulate the system to recovering that part of the record that is not so readily available. It resurfacing would not be of an ordinary thumbing through the library stacks. Sorry if that is a disappointment but I believe that you care more about my existence than I do about yours? Otherwise this would have dropped a long time ago. Darwinism will do only so much but what else can follow when someone is there to give it legs? I can see it now that by giving these impressions of my experience with WP that some may view that I am anti-WP? Everyone can believe their own distortions and merely using a scrape paper note pad to write down ideas and statements is not an indication that someone is a pro-deforestation advocate.
- User:
A Wikipedia talk page isn't an official record of anything, so there is no concern about "changing the record". Hansard, it ain't. Wikipedians are allowed to make mistakes and to correct their mistakes. If an editor crosses a line, making personal attacks for example, they can fix their mistake by removing the offending comments. This is how things are done in Wikipedia. In more extreme cases than this one, other editors can remove offensive comments -- Wikipedia is not going to be a repository of racist or sexist vitriol, for example. Similarly if someone posts personal information about another editor (address, phone numbers, etc.), it will be removed. If Gareth had removed the offensive comment, it would be taken as recognition on his part that he made an inappropriate personal attack, and that he understands that doing so was a violation of Wikipedia policy. He didn't, but the matter ends there. I'm not taking further action, and the person he called an "idiot" doesn't seem to be either, which is how it should be because we have better things to do. In totalitarian societies, on ther other hand, people lose their jobs, homes, freedom or even their lives for such actions. Wikipedia is very different in that regard.
Wikipedia has been around for 13 years now, and has 500 million unique visitors in a month, so it has developed an extensive body of policies and procedures, and a community culture. It isn't some new thing where people are just starting to figure out how to interact with each other. I encourage you (but only in a non-coercive, non-manipulative way) to learn more about how Wikipedia works so that you can contribute constructively without the frustration with how we do things that you seem to be experiencing. Regards, Ground Zero | t 12:28, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Just as expected. An inability to keep to yourself.

REMOVING SOMETHING FROM THE RECORD IS NOT A COMPLETE RECORD BECAUSE THE RECORD, DEEMED OFFENSIVE TO YOURSELF, WOULD BE DESTROYED. When parts of the record, or the record entire, is expunged then the record has been altered and can never represent what was the record except as what might be a common practice to alter the record to portray some sentiment which may very well not be common but purported by its existence in that instance as usual. You are not an attorney and I would seriously advise you to not act as so because you have an inability to acknowledge perspective. Every act against other people has been by groups which according to your presentation would be testament to validity without further examination now as well as later regardless as to what has happened outside your experience and ability to acknowledge what has happened. You have an inability to let things be and in your perspective of defense use a record that has been altered. Gareth is being presented by YOU with the idea that whatever you have decided would make him in your eyes on behalf of WP whole is absolutely fallacious. It is one thing to accept sanctity for one's beliefs and actions but it is another thing to impose upon others sanctity. You do not recognize that. When a jug of milk has spoiled, it has spoiled although there may be a use for spoiled milk, it will always be spoiled. That cannot be changed. But you tell us that it can. All I know is that US Presidents operated in ways that in hindsight were not particularly defensible and Dick Nixon paid for it. There are things that Nixon could do and not be held accountable to a law. Yet, there are things that Obama does not have the same lead way. But you without a sense of perspective are unable to understand that. Personal attack? Someone saying that they do not like the color green and someone nearby is wearing the color green is not necessarily a personal attack. Can you try? Don't go creating trouble where there ain't none. - User:

I have provided a link to how the Wikipedia community deals with personal attacks, and removing them is a part of the Wikipedia approach to violations of this policy. Gareth chose not to remove his personal attack, and that was the end of it until you brought it up and made the comparison to totalitarian governments. Gareth did not say he didn't like green in front of someone who was wearing green. He called another editor an "idiot". That is unambiguouslly a personal attack. I am wearing green right now, but I wouldn't care if someone else said they don't like green. Are you comparing me to Nixon or to Obama? I'd prefer the latter, if I have any say in it. Ground Zero | t 20:29, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
You should be aware that someone along the lines of an idiot seems to be posting messages under your user name. I call it the "carousel syndrome". Going up and down and all around and getting no where. Regardless as to Gareth not removing what is part of the record is not the question. If the record is altered for whatever reason so that something said or done never existed is basically presenting a distorted history. For an organization that touts itself as presenting verifiably accurate information it is a conundrum as to why is it necessary for the WP record to be altered. If WP wants to stand as an authority then it must also have reflected in it's record a record that is accurate rather than "cleaned-up". What is the use of a history that presents only the sugar and not the sour. You are unable to recognized it. That shows a lack of perspective. I can only support Gareth not altering the record because it reflects just what happened. Otherwise just what is the purpose of a history? So what of Goodwin's law when you fail to recognize the fundamental question at hand? In the long run, does it serve WP to alter its record because someone's feelings have been hurt?
Well said! I am delighted you have returned full of spirit. I had feared the bullying that you have been receiving had driven you away. For my own part, I just want to tell you that I am taking an immediate sabbatical —lasting at least twelve days—with no access to a computer. All the best to you! — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 07:57, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Gareth's comment isn't a record, or history, it is just an insult on a talk page. Your fight isn't with me, it is with Wikipedia community and its policies. The issue here is whether you are willing to accept how the Wikipedia community works and the policies that the community has adopted, or instead fight with the Wikipedia community to get your way. If you choose the latter, I think you will find life here very frustrating and mostly pointless. You will run into lots of people like me and the others you have fought with, and you will find the weight of Wikipedia's policies and sanctions against you. I recommend to you that you choose to work with us instead, and you will find you time here much more enjoyable. ("In the fight between you and the world, back the world." - Franz Kafka) Ground Zero | t 00:12, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Also, on two occasions recently, Gareth has deleted from his talk page "posts not worth archiving" (his words), so he does not seem to have any concern about altering a record so that something written never existed. But that is acceptable behaviour - he can remove his own talk page comments, or anything from his own talk page. It isn't worth getting upset about. Good luck with sorting your books. Ground Zero | t 10:48, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Oh, Gareth-- Just as Lady Stockbridge and Sir William McCordle I to have sworn off cards and just on the occasion drop by to read in that Dickensonian fashion of serial publication what may come forth from Ground Zero who I have decided to baptize Carousel Ground Zero as it seems that everything goes up and down and all around and very much gsts no one any where. As the whole episode has been given resurrection by my very actions I believe that it is to humanity that I hope some day some archaeological dig will find this string and come to some conclusion. Now, if only I could decide as to what the Peanuts gang found on the Halloween, "Whaw, whaw, whah, whah, whah, whah." As long as the pickled walnuts, candied grapefruit peel and almonds hold out, the world will be a better place. Now, I have managed to find enough linen suits at the thrifts shops to make a well worn costume for next years Ren Faire and so I have just got to get back to it before my manic phase is overcome by depression. Any ways, After three years in the current apartment I have just managed to put up my bookshelves and unpacked my books--all 150 linear feet of them; then just maybe I can break open my storage room rid my next move of yet another several hundred that no longer are unique when one has access to the internet. Wish me well. "Whaw, whaw, whah, whah, whah, whah." Oh, what would life be but without an occasional precipice and a vision of Joshua. I live for these simple times. Now, what were you saying carousel?

Oh, yes. Deleting. Well, having "on two occasions recently" just made a double trip to the crapper recently (both of which were not necessarily of "archiving" quality--my expression on both the comings forth) that Gareth needs not my defense for that of his own makings. Now, single ply is a different question.

I've tried to engage you in a discussion about contributing to Wikipedia in a constructive way, and provided you links to help you learn about this. You've chosen to respond with name-calling and scatological references. This provides clear direction on your intentions that will help administrators decide what course of action to take with you if you start making bunches of unhelpful or disruptive edits again in the future. Ground Zero | t 18:49, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Something seems to have been lost along the way as I indicate one approach and a complete opposite is expressed by you. I make it appoint not to speak to brick walls and I hope that this will enable you to completely understand that a action of cease and desist should have been realized long ago. If you were a curiosity shop and I had previously purchased from your shop something but then no longer viewed your products or put forth an order I would be considered someone other than a customer. At what point do you consider someone no longer a customer? At what point of the commencing of your droning on and on have I made any additions to WP beyond this trivial pursuit with which you seem to be single mindedly entrenched. Maybe, the blindness from that state of mind has made it impossible comprehend that with no continued additions that all your attempts have been for a purpose other than to bring me back into the fold. The Roman Catholic's proselytizing 500 years ago did not take much hold on my family so just what would give you the impression that your short schpel would be any more successful in an activity that has already ceased? You make yourself off to represent WP yet your own actions have reinforced in me that which I did not find particularly appreciated. So to say that what I have said would cause WP to act when in the future that I resumed activity would of be mute. But that does not exclude what has been my experience with WP; something with which I would not any qualms in expressing if the situation should ever develop with others. That is why I say that one has to be very careful about how one acts and what is said. May you have a chance of success with someone else. (talk) 21:12, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

May 2014[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm Download. I wanted to let you know that I undid one of your recent contributions, such as the one you made with this edit to Foreign Legion (band), because it didn’t appear constructive to me. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. -download 05:31, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Why did you revert my edits?[edit]

I revised an article substantially to correct spelling and grammar and to improve the writing style. You reverted my edits here, restoring all of the errors I had corrected. Why would you do that? Ground Zero | t 09:25, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

  • I see that I had reverted some good edits that you had made, so I have restored them. This is a better way of handling a disagreement than restoring spelling and grammatical errors since it leads to improving an article, rather than making it worse. I am sorry for overlooking these improvements earlier today. Ground Zero | t 10:08, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm going to withdraw these comments. You made mistakes. I made mistakes. I don't see the need to discuss this further. The article is better now. Regards, Ground Zero | t 15:37, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

My remarks are best at the following point of true chronology which is following your last declaration before what I assume was being deleted from the record.

The article was returned to the status before my participation. (talk) 14:37, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Mistakes? I made suggestions to an article that obviously can use a bit of clarification of story line as well as elimination of a few words. It may be best in future to characterize your actions alone rather than place your assumption(s) on that of others. It seems that with so many people having so much knowledge about that which they wish to be known as thoroughly acquainted with proper expression there is an inability to be impersonal despite the continuous affirmation. Learn it; use it. And remember that what may appear to be an uneducated action very well could be an ambush. (talk) 08:59, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

You restored an earlier version riddled with grammatical and spelling errors for no apparent reason. Doing so did not improve the article. Ground Zero | t 10:49, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Grouse should be what is part of a weekend hunt dinner instead of the state of an article wrought with possibilities of additional work that if of such critical concern can easily be accomplished without whine that has no vintage. Use qwerty toward something that will have a chance of success. (talk) 19:28, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

  • I will never give up hope that someday you will decide to work constructively and collaboratively with other editors. Ground Zero | t 22:08, 1 June 2014 (UTC)