User talk:Ben Culture

Deutsch | Español | Français | Italiano | Lietuvių | 한국어 | Nederlands | Polski | Português | Русский | Suomi | Svenska | Türkçe | 简体中文 | The main embassy page

Getting Started First steps • FAQ Wikipedia Tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia • Adoption How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting help Community Portal • Help desk • Village Pump Where to ask questions or make comments • Request administrator attention Place {{helpme}} on your talk page and a small message explaining the problem The Commmunity Build consensus • Resolving disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists		Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Fair use • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Pages needing attention • Peer review Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Maedin\^talk 11:54, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ben, you're very welcome! A couple of your edits to music-related articles popped up on my watchlist and I checked them out, then realised that you had a red-linked talk page! So I had to fix that for you, ;-) I do wish you luck and hope you stick around! If you need any help, you can give me a shout. Cheers, Maedin\^talk 06:30, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ben, I hope you don't mind, but I moved your message from my old talk page (User talk:Maedin) to my new one (User talk:Julia W). I changed my user name a little while ago. I'm pretty sure the article I noticed you edit was Walk on the Wild Side (Lou Reed song). And that was quite a while ago! I thought we might not see you again, ;) What brings you back finally? Julia\^talk 20:21, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. But taking a look at your contributions now, this one would have been more entertaining to witness: "...God just reached down and gave you a free Celestial handjob and YOU OWE HIM."

Fun one, if a little inappropriate! ;) (From Talk:Enter the Punisher.) Julia\^talk 20:30, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More than "a little" inappropriate! Wow! I don't remember why that bad writing got me quite so angry! But I guess the consensus went my way, in the end.

I've actually formally nominated an article for deletion this week, Afterparty. That's a first for me. I'm not generally into deletion, but if you look, you'll probably agree the article is beyond saving.

Over the years I've taken breaks from Wikipedia. I've actually been editing sporadically for years, unregistered, though I still feel like a beginner. I sometimes think Wikipedia is actually one of mankind's greatest ongoing achievements, one of the best things about the Internet, and I hope it will exist in some form 100 years from now.

--Ben Culture (talk) 00:12, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. The article that I nominated for deletion, called "Afterparty", was simply about a kind of party (i.e., "The party is over -- but the afterparty starts in fifteen minutes!") It appeared contrived for the purpose of advertising a Melbourne, Australia company that equips and organizes parties. After removing the subtly-promotional material (and a VERY mindless quote from an R. Kelly lyric), there wasn't much of an article left. It was barely more than a dictionary definition. It did get deleted, and it probably deserved to be. Anyway, NOW there's an article for an album called Afterparty, by a band called Cool Kids of Death. How great a band name is THAT?!?

I have no idea if the band and their album is truly notable in their native Poland. But I feel disquieted merely saying that, here on my Talk page, for fear that someone will swoop in and delete those articles. Certaintly, the original "Afterparty" article received no defense; I simply nominated it, and in one week it was gone. This has definitely made me think twice about ever nominating an article for deletion again. Whatever the opposite of a "deletionist" is, I'm the radical opposite! (I only decided to go as far as nominating the article because it was so damn stupid, anyway!)

--Ben Culture (talk) 06:00, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. We use UK English spelling on UK subjects like Pink Floyd, so changing "centre" to "center" wasn't the right thing. Relax, I changed it back. The guideline is at WP:ENGVAR if you want to get more information. --John (talk) 08:30, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Thanks for pointing me towards the guideline.

--Ben Culture (talk) 17:12, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When I originally changed the two "centre"s to "center"s, I also cleaned up a sentence that wasn't quite clear, but I didn't note that in my edit summary. So when you simply reverted my edit, the old fuzzy sentence was back. So I've reverted your revert, but manually changed the "center"s back to "centre"s again. So we should both be happy now.

--Ben Culture (talk) 17:21, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nice. "Modelled" would be the correct spelling in British English, and the claim about Barrett really needs a reference. --John (talk) 17:25, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done! --Ben Culture (talk) 17:34, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(For the record, another contributor said No, no citation necessary on that statement. But it's there. Good thing I went along and cited a source. I had no idea how much trouble this User:John would turn out to be.) --Ben Culture (talk) 23:07, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PLEASE DO NOT MISREPRESENT THIS ONE-DAY FRACAS, WHICH I HAVE ALLOWED TO REMAIN AS PART OF MY WIKIPEDIA HISTORY, JUST TO JUSTIFY YOUR BELIEFS REGARDING WHATEVER IT IS WE'RE ARGUING ABOUT NOW. THIS WAS A VERY SPECIAL MOMENT IN MY WIKIPEDIA HISTORY, WHICH CAME TO A SATISFYING AND UPLIFTING CONCLUSION. IF YOU CANNOT BE BOTHERED TO READ THE WHOLE DING-DANG THING AND SEE THIS FOR YOURSELF, DON'T EVEN MENTION IT TO ME. AND IF ALL THESE CAPITAL LETTERS HURT YOUR PRECIOUS EYES, STOP LOOKING AT THEM.

Please do not add or change content without verifying it by citing reliable sources. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you.--John (talk) 14:39, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded on your Talk page, you insipid little creep.

--Ben Culture (talk) 15:03, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So much for no personal attacks... --Binaryhazard (talk) 08:59, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your participation in this resolved, three-year-old conflict.

--Ben Culture (talk) 09:52, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just received a message from you saying:

Please do not add or change content without verifying it by citing reliable sources. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you.--John (talk) 14:39, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

You need to calm right the hell down and have some fucking patience. I am not finished working on this article. When I edit, I do the writing first and the citations last. I am not finished! It may not make sense to you, but that's how I work. I always cite sources when necessary, and I have a virtual library of Pink Floyd material. I hope to God you haven't deleted my work simply because you were too impatient to wait and see how the article turned out. You could have taken five minutes to review my past contributions, to see if I had a habit of citing or not citing sources, but NO -- you were too eager to chide somebody.
I think you're pretty damn rude. And before you say anything . . . it's not the language, it's the intent. I have no idea who the hell you think you are, but this is just unacceptable. Wait. Wait and see what I do. Chiding fellow contributors should be near the bottom of your list of behavior options, as a next-to-last resort.
I am in the middle of my work, and it may be hours before I finish, but there will be citations when appropriate; there ALWAYS are. But in the meantime, you've created an antiproductive distraction and spoiled my focus. And for what? --Ben Culture (talk) 14:55, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Gosh, what a screed! Please add your references as you go along rather than waiting, as all material added to articles needs to be verifiable right from the off. Please refrain from making personal attacks or you are likely to get blocked and that would be a shame. --John (talk) 15:09, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No.

I will continue working the way I work best -- I will write first and add citations last. When I'm not being unnecessarily interrupted and distracted, we are talking about a difference of five to fifteen minutes. If you wish to attempt to ban me for this, go right ahead. I'll look forward to seeing your arguments for that.

Likewise, I will call an asshole an asshole, and if you wish to attempt to ban me for this, go right ahead. Your behavior is documented along with my language.

You are an abominably bad example of what a Wikipedian is supposed to be. I have been editing here for many, many years (perhaps more than you), and I know what I'm doing, and I know what you cannot get away with -- and threatening to ban me because you're embarassed because you know you're wrong is something that you definitely cannot get away with, John.

If anything, this road you're on will lead to YOU being banned. I'm not going to pretend I wouldn't like that. I've seen things like that happen. You pulled out the threat to ban me on your second message EVER to me -- do you honestly think that won't blacken your record? Have you thought this through?!? You do not want to start down this road. But, of course, I'd rather you do.

Now leave me alone and let me work. I don't want to hear a word from you ever again. Least of all on my Talk page.

Got it, fuckface?

--Ben Culture (talk) 15:27, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

John,
In your first-ever message to me, you chided me for not citing sources when I was still at work on the article in question. As I've pointed out, you did not take a few minutes to review my history of contributions to see if I had a habit of citing sources, or of having my contributions reverted away, or anything like that -- you went straight to chiding me.
Naturally, I informed you -- openly, honestly, angrily -- that I was not finished, and that appropriate sources would be cited when I was finished, as they always are. Instead of apologizing for your impatient, presumptive rudeness, or even saying something like "Okay, I understand" . . . Instead, in your second-ever message to me, you TOLD me to change my work habits, and threatened to have me blocked.
And yet, you describe yourself as a "WikiGnome" -- "who makes useful incremental edits without clamouring for attention"?!?
That's a miserable little joke if I've ever seen one.
You are very rude. You have done nothing but distract me in my work. It has probably been a half-hour I could have spent finishing the article and moving on -- but, in all honesty, I'm outraged by your anti-productive presumption and passive-aggressive threats. You need to do a lot of work on yourself before you're ready to contribute meaningfully to Wikipedia. Try learning to really BE a "WikiGnome": Work behind the scenes, to make articles better.
--Ben Culture (talk) 15:41, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry you feel this way. To be honest, when I get a long and angry message like this, I don't even read it, so if you really spent half an hour on it then you wasted half an hour. Your choice. My message to you earlier today wasn't my first to you; we had a discussion that is still visible here in April, on a similar matter. I didn't threaten to ban you, just pointed out that references are essential and that insults and personal attacks aren't allowed. I'll leave you alone now, but those two policies aren't going to go away just because you want them to. --John (talk) 18:21, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. I see. "Don't even read it", do you?

And yet, you want people to assume good faith on your part.

Of course, I don't actually believe you -- You've lost your credibility here. Good luck earning it back.

The hypocrisy of your behavior is thoroughly repugnant, as it was when you reverted my edits within one minute of my posting them, then told me to add references to them. You didn't even read them. You revert and delete for its own sake; for your pleasure. Your choice of language doesn't cover up the incivility of your behavior.

Your reading comprehension is clearly quite poor, because I have no problem with the REAL Wikipedia policy about citing sources, and have never objected to it. If you had ever bothered to look at my contribution history over the last 8 to 10 years, you would know that I ALWAYS cite quite a lot of sources in my edits. Especially regarding Pink Floyd articles, as I have quite the library of material. But then, you didn't even really read my edits before reverting them one minute after they were posted, did you? A good rule of thumb on reversions of this nature (i.e., that do not fit the speedy deletion policy), and I'm sure you've seen this before, is to wait 12-24 hours before reverting IF reversion is indeed necessary. But adding the "Citation Needed" tag is far more productive, as reverting does not make clear which statements you feel need citations.

IN SPITE OF your obstruction, I made a great improvement to the article, adding no less than five (5) sources. And what did YOU accomplish on Wikipedia today, John?

--Ben Culture (talk) 21:28, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on User talk:Ben Culture. Please comment on the content and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. You are welcome to rephrase your comment as a civil criticism of the article. Thank you. OohBunnies! (talk) 15:52, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The man interrupted me in the middle of my work, and then while I was replying to him, he reverted my UNFINISHED contributions. Is that not an attack? That made me angry, which is a normal and healthy reaction.

When I pointed out his impatience and rudeness, instead of apologizing, he threatened to have me blocked, due to my choice of language. But I believe that what he did is more important than what I said.

I have no apology to make to him; he was very rude, impatient, distracting, and generally counterproductive.

I am attempting to finish my contribution even now. Please do not distract me with mind games.

--Ben Culture (talk) 15:56, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a collaborative project, surely you can't expect to be left alone all the time while editing. Anger is a very normal human emotion, but civility is required. If you make personal attacks, you do risk getting into trouble. Refrain from name-calling and rants, please! OohBunnies! (talk) 16:00, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, indeed it is a collaborative project. But "John" did not contribute. He found me in the middle of making small, incremental additions to the article, which would all have pretty much two or three sources to cover them all. As I've indicated repeatedly, my history's available to review. I contribute a lot to Pink Floyd articles; I have all the sources I need; it's easy to cite them. I write, then I copy-and-paste the citations in when I'm finished. I always cite my sources!

I add the sources last, so I can do all the writing at once, because I find that produces higher quality writing. When I am not being interrupted, we are talking about a difference of five (5) to fifteen (15) minutes. But "John" did not even take five minutes to review my history of contributions, to see if I had a habit of citing or not citing sources. He did not look to see if it was generally necessary to remove my contributions (it isn't). With no patience whatsoever, he sent me a message chiding me for not citing sources, then, while I was replying to said message, he deleted my work.

I have managed to contribute to Wikipedia for over ten years without ONCE, EVER, receiving a complaint that I deleted someone else's work prematurely! It is not difficult to avoid that. In fact, you need to make an effort to ruin someone's efforts like that.

"John" had to time it just right. Compare the timing of his first message on this Talk page to the timing of his reverting the article.

I know very well, it is NOT Wikipedia policy to immediately delete anything that seems to be inadequately sourced. That is why we HAVE an actual TAG saying "Citation needed|Date=Such-and-such" -- it's called a "citeneeded". It was created to be used.

I am quite willing to air these things out to a greater audience if necessary -- since, obviously, I can't simply contribute to articles, or anything crazy like that . . . .

I believe what "John" did was far, far worse than anything I've said. Since he's continuing to make a big distraction and preventing me from finishing my work (I assume you didn't merely wander in to this disagreement; he contacted you about it?) I would like to see about having him up on charges, as well. He has jumped the gun at least four times -- first by chiding me for not citing sources before I was finished editing, secondly removing my work prematurely, thirdly threatening to have me banned, and fourthly, dragging you into it. The man needs to learn some patience! All of this could have been AVOIDED.

--Ben Culture (talk) 16:19, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I don't know John very well at all. I've spoken to him maybe once, and years ago at that. He certainly didn't contact me about it - I just have his talk page on my watchlist (I've no idea why but it's been there for a long time) and saw your message to him, and then saw the disagreement on this page.

The thing is, verifiability is policy. While we don't always have to remove unsourced content, it is within policy to do so. And John is right that it's better to add the sources to begin with. I once heard someone compare adding unsourced content with the intent of adding the sources afterwards to going outside without clothes on and, when you get in trouble for it, defending it by saying "Well, I do HAVE the clothes. I was going to put them on later." It's just a silly analogy, but you can see why some people prefer that content is sourced to begin with.

Another policy we have is assume good faith. You're not doing that with John. While his messages were brusque, they weren't rude and they weren't attacking. He's here to improve the site, just like you.

As I said before, this is a collaborative project. The very nature of it means that sometimes your edits will be questioned, even reverted. It happens all the time. John was within his right to do that. If you can't handle that happening, I can't imagine you having a very nice time here in the long run, and that would be a shame. Next time, don't take it personally. Just explain (politely and minus the ranting) that you have the sources and are going to add them. Then there would be no sticky situations like this one! OohBunnies! (talk) 16:48, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a very nice time here over the last eight to ten years. This sort of thing really doesn't happen often. A person has to really try, really go out of his way, to piss me off. It doesn't happen, as you say, "all the time". Most people use the Talk page first. Or they use the citeneeded tag. Or they post to my Talk page to ask rather than tell. Or they wait and see. Or they check out the user's past contributions. -- something I recommend you try before you judge me.

Most Wikipedians do not "delete first and ask questions later." You may say John is "within his rights" to delete willy-nilly, but I think you know, it's not adviseable or particularly appropriate. It's not a GOOD IDEA. Was John within his rights? Maybe -- but was he right?

You're right that I don't assume good faith on John's part, because he interrupted me with an assumption of bad faith on mine. Like I said, check the timings -- He actually reverted my edits first and only then contacted me. How can you defend that? That's an attack more substantial than me calling him "fuckface" -- especially since he is a fuckface ;) and I'll be citing that later. ;)

Consider, I wound up adding no less than five (5) sources to the article -- and not only for my own contributions. I was able to remove a citeneeded tag because I had a source for the item. Not to blow my own horn, but THAT IS PRODUCTIVE. John's behavior was not. I made a fine contribution to this article in spite of John's "acting out".

By the way, "ranting" is a perjorative term and I do not appreciate you using it to describe my responses to you and your buddy. It is counter-productive to true communication to dismiss someone's messages as "ranting", because that is a poorly-defined and derogatory term. I haven't been ranting. I think people have a tendency to see "ranting" when the writing is merely longer than it should be. I focus on brevity in the articles, but with personal messages I am simply long-winded.

As for when I add the citations, I still believe my way works best. My focus is on clarity of writing, and brevity, so it works best for me to focus solely on writing separately from other tasks, and doing the citations goes much faster when I do it all at once. This is the first time another user has had a problem with it. Like I said, we are talking about a difference of five to fifteen minutes, as long as I don't have to keep going back and rescuing my work from hasty deletionists!

I get the clothing analogy. But the difference is, if you're nude outside for fifteen minutes, that's long enough to offend somebody, scare somebody, or get arrested. If the Wikipedia article for Pink Floyd's "Money" has unsourced statements for 15 minutes, it doesn't matter in any way, whatsoever, at all, not even a little bit. I promise you that.

And there is something seriously wrong with the guy who cannot wait fifteen minutes to start deleting.

Thanks for your attention, OB.

--Ben Culture (talk) 17:44, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's a real pity you can't see this from a different point of view. It does happen often, trust me. Many Wikipedians are in the habit of reverting unsourced additions when they see them. He's not a deletionist, because he didn't delete anything, he just reverted, which is easily undone. Talk about mountains and molehills. I'm saddened that you would object to my use of the term "ranting" (which I was applying to your initial reactions to John, not to our conversation) when you've twice used to the term "fuckface" referring to John (who, again, is not my buddy - I don't even know the guy). If you like to write the content first and then add the sources then fine, I'm not objecting to your method, but you'll have to accept that some people are going to assume you don't have any sources. But, either way, referring to another editor as "fuckface" is entirely unacceptable and violates the civility policy. Don't do it again. OohBunnies! (talk) 18:17, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While I appreciate your civility towards me -- that is, strictly in terms of your language -- it's rather conspicuous that you haven't acknowledged anything I've said as a good point, when I've made many. Instead, you'd rather harp on "fuckface", rather than, for example, appreciate the civility I've shown you . . . or you'd rather split hairs on the difference between deleting and reverting, when the point is, it's obstructive and counter-productive to revert edits that are less than a DAY old, much less one minute old. That's right, my dear sad sap . . . .

John reverted my edits within one minute of my posting them.

USER OOHBUNNIES! HOW CAN YOU POSSIBLY BE IN FAVOR OF THAT?!?

You're "saddened" that I'm not coming around to you, but you haven't shown any flexibility, yourself. This tells me you aren't really here in good faith, and I request that you simply stop posting to my Talk page.

Have you considered that John said "Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article", after he reverted my edits? What does that sort of hypocrisy tell you? Why is he telling me to add citations to material that he already removed? What does that tell you, O Saddened One? It tells you he is operating in no good faith whatsoever. That he is undoing the work of others for its own sake -- for his pleasure. And yet you object more strongly to "fuckface"? "Fuckface" is a kind and friendly colorful sobriquet, for one who has acted out to the degree that John has today. If he were a child, he would be spanked. Instead, he was called "fuckface", and seemingly went crying to you about it.

I am a constructive contributor to Wikipedia of many years' good standing, and I have improved the article in question today, in spite of John's obstructions. He did not contribute. I haven't received the slightest apology from John, who was very clearly in the wrong (and only barely "within his rights", a gray area from which many wrongs can be perpetrated). I think I'm well within MY rights to call 'em as I see 'em on my OWN DAMN TALK PAGE. If you don't like it, don't post here. And if you aren't prepared to concede one fucking point to me, this conversation is over.

You're wrong about Wikipedia and what the majority of people do. The majority are constructive, judicious people with patience, flexibility, and understanding. I'm certaintly "saddened" you don't realize that.

--Ben Culture (talk) 21:10, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're a fucking bamf Wikipedian. My fucking hero. 67.242.219.139 (talk) 05:09, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the unexpected kind word! I left a message at your Talk page.

--Ben Culture (talk) 01:13, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ben, I see that other users have been trying to explain this to you already, but it doesn't seem to be getting through. So I'm going to try once more, more clearly. This is a collaborative project. You are expected - everyone is expected - to treat other editors with courtesy and to be cooperative with them, for the betterment of the encyclopedia. Name-calling, angry screeds, personal attacks, browbeating people to try to get them to do what you want, and other attempts to disrupt the collegial atmosphere on Wikipedia aren't ok. It doesn't matter what else you're doing here or how good your other edits are; if you can't be reasonable and speak calmly and constructively to other editors, your right to edit Wikipedia will be revoked until you can. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 21:30, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I called one person a name earlier today, that's it. I'm not "browbeating" anyone -- this is my Talk page, they are perfectly free to stop reading and responding, but in the meantime, I'm going to stand up for what I believe is right. How is it disruptive for me to defend myself when people come to my Talk page and criticize me?

"Screed" is a loaded term, and I don't feel it's appropriately applied in this instance.

What exactly do you mean by "Final warning"?

--Ben Culture (talk) 21:38, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I mean basically what I just said: "If you can't be reasonable and speak calmly and constructively to other editors, your right to edit Wikipedia will be revoked until you can." This is a final warning before we're forced to take that step, since you've already had people ask you to tone it down and you haven't. Believe me, it is completely possible to disagree with people on this project. You don't have to love everyone, or kiss people's butts, or always let them have their way. You don't have to let John or Bunnies run amok if you believe their edits can be improved. But you do have to be able to act in a calm manner, and if it comes down to the choice between missing out on your contributions or letting you be abusive to other editors, we will unfortunately have to pick the former. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 21:45, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so you're talking about banning me. I'm honestly surprised. I thought I was well within my rights to defend myself and my contributions on my own Talk page. (I did cross-post some replies to John's Talk page, which I realize is more disruptive, so I've told him I won't do it anymore.)

I'd like to tell you what's really bothering me: It's a certain "one"-ness of it all.

It started with one person, John, reverting my edit to one article within one minute of my posting it. Next, I had one person (OohBunnies!) arguing with me on John's behalf (while he isn't), and this is all happening on one day, and now it looks like one administrator, you, is ready to just go ahead and ban me over it.

What about the passing of time? Can we not wait and see what tomorrow brings? Why'd John have to rush to remove my edits, and, really, why does the one user OohBunnies! become a consensus of "people" and "other users" in your messages to me?

Why does this all have to happen at once, in one day?

I don't really expect you to answer all that. But can you see what I'm getting at? I'm not going out and chasing down OohBunnies!, which would be truly disruptive. It takes two to argue, and she's providing her half of the argument here on my Talk page.

I'd just as soon leave Wikipedia to a fresh start tomorrow, but it looks like the cost of doing that is I have to allow people to have the last word on my Talk page, to say I'm wrong, and not argue with them.

Is that what I'd have to do? As if it's somehow virtuous?

Look . . . If this looks like a "rant" or a "screed" to you, I don't know what to say. I promise you, this is not me having fun. In all sincerity, I'm not interested in pursuing the argument with OohBunnies! (or John) any further. Left to my own devices, I'd be done participating for today, and I'd approach the place afresh another day.

--Ben Culture (talk) 22:37, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think starting afresh tomorrow or another day is a great idea! If you want to do that, I'm sure people will be happy to leave you to it without trying to get "the last word" in on you. Everyone can have a bad day, and maybe everyone has had the bad luck of all sharing the same one today. I realize the irony of me replying to you when you say you dislike others having the last word, so please feel free to reply to me and, unless you have a question for me or anything, I'll leave you alone to cool down and enjoy the evening while pretending Wikipedia and its editors don't exist :) A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 22:47, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your understanding!

Hell, I don't mind if someone else does get the last word, if it's not a continuation of the argument.

Literally everyone involved in this confrontation has taken the high road and been patient with me. I think that's one of the things that makes Wikipedia a class establishment.

--Ben Culture (talk) 15:55, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In retrospect . . . [Now, on August 23rd, I am editing and removing some of the things I said on August 19]:

It is true that, while I walked away to cool down, and stayed off Wikipedia for a few days, John went ahead with his edits to the article in question, and he did remove some of my stuff. One thing he removed was, actually, a sarcastic little joke I never meant to keep. Some of his edits had nothing to do with me. Most of them, in my opinion, improved the article, and none of them did it any harm. However, I initially felt it was distasteful, even petty, of him. I felt that if I was willing to leave it alone for a day, he should have done so as well.

But here's what I didn't know until now:

On the same day, John made a number of edits to "The Happiest Days of Our Lives", another Pink Floyd song, to which I had made a lot of edits myself.

Much to my surprise, nothing he axed was my own contribution. He made his edits apparently in complete good faith, only for the good of the article. This has changed my impression of John somewhat. I think he's a good editor. I'm not sure what I think of his decisions as an admin. (I wasn't even aware he was an admin while I was arguing with him.)

One negative feeling about this incident remains entirely unchanged, so here's what I originally wrote on August 19th:

And the fact that I was on the verge of being banned over this? That is having a lasting effect on my view of Wikipedia. As I've mentioned elsewhere, I've been an on-and-off contributor for eight to ten years, and it wasn't like this before. But all glory days must come to an end sometime.

--Ben Culture (talk) 00:30, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Some of my own material in this paragraph of this section has been edited. ——Ben Culture (talk) 21:31, 23 August 2012 (UTC))[reply]

	The Special Barnstar
	We didn't agree on anything during our tiff a few days ago, but that's okay - that's life! People disagree. I offer you this as a peace offering and as a thank you for your good article work, which is always appreciated. OohBunnies! (talk) 13:53, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Okay! That's really nice of you! John also was very graceful in the end. I really didn't expect this. I appreciate what you said about my work on articles. Thanks a lot. I really don't know what to say. This is not how I imagined things turning out . . . it's much better! Thank you for your attention and kind thoughts.

--Ben Culture (talk) 15:01, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I know I can be as stubborn as hell during a disagreement, but I never hold a grudge or anything like that. I wanted you to know that your contributions are very much valued. I hope you're having a nice weekend. :) OohBunnies! (talk) 15:40, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a bad weekend at all! I really appreciate you saying my contributions are valued.

--Ben Culture (talk) 23:46, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ben.

Yep, 63 messages and counting (I'd probably get somewhere between 70 and 80, in total, before this year is out). The Beatles are my main obsession, but this past year I've been editing Pink Floyd articles (Syd at GA is my most proudest achievement thus far). I also edit The Who and ELO articles, recently (you're probably thinking the workload from those four bands put together is way too much for one person). On the workload related note, I'm also sorting out my vinyl collection as we speak (What's a CD?).

There is a style guide, Wiki's Manual of Style. Here is a direct shortcut to the U.S./US abbreviation question.

It's nice to know I have a fan, thanks for the comments. If there is any help you need on anything just leave me a message on my talk. yeepsi (Time for a chat?) 18:52, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, so, since the subject of the article is an album by a British recording artist, that means we use British English rather than "Americano", and the British way is to call it the US instead of the U.S. I get it!

As long as we're on the topic of David Gilmour, I'm thinking of removing the following:

The instrumental song "Raise My Rent" includes bits that would later be resurrected in the Pink Floyd songs "What Do You Want from Me?", "Hey You" and "Keep Talking". ^{[citation needed]}

I listened to the song all the way through. I may not be the most familiar with "What Do You Want From Me" or "Keep Talking" (can you blame me?), but I do know the basic chords and melodies. And I know "Hey You" inside-out, forwards and backwards, and I definitely heard nothing similiar. And that "resurrected" wording rubs me the wrong way; whatever this person is hearing, it's nothing so obvious as the recurring themes in The Wall. I think this is a simpler matter: After writing so many songs in the same key, E minor, Gilmour has started to repeat himself in his solos a few times.

I'm thinking I'll give it the axe. What do you think?

--Ben Culture (talk) 02:03, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ben. (Sorry for the late reply, I never got an edit notice in my watchlist.)

Yep, it's defo worth axing. I'm not a fan of the Gilmour-era Floyd (Cut all the way!) apart from a few songs in total from Lapse and Division. (To be honest, my opinion is that Lapse is nothing but solos (and 80s-dated drumming!). yeepsi (Time for a chat?) 20:54, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We're on the same page about those last two Pink Floyd albums. Between the two of them, I probably prefer Side One of Lapse, just as a collection of decent songs, not especially Floydian. Side Two is pretty much dreck, as is most of Division, but both albums have a few exciting moments here and there.

I think Gilmour finally got the message when he saw how crazy the whole fucking planet went when Roger actually rejoined them at Live 8. It must have galled him to see it constantly referred to as a "Pink Floyd reunion"; references to the band performing "together onstage for the first time in 25 years." As if none of those mammoth worldwide tours without Roger had even happened. The press just barely stopped short of referring to them as "the real Pink Floyd." And who'd have ever thought Waters would be grinning through the whole set, and Gilmour would be the scowly one? How times change!

I'm about to post on the David Gilmour article's Talk page, that practically half the article needs re-writing. I'll go into detail there. Maybe you feel up to it . . . ?

--Ben Culture (talk) 16:07, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Out of both Lapse and Division, I like only: "Learning to Fly", "One Slip", "On the Turning Away", "Take It Back" / "Coming Back to Life", and "High Hopes".

Don't forget, all those tours Roger did without them! (Incidentally, I recall Roger saying that he is bringing The Wall to Europe in 2013?) I've always quite enjoyed the Live 8 gig, I still get chills when Roger says "We're doing this for anyone that's not here, but particularly of course for Syd" at the beginning of "Wish You Were Here". If you look at the end of "Comfortably Numb" closely, you can see Dave was going to leave as soon as he got his guitar off, Roger, of all people, called/waved him over, and well, needless to say, one of the most famous images of Live 8 was taken.

Sure, I'm up for the rewrite. yeepsi (Time for a chat?) 01:02, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's great. After all, you are only watching four bands!

Yeah, Roger Waters seems to have gone through some profoundly positive changes. I don't know what did it, but he seems to have grown to love his career, after being ambivalent and, at times, even bitter about it. The good vibrations at the In the Flesh show in Dallas were real. There really was love in the air. And no, I wasn't stoned -- Not that I'm above that, but I wasn't, and it wasn't necessary. (Whereas, at the Division Bell show I attended, I was mostly miserable, until someone passed me a joint during "Comfortably Numb".) I attended two of Roger's Dark Side of the Moon shows, and again the feeling was warm and celebratory. (Not to mention, hearing songs like "The Fletcher Memorial Home" performed live, with a potent new film attached, was beyond all expectations! He had dropped "The Gunner's Dream" from the set list by then, but at least he did it, and it's on YouTube in good quality.) All I can say is, if Roger doesn't release a DSOTM live album and DVD, he's depriving the world of a great performance of the work. If my ears were working correctly, he had two of his guitarists soloing in unison on "Money", just like it's done on the record. And "Shine On" was properly slow, which made it hit you all the harder. Since then, the Gilmour-Floyd versions on Delicate... and PULSE sound lightweight. Even with all that guitar soloing, I prefer Roger's version. Say what you will about Roger's tone of voice, at least he can hit the high notes of "You were caught in the cross-FIRE / Of child-hood and star-DOM" and so on. I guess some of it was pre-recorded, but I don't care; I don't like the way Gilmour sings that one, not even on the otherwise-excellent Live in Gdansk.

Sure, I love the Live 8 performance. People have said it's ragged, but I like it that way. On "Comfortably Numb", for a moment during the second solo, it sounds like Roger and Nick are about to drag the song out from under David and Rick! But I like it, because it really is just those four guys making most of the sound. I'm used to thinking of live Pink Floyd as a machine, operated by anywhere from 12 to 20 people. I also like how the songs were kept to modest lengths, by way of shorter solos. That struck me as new and different for them.

I guess I've rambled enough for now. Hope you don't mind. If it was an article's Talk page I'd confine it to discussing the article itself, but hey, this is MY Talk page, right? So we can ramble all we like, as far as I'm concerned.

--Ben Culture (talk) 09:36, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ben. (Sorry again for the late reply, I missed the edit notice in my watchlist.) I'm watching five now (fifth is Nirvana). I'll start rewriting in an hour or two (as long as I don't get any more responses for my GANs).

I do recall somewhere that Roger was somewhat grumpy towards his early solo career. What I wouldn't give to see those tours (especially to hear TFC songs)! I've always thought no matter whether official or bootleg, there's never a live album that is as close as to the thing in person (the closest I got was Brit Floyd back in June-ish, they played the whole of "Echoes"!).

I don't mind, it's always good to music related rambling. yeepsi (Time for a chat?) 16:54, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ben, I understand the general frustration you have voiced in other places. I made the first comment about Raise My Rent but did it anonymously so I never heard of the ensuing debate. I only ever compared it to What Do You Want From Me (someone else put in the rest) and I just wrote about it civilly on the talk page for that article. Thank you for all of your contributions. Take it easy. --Vic Elliott, Tucson AZ

Hi Ben. I just noticed your post last month on the Good Times Roll talk page. Since I wrote the article (well, most of it, anyway), I thought I'd taken a moment to respond to your comments. I'm surprised you see the article as negatively biased; I'm actually a pretty big Cars fan (saw the remaining four on their Move Like This tour last year, which was awesome) and have written over a dozen articles about the band. But your point about the over-reliance on Allmusic is well taken; they're a handy go-to source, but there are no doubt other sources that offer commentary about the song that we could pull into the article to flesh it out a bit. If you're willing to help pitch in, I'd sure appreciate the help! Who knows, we might even be able to bring it to Good Article status – as far as I know, Wikipedia only has one Cars article that's reached GA status, and I'd love to help change that. Cheers, 28bytes (talk) 21:56, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for a well-balanced approach! See, my thing is, I'm feeling more and more that critics are entirely irrelevant. In the Internet era, it's easy to find oneself surrounded by self-appointed, non-professional reviewers (sometimes they mistake Wikipedia for just another forum for their reviews), and in my experience, they make exactly as much sense as the professionals. As far as I'm concerned, the only kind of education that makes one's opinion on music matter more is an education in musicology, not journalism. I, personally, would rather know a song's key, time signature, tempo, length, instrumentation, and style than read a bunch of adjectives like "hypnotic", "swirling" or -- oh, this is my best one, I axed this from our own Don't Leave Me Now (Pink Floyd song) article: "culminating in a mournful guitar solo". Yes, I removed that sentence from a Wikipedia article, and if I NEVER see a guitar solo described as "mournful" again in my life, I'll still have seen it too many times. The "culminating" offended the fuck out of me, too. I mean, come on, that is not encyclopaedic in tone, am I right?

So, that's where I'm at. You can read the section titled "Composition" in that Pink Floyd song article, as an example of what I like to write about songs. Or the "Details" section in "You're All I've Got Tonight", also mostly my work. (I left in the preexisting quote from Donald at Allmusic on that one, even though he committed the sin of journalistic cliche, calling the synth parts "ethereal", which they aren't, even! I would have said they're "prickly", which is pretty far removed from "ethereal". This disagreement is a perfect example why I think adjectivism is fully worthless for describing music. So I just did my best to overshadow the quote with actual musical details, citing the sheet music book, of course.) I don't think presenting musicological material like this necessarily excludes non-musicians; I think it invites them to try thinking like musicians, maybe learn something. I hope, anyway.

If you say you didn't pick adjectives to deliberately make the Cars or the song look bad, of course I believe you.

I can't say I'm motivated to achieve getting an article to GA status, but of course, I am here to improve articles, so I hope I'm helping.

--Ben Culture (talk) 00:37, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ben (if you didn't see it before reading this, I've posted a reply in the RE:David Gilmour (album) section).

Back then "The Gold It's in the..." was only a redirect, it wasn't until a few months after my edit that it became an article. I forgot to re-add the link after the "Gold" became an article. I hate the genre field. Songs/Albums/Bands are often wrong labelled by a person/critic with a genre that it's nowhere near (I'm not saying that "Ibiza Bar" was/is wrongly labelled, but you get my point, right?). From what I've seen users say, there has been a dsicussion about it, but I can't find it. yeepsi (Time for a chat?) 16:54, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Recently, I try to avoid using Allmusic for genre sources. I do agree it's not heavy metal (slightly offtopic, do you think "Helter Skelter" is heavy metal?). Should we gather several sources to see what they say about the song? Hell, I rate More and Obscured above Lapse and Division. Yea, I agree that they both should have specific genres. yeepsi (Time for a chat?) 17:54, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Even though I am an IT person, I still can't figure out how to respond. What exactly are you trying to tell me? Best Sally — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.104.125.48 (talk) 03:37, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Sally! It depends which message you mean. First, there's the Sally Cato article, and, on the article's talk page, I made a rather detailed, overlong criticism, which boils down to: You should be more specific about what you contribute to these shows like Spamalot, The Rutles, etc. "Creating material" could mean anything -- Designing a backdrop? Composing music? It's confusing. People don't necessarily know what a "marketing and design firm" does. I was saying Wikipedia's not the place to promote yourself, but it is the place for detailed, accurate facts (providing the name of the firm would not be "advertising".) How you find the right balance remains debatable. You want to be careful not to look like you're trying to take too much credit.

I tend to go on too long -- I'm sure this message itself is too long -- and if I created confusion, I'm sorry.

But if you read the message on your User Talk page, I was clear about this: A reunited (or new lineup of) Smashed Gladys could have great potential right now. I could actually tell before I heard the band that, at least, YOU belong in music -- but then, the music itself surprised and impressed me much more than I expected!

It's damned good music by any rock standard. I was never a metal fan of any kind, but I think the songs you and those guys created have widestream appeal. I don't know what today's kids listen to. But I can't think of anything better for teenage boys and (especially) girls, than fun, witty, flashy metal fronted by a bad-ass woman. Your music rocks and your lyrics are clever -- hell, the titles alone are hooks -- and I believe, if you treat your audience with total respect they will genuinely LOVE you for it. They want to see a victory. I've had a few rare moments in life, of sensing the near future by intuition, and I just know the possibilities are good for a certain NYC glam-metal band that people are still saying "never got the credit they deserved."

I have also been on YouTube (same handle), listening to SG songs and leaving comments. Your official channel, and TO0DLES213's "Top Tracks for Smashed Gladys" I've heard about eight songs by now, and nearly all of them impress and excite me.

I think of Aerosmith, how they almost burned out before their biggest successes. Or how the legendary Velvet Underground never had much more success than your band, when they were actually active. A slightly longer career, four albums, but no reason to believe their music would endure. You know, how albums went out of print, and the band and fans alike were just fucked. They traded hissy cassette tapes by mail to keep the music alive. You may not entirely like that your recordings are being shared for free on the Internet. But it HAS kept the name Smashed Gladys alive. You ARE being heard, and making new fans!

People love a good comeback. There is a BIG pie for reunions. 1980s bands that had, literally, one hit get back onstage together, and people start crying and saying "OMG I LOVE these guys!" I hear your music with fresh (if not young) ears, and know you all deserve the acclaim of a big audience. I don't know the whole path, but you deserve a nice fat slice of that pie.

So, unless you're truly happier doing what you're doing now (and again, you should clarify what that is in your article), I say get the damn band back together. At the very least, your old fans will show up for it, with more money to spend than they had the first time around!

I became a new fan because you decided to sign up here on Wikipedia, and you made a little noise, a day or two of controversy -- it came to my attention, and I got curious. Excellent! Very metal of you, I'm sure.

Much respect and best wishes to you, Sally.

--Ben Culture (talk) 13:12, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, "whilst" is perfectly normal English in the UK.—Kww(talk) 06:32, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And "You a broke-ass muthafucka" is a perfectly normal English accusation in various parts of the U.S., but that doesn't make it encyclopaedic.

From our own article, "While" (to which "Whilst" redirects):

Some publications on both sides of the Atlantic disapprove of whilst in their style guides (along with "amidst" and "amongst"); for example:

• Times Online Style Guide: "while (not whilst)"^[1]
• Guardian Style Guide: "while not whilst"^[2]
• Hansard: the Canadian Parliament record: "while not whilst"^[3]

I'm going to be honest with you. While I generally hate Wikipedians who are "on a mission" (one guy is "on a mission" to eliminate about 90% of the uses of "comprised of" or "comprises", and had written a number of long-ass essays explaning himself) ... I am on kind-of a half-assed mission against "whilst". If it doesn't belong in the finer British newspapers, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia. So when I see it, I take it out. Especially when the topic (such as Madonna) is so thoroughly American. I'm not terribly opposed to other language differences. I don't even particularly care about "amidst" and "amongst", although I agree they look fabulously stupid. "Whilst" is the only term I;m actually actively seeking to eliminate.

You're not going to become my sworn nemesis, are you?

Respectfully,

--Ben Culture (talk) 19:37, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ben,

Thank you for your kind comment on my rants page!

I see you are involved in articles about bands, particularly British bands. I am aware that there is a consensus to write e.g. "Blur are a band", where I would have written "Blur is a band", and that this is defended because it is said to be normal British English usage. OK, I am British but over 60, maybe my British English is out of date; but my younger friends tell me that they would also say "Blur is a band". I would be interested to hear your views on this. Maproom (talk) 17:22, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments on Talk:The Dark Knight Rises are inappropriate and unnecessary. If you cannot maintain a collegiate level of discourse in your interactions with other editors over editing disputes, you are looking at a block. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 12:56, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see plenty of evidence above that you have been asked several times to conduct yourself better. Those do not seem to have made any impact. Calling other editors whiners, accusing others of lying, telling them to "man up"—if you don't see any issue with these comments, or see why several uninvolved editors have issues with them, then we've got a fundamental problem right there. As for your "truth" comments, I suggest you reread WP:V. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 13:26, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I should have deleted those discussions months ago; you are misusing them, as I knew someone could if they chose to. I wasn't treated right then, either -- denied the freedom to argue my case on my own User Talk page -- and you're not treating me right now, either. And, will you look at that, you're not being honest, either: That was one situation that took place in a single day -- I made a big point of emphasizing that, because I believe NO editor should ever be banned within a single day -- not "several times" as you put it. Several people chose to get involved, because humans are herd animals. They group instinctively into mobs.

Yet it all came to a happy ending, largely because of me. Because I did my damndest to smile and ignore the knife protruding from between my shoulder blades.

And it took place a year ago.

And there hasn't been any incident of any kind since.

As for your WP:V (Ah, love those cryptic abbreviations), the "truth" in this case is VERY verifiable: We never see Selina engage in ANY behavior that fits the description of kidnapping.

Just because a cop charges you with a crime does not mean that crime even occurred, much less that you are guilty of it!

--Ben Culture (talk) 21:01, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not make personal attacks in the manner that you did at Talk:The Dark Knight Rises and User talk:DonQuixote. We can have constructive discourse about working out an agreeable solution to the issue of the plot details for the film article without saying "the lunatics have taken over the asylum" or calling others' minds "mediocre". I admit, I was finding your arguments to have some reasonability to them before such resorts were taken. DarthBotto _talk•cont 04:01, 05 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This reply is just for the record, for my own satisfaction, after nearly a year has gone by. (It is my own User Talk page, after all.)

I don't defend the comments I made back then, but I must say, if my arguments were reasonable before I resorted to personal attacks, I fail to see why they shouldn't be reasonable afterwards.

→Ben Culture (talk) 06:09, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Talk:The Dark Knight Rises, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Please do not refactor my comments by inserting your commentary into my comments. GregJackP Boomer! 20:21, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no worries, mate. I'm here to stay. And I'm going to be reporting Parrot, obviously for many reasons, but the biggest being that he disregarded WP:NOCITE, which states that if an unsourced edit is not harmful to the page, which mine were clearly not, then the proper procedure is to add citation needed tags, and not simply delete the edits. Thanks for the support, and I hope you'll comment on that report when I put it up!! Akdrummer75 (talk) 18:49, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, not an admin, just someone fed up of seeing an edit war in his watchlist. I thought most editors understood that WP:CIVIL is as much to stop disputes being pointlessly inflamed, as anything (if I revert someone's choice of noun and tell them why it's wrong, they might agree and concede; if I revert it and just tell them to fuck off, they'll most likely revert it back in anger) but ho hum. If Parrot's been doing this a lot - and the talk page opening with "if you're here to remind me about WP:CIVIL then you can shove it" isn't a great sign - then maybe it's time for WP:RFC/U or WP:ANI. --McGeddon (talk) 16:37, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You may be right, but unfortunately, I'm not familiar with those policies or how to make use of them; I don't know who to ask for help. All I know is that Doom has been free to run around reverting articles to his own latest versions, and his Edit Summaries on Blackbeard) literally consisted of only "oh fuckoff" on one and "get fucked" on the other. On his Edit Summaries he said these things!

He has been abusing contributors for a very long time now, and refusing to discuss his behavior. I was nearly blocked in a single day for calling someone a "fuckface" on my own User Talk page. If it isn't allowed in there, it isn't allowed out here. What I would like to do is bring down an admin who is not afraid to address his constant disregard for WP:CIVIL, snd mske it clear to him that he can be blocked from editing over for far lesser offenses than what he does regularly.

--Ben Culture (talk) 19:18, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just start a thread on WP:ANI that briefly and neutrally states the issue; there are already a couple of similar posts about other users there that should give you an idea of how much detail is appropriate. That a user is posting uncivil edit summaries, and proudly announcing on his talk page that anybody "whinging about WP:CIVIL" can "shove it" and that he'll ignore any ANI threads raised against him all seems unhelpfully aggressive. --McGeddon (talk) 15:45, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to meet you! - I noticed your question what FAC means. Featured article candidate. Whenever you don't know such a thing, try it in the search function with a preceding "WP:" (which is short for Wikipedia, as you may have guessed). I this case WP:FAC. It's often used for the process of examining in a collaborative effort if an article meets the criteria for Featured article, the highest standard. I watch a few of those, such as Kafka, and prefer when changes are proposed on the talk. To get a feeling for the process, look at Kafka FAC talk. - Let's practise brevity ;) - ask questions, but only one at a time, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:23, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

	The Special Barnstar
	I see that you have experienced alot on Wikipedia. I can relate. Good luck to you! :-) Daniellagreen (talk) 17:17, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ben, I am there, too. Perhaps I could direct you to a really great mentor, User:John_from_Idegon. He has always been helpful to me, from the start. Best to you, Daniellagreen (talk) 17:30, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you liked that little tidbit; it was the product of dealing with a host of overlapping RMs and CfDs cluttered useless lines of thought and the premise that "votes" get counted without evaluating their substance. I almost used this one, though, "The difference between a buffoon and a clown is that the clown knows what a mirror is, and also that he's a joke, which the buffoon does not." And [the passage from Erewhon at the top of my page seems to have been written in anticipation of wiki-procedure-hounds (people who won't listen to common sense and insist on "letting other editors have their say" when throwing things to RM where there will be other people without common sense wanting their say to be "counted" too. A lot of quantitative, machine-rule judgement-making around Wikipedia, very little qualitative work. That Blackbeard and other articles I encounter have serious grammatical problems (I read articles with my ESL client) that don't get tended to while picayune discussions belabouring/frustrating the obvious seem to be increasingly the mainstay of wiki-activity (when not just tweaking codes and templates and screwing around with titles) adds to my own increasing disaffection for "discussion" and my growing disinterest in contributing more articles; I stopped adding photos long ago becvause of the deletionists infesting the Commons.Skookum1 (talk) 00:50, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you might want to consider striking the personal attacks that you have made here [1]. Such comments are never helpful and only serve to weaken your case. They also make you appear immature and aggressive. Graham Colm (talk) 19:06, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I confess I don't see anything in those comments of mine you could actually call a "personal attack". Care to be specific?

--Ben Culture (talk) 19:32, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Most of what you wrote from "I don't fucking have to!" to " Hopefully, you have no arguments left to make". Is a sarcastic tirade that falsely calls into question the integrity of another editor. It seems from reading comments above that your bad behaviour has been tolerated in the past. But if you continue to contravene our policies, I will not hesitate to block you. Graham Colm (talk) 20:01, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm disappointed with how you've interpreted my recent comments. My sincerity has probably not been apparent to you. I'm partly to blame for that. I'm sorry. But I must defend myself against some of your charges:

(a.) Within 90 minutes, I censored that sentence to "I don't have to!" to reduce any atmosphere of incivility. Everybody has the right to edit their comments for the better, don't they? I wish you would give me credit for it, instead of holding me to task for my early mistakes.

(b.) Either way, "I don't fucking have to!" is simply not a "personal attack." It says nothing about anybody besides myself, whatsoever. At worst, cursing can add tension, but I'm already quite familiar with Parrot of Doom and his vocabulary -- if he's comfortable leaving Edit Summaries like "oh fuckoff" and "get fucked", I think he can handle what I said, for the 85 minutes it existed. Are you willing to block him if he continues to make comments like that?

Is "clearly you don't know what you're talking about" an acceptable Edit Summary? 'Cause that's as recent as two days ago.

Likewise, how on Earth is "Hopefully, you have no arguments left to make" any sort of "personal attack"? I wanted the argument over! I genuinely wanted to cover all the bases and assure him that my edit was on solid ground, which it was. (If I'm not as sweet to Doom as you think I should be, DO please bear in mind that the man has verbally abused me repeatedly. Far beyond anything I've ever said to him.)

(c.) You misinterpret me. I do not do sarcasm. I meant what I said sincerely. Please examine the two notable changes I made to my comment in an attempt to soften and calm it down:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AThe_Final_Cut_%28album%29&diff=621954260&oldid=621944907

Two paragraphs in particular were meant to be concliatory towards Parrot of Doom:

If you don't like the cited source of Uncut Magazine's interview with Roger Waters, that's not a problem. Other statements in this article use Schaffner as their sole source; there's no reason this one can't do that, too. If you don't want to link to pinkfloydz.com, we can remove the link and leave the citation as Roger Waters interview, Uncut Magazine, June 2004.

... and ....

I do realize the pinkfloydz.com site LOOKS a bit dodgy, but I believe they transcribed the interview accurately (despite a lack of proper formatting and some questionable punctuation).

Both these comments were very much meant to say, "I understand your objections, but there is no need to revert my edit for these reasons."

(d.)You're absolutely right that I told Parrot of Doom "Your revert seems intellectually dishonest." It was. Parrot of Doom has reverted literally EVERYTHING I have attempted to contribute to The Final Cut in the last four to six months. He has done so in an exceeedingly uncivil way. After awhile, one cannot help but take it personally. I have contributed a lot of good-faith work to Wikipedia for over ten years, but I didn't register and build myself a reputation for most of that time. Nor did I take possession of my favorite articles and declare myself the final authority. But, GrahamColm, let me tell you exactly why Parrot of Doom's reversion was "intellectually dishonest":

My edit cited a widely-trusted source: Nicholas Schaffner's Saucerful of Secrets: The Pink Floyd Odyssey.

That was my first inline citation. Being sick to death of PoD's unceasing reversions of my work, I figured I'd get a backup source and cite both. Which I did: Uncut Magazine's June 2004 interview with Waters. A very good, in-depth interview, but I only used it as a *secondary* source, after the Schaffner citation. YET, when Parrot of Doom reverted my edit, his Edit Summary said "please explain what makes 'pinkfloydz.com' a reliable source" Do you see how that is intellectually dishonest? The Schaffner book is widely accepted as a reliable source; much of the article, and every other Pink Floyd article, relies on it heavily, and nobody's fallen on their ass as a result of leaning on it. So to revert my edit because pinkfloydz.com is questionable is neither honest nor fair.

Furthermore, I took it to the article's Talk page (He who attempts discussion first is following WP:BRD best), where I provided PoD and any other interested readers with a link to books.google.com so PoD could check my source, which was 100%. I have done nothing wrong. I have only tried to improve this article in good faith. And I'm being prevented from doing so for what appears to be strictly personal, irrational reasons. That is my sincere impression.

Calling another editor's integrity into question does not qualify as "bad behavior", and is certainly not an offense that calls for blocking. I said, "Your revert seems intellectually dishonest." Because it does.

I do apologize for my lengthy comment here, but that's what happpens when I have to defend myself, every single time. If people like yourself and Parrot of Doom were civil to me, I would give that back 200%. I have not always been good, but have kept trying to do better. Notice how I haven't archived or deleted those things from my User Talk page. That MEANS something, GrahamColm.

I'm going to be quite disappointed if you dismiss this as a "tirade", "screed", etc. I have only attempted to address your concerns and express mine, sincerely, thoroughly, and without misunderstanding. Good night.

→Ben Culture (talk) 04:34, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.: As for my bad behavior being tolerated in the past . . . Yes. You are correct. My one bad day in July 2012, and my one bad weekend in September 2013, were both eventually overlooked. Do not mistake a bunch of people chiding me for a number of incidents. They were largely repeating each other, in discussion of the same conflict.

I wrote a few comments on an old talk page Talk:Facial_(sex_act).178.38.9.61 (talk) 09:48, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up, but I couldn't figure out which comments were yours, --Ben Culture (talk) 20:40, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

. . . because I had to go into the History of the Talk page and find out that your comments had been deleted for no damn good reason! I restored them. hopefully this meets with your approval. Thanks for the encouraging comments. People are dicks!

--Ben Culture (talk) 21:16, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So I don't know how to respond directly to your comment but I'm the user who brought up the drug culture thing about Wish You Were Here. I think it was so long ago you might have forgotten all about it. Anyways I definitely recant my statement. It was more an observation though a naive one to be sure. The album became really popular for a short time where I reside and especially among the people I knew. I knew about Pink Floyds tie in with *drug culture* which is really a dirty word, but it's the truth. So I thought maybe just maybe it was because of that and not just because their album is SUPER popular and comes back into fashion every couple of years. Thanks for your comment and I appreciate your feedback. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NoruweiNoMori (talk • contribs) 06:06, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have nothing but respect for someone who can admit he's been mistaken.

I got into Pink Floyd in late 1985, at 14, when nobody my age was listening to them. Then came A Momentary Lapse of Reason and the legal battles with Roger Waters, Soon enough, everybody knew who Pink Floyd were, and mainstream, popular schoolkids were listening to them, whem just one year ago, "Shine On You Crazy Diamond" would have bored them to tears!

I do think Pink Floyd's popularity led to a resurgence in pot-smoking, rather than the other way around, though!

Best Wishes to You,

←Ben Culture (talk) 21:33, 10 January 2015 (UTC)→[reply]

Completely agree SPARTES123 (talk) 18:03, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

At Talk:Facial_(sex_act), you seem to be replying to some pretty old comments, and some plainly WP:NOTFORUM ones. I personally would drop the subject because a. you're unlikely to get a response and b. they seem to be pretty outdated. Tutelary (talk) 19:28, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And, of course, yu've warned them about their inappropriate remarks to me, and violations of WP:CIVIL, in the first place, yes? Then we can consider the matter dropped. --Ben Culture (talk) 20:36, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see any vandalism taking place (the topic of WP:DENY). What I saw was selective editing, in which perfectly-reasonable comments supporting my position were removed, while blatantly-rude comments and accusations of trolling were left aimed at me. By restoring the supportive comments and addressing the inaproppriate comments, I feel I've acquitted myself well, and left the article in good shape, so there shouldn't be any further problems -- unless admin Malik Shabazz is really out to get me. Which I doubt. I expect the dust to be settling now.

In the near future, it might become necessary to pass a rule to the effect that "Every user has the right to defend him/her self against any accusation(s), period." Because any public forum in which you can get in trouble for defending yourself is a disturbing one, indeed. I have seen users being pressured to stop defending themselves against charges which were both untrue and unfair. Like I said, very disturbing.

→Ben Culture (talk) 01:41, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing should come after this but some links.

With regard to your recent edits, I think you intended to better paraphrase the sources, but it comes across as you giving your opinion about the material. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 06:44, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is a totally fair criticism, and thanks for seeing my good intentions. I am very opinionated, and editing Wikipedia is always an exercise in objectivity for me. Take the pubic-hair angle: Most actresses really do shave it all off, but like I said, there's a niche for pubic-hair fans. And, what a surprise, I personally like pubic hair.

I wanted to add something about tattoos, but I didn't have any sources. It seems like maybe 20-30 years ago, a tattooed woman couldn't get work, but now tattooed actresses are quite ubiquitous. But again, no source, so I left that idea alone.

Thanks again for a constructive comment!

--Ben Culture (talk) 21:30, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Time (Pink Floyd song), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dissonance. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:13, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:03, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:04, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice, but we cannot accept original research. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. nyuszika7h (talk) 14:58, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

hi_________ allows 2 or more people to send and receive messages at the same time. * 1 point SPARTES123 (talk) 17:59, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Sentry (comics), to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sentry (comics) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:02, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi , you should make content on this topic telling about future of humanity, universe, galaxy, and after human extinction till when will life be on Earth ALL under this topic SPARTES123 (talk) 18:01, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]