Contents

User talk:Buckner 1986/More Crap

Please don't do cut and paste moves like between The New Price Is Right (Davidson) and The New Price Is Right (1994). The move button is there for a reason. Kevin_b_er 05:27, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

G'day Buckner 1986,

I've fixed up The New Price Is Right (1994), so that the move you wanted has now been performed properly. Kevin says above "the move button is there for a reason", but that's not very helpful, so I'm going to tell you what that reason is.

Like so many things today, it all comes down to legal reasons. We retain copyright on all our contributions to Wikipedia, but by making edits we agree to license our words under the GNU Free Documentation License. This means that, while we still own copyright, we agree to let other editors, and Wikipedia, read and edit our content, provided they obey certain restrictions. Now, one of those restrictions is that every edit we make must be credited to its author — so if you write an article on the mating habits of gibbons, say, and I modify it, then we both need to be credited as authors of the "mating habits of gibbons" article. Wikipedia's "History" function (which I assume you're very familiar with) is our way of making sure everybody gets credited for their work.

Now, when we want to rename an article, we can use the MediaWiki "move" function, which will automagically rename the article, and transfer the page history, with all its notes of who wrote what part of the article, to the new name. This is Very Useful. When you copy and paste the existing text of an article into a new one, however, the page history gets lost, so nobody knows who wrote the article anymore. And if nobody knows who wrote the article, then we aren't allowed (for legal reasons) to display it on Wikipedia. That's why Kevin wanted the article at The New Price Is Right (1994) deleted, and why I had to clean up the move — so that everyone can now see who wrote what. I hope this clears things up for you; please don't accuse other editors of "vandalism" so readily in future. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 09:12, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I won't revert again, since you did the right thing and fixed all the links that pointed to the original article - thankyou. I'd like to remind you again not to use cut-and-paste for page moves. I also point out that disambig page naming conventions allows the dominant topic with the ambiguous name to be at the primary name (ieDick Johnson), as I made it last night. I believe your dispute is that one or more of the other Dick Johnsons is just as significant in a global sense. It is quite unusual to create disambig pages with almost all meanings as red links, especially with the claim that they are as important as the one with the long-standing article. --Scott Davis ^Talk 04:54, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did not use cut-and-paste for page moves, I copied the data from the disambig page and kept both just in case. I feel that this is a more conservative view. I only found the Dick Johnson article while searching for the Artie Shaw band member, and would argue that he is the better known Dick Johnson, but I feel the best thing to do is disambiguate, then if there are any red links they will get fixed sooner rather than later, as having them on an obvious page like that makes them more visible. Buckner 1986 15:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You still duplicated the article without its history, which is the point, but I consider it a minor point for disambig pages. On your second point, I'd be surprised, but am open to see the development of the Dick Johnson (clarinetist) article. I apologise if I seemed abrupt - your move came the same weekend as one from User:Hello Wisconsin (was subsequently blocked for pagemove vandalism), who appeared to be promoting Dick Johnson (reporter) as being more notable. Cheers. --Scott Davis ^Talk 01:02, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wound up starting basic articles on the other Dick Johnsons, in the hope that someone who knows more about them will do add to them. Also, I view having both the main and disambig page are good things. Buckner 1986 01:34, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have to ask -- do you really still think I'm a puppetmaster? -TPIRFanSteve 04:57, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take the lack of a response after you've clearly seen this as a "yes." Or perhaps not; I can never get used to the timestamps on here. Might I ask why? -TPIRFanSteve 15:45, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you know what? How about telling me what I have to do to get you to even acknowledge my existence beyond falsely accusing me of being a puppetmaster? -TPIRFanSteve 18:05, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removing such things is vandalism. Buckner 1986 23:36, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I repeat -- what do I need to do to get you to actually talk to me instead of just antagonizing me? You are clearly a completely legitimate user with things to contribute, and frankly, I think more worthwhile stuff would be getting done around here if you and I were getting along.

Additionally, you didn't answer my question. Do you seriously still believe I am a puppetmaster? -TPIRFanSteve 23:47, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, albiet your sock/meat puppets have taken a hiatus of late, which is odd. I really liked Plinky who voted against you and made some random edits. Like that would get us off your trail. Why don't you do something productive with your time, like rewrite the The Price Is Right related articles with a neutral point of view. Buckner 1986 23:49, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I don't think there really is an "us" with regard to "my trail"; you're really the only person who's made any such accusations. They're still false, but there's really not anything I can do to prove that.

I'm still curious as to why you're so convinced that I've been doing all these devious things on this site. I really don't get that, and I wish you'd explain it to me.

I guess I'll take your lack of a response to mean that you're fully aware you have no case and just don't want to admit it. -TPIRFanSteve 04:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As for why I don't rewrite the articles, I really don't think I'm the right person for that. Price is easily my favorite TV show, and while I'm good with rules and trivia and such, I don't know that I'd be able to make them sound more neutral. (In fact, I'm still having trouble seeing what the problems are with some of them.) -TPIRFanSteve 00:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article is fine now, before it wasn't stressing notability. Yanksox 01:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is good, but at the very least the article should assert notability, if not it could fall under CSD A7. You're doing a good job, if you need anything feel free to contact me. Yanksox 01:55, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The edit that you just reverted was not, in fact, vandalism. The school is now officially known as West Virginia State University. Cheers. youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 16:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

G'day Buckner 1986,

I've deleted the "sockpuppet" page you created, and reverted your addition of the tag to the userpages of several unrelated users. These users are not sockpuppets, and I'm dismayed to see you once again flinging about the word "vandalism" with gay abandon. This sort of thing causes bad blood all 'round and is utterly, utterly unnecessary on Wikipedia, regardless of the topic you're debating (but particularly in the case of The Price is Right).

Please try to keep a cool head, and do not be so quick to jump to conclusions or refuse to listen to other editors who are trying to work with you. If necessary, let others take the lead in labelling suspected sockpuppets and so on — do not get involved in such things yourself, until you gain sufficient experience here on Wikipedia that you won't repeat what we've seen here with TPIRFanSteve (talk · contribs). There are several admins on Wikipedia who will be happy to take your side if you're wronged in a dispute, or to tell you to pull your head in if that's necessary instead. Best of all: the service is free! fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 12:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

G'day again Buckner 1986,

I see you've declared that several edits by CoolKatt_number_99999 (talk · contribs) are vandalism, and revert warred with him over those edits, even though, regardless of their merits otherwise, they are clearly not vandalism. Now, I'm sure you know that revert wars are a Bad Thing, and seriously frowned on on Wikipedia. I also know that you know — because I've told you twice, and I'm not the only voice here — full well that throwing around the word "vandalism" in cases like this is incivil. If you cannot bring yourself to be more civil and co-operative in your dealings with other Wikipedia editors, I will block you from editing. Your behaviour is unacceptable. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 08:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]