Talk:The Best of The Guess Who Volume II

Current edit war[edit]

I am under the understanding that all editors other than RokknRoul are in agreement that the dates of vol 1 should be in a different section than the lead. While I have no preference, I believe that RokknRoul needs to express his opinions on the talk page per WP:BRD instead of continually reverting the edit. Additionally, the argument (rough quotes) "I wrote every word of this article so I can do what I want with it" is entirely inconsistent with Wikipedia's basic policies. Toad02 (talk) 17:59, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

View history says: I did write every word of this article until someone deleted a link, with the explanation. "No kidding".

Later he wrote " I don't understand what your obsession is, that info was already there and you moved it to the lede for no reason."

I answered: "No, every single word of this article was written by me." NOT "I wrote every word of this article so I can do what I want with it" Are you being funny, Toad2?

The "see also"-section ... looks wrong.

Ah, I understand that comment better; sorry. That being said, the "see also" section looks totally fine, and you need to stop edit warring. You've been reverted multiple times by multiple editors. Toad02 (talk) 13:09, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"You've been reverted multiple times by multiple editors." Only one, who deleted a few words and commented "No kidding". The others are editors who didn't like that I added the real views of an ex-greenpeace-guy. Strange views, but still his views. What is he denying exactly? That we have the power to change the climate? Clearly power to scare children? https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/27/science/climate-change-children-education.html

Keeping vol 1 as a part of see also has been supported by three editors: Freshacconci, Joel B. Lewis, and myself. You are the only one who opposes it, meaning there is a clear consensus against its deletion or movement to the lead. Patrick Moore has nothing to do with The Best of The Guess Who Volume II; if you have concerns about him, please bring it up on the appropriate talk page or on my talk page. I'd like to remind you that it's helpful to sign your posts and that continuous disruptive edits can result in a ban. Toad02 (talk) 01:20, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Keeping vol 1... " Check the dates of Joel B. Lewis and Toad02's edits on the Guess Who articles... They were done AFTER I made an edit on the Dr Moore article. Revenge?

This line was made by me: A follow up, The Best of The Guess Who Volume II, was released in 1973.
And on Volume II. This compilation continues where The Best of The Guess Who left off... Why is the first OK, but not the second. I asked Freshacconci. He never replied. No kidding.

The line in volume 1 is acceptable because it is not implied that there is a volume 2. It is not needed in volume 2 because it is implied there is a volume 1.

You didn't properly ask Freshacconci; not only did you fail to use a question mark, but you also entirely ignored the warning he put on your talk page that explicitly states that you are to bring up these issues on talk pages. Edit summaries are not the place to conduct conversations, and you have been told this repeatedly.

A Wikipedia editor's actions on one page (especially when they are done in accordance to its policies) have no effect on their legitimacy in other articles. Simply because I disagreed with you on Patrick Moore does not mean I'm seeking revenge. That's childish. That being said, I did come to this article when I was adding the edit war warning to your talk page because I saw you were being disruptive on another article and wanted to evaluate and help resolve the situation. Toad02 (talk) 20:37, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please sign your posts. Toad02 (talk) 20:38, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, are editors getting paid? Does this include bullying people who make articles that are not political?

On 13:21, 26 July 2019‎ Joel B. Lewis :‎ Helping an incompetent editor achieve their goal in some form. When he added what I think is useless: "see also" near the bottom of the page where you can see all the albums listed. This was after I commented: 16:35, 24 July 2019‎ RokknRoul: is that the same Joel B. Lewis ... Wow.

It is not needed in volume 2 because it is implied there is a volume 1. Really?

On 10:25, 23 July 2019‎ Freshacconci: This is not enyclopedic (TW) After I undid his No kidding This is not enyclopedic? What does he mean?

14:01, 23 July 2019‎ RokknRoul ... fifth compilation album by the Canadian group The Guess Who Yes. 5 compilations by 1973. Wow.

RokknRoul 5 aug 19

I agree that Joel B. Lewis's tone was a bit harsh, but this should not be considered bullying; we are simply trying to improve an article.

I don't agree that the "see also" section is useless, and neither does any other editor. If you have a problem, please explain why you would like it changed. Simply quoting my argument and saying "really?" is not very convincing or helpful to other editors who want to improve the article.

By saying "This is not encyclopedic", I believe that Freshacconci meant that the statement he was deleted was unnecessary and therefore did not comply with Wikipedia's encyclopedic standards. I am not him, however, so this is only my best guess. I'm almost positive that "no kidding" referred to the fact that it was obvious that there was a volume 1.

I'm confused about what your last comment is referring to. Please clarify. I don't object to saying it was the 5th compilation album.

When signing your posts, simply put 4 ~ symbols, or click the "sign your posts on talk pages" button. This will automatically generate a signature with the time, date, username and personal talk page. Toad02 (talk) 16:56, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to repeat that it does not matter that it is the same Joel B. Lewis who edits Patrick Moore (consultant). Toad02 (talk) 16:57, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I find this thread very hard to follow because of the unusual indentation pattern and missing signatures, so I'll just make a list of comments here at the bottom, some of which repeat things that Toad02 wrote above.

@RokknRoul: In order to sign comments you leave on talk-pages, type four tildes at the end of the comment, like this: ~~~~ . It will automatically be replaced by your name, a link to your talk page, and the date. Separately, it is conventional to use colons at the beginning of your comments to indent them, so that you use one more level of indentation than the person to whom you are responding. (You can see how Toad02 uses two layers of indentation when responding to your once-indented comment.)
Indeed, I am the same user who reverted you elsewhere. That's because, when I come across a user making questionable edits, I have a habit of checking on their contributions. This is pretty common practice on Wikipedia, I would say. I also checked all your other recent edits (there are not many) and they were fine so I didn't revert any of them. (Your contributions are available here; you can see mine here, if you're curious.)
The reason the first version of your sentence was repeatedly reverted is that it was not encyclopedic. It was written in an extremely informal style, both in wording and punctuation (English sentences do not end with "..."), and it was only indirectly related to the subject of this article. In general, if you do not understand why an edit was reverted, instead of re-reverting you should use the article talk-page to begin a discussion -- the guidelines about this are called WP:BRD and you can read them at that link.
It's pretty common on Wikipedia to include links to articles that are indirectly related to the topic of the article in a section called "See also". (The manual of style section about this is MOS:SEEALSO.) I thought this was a good way of handling the situation here, of linking from one compilation album for a band to another compilation album for the same band. But there are lots of other ways such a link could be included in principle, and I have no opinion about how to do this except that it should be done in a professional-looking, encyclopedic manner.
Finally, I have no particular interest in the topic of this article, so I am unlikely to weigh in further beyond this post unless requested to do so. In particular, this page is not on my watchlist, so I won't see responses unless someone pings me.

Hope this helps, --JBL (talk) 14:02, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Don't blame me. I wrote Joel B. Lewis without any link. (Cool Hand Luke: Wish you'd stop helping me... Fantastic movie)

I recieved an email on 13 March 2019: The page ‪The Best of The Guess Who Volume II‬ has been reviewed. ‪Wgolf‬

(Wikipedia <wiki@wikimedia.org> To: RokknRoul

This was including the This compilation continues where The Best of The Guess Who left off... (aka extremely informal style)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Best_of_The_Guess_Who_Volume_II&oldid=882046741

RokknRoul (talk) 14:45, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused about the relevance of this last post. Toad02 (talk) 14:58, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why did Wgolf confirm that he had reviewed The page ‪The Best of The Guess Who Volume II? He didn't see any problems?

Since you editors never disagree, this was a surprise? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Wgolf

RokknRoul (talk) 13:27, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please indent all paragraphs of your post with one more level of indentation to the post you're responding to. If you respond to this, please respond with four indents (four colons). This includes the signature. JBL already explained this.

If you want to create an internal link, please use brackets. It is easier and cleaner than posting the html link to an article (including a user page). For users, creating a proper wikilink will ping them, which can be helpful in situations like this.

Simply becaise another editor reviewed an article does not mean that everything on the article is perfect, and it also doesn't mean necessarily that the reviewing editor agrees entirely with everything on the page. On Wikipedia, reviewing can mean many different things (see WP:RVW). If feel free to seek the support of Wgolf, but don't assume it.

You still have failed to express why you disagree with the edit as it. As far as I can tell, your arguments have been a) the see also section "looks wrong" b) your sentence was encyclopedic and c) the other editors are malicious in some way d) someone reviewed the page and saw no problem. You are the only one to hold any of these viewpoints. If I am missing something, feel free to add it. If not, please stop repeating your argument as per WP:POINT. [User:Toad02|Toad02]] (talk) 14:50, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On 13:21, 26 July 2019‎ Joel B. Lewis :‎ Helping an incompetent editor achieve their goal in some form.

When he added what I think is useless: "see also" near the bottom of the page where you can see all the albums listed.

"looks wrong", because it's near the bottom of the page where you can see all the albums listed. (Just in case you missed it)

RokknRoul (talk) 15:45, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It really is not hard to indent properly. Please indent one level further than the comment you're responding to. If you respond to this, please indent all paragraphs you write exactly 4 times (with four colons). This includes your signature. Doing this makes it much easier for editors to track the conversation and is common practice.

That is the proper place for a see also section, and it is distinct from the list of albums in the box at the bottom of the page. The consensus of all other editors who have commented on this page is that the see also section is the proper place, and that it looks totally normal there. If you have a new argument to raise, feel free, if not, please stop repeating the same argument as per WP:POINT. Toad02 (talk) 15:56, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Though I've created hundreds of pages through the years, I've never used Talk. The reason I used ... in This compilation continues where The Best of The Guess Who left off... was probably "it goes without saying, but here is the link." RokknRoul (talk) 16:47, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It really is not hard to indent properly. Please indent one level further than the comment you're responding to. If you respond to this, please indent all paragraphs you write exactly five times (with five colons).

That is unencyclopedic English. The link is now provided elsewhere in the article in an encyclopedic manner. Toad02 (talk) 17:15, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Now that This compilation...' is released on SACD (Stereo+Quad) more (or at least some) people will visit the page. Is possible to find out how many users who visit this page, or any other? RokknRoul (talk) 17:32, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Go to history and then click pageviews. Toad02 (talk) 17:37, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've just viewed your contributions, and you have worked on less than 100 pages and created less than 5. Please do not claim to have created hundreds, as that is simply dishonest and a violation of WP:HONEST. Toad02 (talk) 17:56, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pageviews Analysis. Thank you. I just checked an acount I used between 2007 and 2012. Not dishonest. Thank you very much. RokknRoul (talk) 18:41, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's not terribly important at present. I just wanted any other editor who pops by to see. They can decide to believe or not to believe that you created hundreds of articles without using a talk page; I simply wanted this to be available.Toad02 (talk) 18:52, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]