Welcome!

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

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  Jokestress 09:12, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome again! I wanted to let you know that I removed your comment from the article above because it violated a policy of no original research. We can't say things like "I think that's great," etc. The Tom Green comment is interesting, but right now on the talk page we are discussion whether we should include reactions by other people. You can join us there to discuss it. It's Talk:Michael Richards. Thanks! Jokestress 09:14, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making such major changes and undoing the work of so many editors as you just did. Establish consensus first on the article's talk page. Thanks. (→Netscott) 05:41, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bus stop, what evidence do you have that MR is considered a comedian instead of a comedic actor? —Viriditas | Talk 22:25, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Viriditas -- Why are you posting on my Talk page? The article has it's own Talk page. Isn't the article's Talk page the proper place to discuss this? And why are you following me around, from article to article? Bus stop 22:37, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't edited that article. I asked you this question because I saw this link on your talk page and I recently heard a discussion about this particular subject. This is the second time I have asked you to explain your position, and this is the second time you have refused. And, since you think I am harassing you, I will voluntarily withdraw from this talk page and direct all future communication towards you on the article talk pages. —Viriditas | Talk 00:03, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Viriditas -- There are a variety of uses for both article Talk pages and user Talk pages. The definitions are not "carved in stone." But you've repeatedly shown a tendency to want to discuss issues about the content of articles on this, my user Talk page, and to address issues concerning my abilities as an editor on article Talk pages. I think that there is a time and a place for each, and that there is something to be gained by trying to respect the different purposes for these two different types of Talk pages. But, thank you for trying to help me as an editor, and I look forward to relating to one another amicably in the future. Bus stop 15:13, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you are enjoying Wikipedia. I got your note on my talk page. If you look at the top of this page above the title, there's a + sign. If you press it, you can add a title to your comment. When starting a new topic.

Also, if you want to indent a comment like this, put a colon ":" at the start of your sentence. This is standard practice when replying to someone else's comment. Happy editing! Jokestress 17:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As a courtesy for other editors, it is a Wikipedia guideline to sign your talk page and user talk page posts. To do so simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments and your user name or IP address and the date will be automatically added along with a timestamp. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion).For further info see the talk page guidelines. Thank you. (→Netscott) 02:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are changing the meaning of the lead sentence with your current revision and subsequent revert. Please see Hippie: Talk.

Wikipedia=one million block-headed editors=ten million arguments. Apostle12 19:07, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Happy holidays, Bus stop. Could you make an effort to keep your comments brief and to the point? I'll also ask Apostle to stop the personal attacks. I'm also interested in resolving this argument, so if you want to try and convince me of why you think you are correct, you can use my talk page. Thanks. —Viriditas | Talk 00:21, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Due to time constraints, I was hoping you and Apostle could summarize the main points in contention. Looking at the discussion, it appears to be a semantic, not a content dispute. —Viriditas | Talk 23:33, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, again. The meaning of visual arts in the context of the hippies appears to be in dispute, hence semantics, not content. As for the discussion, I am presently mobile, editing from my cell phone, and the IE ver. doesn't allow me to edit large sections for some reason, so I am unable to reply. I'll try Opera and see if that works. Either way, I would still appreciate it if you could summarize your position in 50 words on my talk page. Thanks! —Viriditas | Talk 01:09, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but you do understand that I'm having difficulty replying to that section due to it's length, right? That's why I can't add a comment. —Viriditas | Talk 10:54, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When one asks for a source, the protocol is to do so without removing content. If a source is provided within a reasonable period of time and you disagree with content, then the protocol is to add a counterpoint. Your approach is aggressive...therefore obnoxious. Apostle12 18:33, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apostle12 -- I think in this instance what I am doing is neither aggressive nor obnoxious, but you are entitled to your opinion. I removed something that was both un-sourced and untrue. I explained my edit as the material being un-sourced, but I was also concerned not to have untrue material left to stand. Any editor can take issue with my removal of that material, and that editor may prove to be be more "aggressive" and "obnoxious" than I am. The result should be a well written article that can withstand scrutiny. But I respect your point of view, and thank you for speaking up about it. Bus stop 18:56, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spoken in the best narcissist tradition...missing the point as always. Apostle12 19:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apostle12 -- I don't think I am "missing the point." I think I am addressing the point, the point that you made, that is. Are you trying to provoke me to respond angrily? You don't seem interested in constructive conversation. You seem interested in labeling. You seem to be trying to offend me, by labeling me with various negative terms. You seem unrelenting in your personal attacks on me. Bus stop 20:05, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you don't think you are missing the point! On "Hippie-talk" you had asked for tips regarding "obnoxious." Well, here goes, though I suspect there is little hope that this will somehow connect.

One might define two primary modes of human interaction:

Approach one is assertive and aggressive. It encourages contentiousness, countervailing powerplays, and narcissism--all talk, little listen. "Never give an inch." "My source bests your source." "I'm willing to revert more times than you are."

Approach two is collaborative and works through suggestion and a willingness to recognize the "other"--limited talk and an active attempt to listen. More demonstration than assertion. Encourages inclusiveness, creative editing and the addition of content to clarify subject. Asks for sources, waits for sources to arrive, discusses the issues, tries to arrive at consensus. Wholesale deletion of content and/or sources is avoided.

Approach one makes a virtue of narcissistic contentiousness. In some cultures this is the dominant mode.

Those who favor approach two find narcissistic contentiousness destructive both to the quality of life and to the human spirit...pushy and obnoxious. Apostle12 21:37, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apostle12 -- It looks like you are still trying to provoke me to say similar sorts of things to you as you are saying to me. The article that we both find ourselves editing should be the primary thing that we are discussing. Yet you seem to be intent on analyzing me as a person, making value judgments about what makes me tick, and playing pop psychologist. I don't recall saying anything about you, as a person. At first I tried to engage you in discussion, concerning your judgments of me, as a person. I figured we could just get that out of the way. But you are relentless. You seem determined to address the sort of person that you see me as being. How did that become the primary topic of discussion? Can I ask you to try to keep our dialogue on the topic of whatever it is we may be discussing vis-a-vis editing articles? Do you really expect me to discuss with you whether I am really a narcissist, or obnoxious, or aggressive? Correct me if I am wrong, but I do not think that I have called you any derogatory names whatsoever. Have I implied that your character is deficient in any way? Let's try to be more cordial towards one another in the future, OK? Bus stop 22:16, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You asked "How am I being obnoxious?" I told. Apostle12 17:35, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bus stop, my friend, I agree with your sentiment, but I can also understand Apostle's frustration. Please do not continue to delete things that do not deserve to be deleted. Discuss it, use the appropriate tags, and engage other editors before you delete things like "art" from the counterculture article. That was really silly of you. —Viriditas | Talk 02:38, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Viriditas -- Aren't you the one who wrote that un-sourced reference to "art" in the "Counterculture" article in question? And aren't you the one who deleted Korky Day's writing more than once from the "Hippie" article, citing as a problem that it was un-sourced, as your reason for deleting it from the article? As I recall he complained that you did not even talk to him about it before deleting his efforts. I recall him complaining that he put "30 minutes" into composing what he wrote and then you just deleted it without even talking to him about it. Do you see any similarities between your own actions and what you are now criticizing me for? Bus stop 03:30, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Take a deep breath, please. The answer to your first question is no, I am not the author, however I did split the article off of counterculture, and that is where you will find the author-in the page history. To be perfectly honest, I cannot imagine any justification for your edit, and it almost approaches vandalism. As to your second question, Korky's information was not only unsourced, but appeared to be incorrect, and I did comment on the talk page about its removal. There is a huge difference between removing matters of undisputed, historical fact, exemplified by dozens of articles and categories, and deleting unsourced opinion. —Viriditas | Talk 04:25, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Viriditas -- Did you split the article off of "Hippie," or did you split the article off of "Counterculture?" It is not vandalism to delete un-sourced material. Material is supposed to be sourced. If material is not sourced, it is a candidate for deletion. I think you treated Korky Day with just as poor etiquette as you are saying I displayed in deleting the word "art" from the "Counterculture" article. Bus stop 05:13, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bus stop, my friend, you are engaging in something called WP:POINT. Read and understand it. I just finished explaining to you that the article was split from counterculture, so why did you ask me which article it was split from? You are beginning to sound like a sock puppet of Korky. The article was already tagged as unsourced, so you would have had to have an additional reason for removing content like you did. You didn't and you don't, so your edit was made in bad faith. I suggest you drop this issue and go back to productive editing. —Viriditas | Talk 05:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Viriditas -- You are the one who thinks that the word art is nothing but "semantics." I do not. To me art (and related terms and phrases) is a word that has to be used properly. If you scroll up on this page (and also in our conversation on your Talk page) you will find your reference to semantics in relation to "visual arts." You suggest that I "drop" this "issue," and I suggest you drop this issue. I thank you for sourcing the word "art," and you can thank me for calling attention to the need for it to be sourced. By the way, I don't agree that Korky Day's material was without merit. No, I am in no way related to Korky Day. Please stop throwing around terms such as "vandalism" and "sock-puppet." I "vandalized" nothing and this is the only Wikipedia account I have. I speak only for myself. I need nothing but my own brain in order to contribute to Wikipedia. I do not need secondary accounts to support my point of view. Bus stop 06:34, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let me be very clear: I never said anything about the word art, I said you were arguing semantics on Talk:Hippie. I suggested that you drop the issue regarding sources because you are misinformed, and if you continue editing in a disruptive manner, an admin could block you. I don't want to see that happen. —Viriditas | Talk 08:09, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Viriditas -- This is a quote from your post on this Talk page: "The meaning of visual arts in the context of the hippies appears to be in dispute, hence semantics, not content." That is what you wrote on December 27, two days ago. Just scroll up to see it. For my response to that you will have to look on your own Talk page, because that is where I responded. I don't know if you are now going to say that those two instances were two different contexts, in two different articles. But if that is what you are going to say, I don't see it that way. In both the "Hippie" article and the "Counterculture" article, a very similar issue comes up. It involves shades of meanings of various "art-indicative terms." (I am making up the phrase "art-indicative.") In both articles the objects concerned were not (in most cases) paintings and sculptures and closely related matter, found in museums or galleries of contemporary art. As such I was not readily willing to apply the same terminology to the production of the "counterculture" or the "hippies." I am aware of the prevailing trend to call almost everything "visual art," or "art." I make no value judgments, but for the sake of clear writing, and so as not to mislead the reader, I like carefully choosing terms that are not too broad in meaning. Of course they should not be too narrow in meaning either. Broad, sweeping statements don't serve anyone's interests. They sound good, but they obscure more than they illuminate. As to your suggestion that I "drop the issue regarding sources," let me point out to you that it is the cited sources that indicate what sort of objects are being referred to by the word "art" in the "Counterculture" article. I cannot, as an editor, know whether the word "art" is being properly used, without knowing what it is referring to. Therefore I need to know sources. Bus stop 10:05, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You also need to read WP:REF. —Viriditas | Talk 11:57, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Virditas -- It sounds like you didn't read a word I wrote, because you didn't respond to anything. In lieu of dialogue you referred me to a Wikipedia page for "Citing sources." You overlook that I didn't write the sentence containing the un-sourced material. What is your point? I removed the un-sourced information because it was vague and unclear, and I think that is what Wikipedia wants. Wikipedia does not want vague suggestions without sources to back them up. Consider this: Did the editor who wrote that sentence (which included the word "art") have oil paintings in mind or did that editor have tie dyed T shirts in mind? Without a source, no one has any idea what the word "art" refers to. It happens to be a vague word, in common usage. Wikipedia can overcome that unclarity, with due diligence. Bus stop 15:04, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then you add a cite request. You don't remove words in articles due to your personal lack of knowledge. Don't do it again. —Viriditas | Talk 20:32, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Viriditas -- Why are you so enamored of telling people what to do? Are you aware that after your shabby treatment of Korky Day, which he complained about in a long paragraph on the Talk page for the "Hippie" article, he virtually has not posted anywhere on Wikipedia again? Are you aware of that? He only posted one more time, and that post was not to the "Hippie" article, which he seemed to be very enthusiastic about. Who are you to boss people around? You are telling me, "Don't do it again?" I think you should check with someone who might know more than you about the general philosophy concerning un-sourced material on Wikipedia. Or perhaps you may want to research it on your own. It is my understanding that un-sourced material is a candidate for deletion. And please spare me your accusations of "vandalism." I deleted one word. I deleted the word "art." I wrote in my "Edit Summary" that it was "un-sourced." That alerted anybody who wished to provide a source for that word to do so. I helped the article by my action. My motives were good. The outcome was a good one, since you came along and provided the needed source. Why don't you drop this subject? I don't enjoy this interaction with you. I don't like your manners. I think you treated Korky Day shabbily. And you are showing the same personality to me. No one is an authority around here. As long as we try in good faith, and assume the same of others, this enterprise can work. Can you try to operate without telling people, "Don't do that again?" Bus stop 21:35, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your understanding of unsourced material is in error. That approach generally applies only to statements about living people. Furthermore, there is no evidence that Korky was treated badly in any way. And, I've already addressed this issue on talk. Do not continue to engage in WP:POINT. —Viriditas | Talk 22:44, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Viriditas -- Do me a favor -- don't even talk to me unless there is something to talk about. You have been pursuing me and pursuing me and pursuing me. I did not initiate this conversation. And I have been trying to extricate myself from it. When you speak to me with the same courtesy that I speak to you, then I would be happy to engage in dialogue. But whatever this discussion is about has been long lost in the layers of accusations and counteraccusations. Can we drop this? If a genuine (new) need arises then we can try to talk amicably again. Bus stop 23:00, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One example of many:

"The so-called hippies, and other free spirits of the mid-1960s who congregated around Haight-Ashbury in San Francisco precipitated an "alternative" lifestyle that rapidly caught on in many cities, and even some rural areas, around the nation. Unlike the Beats before them, the hippies captured the imagination of middle-class Americans, especially its youth, who credited them with starting a sexual revolution that encouraged free love and with popularizing the use of marijuana and other hallucinogenics such as LSD and mescaline to "open" the mind. The visual art forms usually associated with hippie culture - psychedelic posters, album covers, comic books, and other graphic designs celebrating the hippie lifestyle or advertising outdoor gatherings called "be-ins" or "love-ins" - is fully represented in Made in California. So, too, is the work of painters, sculptors, decorative artists, and fashion designers influenced by hippie culture's embrace of unconventional media and libertine subject matter." [1] See also Australian artist Brett Whiteley. How many artists do I have to name before you change your mind? Three? Three-hundred? —Viriditas | Talk 06:59, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Viriditas -- On the Talk page for the article "Hippie" there is a section titled "Hippie influence on the visual arts." This subject is being discussed there. Several editors have been involved in that discussion. I have asked you to please join us in the discussion there. This is not something that has to be discussed on my user Talk page. Why are you starting a separately, but identically, titled heading, "Hippie influence on the visual arts," here on my user Talk page? Can't the subject be discussed in just one place, namely where it is already being discussed? Bus stop 08:37, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I explained to you at least twice, that I was unable to discuss the topic on that page. Move this section there if you want. —Viriditas | Talk 08:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Viriditas -- So then wait until you are able to post on the article's Talk page. I also explained to you at least twice that my user Talk page is not the ideal place to discuss this. I've spent an inordinate amount of time over the past two days trying to contend with your various complaints. And to tell you the truth, I enjoy making my ideas known in a public space. I didn't join Wikipedia to get bogged down in a one to one debate with Viriditas on my Talk page. I didn't even know there was such a thing as a user Talk page when I first became interested in editing on Wikipedia. Each of the articles in question have their own Talk pages. That is where I would prefer that we conduct our conversations about editing the content of Wikipedia articles. Bus stop 18:26, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Viriditas -- Many of my responses to you are to be found on your user Talk page. Bus stop 19:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have my permission to move the discussion, including both of our comments, to the relevant talk pages of counterculture and hippie. —Viriditas | Talk 20:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Viriditas -- I wouldn't move the discussion to an article's Talk page because I think it is a depressing discussion bogged down in irrelevant pettiness. Bus stop 21:50, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever. Are you interested in contributing productively to the Hippie article? I have a section on Hippie art and fashion that I want to add, as well as move and merge related content from adjoining sections, and I'm hoping you will help. —Viriditas | Talk 22:23, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Viriditas -- Thank you for the invitation. That is nice of you to say. I will keep it in mind. But I tend to skip around. My thoughts are evolving. I am presently concerned with the appropriate use of art terms, as they relate to the field broadly known as visual art. That is probably evidenced in several of my edits. I am a stickler for the right terminology concerning these things. The words matter, and I would rather use more words or awkward descriptions than use the terminology that most readily comes to mind, but which fails to identify the visual entity being referred to with the appropriate amount of specificity. But, thanks for that invitation. I much appreciate it. Like I say, I will keep it in mind for the time being. Thank you.Bus stop 23:17, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_be_dense Apostle12 08:52, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_be_a_dick Apostle12 08:49, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apostle12 -- It is not courteous to come back after a several day hiatus in our interactions to try to be offensive to me. If you genuinely had something new to say to me I would think you would find your own words with which to express it. There have been no changes made by me to the article on the "Hippies" that we both worked on, in the past several days, so why are you coming back now to post the above two links on my user Talk page? Apparently you don't want healing. Though you have criticized me as being too aggressive, your own actions, seen in the above post, seem to be aggressive too. You seem a mite too combative to be criticizing someone else for being too aggressive. Bus stop 19:19, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for note. Reply on article talk page. Tyrenius 18:55, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see you made this revert and claimed vandalism in the edit summary. To me, at worst that looks like a content issue of "undue weight" and bad spelling, but it is clearly not vandalism. And to be honest, to a younger editor, Richards is probably not known from Seinfeld as well as he is by his rant. Anyway, just please remember to assume good faith. —Dgies^t c 08:51, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. Bus stop 15:15, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Might be preferable just to write "Remove vandalism," rather than repeating the vandalism in the edit description. Apostle12 04:35, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are probably right. Bus stop 07:02, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for tidying up my misstypings; I really must stop editing late, when my fingers seem to be twice as large as when I'm fully awake and alert. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help. Bus stop 16:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from an article. Please be careful not to remove content from Wikipedia without a valid reason, which you should specify in the edit summary or on the article's talk page. Take a look at our welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. RexNL 20:22, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RexNL -- I'm sorry. I didn't mean to remove that content. Thank you for putting it back. But, what I was trying to do was to make it so that one could "edit" the section called "Other Art-Related Terms" separately from the two sections below it, namely the sections titled "References," and "External links." How would that be done? Bus stop 20:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Bus Stop. :-) I removed the link from Contemporary art because Wikipedia policy WP:EL on external links suggests avoiding commercial links. They tend to be seen as advertising and "spam" because if one commercial site is linked then every other commercial site in the world will want to add a link too. I hope you didn't think I was too harsh. It looks as if you're doing good work improving that article. Random Passer-by 17:45, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Random Passer-by -- No, after giving it some thought, I didn't think it was improper to remove that link. There are probably hundreds, if not thousands, more links to the web sites of contemporary art galleries, and obviously they can't all be included. Thanks :-) Bus stop 19:25, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That info about the factory and Warhol's house isn't relevant. Juts someone either trying to be helpful but not understanding the proper formats, or just playing. The Warhol article talks about the factory in depth and the bit about his house? Not particularily useful. Freshacconci 17:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it would fit in on the Andy Warhol page. I didn't really check that page, but it is more likely a place for information specifically about Andy Warhol, as opposed to generally about Pop art. Thanks. Bus stop 17:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The dates are linked per WP:MOS because this enables preference settings to work for desired date display, not because of their link to the date articles. This is irritating but necessary. It only applies when day, month and year are all stated. Tyrenius 17:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Sorry. I wasn't aware of all of that. Bus stop 17:52, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input. We're not supposed to actively campaign for deletion, but I thought I was the only one out there who thought this was ludicrous. I agree with the notability of the artist in question, and I suspect her page may be self-authored, but there's no proof. Freshacconci 18:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see the promotion of food products. Hardly what I consider "art" or an art "movement," unless there is a joke in there. A bowel movement? I guess I don't have a well developed sense of humor. Bus stop 18:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, they're deadly serious. That's the problem.Freshacconci 18:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! HagermanBot 15:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! How r u? I'm thinking it may be time to start paring down the Michael Richards article a bit, as it is no longer a current event. I posted a note on the article's talk page. I wanted to get others' opinions before being so bold as to begin hacketing it on my own. Hope all is well with you. Cleo123 00:34, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]