Drdunbar

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Songs To Wear Pants To, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.

Please do not add nonsense to Wikipedia; it is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. IrishGuy ^talk 17:50, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're talking about. Please stop harassing me, or I'll have you blocked. Drdunbar 17:52, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. RexNL 17:53, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

My current revisions contain no personal links--feel free to check--and I will be sure not to include them. And, someone is UNDOING my edits. It works both ways. If he continues, I will have him blocked. Thanks. Drdunbar 17:55, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. IrishGuy ^talk 18:11, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Have no fear, I've already put in my request about you. Stop vandalizing pages, before something happens to you. You can't just delete stuff without just cause. Drdunbar 18:13, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Three revert rule

Please see our policy at WP:3RR. You have violated it, and will be blocked if you continue to revert. User:Zoe|(talk) 19:03, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

And now you're blocked for 24 hours. User:Zoe|(talk) 20:05, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Walk Away.

I assure you that the best way to get your website or whatever mentioned is not to engage in insinuations about our long-standing editors, and it is certainly not to edit war about it all over the place. What you need to do to get what you want is to find Reliable Sources for every fact you wish to add to an article. Once you have done that, I will assist you in making whatever changes you want. If you continue to edit war, and engage in obviously churlish behavior, you will be blocked, and the memory of your bad conduct will make it impossible for your sitcom to get a fair shake. JBKramer 19:21, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

If all I need is reliable source, than I will be glad to link to the Joppa song on the STWPT site as part of my post. Thanks! Drdunbar 19:26, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

No. You need a reliable source that the song is relevent to the site - that it is important enough to mention in the article. I consider your response above to be snarky - was it intended to be so? JBKramer 19:28, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Not at all. I am just glad that someone is being reasonable about it, instead of just erasing my work and calling it spam. The article on STWPT is about a musician. So, the songs listed, by the creators of the article, where notable songs that the musician created. The songs ARE what the article is all about. The song he wrote for our site is also part of his catalogue, and the writers of the article were including it, because it was one of his more popular ones. The whole reason this started was because it was being deleted out of spite from another user, due to a recent AfD debate. I have no intention of spamming or advertising, so I removed the external links from the post, as I was asked to, just leaving the song description along with the others. I was just reverting the song list to what the original writers of the article had up there, including what IrishGuy was continuing to delete. JBKramer, you seem reasonable, and I really want to state my case to someone like you without being infiltrated by IrishGuy, who has been following me around this site everytime I go looking for help. Drdunbar 19:34, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I removed the entire list of songs from the article - I found it to be crufty and of little value beyond the text in the article body. What does adding that specific song to the text do to improve the encyclopedia? Can you cite a reliable source for your statement that your song is "one of his more popular ones?" JBKramer 19:37, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, the decision to put the songs up there was by the creators of the article. And, I would hate to see their work reverted due to this debate. I'm assuming their motivations were to create a list of this artist's music that people who visit the site are more familiar with. A selection of his canon, if you will. The song that he wrote for us was included because a lot of the fans of STWPT really enjoyed that song, and actually ended up becoming really close with MY site as a result. STWPT has been around for a long time, and I really enjoy what Andrew on that site is doing. I have no relationship to him whatsoever, besides the fact that I requested that he write a song for us a while back. He's certainly more notable than we are, but the song that he did for us was a favorite of a lot of his fans, much like the other songs the creators had listed on the article. That's all. Drdunbar 19:45, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Creators of articles have no special whatevers. I removed the other songs, and a couple of sentences from that article, because I consider the article better without them. If the removed songs are worth keeping in, someone will cite reliable sources and give a rationale for that also. JBKramer 19:49, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Though I don't agree that the songs have no worth, seeing as the article is about a "songwriter," I do not debate your decision. It is for the creators of the article to do. The entire point of this debate was that there was no real reason to simply remove ONE of those songs, because of a personal grudge against the subject matter. IrishGuy's arguments were baseless because he had no problem with the other songs on the list, all of which fell under the same category as the one about Joppa. I had removed the links and website to help soften any "spamming" grey areas, yet he kept removing just THAT song. That didn't seem right. Do you agree? Drdunbar 19:55, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Honestly? The only person who has bathed themselves in glory here is me, sadly enough. Reviewing your edit history shows that you are a single purpose account, here to promote your show, Joppa, which is fine - if there are reliable sources that evidence it's notability. Regarding the songs, I don't believe anything that does not have a reliable source evidencing notability. However, I suspect the other songs on the list might have unique, verifiable notability that your song, I suspect, does not. Reviewing Irishguy, he clearly lost his cool dealing with you, and may have stepped over the line. That's why the first thing I did before entering into discussions with you was ask him to step aside. I find that entering in calmly as opposed to angrily does a better job - flies, honey and vinegar, and all that. Would you like to talk about if, and how, we could include your sitcom? JBKramer 20:10, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

The story goes, I actually had nothing to do with creating the page on my sitcom. We have a rather large fan base, and a lot of them are reliable wikipedia editors. So, they decided to create a page on their own. It was very well-done. Packed with history, information on the characters, the episodes--THREE seasons worth of material. The show we have is very reliant on past history, so this page was PERFECT for new fans as a reference. I was blown-over by their research. And told them so. So, I was a little disappointed when the page was being nominated for deletion. They asked me to come on here and help supply some sources of "notability," (awards, articles, accolades) which they might not have been familiar with. That's why I became involved in the first place.

We were featured on the cover of a pretty popular underground publication called "The Wire," and we'd had our site entered into the Top 50 Podcasts on iTunes, and we have just recently been chosen as a Featured Comedy Group on MySpace. Also, this Monday we will be having another story issued on us by The Newburyport Daily News, which has a circulation of about 18,000. So, I thought these were notable enough. One user did not. That's when this all started. Again, I had no intention of using wikipedia as a jumping board to promote us, I just thought that our fans had put such an effort into getting the page up there, and it was an excellent reference for our show--I felt bad for their sakes. Furthermore, the way in which this user went about it, I felt, was a bit crude. ADMITTEDLY, I was crude back. I'm sorry for that. My emotions got the best of me at times. And, if it were even "a group" of Wiki editors opposing the article as opposed to just one, I would have probably stood back and laid low. But, the fact that it was only One editor, caused me to believe it may have been a personal thing with him, and I reacted "personally" and, at times, knowingly childish. I, again, apologize. ANYWAY, I can't thank you enough for being reasonable about this. You've helped restore my faith in wikipedia! If this article coming out on Monday would help these guys get the Joppa Page back up, I will let them know. If you think it won't, then I will understand. Drdunbar 20:26, 15 September 2006 (UTC)