Talk:Birmingham/archive2

Nick Mason et al

First

'To the person that keeps removing nick mason from pink floyd, i have put a lot of bloody hard work into researching brum artists and Nick Mason was most definately born in brum, hence he is from Birmingham, if you have a problem with this please keep it to yourself, Wikipedia is based on fact... fact, Nick mason was born in brum, he's from birmingham! we all have to respect one anothers work on here otherwise Wikipedia will end up becoming an archaic, intolerable wrangle of worms with everyone at each others throats! And i certainly wont bother adding to it as i have better things to do.

Thanks Nick

Some searches on Google give several websites that all concur that Nick Mason was born in Birmingham. It could still be a common misconception, but I'd just put that in, and if anyone claims he *wasn't* born there, they'd have to explain. Have a nice day! Kim Bruning 15:09, 15 May 2004 (UTC)

Thanks Kim, Nick Mason was 100% born in birmingham and it is not just on the internet but on official biographys of the drummer, the simplest thing would be to say "Nick Mason from pink floyd was born in Birmingham" there doesnt need anymore said really. Saying that Birmingham had no effect on his life??? Well where else would he have been born, obviuosly being born somewhere has a profound effect on ones life in a sense that it is part of ones identity, people drive many miles to ensure their childeren are born in a certain country or place. [abuse removed Andy Mabbett 18:01, 15 May 2004 (UTC)] Thanks Nick.

It looks to me like you are destroying his work too - for example, you keep reverting to a version with a spelling mistake in the 2nd paragraph. Don't just revert back to your version, make your one single correction. Morwen 17:58, May 15, 2004 (UTC)

Morwen, Andy Mabot [sic] is now editing vast swathes of my work, which is why i am reverting back all the time. What else can i do to protect what i have written, and i will protect it.

Thanks Nick.

If you don't want your work mercilessly edited, you shouldn't be using Wikipedia. We don't 'own' articles here, its collaborative. As a first step, I suggest you talk about this civilly - I'm not sure that accusing people of being 'anti-Birmingham' is helpful - for all you know Mr. Mabbett is from Birmingham. Morwen 18:07, May 15, 2004 (UTC)

Put it on your own website. Andy Mabbett 18:06, 15 May 2004 (UTC)

No thanks Andy, i have written all of the Birmingham Culture on Birmingham main page and yes, you are free to edit my work :) but edit does not mean delete which is what you have been doing ;) why don't you put it on YOUR own website, and Morwen, i have already tried discussing this point but Andy isn't interedted in other peoples opinions... whatsoever, i keep reverting the page because he deletes vast swathes of my work and to have a heading that says "People that were born in Birmingham but never made a home there" is just plain silly, why don't we have "People that have looked at Birminghma on a map and thought about moving there, but never did because Nick Mason was born there but we're not sure if it had an effect on his life"

Nick

Andys Proof?

PLEASE SHOW ME THE INFORMATION THAT STATES NICK MASON WAS TAKEN HOME BY HIS MOTHER IMMEDIATELY AFTER BIRTH AND PLEASE SHOW ME WHERE HE SAYS BIRMINGHAM HAS HAD NO EFFECT ON HIS MUSIC, HE WAS BORN THERE, AND HE IS A MUSICIAN AND HE EVEN STILL VISITS THE CITY AND SURRONDING AREA, NOT TO MENTION HE RECORDED MOST OF UMMAGUMMA ALBUM THERE, ALL THAT I WROTE ON THE PAGE IS THAT NICK MASON IS A BIRMINGHAM BORN MUSICIAN AND WAS THE LONGEST SERVING MEMBER OF PINK FLOYD, CONSIDERING I WROTE THE REST OF THE MUSIC ARTICLE WHO EXACTLY IS THIS FACT GOING TO HURT??? OTHER THAN SOMEONE THAT WOULDNT LIKE NICK MASON BEING ASSOCCIATED WITH BIRMINGHAM?

Nick

Well... or is it as i suspected, a right load of...

Nick

Residents?

Is that meant to be a list of residents, or a list of people born in Birmingham? If the former, there are some that could be removed. If the latter, there are many that could be added. Also, should each member of Duran Duran be listed separately, or could the group as a whole be given one entry in the list? --Auximines 12:11, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

What's the difference between "residents" and people who were born there? By definition, a "resident" of a city is a person who lives there, whether for a day, a month, or 80 years. What's the difference? In America, there are a TON of celebrities who only lived in their birth city/town for a short time. Many celebrities have resided in and been influenced by Hollywood and/or NYC, but that doesn't negate the fact that they were born somewhere else.****

By which logic (sic), we should list every musician who's ever appeared in the city, and spent the night here. Andy Mabbett 19:06, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

Well, being born in the city and having spent some amount of his life there, if only a few weeks or months, is different than going there on vacation. It's the city he was born in. Why it shouldn't be included in the article about the city is beyond me. One of the presidents of America, Grover Cleveland, was born in my town. He lived here for like a couple months, before moving out of state. Still, this IS where he was born and his birthplace is a historical site in my town. How's Birmingham any different for the Pink Floyd guy?****

Good point about Duran Duran, trouble is they have such an immense fan base and Simon Le Bon is from London. Best left i rekon, famous residents should stay i believe, the problem is that many city's claim a certain person is from their city but in reallity they just lived there which isnt quite the same, it a tough one... what does London and Manchester etc have re this

Nick

Protected

I've had to protect this page now. Please see Wikipedia:Protection_policy.

In particular, see this bit 'The protection of a page on any particular version is not meant to express support for that version and requests should therefore not be made that the protected version be reverted to a different one.' Morwen 18:47, May 15, 2004 (UTC)

What, like this one User_talk:Raul654#Birmingham_Page_Protected? Andy Mabbett 23:09, 27 May 2004 (UTC)

Andy and Nick

Ok folks. So the discussion is about whether or not Nick Mason should be mentioned as being born in Birmingham.

The 2 positions I've seen from you folks are:

It can be objectively established as fact that he was born in Birmingham, we have objectively established as fact that he was born in Birmingham, so it is a factually correct fact that he was born in Birmingham. Okay, that sounds like a fairly reasonable position.
Well, Nick Mason might have been born in Birmingham, but that's where it ends. By all other means he learnt his art somewhere else [some googleing by me got me Regent Street Polytechnic in Londen, IIRC], and practices it elsewhere. Mentioning him in the Birmingham article at all is more likely to be confusing than anything else. Well, from a certain didactic point of view, that kind of makes sense too.

Andy rejected one possible solution I tried to do by editing by reverting that edit. (The solution I tried was to add a small disclaimer to the list).

One other solution might be to simply add a comment after Nick Masons' name: "Though born in Birmingham, his music was more influenced by his time in London".

I don't get why this matters--see what I wrote above about American celebrities being influenced by NYC and Hollywood, even though they were born somewhere else. A list of residents doesn't have anything to do with whether or not people were "influenced by" (whatever that means) the city.****

Would you folks have any other ideas? Please discuss them here before editing the page. I look forward to hearing what you have to say! Kim Bruning 19:12, 15 May 2004 (UTC)

He didn't simply "learn his art" somewhere else - he never lived here. His mother took him home (not in Birmingham) a few days after he was born. Should we start researching the long list of other people, born in Birmingham, but with no other connection to the City, who later achieved some fame or notoriety? And who's Andrew? Andy Mabbett 19:16, 15 May 2004 (UTC)

Did s/Andrew/Andy . How embarresing :-/ fixed now. Kim Bruning 21:09, 15 May 2004 (UTC)

Ok, sorry for all this confusion. Basically the problem here is that when i first came to wikipedia there was literally a few scraps of information on Birminghams culture, economy and architecture. I have spent weeks building this up, researching, editing, confirming facts so as not to provide miss-information (This can be veryfied by angela and g-man), although i am not registered i asumed that the way a deletion or major structural edit is performed is to discuss first then reach a sensible agreement as this is respectful of others hard work. Well, obviously since andy has been to this page a massive amount of my work has given Brum a bit more of an idenity, Andy has taken it upon himself (without ever discussing here) to delete many areas of my work and even change-rearange introductions like for instance the Nick Mason issue. Regarding this, Nick Mason was born in Birmingham and i have never heard that he was taken away by his mother straight away, even if this were to be true, where you are born does have an impact on your life in the sense that it is part of your identity, the fact is that when i created Nick Mason link here, there was already a page written on him and guess what the first line of his biography reads (as does thousands of other sites on Nick Mason on the net) Nick Mason, born Birmingham, England. So is Andy going to contest all these other sites and official biographys across the world just because he believes that where you are born is "as relevant as driving through a city) No i'm afraid it's not insignificant where you are born, i was born in Birmingham and moved away very early on but i still refer to myself as being from Birmingham even if not 100% it is still my place of Birth which i am proud of, how do we know that Nick Mason is not proud to have been born in Bham? If Andy believes otherwise then please can we see the evidence, surely we can asume that he is happy with this fact as it is included in the introduction to every single biography on T.V. or internet i have ever seen. Surely i have some leverage here considering that i have single handedly created the Birmingham music section? Andy has simply come along andedited bits of my work which i am happy about, no problem such as the correction of Bartock, but other inclusions like the Grand Hotel where he has added on... the currently empty and recently listed Grand Hotel... surely this is too much information, the fact is its called the Grand Hotel and its grade II listed, thats all we need to know! Also Andy has removed the middle section of my Hip Hop history of Birmingham, why? Another thing Andy has now moved and part deleted is the list of Birmingham Atractions, i worked hard to create this and his reasoning is that they are already on the page, well what if someone comes to Wikipedia and just quickly wants to see what atractions are in the city ready for a visit, they arent going to know that they have to read through the whole page to find out the atractions, i would like this kept as it is as it makes perfect sense, it worked before but now just looks sparse when you click on it from the main menu. Also, Andy has changed... 'The Industrial Revolution began in Birmingham and the Midlands' to 'The Industrial Revolution flourished in Birmingham' it didn't only flourish, Birmingham was the epicentre of the industrial revolution that began in the Midlands and spread across the world, Wikipedia already has an article on this and it clearly states that the Industrial Revolution began in the Midlands, from Iron Bridge to Brum, so on. I would like this reverted also. Again, a change to the Beginning of Modern Music section... I wrote, 'Birmingham has had a profound effect on modern music with...' (or words to that effect), Andy has now chosen to remove it completely, why? It's True! Overall i am not happy that Andy hasn't discussed this all first here before making these major changes. I regard myself as being from Birmingham and i am very proud of it too which has inspired me to put in so much effort into the page, if Andy wishes to edit my work then obviously thats fine but surely it is respectful to discuss it first and reach an amicable agreement. In my opinion Nick Mason should read...

'Birmingham Born Nick Mason is the longest running member of Pink Floyd.' Other Birmingham singer/songwriters include... etc etc.

This is factual and if someone wants to know where he was educated then they can proudly put that on the London page or just click on his name where they will see that he was born in Birmingham but educated in London. I rest my case. Nick.

I AGREE! If you can't mention that the dude was born in Birmingham ON the Birmingham page, then where else can you mention this important fact?****

In fact, after browsing through the page i can honestly say that i have provided 95% of all content for the following:

Removed my own text due to error 19.05.04 ;) Nick

Nick.

I must agree with Nick, If the bloke was born in Birmingham then I dont see any reason why that should not be mentioned.

And Andy please do not go around deleting other peoples hard work without giving any explanation it's very rude, Nick has done much good work here and improved this article no end. That's much more than can be said for your constant adding of unnecesary sub-headings all over the place. G-Man 22:46, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

Thanks G-Man, Andy has even removed some of the content of my replies also because he see's it as a personal attack on him which is really, really, reaaaallly annoying because i do not lower myself to insult anyone, especially a person i have never met but i do think that in my opinion it is extremely rude to simply delete someones work... for whatever reason, without having the decency to discuss it first on here, i wouldn't do it and i don't expect others to do it either. After having said this i'm sure that some of his edits to my work are valid and worthwhile so i don't want to start a hate campaign but i would apreciate 5 changes that will restore part of what Andy has changed:

1. Andy should discuss on here any changes he may decide to make TO ANY WORK THAT IS NOT HIS OWN on this page so that we can talk it through fairly first. (common sense)

2. Nick Mason is included in the Birmingham Music section as an add-on in the following context: Birmingham born Nick Mason is the longest running member of Pink Floyd. (as i said before if anyone wants to know where he was educted they can click on the biography that already exists for this person and they will see that he was born in Brum and educated in London, i don't have a problem with that.)

3. Andy's add-on's to the Rotunda and Grand Hotel are removed as they seem superflous to my architecture section.

4. Andy's removal of the many attractions that i took the time to research and create are restored completely and if he feels that they are duplicated on the page maybe we can remove the atractions that are listed in the intro. My reason for this is that someone who just wants to see what the city has to offer will click on the link from the top of the page and it now looks like it did when i first visited the page... sparse, which is very miss-leading.

5. The Industrial revolution bit is restored, or even to this if Andy prefers: 'The Industrial revolutuion began in the Midlands with Birmingham playing a major role due to it's central location, this allowed many business etc...'

The Hip Hop section was getting a little out of control so i am fine with the deletion he made of my 'middle section' but i can maybe include a 'history of Birmingham Hip-Hop link where the other work can be re-created, the only problem is that i haven't saved the work he deleted so i will need to fish around for it but i don't mind that.

The other points can be debated and talked through as i can't be bothered to discuss all the changes he has made to my work right now, but i did notice that he went into overdrive on editing my work before the page was locked but thats fine also.

Removed my own text due to error 19.05.04 ;) Nick

Ok, so can i asume that the following changes will be reverted/restored when the page is un-protected shortly, please can we vote on this.

1. Andy should discuss on here any changes he may decide to make TO ANY WORK THAT IS NOT HIS OWN on this page so that we can talk it through fairly first.

3. Andy's add-on's to the Rotunda, Grand Hotel and St. Phillip's Cathedral are removed as they seem superflous to the architecture section.

bearing in mind that i wrote the above facts and they remained for several weeks before Andy stumbled across them, I don't wish to fall out with Andy so this seems the fairest way to resolve this and restore a small amount of what he has deleted.

Thanks Nick

Morwen repies to text which has been removed

[Here, Morwen repies to text which has been removed by User:Nick Boulevard ]

Um, no, he isn't.... Morwen 22:21, May 18, 2004 (UTC)

That would be a different page. Only this page is locked. And with ~~~~ Morwen 22:33, May 18, 2004 (UTC)

Removed my own text due to error 19.05.04 ;) Nick

Points

So just to re-emphasise the points i would like reverting when the page is unlocked:

1. Andy should discuss on here any changes he may decide to make TO ANY WORK THAT IS NOT HIS OWN on this page so that we can talk it through fairly first.

3. Andy's add-on's to the Rotunda, Grand Hotel and St. Phillip's Cathedral are removed as they seem superflous to the architecture section.

Thanks Nick

I use Wikipedia quite often as an information source, and being local I found the Birmingham page particually interesting and full of facts and useful links. This is the first time I've joined in with any discussions on here, and after a bit of reading I was amazed to find out that the majority of the Birmingham page's contents are due to the hard work of one person. I'm with you Nick, you've every right to feel agrieved that someone can just come along willy nilly and erase your work at will. You've obviously put a lot of time and effort into your research about everything Birmingham, and your contribution should be rewarded, not deleted by someone who can't offer anything in return.

Concerning the Nick Mason issue, he was born in Birmingham...fact. It was not, as far as I know, stated in any other way, so why is there such a issue with it. He obviously achieved great things elsewhere, but he was born in Birmingham, end of story.

sorry my first post portrays as a moaning so and so....but some things you need to get off your chest:)

positive and informative posts from now on, I promise.....Charango!!

"I was amazed to find out that the majority of the Birmingham page's contents are due to the hard work of one person." So would I be, if that were true. Andy Mabbett 23:50, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

I think the fact that Andy has not replied to any of these comments reveals that he realises that he doesn't have a leg to stand on regarding the Nick Mason issue. Most famous people achieved the things that made them famous in places other than where they were born.

I think Andy is generally a good contributor but he is wrong about this.

Regarding the Industrial Revolution, I think it is a bit of a stretch to say that the IR "began" in Brum. From memory I think Ironbridge is generally recognised as being the birthplace of the IR, which is some 40 miles from Birmingham. Although Birmingham was certainly one of the world's first industrial cities. G-Man 22:34, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

If you "think the fact that Andy has not replied to any of these comments reveals that he realises that he doesn't have a leg to stand on regarding the Nick Mason issue" then you're deluding yourself; (and ignoring the comments I've already made on the subject). Andy Mabbett 23:50, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

Yes g-man, i agree about the Bham Industrial revolution article. Like i said, i added content expecting to be re-worked and people can debate those points healthily i guess, but my back has been raised by many edits and deletions that seemed unexplained untill Andy turned up again, (and i didnt say i wrote all of the bham page, just the majority culture, economy, sport and atractions Andy)

I guess the facts speak for themselves and Andy is a decent contributor to Brum page, i believe that we have a majority of posters..erm... 3 to 1 that say keep Nick Mason! any more for any more? (apart from industrial revolution, do you two guys agree with my points, and i stress again its not an Anti-Andy Mabbet thing! :)

Nick

Ok, thankyou Morwen for unprotecting the page, i have reverted a couple of minor edits Andy did to my architecture page and i have included Nick Mason in the music section and removed the heading... People that were born but never... as it is no longer needed and will confuse people.

Lets try this again Andy, if anyone wishes to make major changes or changes that could possibly lead to edit wars then i suggest maybe we discuss here first, that way we can work more as a team in maintaining the page instead of lone editors with conflicting work.

Nick

p.s. Nice work on the districts Andy, i was becoming dissolutioned at looking at links that lead to empty pages.

Mass-deletion

Nice one Andy, you are so ignorant and extremely arrogant, just for everyones information Andy has decided to continue to make his little removals etc even after a majority saying Nick Mason should stay!, i am so pissed off with his lack of respect that i have REMOVED ALL OF MY OWN WORK on here so you can damn well make your contributions now Andy, DO AS YOU DAMN WELL PLEASE YOU OBVIOUSLY ALWAYS GET YOUR OWN WAY... unless someone can ensure that this idiot wont keep removing my work then i don't wish for it to be reverted, whats the bloody point!

Nick

Hi. I'm afraid you are not allowed to withdraw the material, under the terms of the GFDL. Morwen 17:55, May 23, 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Nick it has been agreed that Nick Mason should stay. Andy would you please learn to appreciate that this is not your personal encyclopedia, you are editing as part of a community. You've done much good work on the WP, but many people are becoming fed up with your attitude, including it must be said me. G-Man 18:03, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

"it has been agreed that Nick Mason should stay" Where? Andy Mabbett 18:09, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

No answer? Andy Mabbett 18:44, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

Still no answer! Andy Mabbett 22:34, 27 May 2004 (UTC)

Still no answer. Andy Mabbett 22:19, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Sorry for the outburst but i have just about had enough of his deletions etc, like G-Man says it is a community here but one person seems to think he is somehow greater than the rest and is ruining it for some of us. After looking through his discussion pages he seems to have done this sort of thing before and i tried to be accomodating but he just doesn't give a damn other than his own way. Can we take further action so that he doesn't keep doing this as i can't be bothered to keep looking out for his destruction and he has proven that he has no wish to participate in this page in a mature adult way!

Nick

I don't think that removing misleading information about two musicians is as bad an offence as you are making out of. However, someone here has done something worthy of a block - you. Morwen 18:18, May 23, 2004 (UTC)

Why is that? Andy is deleting my work and how is it missleading? We have discussed this here and a majority voted to keep Nick Mason but one person doesn't respect that decission, i cannot beieve that you think i am the one to be blocked???????

Nick

Well, you are the person who removed half the article. Now, you've apologised for it, so I don't intend to actually do so. But whilst throwing accusations around, you might want to be careful. Morwen 18:26, May 23, 2004 (UTC)

I don't seem to be able to see any such appology. Where is it? Andy Mabbett 18:35, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

'Sorry for the outburst' I think. Morwen 19:02, May 23, 2004 (UTC)

That apology was for something else, and pre-dates his deletion of much of the page; including much that was NOT wirtten by him. Note, also, that his personal and fallacious abuse of me is continuing. Andy Mabbett 07:56, 24 May 2004 (UTC)

Apologise to Andy Mabbet (sic) ??? By crikes... for what exactly, surely it is he that should apologise for deleting my work, i tried to let some of it go but his persistance at trying to evoke my anger is quite transparent, please see Mass Deletion. You may also note other similar articles on his discussion page

Nick

Compromise

Hows about this for a compromise. We split the "famous people" section into "famous people born in Birmingham" and " Famous People who have lived in Birmingham" (but not born there) and then we can put Nick Mason in the former. and people like J.R.R Tolkein etc in the latter G-Man 18:30, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

Well, that seems to have been what the status quo was when I unprotected the article. See [1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Birmingham&diff=3701766&oldid=3701750), which then got this fight started again. I know towns like to claim anyone who was born near them as their own, but there are limits to this. Morwen 18:33, May 23, 2004 (UTC)

Limits including people who left days after their birth, and never lived here, and who have said that they have no memory of being here, and that they do not regard themselves as having any "belonging" to Birmingham? Andy Mabbett 18:38, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

The fact still remains that he was born there and I see no reason why this should not be mentioned. G-Man 18:42, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

It is: Nick Mason. Andy Mabbett 18:46, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

But if he's denied he's from Birmingham, this is a good reason not to list him, unconditionally, as a Birmingham person - remember what the Duke of Wellington said about horses and stables. Now maybe, 'People who were born in Birmingham but never lived there' is not a good section heading. Perhaps you can suggest another? Morwen 18:47, May 23, 2004 (UTC)

This is a can of worms, as I've said before many famous people were born in one place, educated in another, and did whatever made them famous somewhere else.

For example Frank Whittle was born in Coventry, but all of his work developing the jet engine was done outside Coventry.

So are we to remove from every article people who were born in a particular town, but did not do whatever made them famous in their birthplace. G-Man 19:09, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

Whittle was raised and educated in Coventry, was he not? (and please try to format your posts here, in such a way that they don't disrupt the flow). Andy Mabbett 19:13, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

OK perhaps not the best example, but you get my gist. And Andy what possible harm can it do to list the fact that NM was born in Birmingham? G-Man 19:20, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

1. Nick Mason was born in Birmingham England, on every single biography of the star, this is the first fact that is stated period. Try typing in "Nick Mason was born in" on Google and my point is proven.

2. Nowhere have i ever, ever read that Nick Mason was taken away from the city immediately by his mother and that Nick Mason thinks that Birmingham has had no impact on his life, how can it not have an impact on his life, his life began in Birmingham.... mnnnnnnnn.............

3. Andy, please provide hard evidence that Nick Mason doesn't asociate himself with the city, i have never read this and i believe it is only your opinion that you are trying to enforce on others by brute force. I have read many biographys on Nick and never has this point been raised, why would it????

Nick

Favour

No... please do me a favour and at least if i am blocked it will be through standing up for what i believe to be right, i have damn well had enough Morwen, i can't be bothered to get into a silly edit war with someone and my word (toned down language) if Andy had originally discussed it here i may even have agreed to his changes but it is partly principle now and mostly fact that i am so abrasive at the moment. I wonder how many new users will be put off by reading all this, whats the point in contributing to a community when one doesn't really exist! And where is this evidence as i have asked bofore that Andy keeps refering to about Nick Mason and if it is true why has he left it untill the last minute to include it into the discussion (laugh). And no! the heading is not worthy of a main page otherwiese we could be here forever.

Nick

and why havent you picked up on my other points about him removing the middle part of my hip hop section? and what about the removal of so many of the atractions? and what about the removal of the intro to the music section. Nick

Can you provide the links to the diffs where you say he did that? Thanks. Morwen 19:02, May 23, 2004 (UTC)

I sure will, i have reverted some of his removals just now but i will show you the links...

I like the way he disguises deletion with the word 'move' it took me ages to sort of the places of interest and i was slowly filling in the empty pages but Andys 'moving' made it look sparse and was misleading if anyone clicked on the places of interest section.

My addition of Hip Hop section: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Birmingham&oldid=3573834

Andys removal: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Birmingham&oldid=3576927

See: (cur) (last) . . 15:09, 14 May 2004 . . Pigsonthewing (Nick Mason is not a "Birmingham musician" - as he himself has told me.) (cur) (last) . . 07:39, 14 May 2004 . . Auximines (spelling) (cur) (last) . . 22:13, 13 May 2004 . . 195.92.67.70

My addition of places of interest: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Birmingham&oldid=3590627

Andys removal then complete re-organise of places of interest http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Birmingham&oldid=3582229

See: (cur) (last) . . 22:34, 14 May 2004 . . Pigsonthewing (=Places of interest=) (cur) (last) . . 22:32, 14 May 2004 . . Pigsonthewing (=External links= (moved)) (cur) (last) . . 22:32, 14 May 2004 . . Pigsonthewing (=Places of interest= (moving))

Nick

Morwen, you asked me to show you where Andy had deleted my work (as he continues to do), i have spent the time to show you a few of his "edits" above, he has deleted my links AGAIN in the places of interest section stating that they are already in the page, i created them in one section so that a visitor to the city page will be able to quickly distinguish places of interest from a whole page full of talk that they wont neccessarily have time or the desire to read through (thats how it has stood for many months and works fine). As i have said Andy has already been warned for deleting peoples work, he even deletes their discussion when he doesn't like what is said, i can asure you that the only work I... have ever deleted was my own work and not someone elses. I don't know what you can do anyway, Andy is a law unto himself period! What would happen if i were to start deleting his hard work because i felt like it?

Nick

rbrwr's comment

Sorry to stick my oar into a long-running argument, but can I respectfully suggest that Birmingham (and by extension, this article) is so fabulously stuffed with musical talent, and famous people in general, that it doesn't need Nick Mason? If it was a little village whose only claim to fame was that a member of Pink Floyd had been born there, it would make sense to include him, but in this case it really only makes a substantial article even longer. --rbrwr ˆ

Well the whole point why i personally am so enflamed is that it wasn't even discussed, even after the constant reverting and so on, if we all acted like Andy Mabbet [sic Andy Mabbett 18:25, 24 May 2004 (UTC)] here then chaos would ensume as it has done on the Birminghma page recently.

Nick

Yes, it's quite natural to get anrgy when things are being reverted back and forth. I would suggest that it's time for all concerned to be calm and have the discussion that we should have had while the page was protected. What matters is what is best for the article, not what will best satisfy the honour of those who have been wronged in the edit war. How important is Nick Mason to this article, really? As important as heavy metal? As important as reggae? As important as Duran Duran? I would guess not. Now, I realise that Wikipedia is not paper and we are not constrained by space. We should, however, strive for focus within articles, and that is why, for me, Nick Mason doesn't make the cut. As and when this article lengthens and gets broken down into parts, there will surely be room for him in "Notable people associated with Birmingham" alongside all the real Brummies and the people from the Black Country that are thought of as Brummmies and the people who went to University there (cough) and so on and so on. That's my tuppence. I realise yours may be different.

Also, I hope that people will try not to feel too proprietorial over particular sections of this article. Remember what it says under the edit box: If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, then do not submit it. Please do keep submitting it, just accept that it won't stay in one piece. I hope everyone will look for ways forward not for ways back. (I also hope that sentiment's not too cheesy.) --rbrwr ˆ

I AM angry, Andy, do you have some grudge to bear, i am trying to get on with you but if you think that being born somewhere (the start of a human life) has nothing to do with erm.. how can i say this nicely... one's life then you are deluding YOURSELF, the only reason why someone would not want to be associated with their city of birth is if they found it a shamefull fact, now then Andy is this what you are saying? Are you saying that Nick Mason absoloutely distances himeslf from the city (find hard to believe due to the recording of ummagumma album in Mothers venue and inclusion of his place of birth on majority of biographies) because if you are then i will try to get some kind of written statement from the guy and that is how strongly i feel because YOU have ignored my request for proof about his lack of allegiance to his place of birth.

Nick

Regarding the Industrial Revolution - Id agree that its a stretch to say that the IR started in Birmingham but I think the current "flourishes in" waters it down too much. Just stating that it is only one of the first Industrial cities is also too weak in my opinion.

In 1791, Arthur Young, the agriculturalist and national observer who wrote the famous "Arthur Young's Tours" described Birmingham as “the first manufacturing town in the world.”. http://www.search.revolutionaryplayers.org.uk/engine/resource/exhibition/standard/default.asp?resource=2879

No doubt a few other cities may dispute the claim but why not simply state the facts. Something along the lines of- Birmingham played an important part in the industrial revolution and was described by Arthur Young (there’s an article on him already so a link here) as “the first manufacturing town in the world.”- Russell

Andy Mabbet (sic) deleting Nicks work

The last deletion of my work that Andy Mabbet did can be seen in the main article page history, the main deletion was of the middle part of my Hip HOP section and of my links to pages of places of interest that i was gradually filling in the gaps, he has deleted many small articles and words also that i have written like the intro to the modern music section. All these articles had stayed on the page for some weeks but Andy has removed these bit by bit without ever even discussing here until i started the Nick Mason issue but he is still defiantly deleting this and Nick Drake now as well, even though it was clearly stated in the Nick Mason section that the page should be left alone until the dispute was resolved... so far the majority have said to keep Nick Mason. I have seen little of his work other than edits of others work and re-arranging of headings and subheadings on the Birmingham page although he may have done much work before i came here which was roughly the start of this year! The only work i have ever deleted or reverted was my own work that may or may not have been edited, removed or moved by Andy Mabbet and no-one else! Andy Mabbet has already been warned by another Wilipedian about deleting not peoples work even but their replies to his discussion which is fundamentaly wrong because people cannot see the whole picture, I have deleted text that i wrote on here because i had duplicted it and i censored the word "pissed off" and "idiot" that were written after i saw Andy had deleted more of my work again (so as not to cause offense), Andy then revrted back to his own version loosing my edits TO MY WORK plus some new text i had written, see the page history. Andy Mabbet should be put on trial for DELETING and RE-ARRANGING others work willy nilly! AND deleting others text in a discussion so as to ensure he gets his say over others.

Nick

How very, very sad... i have just discovered that a block had been placed on my user name, oh dear soemone doesn't like the truth do they m+ab, nevermind at least i have said my peice, there is NO community here, it's a joke.. how can i be banned after putting in so much work and then seeing it casually deleted by one person. What a poor advertisment for Wikipedia! Well although i could thearetically remove all of the work i have added becuase i took the time to effectively copyright it i wont do so because it would be a waste of the hours i put in, but i did have a lot more to add.. well i may add more yet? who knows?

Nick

User:Nick Boulevard is not blocked and has not been blocked recently. The same goes for the 195.92... IP range you usually edit from. If your username was blocked, given that you are not subject to a hardban by Jimbo or the Arbitration Committee, and are doing nothing more troublesome than engaing in a fairly minor content dispute, that would be a clear violation of policy by the sysop responsible. As far as I can tell this hasn't happened. What makes you think you were blocked, Nick? --rbrwr ˆ

Thanks for taking an interest Rb, well sometimes when i post here i post with various addresses, don't ask me why because i am not sure it's just how my pc weems to be, thats why i registered as nick on advice of angela but i never log in if that makes a difference? one of the ip addresses was blocked and i saw a message saying, you are blocked from editing this page or words to that effect??? this i think was done by morwen because i deleted ALL of my own work (and that WAS all i can guarantee) out of anger after seeing taht Andy was still removing my work, she thought i had removed half of the page which is true because that is just how much i have added since being here and maybe i should asign my work to my ip addresses??? to confirm this although i took the time to copyright (in a sense) my work which is just as good i guess???

and just read a response by Morwen saying she "does't give a shit" about this issue on G-mans page so why did she become involved in the first place and try to "block" an IP address that i know realise she knew was me? strange? Andy biased i think... i do find it incredulous that i am rebuked here and yet the real perpertrators who have no real valid, constructive input into this page are allowed to swan around as if they are the protectors/chief editor Andy (Grt Br) of the page, one would almost imagine that M and AM were in league together? And in responce to your words on G-mans page Morwen, it is out of principle that one person should not dictate the eventuality of the page that i am contesting the Nick Mason issue so fervently OK! i really do have better things to input to Wikipedia...

Nick...

p.s. really sorry for spelling mistakes but i type quite fast even after a day of cement mixing! (i am really stereotyping myself here ;)

As far as I can tell, Morwen didn't actually block you. First (18:10 on May 23, which was Sunday) she complained about you on User talk:G-Man. Then (18:18) she threatened to block you on this page. Then (18:20) she explained why, back at User talk:G-Man. At 18:26 she said on this page she wouldn't actually block you. The only block she has put in place since then was of 204.95.209.84, at 19:13 the same day. This is an address at muhs.edu, a high school in Milwaukee. I don't know why you came up as blocked. When did this happen?

What Morwen said she "didn't give a shit" about was whether Nick Mason appears on the page or not. What she was upset about was your considerable removal of material from the page. Even if you wrote it, by submitting it to Wikipedia you are licensing it under the terms of the GFDL. You cannot withdraw it.

Finally, I recommend that you always log in to edit. It will give you a clearer identity - all your edits regardless of IP address will appear in the page history as "Nick Boulevard", and it will be harder for sysops to block you. Then try to stay calm, gain people's respect - maybe by going and editing something else for a bit - and you may find that there is a community here, after all. --rbrwr ˆ 23:32, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

Well sorry for jumping the gun but i was definately blocked from editing the page with one of the ip addresses and it came up a white screen with the words in bold black.

Thanks for explaining but i don't need respect from any one on here as it doesn't really mean alot to me to be quite honest but i have been narked by one nerdy person that likes to delete people work constantly and revert and get up to all kinds of petty little games. I have added enough of my work to be happy with for now which was my reason for coming here and Nick Mason issue really is a matter of principle but i have made my point and thats good enough for now!

Thanks Nick

Nick, I think there has been some misunderstanding. If the page came up with a white screen, you've just run into server problems. We've been having a few of those lately. If you had really been blocked you would have seen a message telling you that you were blocked, who by, and the reason for that block. Angela . 22:27, May 26, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks Angela, i should have copy 'n' pasted before but anyway this is what i viewed when i tried to log on twice from my P.C. with a different internet connection (i have 2!):

Forbidden You were denied access because: Access denied by access control list.

I almost gave up completely on Wikipedia at this point, if i am blocked and i can't even defend my own content then it's not really for me. BTY i will work out a reply for you when i am not so tired. (just seen your reply, thankyou)

User:Nick Boulevard

As far as I know, this is a message given to bots that have been misusing the site (by ignoring the robots.txt). I have no idea why you would have seen this. Angela . 01:42, May 27, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, no i don't have a clue either and i can safely say that i am not a 'bot', well i wasn't last time i checked anyway. I will ignore it and just make sure i log-in, i keep forgetting though.. I have a suggestion, seeing as certain people keep deleting articles and moving things willy nilly on the bham page please can it be locked to my last edit just now seeing as this is how the page stood for some time, and maybe this way it will encourage a serious, full debate on several changes that keep being reverted, no big deal but i just think it makes sense, then after discussing and everyone reaching an agreement the changes can be made then the page and stay that way unless someone doesn't respect the decission's that are made! does that make sense???

Thanks User:Nick Boulevard

Screwed up, again

Nick has screwed the page up again, reverting to a version many generations old, overwirting corrections and additions by several people (including G-Man(!)), and adding further inaccuracies. Several sections now appear twice. I was in the process of rectifying this when the page was protected. Andy Mabbett 21:42, 27 May 2004 (UTC)

why would i want to erase G-mans work??? he talks sense! :) and BTY i saved the page html then edited for a while and didn't notice that G-Man had changed anything until after i saved the page (sorry) and now its protected but lets hope that G-mans edit is reverted and protected as it DID seem the fairest option until discussion is reloved!

Thanks User:Nick Boulevard

Andy can't edit the Bham page so now he's tinkering with this one!

Andy, is there really any need to keep chopping this page around and moving the conversation in this way, i feel it is almost that you can't help but tinker with things when they don't need tinkering with??? Nick

Good morning [Friday 28 May]

Good morning everyone. Can I suggest that during this new period of protection we all try to concentrate on the content issues involved, and set aside the reverts and personal comments that have been going around in the last couple of weeks. The two big issues as I see them are:

Nick Mason: nobody denies that he was born in Birmingham, but there is clearly disagreement whether this is of any real significance for the city (or indeed the man, but the article we are writing here is about the city).
How to deal with the "places of interest": The issue is whether we suffer repetition in the article for the sake of a potentially useful list of them in one place.

Both of these seem to me to be matters of opinion about how an article should be structured and what it should contain. I don't think there is a single correct solution to either of these issues. Nevertheless we have to find a solution so that this edit war stops taking up people's useful time. rbrwr ˆ 07:51, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

Thank you. I have yet to see anybody say anything about why Nick Mason is relveant to the City; he has had zero impact on its culture and musical development (other, as I have said before, than in the way any outsider who has occaionaly visited to perform or drive has).

I have also yet to see any Wiki page which repeats links from the text of an article in a spearate list; and there is already a warning that this page is too long, and should be reduced in size.

The meta issue, though, is that Nick Boulevard appears to belive that approval is required before his (sic) text is edited. Andy Mabbett 09:23, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

While I somewhat understand your position, IMAO an encyclopedia should contain objectively verifiable information. A visit to your local town hall should be sufficient here. If Nick Mason is in the records, he was born in Birmingham, and that's the end of it. If he's not, then he wasn't, and that's the end of it too. You can't argue with straight data. Wikipedias job is to provide that straight data, and then let the reader form an opinion. So either you or Nick Boulevard sort this out, and then lets get on with doing something useful. :-)

Hmm, if you're unsure of what I'm saying, consider what would happen if we told people just our opinion, and/or we were only to mention data that fits that opinion?

You mentioned somewhere you've spoken with Mr. Mason at some point? Okay, perhaps he doesn't wish to be known as someone coming from Birmingham, or doesn't think of himself as coming from Birmingham? If so, why not simply mention that?

By the way, there are entire *articles* dedicated to repeating things ad nauseum. The article titles often start with "List of ..." . Kim Bruning 11:02, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

"an encyclopedia should contain objectively verifiable information" - Yes, but not all objectively verifiable information, otherwise it beomces useless. Nobody, AFAICT, has disputed that Mason was born in Birmingham.

Ok. Then he was born in Birmingham. That's the end of it. Kim Bruning 15:16, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

"perhaps he doesn't wish to be known as someone coming from Birmingham, or doesn't think of himself as coming from Birmingham? If so, why not simply mention that" Why not mention all the other places he dosen't belong to, too? Then all the other people who don't belong to Birmingham?

Nick Mason was born in Birmingham. We have a list of people who were born in Birmingham. Omitting the data point while we know it is true would be a deliberate falsehood. :::: Kim Bruning 15:16, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

Nonesense. Andy Mabbett 15:23, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

Right. Remind me not to explain my conclusions like that again. We're at end of story, there's no dispute. Kim Bruning 15:55, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

People can conclude for themselves whether or not his being born in Birmingham was influentual or not. We can provide data in the Nick Mason article to allow people to draw their conclusions. This is the wrong place for further discussion. Move all further edits and talk on the subject to Nick Mason and Talk:Nick Mason respectively. :::: Kim Bruning 15:16, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

Why? There is no dispute over the content of that page. Andy Mabbett 15:23, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

If there had been any dispute left, it would have to be resolved there and not here. Check the page btw. Since you're not disputing, there's no need to continue. Kim Bruning 15:55, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

"The article titles often start with "List of ..."". This one doesn't. Andy Mabbett 11:13, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

Though many articles contain both links in the main text, and lists of related articles. When in doubt leave both, when in less doubt leave the list, and omit the links in the main text. (This is a good rule of thumb for maximum clarity.)

Kim Bruning 15:16, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

Thank you, but I'm not in any doubt. Andy Mabbett 15:23, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

Excellent, then you'll agree to leave the list of related articles in when people put it there. Great to know you agree. have a nice day! Kim Bruning 15:55, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

Please don't try to speak for me; you clearly lack the capacity to do so. Andy Mabbett 18:55, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

G-Man's proposal

Andy would you please let go of this Nick Mason thing, what harm can it do exactly to state that the guy was born in Birmingham? It's not the end of the world you know. Otherwise we'll go over this time and time again.

Regarding the places of interest section, if your objection to Nick's version is that the page is too long.

Then I propose that we move the 'Local Government' section back to Birmingham City Council where it used to be before someone moved it onto the main page. And we could probably move the MP's section into List of Birmingham MP's or something to cut down on excess text which could go somewhere else.

Otherwise I must agree with Nick that it is probably better to have all the places of interest on one section where people can see them all in one go. G-Man 22:16, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

G-Man, would you please let go of this Nick Mason thing, what use is to state that the guy was born in Birmingham? It's not the end of the world you know. Otherwise we'll go over this time and time again.

Regarding the places of interest section, if your objection to Nick's version is that the page is too long , no; that's one part of my objection.

Then I propose that we move the 'Local Government' section back to Birmingham City Council - the only part of that section which is about BCC is The city is governed by Birmingham City Council. Which bit of that would you like to move?

Otherwise I must agree with Nick that it is probably better to have all the places of interest on one section where people can see them all in one go. Fine - put them on a new page. Andy Mabbett 10:59, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

Well i guess that Andy is in the minority on this issue so far, it should stay as it has done for months, unless Andy is willing to intergrate all places of interest into the article of ALL other UK city pages, mmm... wonder what people would say?

Why did you choose to change this after it has worked for so long, surely there are rules about major edits to a prominent page like this by one person just because HE thinks it is right???

Nick

You'd be surprised at how few rules there are on Wikipedia, Nick. One of the most important guidelines is "be bold in updating pages", and Andy has certainly been bold. Of course, more than one person being bold in opposite directions sometimes leads to edit wars. Good "Wikiquette" can help to make sure that particpants don't take each others' edits personally, which may help make resolution easier. Ultimately Dispute resolution may be needed. There are however, relatively few hard-and-fast rules. --rbrwr ˆ 14:47, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

Thanks Rb,

I have indeed read that, the whole point of me defending these two main points.. nick mason and places of interest is that i DO believe them to be extremely relevant to the page, Andy is definately "bold in updating pages" and thats great but without other peoples hard work to update there wouldn't be any updating to do, infact this place would be rather empty. Andy is very bold in deleting work that in my opinion shouldn't be deleted and especially without discussion first.

I have suggested a vote because to get mediation etc really is a last resort.

Nick

As it stands

Well this is a nice new forum type layout then :)

Ok so as it stands i think that Nick Mason should be kept in this context which we know to be 100% fact: 'Nick Mason was born in Birmingham and is the longest serving member of Pink Floyd'.

Anything else about him not associating himself with the city etc, etc is simply one persons heresay and hence... totally irrelivant to the article, Andy has NOT provided any evidence of Nick Mason not wanting to be associated with the city and i have even scoured the net to see if there is any truth in this but all i could find is that he DID move away at an early age and he did study in London but then this is already stated on his wiki biography. I could see Andys point if there were only a few musicians and Nick Mason was a main feature but he is listed in the correct context that we know to be true which is surely what Wikipedia is about, Nick Mason was born in Birmingham and that qualifies him as being listed as a 'son' if you like of the city, infact even if he did distance himself it is not relevant because if we researched all the people that were born or grew up in various city's and listed their opinions of their places of birth then the disputes that would ensue would probably ruin most of the city reference pages as is happening here. If Wikipedia is based on fact then my inclusion of Nick Mason should stay, if it based on falacy and one persons say (that is not be backed up with evidence) then I too met Nick Mason and he told me that he is happy to have his name listed on the Birmingham page. ;)

As regards the places of interest then i agree with G-mans idea of moving the Government section back to Birmingham City Council and include the many places of interest links that can be accessed by someone new to the city in an instant instead of them having to read through the whole article. The reason that i started adding to them is because it had been that way for many months and it worked very well. Other citys have long lists of exciting places to visit and that is the right decission in my opinion. It does not show the city in a good light if you click on places of interest and there are only a few links to lesser known places?

Thanks Nick.

Are you calling me a liar? Andy Mabbett 10:59, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

Yawn...

"Andy has NOT provided any evidence of Nick Mason not wanting to be associated with the city and i have even scoured the net to see if there is any truth in this but all i could find is that he DID move away at an early age and he did study in London but then this is already stated on his wiki biography."

Nick

Final vote to sort this out so that we can actually move on.

Ok, after reading all the evidence and discussion and seeing as i actually wrote the article can i suggest that we vote on this as discussion is not getting us anywhere fast, whatever the outcome it should be respected by all and left untouched in my opinion.

The vote is to either:

1. keep Nick Mason in the following way on the modern music section only: 'Birmingham born Nick Mason is the longest serving member of Pink Floyd' as we know this to be factual and is stated on his Wiki Biography, he is happy for this to be stated on just about every biography on Pink Floyd there is. (check for yourself)

Also the Government section should be moved back to Birmingham City Council as G-man has suggested so as tp provide more room on the page and places of interest links should be kept as they have been for many months before Andy Mabbett decided to remove them, the reason for this is that browsers can see what the city has to offer at a glance instead of having to read through the whole article.

2. Remove Nick Mason completely from the Birmingham page becuase Andy Mabbett claims that he had a conversation with Nick Mason once and he didn't see himself as having any connection with Birmingham.

Stick to Andy Mabbetts version of the places of interest keeping only a few that are not already included in the body of the article as he thinks that they do not need to be duplicated.

Well i think we know my opinion, i would choose option 1.

Thanks Nick

seeing as i actually wrote the article - yeah, right. Andy Mabbett 18:08, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

yeah that is damn right so Are you calling me a liar? this is fun Andy ;) i guess you'll be saying that YOU wrote MY own work now then, wouldn't surprise me.

Nick

In this case, as in some others, what you have written is a lie. Andy Mabbett 18:20, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

Please try to be civil, both of you. Remember that the whole point of a wiki is that it is collaboratively written, and many people have contributed to this article. Nick, I have to say I find your "final" poll preposterous - it has strawman arguments built right into it. It will not do. If we must have a vote, it must be fair. This one isn't. --rbrwr ˆ 18:37, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

Thank you, but I chose my words carefully, and am being prefectly civil in the case of repeated and severe provocation. Andy Mabbett 18:46, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

mmm, ok rb i won't respond to Andy in this instance as people can probably guess what i am thinking after reading his last comments.

Nick

Another attempt to sum things up

Nick Mason

Mason was born in Birmingham
- not disputed
Mason left ~~at an early age~~ within a matter of days
- not disputed as far as I can tell
This had no lasting effect on Birmingham or its music
- does anyone dispute this?
Being born in Birmingham (as opposed to, say, London) had no lasting effect on Nick Mason or his music
- asserted by Andy
- Nick takes issue with Andy's assertion but doesn't positively claim that Birmingham was an important influence on Nick Mason
- Kim thinks readers should be able to ponder this one for themselves
Mason's birth might be an interesting fact to some people, regardless of the preceding points
- ~~I don't think this has really been mentioned yet~~
- [added] also mentioned on Nick Mason
Pink Floyd's later live recording in Birmingham, Ummagumma, is important
- not disputed

Interesting Places

Places of interest are presently scattered through the article, with the related subject material, in addition to the disputed list
A list is easier to scan through than prose
The list groups "places" together in a way that the text doesn't
Duplication is messy
Duplication makes a long page even longer
- I haven't tried to work out how much of this is disputed, or whether it's just a matter of how much weight the various factors have in different peoples' minds.

I hope this isn't terribly unfair --rbrwr ˆ 19:08, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

For "early age" read "within a matter of days". Mason's place of birth is already mentioned on Nick Mason. Nobody is sugegsting that mention of the live recording in Birmingham, Ummagumma should be removed. You have negelected to mention Nick Boulevard's apparent belief that "his" (sic) text should not be edited without prior approval. Andy Mabbett 19:29, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

"Early age" corrected; Nick Mason article mentioned; Yes I know Ummagumma is common ground, that's why I put it there; This is about content, not the meta issue. We may still have to deal with that, but it is separate. --rbrwr ˆ 19:38, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

I have no confidence that we can resolve any of the content issues, until the meta-problem is fixed. Andy Mabbett 20:03, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

See also my alteration to your latest additions, above. Andy Mabbett 20:07, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

Please can someone explain what a meta problem is?

Thanks Nick.

A meta-problem is a problem about a problem. In this case the problem is what should go into the "Birmingham" article. The meta-problem is the opinions we have about how this should be decided and what factors should go into that decison. In particular I think it's important that you shouldn't argue on the basis of what you did and didn't add to the article, but on what would make a better article. --rbrwr ˆ 21:27, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

Thanks Rb, i only added that info temporarily to point out to Andy that i HAVE contributed heavily to the Brum page as i was accused of dishonesty which is utter cr*p, but i will not go into that any further.

Nick

I see the meta problem, at least in part, to be Nick Boulevard's apparent belief that "his" (sic) text should not be edited without prior approval. That, and his methods of trying to achieve that aim. Andy Mabbett 21:30, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

Ok Andy, as we all agree, Wikipedia can only be based on fact.

If you can show me evidence that Nick Mason does not associate himself with the city of Birmingham whatsoever (even though he was born there, has hosted event for Birmingham Motor Show and recorded one of Pink Floyds albums there) then i agree that he should not be listed on the page.

As far as the links go and the "empty" add on to the Grand Hotel i'm afraid that i do not agree with your edits and i have already explained why!

Nick

Still waiting for you to provide your evidence that Nick Mason does not see any alegiance to his place of birth then Andy,

by the way if this is passed that Nick Mason should not stay in a simple factual format that i have suggested then i hope that we will be able to "clarify" ALL other famous people from ALL cities on Wikipedia that were born there but moved away early on in their lives... mmm... how many people is that going to effect? im starting to doubt just how much of Wikipedias facts are down to whoever shouts the loudest or whoever has enough time on their hands to keep reverting and following wiki rules to the book rather than basic truthful information like... NICK MASON WHO WAS BORN IN BIRMINGHAM AND IS THE LONGEST SERVING MEMBER OF PINK FLOYD! doesn't take much to realise that i have only presented facts that are already on Wikipedia and that is what i wish to include on the Bham page but ANDY MABBETT IS PROPOSING INFORMATION THAT HE HAS NOT YET PROVIDED EVIDENCE FOR! WHEREAS MY PROPOSAL ALREADY EXISTS ON WIKIPEDIA AND EVEN ON THE PERSONS BIOGRAPHY! (slaps head in disbelief)

User:Nick Boulevard

Retrieved from "https://academickids.com:443/encyclopedia/index.php/Talk:Birmingham/archive2"

Talk:Birmingham/archive2

Nick Mason et al

First

Andys Proof?

Residents?

Protected

Andy and Nick

Morwen repies to text which has been removed

Points

Mass-deletion

Compromise

Favour

rbrwr's comment

Andy Mabbet (sic) deleting Nicks work

Screwed up, again

Andy can't edit the Bham page so now he's tinkering with this one!

Good morning [Friday 28 May]

G-Man's proposal

As it stands

Final vote to sort this out so that we can actually move on.

Another attempt to sum things up

Navigation

Search

Toolbox

Personal tools