User talk:Pigsonthewing

• User talk:Pigsonthewing/Archive001
• User talk:Pigsonthewing/Archive002
• User talk:Pigsonthewing/Archive003
• User talk:Pigsonthewing/Archive004
• User talk:Pigsonthewing/Archive005

Contents

1 Barnt Green 2 Destructive 3 Arts in Birmingham 4 Margaret Ball 5 Archives 6 lots of edits, not an admin 7 Letting things go 8 Apollo 15

Barnt Green

Pigsonthewing, I have been working on this article for about 3 months now. I would rather you didn't just delete things which don't take your fancy. I note that that Birmingham page is locked because of you. Please don't vandalise my work. I would appreciate if you could revert your last edit. Leonig Mig 15:37, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You note no such thing. Andy Mabbett 15:41, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have a real love for Barnt Green and the other places I have written about. I am a skilled writer and have attempted to treat things with a certain flair to create interest in things which prima facie are actually quite dull to most people. In your obession with conciseness you have just deleted many of the important subtlties and downgraded a lot of text to your own clumsy prose. I shall leave the article until you have cooled down, and reassess whether I want to continue to contribute to the project. I suggest you find another outlet for your aggression andy, you are driving people away . Leonig Mig 16:11, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm perfectly cool; and your attempt to imply otherwise is disingeneous. I'm glad you have a high regard for your own abilities, but the style of what I have edited is not in accordance with the the style used by Wikipedia; I have made it more so. Your "subtleties" are non- neutral points-of-view, peacock terms, and occasionally irrelevant trivia - we don't need a list of the shops in Brant Green, for example. I trust the links in this paragraph will be of use to you. Users are advised (I can't find the source for this one) not to contribute, if they're not willing to have their work edited unmercilessly. Andy Mabbett 17:16, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Also, please remove the dishonest personal attack against me from your user page. Andy Mabbett 17:21, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You have to understand I have spent a lot of time researching these articles, I have been out and taken photos, I have trawled through old books in the reference library and corroborated facts against one another. The product of this process is *my work*. This is the crux of my problem Andy- I don't mind you editing my articles- not at all - but you don't add anything - you don't contribute anything worthwhile, you simply REWRITE MY WORK IN YOUR OWN DRAB STYLE. Ok, you have perceptions of how Wikipedia should sound, however, I have my own personal opinions. Those articles are NOT due to your work Andy, they are MY work - you have not added anything, you have just rewritten them, and personally offended me and discouraged my future contributions.

This afternoon I went out to Hewell Grange and took some photos of the buildings there- I have some maps I have been preparing in photoshop for the Lickey Ridge article and some old picture postcards from the Lickey Hills park. I honestly can't decided whether to upload them. I can't bear to see you go through my articles with a knife, -- PURELY NEGATIVE EDITING - rewriting things in your own style- deleting facts, removing any hint of style or passion (your 'peacock words').

I am sure we will be able to get around this- just make suggestions for changes on the discussion pages when you feel like making a NEGATIVE EDIT (positive edits and corrections are welcome). However, Andy, I doubt you have any intention of changing you behavoir. Please prove me wrong, but I sense you are a Magpie, stealing things you like, throwing away the bits you don't like and passing the output off as your own. Leonig Mig 19:19, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You have to understand what I wrote at 17:16 and 17:21. I repeat the latter: please remove the dishonest personal attack against me from your user page. Andy Mabbett 19:22, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I still think we can sort this amicably. If you agree to suggest NEGATIVE edits on the discussion pages I will remove my ad hominem from my user page. Deal?

I don't give in to blackmail. Andy Mabbett 20:05, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I am not being unreasonable. If you cease your magpie editing, I will remove the accusation that you are a magpie editor. Unfortunately you refuse to cease. Leonig Mig 20:12, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Leonig Mig: this accusation is uncalled-for, quite apart from compounding the problem with a breach of Wikipedia:No personal attacks.

Copyediting is one of the many activities expected of editors, and all of Andy Mabbett's edits on your articles are, as far as I can see, defensible under fundamental Wikipedia philosophy. I, and many other editors, would have edited similarly. Wikipedia isn't a medium to "publish" work and expect it stay in the originator's preferred form. The agreement Andy was looking for is the one at the foot of every edit page: If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly ... do not submit it (their bold, not mine).

We've all been through that "you shot my baby" feeling when our prose gets revised. Wikipedia goes against many of the ingrained habits of an author's ownership (literally or figuratively) of the text and the work that went into it. All I can say is that it's a sensation to try to ignore. RayGirvan 17:51, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ray, I don't mind him editing my work. The problem is he edited every single line I have written over the past 4 months in less than 24 hours; every single article has been changed over a period less than a day. There are hundreds of thousands of substandard articles on here, is it the act of a sane man to systematically target the output of one user? Leonig Mig 18:17, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't see it as personal but an artifact of the way Wikipedia works. Many users have a very specific interest in a region: several, including Nick and Andy M, specialise in the Birmingham area. You run into one relevant article by a particular user, find it leads to a batch of articles about the same region, and that fairly inevitably leads to editing them all (since they'll tend to have stylistic factors in common). RayGirvan 19:05, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ray, call a spade a spade. Between 10am yesterday morning and 3am last night pigsonthewing edited every single article I have written. Systematically. It's in the logs - check for yourself! Leonig Mig 19:08, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Many editors work that way: run into an article, find there's a batch of related articles with similar topic (and similar aspects to edit), and do the lot. If it makes it feel less unique, I'll go through them myself - I can still see some typos. You'll also notice he hasn't edited the philosophy articles. RayGirvan 20:13, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well they are his typos not mine. You obviously are not willing to see that Andy Mabbot is a bully, a stalker and an obsessive. His merits as an editor of the wikipedia are irrelavant, it is his anti-social behavior alone which I object to.Leonig Mig 21:02, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Ray about how it is painful to see your hard work edited and I realise it is all part of how wiki works however, I think that there must be a fine line between absolute bare bones edits (which Andy does) and something that inspires a reader to investigate articles a little further, providing an article content is all verifyable and not rambling then a little passion can do no harm, unfortunately Andy has been doing all that Leonig has accused him guilty of to me ever since I arrived here, he has actually deleted much of my original work in this systematic almost cleansing process stating once that he wished I would dissapear.

Ray, you at least contribute healthily to the article at the same time as sifting through it with your extra large magnifying glass, Andy somtimes does good work here but in all honesty his bad side outweighs his good by a mile IMO, I don't want to start a head hunt as I know there are going to be a lot of people who will agree with myself and leo, Andys talk page speaks for itself really, he has been blocked once already, I gave up trying to talk to him about this ages ago but he wouldn't explain himself and so the disputes continue, see Birmimgham main page right now, he argues with G-man and constantly reverts (even more than me :) ). Nick Boulevard 22:58, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Pigsonthewing, I think you have improved the article quality of the articles in the Barnt Green namespace. I apologise if I have been uncivil to you, and strongly urge civility in future. If you have any issues which you want to discuss in future, don't hesitate to mention them to Ray, I find him quite easy to deal with. Civility, after all, is a fine victorian value, I am sure you will agree. Leonig Mig 01:39, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your apology, which I am happy to accept; please don't remove material from this page, though. Andy Mabbett 08:59, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Think of it more as an olive branch. I think civility is the key; wikipedians must co-operate. Leonig Mig 13:10, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Destructive

I believe that it is time that Andy Mabbetts damage should be brought to the attention of a wider audience, anyone care to pick up this gauntlet? Nick Boulevard 23:07, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Arts in Birmingham

(Arts in Birmingham) Good work on moving those details from Birmingham. When you deleted the incorrect assignments of birthplaces, you did not add the corrected information to the appropriate place articles. In the event, Robert Plant is already mentioned in West Bromwich so I simply added John Bonham to Redditch. Please could you do similarly in future? --Theo (Talk) 10:25, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Margaret Ball

Your intrest is appreciated, But, are you sure that it was the Oath of Supremacy? Corish and Millett in their "The Irish Martyrs" isbn 1851828583 only say that it is assumed that it was the Oath of Supremacy.--ClemMcGann 09:50, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No; I simply fixed a link (on Margaret Ball). Andy Mabbett 09:52, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I will clarify --ClemMcGann 16:08, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Archives

Hi. You seem to have created the pages Archive001 and Archive002. Did you mean to create them in the main space? DJ Clayworth 13:19, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No. that's fixed, already, but thanks for asking. Andy Mabbett 13:21, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

lots of edits, not an admin

Hi - I made a list of users who've been around long enough to have made lots of edits but aren't admins. If you're at all interested in becoming an admin, can you please add an '*' immediately before your name in this list? I've suggested folks nominating someone might want to puruse this list, although there is certainly no guarantee anyone will ever look at it. Thanks. -- Rick Block (talk) 14:37, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Letting things go

Andy: Please would you disregard any accusations or criticisms that Nick may level against you, however unfair. If we could all focus on the articles instead of the editors we can all spend more time building the encyclopedia.—Theo (Talk) 19:09, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No. Andy Mabbett 19:10, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

And I and Brumburger agree. We've tried to focus on articles: Boulevard's disruption of that process is the whole point of the RfC, and your suggestion of tolerating misconduct because it's got mildly better while he's being watched is unacceptable. See User_talk:Raygirvan#Letting_things_go and User_talk:Brumburger#Letting_things_go. RayGirvan 00:58, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Apollo 15

You added a cleanup tag to Apollo 15. I've gone through the article, rereading and fixing as many mistakes as I could find in my writing. I was wondering if you think it is of a standard that the cleanup tag could be removed? Evil Monkey∴Hello 06:05, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Done. Thank you. Andy Mabbett 09:20, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)