User talk:doxTxob/Archive 3

Hello

Orlady is continuing to ignore the calls for dialogue & resolution, hounding over New Rochelle related articles, and making countless trivial, unproductive edits in what only can be explained as a profound desire to provoke other users + get them involved in petty arguments. Now an interesting new twist has arisen - intersting but certainly far from surprising - Orlady, the expert on IP addresses + world-wide user tracking, mysteriously has come across the IP address of a user who has claimed to be Jvolkblum violating their userban, making that admission after working on one of her targeted NR articles, Wildcliff ( specifically proving the validity of the articles content in its entirety by the NRHP nomination form and disproving Orladys baloney arguments)...... so in essence, this user had proven her definitvely wrong and then admits to being a banned user who has no rights to contribute to the site so then their contributions would be immediately reverted???? Thats the shadiest course of events if you ask me. . . + they conveniently work in Orladys favor? putting her back in the "right" to revert the user edits "as per wiki policy"? This same anonymous user randomly deleted a section of information from the main NR, NY article which Orlady herself has wanted to remove in the past. Once this info was removed she made NO attempt to correct the blatant vandalism (strange for someone who proudly surveys every edit and every user) but was first to go after an individual who had restored it themselves (claiming sockpuppett, banned user, blahblah). BUT BACK TO MY ORIGINAL TOPIC, the Wildcliff article - see here Wildcliff - Orlady has taken it upon herself to criticize the content of Wildcliff based on her feelings VS. the actual facts of the subject at hand. . . specifically her edit summary comments - 'soap-opera-style aspects of ownership history; house is on NRHP for architecture, not its owners'. The 'soap opera' aspects of ownership are in reality integral details to the history of the house, including the progression of its architectural history (valued aspects/style changes etc.). These facts are fully documented and discussed in the NRHP report attached. This is just another disturbing example of how users such as Orlady believe they can control information on this site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.252.50.66 (talk) 16:58, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. First of all, if you want to make a comment about this case I would very much appreciate if you did that from a registered user account and signed your post with 4 tildes ("~~~~" - no quotation marks). If your account was blocked for no reason, let me know the user name and I will forward it into the proper chanels. All this stuff that was discussed all over has had additions to it that were made from IP addresses and was not signed, that has many disadvantages. You are not identifyable; there is no way of contacting you on the user talk page; and your edits are less credible because you lack an edit history. So if you are interested in improving Wikipedia, please register and use that account for your edits and for your comments and stick to that account only. (If you do not sign in, what do you have to hide?) I mentioned that at another spot, if I was the king of Wikipedia, I would not allow anonymous edits at all. To register, you need not reveal your social security number nor your date of birth nor your real name, and there is no risk of your personal data being hijacked as you do not have to provide any. So please, if you care about it register, sign in and then leave a comment. Otherwise, leave it. You see, I think Orladys quest is causing as much trouble as a bunch of anonymous edits to articles. You need to see that your habits have to change also in order to find a peaceful solution here.

I am not on a personal quest against anyone here and I am not fighting for anyone here, either. I like Wikipedia and I am glad that some high standards are applied to the content. There are things that I find terribly wrong and unfair, though. My first principle is "in dubio pro reo", that is latin and means that if in doubt, the judgement should be in favor of the accused ... if in doubt, that is important. This is a measure to prevent unjustful and unfair judgements against someone who might be innocent - the principle was invented many hundreds of years ago. This principle is also found in the U.S. justice system - "You are assumed innocent until proven guilty". But this is a theory in the current system, once you are accused they show your photo in the news and reveal your name - but that's another story. I am vehemently against accusations that can not be proven but are based on assumptions and/or plausible circumstances. I don't give a sh** about New Rochelle, I am not fighing against anyone, and I am not fighting for anyone, either. I am fighting for the above priciple that I consider the only just way to deal with certain things on Wikipedia and elsewhere, I hold this principle high. I am so strongly against accusations based on assumptions and plausibe accusations that I was willing to bargain my reputation on Wikipedia for it, that I have built up over the years. If you believe that you and I stand on the same side, stop editing from the anonymmity of an IP number and make yourself visible by registering and logging in. If you have followed the discussions you should have learned that anonymous edits are a good part of what caused the problem. Should you prefer to not do that I am not willing to spent another second of my time helping you. doxTxob \ ^talk 02:02, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

DoxTxob: For the record, the IP that posted the above polemic is supposedly in Argentina, so it is likely to be an open proxy being used by someone in the United States to evade detection (I assume it's "Jvolkblum", given the content of the message). As for the BS about the admission of being a banned user, see this diff. When I saw that, I couldn't figure out why Jvolkblum would do that and thought it might be a hoax of some sort; it's now clear that "Jvolkblum" is trying to allege that I did those edits. (I don't have the first clue how to access an open proxy, though.) Also, for what it's worth, I have no idea what this person means by saying "This same anonymous user randomly deleted a section of information from the main NR, NY article which Orlady herself has wanted to remove in the past," as IP 201.27.6.67 never edited the main New Rochelle article.

This "Jvolkblum" character has some sort of serious "ax to grind" against Wikipedia and is engaging in a campaign of disruption and harassment against the encyclopedia. Believe it or not, you are now a victim of the campaign because "Jvolkblum" is working mightily to cause you to distrust other good-faith contributors and engage in unproductive battles. We probably will never know why "Jvolkblum" hates Wikipedia, but it is possibly related to long-standing disputes about whether Sarah Lawrence College is in Bronxville or Yonkers, New York. Regardless of "Jvolkblum"'s motives, please don't let your mind continue to be contaminated by allegations and insinuations from an anonymous internet user (or users) who apparently has nothing better to do than foment battles among honest people that s/he has never met. --Orlady (talk) 18:10, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Orlady, first of all, we do not have to go on the record. Secondly, I am very well able to distinguish good from bad. I do not accuse you of being wrong necessarily but I am wholeheartedly convinced that you should stay out of this quest against these accused sockpuppets in that Jvolkblum case. If you read my reply to the above comment you will see what my attitude is towards this case. I am not fighting against anyone here and I am not fighting for anyone, either. I have certain principles that I hold very high and that I did not invent myself but they were invented many hundreds of years ago for a good reason. And that good reason is to prevent accusations of innocent people without proof, just based on aassumptions and plausible stories how it might all be tied together. You see, in Germany many years ago people were puit in camps and killed for being under the suspicion of hiding jews, not too long ago in the U.S. of A. people were put in a camp in Cuba for being under the suspicion of being related to terrorists. Both is wrong, very wrong. If someone is proven to have done something very wrong, they should rot in the worst place that can be found on earth and after that they should rot in hell for all eternity. But it needs proof, not just a plausible cause or an assumption. That is my main point which I can not convey to you for some reason.

If you were accused of wrongdoing based on an assumption I would even stand in for you. In the past, you have added accounts to the list of sockpuppets from which no harmful edits were posted (e.g. User:Umbarella). And that is not right. Even if it is the same person and a known IP number you need to recognise that if there are no harmful edits there is no reason to act against them. As I said before, I am getting tired of all this stuff to a degree that I start not to care about the whole Wikipedia project anymore because you are - in my opinion - heading in the wrong direction because you worked at that case for too long to not feel personally involved. Would you be willing to consider and discuss a solution in this case? I mentioned this before but I might be able to condense this in a few sentences.

I was very, very, very impressed by User:Coren (two-time closing user on the admin noticeboard) who offered to recuse from the discussion on request of any editor in the request for arbitration in this case, to avoid any doubt that there is bias stemming from previous participation in the case. Wow, what a great guy! Another user in the request stated the danger of pursuing a case for too long. Orlady, would you agree on this solition in the case:

(1) You stop your efforts to pursue the Jvolkblum case and let someone else take over (maybe there are volunteers other than doncram or myself)

(2) Anonymous edits from a related IP need to be checked thoroughly for their value to Wikipedia (someone other than you, domcram or myself should do that)

(3) Edits from a registered and logged in user need to be harmful to add that account to the list of sockpuppets and to reverse them

I do not think this is asked too much. And if we could agree here on something that would end this useless and unproductive war between valuable members of Wikipedia (you, domcram, myself et al.) that would be great. If you want to add or discuss one of the points, feel free to do so. I think by participating in this case for a long time you are too biased to continue. How about that? The discussion can take place at any other page, it does not have to be here, anyone who is interested in the case probably has this talk page on their watchlist, anyway... :-) Take care, doxTxob \ ^talk 02:56, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Un-retirement

I have changed my mind about retiring from Wikipedia. The decision was prompted by bad judgement on my side and made prematurely. It is good for something, though; the un-retirement marks a new beginning from a "tabula rasa", leaving all the old ballast behind that became much of a useless burden lately. All this user talk accumulated on the watchlist and a lot of that stuff was "Much Ado About Nothing". For the future, I refuse to participate in any discussions concerning investigations in favor or against anyone, for any reason whatsoever. It is destructive not only for those under scrutiny but also for other parties involved, and it does not bring Wikipedia forward. It hampers the progress of the project, and I chose not to be part of that negative influence. I hope that you will respect that decision. Take care, doxTxob \ ^talk 05:27, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Good to see you back

Congratulations on your unretirement! Don't let destructive uber_ladies get you down. They don't really control Wikipedia, they just think they do. There's no way you can change them, and I get the impression that you thought you could. Eventually they die, just like all of us. So that's positive, and as you know, there are lots of other positives if you just ignore them.--Geronimo20 (talk) 09:31, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Good to see you back, I logged on one day and noticed all of your page stuff deleted, made me sad :(. Glad you reconsidered, wikipedia needs good people. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 12:57, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

FYI

Yeah, verily, it is good to see you back, DoxTxob.

Since you posted on it before it was "ready" to go, I think it appropriate to let you know that my RFA is finally "live". --Orlady (talk) 15:40, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! Yes, I have noticed the RfA and I have left my two cents there. Well, by now it might add up to about ten cents. Controversy is important to bring Wikipedia forward but it is crucial that it is dealt with in a civil manner and fairly. There's always two sides of the story, both sides are legitimate and deserve to be heard. Otherwise, the system comes to a grinding halt because the right way somewhere in the middle could not be found. I wish you luck. doxTxob \ ^talk 01:17, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Your posting of your email to Orlady

I reverted it and then asked for it to be oversighted for the obvious reason. This was before I saw that Orlady herself introduced a related link into the discussion; otherwise I wouldn't have done it. Still, to prevent further misunderstandings that might result in a block, I suggest not to post the email unredacted again, unless Orlady agrees with that. (Which, now seems possible to me.) Normally I would have contacted you by email, but it seems you haven't enabled it. --Hans Adler (talk) 11:31, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Direct questions concerning Orlady attack pages

There is only a finite amount of stupidity in the world, and the more bizarre conspiracy theories usually fail to get many adherents. Occam's razor doesn't leave many explanations for your behaviour on Orlady's RfA page. So I am led to ask:

1. How did you first find out that there ever was a sockpuppet case against Orlady?
2. How did you find out about the Photobucket attack page?
3. Are you the creator of the Photobucket attack page?
4. Are you the creator of the Angelfire attack page?

Thank you for your attention and any honest answers you may provide. --Hans Adler (talk) 08:32, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll butt in to answer partially for doxtxob, who could reasonably take offense at what is probably your main implication and your deliberate use of a loaded word. 1. Check User talk:Orlady and her archives of Talk to see some correspondence dating back a while. Given correspondence and any watchlisting of Orlady's page, anyone would have to know about the sockpuppet case. 2. He did a little bit of google searching on some of the names involved, i assume. 3. no 4. no. I suggest you consult privately with Orlady before making any accusations along the lines it seems you might be interested in; I am sure she would promptly and clearly deny your implication is true. doncram (talk) 09:32, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

DoxTxob is not the only person who can reasonably take offence at what has been going on recently. Re 1: I know there is at least one potential explanation that would not implicate DoxTxob. I know this because I have shown due diligence and done quite a bit of research before asking these questions. But I still want to hear his answer. Re 2: That's what I assumed as well. Before I tried it on my own and failed miserably – until I added specifically some very far-fetched words from the attack pages, which are not related to orlady but rather to the real person that the attacker claims for no discernible reason is identical with her. So I am very much interested in DoxTxob's answer.

Why are you so sure about 3 and 4? Can I take this as an admission that you know the author of the attack pages? In that case please contact Arbcom or the WMF, so that appropriate steps can be taken. Thank you. --Hans Adler (talk) 10:18, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I do take offense at your transferring your offensiveness towards me. I am/was sure because i just was sure, and as Orlady and Doxtxob both corroborate. I was not aware of any attack sites before they were mentioned by Doxtxob and Orlady. I gather one of the two you mention may be different than what has previously mentioned, but i don't care, and I have not gone to see it. Thank you Orlady for coming through with a disavowal of Hans Adler's implications. Orlady and I have our differences, but at least we have some level of trust in each others' decency not to step beyond some line. I don't know you and at this point i trust you not one bit. If you had done due diligence then I think you should not have asked the questions. No you do not have my permission to twist my words into an "admission" that suits your theory. doncram (talk) 00:49, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe that DoxTxob had anything to do with creating the attack page, and I don't see any value in pursuing that line of inquiry. All of my communications with him indicate that he found that page in a web search, was initially disturbed by it, looked into the allegations, and told me about it after he had come to the conclusion that the allegations had no merit. --Orlady (talk) 17:14, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me, but since you are involved I don't trust your judgement in this matter. DoxTxob isn't prepared to accept anything but a checkuser result for "clearing" you of his fantastic allegations. Well, I am not prepared to accept anything but a clear "yes" or "no" and a few plausible explanations. He has no reason to complain about being treated in this way, and surely you have no reason to protect him. Surely you agree that the allegation that he is behind these unsavoury attacks is a serious one and that he should do everything he can to clear himself of it? --Hans Adler (talk) 17:42, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey Hans, I like your honest approach! Your attitude is not so far from mine in this respect, although it might not seem like that at the moment. You questions are straightforward and open, I appreciate that very much. Your questions are absolutely legitimate and if you have doubt about my integrity I will do anything I can to put that straight and answer any question you have. That is just in the spirit of Wikipedia, it is a community effort and if something causes suspicion, the community has a right to know about it and the community has a right that things are put straight and that discussions are made in public. You asked me honest questions, you deserve honest answers.

1 - I remember the circumstances, not the exact date. I have set my preferences to "add pages I edit to my watchlist" and I had left comments about articles and other unrelated topics on Orlady's talk page before. So I read some comment about the sockpuppet case against User:Jvolkblum that had popped up on Orlady's talkpage (which was on my watchlist) and became interested in the whole case of sockpuppets and looked through the case file. Allegedly, there were several dozens of people involved in a scheme that Orlady stated was out to hurt her. That looked like a whole lot of people involved in that case, spending a lot of time and effort, and they would all edit maliciously to hurt just one person? That caught my interest. The case file contained several different users and IPs and I checked the edits of a few users involved in that case (not the IPs) to find out what they did do wrong to get blocked, which was Special:Contributions/MagdaOakewoman and Special:Contributions/Umbarella in particular. There were accusations made against the first user that her username was too similar to Orlady's and against the second user the accusation was minor tweaking of history related material. Wow, I thought, minor tweaking of material related to history could get you in trouble on WP? I do that all the time, sometimes my tweaks are even major if I get really bold. The sockpuppet case against Orlady was mentioned in one of the comments of User:MagdaOakewoman in the case file and I found the accusation interesting without having an opinion on it.

2 - I used google.com and typed in the user names of people who were involved in the Jvolkblum case, incl. Orlady's to see if there are any connections between the accused sockpuppets. I read through the stuff on that photobucket page and was not sure what to think about it at first. It sounded sort of far fetched, but not much more than the accusation about "minor tweaking". I did some further searching just out of curiosity, found these contents unsubstanciated, and then sent an email to Orlady letting her know about that page, suggesting that she should take steps to have that deleted. That, by the way, was the reason why I published my email to Orlady after she had mentioned that one of her vigorous opponents let her know about it. I wanted to make sure who let her know and show the context.

I should have read your other comment above before answering the questions here. I did not read the above comments because I did not want to get distracted by that, but rather concentrate on the questions you had. OK, now I see that your suspicion might have been fueled by some "far fetched" words you had to type in to get the result. I understand that, it would make me suspicious, too. To clarify this point in more detail: I typed in user names from the sockpuppet casefile: "Umbarella", "Jvolkblum", "Magdaoakewoman", "Director Magda" and "Orlady" in different combinations. I am not sure which combination led to the result, the page popped up on the first or second results page at google.

3 - No. If I have something to say to Orlady I'll let her know with my name under it.

4 - No. I did not know about that site even.

I appreciated the opportunity to explain a few things here and I hope that your trust in my integrity is restored. If you have further questions, feel free to ask them. doxTxob \ ^talk 00:29, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I decided to first answer Hans Adler's questions and then read the comments, I did not want to be influenced by the remarks, I appreciate all your contributions. I would like to add some general comments here. I appreciate Hans Adler's attitude. Open, honest and straightforward. He has a suspicion that I understand and he formulated that into questions. Wow, that is the true spirit of Wikipedia and that is what brings the project forward, not to a grinding halt. He has every right to do that. Doncram is that straightforward, too. And I am also. If there is a suspicion that there might be "something rotten in the state of Denmark", it needs to be put in the open, discussed and solved.

Hans Adler, it may seem to you that I insist too much on a clarification of that (most likely unfounded) sockpuppet case against Orlady. You might find my "conspiracy theory" ridiculous and unfounded but so far I have only heard assurances by the candidate and others that it is unfounded and you are most likely right. But: Everyone should be encouraged to ask uncomfortable questions if in doubt. You and me and every one else on WP. Every doubt, every question should be taken seriously and be addressed with a certain respect.

I am pretty sure that the sockpuppet case against Orlady is unfounded. But you know what I really, really hate? It is the fact that the case has been renamed from "Sockpuppet investigation against Orlady" and included in the "Sockpuppet investigation against MagdaOakewoman". You see, if Orlady has nothing to hide about her past why would that step be nacessary? It might be common practice, but sometimes common practice is wrong and should be changed. Doesn't it cause more suspicion if it looks like the accused is kept out of that case for some reason? I really, really hate this move, too: Look at the transfer of Otava Rima's opposing comments in the RfA to the talkpage, they were later pushed further down on that talkpage by Orlady adding her edit statistics at the very top. Her statistics can be accessed by clicking on the links on the RfA page, no reason to blow them up at the top of the talk page. That stuff makes me suspicious and I have a right to raise these topics just lik eyou have a right to ask me honest questions.

In the process of the RfA, me and Doncram have been accused of improper behaviour, maybe sockpuppetry, although that word was not used, just because of "uncommon" formaing errors. This was the first RfA I took part in and I was not sure how to format the "#::" right, as it includes the numbering system and I do not use this much. I looked at the RfA discussion to find examples but unfortunately no one else had anything to say that would use more than one paragraph. Tons of one liners for support, though. I do not at all like my reputation treated like that. The user who made that accusation did not even respond to my request for an apology. You see, that makes me suspicious. And I do not feel respected, that could be a reason why I do not sound perfectly respectful all the time. I try my best, though.

What would WP be if secret clubs discuss their stuff in forums and in personal emails all the tome and decisions are made without community involvement? It would be nothing worth talking about, just another website! WP is not mine and it is not yours, it's not Doncram's, it's not Orlady's and it's not Jimbo's, it's ours! We all have a right to know what's going on. doxTxob \ ^talk 02:08, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Real life is seriously interfering with my WP activities, so I am not sure how much time I have today. In case I am interrupted, let me start by saying that I am completely happy and satisfied with your responses. I am afraid I may not deserve your comments about my honesty because, in fact, after going through your edit history shortly before your temporary retirement I decided that you are obviously acting in good faith. (Just shouting to make sure anyone reading this thread reads it.)

When I don't like what somebody else is doing, I am often tempted to mirror their behaviour to demonstrate to them why it's a problem. It's rarely a good idea, but in this case the outcome was better than expected. I believe this says a lot about you, and I congratulate you for passing this little test.

I still disagree with you about quite a few things, and I am glad that we are now discussing on a much more detailed level than would be possible in an RfA. I will go through your points, and respond to them, as fast as I can at the moment. --Hans Adler (talk) 07:34, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

You say: When I don't like what somebody else is doing, I am often tempted to mirror their behaviour to demonstrate to them why it's a problem. That seems like an incredibly immature and disruptive approach to participating in wikipedia. I haven't identified if u r an administrator or not but i am inclined to complaining seriously about this if u engage in this more. The rest of us are not experimental units for your amusement. doncram (talk) 08:35, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

May I remind you of how I started this section:

There is only a finite amount of stupidity in the world, and the more bizarre conspiracy theories usually fail to get many adherents. Occam's razor doesn't leave many explanations for your behaviour on Orlady's RfA page.

That's still true. DoxTxob either still believes in his conspiracy theory, or uses it as a tool, or does not have the maturity to apologise and withdraw his attacks. Either way he has no reason to complain. You have even less reason seeing that "an incredibly immature and disruptive approach to participating in wikipedia" is a good description of your attempts to get Jvolkblum unbanned as a move in a war that you started because Orlady didn't give in to your underhanded bullying and instead assumed good faith and followed normal WP procedures.

I am not an admin. Also, I am not and have never been amused by your and DoxTxob's conduct, nor am I seeking amusement with my unconventional attempts to change it. Your threat of "complaining seriously" is ineffective because I am not afraid of your complaints. --Hans Adler (talk) 06:16, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

History of New Rochelle

I'm pleased to see that you have taken up the project of splitting the excessively long New Rochelle article by converting the history section into a stand-alone article. You have taken on a lot of work there -- I expect that the job of evaluating the sources of the history content on the New Rochelle page will be onerous. Good luck!

I looked at your test page at Talk:New Rochelle, New York/Temp, but I couldn't figure out where I was supposed to comment, since the content already occupies a talk page. Have you considered moving this to a subpage in your own User space, where it could have its own talk page?

The first comment I wanted to make has to do with the page's version of a short passage in the lead section that I have objected to elsewhere (I've labeled some of it as "puffery"). In detail, here are the concerns I have had about the sentences I have questioned:

• "The era of suburban living began in the late 1800s..." - Those words are a rhetorical flourish that I suspect (considering the contributor's copyvio history) was "borrowed" from somewhere else. Unless some other published source describes "the era of suburban living" as having started in New Rochelle, I strongly believe that this should be replaced with a more objectively worded statement (sourced, I hope) about the community's transformation to a bedroom suburb beginning in the late 1800s.
• "...when the New York & New Haven Railroad opened a line with a stop in New Rochelle." - This could be converted to a factual statement about the opening of the railroad line and establishment of the stop at New Rochelle, including a specific date instead of a broad flourish about "late 1800s". As one contributor has pointed out (sorry, I forget where), the railroad company (which has its own article) may have had a different name at the time that the service to New Rochelle was established.
• "It was during this period that the city became famous as a summer resort." - Where's the source for the assertion that New Rochelle became famous as a summer resort?
• "New Rochelle soon became one of the country's first 'bedroom communities'..." - This is another statement that needs to be sourced.
• "...with most residents traveling daily to New York City for work, and back home to the suburbs to sleep." - This wording also seems very likely to be copied from some other source.

I'm pleased to see that your version does not include the sentence "The 1960s television hit The Dick Van Dyke Show popularized New Rochelle suburban life as an American ideal." It is undeniably true that Dick Van Dyke's sitcom family on that show was identified as living in New Rochelle, and I'm sure that reliable sources can easily be found for that fact. My problem is with the statement that that the show "popularized New Rochelle suburban life as an American ideal." I think it highly unlikely that anyone could prove that statement, much less that there is a reliable source available to cite to document that it was proven. (Furthermore, I watched that TV show faithfully as a kid, and I don't remember that it represented "New Rochelle" as anything other than the name of the place where the Petrie family's studio-set house was supposedly located. I certainly don't remember idealizing New Rochelle suburban life as a result of the show.) --Orlady (talk) 17:45, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I was intrigued by the "era of suburban living". It turns out that this was first(?) added by User:FlannaryFamily in this edit with the extremely confusing edit summary "info update". The user is now blocked as a sockpuppet. For comparison, the text added by the user:

The era of suburban living began around the year 1849 when the New York and New Haven Railroad opened a line with a stop in New Rochelle. It was during this period that New Rochelle became famous as a summer resort.

And for comparison a passage from New Rochelle, Portrait of a City by Merrill and Finn:

... York and New Haven Railroad opened a line that stopped in New Rochelle. Then the era of suburban living began. It was during this period that New Rochelle became famous as a summer resort.

With Google Books' snippet view I can't read more, but I verified that "1849" also appears on the same page. This is an obvious copyright violation. I am beginning to see the dimension of the problem. This kind of thing is very hard to spot and can bring Wikipedia into serious difficulties. Just rephrasing the text is not enough once the original version has been added, since then it's a derivative of the copyrighted text. --Hans Adler (talk) 19:51, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey Hans, I like your approach to keep the discussion together. As there were no objections against the split, I was bold, went ahead and split the history material to History of New Rochelle, New York. Please note that as for the content: Nothing got worse, this just moved material from one place in mainspace to another place in mainspace. That should make maintenance much easier. There it has a talkpage Talk:History of New Rochelle, New York to discuss improvement and I have inserted the relavant concerns about the content made by you and Orlady there already. I'll leave her a note so she knows where the discussion of the article improvements takes place. Take care, doxTxob \ ^talk 22:29, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

This thread is closed, please do not add to it. I have moved the history related material from New Rochelle, New York to History of New Rochelle, New York. Discussion about the improvement of the history related material continues at Talk:History of New Rochelle, New York, I have inserted the relevant concerns raised above from this discussion there already, so the discussion can go right ahead. doxTxob \ ^talk 22:29, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Further punishment

I already lost admin privileges, and I've been roundly castigated all over the place. I've made a lot of enemies at WP:PW.

What else are you looking to see happen to me as punishment? Are you hoping to have me blocked or banned? Maybe that wouldn't even be enough for you.

I am quite sure, though, that nothing I do on this encyclopedia is remotely good enough for you. Period. And even if I stop talking about you and Doncram and Orlady, and even if I go back to working on the articles, I'm still sure I won't be doing anything good enough for you. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 05:17, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

My WP:AN/I request is right there. You know how to find it. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 05:25, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, also: If you want me to remove the NRHP infobox generator, let me know and I'll rip it out. Other people on WP:NRHP are using it, but since I'm being too self-promotional by doing this, it's your call as to whether I keep it around or not. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 05:47, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I am an opposer of blocks and bans and I am not an admin and I do not want to be an admin. Guess what we have in common? I am not going to win a popularity contest either! I will look at your WP:AN/I and respond there if you don't mind. I am losing faith in the good sides of Wikipedia and my confidence in the project, too. There is too much fighting and not enough discussion, that can drain your reservoir of good spirits at some point, even if you have started with an ocean of good spirits. I saw that you requested an editor review a while ago because you lost confidence in Wikipedia. That is a good idea and I follow your example. I have requested an editor review for myself and I would be happy if you could voice your opinion there. There is only one condition: Do not try to be nice, be brutally honest! ... and sign your name there with four tildes. Thank you Elkman! doxTxob \ ^talk 06:44, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Editor review

I have requested an editor review for myself, it can be found here: Wikipedia:Editor review/DoxTxob.

If you like to leave your opinion, you are very welcome under these conditions: I do not care if you are nice, I want you to be honest! Please sign your contribution there with four tildes ("~~~~"). Thank you! doxTxob \ ^talk 06:25, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Tennessee Coach Company

I've seen your comments [[1]] about the article on the Tennessee Coach Company (TCC), including your allegation that it lacks citations, and your evaluation that it's "not too bad".
Your allegation is absolutely false, for it does indeed contain a number of sources, and it did so when you added your words.
The Wikipedia style guideline entitled "Citing sources", under the caption "How to present citations", says, "Citations are usually presented within articles in one of five ways".
The first method in the list is the one called "general reference", described as "by placing the citation[s] in a list at the end of an article".
The guideline adds that editors (and authors, of course) are free to use any of the five techniques, and it specifically states that no particular method is preferred over the others.
Undeniably, therefore, my use of general references is well within the range of practices which are acceptable and allowable at Wikipedia.
The subject matter here (the Tennessee Coach Company, the TCC) is not even slightly doubtful, disputable, or questionable.
The article does not contain any contentious material.
Although I'm a serious bus historian, and although I've been closely and actively associated with the bus industry nearly 70 years (most closely with Greyhound), I've never known of any challenge, debate, or argument about the historical facts in the instant article.
The sequence of events in the history of the TCC is somewhat tedious, but the topic itself is narrow and simple.
With due regard for all that, I've not felt, and I still do not feel, a need to use inline citations.
Have you read the article?
Is it truly "not too bad"?
Does that apply to the textual content?
Is that all – just "not too bad"?
Or does it appear to be the work of someone who has many years of practical experience as a writer, researcher, journalist, editor, communicator, and wordsmith?
Does it contain fuzzy nebulous generalizations, or does it contain specific facts and detailed explanations?
Is it sloppy or precise?
Is it amateurish, or is it free of errors in spelling, syntax, punctuation, and grammar in general?
Is it half-baked, or is it a polished finished product?
Does it contain a rich set of internal links to other articles at Wikipedia?
Or maybe I misunderstood your intent when you said that it's "not too bad".
Yes, it's true that it lacks images.
I hope and trust that one or more of my fellow bus nuts will add images of the coaches and a map of the route network.
Meanwhile, though, I suggest that the article is more than just "not too bad".
By the way, you may wish to know – or maybe you already know – that three different Greyhound regional companies – three historical divisions which eventually became parts of the present Greyhound Lines, Inc., the GLI – operated in Tennessee.
They were the Dixie Greyhound Lines (GL), the Atlantic GL, and the Southeastern GL.
Dixie was based in Memphis; in part it connected Memphis with Nashville.
[The founder of the Dixie GL (first named as the Smith Motor Coach Company) was James Frederick Smith, who was also the father of Frederick Wallace Smith, the founder of Federal Express (FedEx).]
Atlantic in part connected Knoxville with Bristol and with Asheville (in North Carolina).
Southeastern, which had the largest Greyhound presence in Tennessee, in part connected Nashville with Evansville (in Indiana), Louisville (in Kentucky), Knoxville, Chattanooga, and Birmingham and Florence (both in Alabama); it also provided a link between Knoxville and Chattanooga; it further connected Chattanooga with Atlanta (in Georgia) and Knoxville with Lexington and Louisville (both in Kentucky).
Each of those three Greyhound firms was larger than the Tennessee Coach Company.
If you have a question about any of those firms – or Greyhound – or motor coaches in the USA in general – please ask.
Smiles!
Doc – Dr. D.B. Rushing – DocRushing (talk) 19:52, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
PS. The server has wrapped this item around your picture of the Nashville skyline in your announcement, and I feel reluctant to mess around with your talk page. Sorry 'bout that.

Hello Doc! There is not need to worry about your comment wrapping around the image, I fixed it. Talk pages here are to leave messages and I want to thank you for yours. You askee quite some questions in your message. I did not have internet for a few days so I read your post today. Let me just give you a short response now and postpone further answers to one of the next few days. You can be assured, I read the article before I rated it. Please understand that all ratings are subjective decisions when an article is between this or that rating. What is so great with Wikipedia is that if you think a decision was wrong there is a way to discuss and revise that. I am glad that you wrote a message to discuss my decision.

The article is written well and it is referenced, when I rated it I found it between the Start-Class and C-Class rating. I noticed a few minor issues, though and that is why I went for the Start-Class. I feel that inline references would be useful to the reader who wants to research the fact in depth but that might be one of my subjectve opinions, general references are sometimes used in relatively undeveloped articles, the more detailed the article gets the more important inline references become. ("If a source supports a significant amount of the material in an article, it may sometimes be acceptable to simply add the citation at the end" [emphasis added]). If several general references are used, it is difficult for the reader to determine which fact is covered by which reference and to verify the information. Featured articles are required to have inline references. The higher an article rise on the quality scale, the more important inline references become.

In the article many brackets are used, round ones and square ones, I would say that many of them could be removed and the bracketed content integrated in the text for a better flow and readability.

It might be interesting for the reader to also have images to illustrate the article.

But again, the rating was a subjective decision and I am willing to revise it. Just give me a few days to study the article and allow me to make a few changes. I will apply my changes in one session so that they can be undone in one step in case you don't like them.

Let me ask you two questions here: (1) At what quality class do you see the article? (2) Are you activly adding to the article to bring it to B-Class or higher? Maybe I can be of help to collaborate on the further development of the article, in case you have that intention.

Thank you again for your note, your work is such an important contribution to Wikipedia. Let me know if you think it is OK for me to go over the article to make a few changes and if it would be difficult for you to apply the references inline. doxTxob \ ^talk 04:58, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply.

Today has been a busy one for me.

I'll soon send a more responsive answer.

Doc. DocRushing (talk) 23:16, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again for your first note and for the politeness of it.

This morning I have a few minutes, but only a few, while, as a visitor, borrowing the use of a WiFi connection in an office.

[My wife is an RN, and I'm a retired professor, but we're now professional tourists, for we own and operate a truck, running through 48 states plus Canada, getting paid to do something we love to do, and making more money than either of us ever made in our previous callings; we left the house last night (after a few days at home), only minutes after I sent you my last note.]

My initial impression is that your changes fall into three categories:

some are truly helpful and constructive;

some, which are neither helpful nor unhelpful, represent differences in personal preferences among allowable and acceptable techniques or stylistic alternatives;

some appear to be unhelpful and counterproductive, such as changes in emphasis, interruption or confusion in logical development, and reduced precision.

At my first good opportunity I'll compose and send a detailed commentary.

Last night Orlady, another user in Tennessee, corrected one of your typos ("Carlina").

Until you and I discuss your changes about the TCC, please refrain from changing any of the other articles which I've written.

When I send you my more specific comments about your changes, shall I post them here, or do you prefer that I send them via e-mail or some other way?

Meanwhile, will you please tell me about your qualifications (education, training, and practical experience) in writing and editing (before Wikipedia, that is)?

Thanks again.

Doc – DocRushing (talk) 14:16, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Lieber deutsche (oder deutsch-amerikanische) Benutzer:

Today in Denver, during what may continue as a slack time, I'll begin my comments about your chenges to the article about the TCC.

BTW, this discussion began after you alleged that the article lacks references, and that it was "not too bad".

How did we go from that position to nine instances of extensive revisions?

Meanwhile, please tell me about your qualifications and accomplishments in writing, rewriting, and editing before you began to take part at Wikipedia.

Thanks much.

Doc – DocRushing (talk) 14:44, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Hey DocRushing, I do not want to sound unfriedly but my qualifications are none of your business. And I don't care about yours. Your claim to disclose my education and accomplichments in writing to you seems rather odd to me and ridiculous, to be honest. I am still of the opinion that, overall, your articles in "not too bad" and indeed it lacks inline references. You should take some time to study the related manual for referencing on Wikipedia. The readability of the article has improved since my edits, though. Still, the article is far away from a "polished finished product" that I would expect from "someone who has many years of practical experience as a writer, researcher, journalist, editor, communicator, and wordsmith". There is a saying in Germany that is translated "Praising yourself stinks", and there is some truth to it in my opinion.

I edited your article not for content but because the long sentences were difficult to read for the casual reader of an encyclopedia article, written in a way that tires the reader. Single sentences that span over three to six lines on the screen are too long and need to be cut to smaller pieces that are easy to digest for the reader. In this sense, my edits added to the precision of your words. It might be your personal style but it does not match the concept of an encyclopedia article in my opinion. An encyclopedia article should be easy to read for everyone.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that everyone can edit and if you find the time I would recommend to you that you familiarize yourself with the MOS and with the general priciples of Wikipedia. Every contribution is welcome but the articles you write are not your own and you cannot keep people from editing them. Thus your request not to edit other articles you have written is not conform with the spirit of Wikipedia. If you do not want your articles be put in a shape that fits an encyclopedia style, because you already think that once you have finished them, they are a "polished finished product", there is a simple solution: Stop writing on Wikipedia and write your own book. That would assure that you can write the information down the way you like it and keep people from improving your words.

If you care to leave a response to me I would like to let you know that I discuss Wikipedia issue exclusively on Wikipedia and will not respond to any realted emails. So leave your opinion here on my talkpage or keep it for yourself. doxTxob \ ^talk 01:30, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Response to your changes to article about Tennessee Coach Company

In your first note (of 05 August 2009), you said that the article about the Tennessee Coach Company (TCC) is “written well”.
You appear to have changed your mind about that.
You also said that my “work is … an important contribution to Wikipedia”.
You seem to have changed your mind about that too.
You expressed a wish “to make a few changes” to the article, and you said that you would “apply [your] changes in one session so that they can be undone in one step in case [I] don’t like them”.
You further specifically said, “Let me know if you think it is OK for me to go over the article to make a few changes”.
Hmmm …. It looks as though you’ve changed your positions considerably.
I’ve carefully noted the overall tone of your second note (of 11 August 2009).
I shall not respond in the same way.
I choose instead to continue to behave toward you in a cordial, businesslike, objective, respectful, and conciliatory manner, even if we do continue to disagree about certain points.
In your first note you wrote about the desirability of open communication, and you gave the appearance of inviting more of that.
Thus, in an attempt to approach and reach a middle ground, I’ve prepared a set of comments about your changes to the article.
You state (on your user page) that you are “able to contribute [at Wikipedia] with a professional level of English”.
With due regard for that, I’ve taken the liberty of using the applicable technical terms (about grammar and composition) commonly used among professional writers and editors.
As I said in my note of 06 August 2009, your changes fall into three categories:

some are truly helpful and constructive;

some are neither helpful nor unhelpful;

some appear to be unhelpful and counterproductive.

Let’s start with the good ones:

Helpful changes:

Shorter sentences:

I acknowledge your encouragement that I shorten some of my sentences, and I appreciate your suggestion.

Maybe I’ve overestimated some of the Wikipedia readers or their reading skills, and maybe I need to make it easier for some of them to read the material.

I’ve taken that seriously, and I’ll act on it.

“A sharing arrangement”:

Although the TCC and the other carrier truly shared their joint certificate between Nashville and Knoxville, it’s every bit as true, as you said, that they shared the certificate “for the route” between Nashville and Knoxville, and it’s probably better to say it your way.

You made a good point, and I’ll use it in the future.

Changes neither helpful nor unhelpful:

“A sharing arrangement”:

After you removed the words “called also” several times, I now feel amused that you have inserted them in a different but similar place.

In the same paragraph, when you removed the parentheses from the words “interlined pool operations”, thereby converting a parenthetical expression (quite literally) into an appositive phrase set off by commas, that’s OK, but that seems to be merely a substitution of one of your personal preferences in the place of one of mine.

At the same time, though, I feel puzzled about your having placed “interlined pool operations” within quote marks.

That concept is well known and understood in the context of motor-coach operations.

What useful purpose do those quote marks accomplish?

“Between Knoxville and Bristol”:

Several times you removed my parentheses.

Most of those instances are OK, but they represent merely a substitution of one of your preferences for one of mine, without making any perceptible improvement.

“Merger into Continental Trailways”:

When I composed the first sentence in that section, I felt a need to preface the name of the Tennessee Coach Company by the words “that is” for a specific and useful purpose.

The entity merged was the Tennessee Trailways, Inc., not the Tennessee Coach Company.

The Tennessee Trailways, Inc., had used the brand name of the TCC, but it was not, strictly speaking, literally or legally, the TCC, although it was strongly identified, idiomatically or vernacularly perhaps, as the TCC.

For that reason I included those special words. I did so for a good reason, not merely to waste two words or for a lack of anything else to do right then. I choose my words with extreme care, and I use them for specific and useful reasons.

You discarded all that.

Advice from Arbitration Committee:

On at least two occasions (and likely even more), the Arbitration Committee has announced an important principle which applies here.

One decision includes these words: “When either of two styles [is] acceptable[,] it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change. …. Revert warring over optional styles is unacceptable; … it would be wrong to switch simply to change styles ….”

Another includes these: “… [W]hen either of two styles is acceptable, it is inappropriate for an editor to change an article from one to the other without substantial reason. …. If an article has been stable in a given style, it should not be converted without a style-independent reason. Where in doubt, defer to the style used by the first major contributor.”

Again, please: “Where in doubt, defer to the style used by the first major contributor.”

General observation:

Bold editing is one thing, but pointless editing is something entirely different, especially when a user seeks to remold an existing article according to the personal preferences of the revising user, and when the article in question already conforms to an acceptable style, even if the revising editor prefers a different style.

When a user wishes to change an existing article, the test is not properly “Would I have written it this way?”

The proper threefold test is “Can I make a significant improvement, can I do so by using the principles of correct grammar and correct composition, and can I do so without harming the article?”

Unhelpful changes:

Introductory paragraph:

You created a mild nonparallelism, an unneeded dependent clause (“which was then named …”) in the place of a modifying adjectival phrase, and a primer-style redundancy (by starting a sentence with the same noun expression which had just ended the previous sentence).

You started a new sentence with a stative verb rather than an active verb (“it was in operation” rather than “it operated”).

Yes, you tried to make that paragraph a bit simpler, but in the process you reduced its crispness.

I’ll rework it again (but not by merely reverting).

“Background”:

When you removed the qualifying conjunction and the adverbial prepositional phrase “albeit for a short time”, you discarded a significant point which I had intentionally included – that is, that Baskett had worked in North Carolina just long enough to meet the Kraemer brothers and to form his plan to move to East Tennessee and to start running his own firm.

In that same paragraph, when you started another new sentence (“in 1997 the company became …”), you thereby removed the subject of that sentence so far from its previous place (as a serial adjectival clause modifying the Carolina Coach Company) that the new fourth and fifth sentences do not fit into the same paragraph with the first sentence as the topic sentence.

Further, your fourth sentence is not a proper sentence at all, for you left the dependent clause as an incomplete one, as a fragment without a predicate or even just a verb.

Quite correctly I had enclosed my sentence about the “curious result” within brackets and set it off in a paragraph by itself – because that sentence is not a part of the story of the TCC itself but is related closely enough that it makes a contribution – because the intertwining of the story lines of the early bus firms are an important source of constant interest and amazement to bus enthusiasts and historians.

When you spliced the next three paragraphs into a single one, you spliced three different thoughts into a single graph, and you left the whole conglomeration without a topic sentence.

The three different thoughts are these:

first, Baskett met the Kraemer brothers;

second, Baskett moved to Tennessee and started running his own coaches;

third, the Kraemer brothers joined Baskett.

That’s why I expressed all that in the way in which I did in the first place.

I remain persuaded that that part was right at first.

When you removed the brackets from the sentence about the pronunciation of the name Fageol, you further reduced the sharpness of that enlarged paragraph.

General observation:

There is nothing inherent or intrinsically bad or wrong about the mere fact of a long sentence or a short paragraph.

A long sentence is OK if it works well and right, and a short paragraph is likewise OK if it also works well and right.

There is little virtue in merely trying to maintain either sentences or paragraphs within target length ranges for the sole purpose of trying to maintain regularity or predictability of appearance.

What matters is how the sentences and paragraphs do their work, and how they work together, even if some of them are longer or shorter than some of the others.

We’re supposed to maximize the effectiveness of our communication, not to achieve mere regularity (as though in a wallpaper pattern).

“Development”:

When you merged my first two paragraphs into a single one, you again spliced two different sets of thoughts into a single graph. The first thought is the incorporation of the TCC, and the second thought is the issuance of the certificate.

Those two thoughts are separate enough that they should have remained in separate paragraphs.

What useful purpose did you hope to serve by placing quote marks around the noun phrase naming the joint certificate (of public necessity and convenience)?

In the lingo of the transport industry, a certificate was the piece of paper (in the days of regulation) by which a state granted the authority for a carrier to operate over a certain route and, often, under certain conditions. The longer name of that document was a certificate of public necessity and convenience (or convenience and necessity).

In this case the certificate was a joint certificate, issued jointly for joint authority to the TCC and the Union Transfer Company.

So what’s the need to set off that expression with quote marks?

When you removed the brackets from the original third paragraph, you removed the signs (the punctuation marks) which marked that paragraph as an insertion or interjection.

Those brackets had served a useful function.

In that same paragraph, when you divided it into two sentences, you left the paragraph without a topic sentence.

When you spliced the next two paragraphs into a single one, you again spliced two different thoughts, which are related to each other, but which are different enough to call for separate graphs. The first thought is the extension of the long-distance intercity route network outside Tennessee (into Virginia, West Virginia, and Georgia), and the second thought is the incidental local short-haul commuter service along one of its older routes (within Tennessee).

In the first sentence of your new paragraph, you wrote, “In 1930 the line was extended …, and in 1938 it added service ….”

Do you not see anything wrong with that? You inappropriately used the passive voice, and you created a nonparallelism. [More later about those two points.]

When you created your last new sentence in that section, you committed an error, called a comma splice, which grammarians regard as a serious mistake. [In one of the writing courses which I took, if any student ever turned in a paper containing a comma splice, he got an automatic F on that assignment.]

“A sharing arrangement”:

When you split the first sentence of the second paragraph, your new second sentence uses a verb in the passive voice rather than the active voice.

In the absence of a persuasive reason to use the passive voice, the active voice is generally strongly preferable to the passive voice.

That’s because the passive voice, as its name suggests, lacks the action, the motion, or the oomph or punch of the active voice.

When you spliced the third paragraph into the second one, you unwisely spliced two dissimilar thoughts. The first thought deals with the through-routes, whereas the second thought deals with the end of the sharing arrangement and the division of the scheduled trips.

[BTW, I must concede that I need to treat that second paragraph somewhat differently, at least by moving it to a different place.]

[Incidentally, in American English the accepted idiomatic term for a “round bracket” is “parenthesis”; the plural form is “parentheses”.]

“Between Knoxville and Bristol”:

In the second paragraph, when you added the words “based in” after “Camel City Coach Company”, you created a nonparallelism – by using a structure which differs from corresponding structures about the B&G Transit Company, just before it, and the Consolidated Coach Corporation, just after it.

At least five times in that same paragraph, you incorrectly omitted a comma after a name, failing to set it off from the following nonrestrictive adjectival prepositional phrase.

In that same paragraph, when you created two new sentences, you removed a significant statement of the purpose of the new firm.

As the first version stated, the founders created the OD Stages “to run between Knoxville and Washington”.

Your version lacks an express statement of that purpose.

[The new firm did not just happen to wind up somehow on that route sometime after its formation.]

In the fourth paragraph I purposely used parentheses – because parentheses are stronger marks than commas – to set off the parenthetical matter – so that a reader can more easily follow the somewhat tedious details about the two alternate parallel routes with similar designations.

You removed my signals or signposts.

[I’m a long-time educator who is well accustomed (and strongly oriented) to making it easier for students and readers to understand difficult material (or to make it harder for them to misunderstand it).]

When you spliced the fourth and fifth paragraphs into a single one, you spliced two dissimilar thoughts, and you left your new enlarged paragraph without a topic sentence. The first thought was the leasing of the route segment to the TCC, and the second thought was the sale and purchase of the one-third interest of Huguelet.

In your second sentence in your new fifth paragraph, your comma just before the coordinating conjunction “or” is superfluous, unjustified, and wrong.

In that same sentence the quote marks are superfluous, pointless, and distracting.

That comma and those quote marks tarnish the entire paragraph.

In that same paragraph you twice used the passive voice – “the routes were operated”, and “the through-routes were operated”.

The passive voice is bad unless it’s unavoidable, or unless it’s truly necessary for some intervening or supervening reason.

Your fifth paragraph, as it appears on a screen, leaves the name Greyhound as a widow word (that is, as a single word alone on the new next line).

Whenever I polish one of my articles, I try hard to avoid widow words (by rewording slightly).

“Sale of TCC”:

In the first sentence, when you removed the parentheses from “created specifically to buy the TCC”, you created an ambiguity, one which, in the absence of a parenthesis, a stronger mark, leaves the way open for an unalert reader to associate the modifier “named as …” with the TCC rather than the new firm.

I had used parentheses for the specific purpose of avoiding such an ambiguity (to make it harder for a reader to misunderstand).

In that same first sentence you failed to include a required comma, one required under two different rules – not only to complete setting off the abbreviation “Inc.” but also to separate it from the following nonrestrictive adjectival phrase (“owned in three shares …”).

In your new second sentence in the first paragraph, the lack of the definite article “the” before “owners” seems abrupt and unfinished.

In that same first paragraph you removed “the” several times from the names of carriers, yet you did not do so uniformly, thereby introducing an inconsistency in your usage. [That too is a form of nonparallelism.]

In the last paragraph “this was …”, strictly speaking, should be “that was …”, because the proposition in question is a previously described one (rather than a following one).

“Conclusion”:

When you discarded the section entitled “conclusion”, you utterly disregarded and violated one of the most basic principles in writing and otherwise in communication.

Every piece of writing (and every other piece of communication, whether a lecture, sermon, speech, or other presentation in public speaking) should have three distinct major parts: an introduction, a discussion or body (often consisting of more than one section), and a conclusion.

By convention and by declaration the introduction of an article at Wikipedia is not labeled as an introduction; it simply sits there and does its job.

The body or discussion, or the multiple sections (and sometimes subsections) of it, bears one or more captions.

The conclusion is the final or wrap-up statement which summarizes the article or otherwise brings it to a smooth end or closing.

What did you have in mind when you eliminated something as basic and indispensable as the conclusion?

“Later developments”:

Yes, the events in question were developments, and they took place later (after the merger of the TCC into the Continental Trailways).

But they’re not “later developments” with respect to the history of the TCC, the subject of this article.

They’re events which took place with regard to the Continental Trailways, although closely related to the continuation or the completion of the history beyond the TCC.

That’s, in the words of the late Paul Harvey, the rest of the story.

That’s why I labeled it as a postscript.

Maybe it would be better to call it an addendum, afterword, or epilog (or epilogue), or maybe “beyond the TCC”.

But “further developments” is misleading and off the mark.

In that section, when you spliced the original first two paragraphs into a single one, you spliced two dissimilar (although related) thoughts together, and you left them without a topic sentence.

The same comment applies also to the next two paragraphs.

The sentence about the ouster of Fred Currey is completely out of place when spliced onto the preceding matter.

In the paragraph about the problems of the GLI, while you broke it up into shorter sentences, you also reduced the general crispness.

The reduction in service is hardly an accomplishment, although you labeled it that way.

Finally we return to qualifications and experience.
Yes, qualifications and experience do matter, despite what you’ve suggested to the contrary.

• For example, if you took part in a hypothetical conversation about a specialized area, such as medicine, aviation, or the law, would you feel any interest in the qualifications and experience of the other speaker?

Would that help you and other listeners to decide how much or how little confidence with which to regard the comments from the other person?

If you learned that the speaker were an accomplished physician, an airline senior captain, or a successful attorney, would you tend to place more confidence in the words in question?

On the other hand, if you learned that the speaker had little, if any, specialized education or training and little, if any, experience in a professional setting in the subject area, would you and other listeners tend to place less confidence in those words?

• Please consider also another hypothetical case:

Imagine for a moment that you are a volunteer worker at a home under construction by the Habitat for Humanity, a charitable group which builds free homes for deserving needy families.

You recently began donating your work to that group.

Imagine that you’re a competent painter (a professional commercial painter), that you’ve painted one room inside that house, and that you’ve done a commendable job.

You used a brand, a type, and a color of paint which you had selected, and you used good judgment in your choices.

You’re a journeyman craftsman, so you’ve completed a thorough apprenticeship which gave you extensive preparation, and you’ve accumulated many years of practical experience of your own.

Your work there may not be perfect, but it’s good and admirable nonetheless.

After you leave, someone else, a self-taught do-it-yourself (DIY) handyman without the benefit of any training, walks into that room, expresses displeasure with your work and your paint, gets his own tools and materials, and repaints the entire room in a different color and with a different type of paint.

His work is basically OK, but he leaves a number of uncorrected runs, sags, and holidays, because he simply lacks a full understanding of many of the techniques which professional painters use to their advantage.

The next day you return, discover the change and the quality of his work, and you ask the other person about his changes and the glitches in his work.

The other one answers by saying, “Your color and your paint were not good, so I wanted to change the room; besides, I don’t care about whether you’re a professional commercial painter, I don’t care about your experience or your reputation, and I don’t know anything about those runs, sags, and holidays, because to me they look just fine.”

You sincerely concede to him that maybe his choices of paint and color were even better than yours.

However, the DIY handyman continues, “Furthermore, if you’re not willing for me or someone else like me to come along behind you and redo your work, then maybe you’d better not try to do any more volunteer work here for this group, because my buddies and I have a right to change anything to make it look the way we think it should, and if you don’t like it, maybe you’d better go get a paying job somewhere else, so you can make sure that nobody messes up your work”.

The other painter has taken part at the Habitat for Humanity for nearly four years, although you’re a newbie there.

He obviously is considerably younger than you, young enough that social etiquette requires him to behave toward you with a certain degree of respect and courtesy.

You feel that the other painter has behaved toward you in a rude, ugly, impudent, abrasive, in-your-face, and disrespectful way, and that he has shown you much rejection and exclusion rather than welcoming and inclusion.

You think that it’s OK for his painting skills to be less good than yours, but you also think that it was presumptuous and counterproductive of him to substitute his judgment and his personal preferences (in the color and the type of the paint) in the place of yours and to substitute his less skillful work for yours.

Did the other painter behave right or wrong?

Yes, qualifications and experience do matter.
Of course, they do not always necessarily guarantee a better result.
Still, though, generally speaking, the people with the applicable qualifications and experience are in a better position to know and to comment about what’s right or good within the areas of their expertise.
Youth has its advantages, and age and wisdom also have many other advantages.
Age produces not only longevity but also wisdom, and the accumulated wisdom of age results in part from qualifications and experience.
You suggested that I had not studied about the Wikipedia before I began to take part.
Well, I had indeed done so; I even did so enough to enable me to recognize that some of your behavior toward me and my work appears to have violated several of the principles and guidelines of Wikipedia.
Now let’s return to the article about the Tennessee Coach Company.
You apparently overlooked one important part of one of my requests to you: I did not ask you to abstain completely from changing any of my other articles at any time, but I did ask you to postpone your doing so until after we have an opportunity to discuss your changes about the TCC.
Already I’ve nearly completed my own revision of it.
I did so in part by using some of your advice.
I’ll soon finish it and post it.
If you wish to comment on it, or if you wish to respond to my comments about your changes, I’ll give your words my careful, perceptive, sensitive, and respectful attention.
Sincere good wishes,
Doc – DocRushing (talk) 02:16, 16 August 2009 (UTC).

Hey Doc, I'd like to start to reply at the end of your message and share my philosopy about age and wisdom with you. It is a common mistake to believe that "wisdom" develops automatically with age. It does not, some people do just get old. So relating old age with "automatic" wisdom is not really a valid argument.

I'll put my response into just a few sentences as the matter is not important enough for me to spend hours on it. All my edits were done in a succession, so it does not matter if they were doen in one session or paragraph by paragraph, you can undo them as easily as the same edits done in one session.

As you might have noticed, the vast majority of my edits were to reduce sentence length, consolidate paragraphs and remove redundant "also called ..." phrases. I found these repetitions hard to read and unncessary. The proper technique to introduce abbreviations is to use the full name, mention the abbreviation in brackets and from then on use the abbreviation in the text. That is the reason for the removal of the many "also called" phrases. They make the text "uncrisp" and stretch it longer than necessary.

Brackets, whether round or square make the text harder to read for the casual reader. Clear sentences serve the purpose better. As you mentioned yourself, you wrote too much in a manner that might be easy to read for highly educated people or specialist who know the jargon. When reading your words above and your articles, let me assure you that my IQ and yours are certainly not far apart. Wikipedia, however, attracts and appeals to the casual reader who might only be equipped with average intelligence. Wikipedia articles should be written to be understood by as many people as possible. Jargon terms like you mentioned above can also be introduced by putting them in quotation marks at their first appearance and as jargon, by definition, might not be easily understood by a non-specialist it is always a good idea to explain the term in a short, defining sentence.

Altogether, it might be a good idea to keep the man (or woman, of course) on the street in mind when writing articles at Wikipedia, not students or other highly intelligent or educated folks like us, as that is not Wikipedia's target audience, neither are transport enthusiasts.

Introduction: The introduction is meant to summarize the article as a whole in a few paragraphs. Thus making a conclusion as you understand it unnecessary. If you consider to re-do the introduction you might include more key facts there, summarizing the whole article. Following this understanding, it would not be required to include a formal "conclusion" of the article, which, by the way, would be rather uncommon for an encyclopedic article.

Anyway, have fun and just undo those of my changes you did not like.

Take care,

doxTxob \ ^talk 02:19, 19 August 2009 (UTC)