User talk:Artystarty

second nature...

Artystarty, you wrote, the Buddy Bear is a marketing tool. I think it is much more. The Buddy Bear, the Brandenburg Gate, the Fernsehturm: they all are symbols of Berlin.

The German Embassy in the USA describes the Buddy Bear as follows: "The Buddy Bear has become an unofficial ambassador for Germany and a symbol of Berlin" and also calls it "a medium of contemporary art". The Buddy Bears are most definitely not a marketing idea developed by the city of Berlin. The project is a completely private initiative. All global United Buddy Bears exhibitions are non-profit events! Any surplus generated in the context of these exhibitions is transferred to a number of different children’s aid organisations. (http://www.germany.info/Vertretung/usa/en/__pr/GKs/NEWY/2011/11/09__Buddy__Bear.html?archive=1998824)

Best regards, Bushida — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bushida (talk • contribs) 11:45, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

My point is, that the bears are neither architecture nor important enough to get inclusion in other parts of the Berlin article. Artystarty (talk) 14:30, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Buddy Bears

You state Buddy Bears are "neither a museum nor a gallery", true, but as a quite special and unique feature of Berlin, it deserves a mention on our Berlin page. Since it is primatily artistic, it fits in the section of museums and galleries. If not there, where else? Alandeus (talk) 14:31, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

As a bystander who watches the Berlin article and who has beobachtet the Buddy Bear back-and-forth, I'd like to suggest that edit-warring isn't the best way to go about improving the article. I don't care one way or the other about the damned bears, but disingenuous reverts (like "clean up") and automatic reverts are starting to tend towards the counterproductive. If you think the image of the BB is taking up valuable space that could be given to a much more important, central, or recognizable aspect of Berlin's culture, make your case on the talk page; you never know, people might be receptive to it. But so far, I've only gotten the impression that you want to remove them because you don't like them, which isn't enough of a reason. I hope this makes sense. Sindinero (talk) 17:27, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Quite frankly, it is rather obvious that I have argued very thoroughly why an image of these bears hardly qualifies to get included in the article. Artystarty (talk) 23:40, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

That's not frank at all, that's disingenuous. Obviously you haven't made your case - I have no stake in this, I'm neither for nor against inclusion of the bears, but your edit warring is getting really disruptive. The only reasons you've given against the bears seem to be variations of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. That is not acceptable grounds for editing wikipedia. Sindinero (talk) 07:31, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Your edits

With this edit you're walking a very thin line. I also note that your account seems solely devoted to fighting the "Buddy Bears". If you are trying to convince others of your position, such editing behaviour is not helpful or persuasive. Malljaja (talk) 16:12, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd add this to that. And most of the other times you've removed the image without consensus under a disingenous edit summary. Sindinero (talk) 17:36, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

What are you talking about ? There is one user (Alandeus) who frequently tries to implement highly contentious material. Image material that has no base in written content and violates therefore the MOS. Yes, I´m the one who not only questions the image, but also made the case with several arguments against it. I´m not walking a thin line. Because I merely install a version which is not contested. As you both hopefully know a RFC is undergoing. It is disrespectul and violating the rules of the RFC to hold up the controversial version. I could easily report Sindinero and Alandeus at an edit warring board because of these interferences.

Sindinero´s role remains highly controdictional. He claims to not like the Bears but reintroduces an image of the bears. Then Sindinero claims to be neutral (In the RFC) but still either reintroduces the controversial material or, even worse, accuses other users (me) to be dishonest. @Sindinero: In a truly neutral role you have two choices: Either you make no edit at all or you promote the traditional version of the article before the image were introduced while reminding everybody to wait until the RFC has ended. Think about it, you two.

One last hint in advance. If the RFC has no consensus, the obvious conclusion will be to stick to the version before the controversial image material was introduced. Artystarty (talk) 20:43, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Please report me, if you feel you have a case. Anyone who looks at the history can see that you're the one who really intensified the edit-warring and who has behaved improperly during the RfC. The image was in place, the article was stable, and then you started removing it without a good reason other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I haven't accused any other users BUT you of being dishonest - this is because you repeatedly altered the article without consensus and without explanation under mendacious (that means "lying") edit summaries like "clean up". I see my role during the RfC as encouraging discussion and movement towards consensus, which I believe I've upheld; continuing the contentious removals during the RfC is what's problematic. I made every attempt to reach a compromise between you and Alandeus (the two originally sparring editors); I even tried to elicit some argument from you that would justify your case, even suggesting that you offer a different image in place of the bears. No movement or compromise on your part.

You keep mentioning the MOS - can you cite a specific passage that says that there shouldn't be pictures of bears in the article on Berlin (or other variant thereof)?

Controdictional isn't a word. Contradictional isn't even a word.

Your "one last hint in advance" sounds more like a threat. If the RfC doesn't reach consensus (it looks like it won't be unanimous, but as of now more people are for inclusion than against, so...), the obvious conclusion is NOT to remove the bears. I challenge you to find a single passage in the description of the RfC process that would suggest that outcome.

Your editorial behavior is getting increasingly petulant (means "whiny") and absurd. The problem with the Berlin article, if you keep this up, will not be that there happens to be one picture among many others that isn't a perfect representation of Berlin, but that there's an incompetent, uncompromising editor who trashes the stability of the article because you don't like it.

Sindinero (talk) 22:35, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

To add to Sindinero's comments, please do not conflate your perspective with that of others — the image in question is not controversial per se; the dispute simply revolves around whether or not its subject is notable enough to be included in the entry. You — having created a single-purpose account to wage a battle against its inclusion — have made it your mission to make it appear a controversial issue. In so doing and testing the good faith of other contributors you've done quite a bit of damage to your own case. And while digging in of heels may work in politics nowadays, it is not the way to build consensus and progress to an agreeable solution. Malljaja (talk) 23:47, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

@Sindinero. Your accusations concerning you don't like it are ignored by now. As I have delivered several arguments why the bears are neither iconic nor important nor used in any other Wikipedia language. Obviously I´m not alone with this stance. And yes, if there is no consenusus, the non controversial version will be reinstalled, there was no stable longterm even no midterm version with a bear image. I´m very irritated why the so called neutral user supports a single other user (Alandeus) who is the only user trying to squeeze in the image. And yes, the MOS is violated as images are only thought of being an addition to the text, which in case of the bears does not exist. And yes it violates the MOS a second time because it overlaps with the section below. Artystarty (talk) 22:22, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think you really understand how Wikipedia works. I'm not supporting anyone or anything but the consensus process, and the interests of a stable article. If the MOS objection is your only one, then that can be addressed by moving the bear image elsewhere. More users than not (please maybe read the RfC) are for inclusion of the bears. Sindinero (talk) 23:27, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

If you are truly interested in a stable article (and a neutral arbitrator position) you should have taken the chance to install the stable longterm version before the bear image was introduced. Instead, you re-introduced the contentious material. And by the way, I´m absolutely convinced that by now you know exactly that the MOS is not the only argument I have put forward. Artystarty (talk) 20:25, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

You're actually not making any sense at all any more. What do you mean by "you should have taken the chance to install the stable longterm version before the bear image was introduced"? And yes, you have advanced other arguments than a vague gesturing towards "MOS", but none of them are valid; they all fall under WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Sindinero (talk) 00:19, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Revolutions of 1989 online Wikipedia challenge

--Kippelboy (talk) 15:24, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Berlin, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Variety. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:58, 22 December 2015 (UTC)