"again, little of that is relevant, whether true or not, including the ridiculous allegation of a ""tantrum"" (whatever the size). personal talk is to be avoided on article talk pages, so i won't comment further on your ""degree"" issues. i encourage you though, if you've time, to consider reviewing the article history and perhaps noting who it was that first raised the issue of legality with regard to the killing of bonnie parker. if too busy for that, maybe you could at least revisit my comments above — especially the one in which i say that i agree with you that she was murdered. i'm confused by your apparent fabrication of a conflict here when none exists except with respect to what can be stated factually in the article. let me spell it out for you: as far as that goes, you're arguing a point with somebody who not only agrees with you, but has stated so explicitly from the outset. that's a good indicator that my problem with your edits is wikipedia-related, not opinion-related. please let the personality side go and concentrate on editing in an encyclopedic fashion. thanks.  

Since I am back reediting this article, you are right, personality differences should play no role  but facts should.  Wikipedia exists as a limitless repository of facts, and the facts of Bonnie;s legal status are well known and need to be published.  I think we agree on the facts, we just need to put this article in more professional form.OLDWIINDYBEAR12/12/05

I feel my edits are well and professionally done, in an encyclopedic fashion.  As to the Bonnie Parker matter, we agree she was murdered, so it was merely finding language that was appropriate.  I felt mine was, you disagreed, such is life.  I still find your mode of discussion offensive, but frankly, we both have better things to do than bandy semantics, so have a nice evening. OLDWINDYBEAR

 RfC discussion 

 Hikaru Utada song? 

The song ""B&C;"" by Japanese pop singer Hikaru Utada names ""Bonnie and Clyde"" in its lyrics. Is this too obscure to be a relevant pop culture reference? Lyrics can be found here.

nothing wrong with popping it in to see if it stays. i don't think it's any more obscure than other stuff there.  

 why wikipedia ultimately sucks 

it requires perpetual vigilance if your effort's not to be wasted. can't walk away from solid ground, job done. this article was stable, and it's now being degraded regularly by wannabe newspaper editorialists and overt point makers, using the ""note insertion"" method (do a POV jig here, thrust another there). it's like watching a dog wander a field to lift his leg whenever something catches his nose. inserting sentences here and there is the laziest, most worthless ""editing"" one can do. may as well use a red sharpie. but i'm not touching this article; have at it. convert the investment of many good editors into your pee ground, forcing them either to acquiesce, or follow some snot nose around with kleenex, preserving a precious syllable as able (""look, johnny, you pooped out a syllable that we kept!""), arguing for 5 hours with a dull gasbag in the process. idiocy.

and probably some officious prig will wipe this comment (""NPA! NPA!""), while leaving the infantile changes to the article intact. the usual wikipedia hack elevation story  slackers welcomed and coddled, good editors slapped on the hand like ignorami for being pissed about the slackers and not pretending we're in a group therapy session. while that's the policy, official or not, the material's gonna blow. enjoy! wikipedia will either restrict access or fail.  

please take the time to review this page's history, and notice that within two minutes of me leaving the comment above, an admin had swooped in, also leaving an inappropriate comment on my user page! too poetic. meanwhile, look at the article. aren't the articles the reason for the superstructure? correction to what i wrote above: the laziest, most worthless ""editing"" one can do is NPA/language babysitting and control-freaking. wikipedia admin culture is laughably inept. this article was hammered all month, and did you see admins fretting so? not a chance. what a disaster this place is. nanny-boo bureaucrats with jangly key rings. i'm the one who expanded this article from a good stub, with the aux help of probably 5-7 other editors (now gone), and i, not the vandals, am being told, quite paternalistically, to take my comments to the sandbox! unreal incompetence. did you see the admins jumping in on the RfC i started above? not one. but say ""sucks"" somewhere, and they're falling over one another to g