Talk:Biff Rose/Archive 4
We are still editing and reediting the discography....this should remain on the talk page. --Sojambi Pinola 06:38, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
- 1 Discography
- 2 Vandalism vs. Disagreement
- 3 please read
- 4 buying silence
- 5 NEW CLEANUP
- 6 Don't Archive Active Discussions
- 7 New Activity
- 8 Removing unsourced image
- 9 Replacing sentence?
- 10 "Successful" unprotection
- 11 Still the conflict?!
- 12 Let me rephrase that then
- 13 ANTI SEMITISM
- 14 Biff posts changes on messageboard that he then enacts on wikipedia contradictory to established past
- 15 Trouble with an editor
We should be able to come up with a definitive list of commercially released albums and singles. Let's start with the headings.
- Officially Released
- Self Released
- Out of Print Compilations
- In Print Compilations
Those should be in sentence case. Do folks agree on those headings? -Will Beback 08:31, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- I think those sound reasonable. I have changed them to sentence case, and re-added the record covers which were deleted from the discography by Jonah. I also re added the descriptions of Rose's musical style that were deleted without explanation. Finally I re-incorporated a new version of the sentence dealing with racism and antisemitism. It makes not direct claims about Rose's online work, only that it deals with race and religion. Then I wrote that this has created a series of accusations of racism and antisemitism in various online chat groups. While online chat groups are not officially a source, the fact remains that these criticisms are out there, posted in various places. I think that this should satisfy both SP (by being NPOV) and Ayers (by bringing up the issue). Hope this helps. I agree with Will, let's move on. Marcuse 14:45, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- I do wonder at the designations of "self-released" vs. "officially released." At what point does one become the other? "Bone Again" and "Elizabethan Period" were funded by people or companies other than Biff, and given professional print runs of a few to several thousand; they were distributed through non-internet indie channels, and reviewed in Mojo magazine. "Roast Beef" was pressed using Biff's royalties, but then it was picked up by a distributor who slapped their own record label's sticker on the cover; several thousand were produced and sold. "Hamburger Blues" was an "official" release that may have been a smaller print run than some of Biff's website releases. "Uncle Jesus" was a major label album that is harder to find than "Roast Beef." "The Pickwick album was an "offical" compilation of far seedier origin than some of the indie releases. The whole issue of "in print" vs. "out of print" is a bit difficult to assess as well. If copies are sealed, stockpiled and available, isn't the album still "in print"?
- My concern with these categories is that they tend to appear at the same times that text changes are made diminishing Biff's accomplishments; and they seem to be included as part of the intent of that effort. If you look at other artists' discographies, these distinctions are rarely made. For example, see Sun_Ra. A great many of Sun Ra's albums were self-released, including most of the artistic milestones. It is a vague and misleading designation. Why not go for straight chronology?
- And to confirm Marcuse's interpretation, I was not implying that Marcuse initiated a given edit. Is someone trying to start fights where they ain't? --Sojambi Pinola 19:58, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
The problem here is that you wrote something, a line that went unsingned, but on closer inspection was found to be added by you but attributed by you to someone esle. You then followed this by saying that you agreed with the line. Very unwiki of you.Wallawe
- Indeed, someone is trying to start fights where they ain't. --Sojambi Pinola 21:13, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Wallawe/Jonah, I'm curious what the "released on cdr" that you keep adding to the discography means? What is cdr? As far as the self vs. officially why don't we just simply put "Full length releases" and combine them? Marcuse 22:32, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- In most of these cases "cdr" is not an accurate designation. Some of them were glass-mastered CDs. But as I said above, I don't think that's too important, anyway. --Sojambi Pinola 23:25, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- And now I understand what you are referring to: . That's something I do a lot. It's called "Paragraphs." Here, I'll do one right now. Here goes....
- The first paragraph was one sentence long and went: "Judiasm is targeted" is a really problematic phrase.
- Then, as I had an additional comment on a different topic, I skipped a line, kept the same indent, and continued. I assumed that someone with a minimal level of intelligence would understand that these were part of the same entry, and that only one signature would be necessary.
- Thank you for your concern.--Sojambi Pinola 23:39, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- A CD-R, by the way, is an individually burned, homemade CD. --Sojambi Pinola 14:49, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
- I see, CD-R. Somehow I thought cdr was some other abbreviation. Were these really homemade releases?? Marcuse 21:38, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
- In most cases, no. I'm not positive about the post-2001 releases, since I don't have original copies. --Sojambi Pinola 03:07, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Actually yes they are, they have glued on tops, that when removed say CD-R. 22.214.171.124 17:56, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Vandalism vs. Disagreement
What the anonymous user/Jonah is doing is not disagreeing. You are deleting large part of an article and calling this a difference of opinion. What you are doing is vandalism through and through. Perhaps we can get a member of the Arbitration Committee to mediate? I somehow don't think that they would sympathize with your side of things. My offer still stands, if you recuse yourself (including ALL your sockpuppets and IPs) from this article so will I. Marcuse 04:28, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
i absolutely agree to recuse myself including all sock puppets etc, mary hope is not a sock puppet. if oyu agree to let her take part here, I will recuse myself. Absolutely.126.96.36.199 04:29, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Whatever. I'll recuse myself anyway. This is not worth my time. Later, Marcuse 04:33, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
- Hey, Mr. Multi-IP, what's this all about? Perhaps I'd leave this query on your user page, but you don't have any one user page...you gots several. You left the following on User:Derex's page. As it concerns the drama surrounding this article, I think it is worthy of note here:  Start at "Biff Rose" and continue down....
- My favorite parts: If I do get banned from this place, it's really not that big of a deal, considering for my entire time here I've been using the ip address of my upstairs neighbor, who has a non static address system. I have another three I've never used. I'll be here. Editing, and weeding out useless anger mongers such as yourself who purport to heal this place but in actuality act as dumb minded and fascistic oriented A-**** notice I dind't call you an a-**** jsut that you acted like one-....
- ....don't come to this ip address anylonger, i won't be here. I've already gotten a new one. Bully, small minded and weak willed....
- ....I'll notify you one time from my other , non controversial admin identity once this is all over. maybe we can have a cup of joe. A southerner? You, again, I don't believe it, there is very little that is gentlemanly about you.
- So you'll just keep harrassing people no matter what, ay? Speaking of "ungentlemanly".... --Sojambi Pinola 15:47, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
- [The following was added only to archive#3:]
- I know, you really do get to be smarmy don't you sojambi, so good of you to admit it.Jonah Ayers 02:46, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. This is a new guideline, endorsed & instigated by Jimbo. The intent is to keep Wikipedia out of legal jeopardy, as well as to be fair. I believe this is relevant reading, given some of the contentiousness of this article. Derex 17:05, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
This was left on my talk page:
- If I were you I would post pics and such, because you seem to be so darn kooky. And I love your tone, I see your spreading the love over to Fleetwood mac. Sadly, you're not a very strong writer. Which is too bad because you do seem to know a little bit about the Mac, but not all that much.
- I'll join you over there in a bit, once you get to be more sarcastic and bilious. As for now, I'll stay here, and watch you. I like the way you try and corner the market on witticism, no, wait, I don't really like it, you end up being a little trite on some occasions, and you have a tendency for smug affirmations.
- Ah well, that's fine. Here's my offer, I'll give you 535.99 USD to go a full year off this site, no edits, you can read as much as you like. I love Brooklyn, what can I say. you found my sweetspot. So what do you say? I'll put the money in a paypal escrow account, and you quit all of wiki for a year. no cheating, we'll be able to figure out if it's you, i know that applecheeked writing style when I read it. So give it good thinking, there buddy boy, and you can help save brooklyn, rather than wasting your time reverting edits and writing hopelessly POV articles about your hero biff rose.Jonah Ayers 09:07, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
For the record, my silence can be bought, but only for three years of my salary up front. And then I'd probably still find sneaky ways around it, like getting friends or indentured servants to do my bidding, or at least vote their conscience around here....which would make it a not very good deal, I suppose. Plus, anyone paying such sums would have to reveal their core identity, which may mean they would have to find it. All interested parties would also have to stop calling me at 1:40 am, and would certainly have to stop leaving death threats for the subject of the article (had they ever started such practices, of course). All told, my price is probably too high for the average joe. --Sojambi Pinola 15:13, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
- i'm dying to know what this is really all about, jonah. biff must have really pissed you off about something for you to spend _this_ much time harassing a wikipedia article. i'd love to have been a fly on the wall when whatever it was went down. Derex 16:12, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
- Contrary to the note left on Derex's page, Rose was not "banned from playing the Echo." He did, however, cancel a recently scheduled appearance in LA....a scheduled appearance that one of the "IP editors" had been writing to Biff about in a very threatening manner. I believe Rose cancelled for other reasons, but it's worth noting that this drama extends beyond this bio.
- Furthermore, one of the citations/links refers to a Robert Christgau review in which Rose is described as a "comedian." Please stop removing references to his comedy career. --Sojambi Pinola 19:54, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, but there is no career, jsut like there really isn't a tv writing career, he did both things for a half an hour, and Christgau reports he found him funny, that doesn't give him a comedy career.Jonah Ayers 20:01, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
- Christgau refers to him as a comedian. Several of his albums are spoken-word comedy albums. "Half-Live At The Bitter End" and "Thee Messiah Album" come to mind. They are dominated by stand-up routines with a live audience. --Sojambi Pinola 21:50, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
- perhaps that would be useful information to include in the article? Derex 21:54, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
If this guy puts a line in aboiut every review he digs up about rose, then we're sort of magnifiying the importance of Rose. Better to link it, and leave the piece as it is. If Sojambi had his way the article would be a 5 stars out of 5 review praising rose and ignoring any of the more mercurial aspects of his life. i think it's best to als okeep in mind that Rose's Academy Award winning former songwriting partner Paul Williams has a less actual sentences written about him in his entry, it's longer than the wki entry for one of rolling stone's 100 greatest guitar players of all time, Wayne Kramer, and is a bigger entry than one of the record labels he recorded for, Buddah Records. By allowing his entry to gain such size and space we're denigrating these other extremely important people and things... rose has a value, it's just not on the par of these others, and so curtailing the article to the size of his influence and the scope of his work seems to be the best way to handle this, instead of heaping lavish praise on the man, let's write a succinct and honest article.Jonah Ayers 01:24, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
- That's a starvation mentality. The denigration is in your own head. Not all things good are big, not all things good are small. This article is the size it is because that is the length of the information at present. There's plenty of other information that should be added once citations can be found. Who's to say who's more "important" than who else? You are important, too, Jonah, even though you are not even semi-famous. And me too! We are all special. I learned that here. (Really!!!!)
- Just a little suggestion for ya! :)
- Also, don't archive active discussions. This is an active discussion. --Sojambi Pinola 05:36, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Archived material in the archive, the page grows and grows and grows, let's start some real discussions rather than ennervating attack, why don't we?Jonah Ayers 05:28, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Don't Archive Active Discussions
Jonah, I will ask you again. Please do not archive this active discussion. There is actually a Wikipedia rule about this, I do believe; I will look for it. We are in a dispute. You are hiding evidence of a dispute.
--Sojambi Pinola 06:03, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
yeha you do that.. in the meantime i've left this part opened and unarchived.Jonah Ayers 06:11, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
- This, left repeatedly, is POV:
- 1978's Roast Beef was recorded by Mike Nesmith in a single take and is atonal and aurally violent at times.
- This comment, below, left on my talk page deserves discussion here. Anybody?
- I agree that some of those articles should be expanded. But an abundance for a mediocre anti semitic racist? no I think not, it's not censorship, it's jsut putting a small person in his place, a few sentences to describe his small contribution. And thats that. you don't write every single thing you read about hendrix, same goes for rose. these are biographical entries, not a list of every occurence in the person's life.Jonah Ayers
- --Sojambi Pinola 06:25, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
that looks good to me!!!Jonah Ayers 06:39, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
yes, i'll fix the POVJonah Ayers
done, actualyl quoted your old line, albeit in shorter form. ta taJonah Ayers
- The shorter form changes the meaning, doesn't it? It remains inaccurate, and I believe you are aware of this. --Sojambi Pinola 06:42, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
- I believe you are aware of this, and i am unaware of this, or maybe the cows are in the kitchen, oh well, that's just fishy. There just words from a zeitgeist teeth.Jonah Ayers 06:51, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
These new edits are obviously more work of the sockpuppets of the banned guy. You are using a bunch of names to avoid the 3RR. You are also citing an interview of mine, but taking a phrase out of context, and by doing so, changing its meaning. The original sentence you are citing goes:
It's fourteen songs played one right after the other, with these wild, violent piano improvisations in between them.
That is not the same as saying that the album has been described as a "violent piano improvisation." It is a misquote and does not belong in the article. --Sojambi Pinola 05:23, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Ha. Ha. The point being...It's an album of songs mixed with improvisations. --Sojambi Pinola 06:21, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
A clarification of record labels:
Roast Beef-downpatrecords (distributed by Pacific Arts)
Thee Messiah Album (LIve at Gatsby's)-downpatrecords (distributed by Pacific Arts)
The record company name is all one word and lower case. This is downpatercords name and copyrighted logo.
Removing unsourced image
This page contains an unsourced images that will be removed tomorrow, I don't imagine that is the source of the controversy regarding this page but I wanted to let stakeholders know, in case there is any objection. The images are Image:Biffpress.jpg and Image:Biffpaint.jpg and have been tagged as no source for over 7 days. If anyone is aware of their source please change the tag to the appropriate one. Thanks. - cohesion★talk 18:06, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
- Dear Admins,
- If possible, it would be great to remove the following sentence:
- The music was written by Rose and the lyrics were written by Williams.
- and replace it with the more accurate:
- The lyrics were written by Rose and Williams, and the music was written by Rose.
- As I cannot supply a citation for this at present, removing the sentence altogether would work as well.
- Thank you. --Sojambi Pinola 05:19, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Wow, this page unprotection is working out just great!! Again! lol. --Sojambi Pinola 22:32, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Succesful Fascism Included
If you mean that your edits have been dictated by Biff Rose, and that some other people have views they can back up that differ strongly from his opinion of himself, well yes it's succesful You have been found, User:Sojambi Pinola to have written, or edited exactly how Biff Rose has desired, which is in essence writing autoiogrpahy, something which wikipedia strongly discourages. You should keep going this way, because the more outrageous of these I can put together, the more case I'll have against you... the rose message board posts that have included direct instructions form Rose to you about what to write on Wikipedia have been erased, but ... they were cached and saved before hand. Screenshots have been taken and another wikipedian is taking the info to the admins that do not police this board. Siobhan Mcnally
- I am shaking in my shoes. (rolls eyes at threatening language of yours.)
- As admins have said on this page before, Mr. Rose is allowed to edit his own entry, so there would be no problem with me making changes for him, or taking suggestions from him as I formulate what I write. That said, I make my own decisions. I do my best to write in a manner appropriate to the spirit of the Wikipedia project. --Sojambi Pinola 17:05, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
- These are serious accusations. I'd like to see some of the screenshots documenting such egregious behavior. Marcuse 17:20, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Still the conflict?!
- Yes, only now we've settled on calling him user:Jonah Ayers. -Will Beback 23:48, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
- When we call him at all, we call him Jonah_Ayers. But I fear that --given the amount of mortal effort he expends vandalizing-- he overrates the amount of headache, heartache, attention-yanking, and mortal effort he causes others at this point. It's a little gauche, and perhaps counterproductive to his cause, that he gloats. It is more than a little concerning that --at his age-- he is so proud of his cleverness in what is basically an extended game of Ding Dong Ditching.
- That may sound a little harsh, but I say it in the true hope that he finds more positive, socially connecting, community-building uses of his time. His "me-against-everyone-else" way of doing things causes me the most heartache, and that's heartache for his sake.
- Sadly, he will probably, predictably, counter this with another of his accusatory attacks, rather than receiving this in a good way. Or, just as predictably, he will pretend to play lip service to it, and continue his behavior shortly thereafter, here or elsewhere. I truly hope I am wrong....again, for the sake of the best use of his time.
- If this is an inappropriate place to post this, or an inappropriate tone to take, I apologize. I can't be bothered to file a formal complaint right now, which is probably the more "correct" action.
- All my best, Sojambi Pinola 00:16, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- Thousands upon thousands of identities, eh? Why do I believe him? Really, it's all quite funny till some one ends up on the floor bloodied. Listen, John Ayers ... it is proven that if you fracture your personality intentionally through the use of many distinct personas that your chances of actually losing a firm grip on who you are increases dramatically. Wouldn't want you to develop uncontrollable DID any time soon :-/ — HopeSeekr of xMule (Talk) 16:02, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- All my best, Sojambi Pinola 00:16, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
this isn't vandalism- it's editing. Biff Rose wrote a melody to song that feautred lyrics and music by Paul Williams, who graciously allowed Rose to have credit on the song. This is precisely why Wiki fails, because if a group of people decide to believe one version of a story, they band together and label any alternative version as false, including factually backed up events, by doing so, they- the dominant group- can mislead the world. Hence- Wikipedia is not allowed to be cited for official documents or for scholastic endeavors. This is because those who have been granted administratorship, like Will Be Back have differing levels of morality, and often abuse their power. Since the current model of Wiki has been in effect literally thousands of administrators have been bounced fro mtheir duties, another very telling detail about the process of wikipedia. It's important to note that Biff Rose has been called racist and anti semitic, and by viable sources. It is also important to note that Rose has disavowed every single one of the people he has worked with in the past, presenting all of them, from management to agent, to label head honchos in very unfavorable light on his website message board, and other times in his songs. To label anyone who tries to represent this information as a vandal is totally ridiculous. I'm not Jonah Ayers anymore than I'm Walter, labelled thusly by biff's mouthpiece on here, Steve, er Sojambi Pinola. I'm actually a resident of New Orleans who has served mr. rose a number of the drinks he's sucked down since the early 90's. It's time to actually allow the other side of the story to be presented. a quick look at Rose's websites and messageboard will present the details of his mercurial albeit infinitesimal career. my goodness.Willy B. Bach
- Like I said....--Sojambi Pinola 22:28, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Let me rephrase that then
Please check out the poems about Hitler and Bob Dylan and Zionism on Biffrose.biz and biffrose.net.
rose has been accused of Anti semitism numerous times due to postings found on his web presences. these are listed on the article. Online, Rose has been challenged by numerous writers, and editors about his angry anti semitic stance, and Rose has never once disavowed anti semtism, but answers with riddles. "I"m no jew, and jews know I'm the real deal. Beware." This is a quote from a 1999 interview with Denver writer Thom Murtle. Doing it again 06:22, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
- I keep these on file to avoid wasting time with you. Your old sockpuppets:. Former incidents involving you making the same sorts of claims:, . And a page where you gloat about your tactics and attempts to waste my time:  There. That took about half a minute. --Sojambi Pinola 17:05, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
I keep a lot on file to keep you from wasting all our time... that's why I'm only calling you by your true name now, Biff. Biff, release your negativee intentions. Stop making up these lies. Stop offending the mentality of wikipedians everywhere. Above all else, stop being ANTI SEMITIC.188.8.131.52 21:55, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
By allotting someone else my persona, Biff, you are really allowing this is what you do with the Sojambi persona.184.108.40.206
Biff posts changes on messageboard that he then enacts on wikipedia contradictory to established past
You wrote : Dear Admins, If possible, it would be great to remove the following sentence: The music was written by Rose and the lyrics were written by Williams. and replace it with the more accurate: The lyrics were written by Rose and Williams, and the music was written by Rose. As I cannot supply a citation for this at present, removing the sentence altogether would work as well. Thank you. --Sojambi Pinola 05:19, 26 March 2006 (UTC) 
and on biff's message board: they're not getting it right on the wiki wide world web. I need to get over there and change to how I see things going down... this is walter into wine... but Williams is more whine than rhyme.. I must change the flow...[]
Trouble with an editor
For over a year and a half I have been harrassed by the editor formerly known as Willmcw, who now goes by the rather dubious sobriquet of Will beback. IT is the same person. HE's been involved in numerous spats with people online- some to be fair ae noble, but for the most part he hunts down and antagonizes anyone who does not agree with him. An article about someone who appears to be his father keeps disappearing from the online wikipedia. He then puts a block on whoever created it. This is clearly a design to keep information off of wikipedia. The article doens't mention his identity on here, I happen to be familiar enough with the facts to know, but I haven't spread the information. It has become clear that if willmcw/will beback disagrees with you he exhibits a strong force- one that goes against the rules of being a mediator on wikipedia, which he is- and tries to force the individual he hasa disagreement with off of the site. What's more, he curries favor with other individuals who also bend the rules at their every whim, so an alliance of sort is established. Kate0fan was one of these, and in her particular case she was forced off of wikipedia because of the disinformation she was forcing on others and the website, once it became clear that she was an actual journalist, and was in jeopardy of losing her job. SOjambi Pinola is another, he swears he is not the subject of the article Biff Rose, yet every time Biff Rose mentions his desires as to how the wiki article should read, this sojambi character then carries those instructions out. That is a sure case of sock puppetry. More important to that case, several bits of information are downright false, and other bits are erased, even though they have satisfactory documentation by wikipedia standards. It is known that Rose has been called an Anti Semite and a Racist by magazines ranging from Offbeat, to LA Alternative Weekly, to the SF weekly- though this last one minced words and did a string of double talk sentences so as not to most fully offend Rose. On Wikipedia, when these instances are cited, they are immediately withdrawn by a certain will beback, and the poster is blocked summarily, for a week or even for indefiinite periods, or Sojambi Pinola starts a revert war, for which he has yet to serve any blockage of time. Because some other people took the matter of Rose into their own hands, and wrote some unfavorable and also untrue things about Rose and a supposed arrest for sexual misconduct with a minor, anyone who disagrees with Rose and rose sockpuppet Sojambi Pinola are then accused of creating fallacies. This is how wikipedia runs now. Untruths, and undocumented bits of info are accepted if presented to the right bully. And citeable information is refused on the basis of being suspect, although it is not so. In the instance of Biff Rose, and a host of other articles this has been left to the devices of Willmcw/Will be back, KeteOfan, and someone known as Slimvirgin. These people have formed an alliance and supported each other in every battle the other has gotten into, and proposed each other for promotion to administration roles on the site. It is this most vicious sort of Nepotistic behavior that is clouding the very outlook of wikipedia, which deems to keep its good eye shut to this behavior. I imagine that even this posting will be erased by Wilmcw/Will beback. I will then repost it, and a circle will be established until finally willmcw/will beback will then block me from posting or editing for an indefinite period of time. This is most certainly harrassment. What's more, Willmcw/will beback then searches out any edits the people he dislikes, and manhandles them, or erases them regardless of their virtue. In some few cases he has been right to do so, but with most, he has simply turned editing into a more severe form of bullying anyone with a dissenting point of view. Case in point is the Fleetwood Mac articel where some soldi edits and rewrites were undertaken to clarify points. But because the name of the editor was that of someone Willmcw/will beback had already done battle with, he then erased all of the edits, reverting the article back to an almost unreadable an nonsnsical state. This has happened at a myriad of articles. It is a tragedy.Ivy Hezza 17:42, 28 July 2006 (UTC)