Jump to content

User talk:Scieberking: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Scieberking (talk | contribs)
6,352 edits
No edit summary
Scieberking (talk | contribs)
6,352 edits
MiszaBot not working :-s
Line 1: Line 1:
{{User:MiszaBot/config
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|algo = old(7d)
|algo = old(5d)
|archive = User talk:Scieberking/Archive
|archive = User talk:Scieberking/Archives/%(year)d/%(monthname)s
}}
}}





Revision as of 11:53, 24 January 2010


I can't explain

You have given false links and that is why your information was removed (the fuzz was in relation to Bald headed Woman), I don't see why i should converse with you on these things because u seem to have deleted comments on your talk, ----Occultaphenia (talk) 12:06, 29 November 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Please read the discussion section of "I Can't Explain". --Scieberking 12:16, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Thats what i said, the b-side of 'I can't explain' is Bald Headed Woman'. Read your reference. Yes there are claims he did the rythm despite it being debunked, they can both go in there.--Occultaphenia (talk) 12:59, 29 November 2009 (UTC) User:CosmicLegg Sock[reply]

Again, please read the discussion section. --Scieberking 14:16, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

The Who

Why are you asking for a third opinion regarding the influence section of The Who? There doesn't appear to be another editor whom you are in disagreement with.

You are right to point out that the content appears to be a direct copy past of a copyrighted. If it is as you alleges then you should tag the section with Template:Copypaste, and remove the offending material, or reword it so it does not violate copyright. That being said the reference which you linked could still be used as a reference for the conent within that section. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 13:43, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I want to say that the "Followers" section, on the RollingStone profile page of any artist, is a rough inclusion, and does not mean that "Band A" was actually influenced by "Band B". Following and Influencing are two different things. Secondly, if we can add the followers section word to word then it might be a problem, for example Rolling Stone lists 20-50 or so artists followed Queen, Led Zeppelin, or The Rolling Stones whatsoever. There's a difference between "Followed" and "Influenced by". Thanks. --Scieberking (talk) 08:23, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

your reverting

Pete Townshend.

Please don't do that, join in the discussion, it was a good faith edit. Off2riorob (talk) 17:56, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good faith, really?? Okay, I won't revert again but he entirely removed the source and argument that even passes WP:RS --Scieberking (talk) 18:05, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not edit war on the article, the content is new and controversial, please discuss and look for support on the talkpage Off2riorob (talk) 18:19, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So why are you removing my authentic content with reliable sources and reverting my edits. I've actively participated in the Discussion on the talk page. You're no authority, but more like a Townshend Fanboy. There's no denying that Pete Townshend is, allegedly/ arguably, gay/ bisexual and also, [Potential libel content removed per WP:BLP policy]. --Scieberking (talk) 18:24, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thank you for revealing your true colors. Please take care not to focus on your personal position, we are here to write a quality article about a living person, not to add whatever content we can that supports our personal beliefs. Off2riorob (talk) 18:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I said "allegedly" and "arguably". Your remark that "thank you for revealing your true colors" is a personal attack and against WP:EQ. I'm not adding content that pleases me, but a News Report by the one of the biggest news agencies on Earth- AP. Quality article does not mean "Fanboyish" and that we should exclude the unpleasant "facts". --Scieberking (talk) 18:36, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have started a discussion regarding this issue at the BLP noticeboard here . Off2riorob (talk) 19:00, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for that. Also please check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pete_Townshend#bisexuality.2Fhomosexuality where I've gathered all the proof I could. --Scieberking (talk) 19:48, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not add anything to my edits as you have just done at the BLP noticeboard, if you want to add links add them to your onw comment. Off2riorob (talk) 20:11, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring warning

Warning
Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing at Pete Townshend. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. Off2riorob (talk) 18:42, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It takes four reverts to warrant a 3rr. the first edit is not counted. If three reverts happen after that a warning is issued and on the numeric fitfh edit/revertion is the offending edit for the block. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 18:51, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
that's a misinterpretation of WP:3RR, which states clearly that "3RR is a bright line where action now becomes almost certain if not already taken. It is not an "entitlement" to revert a page a specific number of times." Sceiberking has reverted three times on that page and needs to stop. Sssoul (talk) 21:34, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. Enigmamsg 22:36, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While I personally disagree this is what I have been informed by admin. I think it should be a one to three thing. They disagreed Hell In A Bucket (talk) 00:43, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Occultaphenia

Occultaphenia was a sock himself. [1]

If you want, you can refer Rickens to User:NuclearWarfare- he'll take care of the SPI. --King Öomie 14:07, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BLP special enforcement warning

Your recent content additions to this page have violated the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy, particularly the non-article space section, and has been removed. The content you added to this talk page did not appear to have any purpose relating to building an encyclopaedia, and Wikipedia hosting such libellous content could in fact damage it severely. Given the seriousness of the violation I am giving you an official final warning under this remedy of the Arbitration Committee. Please read through the Biographies of living persons policy carefully and amend your behaviour throughout Wikipedia too it. Further violations of this policy on this page or elsewhere, including Talk:Pete Townshend and Pete Townshend, may result in sanctions being placed on yourself possibly including restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviours, bans from editing any BLP or BLP-related page or set of pages, blocks of up to one year in length, or any other measures which may be considered necessary. As you can see defamation is taken very seriously on Wikipedia, do not add such content anywhere on this website again. You may discuss a living person for the purpose of building an article but please do so with civility and based 100% on what the sources say. Edit warring through re-inserting contentious material to a living person's articles in which other users have removed with reasonable concerns will not be tolerated either. Camaron · Christopher · talk 14:06, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just added a favorite thing on my personal talk page, like other editors do; and offensive to none. As far as this BLP thing goes, I'd like to say that Wikipedia article is biased (that particular article; and I ain't a "Wikipedia is BULLSHIT" person). I'd added verified content with references that qualify any terms and conditions, not TMZ. Daily Mail and Associated Press ain't no gossip. Both these sources and even his Rolling Stone interviews clearly mention his acknowledgment that Townshend was/is Bisexual. And what happened? The fanboys removed it, banned me for causing "disruption", and even locked the article. There are many things mentioned in the biographies of many artists/ celebs about their characters/controversies here in Wikipedia, and they don't get removed (for instance Jackson Child Assault and say Kim Kardashian Sex Tape), why Townshend alone gets special treatment? --Scieberking (talk) 14:56, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When dealing with living persons if it is very contentious or controversial sometimes wiki has to take the high road and not include things. Take a minute stop edit waring and talk with the people and find out why we are saying these things. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:59, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I provided bundles of links/references, most of them that pass WP:RS, while the other editors provided NO solid argument, and just protected the article after removing my qualified content. Check out yourself. --Scieberking (talk) 15:03, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen the arguemnt. It seems to violate wp:synthesis, I didn't see where he said he was bisexual or that he liked men...Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:13, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any references which verify the defamation which was added to the top of this page, which appeared to be a fictional conversation between the police and the article's subject, not appropriate material for the user space and a blatant violation of WP:BLP, protest or not. I find it difficult to believe it would not offend anyone, and it was another editor which originally brought it to my attention. WP:BLP is not about whitewashing articles, but assuring that potentially libel material is added carefully, and if there is doubt it is appropriate to default to removal until the issue is resolved. There is clearly doubt from multiple editors about this content relating to policy, and repeatedly attempting to re-insert it regardless of others concerns is a violation of WP:BLP and WP:EW. Camaron · Christopher · talk 16:04, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
From Daily Mail The Who's guitarist Pete Townshend has told how he had homosexual liaisons in his youth. The rock legend said he had sex with two men 'consciously' and another 'unconsciously' during his drug-fuelled years in the Sixties. --Scieberking (talk) 16:14, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't verify the content added to the top of this page, which appeared to have been a made-up conversation and libel, and so was not appropriate. Camaron · Christopher · talk 16:20, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are you talking about the "Associated Press/ The Free-Lance Star - Nov 8, 1990" news report?

"Guitarist Pete Townshend of The Who says his 1980 song "Rough Boys" was a "coming out, an acknowledgment of the fact that I'd a gay life".

This also clearly mentions Townshend's acknowledgment that he had a gay life. --Scieberking (talk) 16:26, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Although not used often he could've been saying he had a happy life. It is open to interpatation, thus shouldn't be added according to policy. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 19:26, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your claim is absolutely bogus. "Open to interpretation", are you sure? You think gay means "happy", right? This happens when "Rough Boys" get happy.....:

Tough boys
 Running the streets
 Come a little closer
 Rough toys
 Under the sheets
 Nobody knows her
 Rough boys
 Don't walk away
 I very nearly missed you
 Tough boys
 Come over here
 I wanna bite and kiss you

With that said, what about the acknowledgment that he'd unconscious sex with two men, and conscious sex with one? He can not quite deny the claims of Danny Fields, so he made revelations about his gay (the word is used 99% in context of a homosexual man) life. No more lame excuses, please. I do love Pete Townshend, and Moonie, and The Who. --Scieberking (talk) 02:55, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No I was referring to the material you added to this page that you added to this page after being blocked which I removed due to BLP concerns. Camaron · Christopher · talk 21:43, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That was a poem I wrote, which you have already removed, and I might not add it again. --Scieberking (talk) 02:55, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I thought so, though the warning at the top of this section still stands. Camaron · Christopher · talk 10:47, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Santa Claus

Thank you, best wishes to you and yours at Xmas and in the year to come, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 21:02, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a bunch :-) --Scieberking (talk) 21:18, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome

Hope to see you working on articles!

Here to help articles tagged for rescue!

Hi, Scieberking, welcome to the Article Rescue Squadron! We are a growing community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to identifying and rescuing articles that have been tagged for deletion. Every day hundreds of articles are deleted, many rightfully so. But many concern notable subjects and are poorly written, which can be fixed and should not be deleted. We try to help these articles quickly improve and address the concerns of why they are proposed for deletion. This covers a lot of ground and your help is appreciated!

If you have any questions, feel free to post a question on the talk page.

And once again — Welcome! Ikip 02:11, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I've started working and added references to Aar Maanta, Daniela Nardi, Mike Schatz, Flippa and other articles. Thanks. --Scieberking (talk) 07:05, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Morrison

I removed your addition because you stuck in the middle of a well-formulated complete section in which the content had a logical and considered flow. Your statement, "Many other rock vocalists were also influenced by Jim Morrison, including Eddie Vedder of Pearl Jam" added a incongruency to the section and regarding the statement itself, the reference added for Vedder did not support the rest of the sentence. To what "many other rock vocalists" do you refer? Why is Vedder so important that he gets a paragraph dedicated to him when the rest of the section was well-integrated? That's why. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:41, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

again

Vandalism again! oh shit! It's a battle troll. Call the cops.

Well, my dear, I've never been a member of Anti-Vandalism squadron or something... I hope it's been fixed. I hate vandalism on each and every article on Wikipedia. --Scieberking (talk) 20:23, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


A vandalism is to consider led zeppelin as a Heavy metal Band!!!!!

You Keep the correction to do the right thing!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.106.134.65 (talk) 21:51, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you know the sound of led zeppelin You know that's not a heavy metal group....... By this..... KEEP THE CORRECTION, Please!!!!!189.106.134.65 (talk) 21:58, 28 December 2009 (UTC)≤ricknupp≥189.106.134.65 (talk) 21:58, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked this IP for clearly being User:Rickens/User:CosmicLegg evading blocks. Camaron · Christopher · talk 22:38, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Camaron but I don't think this user/ IP is a sock of CosmicLegg. His/her vandal edits seem/ tend to be in favor of Led Zeppelin, while CosmicLegg-related socks vandalized Led Zeppelin articles, not in their support, but The Who. That's only what I personally think. I'd love to hear your input, though! --Scieberking (talk) 22:44, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've edited it to "With their heavy, guitar-driven sound, Led Zeppelin are regarded as one of the first bands that played heavy metal music, helping to pioneer the genre." This, might be helpful to stop the edit war, is a good compromise. Sincerely. --Scieberking (talk) 23:03, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Camaron. I'm not at all involved but there's a terrible edit war going on for the "heavy metal band" thing. To help stop it, and make a fair compromise for both the parties, I'd edited the controversial sentence to: With their heavy, guitar-driven sound, Led Zeppelin are regarded as one of the first bands that participated in the foundation of heavy metal music, therefore helping pioneer the genre. My edit remained in there for quite some time and one party seemed to be satisfied with it, but the other soon reverted it, and was then again reverted to my edit by the first party. Zeppelin, The Who Vs. Other Bands socks are becoming quite a problem on Wikipedia. I've sent slow edit war notices to both parties, though. Any thoughts? Your help will be much appreciated. Sincerely --Scieberking (talk) 12:04, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see, the username the person is going with was "Ricknupp" which is very similar to "Rickens", which was found to be a sock of CosmicLegg. The tendency to abuse multiple accounts and IPs like CosmicLegg is also noticeable. In any case abusing multiple IPs/accounts to edit war as ricknupp was doing is not permitted and (s)he should be blocked any way. Camaron · Christopher · talk 12:44, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, as there is reaonable doubt over the evidence I have altered the blocks to remove the connection to CosmicLegg for the time being. User:Ricknupp is still blocked for 48 hours for disruption with multiple IPs, and I will urge just to edit with his main account in future. Camaron · Christopher · talk 13:04, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

sse the discussion page before warning me, warning the troll.

"appear to be engaged in a "slow edit war" I'm keeping the page in the stable version. Ricknupp doing war issues. Worse editing cons sources in the text that are clear as shown on the talk page. Please read discussion page and sources before warning me. Its' controversial what he writes. Not according to the sources, and Wikipedia is based on sources. 201.67.35.253 (talk) 12:30, 29 December 2009 (UTC) 201.67.35.253 (talk) 12:21, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Thanks for the barnstar! — John Cardinal (talk) 16:30, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scrotumless

I don't have the balls to say it to your face?? That's a good one. If I came here looking for an argument, the law abiding wiki citizen you are you are likely to report me or just kick up a fuss. I think you are making much ado about nothing. I already redirected the information in the article into the guitarist article before the AFD ended as I couldn't redirect it during an AFD. But nobody commented after I did so it is impossible to say if people approved of the merge. I try to see it from a condesning point of view. We are an encyclopedia. Would an encyclopedia have a general article on a guitarist or a seperate list of those "considered the greatest". It makes sense to merge and the lists now look quite natural within the guitarist article. I really cannot understand you calling me uncivil. The list are exactly the same but in a more convenient place to accompany the article on guitarist. I really haven't the time to fuss over something like. Time would be better spent writing a decent article on Guitarist and writing about techniques. Dr. Blofeld White cat 14:00, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is, you yourself said "This article's rather sub-standard and been a target of serious vandalism for months.". This is true. So why not work together and buld it into a more formal higher standard article which is on watchlists and assume good faith on both parts. When somebody comes to me talk page accusing me of being uncivil I don't take it too kindly. If you had simply said, why did you redirect the list so soon after AFD closure I'd have told you what I said about, without the animosity. Obviously you have an interest in guitar, so we share something in common. My warmest regards. Dr. Blofeld White cat 14:13, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I meant "uncivil" in a sense of "lacking good manners" only because consensus was reached to KEEP the article, not to MERGE. Did not mean anything else, or that you were being uncivil. My exact statement was "That (act) is quite uncivil I think". Yeah, I agree that the article is a lousy one, and I've spent 5 or 10 minutes to clean it up for vandalism and several other issues. Thank you very much. Sincerely --Scieberking (talk) 14:22, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article Rescue Squadron Newsletter

The Article Rescue Squadron Newsletter
Issue 2 (January 2010)

Previous issue | Next issue

Content

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Scieberking&oldid=339710126"