Talk:Biff Rose

NOTE: This article has been the object of an intense edit war. Please discuss changes before making them to the article. The older discussions have been archived by anonymous user 216.244.7.12. And can be found at:

• Talk:Biff Rose/Archive 1

• Talk:Biff Rose/Archive 2

Archival Notices

Older discussions: Talk:Biff Rose/Archive 1 Please do not move any additional discussions into this archive. Owen× ☎ 06:09, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

new archive: Talk:Biff Rose/Archive 2

clown's will eat me, notice a super long discussion has been archived, not erased.. more will be added soon enough...216.244.7.12 06:17, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Editing in bad faith

While most of us editors have been working towards a consensus on the article, editor user:Jonah Ayers has been sabotaging this process at every step, editing in bad faith and misrepresenting his edits in the edit summary. For example, in edit he claims to be rearranging the discography, but the actual edit basically substitutes most of the text for his prefered version. In this other innstance [1] he accuses an editor of vandalizing the article by deleting a picture (which he did not) and then claims to re-add the allegedly deleted picture in the edit summary while replacing the entire text of the article. Combined with his malicious, mean-spirited attacks on other editors, his aggressive use of sockpuppets and anonymous IPs, I suggest he recuse himself from this article. I will be happy to recuse myself as well if he agrees to do the same. Marcuse 01:44, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

ok, I agree to recuse myself from this article. I will pass the torch to someone else.Jonah Ayers 04:59, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

• Jonah, this also goes for your sockpuppets, including user:Mary Hope, who we all know is you. This has been confirmed. Marcuse 20:07, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Well i guess if you refuse to believe in Mary Hope, then i choose not recuse. It's that simple. Someone who hasn't edited versus someone who has. your loss!! i'm backJonah Ayers

• It's not a loss when nothing was gained to begin with. It's that simple. Marcuse 18:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

• speaking of bad faith it is now illegal to flame people as unidentified people on line [2] luckily my driver's license actually says Jonah Ayers. I think sojambi and marcuse and will beback will all need to adopt their real names here. otherwise these antagonistic postings under nom de plumes can prosecuted in court.Jonah Ayers 00:29, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

• • Didn't you previously claim that your real name is Steven Espinola? -Will Beback 02:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

• • you know Will that could be construed by jonah ayers as flaming, and you could be taken to court. 216.244.7.12 04:25, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

That could be construed as a legal threat, and anyone making one could be blocked from editing. -Will Beback 04:31, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Now let's please drop all this and get back to discussing the article. -Will Beback 05:26, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

That could be construed as a threat will, which in wiki land can also be determined as un wiki like and you could be brought up to the admins much like you were before you surreptitiously changed your name. AS for legal threats, I don't believe any were made, i merely pointed out that with the new law, Jonah Ayers could theoretically bring you into a court on charges of that most ludircous law, which states that anyone found to be annoying can be sued. That's that, you can try and manipulate the situation in any fahsion, and true to your nature, you have used your opportunity to be almost agonizingly patronizing, irritatingly smug, and mindbogglingly suspect in your biased approach at using wikipedia. I applaud you for your complete lack of self control and inability to be anything more than annoying- uh oh, I'm going to be taken to court for annoyingly calling someone else annoying. ouch. Now, let's talk about the sierra club, what exactly is your relation to them?216.244.7.12 05:42, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

• I am retrieving this for the archived discussion because this topic is still being actively discussed. Marcuse 17:50, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

• Link to Pickwick comp: [3]. There. That's a citation. If you google the album it shows up all over. --Sojambi Pinola 02:10, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: I think the current version[4], with all the pics on the right looks better/neater than with the staggered pics. I also think that SP's description of his later work (spoken rap elements etc.) is a good way to introduce and contextualize Rose's later work. I think the article looks and reads great in its current form. Marcuse 02:37, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

contextualiziation is POV... let's keep it to the bare minimum. Also, I prefer, obviously, the staggered photos. I think the top one shouldx be the most recent, so am going to refile them that way. Most recent first.216.244.3.219 02:54, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

• OK, left the photos, but had to rearrange slightly to make sure table of contents is flush left, to conform to wikipedia standards. Contextualization is not POV, SP's edit simply provide a description of his later material. PLUS, one of the guidelines for writing WP articles is that the subject should be put into context, so rather than POV, contextualization is a necessary goal of any article. I have melded together Sp's edits with those by Jonah and the anonymous user. Finally, I noticed there are no descriptions of his earlier work, just a list of what songs he wrote, etc. Will add this material now. Marcuse 15:34, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

"Judiasm is targeted" is a really problematic phrase.

I likes some of the new desciptive stuff. I do not find it POV. However, a lot of his early recordings were, in fact, heavily orchestrated. --Sojambi Pinola 16:32, 11 January 2006 (UTC)