User talk:Sumbuddi

Note to others

Please do not send me any WP:Template messages. If you have something to say, say it with your own words.

Thank you. Sumbuddi (talk) 01:55, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Advice

Hi - just FYI, if you're having problems with a wikipedia editor, there are things you can do, like (first step after attempting polite discussion) file a Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts... Luminifer (talk) 06:06, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I see this Wiki libs character consistently acts so self-important. Unfortunately these sort of editors are pretty much impossible to 'win' against, so I'll just ignore him and hope he goes away. Sumbuddi (talk) 12:31, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Sock report

It's considered proper etiquette to inform the party you're filing against within, like, 20 minutes of the report going up. I just informed him myself, 11 hours after the fact. Good to see you had time to inform a retired user with a vendetta, though. --King Öomie 13:23, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

That's not what it says at WP:SPI "After submitting a case, consider notifying the suspected accounts by adding subst:socksuspectnotice|PUPPETMASTER to the bottom of their talk pages. Notification is not mandatory, and may, in some instances, lead to further disruption or provide a sockpuppeteer with guidance on how to avoid detection." Please don't make up policies.

As for that other user's 'vendetta' as you put it, I was merely responding to the courtesy he offered me in informing me that he'd left Wikipedia because of this user. Offer courtesy and you will get it in return. Sumbuddi (talk) 13:42, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I said etiquette, not policy. I can't see a very experienced user like Libs, who's had a part in plugging numerous socks over the years, needing any assistance avoiding detection. In fact, Libs tends to take a very hard stance against socking, advocating that users "...Keep the [sock] drawer shut at all times", regardless of how constructive their other edits are. But, I suppose we'll see. --King Öomie 13:50, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

As I explained to him a few days ago [1] his officious/absolutionist behaviour tends to result in an unnecessary and avoidable decline in etiquette. I don't know if he needs assistance avoiding detection - it's quite possible he hasn't logged in from any of those 3 IPs, but they are far from 'clean', as explained at the SPI page. Sumbuddi (talk) 13:59, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Romanian orphans

Hi. I noticed you reverted my edit to Romanian orphans. From your edit summary, you seem to think that my major problem with the article as it was was the unsourced content, when my primary concern was in fact the fairly large-scale violations of Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. This is evidenced by the first line "Romanian orphans is a reference to the thousands of children in the care of state orphanages as a result of the policies of Communist leader Nicolae Ceauşescu." Without a source, blaming Ceauşescu wholesale, especially without a source, is relaying a point of view, not the facts of the matter. Though there were references in the article, which tend to support the claims made, one is unclear ("No child left different - Sharna Olfman"; see {{cite book}}) and one is a self-published website and so not a reliable source ([2]). Furthermore, by reverting my edit, you've removed a stub template asking readers to help expand the article, removed a reference I added to the article ([3]), and removed the {{cite web}} formatting I added to a number of the references in the article. I'd appreciate if you'd go back over your edit and, at the very least, correct the last three points I've raised, and preferably return the article to the neutral state it was in before; if you're not willing to do this, please explain why here. Thanks. – Hysteria18 ^{(Talk • Contributions)} 15:08, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

FYI

Have you come across User:Aussie Ausborn? Luminifer (talk) 15:42, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Hot Space

I added information about the genres. Could you check the page to make sure that it's right?--Greg D. Barnes (talk) 22:23, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for looking at the article--I did another edit FYI.--Greg D. Barnes (talk) 22:41, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

MoP

I actually have reason to believe that Mr. Libs may have one more puppet at hand. One Fozforus seemed to agree with him on GNR not being metal, Bon Jovi and Dokken not being hair bands, kept on reverting DooDahDave on Alice Cooper's Pretties for You album like other Libs puppets, and opposed the Pete Townshend title change. I'm not 100 percent certain on this, but I do we have a good amount of proof to back up this claim. Rockgenre (talk) 00:47, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

He's the Master of Puppets! I stole that name from you Rockgenre!--Greg D. Barnes (talk) 04:20, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Townsend

Do you think it would be ok if I archive that longthread on the talkpage that now seems to be closed, no comments for a couple of weeks? Off2riorob (talk) 22:25, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Sir. Thanks for exposing and helping to indefinitely block Occultaphenia. I really appreciate that. --Scieberking (talk) 08:24, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

in case you actually appreciate these silly things

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		For helping to expose one of the worst, longest running sockpuppeteers. Luminifer (talk) 05:45, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:3RR

Hi, this is a warning regarding your reversion's at Pete Townshend. Please discuss differences with other editors on the article's talk page. Please also note that just because you're using the talk page in conjunction with reverting does not exclude you from the policy; and if the other editor's are not using the talk page (and you are), it, again, does not exclude you from the policy. Thanks. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 16:18, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I've reported you at the WP:3RRN noticeboard here. Thanks. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 19:45, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Blocked for 31 hours, it was a clear 3rr violation on Peter Townshend, and you were warned. Secret ^account 23:05, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Can you please explain? I reverted 3 times in 24 hours, not more. And I was in the middle of trying to explain myself when you blocked me. Sumbuddi (talk) 23:12, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

[4] is an revert, the second edit is a revert as well (you removed the original info that was reverted the first time). The third and fourth is self-explainatory. I'm willing to unblock if you promise to avoid edit warring for a while. Thanks Secret ^account 23:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Your link there (my first revert, made because the user had apparently not read the talk page), is indeed a revert (I sought to remove the final paragraph of the section). However, the second edit, if you compare with the edit made by 98.113.*.* before my first revert: [5] is actually an new edit, not a revert, expanding the text prior to "He stated in the press". I left (and have left) the final paragraph alone following the comment by Sssoul "the RFC on the talk page resulted in no consensus for this change".

Also there is no edit war currently ongoing, the purpose of my last revert was to try and get the discussion going on Talk, and I was since then participating in that, and having engaged all parties, we are progressing on Talk with no call for any reverts. Sumbuddi (talk) 23:28, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I unblocked you, at least you are participating in discussion. Avoid edit warring. Thanks Secret ^account 23:40, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Please show me a link to this reccomendation

{http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pete_Townshend&diff=329330843&oldid=329255409 This] edit, could you please show me where it is supported, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 22:52, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thank you for pointing it out for me, seems reasonable. Off2riorob (talk) 23:05, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Patient Advice and Liaison Service

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Patient Advice and Liaison Service, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.ppeyes.org.uk/pals.html. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 18:57, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

The Who: Influence

Hello. I'd really appreciate if you could help me regarding this issue please. Someone has nearly added the entire section, bundles of bands, from this page http://www.rollingstone.com/artists/thewho > Beyond: The Who > Followers into the heading of “Influence”:

Green Day,[44] The Jam,[45] Black Sabbath,[46] Aerosmith,[47], Kiss,[48] Led Zeppelin,[49] AC/DC,[50] Deep Purple,[51] Queen,[52] Van Halen,[53] Lynyrd Skynyrd,[54] Styx,[55] Iron Maiden,[56] Rush,[57] The Clash,[58], U2[59] (with Bono calling U2 the "Heirs to The Who")[60] and Pearl Jam[61]

Similarly, most of the band from Followers sections of http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=11:fifwxqr5ldfe

I don’t think that’s right. This extra section on Rolling Stone was not included in the band biography. This section was just a rough inclusion, without any further explanation. Secondly, most of the AllMusic references do not work anymore. If it is valid to add bundles of bands like that, can we add following bands to:

(a) The Rolling Stones: (From http://www.rollingstone.com/artists/therollingstones)

The Heartbreakers, ZZ Top, New York Dolls, The Clash, The Sonics, The Nomads, Caesars, The Chocolate Watchband, Mott the Hoople, Bob Seger And The Last Heard, Bruce Springsteen, Shadows of Knight, Guns N' Roses, Faster Pussycat, David Johansen, The Animals, Dr. Feelgood, The Hives, Terry Reid, David Bowie, J. Geils Band, Hanoi Rocks, Cream, The Black Crowes, Jefferson Airplane, The Doors, Primal Scream, The Flamin' Groovies, Aerosmith, Led Zeppelin, Humble Pie

(b) Led Zeppelin: (From http://www.rollingstone.com/artists/ledzeppelin) UFO, Rush, Rainbow, Fastway, Whitesnake, Spinal Tap, The Answer, Enslaved, Willie Dixon, Def Leppard, The Parlor, Mob, KISS, Priestess, Heart, Cactus, Kingdom Come, Bonham, Queen, Queens of the Stone Age, Guns N' Roses, Ted Nugent, AC/DC, The Black Crowes, Aerosmith

This section (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Who#Influence) needs a cleanup. Your suggestions please. Thanks a bunch --Scieberking (talk) 03:12, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Pete Townshend

Hello. I'd like to invite you to just watch as a third party on this issue:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Pete_Townshend.E2.80.8E: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pete_Townshend#bisexuality.2Fhomosexuality

Thanks in advance. :) --Scieberking (talk) 19:52, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Award

I think you deserve this...

		The Teamwork Barnstar
		I award Sumbuddi this barnstar for working with others to improve the Pete Townshend article and reach a consensus on its content. Camaron · Christopher · talk 16:28, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Camaron · Christopher · talk 16:28, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Libs

Hey man what's up? Apparently NuclearWarfare recently lifted the block on Libs. You think we should go for an appeal on this? RG (talk) 05:06, 7 February 2010 (UTC)