Talk:Copperhead Road

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

Contents 1 RfC 1.1 Copperhead 2 POTW 2.1 Copperhead

[edit] RfC

I noticed this article was listed on the RfC page. Wouldn't it have been better to raise the issue on the talk page first? KeithD (talk) 18:32, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

I did not know it exsisted, but yea lets talk..Have to get to a meeting, Be back soon. 15:00EST Scott 19:01, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

So the issue is about the external link that keeps being added and taken away? The external link doesn't work in my browser. Given that it's not accessible to all, it probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. I can't make any comment as to the content of it. Why do you think it should be in or out? KeithD (talk) 19:11, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

The policy on external links is pretty clear: "...avoid sites requiring payment, registration, or extra applications (Flash, Java, etc.) to see the relevant content...". Also, since the link doesn't work for me, I can't tell if it's violating other parts of the policy: linking to copyvio material, for example. --Carnildo 20:14, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Lets delete it, better yet, let me delete it. Deleted 20:22, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Wouldn't it have been better to raise the issue on the talk page first? Yes. HOwever, when I raised the issue on the talk pages of other articles to which Scott has added such links, this was the result :-( . Andy Mabbett 20:31, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Copperhead

What can be said about this wthout speculation? It could allude both to the copper still used in moonshining and to the copperhead snake that strikes without warning, showing that you shouldn't mess with the character in the song. 86.140.108.169 01:47, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] POTW

Mr Andy- Alias Pigsonthewings; It is evident you've had more problems in the past than I'll ever have and you know it. You really want to be sneaky and staulk on wikipedia rather than contribute. People have tried to talk to you in the past and you seem to want to show a power thing or something. Not sure what your real problem is with good editors. If you wish I will post the evidence here now as I made a good effort to comprimise with you as others have:

1)Your user page
2)Scroll to bottom

3)POTW user page-this one is a real shame

4)POTW

5)==Mig/POTW==

6)You also removed several other items. Frankly, given your recent behaviour, and the above ludicrous and fallacious allegation, I'm not really interested in hearing your personal opinions, nor your threats. Andy Mabbett 11:32, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
7)[See Ok, Andy Mabbett and Brumburger are following my every move on wikipedia and they are tracing my IP addresses. No different Nick Boulevard 16:31, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Nick_Boulevard]
8) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nick_Boulevard&action=edit&section=4 See Pigsonthewing Hi Nick, I've been having the same problems as you I think. I've decided to move away from the wikipedia page but I still think something needs to be done about Andy Mabbett. I hope you'll agree that the problem is not what Pigsonthewing does for the wikipedia, which is of reasonable quality, but the following:

Stalking. He will target work by specific users instead of finding new articles to work on. this happened to me, and I think has also happened to you. Obsessive. Once he has made an edit he will watch the page, and revert any changes made. He gets involved in revision wars all the time. Once he has made his mind up nobody else gets a lookin. Rude. His comments in the revision section are very snide. After you have reseached something to have it described as irrelavant hurts. Destructive. He removes from the wikipedia much more than he puts in. I think it's very easy to beleive the internet is a kind of bubble, however he should realise he is interacting with real people and we all do it as a kind of therapy, as a kind of entertainment- we do it because we enjoy it! His work is not of low quality- rather his behavior is deliberatly anti-social- he obviously enjoys putting people's noses out of joint. If you want someone to join in a test case for this I would be willing to contribute. I don't think he should be banned, but certainly I think his brand of abusive, bullying behaviour should be frowned upon by wikipedia as strongly as 'peacock terms' or 'copy violations'. Leonig Mig 18:33, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC) Just shameful! Letting things go Nick: Please would you disregard any accusations or criticisms that Andy, Brumberger, or Ray may level against you, however unfair. If we could all focus on the articles instead of the editors we can all spend more time building the encyclopedia.—Theo (Talk) 19:12, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
9)http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nick_Boulevard&action=edit&section=7 A negative response attempting to create a more sense of aggrevation: Ok, no probs. Nick Boulevard 21:51, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC) That lasted about 22 hours - and one edit. [1]. Andy Mabbett 19:20, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC) Get over it Andy, concentrate on other things and your/our time here will be much more rewarding. Nick Boulevard 22:45, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)]

I also think he might have multiple alias's. Scott 21:12, 26 September 2005 (UTC) 10)*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:G-Man/POTW_RFC Previous message on user sight/ Pigsonthewing (Andy Mabbett) makes frequent and aggressive use of repeated reversion and engages in edit wars, sometimes reverting unvandalised user pages. These are often part of continuing personal conflicts with other (albeit not blameless) individual editors. These reversions are often not explained (simply "rv") or explained with apparent hostility: pointed, snide or dismissive remarks. Discussion of these reversions is often frustrating and fruitless as his answers are most frequently no longer than one line. The repeated reversion of articles combined with the hostile summaries leads to ill-feeling, which spreads to talk pages, where the same pattern of aggressive reversion is combined with aggressive commentary, which hinders discussion. This combination of reversion and aggression on user pages is particularly inflammatory; it largely arises when Pigsonthewing dissagrees with a comment about him or his behaviour. Several editors believe that some of these reversions arise from Pigsonthewing's systematic stalking of all their edits and that this stalking is a form of harassment. ]

QED :-( Andy Mabbett 21:17, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Copperhead

What can be said about this without speculation? It could allude both to the copper still used in moonshining and to the copperhead snake that strikes without warning, showing that you shouldn't mess with the character in the song. 86.140.108.169 01:49, 27 November 2005 (UTC)