User talk:KeithD

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive 1

Contents 1 Socom 2 2 AfD 3 HELLO 4 Just for your information 5 Daniel Craig 6 Group sex 7 :-) 8 WP:MIND 8.1 Test 9 Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Pandora_Peaks 10 Elvis page 11 Koptalk page 12 Justification 13 UTorrent move request 14 quick question

[edit] Socom 2

Thanks Keith you beat me to the punch reverting that page. I think that user has done that before --JB 16:11, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] AfD

Thanks for the tip. I was rather lost (new process since last I headed over there. — Xoder|✆ 21:59, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

You're welcome. KeithD (talk) 22:00, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] HELLO

Hello

[edit] Just for your information

As for the National Enquirer article, which summarizes the facts in Dee Presley's unpublished book, The Intimite Life and Death of Elvis Presley, I did some further research. The article was published in 1993. In it, Elvis's stepmother, Dee Stanley, indeed confirms that Elvis had an affair with Nick Adams. She also claims that he had a sexual relationship with his mother, which had resulted in Gladys drinking herself to death, and that Vernon had known about this. She further says that Elvis had raped Priscilla, his wife, upon learning that she was leaving him for good, ostensibly to prove that he was still a man, and that he had committed suicide because he had been suffering from bone-marrow cancer. Finally, Dee Presley reveals how Elvis had coerced a teenage fan into a three-day orgy, and fed her an entire bottle of Hycodan (a powerful codeine-based cough syrup) on which she had overdosed.

Earl Greenwood, in his book The Boy who would be King (1990), clearly says that Nick Adams was Elvis's "persistent friend." According to the author, they "shared a mutual enjoyment of prescription drugs," and "Nick became a regular at whatever house Elvis was renting." "Elvis still hated sleeping alone, and he grew close enough to Nick to ask him to stay over on nights he was feeling particularly blue but not up to a sexual confrontation with a woman." When he heard that his friend had died, "Elvis's immediate reaction was to sit on the steps, frozen and mute, then his eyes welled with tears and his body shook, as he rocked himself back and forth, arms clutching his sides. Elvis was devastated and suffered through it for days. He sequestered himself upstairs and could be heard crying through the closed door. ... Elvis talked about how close they had been, particularly after a couple of foursomes, and admitted he had 'spurned' Nick's friendship later, saying he had needed 'room to breathe,' because Nick had wanted 'too much, ya know?'..." The author adds that "some pointed comments were made about the two of them years later by a disgruntled hand Elvis just fired..." "Regardless of any intimacies, Nick didn't kill himself over Elvis - it turned out he had a lot of demons haunting him. But Elvis beat himself over Nick's death for a long time." (See pp. 284-286)

In another chapter of the same book, there are some further remarks about the fact that Colonel Parker had told young Elvis "he needed to sharpen his stage presence and develop an image, and to play up his sexuality and make both men and women in the audience want him. ... The idea that he could control men ... had never occurred to him, until Parker brought it up. Not by sleeping with them but by daring them not to notice his sexual smolder. And he found the thought of being wanted by a man oddly erotic, and it made him feel powerful and superior." (See p. 165) Onefortyone 03:24, 12 October 2005 (UTC) Onefortyone 04:20, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Why are you telling me this?

Once again, we're dealing with weak sources. As I've said time and again, The National Enquirer is not a credible source. An unpublished manuscript, particularly one which seems to be constructed of every possible allegation under the sun, is not a credible source.

I'm not going to spend time researching the credibility of the Earl Greenwood book. I've done so with a number of your past sources at length, and discussed their credibility with you, but everything I've said has been entirely ignored by you. If it were a credible source, it would be the very first credible source that you've cited that I've seen. I'm afraid my assumptions of good faith have been all but used up.

I will respond to the credibility of the quotes you've provided though. Someone being distraught at their friend dying isn't proof of homosexuality. People are always distraught at their friends dying, or their pets dying. It doesn't mean there's been a sexual relationship with either their friends or their pets.

The rest of the quotes are hearsay, and don't report who they were said by or told to. Some of them are making assumptions about Elvis' mindset and thought process, and are thus non-credible.

Even if the quotes came from credible sources, and accurately reported what was going on - which due to it being hearsay, and supposedly quoting people but not saying which people, I doubt they do - the quote about Elvis turning down Nick Adams would disprove your theory that Elvis was gay, rather than prove it.

You're continuing to push a single agenda, which is a direct or indirect attempt to insert a POV in a number of articles. You're continuing to search for sources which support your theories, rather than assess the credibility and content of all sources, and then draw conclusions from that. Both of those are at odds with an NPOV encyclopaedia.

And I still don't know why you've told me these things for my information. KeithD (talk) 07:44, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

I told you these things simply because you said on the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gay sex rumors about Elvis Presley page that I "haven't provided the relevant passage from Earl Greenwood's book." See [1] Now I have cited the relevant passage. You also added to the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Onefortyone/Evidence page "somewhat of a 'me too' post" in which you, as third party, stated that your "experiences are largely the same as those of Ted Wilkes." See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Onefortyone/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_User:KeithD. I had hopes that you, as an unbiased user, may possibly change your mind now. Onefortyone 10:06, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Daniel Craig

No, Daniel Craig is not gay. That was vandalism to the article that no one caught. K1Bond007 19:56, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Ta for letting me know. KeithD (talk) 09:21, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Group sex

I have to say, snarky as your answer on the refdesk was, it made me laugh out loud. I don't suppose you've ever considered writing an advice column? :-) Mindspillage (spill yours?) 21:47, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you Bodnotbod for the Barnstar (I've put in the temporary link, and will update it to the archived link when the page is archived). Glad to hear I made you laugh, Mindspillage. Considered writing an advice column, you say? Sounds to me like you've got a problem that you want advice on... KeithD (talk) 09:20, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit]  :-)

No problem! I didn't think you had gone through such a dramatic name change :-). Have a good one! -->: Roby Wayne ^{Talk • Hist • E@} 07:42, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] WP:MIND

Hello. Round four of Wikipedia Mind Benders will open on Thursday, December 1. This round will be drastically different from round three; part one will consist of a creative project, and part two will be developed from there. The full details will be released when the round opens. Time and speed should not be major factors in this round; thus, there is no exact opening time for the round as speed will not factor into the scoring. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:04, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

P.S. Please add Wikipedia:Mind Benders/to do to your watchlist to receive further announcements; the NotificationBot is currently down and all notifications will be placed on that page. Sorry for any inconvenience.

Note: This message has been sent by Flcelloguy. If you do not wish to receive further messages regarding WP:MIND, please contact Flcelloguy. Special thanks to Fetofs for helping distribute this message.

[edit] Test

What test are you talking about? (Unsigned comment by User:TracksZ06).

I don't know what you're referring to. Sorry. KeithD 09:50, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Pandora_Peaks

Your comment was priceless! LOL! :D Donmega60645 03:26, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Elvis page

Hi, I see you've had dealings with user Onefortyone before. I was wondering on any advice you can give pertaining to his repeated efforts to disparage celebrity pages with misleading information, that is highly suspect from badly sourced or falsely sourced books. I've been trying to clean this article up - to organize it - and reformat it, to meet wikipedia standards - and he has been a repeated thorn in the side of clean-up insisting on creating long personal essays, containing original research, badly sourced material that takes away from the quality of the article and amounts to disruption of the wikipedia process. Any help would be welcomed in cleaning the article up and with this user. --Northmeister 00:17, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

No practical advice, I'm afraid. It was the protracted grind of that in particular that caused me to step back my involvement in Wikipedia. I believe that he is under some form of probation following past instances. Asking an admin for help might be a good idea. Sorry not to be more helpful. KeithD 08:57, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Koptalk page

Hi. Could you please advise how to stop people from posting lies, incorrect information and so on? These people are from rival websites and it's simply spoiling Wikipedia. Thanks. www_koptalk_com 15:16, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

If you think people are posting lies, then you should discuss it on the talk page of Koptalk, and cite your sources. I presume that you are the owner of the actual Koptalk site, which means that you are going to have to make sure that everything you do is above board. There was an incident yesterday when someone tried to change the external links to point away from the critical sites, and rather to point to similar domains owned by the owner of Koptalk. This manipulation was unacceptable, and was reverted.

As it stands, the criticisms that have been made have cited their sources. As you haven't cited any counter-evidence, and have just blanked various critical sections, there could be problems. Wikipedia is about verifiability. It isn't about avoiding all criticism or praise. Anything verifiable and notable has a place on Wikipedia. It seems that you have a vested interest in the Koptalk article, which, as I say, means that you should do everything by the book, and discuss it properly on the talk page.

For the record, I'm not a registered member of any 'rival site', or of Koptalk itself. I think I posted a couple of times on the official site a few years ago, but that's it. KeithD 14:23, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Justification

So you have to respond to what claims these muppets say? Everything they says is either spliced or tampered with and you expect us to respond to that? By all means they can leave criticism on articles but when it's clear that an article has been used to publish nonsense it should be sorted out. Anyone with an inch of common sense should be able to identify troublemakers and people who are genuinely criticising. Thanks for your input. www_koptalk_com 15:38, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I've replied on your talk page. Let's keep all the discussion there, so it's all in one place, and we don't lose the thread of what we're saying. KeithD 14:42, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] UTorrent move request

Hello. I've requested once again the move of article MTorrent to UTorrent. You voted last time and I just wanted to let you know. Subversive 12:43, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] quick question

I'M DOING A REPORT ON ELVIS AND MY THESIS STATEMENT IS, "WHAT KIND OF AFFECT DID ELVIS HAVE ON POP CULTURE?"

ANYONE WANT TO HELP ME OUT HERE?

Take a look at Cultural depictions of Elvis Presley KeithD 19:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)