User talk:Lochdale

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] A welcome from Sango123

Hello, Lochdale, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions; I hope you like the place and decide to stay. We're glad to have you in our community! Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Though we all make goofy mistakes, here is what Wikipedia is not. If you have any questions or concerns, don't hesitate to see the help pages or add a question to the village pump. The Community Portal can also be very useful.

Happy Wiki-ing!

-- Sango123 16:03, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

P.S. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you need help with anything or simply wish to say hello. :)


There has been a lengthy and exhausting discussion at Talk:Abraham Lincoln and now at Talk:Elvis Presley and its archived Talk pages surrounding the exact same issue as was discussed and voted upon already on the Abraham Lincoln matter. Because this has the potential to create a new standard for what is acceptable Wikipedia sources, I thought that you might want to be aware of it. If the policy consensus arrived at on the Abraham Lincoln issue is set aside in the Presley article it will result in new ones for countless others. I think the existing determination of what constitutes a proper source should be defined by the Wikipedia community and set as firm policy which would go a long way in helping to substantially reduce the tiresome and repeated edit wars. Thank you for your interest. Please note I have left the same message for others who worked on this matter. Ted Wilkes 20:42, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Your comment at Talk:Larry Bird

I noticed that you replied to another user's comment at Talk:Larry Bird. You also attempted to sign it with [[Lochdale]]. A couple of suggestions:

  1. To refer to your WP account, you need to use [[user:Lochdale]]. A far easier way to sign is to enter four tilde's (~~~~), which will be turned into a signature containing your id and a date/time stamp. This can also be done with the second button from the right on at the top of the editing window.
  2. When replying to another user's comments, it is customary to indent your reply by putting a colon (:) at the beginning of your comment. If you are replying to a reply, you can use ::, and so forth. I took the liberty of indenting your response.

If you have any questions, please leave a message on my talk page. Thanks. --rogerd 00:51, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Elvis, etc.

No problem. It's just one more reason for edit summaries. Cheers! Deltabeignet 05:18, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Accusations by User:Onefortyone against you

I just came across this. - Ted Wilkes 15:37, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Elvis Presley

It might not have been your intent, but you recently removed content from Elvis Presley. Please be careful not to remove content from Wikipedia without a valid reason, which you should specify in the edit summary or on the article's talk page. Thank you. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. AmiDaniel (Talk) 22:18, 27 April 2006 (UTC) Not vandalism, misunderstood content dispute. AmiDaniel (Talk) 22:30, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I apologize for my reversion as I see that you made this edit in good faith and in the interest of improving the article. In the future, please use edit summaries as they alert others of the changes you have made and will help to prevent your edits from being erroneously reverted. AmiDaniel (Talk) 22:30, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Elvis Presley

Thanks for the message. In theory, the page could be protected, but I think the problem can be contained by reversion. I've added the page to my watchlist, and encourage you to do the same. Deltabeignet 05:40, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deletions

When you delete material, please say so. Thank you. -- Hoary 05:40, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Careful with edit warring on Elvis Presley

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you.

While I appreciate your view, edit warring is not the way to solve this dispute. Please be careful not to violate the three-revert rule.

Thanks!

--Pcj 19:52, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I understand, and if you'll notice, I've participated in the debate myself. But constantly reverting the page to the version you prefer won't solve anything. I have tried to contact some people about Onefortyone's probation, to no avail. Maybe it's time for mediation...

--Pcj 22:45, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

See [1].

--Pcj 19:07, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I wouldn't dare to advise you on how to respond. But there is a reason that the administrator blocked him and not you; I'd try to expand on that.

As to editing the article, I'd just be sure to stay within the guidelines of verifiability and POV.

--Pcj 20:28, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] And yet more on Presley (though not edit warring)

Thanks for your comments, primarily addressed to NicholasTurnbull but I suppose also to some extent addressed to me. I agree with much of what you say. I have a couple of observations, though. First, you say: the Presley page differs extensively from other biographies on rock musicians given the number of quotes and secondary sources attributable to the article. This suggests that the article has basically been hijacked. I think you may be onto something here, if you mean that the number of sources suggests that the net has been thrown very wide to catch any little minnows of tawdriness. After all, questions about its quality and reliability aside, the two-volume bio by Guralnick is so large that one would expect it to be sufficient as a source for an encyclopedia entry. Secondly, I'm not sure what you're saying about Guralnik's work. It seems to be favorably regarded, but you seem dubious or even dismissive. Why is this? Are there documented flaws? (I really don't know.) -- Hoary 07:19, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Markup screw-up

In this recent edit, your deletion of a single "</ref>" caused a pile of footnotes to be concatenated. Please be careful about this kind of thing.

I also noticed that none of your recent series of edits was accompanied by an edit summary. Indeed, a look at your list of contributions suggests that you rarely provide edit summaries. Please provide them. Thanks. -- Hoary 06:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Elvis Presley article

I saw your involvement in the Elvis Presley article and that you were planning to rewrite the "Allegations of racism" section. I left a comment on the issue on the Talk Page that you might want to look at. I suggest reviewing Professor Michael T. Bertrand's work Race, Rock, and Elvis, at least from the University of Illinois Press website[2]. I also strongly suggest an article that provides much information on racism and Presley's musical origins from an unimpeachable source. I have copied parts of it below but I suggest you read and download the entire PDF file.

United States Department of the Interior re Graceland National Historic Landmark Nomination report prepared by Jody Cook, Architectural Historian and edited by Patty Henry of the National Park Service: [3] (Click on PDF file original at top of page for easier reading)

  • According to Richard Penniman of Macon, Georgia—"Little Richard"—the first African American musical artist to break through on the pop charts: "He was an integrator. Elvis was a blessing. They wouldn’t let black music through. He opened the door for black music."
  • When Elvis died in 1977, Rolling Stone magazine devoted an entire issue to Elvis Presley (RS 248). Dave Marsh's contribution made clear just what Elvis meant to America:
    • But if any individual of our time can be said to have changed the world, Elvis Presley is the one. In his wake, more than music is different. Nothing and no one looks or sounds the same. His music was the most liberating event of our era because it taught us new possibilities of feeling and perception, new modes of action and appearance, and because it reminded us not only of his greatness but also of our own potential. If those things were not already so well integrated into our lives that they have become commonplace, it would be simpler to explain how astonishing a feat Elvis Presley’s advent really was.
  • Elvis Presley was influenced by all kinds of American music: gospel, blues, rhythm and blues, country, and pop, at a minimum. He clearly embraced African American music and culture and did so at a pivotal point of cultural change in American history. Similarities between Presley and rhythm and blues singers of the early 1950s have often been noted, but Presley’s true roots in black culture go much deeper. Gospel music was his primary musical influence. In the early years of the twentieth century, the evangelical Pentecostal movement with its "vibrant worship style" became extremely popular with working-class Christians, black and white. The Presley family belonged to the Assembly of God, a Pentecostal Holiness church.
    • The Holiness-Pentecostal connection to southern gospel is particularly important because it is precisely that wing of the white Protestant world that has generally been overlooked and misunderstood by music historians. Convinced that white Protestants displayed little emotion in their services, writers have stereotyped black gospel as expressive while stereotyping white gospel as staid. The fact is that both white and black Christians affiliated with the Holiness-Pentecostal wing of Protestantism found much to shout about in their worship services and those emotions logically spilled over into their singing. The roots of gospel music are found in the rural churches that routinely failed to conform to the more sophisticated style of their urban counterparts.”
    • In the 1890s . . . white and black Pentecostal congregations sprang up all over America, especially wherever the people were poor and depressed. Because the Holiness people jumped, shouted, danced, and fell out for Jesus, because, in a word, they acted "crazy, " they became a national laughingstock, the Holy Rollers of fable and cliché . . . At least twenty million Americans have had long and deep exposure to Holiness. There are easily as many white Sanctified as black, and their behavior may be even more frenzied.
  • (NOTE: The opening chapter, "Tupelo Above The Highway," in Peter Guralnick's book Last Train To Memphis. [4] deals with his Pentecostal church and its music.)
  • The Presleys' relocation to Memphis in 1948 expanded Elvis's musical horizons. He spent hours in local record shops listening to new releases and older records, primarily blues and rhythm and blues. After he was old enough to drive, Presley began to attend Sunday services at the East Trigg Baptist Church, a black congregation in south Memphis. Its minister, the Reverend W. Herbert Brewster, was one of the country's greatest black gospel songwriters. "East Trigg was not just another black gospel church. Its leading soloist, Queen C. Anderson, is by legend the greatest gospel singer the South has produced. And its preacher, Reverend W. Herbert Brewster, is a magnificent songwriter, at the very least a Milton to Thomas A. Dorsey’s Shakespeare."


  • Presley has been accused of "stealing" black rhythm and blues, but such accusations indicate little knowledge of his many musical influences. "However much Elvis may have 'borrowed' from black blues performers (e.g., 'Big Boy' Crudup, 'Big Mama' Thornton), he borrowed no less from white country stars (e.g., Ernest Tubb, Bill Monroe) and white pop singers (e.g., Mario Lanza, Dean Martin)," and most of his borrowings came from the church; its gospel music was his primary musical influence and foundation, especially the close harmony of the gospel quartet. Accusations of stealing also reflect a basic misunderstanding of the art of making music, because collaboration and sharing are essential components, borrowing and appropriation are expected, and theft is simply not an option. According to Miles Davis, ground-breaking jazz musician, composer, and band leader, the creation of music happens like this: “He influenced me and I influenced him [Jimi Hendrix], and that’s the way great music is always made. Everybody’s showing somebody else something and then moving on from there. "
    • There was nothing shameful about appropriating the work of black people, anyway. If Elvis had simply stolen rhythm & blues from Negro culture, as pop music ignoramuses have for years maintained, there would have been no reason for Southern outrage over his new music . . . But Elvis did something more daring and dangerous: . . . The crime of Elvis’ rock & roll was that he proved that black and white tendencies could coexist and that the product of their coexistence was not just palatable but thrilling.

--207.67.145.214 22:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edit summaries (again)

The screenful of the fifty most recent changes to Elvis Presley shows several edits by you. Not a single one of these edits has an edit summary. Please provide an edit summary every time. Examples:

  • this might be "rephrasing one link"
  • This might be "removing trivia about a play about Presley"
  • This might be "removing excess detail about Residents CD"

Note that explanations on the talk page may be excellent supplements to or expansions of edit summaries, but do not render edit summaries unnecessary. Thank you. -- Hoary 04:23, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Lochdale 20:31, 11 August 2006 (UTC)== Advocate ==

If you still need an advocate for your Elvis Presley article dispute, please contact me on xblinterface@hotmail.com.

Otherwise, good luck with your editing.

--GuyIncognito 05:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ban

There is, and never has been, a connection between me and Ted Wilkes or any of his various aliases. I edit from two specific places: My work and my home. Both of those IP addresses should be different than anything ever posted by Ted Wilkes or any of his various sockpuppets. The fact that I like Marvel Comics is scant reason to connect me to a User called Nightcrawler. Moreover, the fact that I have reverted changes to the Presley pages is based on my knowledge of Presley and some of the questionable edits posted by User Onefortyone. It's even more of a punch to the stomach when a fellow Irish Wikipedian (I was born and raised in Dublin and go home every two months or so) is the one who banned me! Please let me know what I can do to confirm that there is no connection between myself and Ted Wilkes et al. Other that the fact that I have edited the Presley page and I happen to like Thor (I also like Roy Keane and Michael Collins for what it is worth) there is NO connection. Lochdale 19:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I've also forwarded a message to the unblock list containing some additional information which I hope will distinguish me from Wilkes et al.Lochdale 20:11, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
The evidence of a link is striking:
  • Once one of DW's sockpuppets has been banned, another promptly appears, claims no links with the earlier ones, and goes straight for the same set of articles to post the same edits the same way.
Lo and hehold: one DW sockpuppet disappears, and you appear, go straight to Elvis Presley and pick up right where the last sockpuppet had been stopped, editing that article over and over. All of the DW/Black Widow/Ted Wilkes sockpuppets all professed their innocence and disclaimed any links with their predecessors, but turned out to be one and the same. And curiously the "oh I'm Irish" line has been trotted out by a number of them. Curiously of all the recent sockpuppets have all focused on what they all refer to as Onefortyone's "questionable edits". It seems far fetched in the extreme that a new user would just happen to appear as the latest sockpuppet was banned, would just happen to go to the same article, just happen to do identical edits, and focus almost exclusively on that topic. The evidence, as I say, is striking. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 20:22, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
I've been editing the Presley page for quite some time I believe. In fact, I was editing it whilst Wilkes was still an active Wikipedian (that is, before he was banned). User Onefortyone's edits have been address by others who have raised the very same issues with those edits. As for the Irish issue, well I've included my name, address, phone number etc. on my email to the unblock list. Happy to give you my Irish address. Did Wilkes et al. contribute to the Irish football team article regularly? Comment on McGeady's declaring for Ireland or the validity or having Terry Dixon added as a forward when he has never been capped? Or commented on the Collins article? Perhaps if I draft an article on my alma mater, Joeys' in Fairview it might help? My point is, the User Onefortyone's edits have been fairly out there. Other editors have had problems with them and I have had problems with them. I think I have been consistent. The fact that they correspond with a banned user's changes I don't think should be dispositive that we are one in the same. Our IP addresses are not the same and my IP address has been consistent (I edit from work and from my home). I am willing to take whatever steps I can to show you that there just isn't a connection. Lochdale 20:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
I've worked on the Presley page long before any of those users appeared. Whilst I appreciate your position I do think the the facts are a little different than as currently presented. That is, I've been working on the article for a while and continued even after Wilkes was banned.Lochdale 20:33, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Actually Wilkes edited constantly using different identities. It was an old trick DW and others have used: "prove" someone isn't your sockpuppet by engaging in chats with one another. (DW tripped himself up by accidentially getting his names mixed up one day and leaving a message under one sockpuppet's name using another one's account! If I am wrong will of course undo the block. However the evidence did very strongly suggest a link. (And yes, DW in one of his identities used to resort to links and Irish topics to prove he wasn't the same as the last sockpuppet all the time. Again he got caught out when he must have had the page with short biographical sketches open to copy information on the wrong page. He mixed up two Irish soccer players in a rather basic way. As I say, if I am wrong I will of course correct it. But I remain to be convinced that there was a mistake. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 20:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for continuing to respond to me. I absolutely agree that the evidence is compelling at first blush and I understand entirely where you are coming from. Given the fact that Wilkes has more than 10 (?) different usernames your reaction is understandable and appropriate. I guess I'll have to ask what I can do to convince you that there is no connection? I've included my work email in the email to the un-ban list. This email address contains a link to my bio etc. which confirms my nationality. Perhaps we could communicate briefly via email? One thing I will say, however, is that I will never confuse any Irish football player as I am passionate about the team (for example, I am flying to Stuttgart (via Frankfurt) to watch the first match in the qualifiers between Ireland and Germany. I even got some extra tickets for some of the lads here, includes my username which is the same one as my Wiki username). I am going back for the Ryder Cup at the K Club and maybe, just maybe, might head back early if Dublin do the business tomorrow. I do have other edits but I was always a passive Wikipedian. It was only after I returned from a visit to Graceland with my Dad who was over(as you know, Presley is still big in Ireland) that I looked at the article. Lochdale 21:06, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


As an aside, I even edited the article on Paddy Kenny to note that he was an Irish GK and not Anglo-Irish. Pedantic to be sure but Irish football is a big thing for me. Lochdale 21:13, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Would it be possible to have a Checkuser search run? I think it would help in sorting this out as the IP addresses I post from should not be similar in any way to any IP address used by Wikes et al. Thanks. Lochdale 23:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

One last request before I tuck in for the night (9:16 CST), for additional contact or a Checkuser. Indeed, even a check of my email to the unblock-list should hopefully give you some comfort that I have no connection to Wilkes or anyone like him. I'm prepared to post/provide whatever is necessary to prove this (within limits on a public site) and would also be willing to discuss this privately via email etc. There is no connection. Coincidence to be sure but the connection is simply not there. I edited before Wilkes was banned. I've edited since Wilkes was banned. One user basically hijacked an article and I tried to respond. As such, I've been put in a situation whereby I am lumped in with an abusive user. I'll do whatever I can to show that there is no connection. And while Wilkes et al. may have tried to use the Irish angle I am from Artane, played 'gaa' (note the lower-case) for Vincents and Joeys and I am as Irish as they come. In fact, I'm also descended from Brian Boru as my last name on my email will attest to! I appreciate the circumstantial evidence but I would hope for a real chance to defend myself. Lochdale 02:21, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Ted Wilkes was frequently engaged in deleting or rewriting passages concerning the homosexuality of personalities. Therefore, he was banned from any article related to homo- or bisexuality by the arbcom, but his sockpuppets continued editing on the topic. Interestingly, Lochdale also removed paragraphs from Wikipedia articles that dealt with gay-related topics, as Wilkes repeatedly did in the past. See [5], [6], [7], [8]. And he removed well-sourced paragraphs which proved that Elvis had problems with heterosexual relationships. See, for instance, [9], [10], [11], [12], [13]. Indeed, Lochdale's very first edits were on the question whether Elvis may have had homosexual leanings, very astonishing for a new user who apparently appeared on the Wikipedia scene for the first time and claimed not to be an Elvis fan. See [14], [15], [16], [17], the latter edit falsely alleging that "Albert Goldman never suggested that Elvis was gay." Indeed Goldman suggests in his Elvis book that Elvis's promiscuity masked latent homosexuality. Lochdale was also deeply involved in attacking me from the beginning on the Elvis talk page, also very astonishing for a new user. See [18], [19] [20], [21]. He even said on 19 December 2005, "I thought we already had this discussion before with onefortyone and I believe the consensus was that you should stop posting on this issue." See [22]. How should a new user know all this, if he was not deeply involved in this kind of discussion months or years before under a different user identity? There is no way denying that Lochdale must be identical with Ted Wilkes. He is using the same strategy as Wilkes alias DW did in the past over and over again: deliberately claiming things that are not true but support his own view, attacking other users who do not agree with him, and removing content which is not in line with his personal opinion. By the way, a Request for Checkuser about the matter wouldn't provide enough evidence concerning the case, as DW alias Ted Wilkes is operating under too many different IPs and, in order to disguise his real identity, seems to be using lots of different PCs. Onefortyone 04:42, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
I also noticed a revert from my comment on Taxation in Ireland. As someone who owns a house in Dublin and who just signed a contract on another in Donnycarney, I think I know a little too much on the stamp duty! I hope this would go to my bona fides. In fact, you can even check the history of my original purchase with the land registry which will go to my name which will correspond with my name in my work email (large, known company) that went to the unblock list. Lochdale 02:40, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Where a user is totally banned from the site (as is the case with DW/Black Widow/Ted Wilkes/Duisberg Dude et al), as opposed to merely being blocked, they are not allowed to edit the site anywhere, in any capacity. Given the strong evidential link that suggested that you were the above banned user (and I'm curious as to how, as a "new user" you could make the comment One mentions above. Users using sockpuppets regularly slip up when as a supposed new user they suddenly show themselves to possess a knowledge of WP, its procedures, technical stuff and past editing knowledge that only someone with a long editing history on WP would possess) it is standard to revert all contributions; article edits, talk page edits, reversions, deletions, etc. Where no other page edits by another user exist to revert back to from a banned editor edit, the entire page gets binned. The rule, as followed since the days of DW, is simple: a banned user cannot so much as change a comma on WP. They have no right to edit and anything they do edit is reversed unread. When in the past banned editors were given some leeway to show good faith they in every single case I ever came across always abused that trust. So admins dealing with banned editors wipe them from the records on sight. If it turns out that in an unusual case, though possessing an edit histort strikingly similar, indeed suspiciously similar to a banned editor they are not them, the reverted edits can be reinstated because, as of yet they have not been erased from the archives, merely from the page. If it is established that you are not Wilkes then the edits to the above page can be easily reinstated. If it is established that you are Wilkes, then the edits will be removed from the records. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 05:26, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

No worries in following protocol insofar as edits go. I would, however, ask that you continue to look at the evidence (please, please look at my Unban email) and look at my contributions and my comments. I'm asking you to take a risk and follow through on this. There is NO connection. I can confirm everything I have said if you will just give me a chance.Lochdale 08:31, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

One of the most striking arguments for Lochdale being identical with NightCrawler alias DW alias Ted Wilkes is his constant claim that there are "over 2,000 books written on Elvis" that do not support the quotes from the several independent sources Onefortyone has provided. See [23], [24]. The only editors who used exactly the same phrase in order to support their biased opinions were the IPs 24.165.212.202 and 66.61.69.65. See [25] and [26]. I have shown elsewhere that these are the IPs of one and the same person. It may be added that they were used in order to circumvent violating the Three-revert rule in edit wars with me. This edit undoubtedly proves that IP 24.165.212.202 is identical with User:NightCrawler. Thus, there is only one conclusion to be drawn, namely, that Lochdale is identical with NightCrawler alias DW alias Ted Wilkes, etc.

I think it's very easy for Ted Wilkes to get an Irish email address, isn't it? Wilkes may also have an Irish friend who is sending some emails for him. However, it could also be that there is a small circle of Elvis fans who know each other and, alternately, are deliberately harassing me by repeatedly deleting my contributions and accusing me of pushing an agenda, simply because my edits are not in line with their all too positive view of their megastar, although I am very carefully, and frequently, citing my sources, among them reputed Elvis biographies and critical university studies. If this Elvis fan group really does exist, then it's a case of Meatpuppetry. The Wikipedia:Sock puppetry page says that this

issue occurs when multiple individuals create brand new accounts specifically to participate in, or influence, a particular vote or area of discussion. This is common in deletion discussions or controversial articles. These newly created accounts, or anonymous edits, may be friends of another editor, may be related in some way to the subject of an article under discussion, or may have been solicited by someone to support a specific angle in a debate. Wikipedians also call such user accounts single-purpose accounts ...
These accounts ... are often difficult to distinguish from real sock puppets and are treated similarly. Neither a sock puppet nor a single-purpose account holder is regarded as a member of the Wikipedia community. The Arbitration Committee has ruled that, for the purpose of dispute resolution, when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sock puppets, or several users acting as meatpuppets, they may be treated as one individual.

See [27]. So it doesn't matter if Ted Wilkes himself or one of his friends is editing as Lochdale and harassing me. Be that as it may, Ted Wilkes is certainly the driving force in removing my contributions, as I am his archfiend. This is no wonder, because we were edit warring since 2005 and I was responsible for getting Ted Wilkes banned from Wikipedia. This would explain why his sockpuppets are constantly using me as a whipping boy. Onefortyone 12:23, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Well let's be clear here. Firstly, I don't have an Irish email address. I live in Chicago. I just happened to have been born and raised in Dublin. Secondly, my email address in my unban email is company specific and goes to my origin. Thirdly, my IP address does NOT match those of Wilkes or any user associated with Wilkes. My use of the phrase 2000 books probably comes from reading Wilkes' edits/comments etc. but that is hardly dispositive. I don't give a sugar about your dispute with Wilkes. Other than the one note he posted in my Talk Page i've never communicated with Wilkes. There is no "Elvis group" or if there is I am blissfully unaware of it! I think most of your edits on the Presley page are unwarranted. Regardless, I'm getting blocked for a reason that does not stand up to scrutiny on closer review. For example, is it coincidence that an Ebay user named Lochdale buys two tickets to the Ireland-Germany match? Is it coincidence that I contribute to the Irish football page and contribute rather detailed edits? Again, I'd like to as for a Checkuser. I would also ask that Jtdirl check my email from my unban email and to please follow up on this. There is NO connection!Lochdale 17:57, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I've just got word back re checkuser. As you said it would, it shows that you are now Wilkes. I have unbanned you and reinstated your original user page. I'll reinstate all your edits. Sorry for all of this. As I am sure you can understand when it comes to dealing with the likes of DW/Wilkes, immediate action, given the nature of his behaviour, is required. In your case the evidence, by chance, overwhelmingly led to the presumption that you were Wilkes. We non-checkuser people then have to rely on others to use it to confirm or disprove our suspections.
Anyway, apologies for all the inconvenience. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 21:29, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. This is great news. In fairness, I had no idea that Wilkes was such a problem. Seeing all of his various aliases I now understand why you had to react with a block. Further, it's pretty impressive that I was blocked yesterday but was unblocked a day later. That's incredible speed for a volunteer website. I'm sure you and the others have plenty of other things to do other than to focus on this. Thanks again.Lochdale 23:11, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Quick follow-up, will my editing privileges be returned? Thanks. Lochdale 23:12, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
They should have been by now. I put in an unblock straight away so it should have been instant. In case it did not work (I've come across occasional cases where blocks and unblocks didn't work) I'll do a repeat. I've reinstated all the edits I removed of put notices on (I think). If there is any I missed let me know. It probably would be better if I removed them rather than you, because some users might misinterpret you doing so. Actually, no go ahead. If someone queries it, point them to my comments here. You have full authorisation to re-instate any comments and remove any templates. As I say, sorry for the inconvenience. Onefortyone, who has been a victim of outrageous behaviour by Wilkes, concluded on the basis of your edits that you were his sockpuppet. When I examined it the evidence also suggested that. Checkuser showed that it was simply coincidence. I don't know how much dealing you have had with onefortyone. (I am not active on those pages.) Do remember that he is a bit stressed by his experiences at the hands of Wilkes, so give him some slack. I've come across the likes of Wilkes before. They use WP to harrass users by doing what we call wikistalking them: following them around, deleting what they delete, disagreeing with what they write just because it was they who wrote it, and making life hell for their victims. I was wikistalked once myself so it isn't a pleasant experience.
Re the speed. One thing that never ceases to amaze me is how much work is done here, all for free, by so many people. It really is an astonishing project and a privilege to work on. (Case in point: instead of working on my own book I have spent two days designing a major new template linking to a major theme in Irish history, finding links, graphics, information and fixing information as I found errors in articles. Sometimes I think I am crazy doing all this work for free. lol. Anyway, the best of luck. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 00:14, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
I must confess that I find User Onefortyone to be a very difficult user to deal with. His edits to the Presley article are mean-spirited adn are definitely on the fringe. That said, he does not deserve the abuse he has received from Wilkes et al. I did not appreciate the extent Wilkes has gone to to continue to harass him. In this context, the block makes perfect sense. I will do my best to be sensitive to this user though I do think the Presley article looks better than it ever has (mostly due to his being banned from eiditng the article for 2 months). I digress, however, as that isn't the issue. I do want to take a moment to thank you personally for the courtesy you showed me. You could have ignored my comments and dismissed me outright. Instead, you took the time and effort to investigate the issue and you did so in a very short period of time. Quite simply, that shows your class. In addition, several other Admins were extremely helpful. They could have just as easily ignored me or dismissed my comments but they also made an effort. I too am VERY impressed with this community and this project. Quite amazing for a volunteer website. I do think, however, that you should focus on the book as well! What's the topic? I'd also like to get more involved with the Irish Wiki project as I'd like to contribute. Thanks again. Lochdale 07:33, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Koizumi and Elvis

Regarding Koizumi's visit to Graceland, my problem with that particular piece of trivia isn't so much that I find Koizumi's affection for Elvis's music to be insignificant but that I do find it unsurprising that Graceland was closed when two of the world's most poweful people visited. After reading the Koizumi article I do see that indeed Koizumi probably should be mentioned in the Elvis article as there is a paragraph's worth of information regarding Koizumi and Elvis in the Koizumi article (in fact it is the larger part of the section on Koizumi's personal life), but that information should be put in a different context. I'll try to find and effective way to condense the information about Koizumi and Elvis in the Koizumi article and add it to the Elvis trivia. Theshibboleth 04:41, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A note about the Arbitration and issues surrounding it

Hello there, I am here as an ArbCom watcher that has commented on the Arbitration Request brought by you against Onefortyone, and while I have left my opinions on the particulars of the page on my comment there, I wish to extend a few friendly pointers about your conduct and edits I have found as I mined the edit page of Elvis Presley.

  • Do not explicitly remove critical material of a non-living biography subject, even if it is biased. Work to make it unbiased instead, and you will be contributing to the integrity of the article.
  • Please follow the 3-Revert Rule. Just because someone else is editing disruptively does not give you free reign to ignore the rules. If someone is being disruptive, then pleasse contact an administrator or sysop to assist you. if you don't know any, I can refer you to several that have been helpful with me in the past.
  • Do not press points of view in biographies. Simply because the point of view is positive doesn't mean you can add it. Wikipedia has a Neutral Point of View policy that we as editors are expected to follow.

I say this so as to help improve your editing, not to be critical, and I'm not saying Onefourtyone is innocent of wrongdoing - this just isn't the place to talk about it. Remember to be bold when editing Wikipedia, but temper that with knowledge and respect for the rules and guidelines here :)

If yhou ever are in doubt or need help, don't hesitate to leave a line in my talk page and I'll help you out or point you in the right direction if I can. -- Wizardry Dragon (Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia) 22:09, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Elvis

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Elvis. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Elvis/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Elvis/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Thatcher131 02:40, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Question

Please answer the question at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Elvis/Workshop#Question_to_Lochdale. Fred Bauder 19:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kevin Doyle

Hi. Just curious as to why you are removing Doyle's goal tally for the 2006/2007 season? Seems appropriate and an easy update while Doyle is still playing. Lochdale 20:05, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I did not remove it. I just looked on the history of the Kevin Doyle page, and I see it was Robwingfield who did so. So it is him you should be talking to about it, not me. -- Mattythewhite 20:13, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lochdale.

Hello. I came to your page because I saw your "proposed ban" because of the Elvis Presley article and just want to say that I believe in you. I have for a while noticed a very very strong agenda pushing on the article of the American actor Nick Adams - this is what drew me to the Elvis page, then subsequently to the arbitration discussion. There is a particular user who I firmly believe to be using Wiki loopholes to cleverly and purposely make accusations, assertions and inuendos about Nick Adams. I have even once removed very blatant POV and insinuation from the article (as you can see on the Nick Adams talk page) only to have the same information (alleging homosexuality) rewording with tenuous sources and placed back into the article to purposely assert what I believe to be an obsessive and radical POV viewpoint based on what I believe to be original research.

I do not know much about the Elvis page, or what has transpired fully between the two of you, but I do believe that you were working in good conscience and I am sorry if it involved you being reprimanded somehow. I think it is very sad indeed when anyone can selective quote anything and use it to push POV and muddy reputations and information. Anyway, I just wanted to say that I wish you luck and I support you. :) Proosit, ExRat 04:30, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Seconded, for the most part. The RfAr was pretty farcical. The ray of sunshine here is that something about this and relevant articles smells so bad as to draw a comment here from ExRat. I hope ExRat takes some action, though I'd warn him/her to do so very carefully. -- Hoary 08:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Elvis

This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above.

For the Arbitration committee. Cowman109Talk 20:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you.

Lochdale,

Thank you for the comment and advice on the user who I spoke of to you. I do not currently wish to speak out about him/her after I look over many edits of this person and I have coem to the conclusion that it probably would result in a migraine. I understand that this person can not currently edit celebrity bios (if I read correctly). Hopefully that will stifle any recent attempts by them to continue to add misinformation, POV, innuendo, dubious sources and tip the balance of decent biographies into enormously long investigations into their sexualities. Thank you, and good luck. ExRat 01:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../l/o/c/User_talk%7ELochdale_09e4.html"