User talk:Fair Deal

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Tom Petty

Okay, I'll mind that 3 Revert Rule and revert your assertions of Tom Petty as 'a real original punk rocker' just 1-2 times daily. 1 editorial article where Tom Petty adamently declares how he isn't punk doesn't count. Now go tattle on me for striving to maintain obvious facts; heck, send me 50 automated messages with Twinkle popup gadgets and magic nerd programs. Put simply, I don't appreciate being childishly identified as some vandal for refusing to let you compromise factual integrity. LOL, so ridiculous. The popup geek-technology and automated messages won't deter me. :) --Tim010987 (talk) 1:07 AM, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

"Edit War"? What, so I get threatened for disputing that Tom Petty is 'punk rock'? The 'evidence' they showed was an interview with Tom Petty where HE disputes that he's 'punk rock'. How is that proof then? There is no factual integrity to Wikipedia, just whatever someone's opinion is apparently. Tim010987 (talk) 12:09 AM, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AC/DC

I AM using the Talk Page. The other side is not because they don't have a leg to stand on. 74.77.222.188 (talk) 10:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Your edits appear to be deleting added references. If you have a talk page issue opened do not remove cited material until a discussion has taken place. In the meantime you have violated 3RR policy and will be reported in you revert the article again. Fair Deal (talk) 10:47, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
You're going to tell me to use the Talk Page, when I already have, and then revert my edit without using the Talk Page YOURSELF? What a hypocrite. Those references DON'T SUPPORT THE TEXT. Get it? 74.77.222.188 (talk) 11:00, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Remain civil on my talk page. I reverted the mass deleting of properly formatted references. All of which have been in place for a long time and all appear OK. You recent history shows that you are initiating and continuing edit wars across several articles and a complete ignorance of WP:3RR, WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Fair Deal (talk) 11:08, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

If you think they appear okay, then you aren't reading them. Read them. Find one that says anything like AC/DC are a pioneering hard rock/heavy metal band alongside Black Sabbath, Led Zeppelin and Deep Purple. And then restore my edit. 74.77.222.188 (talk) 11:22, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I have issued a warning to the other editor as well although they have not techincally violated policy yet. The Britannica citations are valid as they suppport the addition of the heavy metal genre. The AMG link seems OK and the 2 book references are used in several other articles relating to heavy metal and the text in those articles is similar to identical to the text used in the AC/DC article. Do not delete references from Wikipedia as this is seen as vandalism. Fair Deal (talk) 11:37, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] small question

i understand if you dont like black colour in the ifobox, but - what does the colour have to do with a popup?--Lykantrop (Talk) 22:05, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I mean WP:popup —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lykantrop (talk • contribs) 22:06, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Asia

Given your past involvement, you may be interested in contributing to a new discussion at Talk:Asia (band)#Proposal to re-insert certain external links. Bondegezou (talk) 17:08, 22 February 2008 (UTC) Sir, I ask that you please evaluate the wiki policy for external links. I read your response on the page that it should only include the official site, that is not what the wiki rules state sir. These rules were clearly detailed by Bondegezou and they were never rebuttaled by the opposition, they were quick broad responses without thouching upon the issues in detail. He pointed these facts as to what links should be included, this goes well beyond an official site. Bondegezou stated... "Hu12 raises the issue of what he calls "obvious" spamming. Under WP:AGF, I accept the explanation given below by the Asia Fan Club President as to what happened. Regardless of that, the inappropriate activities of certain editors is completely irrelevant to the merits of the case. The link concerned was in this article for a long time before the recent edit war erupted and content should never be chosen to punish editors' behaviour. The issue must be decided in terms of what is best for the article. A. B. and Hu12 raise WP:RS and WP:V, but WP:EL is the more relevant policy here, not those. This is not about using the link concerned as a citation, but giving it in the external links section. At the beginning of WP:EL, it states under "What should be linked" that, "1. Articles about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to the official site if any." An officially authorised fan club seems to me to constitute an official site. WP:EL goes on, "4. Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews." The site in question contains such content. If one is concerned about WP:RS policy, I note that WP:EL continues under "Links to be considered", "4. Sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources." That is, even if a site fails WP:RS, it may still be considered. Taking that in conjunction with the site's official status seems to me a sufficient case for the link's inclusion. WP:EL then continues with a list of "Links normally to be avoided". The site in question does not appear to fall under any of the categories listed. A. B. suggests above that the site does fall under criteria 1, 11 and 12. With respect to 1, the site clearly contains considerable content beyond what a good Wikipedia article would ever include. I do not see how 11 applies at all. 12 reads "Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority." Given this site has been authorised by the band in question, that would seem to come under "except those written by a recognized authority". Nor is it a blog or simply a personal web page. Bondegezou (talk) 12:34, 11 February 2008 (UTC) The mistake I made was I engaged in an edit war and people got upset. For a long time my link was in the external links section of the wiki article. A few weeks ago I noticed that my link was moved to the bottom the external links section by 2 newer links. Feeling this unjustified, going by a first come first serve basis, I moved it back to the #2 slot in the external links section. My link was removed by an IP address of 156.34.225.77 and an edit war broke out, & for one hour of this war only my link was removed. After about the first hour of this edit war he then decided to remove ASIA's official my space page as well. After a chat on the discussion page, the concenus was to reinstate my link, but 156.34.226.160 continued on and my site that is an authorized site for ASIA was placed it on the blacklist as spam. It has also come between a private SE program I have with Google that I paid money for. This is clearly deformation of my site, myself and ASIA's authorized online fan club. 156.34.225.77 continued to write editors and people to take his side. Finally as you can see the evidence for yourself, it was proven that my link is an ASIA authorized Internet resource. I am an official authorized affiliate to report official ASIA news, photos, & all media sources. My site IT'S NOT SIMPLY A BLOG or a forum, and contains interviews reviews (official) and other valuable information that would not be included in a wiki article such as tour photos exclusive to the fan club and other interviews and reviews approved for my site. According to Wiki policy, that is to be included in the external links section. 156.34.225.77 lied to administrators and told them I was adding spam (to give the impression that I suddenly added the link that day) in reality, he got pissed that I moved my link to where it was for a long time, in the #2 spot. I didn't add anything, in reality it was he that removed it and then lied to administrators, by the time the real story came out, it was blown up, hell had already broken loose, & the administrators already made their call (like an umpire not changing). He started the whole thing, reqruited the administrators, now wants to free himself of all involvement and leave those he requited to take the heat when I bring the truth of this out and turned the heat up when I said I was taking this further. Look at what 156.34.225.77 said here (still calling me spam) "I am sorry to interrupt this convo but since several of you are involved in the issues going on at the Asia page I thought I would interject a personal concern here where several eyes could pick up on it... rather than chase each of you down individually. It's nothing major... unless you're me... but on the Asia talk page there is a very lengthy list of IPs that are being linked to the ongoing spam push by the Asia Fan Club President. The problem is... and this is my concern... one of my IPs (a noble 156.34.X range) is listed among the many IPs that have been used by the AFC Pres. Trust me... the FC pres does not live in Eastern Canada :D . I was going to rm it myself but then I thought... "there just ain't enough edit summary space to properly clarify the reason for its removal". I didn't want to look like I was hiding something :D. Could one of you be so kind as to clear my trustworthy IP range from any connections with the AFC pres and all his woeful pain and suffering apparently caused by Wikipedia. I just want me number back eh? :D . Have a nice day! 'Libs' 156.34.226.160 (talk) 02:10, 28 February 2008(UTC)"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:A._B. Whats funny is they can't see through it and they continue to take his side and edited his IP out of my statements, 156.34.225.77 now wants to wash his hands clean of this. I was no angel in my response to this, I should not engaged in a war and should have wrote the administrators right away and said he vandalized a long time link, & this would have never happened. I ask you to please look at the guidelines of the wiki policy (external links) and see how many unuthorized links are on band pages because relevant material, my site is authorized and is in the official biography. It contain reviews interviews and photos that the article speaks that can't be included in the article, according to wiki own rules, that is relevant. I was banned by AB until 3/23 because of sock puppetry/Modrago, and BTW... turns out I was wronfully accused and wrongfully banned. See the evidence here, I was cleared. "Unrelated - bizarrely, Mondrago (talk) is actually unrelated to the above IPs and geolocates elsewhere by IP. I can detect no further IPs which have been spamming but from the list, it's clear that AO rangeblocking 4.238.124.0/24 will catch 90% of them - Alison ❤ 07:16, 13 February 2008(UTC) "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Mondrago I always lived up to all my IPs and never pretended to be someone else, as I'm at 3 different PC during the day plus an iphone. Please judge this why happened before this blew up and judge my links on it merits itself and not what mistakes I made after the fact. Sincerely Asia Fan Club Pres

[edit] Roger Waters Talk page

Hello, "Fair Deal". You have repeatedly referred to me making "personal attacks" on Peter Fleet. I would like to know, what specifically are you referring to? Hmm, I did say it was "reprehensible" for him to remove my comments from the Roger Waters Talk page. That's an attack? I thought it was a pretty reasonable opinion. According to the very policy pages you recommended to me, Talk page comments should be removed as seldom as possible.
As far as I can tell, the worst thing I said was that Peter "lied like a wet little worm in describing his edit" (Peter Fleet had removed an entire "Personal/Trivia" section, then described his edit as "adding tag for unreferenced equipement section"). Obviously, comparing someone to a "wet little worm" is unkind and unnecessary. However, the fact remains that he was dishonest in describing his edit.
Here are some comments I made on his talk page that he described as "personal attacks":
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Peter_Fleet&oldid=205053039#Roger_Waters:__STOP_Reverting.2C_please.21
The very worst thing I say in these comments is "You're not thinking." Do you really consider that a personal attack? Are you thinking???

--63.25.125.225 (talk) 03:20, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Your post directed uncivil remarks toward an editor. Talk pages are for discussing the article topic only. User:Peter Fleet's edits were perfectly valid. Trivia sections are frowned on. They are not meany to be expanded. They should be removed. I see the editor was polite in that he coded out the section rather than simply delete it. At least it gives editors an opportunity to salvage some useful material from it to incorporate into the article in a more encyclopedic form. If you do not follow Wikipedia's rules you will be reported to an administrator. Fair Deal (talk) 03:26, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
There were virtually no personal criticisms, and what few there were ("That's beyond reprehensible"; "You're not thinking") were exceedingly mild. Peter Fleet needs to grow up. And you both need to chill out on the deletion of material from Talk pages; that is to be done as seldom as possible.
You have been asked, politely, for an example of a "personal attack", and have yet to provide one.
Furthermore, it's considerably rude to delete someone's contributions without an explanation. Nowhere in the trivia tag does it say "Any additions will be summarily reverted away." In none of the WP: articles does it say "Do not add any further items to any existing Trivia sections."
Peter Fleet did not even acknowledge that he was destroying my work of redrafting that made several paragraphs read better. Reverting is a hostile way of editing when you can simply remove the offending lines. Just because Fleet didn't say something rude doesn't mean he WAS NOT rude. He was quite rude indeed.
--63.25.125.225 (talk) 03:35, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Alice Cooper in the Pacific Region

I can't believe that it has come to this. Someone has a point of view on the subject of Alice Cooper. I have to grit my teeth when it comes to having to even type this out. Making a uproar about music isn't my cup of tea. What’s the proper way to deal with information on Wikipedia when it is true? I really can't understand the issue here when I see no dIffrence from the other information already posted. I understand this is somebody with an opinion who has taken it too seriously when it comes to Alice Cooper. I call it nit-picking. I have not once discarded anyone's text. I have only complemented it with additional grammar that fits the article.

I thought Cooper's career would want to be covered in every aspect on Wikipedia? I kinda got that impression when I had read all the details already covered in the article. I thought I would add some additional information that was relevant to the article. Ever since that day it has been deleted repeatedly. I can't possibly think of a good reason to make a fuss over music. Remember, I never deleated anything about the article in question. This is about self-publishing, and about the truth on the subject.

I find it funny that when it comes to music on Wikipedia, its all about criticism on what to add. Arguing about music is beyond embarrassing. Childish. I am almost 50 years old and have no time to play a game about somebody's prefrences. I don't think I have anything to prove about this now. I certainly think that adding more relevant information about the topic is only accentuating the article more. What is the diffrence between my text and the text that was already there. Absoloutely nothing, except that mine is about the Pacific region. I will say that its greatly improved when there is an additional inclusion of information about the subect. Up-to-date and revised without no faulty information is all I did. What is wrong with that? How can I reinforce that anymore?

Thanks Electric Japan (talk23:42, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


[edit] User:Indopug

I have noticed this user is puposefully destroying my additions to Wikipedia. I thought I would bring this to your attention. I don't think I should bring this to your attention when it is already out in the open. I have read what else he had been doing on Wikipedia yesterday. I see no benefit to this kind of Wikipedian. How old is he? Thank you, Electric Japan (talk) 02:15, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, lucky he's taking a break until June, is'nt it? Imperial Star Destroyer (talk) 14:56, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea who Indopug is. But he seems to be a busy editor who is dedicated to Wikipedia. Although I have seen that he has made a couple of mistakes on the Motorhead article. They have been corrected. His other edits looks genuine enough. Electric Japan you seem to do an awful lot of poetic whining for someone who claims to be 50? You were edit warring and you received a valid warning for it. And now I see you are still edit warring today on the same article. News blogging makes Wikipedia look bad. Especially in the style in which you are writing, which is very poor. If you continue to edit war you may find yourself blocked from editing altogether. Be more careful and don't go against consensus. Fair Deal (talk) 10:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)