Onefortyone (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 449: | Line 449: | ||
:::The Madison Entertainment Group, Inc., a subsidiary of Madison Group Associates, Inc., formerly based in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, which once acquired the worldwide rights to [http://www.highbeam.com/doc.aspx?DOCID=1G1:16884628&ctrlInfo=Round20%3AMode20d%3ADocG%3AResult&ao= The Intimate Life and Death of Elvis Presley] and intended to publish the book, is a defunct company for financial reasons since the 1990s (see [http://www.sec.gov/litigation/litreleases/lr16056.txt]). As too many fans refused to endorse the book, no other publisher has yet been found for the manuscript, especially in view of the high fees for the world-wide rights. But the content of the manuscript has been discussed by several authors, among them reputable Elvis experts. [[User:Onefortyone|Onefortyone]] 01:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC) |
:::The Madison Entertainment Group, Inc., a subsidiary of Madison Group Associates, Inc., formerly based in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, which once acquired the worldwide rights to [http://www.highbeam.com/doc.aspx?DOCID=1G1:16884628&ctrlInfo=Round20%3AMode20d%3ADocG%3AResult&ao= The Intimate Life and Death of Elvis Presley] and intended to publish the book, is a defunct company for financial reasons since the 1990s (see [http://www.sec.gov/litigation/litreleases/lr16056.txt]). As too many fans refused to endorse the book, no other publisher has yet been found for the manuscript, especially in view of the high fees for the world-wide rights. But the content of the manuscript has been discussed by several authors, among them reputable Elvis experts. [[User:Onefortyone|Onefortyone]] 01:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC) |
||
:Sorry for this dubious use of your talk page, and this distraction from your candidacy. -- [[User:Hoary|Hoary]] 01:21, 4 August 2006 (UTC) |
:Sorry for this dubious use of your talk page, and this distraction from your candidacy. -- [[User:Hoary|Hoary]] 01:21, 4 August 2006 (UTC) |
||
::I have to parrot Hoary here in two ways. Firstly, your Talk Page should not be used this way and I think it is being abused by User Onefortyone as a backend aroudn his ban. Secondly, Hoary hit the nail on the head when he noted that User Onefortyone's positions are often unfalsifiable due to the fact that they are most based on conjecture and clever set-up. As for the article itself, well it is has numerous sections that are negative towards Presley including his drug abuse and his phlandering and cheating on his wife. The problem is, User Onefortyone makes selective use of quotes and sources to suit his own agenda. A great example of this is his citation to a fairly low-key English play that has an Elvis impersonator as one of its characters. Not content, however, to merely cite to the play itself User Onefortyone also then includes selective quotes from a reviewer that supports his overall agenda that Presley was a gay, had a sexual relationship with his mother and most likely practiced necrophilia. It's one thing to cite to a minor play but to then cite to an obscure reviewer is just more proof of his agenda. I really do not want to respond to this User anymore as he's making Wikipedia an unpleasant place to be. --[[User:Lochdale|Lochdale]] 04:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC) |
|||
== spoken barnstar == |
== spoken barnstar == |
Revision as of 04:49, 4 August 2006
witchita
Welcome sort-of back, my British friend. -Mask 18:56, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
RfC comments
I haven't commented in the RfC (now moot, as it's been deleted for lack of certification), particularly because the RfC does not address any on-wiki conduct on my part. My only involvement was to inform Avilla that he was not permitted to post logs from my privately owned channels without my permission; to do otherwise is copyright infringement. I took no administrative actions with regard to the situation; to assert such, as you quite clearly did in your response, is patently false. The only actions I took were to notify Avilla that he was not permitted to post logs from my channels, and that he would be taken to arbitration if he did not stop doing so. I dare you or anyone else to produce evidence to the contrary. I strongly suggest you go back over the evidence involved; you quite obviously did not have your facts straight when you wrote your response. Frankly, I think you owe me an apology. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 22:54, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Please note that my only administrative action in this dispute, the permanent deletion of three revisions from [[User talk:Benon]], was performed entirely within the realm of standard practice. As I specified in my deletion reason and again in my statement in the now-delisted request for comment, the revisions were deleted following a non-solicited request from Benon himself, who perhaps wished to protect the privacy channel policy and tradition affords him. Please consider reading all users' statements more carefully in the future to help prevent any possible aggravation or conflict. Thank you for taking the time to examine and comment on the request for comment. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 23:49, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi Nicholas Turnbull. I left you one message to your "mediator response" Please respond. Thank you. --Nikitchenko 18:36, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Hello Nicholas. Thank you for offering to mediate. Can you please help, Antaeus Feldpsar and Stollery keep reverting me and are not saying why[1] [2]. Stollery thinks Tory Christman's words can be used in the Office of Special Affairs article. But it is against WP:V and WP:RS. Antaeus doesn't discuss this. --Nikitchenko 09:44, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
- FYI I have discussed this extensively on the article's talk page - Glen TC (Stollery) 09:49, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
- Stollery say we can use Tory's statement because we are writing about Tory. But we are writing about OSA and some editrs use Torys claim (from her personal website) to write about OSA. This is totally contradictory of WP:RS which define part of Policy WP:V. --Nikitchenko 01:26, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Glen thinks we can use Tory Christman as source to write the OSA article and he says its because we are writing about Tory. This is the disputed contents: "Tory Christman, a former member of the OSA has stated that the organization hired private investigators, fabricated criminal charges and harassed their targets, including at their place of employment, as well as their family members." That statement is about OSA, not Tory. She is the source and is unreliable. --Nikitchenko 10:10, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Odd edits
... to British Africans.
Check out the "trivia" section of Ainsley Harriott. There are alot of odd edits to black Britons making peculiar note of their ethnicity.
Other edits include trivia points that certain famous British and Americans (not restricted to blacks) are friends, "good" friends, "close" friends, whatever, with other celebrities, including Steven Seagal.
What's going on???
- CobaltBlueTony 15:58, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
We appear to have lost our mediatior. DanielPi has been doing some good work with myself and Athanasius303 on developing guidelines for this article. He has not added any input for a few weeks and I fear that he will not be returning. We did make good progress on the article and I believe with just a little mediation to give input on some policy type guidelines, the mediation can be closed. The topic is controversial and often Athanasius303 and myself do not see eye to eye, but we have both demonstrated restraint and a willingness to learn what is acceptable for a Wikipedia article. I am hopeful that just a little neutral third party view could go a long way to resolving our differences. I do not know the procedure for proceeding with the mediation since DanielPi never did formally remove himself. Bernie Radecki 21:42, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Template talk:Featured
Hi, I was wondering of you can help solve the GA->FA tag dispute at Template talk:Featured. 69.192.8.106 01:01, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
What have you done?
Hello Nicholas: I do not agree with your block and with any of the so-called "reasons" you cite. If User:PZFUN had any problems he could have contacted me first. The only one complaining that I know of is User:Shuki who threatened me with violence [3] and I overlooked that, instead, you have acted as both prosecutor and judge, which does not reflect well on your judgment. You could have asked for more clarification. You have also disrupted my ongoing contributions to other articles which have nothing to do with this discussion. IZAK 06:48, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
What do you mean?
Nich old boy: When you say: "I would also suggest that you read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view as you appear to be spending a great deal of time attempting to espouse your own personal points of view on Wikipedia" what in heavens name do you mean? I am no different to any other hard-working Wikipedia editor. You are totally out of line with the accusation quoted above. It's been a long-long time since anyone alleged that I was doing this. Yes, I admit, my interests are mainly within Category:Jews and Judaism and Category:Israel and Zionism and I know a lot in particular about these subjects. Don't you have your own interests or are you only caught up in process and not content? What don't you like about my work? Have you read all of it? What do you know about these subjects that you can critique what I have or have not said or what my view is or is not? IZAK 06:56, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
IZAK was emotional. He'd had to deal with some rather vile attacks on himself, and while perhaps not ideal, was hardly asking for a block. I see nothing particularly severe there, and certainly nothing that warrants the blocking of a respected, long-term contributor. Blocks are meant to be used as a last resort, not because someone gets on your nerves, and minor civility issues neither are, nor have ever been, grounds for blocking. Rebecca 00:53, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Block
I also must say that your recent block of me was a bit premature and uncalled for. JohnnyBGood t c 00:51, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Disagreement
Dear Nicholas: Thanks for taking the time and effort to respond on my talk page. Here is a cross-posting of my response from my talk page so that you should not miss it. Read it carefully. Sincerely, IZAK 06:10, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
- Nicholas: I do not agree with you! Judging from your response/s above, it is crystal clear that you have either chosen to ignore or have missed the crux of the entire episode. Given that a number of well-respected admins disagreed with your actions in this instance you are thus NOT at liberty to use in any way whatsoever insofar as my "behaviour in the past relating to the recent AfD should not be repeated in the future;" so that "otherwise, myself or another administrator may well have to block you from editing Wikipedia." If any admin wishes to interject themselves (by issuing blocks or whatnot) into any INTELLIGENT (albeit heated) debate that is taking place between a number of editors (and in this case there were admins on either side of the debate) they would be well-advised to give at least one prior warning AT THAT FUTURE TIME, if and when such a situation were ever to occur, so that the person being informed should be made aware that more serious measures are being considered, such as a "block" by an invisible admin. Thus this statement of yours is to be considered null and void and of no import whatsoever. The following is the procedure you would be obliged to follow when a situation arises that is CLEARLY concerned with matters relating to articles and their CONTENTS (for example, in the context of a legitimate discussion on a talk page or during voting) which is what this bebate was about when you interjected without an invitation: Wikipedia:Resolving disputes: Wikipedia:Negotiation; Wikipedia:Requests for comment; Wikipedia:Requests for mediation; Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration etc. Kindly do not threaten me in any way whatsover and save your scare tactics for less seasoned Wikipedians. Wikipedia is known for it's fairness, and you need to remember that in the future it is you with the powers of admin that needs to work within the paramaters of WP:GF and consider the CONTEXT and CONTENT of the situation in it's entirety when dealing with contributing editors who are acting out of genuine motives for the betterment of Wikipedia. My discussions with User:Kim Bruning (see my page above) have been far more productive, as he has at least been willing to get to the heart of the matter, a very wise approach indeed in contradistinction to your uncalled for actions vis-à-vis me which creates an air of even greater potential friction than had existed prior to your actions. IZAK 05:42, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Some new responses
Hi Nicholas: I have provided some updated responses to some of your remarks at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Nomination by PZFUN, and Speedy keep of several articles by Slimvirgin. Thanks. IZAK 06:26, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Block
Can you block User:74.130.171.59. He is still vandalising even after a third level warning! I just gave him a level 4 warning. the_ed17(talk)(contribs) 14:42, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-04-11 Scientology
It seems no one wants to mediate the dispute at Office of Special Affairs and so some contributors making exceptions to WP:V/WP:RS with claims it improves article quality. They think citing lies/rumors improve article quality. If no mediators responds (it's been more than a week since my latest entry to Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-04-11 Scientology), I take it to RFC. --Nikitchenko 01:21, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for a quick answer. :) I understand you are busy. Me too. Thats why I am only here couple hours each week. If it helps you understand my dispute, I am disputing reliability of sources and the disruptive behavior of the other editors who revert me over & over even though I follow policy and guidelines. I would rather work on article relating to dive sites but when I saw what is in Wikipedia about Scientology I decided to quit and then decided to do something about it. --Nikitchenko 01:30, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi Nicholas, some of us make more statements on the mediation page. Thanks again for you attention. --Nikitchenko 20:53, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi Nick, I noticed that you removed the fact that Hartley's original ambition was to set up a harem from the above article. This is a fact (albeit a surprising one), not vandalism, and is sourced from the book referenced at the bottom of the article. The book states that the city council of the time ignored Hartley's wishes and founded a purely educational institute in his name instead. I know it might not be a fact that we wish to promote, but in the interests of the NPOV policy and completeness, I think it should stay in. I'll add a cite tag to make sure it's clear the information is sourced. Waggers 09:42, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Mediation Volunteer
Hello,
I am currently studying a lot of ADR courses. My current course is on the use of technology in ADR. In a class Colin Rule suggested that those wanting to practice their on-line mediation skills check out this site. I love the Wikipedia cite and am preparing to edit the page on J.P. Donleavy. I am writing you and wasting your time as I would like to do some mediations here. I have been going through the site and learning how things here work. I am not very tech savvy but am learning. Any suggestions? I have no actual mediation experience but am kind patient openmnded and nuetral. I would like to spend some significant time mediating here for the next few weeks. Am I going about this the right way?
Sincerely, --Sarazani 16:14, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
MSK
Hi Nicholas, thank you for your note. My reason for reblocking is that the indefinite block of MSK was very thoroughly discussed at the time, and should be very thoroughly discussed again before being undone. Indeed, it was discussed more than for any other user I can recall in the time I've been here. The other reason I reblocked is that she is a staff member at the website that has recently caused very serious problems for two users (Phil and Kate) (and/or helped to publicize those problems), and has published less serious, but also unpleasant, attacks on many others. I am going to email you one of these by way of example, because it is too unpleasant to publish on Wikipedia. In addition, my recollection is that MSK made no useful contributions to the encyclopedia while she was here. If you were going to mentor her, my guess is that it would be a full-time job.
Can you tell me, please, how this issue ever arose in the first place? It might help if I understand what the motivation was. Feel free to e-mail me if you'd prefer. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 00:28, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
30 May 06 - Nikitchenko indef blocked, case closed
Hi Nicholas, just got your message. The ironic thing is that I'd been calling out for someone to do a CheckUser on Nikitchenko all along. I think someone asked David Gerard to do it a long time ago but nothing else was ever heard about it. There are several other Scientology-POV-pushing troublemakers and borderline vandals still at large on the Scientology-related articles, however. wikipediatrix 16:46, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Mediation or Guidance Sought
Hi Nicholas, I'm trying to prevent an edit war and could use some advice or support.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cold_fusion Revision as of 04:52, 31 May 2006
On 19 May, I listed my original proposal. On 20 May, Jefffire responded to my 19 May post On 21 May, I responded to Jeffire's 20 May post On 24 May, three days later, Jeffire had failed to respond to my 21 May post. I asked if there was further discussion. On 25 May, seeing no further response or discussion by Jeffire, I made the modifications. On 25 May, within hours, Jeffire reverted my modifications without completing the outstanding discussion with me and without providing any specific defense for his actions. On 28 May, I brought to the attention of this group the apparent failure of Jeffire to, IMO play by the rules. I've seen no response from Jefffire or anyone else on this apparent breach of protocol. On 28 May, Pcarbonn expressed support of my idea to remove the references to Nature and Science.
What shall I do? Repost my changes and see if Jeffire, or someone else reverts them without discussing and defending -- as I have done - at significant time and effort on my part?
Thanks, STemplar 05:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
My userpage.
I've gotten a serious complaint over it and I can't be damned to try and make it so blatantly stupid it's funny; Nuke it back to the stoneage. (reb 56076905) --Avillia (Avillia me!) 06:40, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
med cabal related block
I'm the mediator from the mediation cabal for Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-05-23 Perl. I've done about 20 cases for mediation cabal. I think the Perl case is going to go to pot (and this is an important article) without a little admin type help.
I have set up a special mediation page at: Talk:Perl Mediation. I'm having a problem with User:Pudgenet who is trolling the mediation page (essentially he objects to dispute resolution regarding another user). I'd like a 24 block of him, Though a 24 ban on all Perl pages Perl, Talk:Perl and Talk:Perl Mediation would be better but may be too much to ask. Samples of problems edits: [4], [5], [6]
Thanks in advance, jbolden1517Talk 03:56, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
As an update you can see | another 3rd party editor has taken even more negative view and believes this case needs to go directly to rfa. Again I think I can salvage it with a little administrative assistance but it shows you I'm not just blowing hot air. jbolden1517Talk 11:36, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Recreate redirect for Template:User EFF - for now
Is it possible to recreate the redirect at least for now? I just started moving the page to my userpage in an pilot test for the German solution. Currently in the migrating process (bypassing redirects). I am requesting at least a couple hours before deleting the redirect to allow the migrating process to complete. --Hunter 16:28, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
- NicholasTurnbull, hi. I've been working with the group implementing Wikipedia:The German solution, and we're working on migrating all the userboxes into userspace as smoothly as possible. Additionally, we've got this template: {{TGS UBX to}} as a more specific and somewhat friendlier version of {{deletedpage}}. Since you delete/protected the page, I wanted to let you know I'm going to try changing the message on that page to {{TGS UBX to|EFF|Winhunter/Userboxes/EFF}} as part of this test run. If you disagree with this action, please let me know. Actually any feedback you can provide on the template or on the plan in general would be appreciated. -GTBacchus(talk) 16:30, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
German solution
Nicholas, hi. I noticed you deleted User:Winhunter/Userboxes/No-CCP and User:Winhunter/Userboxes/EFF. I wonder if you could comment on what you consider the boundaries of what userboxes are permissible in user space. -GTBacchus(talk) 23:31, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for your reply, Nicholas. I'm concerned about these particular deletions, because I'm working with The German solution, and I'm very keen to see the "userbox wars" be over. Right now, we admins have a choice, to pursue this issue in a way that results in more aggravation of more users, or less. I'm pretty firmly opposed to doing it the inflammatory way anymore, because I think the userbox affairs of January and May alienated some good contributors, and were damaging to Wikipedia. Moreover, I see a better way, and can't let it go.
- I wonder whether you'd consider taking those boxes to MfD instead? I know it seems a bit wanton, to use a deletion review for something that really should go, but we do it all the time with article deletions. Remember that we're not required to speedy anything, although in some cases we really should (copyvios, creations by banned users). We actually can choose speedy deletion or XfD in almost all cases. Why choose MfD for userfied userboxes? Because it gives us an opportunity to explain what's wrong with them in the deletion discussion, and it avoids the (very real, very avoidable) bad feelings incurred by speedy deletion. I'm absolutely certain that people will take speedy deletions of userfied userboxes as an act of agression right now, and voila! - we're back in a dynamic that many will want to describe as a "war". If we can be smarter about it, and avoid entering into that dynamic, it's worth the week on MfD.
- I'm making this request - that you restore those templates and take them to MfD - out of deep concern for the well-being of this project. We have a chance to not start Userbox War III. Please, let's take that opportunity, to do what Jimbo actually suggested (educate), instead of what he's continued to recommend against (alienate). I warmly encourage you to trust me on this, and to put your good faith behind a different approach to dealing with the userbox problem. I look forward to your reply. -GTBacchus(talk) 02:48, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
They have been listed on DRV. Kotepho 03:48, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Guerilla still needs some work though
But it's a nice start. I think we can still boost performance somewhat. The problem will be to find experienced mediators, or even decent admins. That's going to be terribly tricky. Kim Bruning 02:39, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
WILLING TO HELP
I am interested in helping out with the Guerilla Network, in any way possible. including doing administrative work. I am a mediator for the cabal, and this will kill the backlog.Geo.plrd 21:55, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
This I am interested in. I am currently a mediator with the mediation cabal and a moderator with VandalProof... this new system looks awsome! Please let me know when I can apply! Eagle talk 05:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Is this a "live" proposal? It seems to be almost-but-not-quite orphaned. Alai 17:31, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
- I've just wacked a quick suggestion on its talk page to suggest it gets merged into another page. Petros471 17:35, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
About Mediation Or Whatever
It was not me who proposed the mediation, I think somebody called it because we were arguing, but that was over a week ago and the dispute has since been resolved in a civil manner. ;) thanks alot! --Ira-welkin 23:28, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
nicholas,
i was googling for a definition of the philosophical concept of "mediation" and came upon your masterful mediation of the alienus/loxley dispute. blessed are the peacemakers, man. thanks so much for such a good example of How It's Done.
take care, JS
Guerrilla mediation
I'd like to help. I've got no 'formal experience' mediating on Wikipedia, but I consider myself a level-headed and objective person. So, I'll be around.
On a related note, the 'how this works' page at Guerrilla mediation says you have to apply to the coordinators as a mediator. Is this a mistake? It seems to contradict what it says on the main article page. - Che Nuevara: Join the Revolution 15:10, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Are you there?
Aye or nay. --Avillia (Avillia me!) 04:24, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Minor edits that made my day
Thanks for rewording the stuff in ARC, your rewrite was significantly better and an elegant reduction. AndoSEKleton 17:00, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Cleanup Taskforce
I added Certified Management Consultant to your desk because you expressed an interest in business articles. Please look at it and either accept or let me know and I'll reassign it. Thank you. RJFJR 03:26, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Ken Lay Ogg
Re: Image:Kenneth Lay.ogg, can you tell me how you created this file (what software, what ways you modified the data)? MUSICAL 14:16, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
- Dear MUSICAL: Certainly; it's excellent to hear from someone interested in going into doing spoken Wikipedia articles. :) Well, I used the sound editing application Audacity to record the sound file, on an Oktava MK-319 (a cardioid large diaphragm studio mic). Any studio mic with preamp, or electret mic, should suffice for the purpose; indeed, one can use a cheaper desk mic without any kind of amplification, although the results are never quite as good (as shown by my older recordings). I basically just recorded myself reading the article via Audacity, and then edited out any hesitations or mistakes from the recording using the program re-reading any areas where I made mistakes and just deleting the errors afterwards, when proofing the final recording. Apart from that, there was nothing else I did to the file, since there wasn't enough noise in the recording to merit noise removal - if you're using a cheaper mic you might want to use the noise removal function in Audacity to get rid of the mic noise, but again the results are not normally terribly good. I then just exported the file as Ogg from Audacity, and uploaded it. I hope this answers your question; please do let me know if you need any help with making spoken articles. Best regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 23:43, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for the info and for the recording. It was the first one of those I listened to and it sounded very good. MUSICAL 11:28, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Status of Guerilla Mediation Network
It is difficult to check past uses of this, but it appears the only one currently with a tag was added on June 18. —Centrx→talk • 00:41, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
A new userbox you might like
Hi Nicholas,
I couldn't resist making the following userbox after reading the attached link. After being insulted on numerous occasions by trolls I decided to fight back the best way I know how -- with a witty userbox! Feel free to remove this from your talk page if you don't appreciate the humour. = )
Cheers,
Netsnipe (Talk) 06:03, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
WP: Policies & guidelines This Wikipedian is proud to be a “Bureaucratic F**k”. |
Your interference on Barrett article
May I ask where you think you get the authority to "soft-ban" anyone? How you think I have engaged in POV warring, when I haven't entered a single POV into this (or any other) article? How you think that I am a "sock puppet" when my contribution record reveals otherwise? Did you bother to read anything of which I argued on the talk page? Can you seriously argue that Levine2112's edits are NPOV, while mine are POV? You have acted like a Wiki terrorist, IMHO. Larry Sarner 21:44, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- Dear Nicholas. I am happy to stop editing the article if that is going to allow a balanced article presenting all side of the issues, not only promoting the views of the subject of the article or of organizations that he belongs to or presides. I am the the one who posted the warning on neutral point of view after repeated editing designed to present only one side of the issue have been made by Sarner and others. While I do not think that you are acting like a Wiki terrorist , I do think that an in depth look at the history of editing of this article will show that many attempts have been made to suppress valid information about the activities of Stephen Barrett, probably including edits by Stephen Barrett himself. Warm regards. OKO
- Dear Nicholas. By the way your warning to Sarner was simply a copy of your warning to me.... Unlike Sarner I have not been warned before so it does look I have been served the same dose of medicine without the same history of dis-ease :-) Cheerio OKO
- Can I expect a reply ? --OKO 10:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Bowlby Page and Sarner ban
Dear Nicholas. I see that Larry Sarner is banned from editing the Bowlby article. Is he also prohibited from the talk page? His comments on the talk page suggest that he is only voluntarily not making changes in the Bowlby article as part of a "gentleman's agreement." Is that correct? You can comment here or on my talk page. JonesRD 17:17, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- I see that Sarner is continuing his "fight" on the Bowlby talk page (see his comments in the reference section. Must we continue to have to deal with this? I suppose the best thing would be to ignore his comments, yes? DPeterson 18:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
I see that Sarner is now stating (on the Bowlby talk page) that he is not banned from editing that page. I am concered about that and that he may take his approach and "fight" to other pages. Your intervention here would be appreciated. Please respond to my talk page. RalphLender 16:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Hello again
Just saying hi...it may interest you to know that your little protégé, to whom you gave all that advice a few months ago, is now advising other people on dispute resolution - evidently your advice was sound! --David Mestel(Talk) 19:29, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you for your touching message - it's nice to make people happy. Thankyou also for my first award! I seem to be making myslef powerful enemies though (I'm currently negotiating with User:Rebecca, née User:Ambi!). However, hopefully she realises that it's just my job. --David Mestel(Talk) 06:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- Me again - I'd just like some advice on how do put your award on to my userpage; at the moment, my userboxes squash it and make it look a bit bad. How should I solve this? --David Mestel(Talk) 06:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
I rather suspect that in the course of Wikilife you may have missed the preceeding comment. Do you have any suggestions as to how I could make it look better? --David Mestel(Talk) 05:55, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Continued Conflict moves from Bowlby page to Attachment Therapy Talk Page
There is an anon user who is making comments and accusations on the Attachment Therapy talk page (see last section) that are very similiar to those that sarner made; the tactics and language and approach are similiar. I see developing on this page a repeat of what occurred on the Bowlby page. Can you intervene there; or make some suggestion? Thank you. DPeterson 02:26, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
- I agree. Your monitoring of this page would be helpful as I see the idential conflict emerging on this page as on the Barrett and Bowlby pages. I suppose the first step would be mediation? Dr. Arthur Becker-Weidman 14:14, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
- In addition, Sarner seems to be continuing to be provocative and disrespectful on the Bowlby talk page. He is continuing the conflict and expanding it to other pages. How can this be appropriately addressed? RalphLender 18:00, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the support !
![]() |
Thanks for contributing to my successful RfA! | |
To the people who have supported my request: I appreciate the show of confidence in me and I hope I live up to your expectations! To the people who opposed the request: I'm certainly not ignoring the constructive criticism and advice you've offered. I thank you as well! ♥! ~Kylu (u|t) 06:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC) |
- Thanks for your endorsement during my RfA, I think it helped my chances quite a bit! Hope to see you around again soon! ~Kylu (u|t) 06:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Banned user
Hello NicholasTurnbull, I could be wrong but I'm pretty sure that IP 75.26.5.4 is banned user Amorrow. That is in his IP range and he has edits those or similar articles. Let me know what you think. --FloNight talk 00:12, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Self-Promotional References
On the Attachment Therapy page mercer has posted references to a book that she wrote with sarner, and sarner's spouse Rosa. The book is really a publicity piece for the mercer, sarner, and rosa advocacy group, Advocates For Children in Therapy of which the three are leaders. So mercer and a financial interest in this reference. The references have been deleted with a second warning put on mercer's talk page...is there anything else that I should do? Thanks. DPeterson 11:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Onefortyone
Hello. There is some question as to whether user Onefortyone has violated his probation by posting content with questionable sources to Elvis Presley. I just wanted to make sure you were aware of this situation (since you're listed as being associated with this action) and was hoping you could clear up the current problem as well.
Thanks!
--Pcj 12:34, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
- Sorry for bothering you with this matter again. As you are one of my mentors, perhaps you can explain to me why administrator Jkelly has banned me from the Elvis Presley page for two months (see [7]), although I have frequently cited my sources. Meanwhile, editor Lochdale continues to delete my contributions (see [8], [9], [10]), etc etc. He even deleted a passage rewritten by administrator Hoary. He has also repeatedly included false information in the Elvis article (see [11], [12], [13]) and is constantly denigrating the many sources I am citing, but he is not yet banned. I think this is not acceptable. Onefortyone 18:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- Significantly, administrator Jkelly, wo banned me from the article, was involved in the controversial discussion between me, User:Lochdale and a few other users on the Talk:Elvis Presley page (see [14], [15]) taking sides with my opponent in the edit war. For instance, Jkelly's statement here calls the false claims by user Lochdale a "good edit". See also my replies here and here which prove that Lochdale has added false information to the talk page. Administrator Jkelly even deleted a critical paragraph I had written and which was well sourced from the Elvis Presley article. See [16]. Therefore, I do not think that Jkelly is the right administrator to ban me for two months from the Elvis article. May I ask you for advice concerning this matter. Thank you. Onefortyone 20:55, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- User Lochdale has included the following sentence in the Elvis article: "However, Adams is not noted as being a particularly close friend of Presley in either of Peter Guralnik's lengthy works on Elvis or in any of the books written by Presley's former bodyguards." See [17]. As I have already written on the talk page, reputable Elvis biographer Peter Guralnick, in his book Last Train to Memphis: The Rise of Elvis Presley, clearly says that Elvis "was hanging out more and more with Nick [Adams] and his friends" (p. 336) and that "Elvis was glad Colonel liked Nick" (p.339). On p.410, Guralnick says that Elvis
- enjoyed being back in Hollywood. It was good running around with Nick again - there was always something happening, and the hotel suite was like a private clubhouse where you needed to know the secret password to get in and he got to change the password every day. On the weekend Nick called up his friend Russ Tamblyn, who had a small, one-bedroom beach house on the Pacific Coast Highway just south of Topanga Canyon, and asked if he could bring his friend Elvis over. Tamblyn, who at twenty-two had been in the business from early childhood on, both as an actor and as a dancer, and who saw Nick as something of a hustler, said sure, come on out.
- In his book, Careless Love: The Unmaking of Elvis Presley, Guralnick writes: "Nick Adams and his gang came by the suite all the time." So it is quite clear that Elvis spent most of his time with Nick Adams. Interestingly, on p.347-348 of his book, Last Train to Memphis, Guralnick writes that June Juanico didn't doubt that Elvis loved her, but "she didn't know if she could ever get him back. Elvis told her he had just heard from Nick and that Nick was coming to town tomorrow or the next day. He started telling her all about Nick and Nick's friends and Jimmy Dean, but she didn't want to hear." This statement certainly proves that June was jealous of Elvis's friendship with Nick Adams. Guralnick even cites Nick Adams's "charming account of his friendship with Elvis" which was published in May 1957. See also these photographs showing the two men together: [18], [19],[20].
- Administrator Hoary has now deleted the "Nick Adams stuff" from the Elvis article. See [21]. He has also deleted well sourced material from another section of the article which is backed up by several independent university studies. See [22]. It's unbelievable! Onefortyone 00:14, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- User Lochdale has included the following sentence in the Elvis article: "However, Adams is not noted as being a particularly close friend of Presley in either of Peter Guralnik's lengthy works on Elvis or in any of the books written by Presley's former bodyguards." See [17]. As I have already written on the talk page, reputable Elvis biographer Peter Guralnick, in his book Last Train to Memphis: The Rise of Elvis Presley, clearly says that Elvis "was hanging out more and more with Nick [Adams] and his friends" (p. 336) and that "Elvis was glad Colonel liked Nick" (p.339). On p.410, Guralnick says that Elvis
- Just a few additional words about User:Lochdale who has also contributed under the IPs 83.71.77.27 and 63.85.72.242. To my mind, this user identity seems to have only been created in order to remove my contributions (see [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50] etc. etc.) or to attack and debase me and my edits on the Talk:Elvis Presley page (see [51], [52], [53], [54], [55], [56], [57], [58], [59], [60], [61], [62], [63], [64], [65], [66], [67], [68], [69], [70], [71], [72], [73], [74], [75], [76]). If you look at the contribution history of this user (see [77]), he is frequently "dropping in" and either involved in deleting my contributions or constantly repeating the same accusations over and over again, namely, claiming that my sources are not reliable, that my quotations are out of context, that over 2000 books on Elvis do not mention what I have written (how should he know this, as he has not yet quoted from a single book on Elvis), etc. etc., though I have cited dozens of independent books and articles, among them publications by reputable Elvis biographers and university studies, in order to support my edits. This is very similar to the strategies my old opponent, multiple hardbanned User:Ted Wilkes used in the past. I recommend that some administrators should keep a watchful eye on the activities of this user. Onefortyone 10:14, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- I fail to see the pertinence of his comment on my talk page you listed above. It seems to indicate he'd be willing to be accomodating if the discussion were more reasonable. It also takes (at least) two to tango, and in this case, to edit war. --Pcj 12:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- Being called a vandal who is hijacking the Elvis article by a fringe agenda is certainly a personal attack, isn't it? As for the edit war, I am sure you would have enthusiastically applauded if another user had frequently deleted your well-sourced contributions. Onefortyone 02:30, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Request for Intervention regarding Sarner
I am not sure where the appropriate place is to post this concern and request for help. user:sarner is now taking his attacks and harassment to my talk page where he has posted what I believe to be a baseless warning that I have engaged in vandalism. I believe these attacks are just a continuation of his comments from the Bowlby page and attached talk page. I would like the warning on my talk page removed and sarner made to stop bothering me. Thank you. DPeterson 15:57, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
I demur that any of the above charges are true. In fact, the actions of DPeterson have been harassing me and others for some time, including recharacterizing your "soft-ban" of me on the Barrett page as saying I have been banned on the Bowlby page. Now he has put up a article (Advocates for Children in Therapy), claiming that it is a "fringe group", and that I am a "leader" of that group, and more, all without the slightest reference to a reliable source. I challenged that and other so-called "facts" with a request for citation, and he comes on to my talk page with a claim that I am vandalizing the page! You have set a chain of events into motion with your "soft-ban" of me. I am not asking that you necessarily reverse yourself on that matter, but would you please either set me right or set DPeterson right about the various issues with respect to vandalism. Right now, to me, DPeterson's actions resemble that of a schoolyard bully thinking that the playground monitors would approve of his actions. Thank you. Larry Sarner 00:41, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- The website for Sarner's group, ACT, has all the evidence he could want. For example, his note above says I call him "a "leader" of that group, and more, all without the slightest reference to a source." His own website states, "A New Book by ACT Authors!
Jean Mercer, PhD Chairman of Professional Board of Advisors, ACT Professor of Psychology, Richard Stockton College (Pomona, New Jersey) President, New Jersey Association for Infant Mental Health
Larry Sarner, BS, BA Administrative Director, ACT Executive Director, Citizens for Science in Medicine From: http://www.childrenintherapy.org/library/ATOT.html
DPeterson 02:06, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Mediation cabalist...
Hi Nicholas, I recently listed my interest in assisting the Medcab and as such signed on with the case: Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-07-16 Bet HaShitta / Beit Hashita. I can happily report this was resolved as a success almost immediately (I would love to state I played a integral part in this resolution but I fear my role was purely incidental) Nevertheless, I would be happy to help you in this or your newer project. Just let me know, - Glen 05:32, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Onefortyone
Hi. Can I ask if you've read Talk:Elvis Presley? Some further reading is at User talk:Hoary. As I elabourated at User talk:Onefortyone; the ArbCom remedy to the problems with Onefortyone's editing explicitly cites WP:NOR, and Onefortyone's editing to at Elvis Presley is largely devoted to drawing together quotes from various sources (ex) to create a new narrative (ex). There was not a specific instance in the last couple of days to point to as a diff. I've been considering this for at least the last two months -- I raised concerns with Onefortyone on June 6 (Onefortyone's previous ban from that article expired on April 16), and brought it up with User:Hoary, who is much more active in caretaking that page than I am, on the 17th. I wouldn't have invoked the remedy without Hoary's agreement that it was necessary. It was Hoary's agreement that dictated the timing of the invocation, not any particular edit of Onefortyone's. Hoary's message indicated that there was further question about reliable sourcing and if that is the largest concern, Hoary would be the better one to address it.
Frankly, I think that the best course of action for Onefortyone would be to recognise a tendency to edit disruptively and take up a regimen of either entirely avoiding those articles which are most likely to devolve into fights over claims of incest and homosexuality, or at least adopt a restriction to only make suggestions on Talk pages. I suggest that if the case goes back to arbitration again (as was suggested) that the result is unlikely to be preferable to a two-month ban from editing the article. I'd further suggest that Onefortyone needs to stop thinking of the issue as being a conflict between fans and non-fans, and instead aim for harmonious, consensus editing. There should be some awareness by now that there is a problem, and the best way to overcome it would be to trust other editors when they point out that it exists. Jkelly 00:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- Jkelly prodded me to respond here. My paying job beckons, but I hope to answer you within a few hours. -- Hoary 05:35, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- The problem is, that you, administrator Hoary, and administrator Jkelly, although you are both involved in the current discussion on the Talk:Elvis Presley page and in deleting my contributions from the Elvis Presley article (see, for instance, [78], [79], [80]), have been cooperating in getting me banned from the Elvis page (see [81], [82]). This is no more a neutral point of view. Onefortyone 10:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- Some additions. Administrator Hoary is still deleting passages I have written from the Elvis article (see [83], [84]). Furthermore, as important sources such as Peter Guralnick's Elvis biography prove that Elvis spent much time with his best friend Nick Adams (see [85]), I politely asked Hoary to reinclude the "Nick Adams stuff" (as he called it) which he had removed. He replied, "No I'm not going to reinclude it. Incidentally, Adams is already mentioned in the article in the state in which I viewed it mere seconds ago." See [86]. It should be noted that Adams's close friendship with Elvis is not mentioned in the article. It should have gotten more space as it is an important part of the singer's life. See also these photographs showing the two men together: [87], [88],[89]. By the way, I wonder whether it is O.K. that this biased administrator is jointly responsible for getting me banned from the Elvis article. Onefortyone 09:58, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Jkelly has referred to me as "the admin who asked me to invoke this remedy"; I'd rephrase that as the admin who took up his month-old offer to invoke it. Still, yes, I'm responsible.
We read: Onefortyone is placed on Wikipedia:Probation with respect to the biographies of celebrities. He may be banned from any article or talk page relating to a celebrity which he disrupts by aggressively attempting to insert poorly sourced information or original research.
That seems to have had an effect. Since that time, Onefortyone has given an impression of being scrupulous in providing sources for his assertions, or more often quotations. Unlike Onefortyone, I don't have (or want) a library about Presley, pop culture, celeb gossip, or queer studies (in which subjects my level of interest ranges from little to zero). I am therefore unable to check the accuracy of most of these citations. Very occasionally, I can check them without actually spending money in order to do so. An example is to be found near the end of this section: Onefortyone accurately but misleadingly quotes what he says was written by "The Guardian (certainly a reliable source)." This suggests a propensity to use precisely specified sources in a deceptive fashion.
Onefortyone has been disrupting Talk:Elvis Presley with his announcements of discoveries of smidgens of evidence that Presley was a very special playmate of Nick Adams, etc:
- The section "Jonathan Rhys Meyers believes Elvis was gay", in which he first brings up the kind of witless comment an actor (or anyone else) might make after one or two pints too many -- the kind of thing that (a) says nothing about Presley and nothing complementary about the speaker, and (b) seems likely to bring inane responses. He follows this up with "Interestingly, Elvis's sexual ambivalence has been the subject of many peer-reviewed studies" (same section), which at first looks like an attempt to back up Meyers' comments with the gravitas of university presses, but might be better rephrased as "Irrelevantly, Presley's perceived sexual ambivalence has been mentioned in many academic works." Respectability by association, or something.
- The (blessedly short) section "Statement by Nick Adams's secretary, Bill Dakota", which announces that On the Talk:Nick Adams page there is a recent statement by Bill Dakota which may be of much interest to Elvis fans. It proves that both Elvis and his friend Nick Adams were bisexual (my underlining); where the "statement" is a long screed by somebody purporting to be the editor of Hollywood Star and Gayboy; even if the writer really is William Kern ("Bill Dakota"), its credibility is minimalized by the fact that he's been in the Z-grade magazine business and by his assertion (within his "statement") that 2/3rds of the Hollywood actors TODAY have had sex with another man at one time or another (emphasis in the original), which, if true, would mean either (i) that everything we know about the rate of incidence of homosexuality is wrong, or (ii) Hollywood actors are mightily atypical of men in general. Even if the author is Kern, this is "original research" (if not mere hogwash), and Onefortyone's advertising of in on the Presley talk page looks like incitement to break WP:NOR.
Onefortyone's description of contributors to the article other than himself as either "vandals" or "fanatic fans" also seems uncharitable to the point of disruptiveness. However, there's some truth in it: a number of people have attempted to contribute to this wretched article (oodles of material on "relationships", not a mention of "Blue Suede Shoes"!) but have been driven off by the vigor with which tittle-tattle is reinserted into the article.
Here, Onefortyone politely turns down the suggestion of mediation -- and thereby becomes personally responsible for rejecting it, as both the other named parties accepted the idea -- with the claim that all will be well If every contributor cites his/her sources and sticks close to the facts written in published books, articles, etc.; but this raises questions such as what the "facts" are.
For most would-be contributors, facts would be the facts that Presley did this or that; to Onefortyone, they include the fact that some embittered ex-hanger-on claimed that Presley did this or that. Thus here (one of his most recent edits to the article) Onefortyone reintroduces a section on "Male friendships": very little of this implies anything other than that Presley had the typical heterosexual male's fondness for spending lots of (asexual) time with his male buddies but it ends with the following nugget: Natalie Wood "was not the only one to think Elvis and the guys might be homosexual. . . . Tongues wagged that Elvis and Adams were getting it on." It's a well-sourced quotation (from an article in Playboy), but however well sourced it may be, an assertion that this or that factoid was "wagged" by unspecified "tongues" is most unlikely to be encyclopedic; and Onefortyone's chronic enthusiasm for reintroducing it -- please search for "wagged" within this old talk archive (16 Nov – 30 Dec '05; within a month of the closing of his RfAr), this one (7 Mar '06, shortly before he was banned from editing the Presley article for one month) and the current talk page -- and his disregard for observations that mere gossip such as this is not encyclopedic have become exceedingly tiresome. -- Hoary 11:04, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- So you admit that I have been scrupulous in providing sources for my assertions, and I have not yet learned which specific edit violated my probation. Remember that administrator Jkelly banned me for two months without warning. I do not think that I have disrupted the Elvis article "by aggressively attempting to insert poorly sourced information or original research", as all my contributions to the article are well sourced. I have quoted several independent sources, among them reputable Elvis biographies and university studies. Onefortyone 02:50, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Nicholas, I don't quite know what to do at this point. Would you like me to argue with Onefortyone on your talk page? I'm rather tired of arguing with Onefortyone about anything, anywhere, but if you want me to I shall rise (or sink) to the occasion. Incidentally, when I wrote that last, long message (in sickly green, a color you are of course welcome to change), I hadn't any Presley books at my disposal; I have now borrowed two large books on him from the library. Once I've eliminated notes, indexes, etc., there's still a total of well over a thousand pages. If the indexes are to be trusted, Nick Adams (apparently regarded by Onefortyone as of great importance to Presley) gets well under 1% of this. -- Hoary 09:12, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- There are thousands of personalities claiming to have had a friendship with Elvis. In comparison, Nick Adams gets lot of space in Guralnick's book, Last Train to Memphis. For instance, relating to the time when their close friendship began, the author writes (p.339-340),
- "Nick didn't have anything better to do, so he was going to come to Tupelo ... Elvis was looking forward to showing him Memphis for the first time. They flew into Memphis on Saturday, September 22, and went out to the fair briefly that night. On Monday they visited Humes, where Elvis introduced Nick to his old homeroom teacher, Miss Scrivener... They visited the Tiplers at Crown Electric, too, and Nick put his feet up on Mr. Tipler's desk while Elvis explained, said his former employer, "how he had his money arranged so he wouldn't get it all at one time." They even went by Dixie's house one afternoon, and she told Elvis she was getting married, and he congratulated her and wished her well. On Wednesday they left for Tupelo around noon." etc.
- On page 343, Guralnick adds:
- "Elvis and Nick had returned to Hollywood by the weekend..."
Does this sound as if Guralnick only notes "that they were friends but nothing more", as Lochdale has falsely claimed? Of course not! Further, I have not yet seen a comment by an administrator concerning the fabricated material user Lochdale included in the article, for instance, his false claim that Elvis's stepmother Dee Presley never lived with the star at Graceland (see [90]). It is a historical fact that Vernon Presley, his new wife Dee and Elvis lived together for a period of time at Graceland. On page 213 of his book, Hero Myths: A Reader (Blackwell Publishing, 2000), professor Robert Segal says, "Soon after Dee Presley became part of the family, Elvis showed her a picture of Priscilla, commenting that Priscilla was special to him." See also the account in Elaine Dundy's book, Elvis and Gladys (2004), where the author relates (p.329-330) "that Vernon had settled down with Dee where Gladys had once reigned, while Dee herself - when Elvis was away - had taken over the role of mistress of Graceland so thoroughly as to rearrange the furniture and replace the very curtains that Gladys had approved of." This was too much for Elvis who still loved his mother Gladys. One afternoon, "a van arrived ... and all Dee's household's goods, clothes, 'improvements,' and her own menagerie of pets, were loaded on ... while Vernon, Dee and her three children went by car to a nearby house on Hermitage until they finally settled into a house on Dolan Drive which ran alongside Elvis's estate." For some websites dealing with Dee Presley, see [91], [92], [93], [94]. However, these seem to be fan sites which may not be reliable enough. Onefortyone 09:58, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Lochdale (and me)
Nicholas, thank you for your hard work. I have so far only skimread what you have written to Onefortyone, and also the RfAr. Perhaps the closer reading of the latter that I do intend to give it will explain what you mean by "fixatedly editing" (the skimreading does not). Meanwhile, I appreciate the need to be, and to appear to be, evenhanded in settling (or at least imposing moritoria on) affairs such as this, and I'll also say that I have not been happy with all of Lochdale's edits -- but I'd also point out that:
- I too may have been fixatedly editing this article (depending on what's meant by fixated), I too have been perceived as part of the problem rather than the solution (search for "Hoary" within "New plan for peace", and thus I too might better be given a vacation for a couple of months.
- Lochdale isn't (and I'm not) under probation.
You might consider giving some sort of warning to Lochdale (and me) before temporarily banning him/her (and me).
[Thinks . . . yes, being given a vacation from that article might give me an opportunity to learn to appreciate the music -- if perhaps not the acting -- of Elvis Presley.]
So go ahead, step on some suede shoes. -- Hoary 00:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- Hm. I hadn't noticed anything really problematic about User:Lochdale (and User:Hoary is not in any way part of the problem), but, then again, User talk:Jkelly doesn't have any complaints from other editors about Lochdale, so I haven't been looking closely at their edits. I don't see anything about Lochdale at the ArbCom link you provided, so the matter may be entirely academic if that user is not under probation. If there is an editor other than User:Onefortyone who holds that Lochdale's editing has been problematic, an RfC would be the first step. Jkelly 01:24, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
I've now read the arbitration case, and now tentatively understand that by "fixatedly editing" you mean editing exclusively on a single issue and thus giving rise to the suspicion that the editor is at WP much less to help create an encyclopedia than to push a particular PoV. (I'd comment that such users are numerous, often creating buddy articles or vanity articles: dubiously pushing the significance or something or somebody rather than any PoV about it.) His/her (I'll arbitrarily settle on him for convenience's sake) list of contributions clearly shows that Lochdale has been almost exclusively concerned with Presley and the resulting disputes. And he could imaginably be accused of PoV pushing, IFF it's PoV to hold that no solid evidence exists to claim that Presley had bisexual or incestuous relations. However, WP seems to hold that a viewpoint reflecting (near-) consensus opinion is not "PoV". You have been right to point out that Onefortyone has not been less civil than others; Lochdale and I perhaps deserve some degree of criticism here. (My own view is that one contributor not so far mentioned here has been far and away the least civil.) However, I don't equate Onefortyone and Lochdale. Perhaps Lochdale needs (perhaps I need) an amicable warning, but surely not a ban. -- Hoary 04:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- Hi, I posted something nearly identical (see below) in User Hoary's Talk Page. I very much appreciate User Hoary's defense/explanation of my actions. I would like to add though that my actions were my own and User Hoary should not suffer for my errors. That said, I'd like to flesh out my involvement here on Wikipedia a little more. There are two main reasons I mostly edit the Presley: i) I know a little about Presley after visiting Graceland and then reading the two books by Peter Guralnik and, ii) because the article has been overtly hijacked by one user with a clear agenda. I think this clearly goes to the credibility of Wikipedia. If articles can be routinely hijacked and manipulated just becuase a user can find a "source" no matter how questionable, then Wikipedia's long term viability as a reliable source is in jerpard. Indeed, this notion was rececntly saterized in the Onion magazine.
- The problem with User Onefortyone's edits is the circular logic he uses to justify his post. This is particularly easy with a character like Presley who was pretty much the catalyst for the celebrity schlock industry. For example, Presley was friendly with Nick Adams. Nick Adams may have been gay or bi-sexual. Ergo, Presley is gay. The user in question will use a reputable source (Guralnik) to tie Presley and Adams together as friends. He will then use a questionable or salacious source to suggest that Adams was gay. He will then use this to justify massive insertions backed up by footnotes to low-end sources (National Enquirer, books written long after Presley's death by people with a tangental connection to Presley). It's extremely hard to discuss these issues with a user who resorts to this form of editing. In essence, it's an abuse of the rules of Wikipedia and I believe User Onefortyone is well aware of this. When an unpublished manuscript forms the basis for a full paragraph in an article then you know something is up. This is particulary bothersome when so much has been written about Presley. So the user keeps pushing the agenda as far as possible then settling for one inch more than he had before. This signifcantly colours and taints the article. It's gone on for more than 14 archived pages! If that isn't an agenda then I don't know what is. As I said, it makes it next to impossible to remain civil. I hope that you would consider this when you consider mine and other user's edits.
- I also have other interests mostly relating to Irish themes though I am loathe to go near the Roy Keane page! I am happy, however, to get involved in more articles.
- (My orginal note on User Hoary's talk page is in brackets below:
Whilst I appreciate your comments I do take a little umbrage at the notion that my account was created solely to edit the Presley page. To be sure I am a novice user so that may offer some explanation for my clumsy editing methodologies. However, I would ask you to consider that I tended only to edit those claims that had no real basis in reality. Put another way, I did not edit sections dealing with Presley's philandering or his obvious drug abuse/addiction. I would further note that 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 do not believe any of my comment have been so egregious that they are deserving of a ban. Any thoughts or comments would be appreciated particularly as to how I can best conduct myself on a going forward basis)--Lochdale 05:31, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- The number of quotes and secondary sources would normally underline the quality of the article, as the quotes show that many contributions are well sourced. Onefortyone 02:02, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
- Not when such 'proper sources' are used in a manipulative manner or are otherwise utilized to push a particular agenda. --Lochdale 03:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your statement, Nicholas. You are right that the best thing for me to do on Wikipedia is to take a step back. It's a good idea to take a break, as I have wasted too much time in edit wars. However, there is still the problem that User:Lochdale repeatedly included false information in the Elvis article. This is not acceptable. Interestingly, another new user has "dropped in" who falsely claims on Talk:Patricia Bosworth to have found "a factual error in the Patricia Bosworth article" I started some weeks ago. Significantly, this new user is only interested in "errors" allegedly produced by Onefortyone in the Patricia Bosworth and the Elvis Presley articles. What a coincidence! It seems as if this user intends to start a new edit war concerning the "Allegations of racism" section of the Elvis article. See [95]. I would recommend to have a watchful eye on both Lochdale and User:Bookmind alias IP 207.67.145.214. There is something going on that looks suspicious to me. Could it be that my old opponent User:Ted Wilkes, who is blocked for one year, has reappeared? Onefortyone 01:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
- User Onefortyone I can assure you that there is no connection between me and the recent discussion regarding allegations of racism. I am, however, reading some of Bertrand's works and it appears that they are misconstured in the current article. I will work with other editors to correct this. Lastly, a quick read of your Talk Page shows that you have a history of calling editors who disagree with you 'sockpuppets' or the like. Please don't, it's insulting and brings down the tone of any article you are involved with.--Lochdale 03:52, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Board candidate questions
Hi Nicholas, I'm glad to see you're running for the current board elections. I have some questions that I think would be good to know - please answer (or ignore) them as you see fit. Thanks. Cormaggio @ 11:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- Dear Cormaggio: Thank you for your pertinent, and very interesting, set of questions; below, please find my answers, which I hope might provide a clearer profile of myself as a Board candidate to you. If there are any points in what I have written that you feel could benefit from further clarification, or should you have any further questions for me, please do not hesitate to let me know. Best regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 01:07, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
- What do you do in real lifeTM?
- Real life? You mean that actually exists? :)
- Joking aside, I do all sorts of things. In terms of my career, my work is mainly related to IT; I work as a freelance project manager and management consultant, mainly in solving management problems relating to systems development and team management. I also do the odd spot of systems development myself, as I actually very much enjoy coding, and occasionally I also do systems analysis work. I am in the process of starting a new management consultancy business at present with a colleague of mine. Professional work aside, I am a classical pianist and harpsichordist; I also compose the odd piece of music as a matter of interest. Academically, I am a Computing student, and will be studying Computing with Artificial Intelligence at the University of Sussex in this coming academic year.
- What personal/professional experience would you bring to the board, if elected?
- A large proportion of my professional work is basically acting as an intermediary between what would be ideal in running projects, and what is actually practical - and, probably most importantly, working out methods of achieving the best possible outcome despite resource constraints and the inevitable calamities that happen along the way. The other crucial part of it is dealing with people; managing strengths and weaknesses, sorting out disputes, providing a gentle hand of assistance where necessary, and also occasionally carrying out the somewhat less gentle task of either rehabilitating or removing team members who are not pulling their weight.
- A lot of what I have learned in project management applies, I think, very well to a larger focus of a project-focused organisation like Wikimedia as well - my experience in dealing with variables affecting a project, and using them to produce solutions, is the essence of what I would like to achieve as a Wikimedia board member. It is these elements, I think, that the Wikimedia Foundation as a whole would benefit from improvement in, and it is this expertise I would, to the best of my abilities, bring to the Board.
- What do you see as the role of a board member?
- In a volunteer-dependent organisation such as the Wikimedia Foundation, I believe the duties of a board member are three-fold: 1) to provide an interface to the outside corporate world for the volunteer communities, and the handling of organisational issues, enabling Wikimedia projects to operate and ensure its operational needs are met; 2) to tabulate, analyse and remedy issues affecting the communities of Wikimedia projects, by gathering, developing and implementing solutions to those issues; and finally, 3) act as a guardian of the Foundations's focus and interests, and provide strategic leadership to the volunteer projects, taking responsibility for the Foundation's activities.
- Do you have any personal aspirations you would like to pursue through a tenure on the board?
- It has always been my primary mission in life to make a difference wherever I can in the world, and I believe the Wikimedia Foundation does exactly that - by providing free, comprehensive information on a diverse range of subjects to the world. Thus, I feel that by assisting the Foundation as a Board member, I shall be able to work towards the goal of summarising the world's information into an excellent series of educational resources, for both those privileged enough to have Internet access and also in print form for those who do not, in developing countries. My aspiration is, thus, to contribute my management expertise to the Foundation, participating in ensuring its long-term success and satisfaction of goals; and at a finer degree of working focus, to make a difference to the Foundation projects and those who contribute to them through application of what I know.
- Thanks for answering. Cormaggio @ 16:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Also, most (if not all) candidates have provided their age. Do you plan to, or do you feel uncomfortable doing so, and if so, why? Computerjoe's talk 18:02, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- I have absolutely no objection to providing my age at all; if I omitted it from my candidate information and it is general practice to provide it, my omission was merely an oversight, for which I apologise. I am 18 years old, and will add this to my entry on Meta. Thank you for letting me know. Best regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 01:02, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Reply from Kiumars
Hi Nicholas,
Re: Despite a number of warnings and explanations from other Wikipedians about the matter, you have persisted in posting pro-Iranian diatribes which are not relevant to the encyclopaedia project we are intending to create.
Aren’t talk/discussion pages the right place to discuss different points of views? Have I been wrong in thinking that way? Have I posted anything emotionally charged on any articles?
By the way, what pro-Iranian diatribes are you talking about? Show me one pro-Iranian diatribes posted by me and prove me wrong, but I think you really mean “objecting to anti-Iranian statements on the Wiki”, right?
Re: your actions are somewhat disruptive.
You find discussing a political / cultural / historical issue disruptive? Are you serious?
Re: editors who merely wish to use Wikipedia to espouse a particular point of view or advocate one side in a factual controversy do not assist us in creating an encyclopaedia.
Espousing a particular point of view is a bad thing? Are you telling me that scientists and politicians and researchers don’t have a particular point of view and do not follow those lines till they prove it to be right or proven to be wrong? You really think people jump from branch to branch all the time? I must admit I don’t understand what you are talking about and I don’t think you know what you are talking about either!
Again, Give me an example of when I have posted a pro-Iranian diatribes or have been one sided on any issues, On the other hand if you do not provide such proofs I will report you for abuse of the Admin position. Kiumars 11:58, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Also, What is your objection to my post and discussion with other users on the following page?
Please do not delete, discuss first! Kiumars 12:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
User Lochdale
User:Lochdale continues pushing an agenda. He is again deleting several passages from the Elvis article, although they are well sourced. See [96], [97], [98], [99], [100], [101]. I think this is not acceptable, especially in view of the weak explanations. See [102], [103], [104], [105], etc. Perhaps you can help and reinstate some of these passages. I think it's high time to ban this user from the Elvis article. What do you think? 80.141.236.140 00:34, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
- Two observations: (i) "I" here means User:Onefortyone (see this); (ii) it's odd that 141 doesn't specify what the alleged agenda is/are. -- Hoary 04:01, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
- Well, I really don't have an agenda. An article was hijacked and it needs to fixed both for the subject matter itself and, in a very small way, so as to maintain Wikipeida as a credible source. For example, my recent edits were to a faily obscure critics review of a fairly small play in England. This was noted in the 'Lasting Legacy' section despite the fact that mainstream albulms mentioning Presley (e.g. Counting Crows, Paul Simon's Graceland etc.) aren't even included. It was a clearly part of User Onefortyone's agenda. --Lochdale 00:32, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
The problem is that Lochdale is only removing content from the Elvis article which is not in line with his all too positive view of the singer. Here is what this user primarily wishes to read: fan stuff like this. Significantly, non-encyclopedic fan stuff such as the section Elvis lives remains untouched. And what about several unsourced passages like this in the Trivia section:
- Presley made a famous sandwich that he ate daily called a "Fool's Gold" sandwich. An entire loaf of french bread is warmed and then hollowed out. The sandwich is generously spread with peanut butter and an equally thick layer of jelly. Finally, lean bacon has to be cooked, at least a pound fried to crispness, to fill the reamining belly of the loaf. The massive loaf is then downed while the bacon is still hot. It is an idea among his fans that this was the actual cause of the heart attack that ended his life.
Stuff like this has not been deleted. The Lasting Legacy, the Presley in the 21st century and the Trivia sections, significantly the most expansive ones in the whole article, are primarily singing the King of Rock 'n' Roll's praise. Some critical voices, supported by university studies and reputable Elvis biographers such as Greil Marcus or references to plays by reputable playwrights such as Lee Hall have been totally removed by Lochdale, Hoary and an IP. See, for instance, [106], [107], [108]. Quotes from Peter Guralnick's book concerning the star's unusually close relationship to his mother have also been deleted by Hoary. See [109]. This is no more a balanced article, and it is a pity that administrator Hoary on the one hand is deleting well-sourced passages, on the other hand is leaving a lot of nonsensical fan stuff untouched. Professor David S. Wall, who has written several critical articles on Elvis, seems to be right that many authors who are writing books and articles on Elvis and most fans are part of a worldwide Elvis industry which has a tendency towards supporting only a favorable view of the singer. Critical voices are frequently disparaged and harshly attacked by Elvis fan groups. Dr Wall has shown that one of the strategies of the worldwide Elvis industry is " 'community policing' to achieve governance at a distance and typically effected through the various fan clubs and appreciation societies to which the bulk of Elvis fans belong. These organisations have, through their membership magazines, activities and sales operations, created a powerful moral majority that can be influenced in order to exercise its considerable economic power. Policing by mobilising the organic ‘Elvis community’ – the fan and fan club networks – has been achieved in a number of different ways, for example, when Dee Presley, nee Stanley, Elvis’s former step-mother, wrote a supposedly whistle blowing account of Elvis’s last years. The fan clubs refused to endorse the book and condemned it in their editorials. The combined effect of this economic action and negative publicity was ... the apparent withdrawal of the book. With a combined membership of millions, the fans form a formidable constituency of consumer power." See [110]. The same power seems to be at work in the Wikipedia article on Elvis. That's a pity! Onefortyone 00:45, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
- Some quick comments. First, on administrator Hoary on the one hand is deleting well-sourced passages, on the other hand is leaving a lot of nonsensical fan stuff untouched:
- I have indeed deleted passages that contain rumours and in which satisfactory sources are specified for the existence of those rumours. (I've also deleted a certain amount of mere trivia, and of salacious material justified by dubious sources.
- Meanwhile, I plead guilty to having left a lot of inane trivia, just as 141 claims. Presley is very far from being the centre of my concerns on Wikipedia (let alone anywhere else), and thus I simply haven't got a round tuit. Time and distaste permitting, I'll cut a bit more junk today.
- And further:
- Onefortyone still appears to be attempting to give the impression that those who see the article on Presley in other ways than he/she does are part of, or are compromised by, the (posthumous) Presley fan juggernaut. I'm not sure how I might counter that. (Indeed, I'm pretty sure that it's unfalsifiable.) Should I perhaps upload photos of my remarkably Presley-free CD collection? But no, that would arouse suspicions that I'd merely doctored the collection for the photographs. (As for influence by the fan industry, it's 141's repeated references to "Elvis" that somehow seem a little fannish to me.)
- My own suspicion is that Presley's stepmother's MS was rejected by publishers not because of pressure from fans -- How on earth would they exert this? And what evidence is there that a prospective publisher would care? -- but because the publishers thought it was legally risky, or junk, or boring, or anyway unlikely to make money for them.
- The Madison Entertainment Group, Inc., a subsidiary of Madison Group Associates, Inc., formerly based in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, which once acquired the worldwide rights to The Intimate Life and Death of Elvis Presley and intended to publish the book, is a defunct company for financial reasons since the 1990s (see [111]). As too many fans refused to endorse the book, no other publisher has yet been found for the manuscript, especially in view of the high fees for the world-wide rights. But the content of the manuscript has been discussed by several authors, among them reputable Elvis experts. Onefortyone 01:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
- Sorry for this dubious use of your talk page, and this distraction from your candidacy. -- Hoary 01:21, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
- I have to parrot Hoary here in two ways. Firstly, your Talk Page should not be used this way and I think it is being abused by User Onefortyone as a backend aroudn his ban. Secondly, Hoary hit the nail on the head when he noted that User Onefortyone's positions are often unfalsifiable due to the fact that they are most based on conjecture and clever set-up. As for the article itself, well it is has numerous sections that are negative towards Presley including his drug abuse and his phlandering and cheating on his wife. The problem is, User Onefortyone makes selective use of quotes and sources to suit his own agenda. A great example of this is his citation to a fairly low-key English play that has an Elvis impersonator as one of its characters. Not content, however, to merely cite to the play itself User Onefortyone also then includes selective quotes from a reviewer that supports his overall agenda that Presley was a gay, had a sexual relationship with his mother and most likely practiced necrophilia. It's one thing to cite to a minor play but to then cite to an obscure reviewer is just more proof of his agenda. I really do not want to respond to this User anymore as he's making Wikipedia an unpleasant place to be. --Lochdale 04:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
spoken barnstar
![]() |
The Spoken Barnstar
This barnstar is awarded for your audio recording of featured articles for Wikipedia. Blnguyen | rant-line 05:20, 3 August 2006 (UTC) |
Board of Trustees election question
In your candidate statement you point out that there have been many disputes over policy and process recently, and that these represent a challenge to Wikipedia. What solutions do you propose to solve these problems? I'm not looking for a list of new edicts, just a general sense of the direction in which you would take us. Thanks. Cynical 14:02, 3 August 2006 (UTC)