User talk:Ace Baker

December 2011

Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Ace Baker, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 07:40, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is resolved. Please stop drive-by tagging, and please take the discussion to the article's talk page. Ace Baker (talk) 13:41, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, actually the issues remain in the article. As far as "drive-by tagging", this is not the case. Another editor has attempted to work with you, meeting hostility. It is clear that you are unable to edit with a conflict of interest. Please review the applicable policies and guidelines provided in the maintenance templates. I have refrained from cleaning up the article, choosing to give others deference in addressing noncompliance issues. If you are unable to bring resolve to the article, please let me know and I will begin working on it. If you have concerns about the way in which you are portrayed in this article, you can find assistance here. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 14:35, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. Continuing to remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Ace Baker, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, may be considered disruptive editing. Further edits of this type may result in your account being blocked from editing. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 13:39, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did resolve the issue, you Cindamuse appear to be using an automated bot engaged in vandalism. Please stop it. Ace Baker (talk) 16:21, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, no, the issues have not been resolved. In fact, all you have done is remove the maintenance templates. That is not the way we resolve issues in articles. Honestly, Ace, there is clearly is a misunderstanding of the guidelines. The statement, "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves", refers to articles such as those that cover movies, books, websites, and blogs. In situations such as these, the movies, books, websites, and blogs can be used as sources about themselves, i.e., the sources can be used as sources about themselves. I've recommended before and I will state again, I highly recommend that you review the links provided in the maintenance tags on the article and work to bring the article into compliance. The maintenance templates are provided by the community to assist with the identification of noncompliance issues. Overall, the templates placed are self-explanatory, with direct links to the applicable guidelines. Content has also been added to this discussion page, as well as your user talk page. Guidance has also been offered through the help request on Natty10000's talkpage, in which you participated. I have no point of view of the subject of this article outside of helping to bring the article into compliance with established policies and guidelines. I am more than happy to help here. If you have questions, please don't hesitate to contact me. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 17:11, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cindamuse, when you say "all you have done is remove the maintenance templates", that is demonstrably false. In fact, I edited the article, and left notes in the edit summary, and provided arguments in the talk page. You have provided no comment at all on what course of action should be taken. Please feel free to do so.

This is your last warning. The next time you remove the maintenance templates from Wikipedia articles without resolving the problem that the template refers to, as you did at Ace Baker, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 17:21, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your user page

Hi,

Apologies - following your comment on Meta, I took a look. The help I can offer I've offered there, but I also noticed a problem with your user page. While you haven't deliberately "done" anything, our user page guidelines don't allow this sort of use.

"Generally, you should avoid substantial content on your user page that is unrelated to Wikipedia... your user page is not a personal website... pages in your user space should be used as part of your efforts to contribute to the project..."

" there are restrictions aimed at ensuring relevance..."

"Unrelated content includes, but is not limited to: ... Writings, information... not closely related to Wikipedia's goals... Extensive self-promotional material, especially when not directly relevant to Wikipedia... excessive personal information unrelated to Wikipedia..."

There's also a specific guideline on user pages that look like articles, or are copies of old or disputed versions of articles:

"Userspace is not a free web host and should not be used to indefinitely host pages that look like articles, old revisions, or deleted content, or your preferred version of disputed content. Private copies of pages that are being used solely for long-term archival purposes may be subject to deletion."

The infobox and first line are fine (by me, others may differ), it's the page as a whole that's a problem. One way that would be more compliant with the guideline would be to cut the page after the first line, then add a relevant link (neutrally worded) for anyone wishing to read more. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 00:40, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

January 2012

This is your last warning. The next time you remove the maintenance templates from Wikipedia articles without resolving the problem that the template refers to, as you did at Ace Baker, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 01:55, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 00:06, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Richrath‎

If you are not here to make Wikipedia a better place then please go elsewhere. Your edits to Gary Richrath‎ are unwarranted as all you are trying to do is prove a point. I will not argue this with you. Either contribute constructively or leave. If you make another pointy edit you will be blocked. Seriously - I'm not interested in arguing with you, I'm telling you like it is plain and simple. N^oformation ^Talk 05:43, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My edits to Gary Richrath were constructive, and I notice you do not indicate what "point" you think I'm trying to make, nor what was "wrong" with my edits. There was no citation for "Marshall Amplifiers", and I could not verify this. Same thing for "Peoria Illinois". And the phrase "across the river" is not encyclopedic. Across the river from where? And so what?. Note that I called your attention to the unsourced long list of guitars in the Richrath article, and YOU removed that, rightly so. Frankly, I am unable to verify the discography. Google searches on Richrath turn up his Wikipedia article, an anonymous comment on a blog somewhere, and that's about it. Ace Baker (talk) 17:58, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Childish behavior like this reflects poorly on you as a gentleman. You're a big boy, so act like one. The fact remains that, whatever your accomplishments may be, it seems that no one that writes for sources that we consider suitable here on WP has noticed you and written about you. That may be a tough break, but without such sources, we cannot justify having an article on you. If you really want to contribute, then produce acceptable sources. If you can't, then take your lumps and chalk it up to bad luck. Breaking other kids toys is not an appropriate response when Santa has not been nice to you. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 22:22, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't break anyone's toys. I was editing the Gary Richrath article in good faith. I

The real issue here is vandalism of my biography Ace Baker. The first problem was that User Natty10000 was insistent on putting false, unsourced material into the article. I kept trying to take it out, this was deemed an "edit war", I was warned to stop it, I was blocked from editing the article, while nothing was done to Natty10000. I persisted, and it became obvious that I was right, thus escalating the situation to problem 2. Ace Baker (talk) 00:20, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Problem 2 was that User CindaMuse put self-publishing tags on my article. It's true that some of the sources were self-published, but were clearly within Wiki guidelines, which allow for self-published material to be used as sources "on themselves". CindaMuse falsely claimed that this rule only applied to inanimate things like books, movies, etc. When I corrected Cindamuse, pointing out that the rules make reference to "activities" and "experts", and that obviously inanimate objects cannot have activities nor be experts, it became quite provable that, once again, I was correct, and my attackers were wrong. This led to problem 3. Ace Baker (talk) 00:20, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Problem 3 was a strategy to delete my article altogether, on the grounds of notability. First, however, the article had to be hacked to pieces, removing my notable accomplishments in music, such as my writing of the song "I'm On My Way", which was the end title song to "Barbie as Princess and the Pauper", my having composed the music for feature films starring academy award winning James Coburn, and my having been awarded a gold-record for work on Ice-T's "Freedom of Speech". YouTube IS a reliable source when its authenticity is not in question, the Barbie movie is on YouTube, my name is clearly in the credits, and this alone makes me notable, according to Wikipedia guidelines. Ace Baker (talk) 00:20, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So, yes, bad faith is the only POSSIBLE explanation for this clear effort to cleanse Wikipedia of my information. The real issue, from Wikipedia's perspective, is that I have dared to create a 9/11 film, entitled "9/11 - The Great American Psy-Opera" that provides compelling evidence of the 9/11 conspiracy, including a $100,000 offer for original 9/11 airplane videos. Ace Baker (talk) 00:20, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of discussion at the Administrators' Noticeboard

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. N^oformation ^Talk 22:21, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for several instances of disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, personal attacks, soapboxing, and serious concerns regarding WP:FRINGE.. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. WilliamH (talk) 01:44, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]