User talk:Isotope23/Archive 7

Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17

User talk:Philosopher1

Hi there. I just reverted that blocked guy's talk page again. I need to step back, being the blocking admin an' all, as I need to stay neutral and am quite annoyed right now. Can you take a look? Thanks - Alison^☺ 05:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks for following up on that. Much appreciated. Furthermore, I think I learnt a lesson there about engaging obvious trolls, even in the most minor way. WP:RBI and all that. Thanks again :) - Alison^☺ 15:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I love you

Thank you for indefinitely blocking User:JFBurton. You are my very favorite Wikipedian in the world right now. -FisherQueen (Talk) 15:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Wow, I came here just to tell you the same thing. This guy was still hurling misiniformed insults at me... About an article I last edited on January 29th. (This, in response to this, because I'm from the U.S.) Good riddance. Grandmasterka 22:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your message on my talk page about the article Youhannan Semaan Issayi after you deleted the previous 2 and began the new one. It was driving me crazy as I didn't know what to do. I tried, here and there, by looking up sources and couldn't find any... well one or two. Correcting spellings, that I was sure of (not many), capitalizing what I was sure of (not many), and grammar (not well). Oh my! I didn't want to slam the creator of the article and tried the best I could with little (none) knowledge of the subject and my inability to correctly format citations (the way they display in the reference section and citing same source on different info). I'm working on it though. Cheers! __Jeeny 16:11, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks a lot for your support in my recent RfA- I have now been promoted. J Milburn 17:12, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

MySpace Events

Why was myspace events deleted all that it needed was there and someone who didnt participate on its discussion at all deleted it.Martini833 20:03, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• I understand that but the votes were much more on the keep side so it must have been a decision he thought of instead of what the wikipedians wanted. And could you alert fellow admins to see what they say so tht i may get an idea about this article staying on Wikipedia.com Martini833 21:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

HELP

Please see User talk:Paulapatty page with the deletion request back on the page. You had changed the article Youhannan Semaan Issayi earlier after I tagged it for deletion. I thought his user page reflected that, as I didn't notice it before now. Thanks for the help in looking into this, as it will help solve any confusion for the original author and myself. I have been working on this for hours. lol. Jeeny 20:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for removing the delete tag. Heck, the poor guy is probably so confused. I answered you on my talk page, but thought I'd say something here too, to make another long page for you to archive. :p Jeeny 21:08, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

South Australian general election, 2006

Hi. This WP:BRD is new to me but it seems like a good way forward. According to the page, it requires some leadership and experience to work - so I hope you are going to stick around and drive that process forward. Joestella 16:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I think you need to look at the last 3 months edit history of this user, of his own talk page, at WT:AUSPOL, and you'll see that consensus generally puts this user in a slim minority and he has a habit of forcing his beliefs, opinions and behaviour on everyone else, and doesn't take "no" for an answer. Also two AFDs I started at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Western Australian general election campaign, 2005 and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/South Australian general election campaign, 2006, and his at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Jeendan which closed keep. Im prepared to consider what he has to say, but I'm not willing to tolerate bullying and aggressive/extreme behaviour. Note that these extreme reversions and content changes only began 2 hours ago, at his instigation, the page had been completely silent before that time. DanielT5 16:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

It appears that his edits were an attempt to disrupt a currently-running AfD on South Australian general election campaign, 2006 (an article Joe created out of process a bit over a month ago which is currently looking like Delete consensus), which has just hours to run. I am genuinely disappointed, after my good faith attempts to reach out to him over the last 36 hours after editing at the WA article reached a similar peak. I have removed several objections to contentious changes he had proposed elsewhere as he finally conceded on a couple of key issues which I and others had raised, and I was genuinely shocked to see what he did tonight. If a block is not given tonight, I can foresee one soon (probably on another article yet to be determined), as it is a consistent pattern of behaviour. A random survey of WikiProject Australian Politics or the most visible Australian admins would probably solicit a similar response to my own, he's been on the radar for months (long, long before I came on the scene, as I normally edit geographic articles). Orderinchaos 16:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I honestly think, and I hate to say it, but an RFC with binding conditions may be the only way to fix this one. I *want* it to be otherwise, but I am too familiar with this editor's contribution history and complete disdain and contempt for his fellow users to have faith in any informal negotiated outcome - any good outcome I believe has to start with mutual respect. Orderinchaos 17:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

olympian efforts

You beat me to fixing Olympian by minutes. It is frightening: Google has already seen it! -- RHaworth 18:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

User Kirbytime

Thanks for following up on that. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 19:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

No the time looks good. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 20:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Jamdonut

Again, I'm just screwing with him. He's fighting an obvious block, so why not have fun with the punk? --Golbez 20:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

My WP:AN/I report

I responded on that page, but to summarize, I need to see some diffs here if you are asserting that the individual you reported is continuing the same behavior they were blocked for.--Isotope23 14:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about the late response. Truth is that the individual Artaxerex (talk · contribs · count) only came back today, with the original user name and another edit war broke out at Reza Shah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) --Rayis 23:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

BLP

You seem to be regularly enforcing this based on recent events, can I get some input here please? Thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 14:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

No rush, thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 14:59, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Question

I'm sorry for bothering you, but I know that you're an admin, and that you would know this... and I don't, because I'm a newcomer. When you look at the recent edits on "my watchlist", what do the (-74) or (+3214) mean? - Hmwith 19:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you so much! I thought it was a user rating or something, haha. - Hmwith 19:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry

Sorry about that! By the way, how long will it take to check the user? Davnel03 13:27, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Mifflin Street Block Party

Careful... You reverted one sockpuppet but not the other. (This is your revert; this is JFBurton hijacking the whole article. :-) Grandmasterka 16:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: P.B. Pilhet

P.B. Pilhet has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Yes, I had figured the vandal and Jayrowbo were one and the same. But there's not much I can do about it; that's what comes of being a vandal patroller. Actually, I was being pestered by an IP vandal for a while before the Jayrowbo thing. Then, all of the sudden, the IP came back and apologized to me (in great detail). Not surprisingly, right after that, a new account (User:Ih8God), came out of nowhere and vandalized my userpage again. So it appears that the IP, Ih8God, and Jayrobow are all the same person.

Thanks for noticing my plight :-) -- 18:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

You'll never stop me I'll bring this wikipedia down!

Well no, not really. Sorry about that, thanks for fixing my accidently removal of another editors remarks. --Fredrick day 19:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)]

Help again, Please!

I don't know what else to do or how to report this issue. You're the only administer that I've had actual contact with. I have been working my butt off the past few days on Wikipedia, while also fighting vandanism, reverting articles and posting warnings. This user Special:Contributions/76.171.9.67 has vandalized a lot of pages, plus he did it to my user page! I guess it's because I gave him/her a bunch of warnings as he/she was going around to many articles inserting the same nonsense while I was working really late into the evening last night. Can you help either by protecting my page or something? Will that prevent me from editing it? lol. I'm sorry, I'm still new and having a hard time learning the ropes in addition to other things I have to learn and study. Will appreciate any help or advice you can give me. Thank you. Jeeny 01:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Daniel575

This is the last discussion on Daniel... I guess he was never technically banned, but if those socks are being abusive, block them too. Grandmasterka 21:48, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Caspian

Finding it ludicrous that this band's article had been deleted at all, let alone six times and further protected from addition, I took a look at guideline criteria for inclusion of a musical act article found the following notability criteria fulfilled by Caspian

• It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7](et cetera, et cetera)

I have also found that it fulfilled the following criteria that make it very likely that sufficient reliable information is available.

• Has gone on an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one large or medium-sized country, reported in reliable sources. - Caspian has participated in two tours of USA of 20 shows or more and is currently on another[8] and this has been reported[9]

Mwhale 04:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Edit war, crystal ball etc..

Hi, Isotope23.
We're having a problem with the talk page of Talk:Republic of Dubrovnik.
An unregistered user is persistently pushing a talk that's getting into clairvoyancy.
Not to mention that such messages are of political nature, and are considered as provocation and attempt of propagating of ideas that deal with dismembering of an other country.
First time I haven't removed that section, I've just gave few infos [10]. Later I saw that it might turn the discussion into something else, that's dealing with "what might be" (and wikipedia isn't that), so I removed that section. Especially when I saw that such messages were turning the talk page into chat page (about propagandism... no comment).
Please see these changes (of those unregistered user):: [11], [12], [13].
These were my reactions after his changes. [14], [15]. After his last change, I didn't want to do anything, so I've informed you.
So, we need admin's touch there.
Sincerely, Kubura 13:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

After my removal, the IP-editor did it again [16]. Kubura 07:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Caspian

sure, i'm willing. Mwhale 13:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Question about deleted articles and project talk pages

As you may be aware the author of the recently deleted <redacted> article placed rather lengthy pleas for support on several web-pages, one of which is the Wikipedia_Talk: WikiProject Business and Economics page. What is the general rule of thumb for deleting project discussions pertaining to an article that has been deleted? My inclination is to remove it unless an important project wide issue is raised. Other alternatives are:

• leave as is
• move to sub-page for dead articles (to preserve history)
• archive it in some manner

Thanks in advance, Egfrank 13:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

This question wasn't addressed to me, but I wouldn't object if that posting was immediately moved to the archives of Wikipedia_Talk: WikiProject Business and Economics. Should we ever need to research the <redacted> case in the future (e.g. for lessons learned), it would be helpful if the discussions didn't disappear completely. In fact, we don't delete AfD debates either. If the editor posted the same material in multiple places, keeping one copy should be sufficient. EdJohnston 15:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, archiving would be the best solution.--Isotope23 16:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank-you User:EdJohnston and User:Isotope23. I've created a special purpose archive for discussions on now-deleted articled, called "the graveyard". I didn't want to make it part of the regular chronological archive because that would make it harder to find it again should we want to consider "lessons learned". I also moved the <redacted> talk page items to the graveyard.

BTW - I wonder if the talk page from the <redacted> article should be cut and paste to the archive. If the goal is lessons learned, there's some important information there both as regards the style of the debate that lead to the problems as well as some information that helped us reach consensus.

In a similar vein, a good part of the talk on this topic ended up on User:RTV-Right to Vanish's talk page. In deleting it, we lost the history of that too. I realize she tried to argue for a right to disappear, but shortly before that point even she complained that some of the debate belonged on the talk page and not on her personal page.

Is there any way we could cut and paste the relevant bits to the B&E graveyard? Egfrank 18:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Kudos for your transparency

I wanted to commend you for going out of your way to explain in some detail your thought process in closing the <redacted>. (Upfront disclaimer: I agree with your closure). This discussion was quite problematic and had some quite singular and troubling issues. Rather than just close as the apparent consensus (which itself was not a strong one), you walked through the various issues which needed to be addressed. In doing so, you opened the door for others to throw stones at you, not only for your decision, but for the process in coming to it, and in doing so really allowed your reputation to be put on the line.

I have a great deal of respect for you for doing so in the context of such a rancorous discussion. Just my 0.02¢. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 15:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm yet another participant in the <redacted> AfD who liked the detailed closing message. I'm glad the debate wasn't closed early under WP:SNOW. In my own experience, any attempt to close a contentious AfD debate early will usually result in even more trouble. EdJohnston 15:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, if I get attacked for my decision and reasoning, then so be it... it wouldn't be the first time and I can take it; I've got a thick skin. There is always WP:DRV if someone feels my closure was improper.--Isotope23 16:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Email

I recieved one of those "darkness" emails aswell. I have the email address. Personally though, I think its just junk. Retiono Virginian 19:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I never seen any jokes, but this is mass sockpuppetry which has been going on all day using some kind of open proxies. It all started with a VoA account yesterdat called User:Mr oompapa which was quite childish at the start but about 30 socks appeared today. Then evil attacks appeared and odd accounts who had being doing "other stuff" such as User:Darkness of Meta who was emailing hundreds of users (Including me) which drew my attention, then when a WP:RFCU case appeared a user who had been sleeping since March called User:The bedtime story man appeared and created a blatant lie, removing the request. Then the personal attacks appeared and so on. It's getting a little out of hand. Retiono Virginian 19:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Filed a report here [17]. I see no reason why we shouldn't ban this user. Retiono Virginian 21:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Notability of Caspian (band)

A tag has been placed on Caspian (band), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in Wikipedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert notability may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is notable, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page (below the existing db tag) and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Realkyhick 21:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

With the links posted, I think there's enough to assert notability. I removed my speedy tag. Realkyhick 00:59, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I just fixed the external links with titles. That should help. Having gone through those links, I'd say they have more than enough proof of notability. Now I'd actually like to see them in action. Good work. Realkyhick 01:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Kronecker

Hi Isotope,

you might remember the user Kronecker. He keeps insulting people on their disc pages and his own. You might want to check that.--Tresckow 22:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Reconsideratoin on podiobook

Hi,

A few days ago, I posted what I thought was a very neutral POV article on podiobooks, or audiobooks made available in podcast form. Through reading the deletion log, I notice that someone tried to to add this topic back in November and it was removed because, basically, there wasn't enough evidence that podiobooks were something more than more than a passing fad and not worthy of inclusion.

But I think that has changed. There are well over 100 individual podiobook authors with many more working on their books. The recent success of one author, Scott Sigler, is causing publishers to take notice. Search on Google, and you'll find 78,500 pages. So it's real live term.

As to the "realness" of the word, I submit the following:

http://www.doubletongued.org/index.php/citations/podiobook_1/

No, it's not websters, but all movements start somewhere.

I finish with this: a podiobook is neither a podcast nor an audio book. Rather, it is an interesting application of the practice of podcasting to a traditional medium - audiobooks. Rejecting it because it is similar is tantamount to rejecting podcasts in favor of just calling them audioblogs. Similar? Yes. But not quite the same.

Evo Terra 22:00, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

• Hi Isotope23, I just wanted you to know that I am trying to work collaboratively with podcasting fans and actual podcasters to improve issues of clarity in notability and verifiability. I have contacted Mr. Evo above as well as others. I hope to bring an article or two back to life, once I am confident that the notability and verifiability concerns are dealt with. For now, such work resides in my sandbox. Thanks for your work on keeping wikipedia accurate and effective. --Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 04:55, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

One thing I have yet to learn about is what all is involved in bringing a previously deleted article back to life. My inclination is to build it appropriately in a sandbox, then bring it in. I see why podiobooks was deleted and think it might be best to rebuild the article to wikipedia standards prior to bringing it back. I personally, see no reason to use WP:DRV, but understand why you suggested it to Evo. --Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 16:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I never presume I know anything bordering on all I need to know here or anywhere else. That's the beauty of communication and why I love collaboration. If you are willing, I would appreciate a review of the article when I think it is ready to re-launch. Best, Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 17:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Toy Story 3

Hi, Toy Story 3 was moved to Toy Story 3: Prospector's Revenge which is not a confirmed title. I tried to move it but it doesnt let me since Toy Story 3 is a redirect page, could you fix this? Martini833 23:55, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks so much! By the way the user who changed it did a lot of vandalism on a lot of animation related pages some of which were fake or future projects could you check in to that his name Chaotix05 and has been accused of being a puppet(Martini833 01:41, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

ExpertSatellite removal - why ?

I am trying to add a page to show the history of ExpertSatellite, a DIRECTV preffered online retailer, but the page was removed. Please assist. (csd:g11) is the code that was added to the removal notice. Thanks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bin asc (talk • contribs) 18:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC).

Trigam 41

I'm not sure why you unblocked User:Trigam41, but I assume it's because of his false accusations against me during his discussion with you on his talk page. I've ignored him despite his continued attacks outside of Wikipedia, but now he's back and making more false statements about me that you can review here. I'm not sure how to proceed at this point. I've tried to let everything go and ignore him, but he seems to be engaged in Wiki Stalking at this point. Hatch68 00:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I call for Hatch68 to provide anything showing "Continued Attacks". I have moved on from his grudge against me, but am continuing to review his activity on Wikipedia as I believe him to be aggressive in deletion flags. I have not made any false or personal comments, I have simply tried to review material that has already been deleted. I understand that is not possible and have not continued to pursue this. I have not made comments on Hatch68's talk page even though he has made threats on mine. Trigam41 17:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

In answer to your call, let's review your edit history.

1. In the Forrest Craig article, which had to be deleted 4 times after you recreated it, finally being protected, you created a copy of the article that stated "He's notable...more notable that(sic) you sonsabitches." See summary here.
2. After I placed an db-context on the third iteration of the article, and then placed the standard courtesy template on your talk page, you proceeded to move my talk page and my user page, accusing User:Nmajdan and myself of being "abusive."
3. On your own User talk:Trigam41 usertalk page, you admitted to making personal attacks on my blog, the link to which was originally posted on my user page. These attacks consisted of calling me fat, and saying my infant son was fat. You posted that I was a pervert on your own blog, along with the name of my wife and myself and our home address, including a google map to our home.
4. You continued to refer to me as a "pervert" on your own talk page.
5. After your block for your previous attacks and vandalism expired, you went through my edit history, found an AfD I proposed, then stated "It's fairly typical for Hatch68 to assume that any admin that disagrees with him must not have read the article." This is a statement of fact made by you, but no evidence has been provided to back up this claim, most likely because none exists.
6. After I warned you that everything that is edited on Wikipedia is available in the edit history, you accused me of making a threat to you. There was no explicit or implied threat in the statement I made, but you claimed this on two different occasions in what I suppose is a continued character assassination attempt.
7. You claimed in the previous paragraph here that I am "too aggressive" in deletion flags. I've followed the policies on Wikipedia, but I do occasionally make mistakes, which I have readily admitted to. Let's keep in mind that this entire incident started with a simple db-context and the standard courtesy warning being placed on your page. Because of this simple action, I've been abused here and on my blog, and my wife and son were involved as well. You have a very clear pattern of losing your temper, making attacks, the attempting subterfuge to cover your tracks. Hatch68 00:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The first four were covered by my block. I served my time and since my block expired I have been using Wikipedia appropriately. I did go through your edit history and have been reviewing all the changes you have made. I feel that you are too aggressive in your deletion flags. I have never stated that you are, just that I feel that way. I have been following your activity in order to verify that. Of your many speedy deletion flags, I have not found fault or error with any, sans one. That one is the page where I made a comment. This is not a personal attack against you, I feel that you made innapropriate comments towards the admin and I commented on that. I have not lost my temper or made attacks since my block expired. I have not involved your wife or your son since my block expired. You need to relax and move on. If you continue to follow Wikipedia policies I will have no issue with you. However, I will continue to monitor your Wiki activity and make comments where I feel appropriate. Trigam41 13:44, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Following another editor around and commenting on their edits is probably not a very good idea.--Isotope23 13:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm only commenting on edits that I feel need comment. Hatch68 states that he has followed the policies on Wikipedia. In many of his edits, I feel that is the case, and made no further comment. Trigam41 14:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm just saying be aware of the policy I've highlighted. There is a difference between monitoring a problem editor and harassing an editor over good faith edits. Please don't cross that line.--Isotope23 14:06, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't intend to. Trigam41 15:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

sock puppet

what happend with the sock puppet things i saw? blah blah hobo —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.218.139.157 (talk • contribs)

Huh?--Isotope23 14:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Unusual edit

What's up with this? Did your account get compromised or something? Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 18:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Walker

er, eh hmmm ? ask Mr. Brandt about biography work and you will get a different story, me thinks, nicht vahr? You are involved and share a "bias." We think Mr. Walker wants his discography to be accurate. (That includes his verifiable works. AMG is reliable.) You do not? That is not an encyclopedia, it is censorship, with a definitive bias toward your opinions.67.186.123.21 19:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• Responded at Talk:Matt Walker (drummer).--Isotope23 19:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• You responded by blocking an IP? The article says it is a stub and we should try to improve on it.

I am a webmaster and I add that Matt is currently working on the Morrisey tour with his brother on bass. (2007.) I add to Matt's discography with a real live authentic link to an album. i.e.,

Matt Walker plays all drums and percussion on Lee Nysted's 2005 debut album, Shoot From The Hip[18].

• All Music Guide review

Can I get much more objective? The article is about Matt and his life. His discography is part of that life? Thank you for being objective. Now I know why Daniel asked to be re-blocked. Steve D.67.186.123.21 21:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I IP blocked it because of the edit warring. Discuss, form consensus, then the article should be opened for editing. And here I thought Brandt wanted to be reblocked because he liked the pretty "blocked" template.--Isotope23 22:35, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

That is funny. However, RobSteadman also has the same feeling that I do. "Cabals" of "rogue administrators" are not allowing people like me to edit and add meaningful information about real people. I note that Mr. Oberdictu showed up after

not spending much time on this site in the last two months. He must be on the watch for anything about Mr. Nysted. Right? I found some meaningful Chicago based information for Oberdictu, and left it on his talk page if he wants to discuss Mr. Nysted in public without any verification of what he is talking about. Enough said. I have work to do. Please allow me to proceed. I would like to add freely to Mr. Walker's article. 67.186.123.21 03:49, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The discussion is not happening at Matt's article. If, as Mr. Steadman and Mr. Brandt have told us, there is a small group or cabal of edit police stopping people from editing, then your version of "consensus" does not provide the world with anything of value, does it? What does a Nysted article have to do with the albums that Walker plays on? I am not trying to establish a Nysted article. I am attempting to improve on a stub article for Walker, the drummer.  ??? 67.186.123.21 01:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I am back. How do thess sentences do anything more or less for Matt's bio, than the sentence you are trying to eliminate, Mr. Isotope?

"Matt went on to other collaborative efforts in The Cupcakes, Shiny, American Sunshine, Ashtar Command, Bullet Train, and the German Shephards."

"In 2005, he performed on various songs on Garbage's album, Bleed Like Me, and toured with Billy Corgan promoting TheFutureEmbrace, on which he contributed drumming."

Do they give references and a source? Many people are not "notable."

Now:

Matt Walker plays all drums and percussion on Lee Nysted's 2005 debut album, Shoot From The Hip[19].

• All Music Guide review

Do you see how anyone trying to make a case for eliminating the Nysted reference, is doing it for reasons that can only be described as questionable. WebmasterSD 67.186.123.21 14:14, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• At this point I am content to let the RfC run it's course and let the community decide to include the Nysted album reference or not.--Isotope23 14:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Links

No problem, of course. There are a few more if you search the Wikipedia: space for links to User:Lee Nysted, but I figured those three would give folks the necessary background. - Ehheh 21:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• Interesting. This is supposed to be a discussion about adding real life information to a stub article about Matt Walker's discography and tour history and maybe adding a picture or two. You and Mr. Oberdictu are far too concerned about hashing up old wounds in re: Nysted. The article in question is about Walker. If I see JzG here, then the whole old crowd is back.

Mr. SteadMan? Cabals here too? Webmaster SD67.186.123.21 03:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

It's nothing about hashing up old wounds... but given the fact that your only "improvement" to the article was to add the Nysted reference and you started adding it right after another IP (that resolved to a company Nysted has claimed to work) for got blocked for WP:3RR on the same edit, you'll forgive me if my assumption of good faith is a bit tempered here.--Isotope23 13:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to get involved in the RFC as I was involved in the initial deletion discussion regarding Nysted's articles, and for fear of being declared a Myspace cabalist (which alternately makes me laugh and shudder in terror of being associated with Myspace in any way), but in previous iterations of this discussion regarding Nysted's article and various activities, the concept of a group of people from Myspace attacking Nysted wherever he goes has been raised. This MO looks rather familiar. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me,

er, hello, but if you check your IP's you will see that the other players (Steve? etc.) are not here in Illinois ? I would not assume anything about anything. I also added the fact that Matt is still touring with Morrisey in 2007. It is now April 2007. Thank you. I changed my name to WebmasterSD to avoid confusion with some Steve. WMSD67.186.123.21 19:34, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

re: Bravo

Thank you, I believe it was necessary. Welcome to the project, by the way. – Riana ^ऋ 03:26, 25 April 2007 (UTC) ;)

Thunder and Lightning (professional wrestling)

Thanks. I didn't look too closely, since the account that tagged it appears to be a sock of User:JB196. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 15:17, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Edits on Zodiac Killer discussion page

With no editor having followed your suggestion that the thread on "badmouthing" be removed, I removed it today and referenced your Comment Section there. My ip is 67.76.105.96 . Thank you for helping. 67.76.105.96 17:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC) Apr 25, 2007

That is fine... it added nothing to the discussion of the article anyway.--Isotope23 18:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Matt Walker (drummer)

I've left my final comment at on the talk page of the above-referenced article. Per your suggestion, I'm going to let the RFC take its course. Frankly, though, this seems like a bit of a charade. This is obviously Nysted and the contents of his sock drawer/meat locker. More to the point, they cannot find anything that suggests playing with Nysted was at all significant to Walker. I'd be more than happy to include a mention of Nysted in the article if there was some indication that playing as a session musician on Nysted's album was anything more than a paycheck to Walker. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 22:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment:

ehhmmm, if you please? Mr. O., You are not an objective party and you are making accusations that are out of order, not verifiable, and not even close to the truth. I practice law in Illinois and other jurisdictions outside of Illinois. An RFC should not be done in a case where only the parties that are not objective can contribute. You sir have not done much on this project other than getting involved with Nysted. Further, an RFC is not to be done when there is a content dispute. We are to discuss the pros and cons before bringing this to RFC. What are the cons of having a discography in a bio of a living person (musician) ??? There are no cons. You simply do not want to give Mr. Nysted any credit. Why, I do not know. It is patently absurd. If Matt is brought into this, I am convinced that he would say this is an oversight by Wikipedia. He and Mr. Nysted are friends. You have no idea if Mr. Walker was paid for the album work. You are making up things as you go along. The fact is Matt has an article. It also has several other issues in the article that should be addressed. I am here to do the job. WebMasterSD 67.186.123.21 22:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd suggest stopping with the "I practice law" thing, as that has a serious chilling effect on discussions, and you may run afoul of the no legal threats policy here. A Request for Comment is intended to bring more eyes to an article, not just those who have been involved with discussions in the past. It draws a wider range of people in to discuss the issue; give it time to bring other people in. Referring to someone such as ObiterDicta, who has been involved in Wikipedia for nearly a year and has nearly 3500 edits on a range of topics as having "not done much on this project other than getting involved with Nysted" is bordering on a personal attack.

Here is a simple fact: through numerous actions, the Wikipedia community has determined that Lee Nysted and his music projects are not notable. Thus, mention of the work on his album by Matt Walker is not considered notable as well. I strongly recommend that you accept this fact, and perhaps work with Mr. Nysted to increase his notability through developing wider-spread interest among the media in his work. Continuing to make disparaging comments regarding editors here will not get the job done. Tony Fox (arf!) 00:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

• I could not have said that better myself.--Isotope23 01:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me?Mr. Fox, you are not an objective anything in re: Walker, if you are bringing up Nysted. Your record in the Nysted matter is quite clear. Please excuse yourself from this? You are also creating new rules as you go along.

Discography work is quite simple. Matt has played on a series of records. One of them happens to be with Lee Nysted. I am a webmaster and I create internet articles. I also work in the internet radio business. I am a fan of Walker. Now it is a matter of common sense and it is the principal of it all, don't you know? I know that not one objective new comer has peeked into the discussion. It is, as Mr. Steadman says, a "cabal." An RFC with content dispute? It appears there is a policy for this. I will add to the content of the article. Unfortunately, Walker shows very little Google activity and there are more non-resourced items than I originally thought. More work. WebmasterSD 01:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

"An RfC on article content is for helping to develop consensus or for gaining an outside perspective to help settle a deadlocked disagreement or make a better decision. Note that all Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view and must include only verifiable information, with no original research." This, as stated on this page is what RFCs are for - getting more eyes onto articles to make a better consensus decision. I'm not sure what rules you feel people are inventing; I'm following guidelines as set out here. Here's an analogy for you: we have a lot of articles about cities and towns that have "notable people" sections for people who were born or resided there. Generally, those sections are for people who already have an article or are notable enough to possibly pass the biography guidelines; other people who are added are removed. This is basically the same approach that I believe is being taken in the case of Walker's article.

Please, do everyone a favour and read the guidelines that are being pointed out to you. Notability and verifiability are the most important. It will save us all time and irritation. Thanks. Tony Fox (arf!) 03:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Links to Nysted album

You want to verify? You want reliable? Here, you have more than you would need to do the right thing. I will let you and the rest of your cabal have your way with whatever you are doing here.

http://music.msn.com/album/?album=44666395

Strike MP3 per Isotope

http://www.theorchard.com/dist/artistPage.php?artist_id=57284

http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=10:tghe4jo78waq~T2

http://www.billboard.com/bbcom/discography/index.jsp?pid=699660&aid=744269

Strike MySpace per Isotope

http://cdbaby.com/places/9IL0?cat=12&mood=190&subcat=137

[http://www.amazon.com/Shoot-Hip-Lee-Nysted/dp/B000BLI3SE/sr=1- 1/qid=1169336504/ref=sr_1_1/105-6340290-5490027?ie=UTF8&s=music

http://www.iSound.com/Lee_Nysted

http://www.LeeNysted.com

http://www.emusic.com/browse/l/b/-dbm/a/0-0/1400110463/0.html

http://www.napster.com/view/artist/index.html?id=12067238

I would suggest you follow the rules, sir.

Have a great day! WebmasterSD 12:10, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

• No, I don't want to verify. Verifiability isn't the problem here... and I think I've stated that a few times already. Nobody is questioning the fact that Nysted exists, recorded an album, or that Walker played on it. The issue is whether or not that fact is in any way notable. None of the links would meet any reasonable definition of reliable sourcing guidelines that would quantify this as notable. All this establishes is that Nysted has a Myspace site and sells his album on a variety of websites. multiple non-trivial press coverage concerning this would establish notability, but it appears that does not exist. At that point it comes down to a situation where a consensus on whether this is notable or not needs to be formed... hence the RFC that you seem to feel is so out of order. I'd suggest allowing that process to work.--Isotope23 13:44, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

How interesting? Notable and the above references look pretty synonymous. Google the player(s) in question. You people are absolutely amazing and not in a "great" sort of way, I must insist. I think this episode would be fun reading in the "funny papers" except for the fact that this is real and it is happening at a real live encyclopedia project. I think it would nice if you had left the issue at the beginning because your position is surely not objective. There is no discussion, you simply changed the rules. 63.93.197.67 15:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

• No actually they don't. Clearly notable would be a major music publication covering the album or mentioning in an article about Walker that he played on the album. The links being provided are simply mentions of the album, in many cases from sites where the album is sold. That doesn't equal notability... I could count off a dozen albums and individuals who have items for sale at CDBaby, Napster, mp3.com, Amazon, etc that don't meet out notability guidelines and thus should not be mentioned at Wikipedia. It's as simple as that. Barring clear notability, this should be a community derived decision. The objectivity of pretty much everyone who has commented at Talk:Matt Walker (drummer) is pretty questionable at this point (with the notable exception of Trigam41 (talk · contribs). It's fairly clear there are a set of editors who have had a past involvement with Nysted (and have all recursed themselves from commenting on the RFC) as well as couple of IPs that it is fairly apparent have external involvement with Nysted, yourself included. I changed no rules here. I simply have requested what is reasonable: in light of the fact there is no clear established notability here, editors who have no involvement with Nysted and no conflict of interest should be making a determination based on WP:CONSENSUS. Your claims of a "MySpace cabal" and off-topic diatribes at that page are certainly are not helping the process. If you have a concern that I'm somehow acting inappropriately, I invite you to report my conduct at the administrator's noticeboard.--Isotope23 15:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Er, kind sir, 1st, you were involved with Nysted before, and consequently that makes your presence slanted and you should have left the decision to protect, to a non-involved administrator. It is clear by Wikipedia accepted policy that an RFC is not appropriate in content disputes. You did not attempt to talk with me. 2nd, there are no other "editors" giving opinions about the article except those that have been involved before, someone (maybe more than one person) from St. Louis, and me. You then gave Ehehh free editing rights without allowing anyone else to edit.

I am a web director. I will move to strike all information about any and all musicians in this project that do not meet your

new set of guidelines. It is that simple. Walker and nearly every other musician out there that is not widely famous, will get the "ax," I fear, by your set of standards. I just looked at Wikipedia guidelines for notability and maybe you could do the same. It says nothing about whether or not any particular item must be rewarding financially, or otherwise. It does say reliablity and notability are simple to determine by only a few guidelines.

I do believe, btw, that editing a bio is nearly impossible without seeking input directly from the person that said bio is about. Some allowance for the person editing their own account is given here, did you know that? Same logic applies for doing research about albums, web-sites, etc. I would never be able to wrote any bio or anything about the music business without direct contact from THE source. WebmasterSD 17:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

• My previous involvement with Nysted was a) Unblocking him when he was still blocked via an autoblock b) a conversation with him involving canvassing by an unrelated editor in regards to Mario Party articles. I don't really see how that makes me "slanted" in any way. Pertaining to your RFC comments, while a novel interpretation... I will stand by my statement that an RFC is necessary here. It's not like this is the first time anyone added that text to the article. It's been added and removed several times. In fact it was added 4 times right before you showed up by another editor in violation of WP:3RR. An RFC is absolutely appropriate here and this is pretty much that last I will say about that other than the fact that an RFC takes time... you apparently have no patience for that. I protected the article because there was a strong possibility of ongoing edit warring from IP's. If you have a problem with that or my protection of the article, I invite you to post on the administrator's incident noticeboard.
  

As for my "new set of guidelines" as you've put it... sorry, but they are nothing of the sort. I'm merely applying WP:MUSIC, WP:N, WP:ATT, and WP:NOT; all of which are not recent additions to our set of guidelines and policies. I don't remember ever stating that "financially rewarding" is a criteria I'm looking at. The issue is media coverage. That is what I would want to see. Beyond that, what you chose to do here at Wikipedia on other musician articles is your business. Per your last comment, I'd also point you to WP:BIO, WP:BLP, and WP:NOR. While there is nothing that says you can't talk to a subject, anything added to the article would have to be attributable to an external source... not just based on a personal conversation with the subject. Beyond that, while a subject can edit their own article, it is not a practice that is encouraged, though removal of obviously false information from an article about yourself would be completely appropriate.--Isotope23 18:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

You stated that "...editing a bio is nearly impossible without seeking input directly from the person that said bio is about." I doubt that Mozart gave his input regarding the Wikipedia entry for him. I also doubt that Boston Corbett from this morning's main page gave any input regarding his Wikipedia article. As Isotope mentioned earlier, "there is nothing that says you can't talk to a subject". However, discussion with that subject is not an inherent requirement. Trigam41 19:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser filed

FYI, I've just filed a CheckUser to see if we can establish a firm link between Nysted and the folks working on the Walker page. I didn't realize that Nysted had been indef-blocked back in March; with that being the case, this is starting to look like block evasion. I'm also posting to ANI (again) to try and bring some more admin eyes to the situation. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, outside admin perspective would be a good idea at this point.--Isotope23 19:26, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I DO NOT think it is wise for people to have registered accounts or accounts in real names / real addresses at Wikipedia. Mr. Steadman is correct. Wikipedia is run by cabals that do not seek an agenda for "the people" or the "encyclopedia." You, Mr. Isotope, and others like you, simply make up rules as you go along. 286,000 sales and counting, along with a new album, and I now pray Mr. Nysted will keep you and your MySpace gang as far away from Aruba as is humanly possible. There are more people impersonating Mr. Nysted than Elvis. Block everyone in the world, even Nysted's fans in other countries, and you will not stop the music for music is a language which transcends your political puppetry games.