User talk:NCC17

AC/DC

Please stop readding fansites for which consensus is clearly against inclusion. Per WP:EL, onl;y some fansites are sometimes usefull to add. I have added a link to a list of sites, some fan pages,others not, which both reduces the clutter and avoids the debate over fan pages completely. Also, please take into account that you You agreed to allow others to modify your work here. So let them. Circeus 19:37, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any consensus against inclusion of the top AC/DC sites on the internet except from one user (Fair Deal) and his/her SockPuppets. However, since the DMOZ contains all those sites mentioned and more (some of which are better than others) I shall remove all the external links except the DMOZ link so it's not redundant. NCC17 21:09, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By all mean, if you believe User:Fair Deal is sockpuppeteering, do make a report. Baseless accusations of sockpuppetry can be considered personal attacks and are then considered a violation of policy. Also, please mind that the style guide on extrnal links clearly state Articles about any organization, person, or other entity should link to their official site, if they have one. And that my proposal aimed at solving the contentious on which fansites to link to by not linking directly to any. Please do not edit just to make a point. Circeus 22:12, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a petty person though it's obvious what Fair Deal is doing. Reporting people here strikes me as something only a Nazi would do. But since AC/DC has no official site other than AccaDacca.net, then the others should not be listed. Record company sites are not the same as official band sites. I wasn't editing to make a point. I was editing the redundancy of the links since DMOZ has all those links sites listed. Of course, some will argue that accadacca.net is not ac/dc's official site so the only fair deal, it seems, is to eliminate them all.NCC17 22:50, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have told you that my, or your talk page, are not the place to make acusations of sockpuppetry. I am remindind you again that you have no ownership of the article whatsoever. Keep in mind that Fair Deal has a long history of working with music articles, while you have just stated you have only contributed to this single article. Remember that wikipedians are required to assume good faith until evidence to the contrary. Fair Deal is voicing legitimate concerns and your attitude is only confirming that. Please take a more constructive approach instead of standing over the article like a watchdog without engaging in dialogue outside edit summaries. The music brainz link are perfectly valid, and your reaction ("which no ac/dc fan I know has ever even heard of!" only makes me wonder whether you realize that we are trying to write a encyclopedia that can be useful to everybody, and not only to fans. How about you try to be constructive with the article's actual content instead of obsessing over the websites that are linked? Circeus 00:02, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You take the cake. Not only did you ignore everything I wrote you but you have attempted to twist my words into something entirely different without any justification. At no time have I ever claimed that the article was owned by me but you seem to have concluded that without any evidence within the span of a few minutes time. Where is your good faith, Circeus? You certainly have not shown this user any?

Furthermore, I would say that encyclopedia articles should be written by experts in the area and not left up to people who are just generally familiar with the subject of music. If the musicbrainz links are perfectly valid so much more so are the ones that I have attempted to maintain on this site, 90% of which have been in the AC/DC article for the last two years and which were NOT originally placed here by me.

As I've said already, I have made numerous contributions to the AC/DC article. I do that because it's an area of my expertise and I have little wish to work on much else on this site. You seem to think that's a bad thing somehow and, at the same time, you're ignoring the boorish behavior of an individual who demands nothing be added except his own chosen links. What else has Fair Deal contributed to the AC/DC article and why are you acting so biased about this situation? NCC17 07:08, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"At no time have I ever claimed that the article was owned by me but you seem to have concluded that without any evidence within the span of a few minutes time." Your claims sounds like you are attributing yourself some sort of editorial fiat over the article, asserting that you are the only one to judge the quality of external links. You have clearly not attempted to discuss any issues on the talk page during your run as User:NCC17, or tried to find out why many music articles link to musicbrainz.com. Fair deal has not "demanded" anything. He has expressed concern over your handling of the external links sections, concerns that are quite clearly well founded. I fail to see why you insist so much on having a single "official" site when there are clearly several that are all as much valid as each others (and I'mnot even getting into the respective quality levels), and should be linked according to our own guidelines. If you really wish to improve this aticle, then you will try tomake it complient with our Wikipedia:Cite your sources and Wikipedia:verifiability policy, or maybe work on improving other related content, such as numerous stubby album or song articles. THAT would be a really pertinent contribution and something more constructive than just policing the article and ranting at editors because you disagee with their edits. Circeus 17:53, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, it's clear that fairness is beyond your capability in a dispute so I won't bother you further with any decision making. I can only conclude, based on your actions of completely dismissing all my points and upholding all of Fair Deal's (including totally ignoring his/her numerous policy violations which as an administrator you should be pointing out), that the two of you have some sort of hidden friendship which leads you to demonstrate such editorial bias. Either that, or it's some some sort of Canadian thing between yourselves which the rest of world would fail to comprehend.NCC17 20:26, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried to uderstand your point. I have offered the chance you to explain your arguments, but you have failed to do so and only ended being less and less civil. What am I supposed to conclude now except that you are apparently incapable of understanding the principles that allow Wikipedia to hold up? Circeus 00:10, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How hard is it to understand that every wiki user except Fair Deal seemed to have no problem with the links that were already present? That's a consensus.

How hard is it to understand that it was Fair Deal that started the nastiness on the edit/history page and not me yet I'm singled out? I only responded to him as the record clearly shows. (Of course he tried to hide his edits by not signing in but it would be clear to any 10 year old who was behind them.)

I do understand he principles of Wiki but I don't understand how you can so plainly ignore the black and white history of the AC/DC edit page.

Have a look at Fair Deal's talk page and you can easily see that isn't the first time he's been accused of gutting the useful links on an artist's page. GnR, Bob Dylan and I'd bet probably a lot of other pages we don't know about that he's cut for no good reason.

Here's the best quote: "Great... now we have 1 external link.. to official GNR site which is empty.. not a single info on it!... and some great fan websites on which today's kids can see them on pictures and to see what the newspapers were writting about GNR, they are removed... good work!"

Obviously I'm not the only one to complain about Fair Deal's tendency to irresponsibly cut links left and right....

You can stop with the accadacca-page now. The musicbrainz and the official website contain anything which that fanpage also include, so there is no need for removing the link to acdcrocks.net.. please stop reverting it, since you're on the verge of violating the 3RR.—♦♦ SʘʘTHING^(Я) 11:36, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Don't think you understand that rule but neverthless, acdcrocks.net or .com is not AC/DC's official site. It is merely an Epic Records site for AC/DC, similar to Atlantic's.NCC17 16:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I happen to know that rule by heart (thank you very much). With the 3RR-thing, I was kind of referring to what happened at the bottom of this page, and just asking you if you could make sure that it won't reoccur. I thought a reoccurrance wouldn't be that odd at all, since it seems that you're reverting anything which is not in compliance with "Circeus' decision". I assume you know that Circeus is not God? If people disagree with him, they can just remove his changes in the spirit of Wikipedia's 'be bold'-encouragement.—♦♦ SʘʘTHING^(Я) 17:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, Circeus is God. All hail the great Circeus. 'Twas Circeus that came unto us in the night and blessed us with his exceedingly good wisdom to settle differences between mere mortals. Unfortunately, though, the mere mortal named Fair Deal who first called upon Circeus did go and not abide by the accepted wisdom of the great one. Then, seeking to be kept hidden under the guise of various IP addresses located in NB, CA, that UnFair mortal went back on the brokered deal of his wise and glorious mentor. Lo, how he doth risk the smite of Circeus! The religion of Wikiality is left unserved! I am most vexed.NCC17 17:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Think of him as you like, but just don't hold your thoughts for Wikipedia policies. Eitherway, let's let the community decide what will happen with the external links. Meanwhile, the page is protected to prevent further editwarring with the links.—♦♦ SʘʘTHING^(Я) 18:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever kiddo! But why revert it back to Fair Deal's edit? You seem a bit biased. Are you not troubled by Fair Deal's attempt to circumvent the system by editing without signing in? Are you not troubled by his numerous attempts to gut the links of articles on various rock bands? Take a look at his talk page and see how many complaints he's had against him for his reckless slicing and dicing. The AC/DC page had a great set of links, the absolute most knowledeable sites on the web, that stayed consistent for two years before Fair Deal came along to screw things up. Then, I agreed on the silly compromise proposed by the administrator he called in to review the situation (Circeus) and now he wants to back out of the deal. What's up w/that???NCC17 18:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in my honest opinion I thought the links he provided were better than that accadacca-thing. I already explained that in my August 6-edit on this page from . I don't revert for personal reasons, so that's why you might have thought that I "picked his side", as you may describe it. However, more accurately; in this conflict between you and him, I'm not actually picking any side. Circeus seems to be doing a good job as a mediator and has no need for me being involved in the issue.—♦♦ SʘʘTHING^(Я) 19:10, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you thought he was doing a good job then why not leave his solution in place? And why take the step of protecting the article? Btw, the sites you compare to accaddacca.net may be flashier and have a lot of bells and whistles but are they run by AC/DC's personal team like accadacca.net is? Not at all. They are simply big corporate record company sites run by Sony & Atlantic whilst accadacca.net is run by the Young's own brother-in-law for Albert's & Company - AC/DC's production partners for over 30 years now!NCC17 19:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HI... I'm a previously uninvolved admin and in reading this thread over I think you might try to be a bit more civil. Some of your phrasing struck me on reading as a bit harsh. Just a word to the wise, but please do try to be more collegial* . Thanks and happy editing! ++Lar: t/c 16:14, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thanks for your previously uninvolved opinion. However, I don't believe the word "collegial" applies when your dealing with Wikipedia.NCC17 16:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SooTHING's AC/DC links

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/NCC17 for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. —♦♦ SʘʘTHING^(Я) 11:13, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It has been established that you engaged in sockpuppetry by evidence presented here:
Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/NCC17, and you are therefore blocked for period of ten days.
You're welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires.

Iola k ana|^T 16:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What independent users do is not my responsibility. If you have any evidence that any of the afforementioned accounts are mine you ought to present it instead of engaging in a witch hunt. Perhaps, if some did use new accounts, they did so because they were afraid of retaliation from user Fair Deal because people know his reputation for gutting articles of important information. See his talk page...

Speaking of Fair Deal, there's undeniable evidence on the AC/DC page that he/she has used a variety of IP addresses located in NB, CA in an attempt to hide his editing vandalism. Any fool could see that he has a laptop and probably does his editing from the parking lots of various businesses with wireless internet.

In any event, your charges against me are baseless and a quick check of the IP addresses involved for all those who voted on my side of the link argument would certainly confirm this. I play by the rules here and I'm tired of administrators who sanction first without any proof of wrongdoing. You obviously lack good faith which is one of Wikipedia's highest creeds. NCC17 21:22, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There you go, I've extended your block for your continued uncivil remarks towards Fair Deal. You've been warned for that, but you insist on persisting.—♦♦ SʘʘTHING^(Я) 08:15, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing uncivil about reporting the truth. You are being uncivil by blocking me from arguing my side of things on the link argument.

Btw, nowhere on the acdcrocks.com site does it say it's AC/DC's official site. And Google doesn't say that either, for your information. By blocking me from saying the truth on the argument you will ultimately be responsible for allowing untrue information to appear on AC/DC's Wikipedia article. NCC17 10:27, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're stating assumptions towards Fair Deal as if they are the one and only objective truth. That works counterproductive on Wikipedia's sense of community and isn't fair towards Fair Deal either. So yes, that IS uncivil. Also, acdcrocks.com is the closest you'll get to 'official' with AC/DC. It's the website created by their own record company. The website you suggested to be labeled official is just another fan website. Lastly, regarding "By blocking me from saying the truth on the argument you will ultimately be responsible for allowing untrue information to appear on AC/DC's Wikipedia article.". Come on, that is a hasty generalisation...I don't even need to explain that.—♦♦ SʘʘTHING^(Я) 11:16, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you are now showing your biases publicly now. It makes it much easier for all to see why you rigged the vote by accusing my supporters of sockpuppetry and had a friendly adminstrator find me guilty before I even had a chance to respond to the charges.

You just assumed I was responsible for sockpuppetry with no proof whatsoever to back you up. However, in my case, the evidence was clearly there in the history of the ac/dc page edits that a large number of unsigned edits supporting Fair Deal came from the same small area of NB, CA according to IP locators on the web. The odds of those edits not being Fair Deal's are astronominc considering thet all came from that same small region of the world, all favored Fair Deal and all occurred within a few days time and everyone of those edits vandalised/reverted my edits. For you to ignore the truth of the available editing records either shows you're too dumb too understand what I'm talking about or you're a completely dishonest person.

Regarding acdcrocks.com: No it is not the official AC/DC site. If it was, it would say so and absolutely nowhere on the site does it do that. You're making up things to fit your argument.

Accadacca.net, on the other hand, is not a fan site. It is owned and operated by the same company that owns all the copyrights to every ac/dc recording ever done, Albert's Records. They have been ac/dc's business partners and family for over 30 years. All official news comes through their channel. Sony is merely a recording company that has had a contract with AC/DC for barely two years that had to be approved by Albert's. Now you tell me, based on the true facts of the situation which site sounds more official and do try to be academically honest for once?

Btw, people are reading this. You can ban me forever but people will know what a biased phony you are. NCC17 04:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're trying to get me to do something, but at the same time you accuse me of 'being a biased phony' and 'making up things to fit your argument'? Admittedly, I was tempted to add a couple of days to your block again. And who would have blamed me if I did? I don't think anyone would, seeing as you just cannot lay off the sockpuppet assumptions, even though you were told that they were not going to last. On top of that, you violate WP:CIVIL every few lines. Eitherway, I decided that I would not since your current block is still going to last 8 days, which should give you enough time to evaluate your previous actions. Anyway, instead of blocking you for a longer period of time, I'll address your matters.

Kimo-Lima is not a "friendly administrator" to me. I haven't had any conversations with him at all. Just check my contributions if you want proof.
If you really want to get this sockpuppet thing going, I suggest you do the same with him as I did with you; report him to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets. There's no use in any further arguing whether he is or is not using these puppets, except in a case which I would suggest you open when your block expires.
I'm not saying things to 'fit my argument'. I've factchecked your remarks about Epic Records, and you're right about saying that their contract hasn't lasted a long time (3 and a half years, to be precise) but that DOES mean that that is some kind of official website. Albert Music on the other hand indeed owns the right to all AC/DC website and could also claim that they have an 'official website'. Thanks to this new insight, I propose we remove the current external link that says 'official page' and replace it by:

“

”

This is a format which is also used in the external links-section at Nightwish. This band, although not entirely the same kind of music, does in fact have a featured article. So if the ultimate goal in the long run is to have AC/DC featured as well, I guess we could use some layout things from there. I have no idea what you mean by having been 'academically dishonest' before. Anyway, that's it.—♦♦ SʘʘTHING^(Я) 06:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NOT GUILTY

I have been unfairly accused of and found guilty of sockpuppetry before I was even allowed to respond to the allegation. Supposedly, I created other accounts to manipulate the vote on the AC/DC Wikipedia page's external links. However, since I didn't do that, which I'm certain a check of the IP records would proove, I request that this false allegation and overly quick and biased judgement be immediately lifted.

Furthermore, I'm sure the AC/DC page enjoys a high readership but that not all readers are normally interested in editing. However, to accuse and find guilty (supposedly) new accounts of being sockpuppets just because they decided to vote on an important page matter is an unjust and highly unethical act by the administrator's involved. Whatever happened to the creed of showing good faith to other users? Does that somehow only apply to older users here? I don't think so and it's extremely presumptive to judge someone else here without any proof of misdeed.

I have also had my ban extended for supposedly being uncivil about the continued rule breaking of another user. This was done by the same 17 year old administrator who accused me of sockpuppetry.

All I can say is there's nothing uncivil about reporting the truth. It's clear from the history of edits on the AC/DC page that user Fair Deal uses a variety of IP addresses all located within a small region of NB, CA to make his multiple reverts of useful information rather than simply signing in and showing who he truly was. Anybody with a laptop can troll around various parts of any modern city and find dozens of wireless internet hookups available with which to hide their true identity. How likely is it that all the uncredited edits supporting Fair Deal's changes should come from one small area of the world as identified by IP address locators on the web? Now that's what I would call sockpuppetry...

I also said this user, Fair Deal, had a history of gutting important info and links from various articles which can clearly be seen from complaints about him on his talk page. (Not to mention all the complaints that he edited off his talk page...) It's truth but apparently that's considered uncivil on this site.

Anyway, by suspending my abilities to communicate w/other users and to defend my point of view regarding the editing disagreement w/Fair Deal on the AC/DC talk page, administrators Soothing and Iolakana have thus ensured a loss for all on Wikipedia who wish to express their opinions. How convenient it is to shut-up someone with whom you don't agree? NCC17 11:31, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AC/DC Links

It isn't the point that (if what you're saying is true) I'm not willing to accept that Fair Deal is performing sockpuppetry, but rather that you should stop making allegations of on my, your and anyone else's talkpage. It's just not going to server any purpose. Take it to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets, where these kinds of accusations belong.—♦♦ SʘʘTHING^(Я) 15:39, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Links

First, I'm an admin. Second, I've read the discussion. Third, I've looked at the links. They have no proper place within the article. Thanks, Yanksox 21:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What are you doing?

Stop abusing the use of the vandalism warning templates. There for actual vandalism - not just because you disagree with someone. Do you have any concept of any of Wikipedia's policies at all? ĤĶ51→^Łalk 21:58, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We have a difference of opinion as usual on what the policies actually say. Are you the one anonymously changing the links? NCC17 04:10, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The anon IPs provide valid edit summaries and their edits are well-intentioned; this isn't vandalism. No, I'm not the one changing the links, you can ask someone to scan the IP adresses and check this for you. ĤĶ51→^Łalk 11:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you say it's not you, I believe you. However, we still disagree on it being vandalism. NCC17 17:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

Your behavior is excessive and ridiculous, I've blocked you for a week. Yanksox 20:15, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your block is excessive and ridiculous. You are blatantly ignoring sockpuppet vandals that are violating the link agreements for that page. That's a clear violation of the standards administrators are supposed to uphold. I don't suppose you've actually read the discussion history that was archived/deleted from the talk page, have you? Administrators who step in to handle disagreements for their little friends are pathetic. NCC17 20:28, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First off, they are not my friends, I don't even know them. Secondly, I wouldn't be talking about sockpuppets. I think you need a drink of tea and relax. Yanksox 20:31, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]