User talk:Doktor Who/Unkind messages

For the record
The following is copied from my talk page. I assume Doktor Who stands behind all he has written so will not object to it being copied here, after all he has no objection to it appearing on my talk page. RichardJ Christie 03:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Recent edits at Syd Barrett


 * Hello, can you please explain your recent edits and comments on Syd Barrett? I would suggest you to be bold and change the article according to the information that you have.--Doktor Who 12:49, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I am afraid that you misunderstood my above message: I suggested to be "bold", that means in Wikipedia slang that you are free and welcome to rewrite the aticle and delete any untrue info. It doesn't mean that you will not be reverted. Before posting "my sentence" there, I discussed it in the talk page, in other terms I asked for permission; none else has ever done it on that article, everybody come at Syd Barrett and change sentences with no discussion. My behaviour has been different, for that reason the sentence is still there.--Doktor Who 13:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I understood you perfectly. Your claim above that no one else has used the discussion page as you describe is arrant nonsense. Curious readers of the preceeding are invited to read talk:Syd Barrett "musical influences" 8Aug2006 for futher information Richard 09:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I am not sure you understood, please read my recent post at talk:Syd Barrett and my recent edit in the same article: I deleted that sentence (aren't you happy now?) becouse I do not want to re-edit and /or beging an edit war with you or anyone else. So I can't understand what else do you want from me. Best wishes. Doktor Who 09:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Richard 09:49, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Dear Richard, there is nothing personal, the point is that I' m really tired to talk about Syd Barrett, with all due respect. The first time I messaged you above, I was trying to be nice and encourage you to be bold and edit with no fear, even deleting sentences that you believe are merely POV. I have got an idea: I am setting the Email this user facility here, I invite you to do the same, so we can email each other and talk, from a technical point of view, about Barrett's technique. How does that sound to you? As soon as I buy a new webcam, I could also show exactly how he did play and moved his hand over the frets of his guitars, and why this is important to punk, post-punk, dark wave and grunge. I hope you'll agree and join. Cheers.Doktor Who 13:49, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind offer. I have passed licentiate examinations in guitar performance, I have undertaken a 3 year University course in the same [which included academic courses in advanced musical analysis, harmony etc and the history of guitar performance styles and general music history], I have attended and participated in masterclasses by some of the world's leading performers, I have made a full time living from both performance and teaching the instrument for many years. I list this background so that you will understand why I politely decline your offer to be enlightened as to how Barrett "moved his hand over the frets" - I feel perfectly qualified to undertake that myself. Thank you all the same. Richard 01:19, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I apologize if my words seemed to mean that I was trying to teach something in any way, I am not a teacher, I am just a person that believes in open source (and in open minds).Dr. Who 08:55, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Contact details

May I have your personal telephone number and email address? There is nothing personal, do no take it in the wrong way, the point is that in last 2 years I've been harrassed and hacked several times on the web.If you are a real person, I mean the real Richard Christie that lives in New Zealand, you shouldn't have any problem with my request. Dr. Who 13:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Certainly not. You have misrepresented my position on Wiki pages on more than one occasion, accordingly I have no confidence in your integrity. RichardJ Christie 21:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, your tone and style sounds like a 60 years old woman, surely not the tone of a musician or a music lover. If asked by the FBI or Jimbo Wales, I can post my contact details here. Are you so brave to do the same? I guess not, becouse we both know (you and I) which is your real identity. Bye.Dr. Who 21:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

A record of these discussions is accessible on Talk:Syd Barrett subject 'Musical Influence' also 'Syd Barrett The Guitarist' for additional background) and within talk Dr. Who. Dr. Who's intemperate remarks in the History page of Barrett article are also on the record. The record speaks for itself, as do the last comments above. RichardJ Christie 22:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Your continuous personal attacks to me speak for themselves. There is only one logical reason that prevents Jimbo Wales and other administrators to block you, and the reason is that they very likely know your real identity. Dr. Who 22:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

For the first time I will make a personal comment about you. I can only conclude that you really are quite cognitively disturbed. You are at liberty to believe whatever flights of the imagination you wish to but kindly refrain from inflicting them upon the pages of Wikipedia.RichardJ Christie 02:13, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Please DO NOT remove content!!!
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent contribution removed content from. Please be more careful when editing articles and do not remove content from Wikipedia without a good reason, which should be specified in the edit summary. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox.

Don't do it again, please.  Gardener of Geda  | Message Me.... 18:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I deleted cos it seemed to me that you asked. My dispute with that user regarded only the article itself. It has been my only dispute up to now. The levl of personal atack that some ppl are reaching will not be tolerated by administrators. Please do not write to me again.Dr. Who 18:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Once more - Please DO NOT remove content!!!
Entering "hothouse" in the Wiki search bar leads to the Greenhouse page. A user looking for the novel would then click on Greenhouse (disambiguation), where he or she would then find what they were looking for.

You are beginning to engage in what could be described as Cyberstalking behaviour. Please stop.  Gardener of Geda  | Message Me.... 20:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * No, I will ignore you from now onward, but plse do the same, ok? I don't have anything against you. I think you might be a serious contributor, but there is no reason to place Hothouse in that disambiguation page, the WP database is poinint there by mistake I guess. You are the one that first insulted and attacked me at talk:Ambient music and talk:Space music. I want to forget and forgive, I ask you kindly to do the same.Dr. Who 20:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Warning
Be advised that if you continue your edit-stalking, harassment, posting of personal abuse, multiple sockpuppet abuse and wikilawyering relating to me and my contributions to Wikipedia, I will have no hesitation in initiating the necessary process to have you formally disciplined by the Arbitration Committee. This may result in a block or other forms of oversight control being placed on your account.

I note that edit-stalking, harassment, posting of personal abuse, multiple sockpuppet abuse and wikilawyering is typical of your behaviour with numerous other editors, with whom you have engaged in similar edit-conflicts on a regular basis, in the 6 months since you registered, and I strongly urge you to cease this behaviour immediately.

The bottom line here is that you cannot use Wikipedia as a vehicle for promoting eccentric personal opinions that are unsupported by reliable third party reference sources.

Compounding the problem by attempting to take ham-fisted revenge on those who challenge you for doing so - via spurious AFD and speedy delete nominations, and administrator noticeboard postings liberally peppered with outrageous false statements - is extremely foolish.

This is your first and last warning. --Gene_poole 03:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Redefining, huh?
What do you mean 'redefining'? Space music *is* ambient music. Are you debating that?! JAF1970 17:47, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * How about the article space music? It's been there for years - you're welcome to delete the ENTIRE ARTICLE, since NOTHING in that entry differs from what is stated there. (rolling eyes) JAF1970 17:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Indeed the article Space music explained differences between Space, new age and ambient, and has been there for years, but a user changed it according to his POV violating WP:COI and insulted me several times. I hope you are not a sock of that user. I reworked the article merging various version and rewriting the definition. Now it sounds like a good Encyclopedic dictionary.--Dr. Who 00:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Your recent edits regarding musicology (from the talk page of JAF1970)
Would you please explain how could Space music be regarded as a so called "subgenre" of the so called "genre" of Ambient music, given that a lot of remarkable Space music has been released one decade before Mr Eno released some albums entitled Ambient 1-2-3-4 ? Is it an attempt to retrospectively rewrite the events under a different perspective?Dr. Who 17:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * No, it's a definition - Space Music *is* ambient music. Period. JAF1970 17:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Can you please provide an indipendent (that is not a popular music magazine) reliable source? No I guess. Ambient music is a "genre" only for the pockets of the music industry. It's just a non-sense defition for musicology. It's just background music. Space music is another story. Also please read relevant talk pages.--Dr. Who 17:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * How about the article space music? It's been there for years - you're welcome to delete the ENTIRE ARTICLE, since NOTHING in that entry differs from what is stated there. (rolling eyes) JAF1970 17:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It has been recentl edited by some guy that harrassed me a few times, and I'm tired of edit wars. I hope that he will get definitely banned by the whole community. Cheers.Dr. Who 18:00, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you need a couple thousand references that state space music is ambient music? Or is your entire issue with Brian Eno being included with Space Music? Please, I'm not into Kirk-vs-Picard arguments. I'm only into facts. JAF1970 18:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Only offline references are reliable, please do not send me Google stuff. They are two different types of musical forms (not genres, ok?) that many modern artists involved with modern instrumental music have covered and explored several times (I just hope you are not Gene Poole ;) ) Dr. Who 18:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Never heard of Hearts of Space, huh? How about this? Space music as a subgenre.

Space Music This sub-genre of electronic rock doesn't see that much action, but fans of space music usually can't get enough of it. Space music is hard to describe. It tends to be repetitive and lengthy, built in gradually multiplying layers, very electronic yet not entirely 'thick' or inorganic. Once you hear a few examples, you'll figure it out. Klaus Schulze, who was briefly in Tangerine Dream before they were using synthesizers, is the most famous space musician. His albums "X", Timewind, and Mirage are good starting points for the uninitiated, as well as the absolutely amazing _Sonic Seasonings_ by Walter Carlos. More accessible to ambient house fans is the rare and recently-bootlegged album called Space, a pseudonym for Jimi Cauty of the KLF.

Argument over.JAF1970 18:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

That link you provides is obviously a good example of an hacker in action. None in Europe takes that stuff seriously. I asked you reputable offline sources, such as an Oxford Dictionary, just to begin with. Yes argument over.Dr. Who 00:04, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

This is a polite reminder.
You are currently being abusive and hostile. I request you stop the namecalling and vandalism. JAF1970 00:21, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * huh, vandalism?--Dr. Who 11:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Your comments
I think you'll find that numerous editors have had problems understanding you and your various suspected sockpuppet accounts - which is not surprising seeing as they all seem to have a habit of mis-spelling the exactly same words in exactly the same way, when making exactly the same sorts of comments, on exactly the same articles. Should prove most interesting when a checkuser request is done. --Gene_poole 02:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


 * You are wrong¸ sorry.--Doktor Who 03:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Take a raincheck
I don't care if you call yourself Sky-surfer, Brian_G._Wilson or Doktor Who; you're certainly not fooling anyone in that regard - so best you calm down, stop the hysterics and personal attacks and comply with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. You'll find it much easier to get along with others here if you do. --Gene_poole 23:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You are the only person that can't stand that three users (beside me, Parzival and Milo) do not agree with your POV regarding those topics. You'd better report me to a checkuser, if you really suspect that I'm any of those other users that you're mentioning. And there is no rules that I'm breaking.--Doktor Who 09:25, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Hello Dr Who... in case you haven't seen it yet, I thought you'd want to know that GP has posted a report on these pages:


 * Requests for comment/User conduct


 * Requests for comment/Doktor Who


 * Although the RFC specifically names you, he also complains that Cricket and Milo and me, plus two other users I have had no interactions with, Sky-Surfer and Brian G. Wilson, are all sock-puppets of each other.


 * So far, the RFC has not been certified, so no response or other action is needed. If you are asked to respond at some point, it would be a good idea to consult with other editors first, to make sure your English comes across as you intend in your response.


 * I recommend that you avoid replying to any communications from GP about you. Whatever he says about you, don't take his comments personally.  If you are editing an article and he makes a comment about the article that needs a reply so the editing can continue, just stick to the article topic only and ignore anything personal he says about you. Remember that his problems are his problems, not yours. It doesn't matter what he thinks about you.  Don't let him make you angry, just let it go.  I (and others too) appreciate your interesting contributions to the music articles. Parzival418 08:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Warning
This is your first and last warning to stop vandalising my talk page. Do it again and I'll report you. Given that I now know that you're located near Milan, and have clear evidence of your recent co-ordinated abuse of the 3RR using anonymous IP edits combined with multiple sock accounts. You will eventually be blocked; it's simply a matter of time. --Gene_poole 01:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I hope if he follows through with the threat that it will expose his persistent, childish vandalism and get him and his meatpuppet blocked. Harvardy 01:30, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I've just reported him and that Davidpdx. It's Time to bann the greatest trolls of this site. Doktor Who 01:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * This should put an end to their vandalism on my user page. Thank you. Harvardy 02:04, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Think again. As it is clear that both of you see yourselves as above the WP law, I will now make it my business to see that you are both brought to account for your repeated policy violations. --Gene_poole 02:41, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I will ignore u whenever it is possible, cos you don't deserve my time, but I will report you everytime you try to to fool somebody. Doktor Who 10:46, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Name-calling and incivility at talk:Post-Ambient
Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. However, we remind you not to attack other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. --Gene_poole 05:09, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Funny how you can dish it out liberally but not take one little negative comment on how dark and foolish your imaginary empire looks, "Emperor George". George, you are the greatest hypocrite I have witnessed on Wikipedia. If you were not such a prolific, articulate editor you would have been toast long ago. The writing is on the wall, your mean spirit, hypocracy and hubris will bring you down. Harvardy 05:19, 15 April 2007 (UTC)