User talk:Dr Shempenstein

Talkback
Dismas |(talk) 01:09, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Additionally, when you reply there is no need to create yet another section if you're just continuing a conversation. You can just add to the current section we already have going. And please sign your posts. Dismas |(talk) 01:22, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either: This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
 * 1) Add four tildes  ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment; or
 * 2) With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button (Insert-signature.png or Signature icon.png) located above the edit window.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 01:30, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

February 2014
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Jeremy Piven has been reverted. Your edit here to Jeremy Piven was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ljbTBjvTNv0) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. If the external link you inserted or changed was to a media file (e.g. a sound or video file) on an external server, then note that linking to such files may be subject to Wikipedia's copyright policy, as well as other parts of our external links guideline. If the information you linked to is indeed in violation of copyright, then such information should not be linked to. Please consider using our upload facility to upload a suitable media file, or consider linking to the original. If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 01:42, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Third opinion
I've requested a third opinion here since the two of us seem to be at loggerheads over this issue. Dismas |(talk) 04:02, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

The reputation of Wikipedia is only being compromised by bullies like you dumas and wieno. The addition to Jeremy Piven's page is relevant, truthful, factual and historical. At one moment only reference to adding a link to youtube was the problem. Now you are falsely accusing me of vandalism. Stop the bullying now please and allow this authentic, credible, factual, relevant information be included. This Shock The Mind video is art made by the artists Jeremy Piven. You falsely accuse me of not having the right to use the MTV video. The video and the rights to the video belong to the artists only. You are bullying ans it must stop now.Dr Shempenstein (talk) 19:39, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Jeremy Piven
Hi!

After responding to the third opinion request around Jeremy Piven I've reverted your latest edit. It seems that your addition is at the very least sufficiently contentious that it should not be put in place until there is consensus on the issue, as noted in this policy. If you would like to state your case as to why your contentious addition should be included in the article, you can discuss it here. In the meantime any further attempts to unilaterally put the reference to the YouTube video back in will be reverted.

Best regards,

Wieno (talk) 08:05, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

The video is mine. I have the rights to the video. Why are you being difficult? Dr Shempenstein (talk) 11:36, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I can upload the original video, I can request Jeremy's permission too. At least make mention of the fact that this man appeared in the video and forget the link to the video.

There is nothing contentious about this truth.Dr Shempenstein (talk) 11:43, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Please refrain from making nonconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Jeremy Piven with this edit. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism. Thank you. Sea photo Talk 17:44, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

The reputation of Wikipedia is only being compromised by bullies like you dumas and wieno. The addition to Jeremy Piven's page is relevant, truthful, factual and historical. At one moment only reference to adding a link to youtube was the problem. Now you are falsely accusing me of vandalism. Stop the bullying now please and allow this authentic, credible, factual, relevant information be included.

Your recent editing history at Jeremy Piven shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Wieno (talk) 21:15, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia Bullying MUST STOP
The video by God Made Velcro, SHOCK THE MIND is only being stated in the Career of Jeremy Piven. Three "Judges" have judged falsely with different reasons each time. I am in the process of repealing their hasty and false judgement as at least the mention of Jeremy Piven's career includes starring in The video by God Made Velcro, SHOCK THE MIND.Dr Shempenstein (talk) 20:09, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Thank you. Wieno (talk) 21:30, 5 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Please don't make any more reverts or you will be blocked. You should also read our conflict of interest guideline. Let me know if you need any more help. --John (talk) 21:39, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

John, I would like to report wieno as also violatiing the three edits within a 24 hour periodDr Shempenstein (talk) 21:42, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Hey John how about allowing this information based on the facts, not the assumption of the others? Dr Shempenstein (talk) 21:39, 5 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I'll answer both these questions here. Wieno has not violated 3RR so far as I can see. If you believe otherwise, please provide the diffs for the four edits you believe they have made within 24 hours. Your second request is incomprehensible to me; you have broken our rule on reverts (I only let you off from blocking because you are a newbie here and didn't know) and you admit you have a conflict of interest in adding the information. Please read up on our policies. --John (talk) 21:53, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Why are you folks so quick to pull down my edit and with unsubstantiated reason, and not reply to my direct reason for allowing the information? Dr Shempenstein (talk) 22:03, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * We are discussing the reason why on the talk page. The way Wikipedia works with a contentious edit like this is that the status quo stays while editors talk on the talk page and see if a consensus can emerge. If a consensus favours inclusion, then it can be included on the page. If it is against inclusion, then it is important that you respect the consensus. Constantly adding the information back unilaterally is considered edit-warring, and is against Wikipedia's consensus-driven norms. That's why we have the three-revert rule. Wieno (talk) 22:06, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is bullying my attempt to include the 1998 God Made Velcro information on Jeremy Pivens information and the judges reasons are:

"It seems that your addition is at the very least sufficiently contentious..." This judge removed his claim that, "we could be violating MTV copyrights..." We are the copyrights of the video.

Another Judge.

"Please refrain from making nonconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Jeremy Piven with this edit. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism. Thank you. SeaphotoTalk"

NonConstructive? Really??

I have compromised and removed the link to youtube. I can upload the original video but feel like the bullies will continue to bully. Dr Shempenstein (talk) 22:11, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Hey John I feel like you guys have the conflict of interest and I have not admitted to this. I have admitted that the external link was a violation and I have removed it. Do the right thing and allow the information. Dr Shempenstein (talk) 22:16, 5 February 2014 (UTC)


 * No. Make your arguments at the talk page as per our practice here. --John (talk) 22:23, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

This is the talk page isnt it? and Why are you being so difficult in accepting the truth. Have you looked at the evidence? Dr Shempenstein (talk) 22:33, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * This is your talk page. He's talking about the article's talk page. Wieno (talk) 22:39, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * To be clear: administrators like John do not decide what content is appropriate for inclusion in an article page. That is discussed by all interested editors on the article's talk page until a consensus is reached. If, however, a user engages in edit-warring to stop the consensus from being carried out (or to preempt needed discussion), then an administrator can assign sanctions. If you want the material included, the only way to do it is make a compelling case on the talk page, and accept that if you're the only involved editor who believes it should be included, you have to respect consensus. Wieno (talk) 22:39, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I did not ask you about any other editor or editors. I asked you specifically about Jeremy Pivens agreement to allow the information to be included on HIS wikipedia page not yours.Dr Shempenstein (talk) 22:51, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

What if I create a page for God Made Velcro and upload MY video to the page and include jeremy piven that way?Dr Shempenstein (talk) 22:55, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * If you want to create an article for God Made Velcro, you can, but you should note that Wikipedia only allows pages on bands that have a certain level of notability. Because you've also admitted a conflict of interest, the best way to create such an article is to submit it at Articles for Creation, where you can work on making it in encyclopedic style and getting appropriate secondary sources. Then, when you're ready for it to be created, an independent editor will look at the page and decide whether it warrants creation. Hope this is helpful. Wieno (talk) 23:16, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Are you folks volunteers? Dr Shempenstein (talk) 23:42, 5 February 2014 (UTC) This is sad that a bunch of people behind computer screens are holding back a hidden treasure. And at least a reference to it. No one stands to gain anything monetary. Free truthful artistic information only. Dr Shempenstein (talk) 23:42, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: User:Dr Shempenstein/sandbox (February 6)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please read the comments left by the reviewer on your submission. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved. ''' Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! '''
 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at.
 * To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the [ Articles for creation help desk], or on the [.
 * Please remember to link to the submission!

The Ukulele Dude - Aggie80 (talk) 01:25, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You can also get real-time chat help from experienced editors.