User talk:Fair Deal/archive

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! PJM 18:28, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

My pleasure. No doubt, fighting vandalism and sometimes dealing with other editors can be frustrating. As long as we uphold WP:CIVIL, it's an enjoyable place. Ciao for now. PJM 20:02, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

comment from Lucifers hammer
From Lucifer's Hammer  tks i will find better picturs  note: i am young pls dont kick me i like adding things here and as you guest i am CANADIAN. just trying to help my fellow canadians   tks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucifers hammer (talk • contribs)
 * I personally don't see this as an attack. May I suggest that you not BITE the newbies? If this is not the personal attack you were referring to on the user's page, then never mind. Mak (talk)  05:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks very much for trying to help him out. Cheers, Mak (talk)

Leyasu
Leyasu is coming back from a 24 hours range block: Administrators' noticeboard/Archive248. I will continue fighting him/her as long as I stay online today. You might want to ask another admin to keep an eye on these aticles, though. Maybe User:TUF-KAT, who does alot of wor in music coverage. Circeus 15:30, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I was reverting for the gramma and wording corrections. I was actually going through the EL in accordance with WP:EL before my friend came round and interrupted me. She just left so im planning on finishing up now.

Bob Dylan links
I'm not sure if you have the bob dylan page on your watch list or what, but I think your suggestion to me is decent. The thing is, the old list of external links had a fair few good ones in it, but with enough crap ones or random fan sites or places with overlapping information that the list was overwhelming. I might go through it when i get a day off from work on tues. if im not out playing in the ocean :) SECProto 23:11, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Metallica
Excuse me, but why don't you consider them "speed metal/thrash metal"? User:Egr (talk), 24/7/2006

Thanks for your explanation, FD. The next time I visit that page, I'll trying to do much more constructive changes. Bye. User:Egr (talk), 24/7/2006

Another thanks, FD. I've done that edit only because most Wiki pages about musicians never start with the stage name. User:Egr (talk), 24/7/2006

AC/DC
I've give him a talk page comment, which you probably should have done. Having discussions via edit summeries is frowned upon. Circeus 19:39, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * My apologies for involving you. I didn't realize the user would be as uncivil with an admin as he's been with everyone else. His sockpuppet accusations are getting stale. You gave the link for an CU but it went unheeded. At least that would have ended that part of the annoying chatter. Again, my apologies for introducing you to that particular user. For now he seems to have gone back under his bridge. Fair Deal 03:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey, watch it buddy. I'm reporting you for uncivil comments for your bridge crack.NCC17 17:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Read, and understand, Wikipedia policies before you try and quote them. I took your personal webpage off my watchlist over a month ago. You are the owner now. You can edit it to your hearts content. Now, back under the bridge you go. Fair Deal 23:40, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

2112
Let's try to work together on the article. 2112 is obviously a concept album. I mean, the story is explained in the aricle. It is a fairly detailed story, too. Can we work to some kind of compromise? dposse 04:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Sure. I was simply going by the "concept" definition indicating a consistent theme throughout. The concept tag has been added in on the main Rush article in the past and regular editors seem to be of the concensus that it isn't. It mirrors the debate over the album being tagged with the label "prog rock". Again, the regular Rush editors identified that side 1 is prog but side 2 was definitely not prog. Perhaps a better route would be to discuss the topic with one of the regular Rush editors: Wisdom89, KaptKos and admins Borghunter, Deckiller and Spangineer. All watch the Rush articles with great scrutiny and will know any "concensus" history when it comes to previous content debates. Fair Deal 11:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Need Admin help
I've already told User:NCC17 that he should stop making these allegations on any and all user talk pages. In addition, I suggested to him that he should start a case to determine whether or not you were using several IPs to edit AC/DC. By doing that, the case can be settled for once and forever. For now, these two measures should do. However...if he makes allegations again on any page but WP:SSP, I'll make sure that he won't get away with it.  —♦♦ SʘʘTHING  (Я)  06:35, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the message. I've given him one final warning. On another note, for the sake of clarity please start making contributions while logged in. —♦♦ SʘʘTHING  (Я)  05:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry
Sorry, it just seemed a tad suspicious that the links were edited by an unregistered IP that seemed to have quite a lot of knowledge on Wikipedia. I was aware of the AC/DC External Links edit war, but I was not aware of NCC17's attacks against you in the past. I just made an assumption, based on the fact you could trace the IP (that edited the links recently) to the region you live. Hope there's no hard feelings, hope to see you around as well. Later :) HK51 17:02, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

And just FYI, I wasn't "sheeping" behind the leader, I just got quite agravated that the links had been edited again by someone who did not discuss it in the talkpage first. I was a bit quick to point the finger, but again it just seemed suspicious this had been done by an unregistered IP who appeared to have a lot of knowledge on Wikipedia guidelines. HK51 17:08, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

That's ok, I understand. Plus, my knowledge of the geography of Canada isn't the best! Yes, hope to see you around, good day! :) HK51 11:25, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Mike Gordon
I understand, as I have made such errors myself before. By all means edit away. The anons and SEGA don't get the fact that you can stil be a lyal Phish fan without denying and hiding Mike's arrest.... BabuBhatt 17:12, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Fredericton High School
Why revert those changes? The FHS website (linked from the wiki page) states the current VPs quite clearly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.77.161.22 (talk) 20:00, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Neil Turbin
Peter Fleet has reverted this article the last 2 times I have added citations and references citing accuracy. Peter Fleet claims to be providing a "neutral" point of view when all he is doing is clearly perpetrating vandalism on the Neil Turbin wikipedia page. His non-factual opinion does not meet the standards of Wikipedia rules. He is obviously biased in his views and opinions and seems to think someone at wikipedia has appointed him "Chief of Wikipedia Neutral Police". **** Peter Fleet stop vandalizing the Neil Turbin wikipedia page. You obviously have alot of time on your hands. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thrashiq (talk • contribs) 16:48, 13 October 2008 (UTC) He is following policy and so am I. Fair Deal (talk) 17:32, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Tom Petty
Okay, I'll mind that 3 Revert Rule and revert your assertions of Tom Petty as 'a real original punk rocker' just 1-2 times daily. 1 editorial article where Tom Petty adamently declares how he isn't punk doesn't count. Now go tattle on me for striving to maintain obvious facts; heck, send me 50 automated messages with Twinkle popup gadgets and magic nerd programs. Put simply, I don't appreciate being childishly identified as some vandal for refusing to let you compromise factual integrity. LOL, so ridiculous. The popup geek-technology and automated messages won't deter me. :) --Tim010987 (talk) 1:07 AM, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

"Edit War"? What, so I get threatened for disputing that Tom Petty is 'punk rock'? The 'evidence' they showed was an interview with Tom Petty where HE disputes that he's 'punk rock'. How is that proof then? There is no factual integrity to Wikipedia, just whatever someone's opinion is apparently. Tim010987 (talk) 12:09 AM, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

AC/DC
I AM using the Talk Page. The other side is not because they don't have a leg to stand on. 74.77.222.188 (talk) 10:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Your edits appear to be deleting added references. If you have a talk page issue opened do not remove cited material until a discussion has taken place. In the meantime you have violated 3RR policy and will be reported in you revert the article again. Fair Deal (talk) 10:47, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You're going to tell me to use the Talk Page, when I already have, and then revert my edit without using the Talk Page YOURSELF? What a hypocrite. Those references DON'T SUPPORT THE TEXT. Get it? 74.77.222.188 (talk) 11:00, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Remain civil on my talk page. I reverted the mass deleting of properly formatted references. All of which have been in place for a long time and all appear OK. You recent history shows that you are initiating and continuing edit wars across several articles and a complete ignorance of WP:3RR, WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Fair Deal (talk) 11:08, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * If you think they appear okay, then you aren't reading them. Read them. Find one that says anything like AC/DC are a pioneering hard rock/heavy metal band alongside Black Sabbath, Led Zeppelin and Deep Purple. And then restore my edit. 74.77.222.188 (talk) 11:22, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I have issued a warning to the other editor as well although they have not techincally violated policy yet. The Britannica citations are valid as they suppport the addition of the heavy metal genre. The AMG link seems OK and the 2 book references are used in several other articles relating to heavy metal and the text in those articles is similar to identical to the text used in the AC/DC article. Do not delete references from Wikipedia as this is seen as vandalism. Fair Deal (talk) 11:37, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

small question
i understand if you dont like black colour in the ifobox, but - what does the colour have to do with a popup?-- Lykantrop (Talk) 22:05, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I mean WP:popup —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lykantrop (talk • contribs) 22:06, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Asia
Given your past involvement, you may be interested in contributing to a new discussion at Talk:Asia (band). Bondegezou (talk) 17:08, 22 February 2008 (UTC) Sir, I ask that you please evaluate the wiki policy for external links. I read your response on the page that it should only include the official site, that is not what the wiki rules state sir. These rules were clearly detailed by Bondegezou and they were never rebuttaled by the opposition, they were quick broad responses without thouching upon the issues in detail. He pointed these facts as to what links should be included, this goes well beyond an official site. Bondegezou stated... "Hu12 raises the issue of what he calls "obvious" spamming. Under WP:AGF, I accept the explanation given below by the Asia Fan Club President as to what happened. Regardless of that, the inappropriate activities of certain editors is completely irrelevant to the merits of the case. The link concerned was in this article for a long time before the recent edit war erupted and content should never be chosen to punish editors' behaviour. The issue must be decided in terms of what is best for the article. A. B. and Hu12 raise WP:RS and WP:V, but WP:EL is the more relevant policy here, not those. This is not about using the link concerned as a citation, but giving it in the external links section. At the beginning of WP:EL, it states under "What should be linked" that, "1. Articles about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to the official site if any." An officially authorised fan club seems to me to constitute an official site. WP:EL goes on, "4. Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews." The site in question contains such content. If one is concerned about WP:RS policy, I note that WP:EL continues under "Links to be considered", "4. Sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources." That is, even if a site fails WP:RS, it may still be considered. Taking that in conjunction with the site's official status seems to me a sufficient case for the link's inclusion. WP:EL then continues with a list of "Links normally to be avoided". The site in question does not appear to fall under any of the categories listed. A. B. suggests above that the site does fall under criteria 1, 11 and 12. With respect to 1, the site clearly contains considerable content beyond what a good Wikipedia article would ever include. I do not see how 11 applies at all. 12 reads "Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority." Given this site has been authorised by the band in question, that would seem to come under "except those written by a recognized authority". Nor is it a blog or simply a personal web page. Bondegezou (talk) 12:34, 11 February 2008 (UTC) The mistake I made was I engaged in an edit war and people got upset. For a long time my link was in the external links section of the wiki article. A few weeks ago I noticed that my link was moved to the bottom the external links section by 2 newer links. Feeling this unjustified, going by a first come first serve basis, I moved it back to the #2 slot in the external links section. My link was removed by an IP address of 156.34.225.77 and an edit war broke out, & for one hour of this war only my link was removed. After about the first hour of this edit war he then decided to remove ASIA's official my space page as well. After a chat on the discussion page, the concenus was to reinstate my link, but 156.34.226.160 continued on and my site that is an authorized site for ASIA was placed it on the blacklist as spam. It has also come between a private SE program I have with Google that I paid money for. This is clearly deformation of my site, myself and ASIA's authorized online fan club. 156.34.225.77 continued to write editors and people to take his side. Finally as you can see the evidence for yourself, it was proven that my link is an ASIA authorized Internet resource. I am an official authorized affiliate to report official ASIA news, photos, & all media sources. My site IT'S NOT SIMPLY A BLOG or a forum, and contains interviews reviews (official) and other valuable information that would not be included in a wiki article such as tour photos exclusive to the fan club and other interviews and reviews approved for my site. According to Wiki policy, that is to be included in the external links section. 156.34.225.77 lied to administrators and told them I was adding spam (to give the impression that I suddenly added the link that day) in reality, he got pissed that I moved my link to where it was for a long time, in the #2 spot. I didn't add anything, in reality it was he that removed it and then lied to administrators, by the time the real story came out, it was blown up, hell had already broken loose, & the administrators already made their call (like an umpire not changing). He started the whole thing, reqruited the administrators, now wants to free himself of all involvement and leave those he requited to take the heat when I bring the truth of this out and turned the heat up when I said I was taking this further. Look at what 156.34.225.77 said here (still calling me spam) "I am sorry to interrupt this convo but since several of you are involved in the issues going on at the Asia page I thought I would interject a personal concern here where several eyes could pick up on it... rather than chase each of you down individually. It's nothing major... unless you're me... but on the Asia talk page there is a very lengthy list of IPs that are being linked to the ongoing spam push by the Asia Fan Club President. The problem is... and this is my concern... one of my IPs (a noble 156.34.X range) is listed among the many IPs that have been used by the AFC Pres. Trust me... the FC pres does not live in Eastern Canada :D . I was going to rm it myself but then I thought... "there just ain't enough edit summary space to properly clarify the reason for its removal". I didn't want to look like I was hiding something :D. Could one of you be so kind as to clear my trustworthy IP range from any connections with the AFC pres and all his woeful pain and suffering apparently caused by Wikipedia. I just want me number back eh? :D. Have a nice day! 'Libs' 156.34.226.160 (talk) 02:10, 28 February 2008(UTC)"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:A._B. Whats funny is they can't see through it and they continue to take his side and edited his IP out of my statements, 156.34.225.77 now wants to wash his hands clean of this. I was no angel in my response to this, I should not engaged in a war and should have wrote the administrators right away and said he vandalized a long time link, & this would have never happened.  I ask you to please look at the guidelines of the wiki policy (external links) and see how many unuthorized links are on band pages because relevant material, my site is authorized and is in the official biography.  It contain reviews interviews and photos that the article speaks that can't be included in the article, according to wiki own rules, that is relevant.  I was banned by AB until 3/23 because of sock puppetry/Modrago, and BTW... turns out I was wronfully accused and wrongfully banned. See the evidence here, I was cleared. "Unrelated - bizarrely, Mondrago (talk) is actually unrelated to the above IPs and geolocates elsewhere by IP. I can detect no further IPs which have been spamming but from the list, it's clear that AO rangeblocking 4.238.124.0/24 will catch 90% of them - Alison ❤ 07:16, 13 February 2008(UTC) "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Mondrago I always lived up to all my IPs and never pretended to be someone else, as I'm at 3 different PC during the day plus an iphone. Please judge this why happened before this blew up and judge my links on it merits itself and not what mistakes I made after the fact. Sincerely Asia Fan Club Pres

Roger Waters Talk page
Hello, "Fair Deal". You have repeatedly referred to me making "personal attacks" on Peter Fleet. I would like to know, what specifically are you referring to? Hmm, I did say it was "reprehensible" for him to remove my comments from the Roger Waters Talk page. That's an attack? I thought it was a pretty reasonable opinion. According to the very policy pages you recommended to me, Talk page comments should be removed as seldom as possible.

As far as I can tell, the worst thing I said was that Peter "lied like a wet little worm in describing his edit" (Peter Fleet had removed an entire "Personal/Trivia" section, then described his edit as "adding tag for unreferenced equipement section"). Obviously, comparing someone to a "wet little worm" is unkind and unnecessary. However, the fact remains that he was dishonest in describing his edit.

Here are some comments I made on his talk page that he described as "personal attacks":

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Peter_Fleet&oldid=205053039#Roger_Waters:__STOP_Reverting.2C_please.21

The very worst thing I say in these comments is "You're not thinking." Do you really consider that a personal attack? Are you thinking???

--63.25.125.225 (talk) 03:20, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Your post directed uncivil remarks toward an editor. Talk pages are for discussing the article topic only. User:Peter Fleet's edits were perfectly valid. Trivia sections are frowned on. They are not meany to be expanded. They should be removed. I see the editor was polite in that he coded out the section rather than simply delete it. At least it gives editors an opportunity to salvage some useful material from it to incorporate into the article in a more encyclopedic form. If you do not follow Wikipedia's rules you will be reported to an administrator. Fair Deal (talk) 03:26, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * There were virtually no personal criticisms, and what few there were ("That's beyond reprehensible"; "You're not thinking") were exceedingly mild. Peter Fleet needs to grow up. And you both need to chill out on the deletion of material from Talk pages; that is to be done as seldom as possible.
 * You have been asked, politely, for an example of a "personal attack", and have yet to provide one.
 * Furthermore, it's considerably rude to delete someone's contributions without an explanation. Nowhere in the trivia tag does it say "Any additions will be summarily reverted away." In none of the WP: articles does it say "Do not add any further items to any existing Trivia sections."
 * Peter Fleet did not even acknowledge that he was destroying my work of redrafting that made several paragraphs read better. Reverting is a hostile way of editing when you can simply remove the offending lines. Just because Fleet didn't say something rude doesn't mean he WAS NOT rude. He was quite rude indeed.
 * --63.25.125.225 (talk) 03:35, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Alice Cooper in the Pacific Region
I can't believe that it has come to this. Someone has a point of view on the subject of Alice Cooper. I have to grit my teeth when it comes to having to even type this out. Making a uproar about music isn't my cup of tea. What’s the proper way to deal with information on Wikipedia when it is true? I really can't understand the issue here when I see no dIffrence from the other information already posted. I understand this is somebody with an opinion who has taken it too seriously when it comes to Alice Cooper. I call it nit-picking. I have not once discarded anyone's text. I have only complemented it with additional grammar that fits the article.

I thought Cooper's career would want to be covered in every aspect on Wikipedia? I kinda got that impression when I had read all the details already covered in the article. I thought I would add some additional information that was relevant to the article. Ever since that day it has been deleted repeatedly. I can't possibly think of a good reason to make a fuss over music. Remember, I never deleated anything about the article in question. This is about self-publishing, and about the truth on the subject.

I find it funny that when it comes to music on Wikipedia, its all about criticism on what to add. Arguing about music is beyond embarrassing. Childish. I am almost 50 years old and have no time to play a game about somebody's prefrences. I don't think I have anything to prove about this now. I certainly think that adding more relevant information about the topic is only accentuating the article more. What is the diffrence between my text and the text that was already there. Absoloutely nothing, except that mine is about the Pacific region. I will say that its greatly improved when there is an additional inclusion of information about the subect. Up-to-date and revised without no faulty information is all I did. What is wrong with that? How can I reinforce that anymore?

Thanks Electric Japan (talk23:42, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Indopug
I have noticed this user is puposefully destroying my additions to Wikipedia. I thought I would bring this to your attention. I don't think I should bring this to your attention when it is already out in the open. I have read what else he had been doing on Wikipedia yesterday. I see no benefit to this kind of Wikipedian. How old is he? Thank you, Electric Japan (talk) 02:15, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, lucky he's taking a break until June, is'nt it? Imperial Star Destroyer (talk) 14:56, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I have no idea who Indopug is. But he seems to be a busy editor who is dedicated to Wikipedia. Although I have seen that he has made a couple of mistakes on the Motorhead article. They have been corrected. His other edits looks genuine enough. Electric Japan you seem to do an awful lot of poetic whining for someone who claims to be 50? You were edit warring and you received a valid warning for it. And now I see you are still edit warring today on the same article. News blogging makes Wikipedia look bad. Especially in the style in which you are writing, which is very poor. If you continue to edit war you may find yourself blocked from editing altogether. Be more careful and don't go against consensus. Fair Deal (talk) 10:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Nice
Wikilibs is removing the lead and genres and references so block him. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 16:06, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * He hasn't blindly reverted more than 3 times. He has had a clear edit summary for his edits and has technically only reverted the page twice. Edits and revert are 2 different things. And his concern over the Allmusic link is supported by previous discussion and consensus at the reliable sources discussion page. If he reverts once more he will have earned a warning. For now he is still safe. Fair Deal (talk) 16:16, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Reply
Yes, posts do get lost in the shuffle. I explained somewhere in the deep, dark recesses of the talk page that the genre guideline proposal would be the first step in creating brand-new guidelines for all music articles. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:38, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * My proposal will not do that. It will give the option of being really general (Rock music) or really specific (Melodic death metal, Britpop, etc), because in some instances the more specific genre is more relevant if we are going to include something in the infobox (It's perfectly alright to say Blur (band) is a rock band, but it's more informative if we link to Britpop in the infobox). The key is to show people how to do this properly, which is what the guidelines will outline. I also propose making the genre field completely optional (if we are to keep it in infoboxes), so if there's no clear consensus of sources (emphasis on sources, NOT editors) on what genre an artist belongs to, we have a justifiable reason for removing the field from that article's infobox. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:58, 14 October 2008 (UTC)