User talk:Kathydi1977

you may not copy and paste text from other sources into Wikipedia. Doing so is a copyright violation and may constitute plagiarism. -- Moxy (talk) 17:37, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

A summary of site policies and guidelines you may find useful

 * Wikipedia does not tolerate copyright violations or plagiarism. Paraphrase sources, do not steal text from them.
 * "Truth" is not the criteria for inclusion, verifiability is.
 * Always cite a source for any new information. When adding this information to articles, use, containing the name of the source, the author, page number, publisher or web address (if applicable).
 * We do not publish original thought nor original research. We're not a blog, we're not here to promote any ideology.
 * A subject is considered notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.
 * Reliable sources typically include: articles from magazines or newspapers (particularly scholarly journals), or books by recognized authors (basically, books by respected publishers). Online versions of these are usually accepted, provided they're held to the same standards.  User generated sources (like Wikipedia) are to be avoided.  Self-published sources should be avoided except for information by and about the subject that is not self-serving (for example, citing a company's website to establish something like year of establishment).
 * Articles are to be written from a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not concerned with facts or opinions, it just summarizes reliable sources.  Real scholarship actually does not say what understanding of the world is "true," but only with what there is evidence for.
 * Material must be proportionate to what is found in the source cited. If a source makes a small claim and presents two larger counter claims, the material it supports should present one claim and two counter claims instead of presenting the one claim as extremely large while excluding or downplaying the counter claims.

Ian.thomson (talk) 17:41, 11 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Also according to Moxy's edit summary, Moxy explains that your addition was plagiarism, which is why the first message on this page is here. Plagiarism is stealing, and Wikipedia does not support that.  Furthermore, Moxy points out that that content was not appropriate for the intro of the article, which is supposed to summarize the rest of the article, which is about the whole band, not just Levene.  Looking over the rest of the article, it already mentions Levene, so I'm not sure what you intended to accomplish.  Ian.thomson (talk) 17:44, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Ian -These are Keith's words relating his experiences first hand as a founder member of the Clash. Not another writer's regurgitation of same As you probably know if you are a fan of the Clash Keith has been portrayed as a mere apostrophe in the history of the band. He wants to get the record straight and he is furious that he continues to hit dead ends everywhere including here on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kathydi1977 (talk • contribs)


 * If I assume your claims here are true (which I actually am OK with doing), that still means you added material that was copyrighted by you and Levene -- You need to paraphrase it instead of posting sections of the book.
 * And honestly, calling people Nazis and trying to threaten them does not make one come across as reasonable adult that anyone would want to work with. If he wants people to work with him, he needs to be willing to work with others.  That's not ancient wisdom, that's bloody kindergarten.  Ian.thomson (talk) 22:04, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Ian - I said at the beginning it was a SYNOPSIS not a cut and paste job. Where are you getting it is a cut and paste job?

I'm getting the feeling everything I say you will find a problem with. Therefore what is the point of even contributing?

He's livid. Keith has dealt with this since he was 17 and left the Clash. this is his history and his recollection of events. It's not going to appear anywhere else. It's not taken from the NME or anywhere else. I'm the co-author with Keith. I don't know what else I can say at this point. Please reconsider in the name of setting the record straight. Thanks much, Kathy


 * Did you consider my suggestion to reword/paraphrase the addition?
 * And I've already recommended that you read WP:Assume good faith. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:16, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected
Hello. It is my understanding that Moxy removed the section because he concluded I engage din plagiarism.

I am he co author of the book cited. My submission is a synopsis of my published work.

I wrote the "Meeting Joe: Joe Strummer, the Clash and Me" book with Keith Levene the subject of the piece I submitted.

Keith can confirm this information if need be. His website is www.teenageguitarist76.com. His email is teenageguitarist76@gmail.com.

I am respectfully requesting that the information be reinstated.

Regards,

Kathy DiTondo
 * Your addition was a copied word-for-word from the second paragraph of this site. Citing a different source does not excuse what is clearly plagiarism. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:12, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Ian - if this was taken word for word from another source then they have plaigairzed me. Please tell me exactly where you found it in the other work please. This is what I wrote and cited to the Meeting Joe book.

Guitar virtuoso Keith Levene was also a founder member of the Clash. In late 1975/early 1976 17 year old Levene migrated from his home in North London to West London where he was introduced by his friend Alan to Mick Jones. Levene and Jones agreed to start a band together. Jones suggested Paul Simonon to serve as their bassist although Simonon did not know how to play bass at first. It was agreed that Joe Strummer - who was then the front man for the 101ers - should be approached and recruited to serve as Clash front man. Levene accompanied by Clash manager Bernard Rhodes went to a pub where the 101ers were playing. Levene asserts that the story that Rhodes demanded an answer within 24 or 48 hours as to whether Strummer would join the Clash is unmeritorious. According to Levene Strummer was his own man and would not have been pushed around like that by Rhodes or anyone else. Moreover Strummer was the leader of the 101ers and would not have dropped his friends in the band who also lived with him at the communal squat which the 101ers was named after without some serious consideration. Levene approached Strummer after the gig and the two spoke for a while. Levene then suggested that Strummer come to Levene's squat on Davis Road to discuss the possibility of joining up with the Clash. The following Saturday Strummer did just that. Levene played guitar to Strummer to show him he could play all kinds of music. Strummer hesitated at first but then ultimately agreed to give the Clash a shot after Levene played a 101'ers tune "Keys To Your Heart" to Strummer. Levene remained with the Clash, contributed to the early sound of the band, wrote the Clash tune "What's My Name" while on stage at a Clash/Sex Pistols gig in Sheffield, and played at all live gigs with the Clash through September 1976. [1]

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) 20:57, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Re your book, and also re plagiarism

 * It is recommended that you do not add anything relating to yourself to article space, and it is expressly forbidden to use Wikipedia to promote anything about yourself. -- This means that you should probably avoid citing a book you co-wrote.

If you did co-author a book, surely you'd understand the concept of structure, right? ALl Wikipedia articles follow the clear structure of: -then- ...However, your addition was about a specific part of the band (not the whole of it), and a select portion of its chronology (the origin), rather than its overall essence (and certainly not just summarizing the article, which I have to ask if you even read) -- And yet you placed your addition right at the beginning, before the intro. Does that make any sense?
 * Introduction - Introducing the whole concept at its essence by summarizing the body.
 * Body - Going into the chronology and component parts of the subject.

Also, your addition was clearly taken from the second paragraph from this article. Surely, as a co-author, you don't support plagiarism. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:11, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I just spoke with Keith. He is trying to correct the record. You obviously are censoring him and is extremely upset. He has stated that he will tweet and Facebook what you have done. Leave it out. Thank you.

He is at @missingchannel on twitter.


 * Please see WP:Assume good faith. We're just trying to make sure that our site does not violate any copyright violations and is not used for self-promotion by anyone, it has nothing to do you or Levene in particular, so claiming that we're trying to censor him in particular is just paranoid.  Ian.thomson (talk) 21:34, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

No it's not. He's just tweeted what happened and intends to mention you by name in his upcoming interview Friday night and thereafter. He is absolutely furious. First you said I plaigairzed it word for word form another source which I clearly did not. and then it's another issue.

https://twitter.com

Keith's tweet is already getting responses. He's absolutely livid over this censorship Ian.

https://twitter.com/kinsellawarren/status/565625522282319875


 * A sane grown-up would have tried to demonstrate how the NME source (already linked here repeatedly) ripped them off (not the other way around), or just changed their wording, and not have to resort to silly threats in a childish tantrum.
 * A sane grown-up would understand that Wikipedia has to protect itself from any potential copyright violations and self-promotion, and that these protection measures are not specifically targeting them.
 * And someone who is famous should be able to consider the possibility that a fan of theirs will cite the book later on.
 * Would you and Keith like to be sane grown-ups? It's very simple: all you have to do is re-write the addition, and put it in a part of the article where it makes sense.  Did that possibility even occur to y'all?  Did either of y'all ask "what is a reasonable and mature approach to solve this?"
 * Hey, did either of you bother to actually read the article? Levene's roll in the band is already clearly explained in the "Origins: 1974–76" section.
 * Ian.thomson (talk) 21:46, 11 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Perhaps best to read over Contributing to Wikipedia to get an overview of what we do and how we do it here. So I did some research and contacted nme.com because Kathy is so adamant about typing the section as new text. NME has said that there site is just a  mirror of Wikipedia...in their words "we are powered by Wikipedia"...thus I think there is no copyvio from there anymore.  So our problem that we are left with is the place and content  of the edit and if this Keith guy would even be a reliable source for the additions. The behavior thus far seen by both would indicate to me we are not dealing with professionals....thus the source I will have to question till more info on the author(s) of the so called book. Moxy (talk) 22:27, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

How to get Levene's account into the article
Ian - the reason why Keith became angered is that Moxy and then you accused me of cutting and pasting from the NME article and this is absolute bollocks. Everythng quoted is from his perspective - a perspective he did not speak with anyone before the Meeting Joe book came out. Moxy deleted my section fairly soon after I put it up. He obviously did not read Keith's Meeting Joe book. Keith was there in 1975 and 1976  The writer of the NME article was not. The NME article is based on second hand accounts taken from other sources and not Keith. if this is plagiarism please let me know how it is.

He is predicting that after going through what we have the past 24 hours someone else will go in and delete it again. I've told him I don't think it will happen because we have gone through mediation. Time will tell regarding that.

Finally I appreciate the revision but there is an inaccuracy. I did not write in the initial submission that Alan was a member of the Clash. This is inaccurate. Alan was Keith's friend who introduced Keith to Mick Jones. I've revised that part in what you wrote. He also wants another myth dispelled which is that he was fired from the Clash. This is included in the Clash wiki page and Keith disputes it. He writes about this in the Meeting Joe book. It was a mutual decision for him to leave. Per Keith once the Clash got started (after he got Joe to join up) the Clash almost immediately began limiting the music into a mode instead of begin open to different possibilities. I've also changed "claims" to "states" because that is accurate.. Another contributor who wasn't there affirmatively states Levene was fired.

Thanks.

Here's the rewrite;

Since it appears that Keith Levene doesn't want to be a grown up about this, I'll go on ahead and do the work for y'all. Here's how one would paraphrase the addition you tried to add, including the proper citation codes:

That would be fairly appropriate to insert as the second paragraph of the "Origins: 1974–76" section of the article. You can even use the above quoted portion. You're welcome, and I hope Keith gets help for his anger issues. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:41, 11 February 2015 (UTC)


 * It would appear that no one has noticed that the Meeting Joe book appears to be self-published: Amazon shows the publisher to be Commercial Zone books, the book to be digitally published, and Levene has a Commercial Zone Initiative. It would appear to me that this is — or should be regarded as until proved otherwise — a self-published source which under WP:BLPSPS and WP:BLPSELFPUB cannot be used to make claims about third parties such as Strummer. I understand Levene's Strummer's and Kathydi's interest in getting out what they see as the truth, but Wikipedia is not, by policy, a soapbox. If Levene's claims garner enough attention that they are discussed in reliable secondary sources, they can certainly be included here but until then, probably not. Regards,  TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 14:38, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

February 2015
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page The Clash has been reverted. Your edit here to The Clash 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 (https://twitter.com/search?f=realtime&q=@missingchannel&src=typd) 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 blog, forum, free web hosting service, fansite, or similar site (see 'Links to avoid', #11), then please check the information on the external site thoroughly. Note that such sites should probably not be linked to if they contain information that is in violation of the creator's copyright (see Linking to copyrighted works), or they are not written by a recognised, reliable source. Linking to sites that you are involved with is also strongly discouraged (see conflict of interest). 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) 09:54, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=646778129 your edit] to The Clash may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 10:21, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * }

Your recent edits could give Wikipedia contributors the impression that you may consider legal or other "off-wiki" action against them, or against Wikipedia itself. Please note that making such threats on Wikipedia is strictly prohibited under Wikipedia's policies on legal threats and civility. Users who make such threats may be blocked. If you have a dispute with the content of any page on Wikipedia, please follow the proper channels for dispute resolution. Please be sure to comment on content, not contributors, and where possible make specific suggestions for changes supported by reliable independent sources and focusing especially on verifiable errors of fact. Thank you. Neil N  talk to me 15:59, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

ANI notice
There is a matter at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents which affects you. — TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 20:19, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

February 2015
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for making legal threats or taking legal action. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice:. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. You are not allowed to edit Wikipedia while the threats stand or the legal action is unresolved. § FreeRangeFrog croak 20:20, 12 February 2015 (UTC)