User talk:Lurielurie

Welcome!

 * }

I have reverted your edit of John Lurie; per the manual of style, keywords within the main text of the article only use internal links to other pages; external links (if actually relevant) go to a separate section at the end of the page. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 08:45, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

John Lurie
Hi, you seem to be edit warring some uncited and some cited to not WP reliable sources, please stop this as your editing rights are a privilege and can be removed. The article is now protected and your desired addition will not be automatically into the article anymore - either move to discussion on the talkpage or I suggest you stop attempting to add it. Your username and you single purpose towards this account also appears you could well have a WP:COI - Off2riorob (talk) 23:39, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

The best thing you can do is present your desired additions on the talkpage of the article John Lurie with the WP:RS that support them and experienced editors will have a look at them, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 00:09, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Lurielurie, You have a message on my talk page. Thanks. Austria156 (talk) 11:10, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 08:40, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello Binksternet, It's Maria, John Lurie's assistant. I apologize for posting here. We have a few comments and corrections regarding the Wikipedia entry on John Lurie,

In the section on “Early Life” appears the following quote: “He moved to New York City around 1974, then briefly visited London to check out the punk music scene, which did not appeal to him. He was more interested in avant-garde jazz and no wave.[1] Here you have misread the original source (which you footnote). If you refer back to that you will see that Lurie did not go to London “to check out the punk music scene.” The following regard the section “Personal Life.” Contrary to what you imply (“baffling neurological symptoms”), there is no question that John Lurie has advanced Lyme disease. We have medical documents to prove this. Eight different physicians (not a “group of eight”) have said it is late persistent Lyme disease and is a chronic malady. There are presently no doctors who disagree with this diagnosis. We are happy to send documentation so that Wikipedia will state definitively what is apparent to numerous medical practitioners, that Lurie is battling Lyme disease. There should be no ambiguity on this point. Later, in the same section you write “he was told he had a year to live, and his girlfriend moved out.” We’d prefer that you remove this, as it suggests the girlfriend was a live-in girlfriend, which she wasn’t, and paints her in an excessively harsh light. In the section’s last sentence, Wikipedia states that Lurie has lived in various locales “since his early 2009 disagreement with Perry.” But characterizing what happened between the two as a “disagreement” is unfair and inaccurate. It is not even clear over what matter the two have “disagreed” since Perry has never settled on exactly what his grievance with Lurie is. Additionally, the threats of violence belie the tame character of that word. We request that you remove that phrase, since it is parenthetical to begin with and obfuscates more than enlightens.

John Lurie was not the only person who found the New Yorker article inaccurate and you may want to refer your readers to the New Yorker blog, http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2010/08/video-john-lurie-the-drawing-show.html, where many of those interviewed had problems with the article. Finally, a clarification on dates. You say, “Lurie says he has been in ill health since 1994.” In fact, while the Lyme disease was contracted in 1994, Lurie’s neurological symptoms began in 2002, not 1994. Thank you very much for your time and attention. Best, Maria —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.175.21.51 (talk) 07:18, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

These recommendations are mostly good, actionable, collaborative suggestions. I will implement most of them. I have changed the London punk bit, the girlfriend bit, the eight doctors bit, the 1994 bit, and the Perry disagreement, the latter becoming a "rupture", all per sources. However, the 2002 date you suggest here was given as 2000 in the Sutton interview. I must use published sources such as that one. Binksternet (talk) 15:03, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Why have you removed the previous Lurie discussion from your talk page?

Also, "disagreement" is more accurate than "rupture", unless of course Wikipedia now allows individuals, or by extension their assistants, to dictate the content of their own BLP.Lurielurie (talk) 01:03, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

All I did was reexamine the sources and rewrite the bits in light of the complaints. Rupture is from one of the sources. I did not add anything not contained in the sources. I took the previous discussion off my page because you kept copying and pasting it to annoy me. You have used up quite a lot of good will in my book. Wikipedia will always be a bit more sympathetic to living persons who have a biography article than to living persons who wish them harm. Binksternet (talk) 01:10, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Besides Lurie's claims, there exists no evidence in any cited material that Lurie has been threatened with violence -as he has not been- it is fair not to use language that implies otherwise. Lurie has used his notoriety to engage in an ongoing campaign to destroy another human being with unsupported accusations. Please direct me to where I might find that it is Wikipedia's policy to extend sympathy or privilege to subjects of BLP's over others. That a person's own quoted statements might be percieved as harmful to them indicts only the quoted. My edits, however, referenced published material and his own verifiable statements.

If you wish to remove a redundant posting of the previous Lurie discussion, that seems reasonable. My re-posting of it was no more meant to annoy you than was your removal of some of our exchanges in the original discussion to annoy me. Please restore at least one of them.

I hope your reserve of goodwill is no less valuable than mine.Lurielurie (talk) 03:08, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia's policy regarding biographies of living persons can be read in full here: WP:BLP. I do not believe your assertions regarding Lurie; they do not match what he said in interviews. Binksternet (talk) 03:27, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Which assertions?

Thank you for acknowledging your standard of verifiability is "what he said".

What about restoring the original John Lurie discussion. Something to hide?Lurielurie (talk) 04:18, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

March 2011
Welcome to Wikipedia! I am glad to see you are interested in discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as User talk:Binksternet are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 09:59, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to John Lurie. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. ''All of Friend's article was questioned in the blog, not just Lurie's version. 'Rupture' is the right word, as no disagreement has been discussed. 'Claimed' is not neutral and implies that Lurie is countered by those who disagree. All sources say that the rupture is continuing.'' Binksternet (talk) 15:04, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Both the New Yorker article and the Dangerous Minds blog are based entirely on the fact that disagreement exists.

The lack of evidence is not a personal analysis. In no publication does there state anything besides Lurie's word supports his accusations.

Instruction from Lurie or his assistant constitutes original research.

Also, Binksternet, kindly restore the version of the Lurie section you deleted.Lurielurie (talk) 20:41, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

April 2011
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on John Lurie. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively. In particular, the three-revert rule states that: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Binksternet (talk) 23:06, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

Complaint about your edits
You've been reported for edit warring at WP:AN3. If you don't respond there, it is likely that you will be blocked. If you are John Lurie or a person who knows him personally, you would be on safer ground if you would reveal that. Since you've been adding what we consider to be inappropriate material for a long time, your access to Wikipedia may be removed. Any effort at discussion by you would be welcome. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 14:58, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for your disruption caused by edit warring by violation of the three-revert rule. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. &mdash; slakr \ talk / 19:18, 1 April 2011 (UTC)