User talk:Thewho515

Welcome!
Welcome!

Hello, Thewho515, and welcome to Wikipedia! I have noticed that you are fairly new! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. I also see that some of your recent edits show an interest in the use of images and/or photos on Wikipedia.

Did you know that ...
 * ...wikipedia has a very stringent image use policy?
 * ...most images from Flickr, online news websites, and other web sources are copyrighted?
 * ...wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously?
 * ...freely-licensed images should be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, a central location for images where they can be used on all Wikipedia projects?
 * ...we recommend that new users use our "files for upload" process - at least until you get the hang of things?

If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type  on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. NeilN  Neil N  talk to me  23:23, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * Manual of Style

Photo Usage
Hi, you can upload a photo by following the instructions here. Please make sure you took the photo yourself or have permission to release the photo under a free license. Once uploaded, let me know and I'll help you get it into the article. -- Neil N  talk to me  23:43, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring on Suzannah Lipscomb
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: 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 engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.  Artichoker [ talk ] 01:54, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.


 * Additionally, please review the Wikipedia guideline WP:No legal threats. Your edit summary in this edit is vague but could be interpreted as threatening legal action. —C.Fred (talk) 01:56, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Please, please, please use the talk page. -- Neil N  talk to me  01:59, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * In addition to your edit-warring, admitted conflict of interest, and potential legal threats, you are also assuming bad-faith in this edit summary by accusing other editors of having a "vendetta". Making such accusations without any actual evidence is simply not conducive to a good editing environment on Wikipedia.  Artichoker [ talk ] 02:05, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

I am not the one 'edit warring' I have correct information. The other editors are warring they need to be issued the warning. Isn't that the purpose? Putting plain true facts out there? I think editors working in concert together is shameful. We are supposed to work together right? I don't know the subject well enough that I cant edit this page with plain simple substantiated facts. Like you said NeilN the name controversy is "iffy". It is incorrect. A 3 year old article (the only one on the internet) is not substantial. There are hundreds of other articles in the direction of what is correct. Thewho515 (talk) 02:11, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Thewho, it appears from your response that you have not yet read Wikipedia's guideline on edit warring linked above. I would strongly suggest reading it immediately. You already have at least three reverts on the article within a 24hr period, and are definitely edit-warring. No other editor has gotten close to warring, so they did not receive the warning. When you say "I think editors working in concert together is shameful." I repudiate that as an assumption of bad faith (another Wikipedia guideline I would highly suggest you read before proceeding). I myself found the article after it was listed on WP:ANI and simply want it to comply with Wikipedia policies and contain the best information. Finally, I would suggest you also read the guidelines on conflict of interest and legal threats, as you appear to be crossing both of those as well.  Artichoker [ talk ] 02:19, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

I have read them and you couldn't be more wrong. I have made no threats and have no conflict of interest. This is wasting everyone's time I (like you) want accuracy. If you want to see bad form, look at some of the posts in the deletion thread. Some of the editors are being unhelpful. it is all there in black and white..read onThewho515 (talk) 02:30, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * You state that you have read them, however I am wondering if you have truly read WP:COI. You state that you personally know the subject of the article, yet you continued to edit the article and make controversial edits (to the point of edit warring with other users). I am at least glad that you clarified that there was no legal threat contained in this edit summary.  Artichoker [ talk ] 02:36, 22 May 2014 (UTC)


 * A piece of (unsolicited) advice: If you want something changed, argue content, not the behavior of other editors. That will rarely get you to your goal. Look at the current name discussion on the talk page. Focused on content and moving ahead smoothly. -- Neil N  talk to me  02:38, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

yes, lets move ahead smoothly- Don't doubt my veracity. I read them. I would say an acquaintance you have met is not the same as knowing and spending time with someone ie FamilyThewho515 (talk) 02:42, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I would dispute that. Looking at the date that your account was created, as well as your contributions (the entirety of which center around Suzannah Lipscomb), I would say that you clearly fit the definition of a single-purpose account. Due to this, you are expected to conform to Wikipedia's policies of neutrality and conflict of interest, the latter of which you certainly have not done in the context of your edit warring.  Artichoker [ talk ] 02:46, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

I have edited here in the past under different user names. I take offence to your allegations. I am just getting started up again. I would say you are the one that is propelling this in the wrong direction. I will not be called an SPA Thewho515 (talk) 02:58, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * You have not disclosed any of your other accounts. Judging by your account creation time and user contributions (all the information that is presented), you very closely fit the definition of a SPA. I am not trying to insult you, I am simply stating something and imploring you to follow WP:COI.  Artichoker [ talk ] 03:04, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

fair enough. cheers Thewho515 (talk) 03:08, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Conflict of interest on Suzannah Lipscomb
Hello, Thewho515. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:


 * Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
 * Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Spam).
 * Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you.

''As per your own admission, you appear to have a conflict of interest on this article and a close connection to the subject. Therefore I would heavily advise against directly editing it.''  Artichoker [ talk ] 01:58, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

I have no conflict of interest. I am more than qualified to edit any page. It would seem wise to me for all editors to err on the side of caution. ie- Don't use a very flimsy, iffy and old article to change a page. A simple internet search will yield you hundreds of current articles. We wouldn't be having this discussion if the page wasn't up for deletion/ If you look at that conversation, they are all Keeps and Strong keeps. The originator of the deletion has even changed their opinion to Keep and not Delete. This is an obvious snowball at this point. Why belabor the obvious? It is wasting all of our time that we could be putting to good use. Thewho515 (talk) 02:23, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * As you have stated that you personally know the subject, that is most certainly a conflict of interest. Also I'm confused as to why you're talking about the AfD, as that has no bearing on the conversation at all; I would vote to keep the article as well.  Artichoker [ talk ] 02:25, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Not well enough that I cant edit a simple page. As for the article we are of one mind then. This is a big waste of all of our time. Facts are only useful when they are correctThewho515 (talk) 02:36, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * As WP:COI states, you shouldn't make controversial edits to the article, of which the ones you made in which you edit warred certainly were.  Artichoker [ talk ] 02:37, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

The edit is minor and not in the least controversial. It is a fact. I also think if "edit warring" is going on it is universal. I want only plain & concise facts. Doesn't everyone? I am not a even a Major Contributor to the article as you can plainly see. I have to move along for the moment, but have great rest of your evening.Thewho515 (talk) 02:50, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Undoing other user's (non-vandalism) edits is not minor, but rather by definition controversial. It is also clear by your comment that you still have not read WP:EDITWAR. You were only one that got close to violating the 3RR rule.  Artichoker [ talk ] 02:54, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

I did not violate 3RR. Don't even suggest vandalism. What has been done to this page with false accusations and unmerited removal requests is ridiculous. You, yourself said you would vote to keep. Look at the big picture and look for a pattern under RRF on the Removal edit page. Cheers Thewho515 (talk) 03:06, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * You came very close to violating 3RR, which is why you were warned. Not to mention you should not have been undoing other users' edits anyway, due to your conflict of interest. Also, I believe you misinterpreted my comment; I was not suggesting your edits were vandalism. Finally, I am again confused as to why you are bringing up the AfD again. I did not participate in that discussion and it has no bearing on the matter at hand.  Artichoker [ talk ] 03:09, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Lastly... I have no COI. You should have a look at the Afd though. Informative reading. Cheers Thewho515 (talk) 03:12, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The fact that you continue to say that after already admitting to a personal connection with Suzannah Lipscomb and edit warring on that page solidifies the fact that you have not read WP:COI.  Artichoker [ talk ] 03:14, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

You are absolutely wrong. But, I wont hold it against you. I have been wrong before. I hope we work together in the future Thewho515 (talk) 03:18, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * If you really have been an editor in the past, you should know by now how to use colons, and you really ought to read WP:SOCK. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 05:43, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

I know what you are insinuating and you really ought to observe decorum. Your input is not useful.Thewho515 (talk) 06:21, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I was insinuating that you need to learn how to use colons, and you ought to read WP:SOCK as well. Nothing more! Perhaps you should read WP:AGF as well. -09:26, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read it. Because it is exactly what you NOT are doing. Thewho515 (talk) 10:28, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

July 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=616043481 your edit] to Quadrophenia Live in London 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) 05:06, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * {{Infobox album | ;!-- See Wikipedia:WikiProject_Albums -- {{red|&#62;}}
 * 2014. The DVD debuted at number 1 on the Billboard Music Video Sales Chart.