You currently appear to be engaged in a "slow
edit war" on the
Pete Townshend page. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to
discuss controversial changes on the article's talk page, to work towards wording and content that gains a
consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek
dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request
page protection.
Sssoul (
talk) 10:09, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
I am not in an 'edit war', please see talk Ssoul-- Occultaphenia ( talk) 10:18, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
to "Scieberking':
you have not given a legit reason for it to be removed, and was content already there,
u appear only to be causing a disruption.
-- Occultaphenia ( talk) 10:18, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
You link to a Malware Website, which is against Wikipedia's terms of use. Use another valid citation to prove your point. You don't seem to read the main article's "Discussion" page. Thanks. --Scieberking 10:28, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
- (transplanted from Sssoul's talk page) @ Occultaphenia-
- Google labels this website as "Reported Site Attack!", so it is inappropriate to cite this as a source on Wikipedia.
- http://www.artistwd.com/joyzine/music/ledzep/zeppelin.php
- Please use another proper citation to prove your point.
- Thank you. -- Scieberking ( talk) 10:20, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
You appear to be making fictious claims and grasping at straws as to why it shouldn't be there. Please stop vandalising.-- Occultaphenia ( talk) 10:48, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Did you mean "fictitious"? Secondly, artistwd.com is clearly filtered by Google as "Reported Site Attack". Here's my proof:
http://img145.imageshack.us/img145/8256/atwd.gif
and Wikipedia discourages citations with "Reported Site Attack" and Malware sites. --Scieberking 11:08, 27 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scieberking ( talk • contribs)
My second proof:
Notice Google distinctly mentions "This site may harm your computer" tag on this malware link you're trying to cite. So, please stop trying to add inappropriate pages/ sources to this article.
Thanks. --Scieberking 11:17, 27 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scieberking ( talk • contribs)
It does not specifically say this is Malware, If u want it removed show me wat wiki documentation/rule you are specifically quoting please.-- Occultaphenia ( talk) 11:49, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
"This site may harm your computer" note intelligibly means that the website is Malicious/ potentially dangerous to the user. Wikipedia clearly disallows linking to malicious sites. If you want to know about the exact wiki documentation/rule, ask the admin/ editor. Thanks --Scieberking 12:18, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
No, this does not specifically state that, and again u would need to quote the right wiki documentation/rule, for removing content., its been in there for a while and numerous different accounts all at once removing is not the way to go about it.--
Occultaphenia (
talk) 12:31, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Please read the discussion page of 'I Can't Explain' before undoing my entry. Thank you. --Scieberking 12:01, 29 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scieberking ( talk • contribs)
You have given false links and that is why your information was removed (the fuzz was in relation to Bald headed Woman), I don't see why i should converse with you on these things because u seem to have deleted comments on your talk, -- Occultaphenia ( talk) 12:06, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Thats what i said, the b-side of 'I can't explain' is Bald Headed Woman'. Read your reference. Yes there are claims he did the rythm despite it being debunked, they can both go in there.-- Occultaphenia ( talk) 13:01, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Please read the discussion page. --Scieberking 14:01, 29 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scieberking ( talk • contribs)
The problem with the inclusion of the information is that the source in question doesn't meet
WP:RS or
WP:V. While the information could be true, the problem is sourcing it. Especially on
BLPs everything has to be sourced (and sourced well) for the inclusion.
(Somewhat unrelated)Upon hearing that
Tom Scholz wrote an entire article on his website about how the wikipedia article
Boston was almost completely wrong, I researched and sourced 90% of the article.
If you can find multiple sources that are
reliable or even one very good source (such as an official bio, press release, or interview), I see no reason why it can't be added.
TheWeakWilled (
T *
G) 02:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 | Blocked as a sockpuppet You have been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet of CosmicLegg ( talk · contribs · global contribs · page moves · user creation · block log). Blocked or banned users are not allowed to edit Wikipedia; if you are banned, all edits under this account may be reverted. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text{{
unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our
guide to appealing blocks first. |
NW ( Talk) 21:50, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Occultaphenia ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I ain't no damn sockpuppet, I just want appropriate information on the Townshend, thats all. I try doing the right thing and i get screwed? Its clear someone has it in for me, And that the information on the page was compromised. I try pointing this out and I get blocked?, complete balony. I only tried keeping it clean and when i point out what appeared to be people just trying to mess with it, i get shunned? - I am interested in very little articles, THATS IT... Mostly just the Towshend page. I only wish to keep that one clean. Thats why I'm here. If i question other motives I shouldn't be punished or lumped as one of these others breaking rules. I ain't messing with other articles, and I admitted fault when I thought the other said individual (Sciberking) was using multiple accounts, but the I thought the individual was just editing to "edit war" and push a certain idea of what information should or shouldn't be in based on what he liked and didn't like. Based on the page's history, and the users actions, thats why i was skeptical. I am not sockpuppeting, And I wish you would strongly reconsider the block, as I am trying to contribute to Wikipedia effectively...
Decline reason:
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
You currently appear to be engaged in a "slow
edit war" on the
Pete Townshend page. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to
discuss controversial changes on the article's talk page, to work towards wording and content that gains a
consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek
dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request
page protection.
Sssoul (
talk) 10:09, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
I am not in an 'edit war', please see talk Ssoul-- Occultaphenia ( talk) 10:18, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
to "Scieberking':
you have not given a legit reason for it to be removed, and was content already there,
u appear only to be causing a disruption.
-- Occultaphenia ( talk) 10:18, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
You link to a Malware Website, which is against Wikipedia's terms of use. Use another valid citation to prove your point. You don't seem to read the main article's "Discussion" page. Thanks. --Scieberking 10:28, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
- (transplanted from Sssoul's talk page) @ Occultaphenia-
- Google labels this website as "Reported Site Attack!", so it is inappropriate to cite this as a source on Wikipedia.
- http://www.artistwd.com/joyzine/music/ledzep/zeppelin.php
- Please use another proper citation to prove your point.
- Thank you. -- Scieberking ( talk) 10:20, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
You appear to be making fictious claims and grasping at straws as to why it shouldn't be there. Please stop vandalising.-- Occultaphenia ( talk) 10:48, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Did you mean "fictitious"? Secondly, artistwd.com is clearly filtered by Google as "Reported Site Attack". Here's my proof:
http://img145.imageshack.us/img145/8256/atwd.gif
and Wikipedia discourages citations with "Reported Site Attack" and Malware sites. --Scieberking 11:08, 27 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scieberking ( talk • contribs)
My second proof:
Notice Google distinctly mentions "This site may harm your computer" tag on this malware link you're trying to cite. So, please stop trying to add inappropriate pages/ sources to this article.
Thanks. --Scieberking 11:17, 27 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scieberking ( talk • contribs)
It does not specifically say this is Malware, If u want it removed show me wat wiki documentation/rule you are specifically quoting please.-- Occultaphenia ( talk) 11:49, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
"This site may harm your computer" note intelligibly means that the website is Malicious/ potentially dangerous to the user. Wikipedia clearly disallows linking to malicious sites. If you want to know about the exact wiki documentation/rule, ask the admin/ editor. Thanks --Scieberking 12:18, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
No, this does not specifically state that, and again u would need to quote the right wiki documentation/rule, for removing content., its been in there for a while and numerous different accounts all at once removing is not the way to go about it.--
Occultaphenia (
talk) 12:31, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Please read the discussion page of 'I Can't Explain' before undoing my entry. Thank you. --Scieberking 12:01, 29 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scieberking ( talk • contribs)
You have given false links and that is why your information was removed (the fuzz was in relation to Bald headed Woman), I don't see why i should converse with you on these things because u seem to have deleted comments on your talk, -- Occultaphenia ( talk) 12:06, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Thats what i said, the b-side of 'I can't explain' is Bald Headed Woman'. Read your reference. Yes there are claims he did the rythm despite it being debunked, they can both go in there.-- Occultaphenia ( talk) 13:01, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Please read the discussion page. --Scieberking 14:01, 29 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scieberking ( talk • contribs)
The problem with the inclusion of the information is that the source in question doesn't meet
WP:RS or
WP:V. While the information could be true, the problem is sourcing it. Especially on
BLPs everything has to be sourced (and sourced well) for the inclusion.
(Somewhat unrelated)Upon hearing that
Tom Scholz wrote an entire article on his website about how the wikipedia article
Boston was almost completely wrong, I researched and sourced 90% of the article.
If you can find multiple sources that are
reliable or even one very good source (such as an official bio, press release, or interview), I see no reason why it can't be added.
TheWeakWilled (
T *
G) 02:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
|
| Blocked as a sockpuppet You have been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet of CosmicLegg ( talk · contribs · global contribs · page moves · user creation · block log). Blocked or banned users are not allowed to edit Wikipedia; if you are banned, all edits under this account may be reverted. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text{{
unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our
guide to appealing blocks first. |
NW ( Talk) 21:50, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Occultaphenia ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I ain't no damn sockpuppet, I just want appropriate information on the Townshend, thats all. I try doing the right thing and i get screwed? Its clear someone has it in for me, And that the information on the page was compromised. I try pointing this out and I get blocked?, complete balony. I only tried keeping it clean and when i point out what appeared to be people just trying to mess with it, i get shunned? - I am interested in very little articles, THATS IT... Mostly just the Towshend page. I only wish to keep that one clean. Thats why I'm here. If i question other motives I shouldn't be punished or lumped as one of these others breaking rules. I ain't messing with other articles, and I admitted fault when I thought the other said individual (Sciberking) was using multiple accounts, but the I thought the individual was just editing to "edit war" and push a certain idea of what information should or shouldn't be in based on what he liked and didn't like. Based on the page's history, and the users actions, thats why i was skeptical. I am not sockpuppeting, And I wish you would strongly reconsider the block, as I am trying to contribute to Wikipedia effectively...
Decline reason:
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.