Talk:Biff Rose/Archive 3

Editing in bad faith

While most of us editors have been working towards a consensus on the article, editor user:Jonah Ayers has been sabotaging this process at every step, editing in bad faith and misrepresenting his edits in the edit summary. For example, in edit he claims to be rearranging the discography, but the actual edit basically substitutes most of the text for his prefered version. In this other innstance [1] he accuses an editor of vandalizing the article by deleting a picture (which he did not) and then claims to re-add the allegedly deleted picture in the edit summary while replacing the entire text of the article. Combined with his malicious, mean-spirited attacks on other editors, his aggressive use of sockpuppets and anonymous IPs, I suggest he recuse himself from this article. I will be happy to recuse myself as well if he agrees to do the same. Marcuse 01:44, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ok, I agree to recuse myself from this article. I will pass the torch to someone else.Jonah Ayers 04:59, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jonah, this also goes for your sockpuppets, including user:Mary Hope, who we all know is you. This has been confirmed. Marcuse 20:07, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well i guess if you refuse to believe in Mary Hope, then i choose not recuse. It's that simple. Someone who hasn't edited versus someone who has. your loss!! i'm backJonah Ayers

It's not a loss when nothing was gained to begin with. It's that simple. Marcuse 18:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

speaking of bad faith it is now illegal to flame people as unidentified people on line [2] luckily my driver's license actually says Jonah Ayers. I think sojambi and marcuse and will beback will all need to adopt their real names here. otherwise these antagonistic postings under nom de plumes can prosecuted in court.Jonah Ayers 00:29, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Didn't you previously claim that your real name is Steven Espinola? -Will Beback 02:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- you know Will that could be construed by jonah ayers as flaming, and you could be taken to court. 216.244.7.12 04:25, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That could be construed as a legal threat, and anyone making one could be blocked from editing. -Will Beback 04:31, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now let's please drop all this and get back to discussing the article. -Will Beback 05:26, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That could be construed as a threat will, which in wiki land can also be determined as un wiki like and you could be brought up to the admins much like you were before you surreptitiously changed your name. AS for legal threats, I don't believe any were made, i merely pointed out that with the new law, Jonah Ayers could theoretically bring you into a court on charges of that most ludircous law, which states that anyone found to be annoying can be sued. That's that, you can try and manipulate the situation in any fahsion, and true to your nature, you have used your opportunity to be almost agonizingly patronizing, irritatingly smug, and mindbogglingly suspect in your biased approach at using wikipedia. I applaud you for your complete lack of self control and inability to be anything more than annoying- uh oh, I'm going to be taken to court for annoyingly calling someone else annoying. ouch. Now, let's talk about the sierra club, what exactly is your relation to them?216.244.7.12 05:42, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am retrieving this for the archived discussion because this topic is still being actively discussed. Marcuse 17:50, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Link to Pickwick comp: [3]. There. That's a citation. If you google the album it shows up all over. --Sojambi Pinola 02:10, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think the current version[4], with all the pics on the right looks better/neater than with the staggered pics. I also think that SP's description of his later work (spoken rap elements etc.) is a good way to introduce and contextualize Rose's later work. I think the article looks and reads great in its current form. Marcuse 02:37, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

contextualiziation is POV... let's keep it to the bare minimum. Also, I prefer, obviously, the staggered photos. I think the top one shouldx be the most recent, so am going to refile them that way. Most recent first.216.244.3.219 02:54, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, left the photos, but had to rearrange slightly to make sure table of contents is flush left, to conform to wikipedia standards. Contextualization is not POV, SP's edit simply provide a description of his later material. PLUS, one of the guidelines for writing WP articles is that the subject should be put into context, so rather than POV, contextualization is a necessary goal of any article. I have melded together Sp's edits with those by Jonah and the anonymous user. Finally, I noticed there are no descriptions of his earlier work, just a list of what songs he wrote, etc. Will add this material now. Marcuse 15:34, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Judiasm is targeted" is a really problematic phrase. User:Sojambi Pinola

Please note that the line directly above is the vandalism in question

I likes some of the new desciptive stuff. I do not find it POV. However, a lot of his early recordings were, in fact, heavily orchestrated. --Sojambi Pinola 16:32, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that "Judaism is targeted" is problematic, but you can fight it out with Jonah. As far as the orchestration it apparently was added later, but I'll modify the sentencve to reflect that. Would you like to expand this section a bit? Marcuse 16:57, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure! Can't right now. --Sojambi Pinola 17:54, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

by implying that User:Marcuse said that line, you are operating in bad faith. sojambi pinola the proof of your vandalism is here [5] Sojambi pinola did this VANDALISM!!!!Jonah Ayers

Jonah, what are you talking about?! SP never implied I said anything, and has certainly not edited in bad faith. Perhaps it would behoove you to work with the other editors rather than spout out accusations at every step. I think progress is being made, so please do not try to sabotage the process. Marcuse 03:52, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marcuse, jonah is referring to the spot just above here where underneath a post that you placed he placed a line that reads, " ::"Judiasm is targeted" is a really problematic phrase." he then responds, and attributes the phrase to you, if you follow jonah's link, it proves that Sojambi left said quote, and then deliberately misleads the page to make it seem as if you posted this remark. The page in question on Rose is already wildly over worded, and needs major surgery.216.244.3.219 04:12, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think some text may have been unintentionally deleted when editors were both writing at once. This entire discussion is unnecessary. Let's move on. Can we please stop moving between such different versions? Can we agree on the discography? -Will Beback 08:31, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

clearly that isn't the case the proof points to the fact that Sojambi posted the line, and the nresponded to Marcuse, as if Marcuse wrote it. if no action is taken I will seek a new voice, a new admin to respond, because there have been numerous times when my IP has been blocked at will's whim, for no violations, but for "supposed" vandalism. This new Will Beback needs to address the issue here or his desire to be more of a mediator will be struck down. This is clearly a case of VANDALISM216.244.3.219

Look Jonah and anon. editor, Thank you for looking after my interests here, but I never interpreted SP's remark as him attributing a comment to me. I do not consider his edit vandalism (see Wikipedia:Vandalism) and neither does anybody else. Vandalism is however what the anonymous editor has been doing to the article by repeatedly destroying other editors changes, deleting photos from the article and generally disrupting any attempts toward reaching a consensus. Marcuse 18:37, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discography

We should be able to come up with a definitive list of commercially released albums and singles. Let's start with the headings.

Officially Released
Self Released
Singles
Out of Print Compilations
In Print Compilations

Those should be in sentence case. Do folks agree on those headings? -Will Beback 08:31, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think those sound reasonable. I have changed them to sentence case, and re-added the record covers which were deleted from the discography by Jonah. I also re added the descriptions of Rose's musical style that were deleted without explanation. Finally I re-incorporated a new version of the sentence dealing with racism and antisemitism. It makes not direct claims about Rose's online work, only that it deals with race and religion. Then I wrote that this has created a series of accusations of racism and antisemitism in various online chat groups. While online chat groups are not officially a source, the fact remains that these criticisms are out there, posted in various places. I think that this should satisfy both SP (by being NPOV) and Ayers (by bringing up the issue). Hope this helps. I agree with Will, let's move on. Marcuse 14:45, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do wonder at the designations of "self-released" vs. "officially released." At what point does one become the other? "Bone Again" and "Elizabethan Period" were funded by people or companies other than Biff, and given professional print runs of a few to several thousand; they were distributed through non-internet indie channels, and reviewed in Mojo magazine. "Roast Beef" was pressed using Biff's royalties, but then it was picked up by a distributor who slapped their own record label's sticker on the cover; several thousand were produced and sold. "Hamburger Blues" was an "official" release that may have been a smaller print run than some of Biff's website releases. "Uncle Jesus" was a major label album that is harder to find than "Roast Beef." "The Pickwick album was an "offical" compilation of far seedier origin than some of the indie releases. The whole issue of "in print" vs. "out of print" is a bit difficult to assess as well. If copies are sealed, stockpiled and available, isn't the album still "in print"?

My concern with these categories is that they tend to appear at the same times that text changes are made diminishing Biff's accomplishments; and they seem to be included as part of the intent of that effort. If you look at other artists' discographies, these distinctions are rarely made. For example, see Sun_Ra. A great many of Sun Ra's albums were self-released, including most of the artistic milestones. It is a vague and misleading designation. Why not go for straight chronology?

And to confirm Marcuse's interpretation, I was not implying that Marcuse initiated a given edit. Is someone trying to start fights where they ain't? --Sojambi Pinola 19:58, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem here is that you wrote something, a line that went unsingned, but on closer inspection was found to be added by you but attributed by you to someone esle. You then followed this by saying that you agreed with the line. Very unwiki of you.Wallawe

Indeed, someone is trying to start fights where they ain't. --Sojambi Pinola 21:13, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wallawe/Jonah, I'm curious what the "released on cdr" that you keep adding to the discography means? What is cdr? As far as the self vs. officially why don't we just simply put "Full length releases" and combine them? Marcuse 22:32, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In most of these cases "cdr" is not an accurate designation. Some of them were glass-mastered CDs. But as I said above, I don't think that's too important, anyway. --Sojambi Pinola 23:25, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wallawe, you claimed to revert back to Marcuse, but you did not. That's a super-misleading tag. --Sojambi Pinola 23:30, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And now I understand what you are referring to: [6]. That's something I do a lot. It's called "Paragraphs." Here, I'll do one right now. Here goes....

The first paragraph was one sentence long and went: "Judiasm is targeted" is a really problematic phrase.

Then, as I had an additional comment on a different topic, I skipped a line, kept the same indent, and continued. I assumed that someone with a minimal level of intelligence would understand that these were part of the same entry, and that only one signature would be necessary.

Thank you for your concern.--Sojambi Pinola 23:39, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A CD-R, by the way, is an individually burned, homemade CD. --Sojambi Pinola 14:49, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see, CD-R. Somehow I thought cdr was some other abbreviation. Were these really homemade releases?? Marcuse 21:38, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In most cases, no. I'm not positive about the post-2001 releases, since I don't have original copies. --Sojambi Pinola 03:07, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually yes they are, they have glued on tops, that when removed say CD-R. 216.244.3.79 17:56, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism vs. Disagreement

What the anonymous user/Jonah is doing is not disagreeing. You are deleting large part of an article and calling this a difference of opinion. What you are doing is vandalism through and through. Perhaps we can get a member of the Arbitration Committee to mediate? I somehow don't think that they would sympathize with your side of things. My offer still stands, if you recuse yourself (including ALL your sockpuppets and IPs) from this article so will I. Marcuse 04:28, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i absolutely agree to recuse myself including all sock puppets etc, mary hope is not a sock puppet. if oyu agree to let her take part here, I will recuse myself. Absolutely.216.244.3.79 04:29, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever. I'll recuse myself anyway. This is not worth my time. Later, Marcuse 04:33, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Mr. Multi-IP, what's this all about? Perhaps I'd leave this query on your user page, but you don't have any one user page...you gots several. You left the following on User:Derex's page. As it concerns the drama surrounding this article, I think it is worthy of note here: [7] Start at "Biff Rose" and continue down....

My favorite parts: If I do get banned from this place, it's really not that big of a deal, considering for my entire time here I've been using the ip address of my upstairs neighbor, who has a non static address system. I have another three I've never used. I'll be here. Editing, and weeding out useless anger mongers such as yourself who purport to heal this place but in actuality act as dumb minded and fascistic oriented A-**** notice I dind't call you an a-**** jsut that you acted like one-....

....don't come to this ip address anylonger, i won't be here. I've already gotten a new one. Bully, small minded and weak willed....

....I'll notify you one time from my other , non controversial admin identity once this is all over. maybe we can have a cup of joe. A southerner? You, again, I don't believe it, there is very little that is gentlemanly about you.

So you'll just keep harrassing people no matter what, ay? Speaking of "ungentlemanly".... --Sojambi Pinola 15:47, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know, you really do get to be smarmy don't you sojambi, so good of you to admit it.Jonah Ayers 02:46, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

please read

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. This is a new guideline, endorsed & instigated by Jimbo. The intent is to keep Wikipedia out of legal jeopardy, as well as to be fair. I believe this is relevant reading, given some of the contentiousness of this article. Derex 17:05, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

buying silence

This was left on my talk page:

If I were you I would post pics and such, because you seem to be so darn kooky. And I love your tone, I see your spreading the love over to Fleetwood mac. Sadly, you're not a very strong writer. Which is too bad because you do seem to know a little bit about the Mac, but not all that much.

I'll join you over there in a bit, once you get to be more sarcastic and bilious. As for now, I'll stay here, and watch you. I like the way you try and corner the market on witticism, no, wait, I don't really like it, you end up being a little trite on some occasions, and you have a tendency for smug affirmations.

Ah well, that's fine. Here's my offer, I'll give you 535.99 USD to go a full year off this site, no edits, you can read as much as you like. I love Brooklyn, what can I say. you found my sweetspot. So what do you say? I'll put the money in a paypal escrow account, and you quit all of wiki for a year. no cheating, we'll be able to figure out if it's you, i know that applecheeked writing style when I read it. So give it good thinking, there buddy boy, and you can help save brooklyn, rather than wasting your time reverting edits and writing hopelessly POV articles about your hero biff rose.Jonah Ayers 09:07, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, my silence can be bought, but only for three years of my salary up front. And then I'd probably still find sneaky ways around it, like getting friends or indentured servants to do my bidding, or at least vote their conscience around here....which would make it a not very good deal, I suppose. Plus, anyone paying such sums would have to reveal their core identity, which may mean they would have to find it. All interested parties would also have to stop calling me at 1:40 am, and would certainly have to stop leaving death threats for the subject of the article (had they ever started such practices, of course). All told, my price is probably too high for the average joe. --Sojambi Pinola 15:13, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i'm dying to know what this is really all about, jonah. biff must have really pissed you off about something for you to spend _this_ much time harassing a wikipedia article. i'd love to have been a fly on the wall when whatever it was went down. Derex 16:12, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Contrary to the note left on Derex's page, Rose was not "banned from playing the Echo." He did, however, cancel a recently scheduled appearance in LA....a scheduled appearance that one of the "IP editors" had been writing to Biff about in a very threatening manner. I believe Rose cancelled for other reasons, but it's worth noting that this drama extends beyond this bio.

Furthermore, one of the citations/links refers to a Robert Christgau review in which Rose is described as a "comedian." Please stop removing references to his comedy career. --Sojambi Pinola 19:54, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but there is no career, jsut like there really isn't a tv writing career, he did both things for a half an hour, and Christgau reports he found him funny, that doesn't give him a comedy career.Jonah Ayers 20:01, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christgau refers to him as a comedian. Several of his albums are spoken-word comedy albums. "Half-Live At The Bitter End" and "Thee Messiah Album" come to mind. They are dominated by stand-up routines with a live audience. --Sojambi Pinola 21:50, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

perhaps that would be useful information to include in the article? Derex 21:54, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If this guy puts a line in aboiut every review he digs up about rose, then we're sort of magnifiying the importance of Rose. Better to link it, and leave the piece as it is. If Sojambi had his way the article would be a 5 stars out of 5 review praising rose and ignoring any of the more mercurial aspects of his life. i think it's best to als okeep in mind that Rose's Academy Award winning former songwriting partner Paul Williams has a less actual sentences written about him in his entry, it's longer than the wki entry for one of rolling stone's 100 greatest guitar players of all time, Wayne Kramer, and is a bigger entry than one of the record labels he recorded for, Buddah Records. By allowing his entry to gain such size and space we're denigrating these other extremely important people and things... rose has a value, it's just not on the par of these others, and so curtailing the article to the size of his influence and the scope of his work seems to be the best way to handle this, instead of heaping lavish praise on the man, let's write a succinct and honest article.Jonah Ayers 01:24, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

more more more

Archival Notices

Older discussions: Talk:Biff Rose/Archive 1 Please do not move any additional discussions into this archive. Owen× ☎ 06:09, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

new archive: Talk:Biff Rose/Archive 2

clown's will eat me, notice a super long discussion has been archived, not erased.. more will be added soon enough...216.244.7.12 06:17, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Editing in bad faith

While most of us editors have been working towards a consensus on the article, editor user:Jonah Ayers has been sabotaging this process at every step, editing in bad faith and misrepresenting his edits in the edit summary. For example, in edit he claims to be rearranging the discography, but the actual edit basically substitutes most of the text for his prefered version. In this other innstance [8] he accuses an editor of vandalizing the article by deleting a picture (which he did not) and then claims to re-add the allegedly deleted picture in the edit summary while replacing the entire text of the article. Combined with his malicious, mean-spirited attacks on other editors, his aggressive use of sockpuppets and anonymous IPs, I suggest he recuse himself from this article. I will be happy to recuse myself as well if he agrees to do the same. Marcuse 01:44, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ok, I agree to recuse myself from this article. I will pass the torch to someone else.Jonah Ayers 04:59, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jonah, this also goes for your sockpuppets, including user:Mary Hope, who we all know is you. This has been confirmed. Marcuse 20:07, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well i guess if you refuse to believe in Mary Hope, then i choose not recuse. It's that simple. Someone who hasn't edited versus someone who has. your loss!! i'm backJonah Ayers

It's not a loss when nothing was gained to begin with. It's that simple. Marcuse 18:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

speaking of bad faith it is now illegal to flame people as unidentified people on line [9] luckily my driver's license actually says Jonah Ayers. I think sojambi and marcuse and will beback will all need to adopt their real names here. otherwise these antagonistic postings under nom de plumes can prosecuted in court.Jonah Ayers 00:29, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Didn't you previously claim that your real name is Steven Espinola? -Will Beback 02:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- you know Will that could be construed by jonah ayers as flaming, and you could be taken to court. 216.244.7.12 04:25, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That could be construed as a legal threat, and anyone making one could be blocked from editing. -Will Beback 04:31, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now let's please drop all this and get back to discussing the article. -Will Beback 05:26, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That could be construed as a threat will, which in wiki land can also be determined as un wiki like and you could be brought up to the admins much like you were before you surreptitiously changed your name. AS for legal threats, I don't believe any were made, i merely pointed out that with the new law, Jonah Ayers could theoretically bring you into a court on charges of that most ludircous law, which states that anyone found to be annoying can be sued. That's that, you can try and manipulate the situation in any fahsion, and true to your nature, you have used your opportunity to be almost agonizingly patronizing, irritatingly smug, and mindbogglingly suspect in your biased approach at using wikipedia. I applaud you for your complete lack of self control and inability to be anything more than annoying- uh oh, I'm going to be taken to court for annoyingly calling someone else annoying. ouch. Now, let's talk about the sierra club, what exactly is your relation to them?216.244.7.12 05:42, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am retrieving this for the archived discussion because this topic is still being actively discussed. Marcuse 17:50, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Link to Pickwick comp: [10]. There. That's a citation. If you google the album it shows up all over. --Sojambi Pinola 02:10, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think the current version[11], with all the pics on the right looks better/neater than with the staggered pics. I also think that SP's description of his later work (spoken rap elements etc.) is a good way to introduce and contextualize Rose's later work. I think the article looks and reads great in its current form. Marcuse 02:37, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

contextualiziation is POV... let's keep it to the bare minimum. Also, I prefer, obviously, the staggered photos. I think the top one shouldx be the most recent, so am going to refile them that way. Most recent first.216.244.3.219 02:54, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, left the photos, but had to rearrange slightly to make sure table of contents is flush left, to conform to wikipedia standards. Contextualization is not POV, SP's edit simply provide a description of his later material. PLUS, one of the guidelines for writing WP articles is that the subject should be put into context, so rather than POV, contextualization is a necessary goal of any article. I have melded together Sp's edits with those by Jonah and the anonymous user. Finally, I noticed there are no descriptions of his earlier work, just a list of what songs he wrote, etc. Will add this material now. Marcuse 15:34, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Judiasm is targeted" is a really problematic phrase. User:Sojambi Pinola

Please note that the line directly above is the vandalism in question

I likes some of the new desciptive stuff. I do not find it POV. However, a lot of his early recordings were, in fact, heavily orchestrated. --Sojambi Pinola 16:32, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that "Judaism is targeted" is problematic, but you can fight it out with Jonah. As far as the orchestration it apparently was added later, but I'll modify the sentencve to reflect that. Would you like to expand this section a bit? Marcuse 16:57, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure! Can't right now. --Sojambi Pinola 17:54, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

by implying that User:Marcuse said that line, you are operating in bad faith. sojambi pinola the proof of your vandalism is here [12] Sojambi pinola did this VANDALISM!!!!Jonah Ayers

Jonah, what are you talking about?! SP never implied I said anything, and has certainly not edited in bad faith. Perhaps it would behoove you to work with the other editors rather than spout out accusations at every step. I think progress is being made, so please do not try to sabotage the process. Marcuse 03:52, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marcuse, jonah is referring to the spot just above here where underneath a post that you placed he placed a line that reads, " ::"Judiasm is targeted" is a really problematic phrase." he then responds, and attributes the phrase to you, if you follow jonah's link, it proves that Sojambi left said quote, and then deliberately misleads the page to make it seem as if you posted this remark. The page in question on Rose is already wildly over worded, and needs major surgery.216.244.3.219 04:12, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think some text may have been unintentionally deleted when editors were both writing at once. This entire discussion is unnecessary. Let's move on. Can we please stop moving between such different versions? Can we agree on the discography? -Will Beback 08:31, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

clearly that isn't the case the proof points to the fact that Sojambi posted the line, and the nresponded to Marcuse, as if Marcuse wrote it. if no action is taken I will seek a new voice, a new admin to respond, because there have been numerous times when my IP has been blocked at will's whim, for no violations, but for "supposed" vandalism. This new Will Beback needs to address the issue here or his desire to be more of a mediator will be struck down. This is clearly a case of VANDALISM216.244.3.219

Look Jonah and anon. editor, Thank you for looking after my interests here, but I never interpreted SP's remark as him attributing a comment to me. I do not consider his edit vandalism (see Wikipedia:Vandalism) and neither does anybody else. Vandalism is however what the anonymous editor has been doing to the article by repeatedly destroying other editors changes, deleting photos from the article and generally disrupting any attempts toward reaching a consensus. Marcuse 18:37, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discography

We should be able to come up with a definitive list of commercially released albums and singles. Let's start with the headings.

Officially Released
Self Released
Singles
Out of Print Compilations
In Print Compilations

Those should be in sentence case. Do folks agree on those headings? -Will Beback 08:31, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think those sound reasonable. I have changed them to sentence case, and re-added the record covers which were deleted from the discography by Jonah. I also re added the descriptions of Rose's musical style that were deleted without explanation. Finally I re-incorporated a new version of the sentence dealing with racism and antisemitism. It makes not direct claims about Rose's online work, only that it deals with race and religion. Then I wrote that this has created a series of accusations of racism and antisemitism in various online chat groups. While online chat groups are not officially a source, the fact remains that these criticisms are out there, posted in various places. I think that this should satisfy both SP (by being NPOV) and Ayers (by bringing up the issue). Hope this helps. I agree with Will, let's move on. Marcuse 14:45, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do wonder at the designations of "self-released" vs. "officially released." At what point does one become the other? "Bone Again" and "Elizabethan Period" were funded by people or companies other than Biff, and given professional print runs of a few to several thousand; they were distributed through non-internet indie channels, and reviewed in Mojo magazine. "Roast Beef" was pressed using Biff's royalties, but then it was picked up by a distributor who slapped their own record label's sticker on the cover; several thousand were produced and sold. "Hamburger Blues" was an "official" release that may have been a smaller print run than some of Biff's website releases. "Uncle Jesus" was a major label album that is harder to find than "Roast Beef." "The Pickwick album was an "offical" compilation of far seedier origin than some of the indie releases. The whole issue of "in print" vs. "out of print" is a bit difficult to assess as well. If copies are sealed, stockpiled and available, isn't the album still "in print"?

My concern with these categories is that they tend to appear at the same times that text changes are made diminishing Biff's accomplishments; and they seem to be included as part of the intent of that effort. If you look at other artists' discographies, these distinctions are rarely made. For example, see Sun_Ra. A great many of Sun Ra's albums were self-released, including most of the artistic milestones. It is a vague and misleading designation. Why not go for straight chronology?

And to confirm Marcuse's interpretation, I was not implying that Marcuse initiated a given edit. Is someone trying to start fights where they ain't? --Sojambi Pinola 19:58, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem here is that you wrote something, a line that went unsingned, but on closer inspection was found to be added by you but attributed by you to someone esle. You then followed this by saying that you agreed with the line. Very unwiki of you.Wallawe

Indeed, someone is trying to start fights where they ain't. --Sojambi Pinola 21:13, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wallawe/Jonah, I'm curious what the "released on cdr" that you keep adding to the discography means? What is cdr? As far as the self vs. officially why don't we just simply put "Full length releases" and combine them? Marcuse 22:32, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In most of these cases "cdr" is not an accurate designation. Some of them were glass-mastered CDs. But as I said above, I don't think that's too important, anyway. --Sojambi Pinola 23:25, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wallawe, you claimed to revert back to Marcuse, but you did not. That's a super-misleading tag. --Sojambi Pinola 23:30, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And now I understand what you are referring to: [13]. That's something I do a lot. It's called "Paragraphs." Here, I'll do one right now. Here goes....

The first paragraph was one sentence long and went: "Judiasm is targeted" is a really problematic phrase.

Then, as I had an additional comment on a different topic, I skipped a line, kept the same indent, and continued. I assumed that someone with a minimal level of intelligence would understand that these were part of the same entry, and that only one signature would be necessary.

Thank you for your concern.--Sojambi Pinola 23:39, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A CD-R, by the way, is an individually burned, homemade CD. --Sojambi Pinola 14:49, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see, CD-R. Somehow I thought cdr was some other abbreviation. Were these really homemade releases?? Marcuse 21:38, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In most cases, no. I'm not positive about the post-2001 releases, since I don't have original copies. --Sojambi Pinola 03:07, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually yes they are, they have glued on tops, that when removed say CD-R. 216.244.3.79 17:56, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism vs. Disagreement

What the anonymous user/Jonah is doing is not disagreeing. You are deleting large part of an article and calling this a difference of opinion. What you are doing is vandalism through and through. Perhaps we can get a member of the Arbitration Committee to mediate? I somehow don't think that they would sympathize with your side of things. My offer still stands, if you recuse yourself (including ALL your sockpuppets and IPs) from this article so will I. Marcuse 04:28, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i absolutely agree to recuse myself including all sock puppets etc, mary hope is not a sock puppet. if oyu agree to let her take part here, I will recuse myself. Absolutely.216.244.3.79 04:29, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever. I'll recuse myself anyway. This is not worth my time. Later, Marcuse 04:33, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Mr. Multi-IP, what's this all about? Perhaps I'd leave this query on your user page, but you don't have any one user page...you gots several. You left the following on User:Derex's page. As it concerns the drama surrounding this article, I think it is worthy of note here: [14] Start at "Biff Rose" and continue down....

My favorite parts: If I do get banned from this place, it's really not that big of a deal, considering for my entire time here I've been using the ip address of my upstairs neighbor, who has a non static address system. I have another three I've never used. I'll be here. Editing, and weeding out useless anger mongers such as yourself who purport to heal this place but in actuality act as dumb minded and fascistic oriented A-**** notice I dind't call you an a-**** jsut that you acted like one-....

....don't come to this ip address anylonger, i won't be here. I've already gotten a new one. Bully, small minded and weak willed....

....I'll notify you one time from my other , non controversial admin identity once this is all over. maybe we can have a cup of joe. A southerner? You, again, I don't believe it, there is very little that is gentlemanly about you.

So you'll just keep harrassing people no matter what, ay? Speaking of "ungentlemanly".... --Sojambi Pinola 15:47, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know, you really do get to be smarmy don't you sojambi, so good of you to admit it.Jonah Ayers 02:46, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

please read

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. This is a new guideline, endorsed & instigated by Jimbo. The intent is to keep Wikipedia out of legal jeopardy, as well as to be fair. I believe this is relevant reading, given some of the contentiousness of this article. Derex 17:05, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

faithless of debate egad o damn

Discography

We should be able to come up with a definitive list of commercially released albums and singles. Let's start with the headings.

Officially Released
Self Released
Singles
Out of Print Compilations
In Print Compilations

Those should be in sentence case. Do folks agree on those headings? -Will Beback 08:31, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think those sound reasonable. I have changed them to sentence case, and re-added the record covers which were deleted from the discography by Jonah. I also re added the descriptions of Rose's musical style that were deleted without explanation. Finally I re-incorporated a new version of the sentence dealing with racism and antisemitism. It makes not direct claims about Rose's online work, only that it deals with race and religion. Then I wrote that this has created a series of accusations of racism and antisemitism in various online chat groups. While online chat groups are not officially a source, the fact remains that these criticisms are out there, posted in various places. I think that this should satisfy both SP (by being NPOV) and Ayers (by bringing up the issue). Hope this helps. I agree with Will, let's move on. Marcuse 14:45, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do wonder at the designations of "self-released" vs. "officially released." At what point does one become the other? "Bone Again" and "Elizabethan Period" were funded by people or companies other than Biff, and given professional print runs of a few to several thousand; they were distributed through non-internet indie channels, and reviewed in Mojo magazine. "Roast Beef" was pressed using Biff's royalties, but then it was picked up by a distributor who slapped their own record label's sticker on the cover; several thousand were produced and sold. "Hamburger Blues" was an "official" release that may have been a smaller print run than some of Biff's website releases. "Uncle Jesus" was a major label album that is harder to find than "Roast Beef." "The Pickwick album was an "offical" compilation of far seedier origin than some of the indie releases. The whole issue of "in print" vs. "out of print" is a bit difficult to assess as well. If copies are sealed, stockpiled and available, isn't the album still "in print"?

My concern with these categories is that they tend to appear at the same times that text changes are made diminishing Biff's accomplishments; and they seem to be included as part of the intent of that effort. If you look at other artists' discographies, these distinctions are rarely made. For example, see Sun_Ra. A great many of Sun Ra's albums were self-released, including most of the artistic milestones. It is a vague and misleading designation. Why not go for straight chronology?

And to confirm Marcuse's interpretation, I was not implying that Marcuse initiated a given edit. Is someone trying to start fights where they ain't? --Sojambi Pinola 19:58, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem here is that you wrote something, a line that went unsingned, but on closer inspection was found to be added by you but attributed by you to someone esle. You then followed this by saying that you agreed with the line. Very unwiki of you.Wallawe

Indeed, someone is trying to start fights where they ain't. --Sojambi Pinola 21:13, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wallawe/Jonah, I'm curious what the "released on cdr" that you keep adding to the discography means? What is cdr? As far as the self vs. officially why don't we just simply put "Full length releases" and combine them? Marcuse 22:32, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In most of these cases "cdr" is not an accurate designation. Some of them were glass-mastered CDs. But as I said above, I don't think that's too important, anyway. --Sojambi Pinola 23:25, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wallawe, you claimed to revert back to Marcuse, but you did not. That's a super-misleading tag. --Sojambi Pinola 23:30, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And now I understand what you are referring to: [15]. That's something I do a lot. It's called "Paragraphs." Here, I'll do one right now. Here goes....

The first paragraph was one sentence long and went: "Judiasm is targeted" is a really problematic phrase.

Then, as I had an additional comment on a different topic, I skipped a line, kept the same indent, and continued. I assumed that someone with a minimal level of intelligence would understand that these were part of the same entry, and that only one signature would be necessary.

Thank you for your concern.--Sojambi Pinola 23:39, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A CD-R, by the way, is an individually burned, homemade CD. --Sojambi Pinola 14:49, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see, CD-R. Somehow I thought cdr was some other abbreviation. Were these really homemade releases?? Marcuse 21:38, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In most cases, no. I'm not positive about the post-2001 releases, since I don't have original copies. --Sojambi Pinola 03:07, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually yes they are, they have glued on tops, that when removed say CD-R. 216.244.3.79 17:56, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism vs. Disagreement

What the anonymous user/Jonah is doing is not disagreeing. You are deleting large part of an article and calling this a difference of opinion. What you are doing is vandalism through and through. Perhaps we can get a member of the Arbitration Committee to mediate? I somehow don't think that they would sympathize with your side of things. My offer still stands, if you recuse yourself (including ALL your sockpuppets and IPs) from this article so will I. Marcuse 04:28, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i absolutely agree to recuse myself including all sock puppets etc, mary hope is not a sock puppet. if oyu agree to let her take part here, I will recuse myself. Absolutely.216.244.3.79 04:29, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever. I'll recuse myself anyway. This is not worth my time. Later, Marcuse 04:33, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Mr. Multi-IP, what's this all about? Perhaps I'd leave this query on your user page, but you don't have any one user page...you gots several. You left the following on User:Derex's page. As it concerns the drama surrounding this article, I think it is worthy of note here: [16] Start at "Biff Rose" and continue down....

My favorite parts: If I do get banned from this place, it's really not that big of a deal, considering for my entire time here I've been using the ip address of my upstairs neighbor, who has a non static address system. I have another three I've never used. I'll be here. Editing, and weeding out useless anger mongers such as yourself who purport to heal this place but in actuality act as dumb minded and fascistic oriented A-**** notice I dind't call you an a-**** jsut that you acted like one-....

....don't come to this ip address anylonger, i won't be here. I've already gotten a new one. Bully, small minded and weak willed....

....I'll notify you one time from my other , non controversial admin identity once this is all over. maybe we can have a cup of joe. A southerner? You, again, I don't believe it, there is very little that is gentlemanly about you.

So you'll just keep harrassing people no matter what, ay? Speaking of "ungentlemanly".... --Sojambi Pinola 15:47, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[The following was added only to archive#3:]