User talk:Nick Boulevard/Archive 2

Arts in Birmingham

Please stop reverting changes to Arts in Birmingham. If there are specific changes with which you disagree, then please take those to the talk page. The information about Hendrix and the claim that Jools Holand owns and runs the Jam House keep reappearing because of your wholesale reversions. I have explained on the talk page why I think that the Hendrix material is not relevant to Birmingham and I have worked with others to research the ownership and management of the Jam House. --Theo (Talk) 00:15, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hi Theo, thanks for your comment, the reason why I keep part reverting that page is not to undo any work it is to retain the full relevant info on Brum music scene, Andy Mabbett keeps deleting Nick Mason from the article, he was warned about this when the article was on the main Brum page, also Jimi Hendrix info is also relevant IMO as he was one of the most influential Rock musicians ever, the fact that he first heard and recorded All along the watchtower due to a Brummie musician whose other band member played on other records by Hendrix is relevant enough to sit here surely, besides that article was part written by Valiantis and myself over many months. Thanks Nick Boulevard 18:45, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hi Nick: I can see both sides of the Nick Mason issue: he was born in Birmingham but did not grow up in the city, so is he a Brummie. Personally, I would not include him in the article but if he is mentioned we should state that he did not grow up in Birmingham. I do not doubt the importance of Jimi Hendrix but I do not see that his friendship/collaboration/record borrowing with Brummies is sufficiently important to Birmingham to be included in the article; in my opinion its place is in the biographies of the various parties and possibly in the equivalent "Arts in …" article for the place where the events occurred. My impression is that we are discussing the boundaries of the article here. I feel that its title Arts in Birmingham indicates that it should be about things that happened or happen in the city. Artistes growing up here is significant because the local culture will have shaped them. The birth of those who did not stay is one step removed and association with Brummies is another one. --Theo (Talk) 10:08, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hi Theo, as regards Nick Mason it has been a point of contention for many months, we do not know how long Nick Mason stayed in the city after his birth but without Birmingham where else would he have been born? IMO a place of birth is relevant to a musicians history, it's on his biog page and we are not saying that he was educated in the city (that took place in London) simply that he is a child of Birmingham I guess, unfortunately Andy Mabbett has a history of even deleting Nick Mason from the people born in Birmingham page (you can check the edit history for proof), he has a real problem with his assosciation wit h the city, this is actually surpressing the truth for his own means, many people have warned him about this behaviour and it makes me want to battle to keep his name there even more. As regards the Hendrix link, provided it is kept on the traffic and steve winwood pages I guess I can live with that removal from arts in brum :) Nick Boulevard 16:24, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hi Nick: Thank you for explaining. Thank you, too, for accepting the deletion of the Jimi Hendrix stuff. I agree that it should be kept in the Traffic and Steve Winwood articles. I am sure that we can rely on you to watch those (great big grin!). I also agree that Andy has been unreasonable about Nick Mason. To my mind, a place of birth is relevant to a person but a person is not relevant to the place if it did not shape their development. As I said before, I do not mind whether Mason is mentioned in the article but if he is to be included it must say that he grew up elsewhere. Please do not let Andy's misbehaviour drive misbehaviour of your own. I find it helpful to go elsewhere for a while before responding to annoying edits (I do a griddler or a sudoku or even some work). --Theo (Talk) 09:36, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Theo, we went through this ages ago, what I added some time ago was "Nick Mason (who was born in Birmingham and educated in London)" to keep the peace, Andy kept removing it until the page was protected. In the end we just opted for simply Nick Mason and then if the reader wished to know more they could read about him on his own page, I really would like to keep him there due to his significance to British music. Do you have any objection to using the above, both are factual. Nick Boulevard 14:10, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

My problem with baldly naming Mason is that the reader may reasonably infer that culturally the man is a Brummie. I have used your suggestion. We will see what happens to it. --Theo (Talk) 22:56, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Theo, I don't hold out much hope though? Nick Boulevard 23:21, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Gun Quarter

Nick, if you let me know the date that the clean version was written I can have a look, however I don't really see how this is going to help with the the dispute.--nixie 02:44, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There was no version created on the 17th, there is this one from the 5th of June User:Nick Boulevard/IP edit that looks like it came from your IP. I hope you understand that you have sumbitted work to wikipedia under the GNU Free Document Licence, so you can't take it elsewhere and claim copyright.--nixie 00:47, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There is no way you can see the history, only admins can do that, there is no edit for the 17th on Gun Quarter either. If the other site has a licence that isn't compatible the the GFDL then it is not ok to take something you submitted here and put it there.--nixie 13:43, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've added the first verion from the temp page to the page I made in your user space.--nixie 14:22, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I did not delete the Jewellery Quarter page, but I can see that the original version was cobbled together from a number of copyrighted sources. If your work is listed as a copyvio and you don't believe it is the case it is your responsibility to defend it on WP:CP, or point out the most recent version that cantains no copyrighted material. I am not required to restore your edits to the history.--nixie 00:06, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

I have restored everything after yout 5 june edit. Since when you contribute to wikipedia you essentailly waive all copyrights, the issue of who wrote a page seems higly irrelevant. I do not want to be involved in your dispute and I will not do anything else.--nixie 05:48, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Peta, I will say thanks but it is not 100% heart felt, my reason being that you were coerced into deleting the entire page history for Gun Quarter which was initially listed as copyright by Andy Mabbett, I then went by the Wiki book and created a completely new article from much research, Andy and Ray Girvan copy edited my work, then Brumburger contacted you with a request to clean up the edit history, next thing I know all my original work on the edit history is gone and guess what... Brumburgler or Andy (can't even remember) is disputing my writing of the original article, now that you have restored my work all is clear. I would hope that you should think twice now about deleting page history on the request of a wiki user without first contacting the other contributers to gain an equal perspective of the page in question. Nick Boulevard 23:20, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

RfC

I have added my Outside view to this page. You have my support. Denni☯ 20:38, 2005 July 10 (UTC)

Thanks Deni, please see your talk page. Nick Boulevard 23:12, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

The V-word

Hi Nick: Irrespective of your anger at being reverted, it is not "vandalism" for an editor to make changes that s/he believes to be an improvment to the encyclopedia. Vandalism is wilful damage to the encyclopedia. I have no doubt that Andy is driven by a desire to improve the encyclopedia. He may seem incivil and callous but he is not a vandal. What you may see as his harsh treatment of you and his terseness (which may seem discourteous) do not justify such an accusation ("Two wrongs…" and all that). —Theo (Talk) 08:59, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Theo: please do not make personal attacks. Andy Mabbett 10:55, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Pigsonthewing

Nick: It is inappropriate for you to make these additions to Andy's talk page (with the exception of the apology). Talk pages are for addressing that specific user. This material talks about Andy and not _to_ him. If you want to raise an RFC against him then do so at WP:RFC but this kind of thing on his talk page seems hostile (and, yes, I understand that you feel that he has been hostile to you, but see my previous message above). I think that the most appropriate thing for you to do would be to delete the material from Andy's page and apologise nicely. —Theo (Talk) 20:22, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Sorry Theo, have removed post and apologized.Nick Boulevard 00:22, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Midland Red

User:Brumburger is entirely correct to list Midland Red as a copyvio instead of trying to fix it. This is the policy on copy vio: it gives the uploader the opporunity to explain why it is not copyvio. Copyvios have to be deleted rather than changed because the alternative keeps the copyright material in the history and perpetuates the wrong (albeit in a lower profile). If you uploaded copyright material without appropriate consent that releases the material from copyright, the correct action is to acknowledge this so that it can be deleted as soon as possible. If, on the other hand, you can demonstrate that you held the copyright and were releasing it under GDFL, you should do that. Either way, your derisive comment at Talk:Midland Red is inappropriate. —Theo (Talk) 14:16, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

I removed my comment and I am contacting the museum to see if it is ok to use? Thanks Nick Boulevard 23:09, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Arguments

Nick: I strongly advise you to stop responding to Andy Mabbett's comments on your RFC. It is clear by now that he is going to continue commenting on your behaviour whatever you say to him. If you continue to have a problem with his behaviour, I suggest that you raise an RFC about it. If the consensus is that his behaviour is inappropriate and he then persists, the next step is arbitration. —Theo (Talk) 16:40, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

I'd second that. G-Man 16:43, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I really am getting tired of his persistent negative focus on everything I do. Nick Boulevard 13:33, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Pigs on the wing

This is your talk page, Nick, and I am not going to get into an edit war here with anyone who seemingly can't tolerate the existence of any criticism. I have thus moved my comment to my own space because I don't want to bring about disruption of this page. You are free to respond to them there if you wish. Best regards, 80.255 14:58, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, there may be an RFC relating to Pigsonthewing shortly. Nick Boulevard 22:27, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

POTW

I think its about time a RFC was started against Pigsonthewing, see this his recent ploy of removing any slight criticism pretending it is a "personal atack" is IMO completely unnaceptable. I think a RFC is long long overdue. What do you think. I have already talked to User:TheoClarke G-Man 21:23, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

I do think that an RFC should be made against him and I have compiled some evidence of his behaviour offline, to be honest I hope he doesn't get banned from any results from it though, my RFC actually made me stop and think about adding the copyright material and wasting my time with some of the childish abuse I offered. Let me know if you would like any help, Brumburger started a temporary page for my RFC which was worked on by him and Ray Girvan for a while before it went live, that could be a good way to see if he starts reverting his idea of abuse again, I thought exactly the same thing as you, when he reads something he doesn't like he claims it to be abusive and then uses that as an excuse to remove part of the discussion, IMO that is dishonest and can alter peoples perception of a debate, I have only just realised that a user had made a comment on my talk page, Andy had deleted it, surely it is up to me to decide whether something is abusive on my own talk page. Regardles of what Andy may think, I would not tolerate abuse against him on this page and in my world abuse is the kind of language that Ray Girvan was begginning to use against me like "wikipedia tumour" and "pig thick" etc. Nick Boulevard 22:20, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Nick: An RFC cannot lead to a banning. Only arbitration can impose that sanction. An RFC is supposed to do what it did for you: show the subject where consensus lies and thus (we hope) help them to modify their behaviour. —Theo (Talk) 10:05, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

[1], [2] SqueakBox 00:55, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

pigsonthewing

I see you've been having problems in the past with pigsonthewing too. [3] Scott 11:44, 23 September 2005 (UTC)