Jump to content

User talk:Vivaldi/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6
Archive
Archives
  2. Nov 7, 2005 – May 14, 2006
  3. May 15,2006 – July 14, 2006
  4. July 15,2006 – Sept 1, 2006
  5. Sept 2,2006 – Mar 8, 2007

WikiProject updates

  • I have done some updating to the WP:SCN, added some new articles, added a "to do" list to the top of the project, and fixed up some categories and assessment stuff. I suggest we should all pick one article at a time, or at most two, to work on bringing up to Featured Article status. You could give input on the project's talk page... Smee 21:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC).

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barbara Schwarz (4th nomination)

I think this may interest you. Kind regards, Orsini 05:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Nice edit

Hi Vivaldi, nice work here. [1] You may also like to note this, here. [2] Best wishes and kind regards, Orsini 08:03, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Disruptive?

Hello Friend, I suggested a merge because I noticed that other members in articles like "Anticult Movement" were also suggesting merges. In my opinion, something like this ought to all be merged with "Opposition to Cult." John196920022001 08:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Your edits look disruptive to me. I call them as I see them. If you want to make a case for merging then go ahead and present some arguments on the talk page. It looks like you might have some difficulty gaining consensus for that to me, but you are free to try to persuade us. Take care, uh, friend? Vivaldi (talk) 08:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for vandalism warning

Hello. Thanks for giving a vandalism warning to Ripman (Talk & Contribs). This person truly bears watching --- seems like a vandalism-only account with a track record of blanking his talk page to remove vandalism warnings. When he comes back, he will likely blank his talk page again and then commit more vandalism. If/when he does, I'm planning to give him a {{subst:uw-vandalism4}} or {{subst:uw-vandalism4im}} and then see that he gets blocked if/when he vandalizes again after that. Amazing that he's kept this up since December without being blocked. Thanks for your help. Rickterp 12:23, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

W. Axl Rose

[3][4] [5] [6] [7] [8]

These are just a few i found after a google search. He changed his name to W. Axl Rose when Guns N' Roses signed with Geffen.

Also, i think the article should begin with W. Axl Rose (born February etc.) because his name has NEVER been 'Axl Rose', that's just what he's referred to in the media just like Madonna, Prince, Euronymous, Dead, Slash and numerous other people who use, or are known by, aliases (spelling?) or nicknames. Thanks for being open-minded about this rather than just reverting my edits to his article and ignoring them.Bucketheader 21:54, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

home.swipnet.se and www.heretodaygonetohell.com are personal self-published websites not eligible to be used as reliable sources on Wikipedia per Wikipedia policies and guidelines. The Wikinews citation is no good either because it is editable by anyone. I can go and change it to say just "Axl Rose" as well. If you notice both of the secondary sources quoted in the Wikinews article both refer to Axl Rose as ONLY "Axl Rose". The FreeDictionary citation does not meet requirements of WP:RS either as they specifically disavow their own content at the bottom of every page and there is no indication where the owners of the site obtained their information.
However, I am accepting the Unauthorized Autobiography of W. Axl Rose as a source that refers to Axl by the name W. Axl Rose and I will also accept the use of IMDb as a source that documents that Axl is sometimes credited as W. Axl Rose. Do you have the W. Axl Rose biography? If so, does it claim that he had his name legally changed to W. Axl Rose? Vivaldi (talk) 22:11, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[9] there is a source for the when he changed his name in the trivia section.Bucketheader 22:05, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

IMDb trivia section is not an acceptable Reliable Source per wikipedia guidelines. IMDb allows anyone to contribute whatever trivia that they want to their pages, much like Wikipedia. Vivaldi (talk) 22:11, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
You might also note that IMDb mistakenly says that "W. Axl Rose" is credited as the writer for "Used to Love Her", but the actual album lists the writer of the music and lyrics as Izzy Stradlin. (see also G N' R Lies)


Regarding your statement that he is listed as "Axl Rose" in the credit for Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas, it is, in fact, incorrect. If you own a copy of the game turn your attention to page 17 and the tracklisting to "Radio X" where Steven Adler, Saul Hudson, Izzy Stradlin and W. Axl Rose are credited as the writers. Then turn your attention to the K-DST section on page 10 where it states DJ Tommy "Nightmare" Smith is played by W. Axl Rose.

So IMDb cannot even be trusted as a reliable source for credit information. That doesn't really help your case. Remember Wikipedia is not for original research, so when you make a claim here, it can't be your own analysis of your CD collection. That would be inserting your own analysis of primary sources of information. Wikipedia doesn't want its editors to analyze primary sources, but rather we want to report what reliable secondary sources have to say about the subject. Vivaldi (talk) 23:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, i don't have W. Axl Rose: The Unauthorized Biography as it has not yet been published. I also accept that many of the external links i posted weren't reliable sources, and they weren't ment to be. His name is W. Axl Rose if you are a Guns N' Roses fan, which i highly doubt you are considering your lack of knowledge of their most famous member, look at the credits on Live ?!*@ like a suicide, Appetite for Destruction, Live from the Jungle, GN'R Lies, Use Your Illusion I & II & the compilation album, The Spaghetti Incident?, Live Era, Greatest Hits and numerous singles because i have (just to verify that i'm right) i suggest you do, if you own them that is. Bucketheader 23:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I am a fan of Guns and Roses' music since I first heard Appetite for Destruction back in 1987. I saw GNR open for Aerosmith in 1988 at Sandstone Amphitheatre and perform many songs that weren't even released yet, including some popular tunes like "Knocking on Heaven's Door". However it isn't a requirement that wikipedia editors be "fans" of the subject they are editing, nor is it required that editors even be particularly knowledgeable about the subject. Wikipedia is not meant for original research, so your own personal knowledge shouldn't ever enter into the article anyway. We need reliable secondary sources of information. I personally own Appetite, Lies, and Use Your Illusion, although my personal CD collection shouldn't qualify me to speak out about Wikipedia policy and guidelines. Vivaldi (talk) 23:18, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
I am well aware that Axl Rose is sometimes credited as W. Axl Rose. He is also credited sometimes as just Axl Rose. When he is mentioned in the media, he is almost exclusively called just "Axl Rose". I have not yet seen a single reliable source that indicates that "W. Axl Rose" is his current legal name. If you find one that meets the requirements of WP:ATT and WP:RS, then I'd be happy to include that information in the article. Vivaldi (talk) 23:18, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

If you own a few of their CDs look inside the case, take out the booklet and read the song-writing credits, I am specifically looking at the Greatest Hits, it says, in their original songs, W. Axl Rose - Saul Hudson - Michael McKagan - Steven Adler ( Axl Rose, Slash, Duff McKagan, Steve Adler. As they are more commonly known) Slash isn't Saul Hudson's name so that is what he is credited as, Axl Rose isn't W. Axl Rose's name so that is not what he is credited as. Celebrities, especially those as famous as Rose, aren't always referred to as their full name, Madonna (don't think i'm a fan of hers by the way) is a prime example - she is so famous most people don't even know her real name but her fans probably do, as is the case with W. Axl Rose all his hardcore fans know what his name is. Also, where is your source that he is sometimes credited as W. Axl Rose? Magazines, newspapers etc. might call him 'Axl Rose' but that doesn't mean that is his name. Also, where is your source that his legal name is 'Axl Rose'? Bucketheader 23:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Here is a link to Rollingstone magazines website [10] which calls him W. Axl Rose. Bucketheader 23:58, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Like I said previously. I acknowledge that a small percentage of sources refer to Axl Rose as "W. Axl Rose". My point is that no reliable source has ever said that "W. Axl Rose" is his legal name. What is the case number of the civil procededing that officially changed his name? What reliable secondary source claims that "W. Axl Rose" is his current legal name? This article doesn't claim that "Axl Rose" is his legal name. It just acknowledges that 99% of all stories in the media about Axl Rose call him "Axl Rose" and not "W. Axl Rose". If you can provide a reliable source that indicate his real legal name is "W. Axl Rose" then go ahead and cite it and put it in. Vivaldi (talk) 07:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[11] Here is a source which states his legal name and when he changed it, although, i'm not entirely sure if it can be deemed a reliable source. Bucketheader 20:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

It is a fanboy page. How can it be a reliable source? Personal web pages started up by fans of Guns and Roses cannot be used as reliable sources of information for an encyclopedia article. I could just as easily start up a web page that says that he legally changed his name to "P. Axl Rose". There is no indication where this guy discovered this information since he provides no sources for it. Vivaldi (talk) 23:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject

Moving pages

To rename a page, please use the "move" tab at the top. Cutting and pasting destroys the edit history and violates other people's copyrights. Kusma (talk) 12:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Violating copyrights? Whatare you talking about? In any case, I forgot about the move thingie on the top of the page. Thanks for reminding me! Vivaldi (talk) 04:56, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

RS by proxy

We do not do RS by proxy. We do not care what the non-RS source says or where it says it got its info. It is non-RS. End of story. --Justanother 03:11, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

One indication that a site is reliable is that it cites other reliable sources where it gets its information from. End of story? Not hardly. Vivaldi (talk) 03:16, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Good Charlotte

Hi, I've seen you frequently around the article Good Charlotte and other related articles. Please consider joining Good Charlotte WikiProject, an effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage and detail regarding Good Charlotte.

If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks that you can help with. Thank you for your time. 

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Anthonyd3ca (talk • contribs) on April 17, 2000

John Mellencamp

A sound sample of a musician for a current popular hit of his is useful in a multimedia encyclopedia context. Other encyclopedias like Encarta also do this. Let's put it back, please.  uriel8  (talk) 20:54, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

FYI

Plame affair/CIA leak scandal

could you please vote again on a preference for the article name on the talk page? your input could very much help to reach a consensus. thanks!!Anthonymendoza 20:22, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Bill Gothard

Hi Vivaldi. I read some of your comments on the Bill Gothard talk page. I just added a comment there myself. It has relevance to one of your previous discussion topics there. Take a look.

JBFrenchhorn 06:47, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Please refrain

Please refrain from WP:BLP violations on talk pages. I removed your violation here. --Justanother 15:14, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Methinks you protest too much. Unless black is white and up is down, anyone who states that L. Ron Hubbard is the son of Dwight Eisenhower is indeed, as Vivaldi noted "verifiably insane". Note that our own sanity article says a person "can also be ruled insane without an underlying mental illness." The Barbara Schwarz article also already contains sourced quotes calling her mental health into question, so it's really a moot point to try to avoid calling a nut a nut on a talk page. wikipediatrix 18:11, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Not true. Not worth a big discussion. Simple "don't do it". --Justanother 18:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
I disagree that my comments violate the policies at WP:BLP. Ms. Schwarz is verifiably insane as are all people that believe that they grew up in a submarine base under the Great Salt Lake. Vivaldi (talk) 04:18, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
I am adding yours and Tilman's WP:COI in having anything to do with Barb's article to the current COI arbitration at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/COFS. --Justanother 14:28, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Have fun with that. What makes you think that I have a conflict of interest? Is it just because I discovered from news reports and from court records that Ms. Schwarz is certifiably insane? Why do you think that is a conflict of interest? Do you think I have some sort of financial stake in making sure the article about the world's most prolific filer of FOIA lawsuits is also deemed insane? Vivaldi (talk) 17:11, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


Fair use disputed for Image:Girls town1996.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Girls town1996.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:42, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Possible deal

Hi Vivaldi. I just made an offer on Talk:Barbara Schwarz‎ which could take me out of Project Scientology. Please let me know what you think. Thanks. Steve Dufour 07:29, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Girls town1996.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Girls town1996.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 23:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:CessnaMustang.jpg

Replaceable fair use
Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:CessnaMustang.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
  2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rossrs (talk) 13:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Celebrity (magazine)

I have nominated Celebrity (magazine), an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Celebrity (magazine). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Cirt (talk) 18:41, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Personal Freedom Outreach

An article that you have been involved in editing, Personal Freedom Outreach, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Personal Freedom Outreach. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Northwestgnome (talk) 17:31, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

First Baptist Church

I am asking for help in pruning, purging, and balancing out the First Baptist Church article. I would love for the entire article to be removed, but it doesn't look like (at least from what I've read from the discussions) it'll happen. I asked for Teeja's help along with Gwen Gale. Recent discussions in the 20,000 [12] and Criticism [13] sections will help you get acquainted to what has been happening.

It is obvious that Arbustoo and JzG are extremely bias against First Baptist Church. The article does not definitely follow the guidelines of WP:NPV and does not keep in line with WP:WEIGHT. Help is wanted and would be greatly appreciated. --Jonsuh (talk) 17:51, 8 August 2008 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonsuh (talk • contribs)

Yes, it is obvious that Arbustoo and JzG are willing to violate the policies of Wikipedia in order to smear and slime every religious organization that they want with all kinds of the most sickening rumors and slime spouted by non-entities. One example. Note that Personal Freedom Outreach above is probably going to be deleted from Wikipedia because it is a NON-ENTITY, NOT WORTHY OF INCLUSION in Wikipedia, yet JzG and and Arbustoo are willing to allow the use of this non-entity web page run by a couple of nobodies as a RELIABLE SOURCE of information about ANY TOPIC, let alone a topic on a competing religious group? How can PFO be a reliable source of information when they are so unimportant that an article about them must be removed from Wikipedia? If they are this unimportant then we shouldn't allow them to be quoted as a source for information in Wikipedia either.
In any case, I don't have the time to keep fighting against these morons. They apparently have a couple of friends that are admins and others that they round up whenever people try to clean up the articles from their libelous nonsense. Fighting with them is like fighting with pigs. Everyone gets dirty and the pigs like it. Until someone takes them to arbitration over their bias with respect to religious figures, nothing will change, but unfortunately I don't have that time any longer. I am working full-time and overtime while also working on my Masters and taking flying lessons.
What's funny is that I am not a fan of ANY religious organizations. I don't belong to any and I also object to many of the things that religious leaders tell their members in order to garner money and fame for themselves. However, I do object to people that take their hatred of religious people so much that they themselves are willing to violate all standards of decency and respect. No individual group or organization should have an encyclopedia article written about them that is nothing more than a restatement of the most vile rumors and innuendo that has been posted on some non-entities blog or web page.
I wish you the best of luck in your endeavor. You'll need it. Vivaldi (talk) 05:00, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Scientology arbitration

This is to notify you that you have been added as a involved party to the Scientology arbitration case; this is either because you have been mentioned in the /Evidence, the /Workshop or their talk pages, or because you are closely connected with it.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, KnightLago (talk) 14:08, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following editors are subjected to bans/topic-bans/restrictions as listed below :

#Editors marked in * have since contacted the Committee.

Any editor who is subject to remedies in this proceeding, or who wishes to edit from an open proxy, is restricted to a single current or future account to edit Scientology-related topics and may not contribute to the topic as anonymous IP editors. Editors topic banned by remedies in this proceeding are prohibited (i) from editing articles related to Scientology or Scientologists, broadly defined, as well as the respective article talk pages and (ii) from participating in any Wikipedia process relating to those articles. Editors topic banned above may apply to have the topic ban lifted after demonstrating their commitment to the goals of Wikipedia and their ability to work constructively with other editors. Applications will be considered no earlier than six months after the close of this case, and additional reviews will be done no more frequently than every six months thereafter.

Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, ban any editor from editing within the Scientology topic. Prior to topic banning the editor, the administrator will leave a message on the editor's talk page, linking to this paragraph, warning the editor that a topic ban is contemplated and outlining the behaviours for which it is contemplated. If the editor fails to heed the warning, the editor may be topic banned, initially, for three months, then with additional topic bans increasing in duration to a maximum of one year. Any editor who, in the judgment of an uninvolved administrator, is (i) focused primarily on Scientology or Scientologists and (ii) clearly engaged in promoting an identifiable agenda may be topic-banned for up to one year.

All IP addresses owned or operated by the Church of Scientology and its associates, broadly interpreted, are to be blocked as if they were open proxies. Any current or future editor who, after this decision is announced, makes substantial edits to any Scientology-related articles or discussions on any page is directed to edit on these from only a single user account, which shall be the user's sole or main account, unless the user has previously sought and obtained permission from the Arbitration Committee to operate a legitimate second account. They shall edit in accordance to Wikipedia policies and refrain from advocacy, to disclose on the relevant talk pages any circumstances (but not including personal identifying information) that constitute or may reasonably be perceived as constituting a conflict of interest with respect to that page, and not through a proxy configuration.

- For the Arbitration Committee, Mailer Diablo 01:37, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Edit summary

I just wanted to point out that this edit summary was rather inappropriate, to say the least. The edit itself was good in my view, but the spirit of WP:BLP very much suggests that we ought not make derogatory remarks about living people as we edit their articles. Your comment in the edit summary was obviously unnecessary, and you should really avoid making those kind of remarks in the future. The subject of this particular BLP would likely find it amusing, but not everyone would. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:09, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

The point is that there is no reliable source that confirms his status as a notable rapper or a chronic masturbater, therefore neither claim belongs in the article. And there is a fairly strong argument to be made that 99% of all capable men are chronic masturbators, so I'm not sure why you would consider that claim to be derogatory in the first place. In any case, I'm not worried about being accused of violating Wikipedia policy when it's pretty obvious to any sane observer that it was a joke and not a literal accusation. But I suppose you could take it up with some Wikipedia Arbitration Committee if you think my edit summaries are too offensive. Take care! Vivaldi (talk) 00:00, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
I quite understood it was a joke, and I have no interest in taking the issue to ArbCom, obviously. The comment was gratuitous, and some people (not me) would consider that kind of statement defamatory. You just should not be making those kind of comments on BLPs even in a jokey manner, plain and simple. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:29, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
You should consider doing more productive things with your time. Vivaldi (talk) 02:30, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Vivaldi/Archive_5&oldid=1190134408"