216.201.29.14

June 2023

Please do not add or change content without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Acroterion (talk) 19:13, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, you may be blocked from editing. Acroterion (talk) 20:10, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

I have added half a dozen independent citations to this article - this is not "personal analysis" 216.201.29.14 (talk) 20:22, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

You asked me to add sources and citations and I did, and you continued to cause conflict with me. It is clear you have some sort of personal bias here, and I will not hesitate to report you. 216.201.29.14 (talk) 20:24, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced or poorly sourced material to Wikipedia. Acroterion (talk) 20:21, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Deleting the numerous citations and sources I have provided and then accusing me of adding "unsourced" material is very dishonest. 216.201.29.14 (talk) 20:23, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

You're inserting opinion, using fansites and removing reliable sources while misinterpreting others and using sources that are tangential at best. You've also made unsourced accusations concerning living persons. "Poorly sourced" is a major issue here. Please stop. Acroterion (talk) 20:24, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

The "fan sites" you mention are archival websites that contain quotes from major news publications like the Village Voice and Soho Weekly News and The Independent that do not have an archived web presence elsewhere - you are acting in bad faith to frame the inaccurate information I am trying to correct with a variety of verified sources as somehow inappropriate. 216.201.29.14 (talk) 20:27, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

I have inserted no personal opinion of my own, I have referenced quotes from Parker's own interviewees such as Jah Wobble, who wrote an article for the British publication The Independent, and a link to audio of Parker's own admission of lying on the "This Strange Life" podcast. These are valid sources. 216.201.29.14 (talk) 20:29, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Then find proper sources, and read WP:RS and WP:V, and use the talkpage to discuss your edits. You removed the BBC as a source, as well as Deborah Spungen, and added commentary along with the Robison/Robinson mess. Don't use fansite archives or aggregators or tangential sources that are not primarily concerned with the topic. You also don't get to state that someone lied, with no well-sourced proof in RS. Acroterion (talk) 20:34, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

The issue here is this - Alan Parker admitting he lied about the story he told on TV during his 2018 This Strange Life podcast appearance is not something that is going to make the news on CNN or any other major news network, and therefore providing an easy handy link. I provided the link to the podcast appearance; that wasn't good enough. I posted Jah Wobble's column that he wrote for a major British newspaper in 2009 about Parker lying in his books, but that wasn't good enough because it was archived and preserved on another website (the Independent, for whatever reason, no longer has it on their main page, and without the original URL, an Internet Archive link cannot be dug up). Wikipedia is filled to the brim with articles on entertainers that use podcasts, blogs, etc... as sources, and they are almost never taken down - yet on here where I am providing links to sources with the most provenance possible, it's an issue. The fact is this - this Wikipedia article is filled with citations and references from an author who has been called out for lying by Sid's friends and peers in major publications, and they shouldn't be dismissed simply because the only internet preservation of these articles once the links became dead ended up on secondary websites - especially when, again, Parker himself admitted to lying about these things while on that podcast, which I provided links to. I am not inventing these accusations out of whole cloth - they have been documented online in actual news outlets for 14 years at very least now, and Parker himself has confirmed them, not only in the aforementioned podcast appearance, but also in his book, "Young Flesh Required" - and for Wikipedia editors to not allow any sort of acknowledgement of the serious accusations against his reliability as a journalist and a historian is allowing false information on this site to go out into the world unchallenged. 216.201.29.14 (talk) 04:13, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

WP:RSN is thataway. Acroterion (talk) 04:27, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

CS1 error on Sid Vicious

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Sid Vicious, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 22:05, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

July 2023

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Sid Vicious. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. UaMaol (talk) 13:13, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Blocked

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text at the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Graham87 03:00, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Your editing here has been highly problematic. This probably isn't your first time here, either. Graham87 03:00, 14 July 2023 (UTC) This is not because of your edits to Ricky Kasso, which I edited, but your general editing pattern and demeanour (which I didn't notice until looking in to your edits more closely). To consider an unblock I would like to know more about your history on this site. As far as I'm concerned right now you are not trustworthy. Graham87 11:34, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

After thinking about it a bit more I realise I'm probably too involved, so I've unblocked you. This doesn't mean that I still don't have serious reservations about your editing here. By the way, I didn't notice your message at Talk:Ricky Kasso when I wrote this edit summary. Graham87 11:55, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

---