Ravenfire

Talk page comments

Please don't remove comments that others have made on your talk page. You are always free to edit your User Page if you'd like, but talk page comments should not be "blanked", as they provide a record of discussion between you and other editors. You may want to refer to the link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines for more details. Thanks! NickBurns 17:17, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I think you should leave links alone that have been added. It is not for you to decide what goes on the web and what doesn't. This is tiresome

Dusty Springfield

You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from editing. (aeropagitica) 01:22, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Regarding reversions[1] made on December 30 2006 to Dusty Springfield

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

The duration of the block is 24 hours. Luna Santin 02:01, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

3RR Complaint

I find it amazing that you (LTD team, Barleywater, etc.) inform Nick Burns (and others, it seems) that you claim to know who I am when you clearly have no idea whatsoever. You don't even have my gender correct! I would be very careful about making accusatory comments such as this in such a public arena as you are in very real danger of making libellous comments. Any such continuance of unfounded allegations made in this hostile manner may result in legal action. Ravenfire (Ravenfire 10:27, 31 December 2006 (UTC))

I don't know who you are, and it's well beside the point. I understand you have a dispute with a certain piece of content. You are completely entitled to your opinion, but while an individual editor is free to make edits to the article, ultimate content is decided upon by a consensus of editors. Ravenfire, it concerns other editors of this article that you appear to have assumed a sense of ownership of the Dusty article, and that you - and only you - can make edits to it. This is not what Wikipedia is about. If you had your own web page dedicated to Dusty, that would be a different thing. UNDERSTAND that there are venues YOU can use in Wikipedia to work out content disputes.....I'm just trying to let you, Barleywater, et al know, since all of you seem to be relatively new members. I am NOT an administrator, so I am not in any power to help any of you, but I am trying to share what I know. I hope you are able to resolve this issue. I would suggest resolution without further personal attacks or threats of legal action, since that behavior is more likely to have you blocked from Wikipedia. Thanks. NickBurns 14:55, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Response

I have, nor have I ever had, any web content devoted to anyone. I do, however, have serious questions as to the nature of the LTD site whose link I have attempted to remove. That site is hostile and aggressive and, if Wikipedia wish to have a link to it, then that is up to them, although it lowers the tone of this section of the web. I will continue to remind people of the very real possibility of legal action should these unsavoury group of people continue to make false statements about me as if they were fact. That is my legal right. Thanks.

(Ravenfire)

Reply

Dude, you really ARE losing the plot. Live and let live and let anyone put their link up, this isn't up to you and you do not own the internet. The LTD site was built out of collective and democratic ownership and if you do not like that FINE but quit trying to own something that isn't yours. I find it rude and insulting that you call the LTD insulting and unsavoury people, surely they are false and unpleasent statements? Try and find somewhere where you are mentioned on a thread? be my guest you won't find anything to do with you because the site is not about you. Where on earth did the LTD make false accusations? Despite your actions the DSN and LTD are doing just fine and work very well. Leave it be.

Dude? I have nor have I ever had any problem with the DSN and I enjoy being there. As for LTD, I think history speaks for itself. I have made no false statements. I have never been a member of LTD so why would they talk about me? They don't even know my name, so how could they? It's a vicious place founded on nothing positive and it does Dusty no service whatsoever. (Ravenfire)

Reply:

Is that why you tampered with both links then? Everyone is getting sick of your games. You just contradicted yourself by saying why would members of the LTD talk about you if they did not know your name? (which they don't do) and previously you claimed the LTD were making false statements about you as a person.

Furthermore you claimed you never had a site devoted to a person? what was the DSC about then? The LTD was built to have bonds between members and to be an inclusive friendly place for all of us. If you don't like some people on the LTD that is your right, but you do not have the right to be so insulting and judgemental towards a site you do not visit nor even care for. Another you made about being the LTD not being positive is completely untrue. We have hardly have any disputes, and nothing but respectful material is posted on the website, but I supposed you are next going to argue that if we moderate too much then we apparently are too controlling? Either way this argument will go nowhere because you don't listen and you find fault with anything you have not created. I fail to see how you get along so well with the DSN when you were only complaining at the closure of the DSC that the DSN had plagiarised your own material and content. Funny huh?

Oh my, you are showing your talons, which only serves to prove what I've been saying.

Fortunately I was spared the DSC as I didn't have a computer at the time it was about, but of course I have heard about it from various sources. Opinion seems to be pretty mixed, at best, I must say, between those who loved or loathed it. However, it seems to have been a painful time for those with a heart, and these people seem to be on the DSN as opposed to LTD. I don't like the aggressive and controlling nature of LTD, the way that members talk about people behind the scenes, the games played with the DSN or the power games that appear to go on. The way you phrase some of your comments above only goes to prove this. You don't even seem able to sign your comments. It also seems, based on what you've said above, that you appear to use the DSC as a scapegoat rather than face up to your own actions and shortcomings. Perhaps you should discuss this with the old DSC regime and not me as to do otherwise looks very much like you're trying to sully the reputation of those who clearly no longer have a right of reply, as the DSC is very obviously gone.

No, my opinion of LTD is not based on any personal experience and I've never owned a web site of any kind and nor would I want to, based on all that I've heard. I've just observed, talked to people, listened and watched and I've seen the way people have been treated. So no contradiction there. From what I know of Dusty, she would have hated the way you carry on and you do her no favours whatsoever.

It's quite odd that you should consider me male and the owner of the DSC! If this were not so serious it would actually be funny! My children find it very amusing. I however, do not and agree with you that this is very tiresome indeed.

(Ravenfire 17:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC))

Reply: You really DO need help

The words pot, kettle and black spring to mind, my dear. For all your complaints about me, you fail to see your own and many foibles, but those with eyes to see and ears to hear will be alert to the truth. This is something that is clearly alien to you. You insist I am somebody I am not because you cannot face yourself or the things you have done. I pity you, I really, really do.

(Ravenfire 22:34, 2 January 2007 (UTC))

Brum2k: The replies you had made some very sensible and valid points! Obvious you're pretending to be someone you are not. if you take legal action, you won't get anywhere. You make so many laugh. Get a life. Everyone pities you. Real shame it is that you are hypicritical. This is all i'm saying mate, words fail to describe how you made people feel. Both sites are valid and deserve to be up whatever order they are in. Goodbye mate.

Wikipedia guidelines

I'd like you to take a look at this. There's a dispute going on amongst several of you, and I really think all parties need to take a look (ie, I am not singling you out). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not

Thanks. NickBurns 02:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank You

Thank you Nick, for your constructive comments. I take note of your advice.

The things said above are appalling and hideous, and these from people who pretend to care about others. It makes me shudder and actually I'm starting to consider my membership of the DSN as well. It's actually quite scary. If these are the type of people Dusty Springfield attracts, people who can be so mean spirited, then what type of woman was she, actually? I mean, really?

Does anyone know how to contact the old DSC regime? If there are people around with this level of hatred, then I think the old DSC leaders need to know. This is actually really very scary stuff. It frightens me, and I'm nothing to do with it, so Lord knows what it will do to them.

I wish I'd never heard of Dusty Springfield. I'm outa here, you people are well scary.

(Ravenfire 22:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC))

Dear Ravenfire

In view of your comments relating to the DSN, I would be most grateful if you would make yourself known to a member of the admin team on the forum. Perhaps your concerns with the site can then be addressed away from this particular resource. We look forward to hearing from you

Dustyfans 20:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)Dustyfans

Thanks

But, I mean, when you consider all of the above, really, what would be the point? I just can't see how any of you can be trusted when you rip into people like this and attack that which can no longer defend. All you have done is attack and never once listen. With a track record like that, why should I trust you now? (Ravenfire 22:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)}

Ravenfire, I appreciate that you took my comments in the spirit of constructive criticism as it was intended. I feel your pain - that you feel that people running some of the Dusty sites have made or are making incorrect or inappropriate remarks about her. I am concerned that you are taking this personally...and that this personal issue is coming across in the article (which it should not). I do hope, as another poster suggested, that you can raise the issue with the parties or website in question and either resolve it (or agree to disagree) but in any case, take it "offline" from Wikipedia. As for the constant debate on the links, it really must stop - and I don't mean just your edits...because every time the LTD folks move their link to the top of the list, they're coming close to what Wikipedia would consider spam (ie, promoting your own site), especially when longer running sites such as Simon Bell and Mr. Bayly's site are on the list. In any case, I do wish resolution on this for you, and for all. NickBurns 14:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

My Response

Thanks Nick - but if you're suggesting that I have edited the content of the article, I can assure you that I have not. I have never once altered any text other than links.

As for a sense of 'ownership' - I have no such feeling. Why should I? Wikipedia is an international site with an international audience, how could any 1 individual claim ownership? In all honesty, I would hazard a guess that the number of people visiting the Dusty Springfield page of Wikipedia could be counted on 1 hand.

As I've said, I question the nature of the fan base of this woman. It seems to me that Dusty fans are crazy obsessed people who are attempting to turn her into some kind of figurehead that she never was. It's all madness, all of it. I mean, Dusty was never a queer campaigner, so why attempt to make her one.

The site LTD makes so many false claims and, as you say, attempts to spam Wikipedia. It's crazy. I've only been involved with this for a few weeks, but I sometimes I wish I'd never heard of Dusty Springfield. Ravenfire 17:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying - I think many performers have a small group of fans who are sometimes a bit 'obsessed', as you say. I did want to ask you about your comments about Dusty and the 'queer campaigner' comment.......May I ask - you've said people speak negatively about DS. Are you talking about the people who run other websites?? Or is it references in the article that you take offence to? I ask this because I wrote the paragraph referring to her sexuality in the article. I tried to write it in such a way that it was not referred to as definitive, and that there was some questions about it, but there were also some references from Dusty herself (ie, the interview with the Standard, the comments during the Royal Albert show - which I now have on CD). I also tried to make it concise and only a small, proportionate part of the article (leaving the focus on her music, as it should be). I am curious to know. Best regards. NickBurns 21:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Let's Talk (Anything But) Dusty

Oh heavens, Nick, I don't know! I'm new to Dusty's music and her music alone. I'm no longer any part of any of the forums on the web, captive, as they are it seems, to a small but crazed bunch.

It seems to me that there are a number of lesbians (and I am also lesbian) who are devoid of any personal identity, so they seem to seek some sense of belonging by vicarious means. Dusty never identified as lesbian in a public sense, apparently, and I am told that she didn't even enjoy social lesbian company that much, but there's a particular section of society that appears to want to create her in their own image. Your precious Wikipedia is falling prey to that, it seems.

LTD and to a far, far, lesser degree, the DSN, are of this ethos. It's not so much Let's Talk Dusty as, 'Let's See What We Can Make Dusty Say.'

Jan (Ravenfire 19:47, 7 January 2007 (UTC))

Dear Ravenfire Much as I appreciate your right to respond to Nick I am appalled that you feel it is also your right through the pages of Wikipedia to refer to the DSN in the manner in which you have. I have previously on your Talk Page asked if you would care to make yourself known to the DSN admin in order that you can take up your concerns directly. You have not been inclined to do this - people reading these pages will have to make up their own minds as to why you feel that you cannot take your concerns to an appropriate forum but feel it is alright to 'mouth off' on Wikipedia. Have the courage of your convictions therefore and identify yourself on this page - who are you? Don't hide behind the facade of a username.

It is clear that you have very little credible knowledge of the people on the DSN. It is a site that is deeply respectful of Dusty and everything she stood for. As with all forums we have our discussions in which different views are aired - this is the very nature of the forum format.

If you don't like what you see on the DSN that is fair enough - you do not have to view the site. However, I strongly object to you spewing forth your rather skewed views here.

I repeat my request to you - either make yourself known to the DSN admin or properly identify yourself on this Talk Page of yours so everybody can know who you are.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Dustyfans 12:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)Dustyfans

Oh heavens! More rows!

You're not telling me your real name, so why do you feel you have the right to demand mine in this manner? Please, let's be fair and equitable!

Also, I'm not trashing the DSN! I said "and to a far, far, lesser degree . . . " indicating that the issue I talk of is far more with the LTD than the DSN.

All I was saying was that Dusty has been forced into a kind of figurehead type of role that I am sure she would not want.

I'm no longer bothering to visit the DSN so I'll not be introducing myself. As I said above, you all seem so terribly hostile I'd rather stay away.

Jan (Ravenfire 18:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC))

Dear Ravenfire

I appreciate your response and I will not continue with this discussion with you save to pick up on one or two of the points you make.

My response was in no way an attempt to 'row' with you. I agree, you do not 'trash' the DSN, to use your word. However, by inference you have painted it in a less than favourable light and I have every right to seek a dialogue with you. What I do not understand is why you feel you have the right in this forum, to openly discuss such issues and yet you do not have the courage of your convictions to make yourself known to the admin team on the DSN to discuss same.

I have no need to identify myself on here. If you come to the DSN and contact any of the admin team you will be put in contact with me - I have no problem in making myself known to you on an individual basis. I choose not to make my identity known on Wiki because it is unnecessary. I am not the one making claims against anybody or any particular forum, whereas you are, and that is the reason why I felt it a reasonable request for you to consider.

Thank you

Dustyfans 22:27, 8 January 2007 (UTC)Dustyfans

LTD Vs DSN

Dear Janie

Thanks for your message.

I do not know how I have ended up in this situation, but I do feel as though I have been caught in something of a whirlwind. For some reason I felt it was my role to defend those who were being accused of being me, because I very obviously knew that they were not! I now see it as my role to carry on defending them, and exposing the horrible things that are happening behind the scenes of these sites, as people, I think, have a right to know.

From what I have seen in my short time as a member of the DSN is that you lot are more human than those people on LTD who seem somewhat rabid in their behavior, but at the same time, I do think you've been somewhat unfair in the way you've all attacked the regime behind the old DSC without providing anyone with a right of reply. This, I am afraid, causes me to consider you somewhat hypocritical. You accuse me for not having the courage of my convictions in not facing you down on the DSC, whilst you deny the old DSC that very same right. I don't think that's fair at all. You only want to me to do this so you can ban me, so I'm grabbing this brief moment I have to get the truth out there.

Yes, although it's not been easy, I have managed to track Andrew down and from what he's told me, you're all ignoring his mails and refusing to talk to him. So, practice what you preach is my advice. I've been begging him to write a statement and post it on the web, just to clear all this up, because if people not talking, it means they're concealing something. He's very reluctant to do this, and he's very, very suspicious of me as I have come from nowhere, but I hope he changes his mind.

Jan (Ravenfire 17:59, 9 January 2007 (UTC))

Dustyfans 20:18, 9 January 2007 (UTC)Dustyfans

Dear Jan

I will take the opportunity of responding to you if you don't mind, notwithstanding the fact that my previous reply to you suggested I wouldn't!

On one level I find your actions in defending another individual entirely worthy bearing in mind your perspective - I respect your stance in this respect, I honestly do.

However, one thing I would counsel you against is working on too many false premises. You may accuse me of being hypocritical and that's fine, go ahead and accuse me. I would prefer though that any such impression you have gained either of myself or any other members of the DSN admin team be based on your own personal experiences. Leastways then you can be more confident of your 'facts'. I go back to what I have said to you before, if you have a problem with the site that you feel you would want resolved, come to the site to resolve it. Maybe such resolution isn't feasible for you, in which case you simply don't visit us and this will end here and now.

It is not my place nor dare I suggest yours to discuss in open forum any third parties. However, what I will assure you and all who may be interested, is that ANY actions taken by the DSN admin team will be and have always been explained and communicated to those members that they affect. Which is why I say to you, you must be sure of your facts before making such public statements.

I don't know what else to say to you to be quite honest.

Janie

Janie

Well, either you're lying or he is, as he's pretty damn clear that he has no idea whatsoever is going on. I have to be honest and say I'm inclined to side with Andrew because of what he says, what he has shown me and because of the way you've all acted above. None of you have been very reasonable.

If you're playing games, then I think that's naughty. I don't know why you're not talking to him, but it seems as though it needs to be sorted out and he has no idea why you won't communicate.

I think he should make his statement and let you all take it from there as I feel I've done all I can. It's not for me to mediate forever, but I think it has been my role to drag this sorry mess out in the open. I just think it's sad that you feel it's fine to treat someone like this who, from as far as I can tell, hasn't deserved any of it and most certainly has no way of defending himself against all this hostility.

You seem quite nice when you're calm, Janie. Do you honestly think DSN/LTD politics justifies the annihilation of another person?

Jan (Ravenfire 21:27, 9 January 2007 (UTC))

I can only assume from your silence that you do indeed think that DSN/LTD politics justifies the annihilation of another person. Oh dear oh dear, just what does this say about you all. I mean, really?

Jan (Ravenfire 08:20, 12 January 2007 (UTC))

Statement From Andy

Andy (I can't believe I've been calling him Andrew all these weeks! Oh my!) has asked me to let you know that he will be making a statement on his old website in a day or two. I've nagged him into it!

Jan (Ravenfire 21:32, 17 January 2007 (UTC))

His statement is now up:

• Dusty Springfield: White Lady Of Soul

you have to feel for the guy.

J (Ravenfire 08:35, 18 January 2007 (UTC))

Dusty Springfield links

I don't consider the removal to be "harsh", but I'm certainly always happy to explain my edits! The reason I removed many (actually not all, if the rest have been removed, it wasn't by me) of the links was that they were not to sites which presented any additional source material. Many of them were to web forums, blogs, and one to some type of subscription service. None was capable of verifying information in the article, as these are not sources which would be considered reliable.

The problem that we run into with such links is that, with Wikipedia's growth, being linked to from Wikipedia will dramatically raise a site's profile and ranking in search engines. Before too long, we get everyone coming along, saying "They get a link, why don't we???" Eventually, it degenerates into a link farm to sites with little or no reliable information on them-much like the previous state of the "external link" section of Dusty Springfield. Generally, we should link to sites only which are reliable per WP:RS, verify information presented in the article, or provide additional breadth or depth of reliable information which would be too detailed for the article. It's not required that these sites be noncommercial and free of registration and ads, but we should generally stay away from such sites except when they really are all there is out there that verifies something. Also, some editors, especially newer ones, may presume that if we link to a forum or blog, it's acceptable to include information from that source in the article, which is of course not the case.

If you do disagree, however, I would be happy to have someone provide a third opinion! If you would like to move these comments to the article's talk page, and file for one, please do. If you would rather I do so, just let me know! Thanks for contacting me. Seraphimblade 02:17, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I Agree With Seraphimblade

I agree that all links apart from the official Dusty site should be removed. All others are only out for themselves (Ravenfire 20:48, 17 February 2007 (UTC))