User talk:Sugarcubez/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Talk archives 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Talk:Lindsay Lohan‎

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living persons, as you did to Talk:Lindsay Lohan‎. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 17:26, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Are you a troll? If so please get a life and leave now. If you are just confused, I was joining in the topic of discussion people are accusing her of being a lesbian, just because she may or may not have kissed a girl. It is an insult when people do not understand lesbianism or bisexualism and throw around accusations. So you are either a troll or got me confused with somebody else. Do not come to my talk page and accuse me of things goodbye.--Sugarcubez (talk) 17:40, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

• Please stop adding unreferenced controversial biographical content to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Talk:Lindsay Lohan. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Ave Caesar (talk) 17:50, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Why did you come to my page to threatened to block me for doing something I did not do? Who are you?--Sugarcubez (talk) 17:57, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

It seems that you inserted poorly cited controversial information into the Lindsay Lohan talk page which clearly violates WP:BLP per your edit here[1]. It was removed by Ward3001, you were warned, then you reinserted it. That's when I removed it again and warned again. --Ave Caesar (talk) 18:00, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

What?! No! If you read what I said above to the other person above, I just was joining on the discussion. It was a talk page, we discuss things we do not cite them, and most talk pages are controversial, so there is no logic in your statement, and that does not clearly violate WP:BLP. Removing what someone wrote on a talk page if it was not vandalism that itself is vandalism which Ward3001 did. So again and I am confused, or talk pages changed to not being able to talk about how to improve the article or to clarify things? Because that is all I did. Please explain to me what apparently I did wrong.--Sugarcubez (talk) 18:28, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Wrong. Yes, we discuss controversial information on talk pages. We do not insert unsourced, potentially libelous information. Otherwise anyone could write anything about anyone. As you have been asked to do previously, read WP:BLP. That policy applies "to any Wikipedia page". Ward3001 (talk) 19:12, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

That's correct - BLP pertains to all wikipedia pages including talk pages as a measure of legal protection for Wikipedia. Discussion of potentially libelous information is not permitted unless well sourced. BLP states, "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons — whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable — should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion, from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space." --Ave Caesar (talk) 19:58, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I do not understand how you are suppose to cite things on a TALK page, the whole point is discussion and opinions of changes that should be made, and what did I say that was controversial!? I thought when someone removes things from a talk page that are not vandalism it itself is considered vandalism that is what I thought Ward was doing so of course I undid the apparent vandalism. What libelous information did I interest? You all are beating around the bush about it and not telling me. I would really like to know.--Sugarcubez (talk) 16:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Are you kidding me?! Read your edit. Innuendo about "porn star" and unsourced information about sexuality. That is potentially libelous unless you can back it up with solid sources. If you don't believe that, then how about we take out a full page newspaper ad in your hometown with all kinds of unfounded innuendo about you and your behavior? And one more time: Have you actually read WP:BLP in its entirety? If you have read it, please state that you have so that I can figure out if the problem is that you haven't read the policy or can't understand it? Ward3001 (talk) 17:31, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Are you kidding ME? This is a TALK page to talk about the article. I did not make an innuendo about a porn star and did not make unsourced information about her sexuaitly, did you not even read my edit? You appear to biophic. Talk pages are suppose to be about talking about the article so 99% of the information and talk there is suppose to be unsourced. People were saying because she was with that girl she was a lesbian, I said if anything she could be bisexual, if anything not gay, unless she came out as gay or straight. A talk page is not a newspaper article and it is about discussing about the article how many times must I state this to you for you to get it through? *sigh* take you biophobia and get off of your high horse and stop trying to make te talk page something it is not.--Sugarcubez

Archive taken from - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:David_Eppstein#Two_people_harassing_me --Two people harassing me --

I have two people coming to my talk page who appear to be vandals or trolls, or confused me with someone else. One is threatening to block me, I am not sure if that person can. The other one removed information on a talk page when I was in discussion with, which I am pretty sure is considered vandalism. I am not sure who these people are or what is going on so, I deiced to contact an admin for help before things get out of hand because these people seem forceful and not willing to talk.--Sugarcubez (talk) 18:14, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Those are standard warning messages left when someone thinks you have made inappropriate edits. This comment of yours, in particular, appears to be a gross violation of our policy regarding biographies of living persons, as does this one. I think the warnings were appropriate. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:37, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

What?! How was my comment a gross violation of the policy? I was just joining in the conversation on the talk page, it was on a talk page! I did not say Lindsay was bisexual on her page. I was disusing with others within topic, how in the world is that a violation? I do not think it is appropriate to say you are going to ban someone when there is clearly confusion on both sides, that is an abuse of power.--Sugarcubez (talk) 18:44, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

You made what some might view as inappropriate allegations about her sexuality, and compared her to a porn star, with little or no reliable sourcing. Talk page or main article space, either way, it's still inappropriate. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:45, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

The topic of discussion was about her sexuality though, I viewed what everyone else was saying as inappropriate allegations about her sexuality. They were saying just because she apparently kissed a girl she was a lesbian. Which I find it rude people tend to skip over and ignore bisexuality. So I decided to comment and say that if anything she could be bisexual not lesbian because she has had many relationships with men, and lesbians do not do that. I never compared her to a porn star, that is ludicrous! Did you even read what I said? I said lesbian women do not date/sleep with as many guys as she has unless they are a porn star (which Lindsay is not). Of course there was no sourcing, what in my statement was I suppose to source? I was just explaining to people calling her a lesbian that it was rude because you do not know, and if anything she could be bisexual based on the sources they had, but I tried to say it in the nicest way possible, and it gets reverted!--Sugarcubez (talk)

Imani Coppola

I undid this edit to the Imani Coppola article. You said in your edit summary: (Little Jackie's Myspace site) does not say anything about Steve Greenberg or about an album in June, 2008.). The citation I put was for the album being issued in June of 2008 and her project partner being Adam Pallin, as well her being on the label with S-Curve Records. Which is clearly stated on Little Jackie's Myspace site. As for Steve Greenberg, he has an article here on Wikiepdia explaining his ownership of S Curve, that is why it was wikified (internally linked).--Sugarcubez (talk) 09:30, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

You reverted my edits to the Imani Coppola article where I stated that the June 2008 release date for her new album was an uncited reference and you left me a message. Now I see that upon further refelction you have looked it up yourself and that you now agree with me that the June 2008 release date was not cited and in fact is incorrect. (The release date is July 8, 2008.) Glad to see you have made the correction. That's what happens when you look up an uncited reference. You find out what the real facts are.

Best Regards,

Reservoirhill (talk) 14:09, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that is why I cited it! Peace.--Sugarcubez (talk) 16:21, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Thandie Newton

Hi, I noticed you undid my revision. We can't use DVD covers in articles like this, see WP:NFT for details. Can you please self-revert to avoid my having to take this further? Thanks a lot, --John (talk) 18:27, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I do not think I reverted the picture, I reverted the change of the date format.--Sugarcubez (talk) 18:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

In fact you reverted both. You need to be more careful; per Help:Reverting, this should only be used for vandalism, which my edit was not. Date linking is no longer recommended, see WP:MOSDATE, so I will reinstate my edit. --John (talk) 19:13, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Just because it is no longer needed it is quite helpful since we do have articles on numbers and dates. One mistake in editing, we have all made at least one.--Sugarcubez (talk) 11:53, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Poly Styrene

I agree with the editor above: Please be more careful in your edits. On the Poly Styrene article, you removed not only vandalism but many good updates and edits! Your action has now been corrected and the vandalism removed. 81.151.185.113 (talk) 14:13, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

You really need to not be looking at what else is said on other people's talk page. As long as the updates are cited now, they were not before. Also your edit also removed a lot of edit, which has been corrected.--Sugarcubez (talk) 14:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

The stuff you "put back" was already in paragraph 1! The exact same wording. The other stuff re where to buy Flower Aeroplane is commercial and not allowed. If you cannot edit well, learn. If you will not learn... 81.151.185.113 (talk) 14:33, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

It is not the same exact wording, and and the cover by Neneh Cherry was removed. I have been editing here on Wikipedia for many years and I can edit well, mind you. If you cannot learn about manners or respect learn.--Sugarcubez (talk) 14

47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't care if you have been here since Jesus was a baby: your edits are sloppy, you don't read before you write and it IS the same wording: see below where it has been copied it out for you! Nehne Cherry relates to the ALBUM not the singer, it belongs there (and provide a reference for "sufficiently impressed" or I will delete it for the useless POV that it is. Oh, and talking of manners, using all bold is considered shouting so I will take no lessons from you! 81.151.185.113 (talk) 15:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Please be careful with your editing. So far, on this article, you have removed good edits needlessly several times, re-inserted material that appears elsewhere in the article; added commercial details that are not permitted on WP. Please be aware that it makes sense to respond to users on their talk pages, not yours.

Other users are entitled to read what they want on your Talk Page.

If you need help, please feel free to ask. Chris Twilight1701 (talk) 14:39, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

What article are you referring to? I have not removed good edits needlessly several times, nor have I re-inserted material that appears elsewhere in the article many times; and I most certainly have never added commercial details that are not permitted on WP. You really need to know what you are talking about Chris before you make horrible accustions. And unless the rules have changed recently most users prefer to keep the talk on one page which is the page they respond on. No they are not entitled to read what they want on my talk page, if they are not apart of the discussion they should not get in it. Believe me I know all it does it causes a lot of problems and fights, this is not a message board or a newspaper.--Sugarcubez (talk) 14:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

See your own edit: [2]

REPEATED INFO 1

Paragraph 1 :" X-Ray Spex are best remembered for their album Germ Free Adolescents released on EMI in 1978. A reunion album Conscious Consumer in 1995 echoed the concerns of the band's debut."

Paragraph 2: "X-Ray Spex are best remembered for their album Germ Free Adolescents released on EMI in 1978. A reunion album Conscious Consumer in 1995 echoed the concerns of the band's debut."

REPEATED INFO 2

Paragraph 1: "A solo album, Flower Aeroplane, followed in 2004."

Paragraph 2: "Poly also released an album entitled 'Flower Aeroplane' in 2004"

COMMERCIAL MATERIAL

Paragraph 2: "...which is available on the Poly's Punk Party website."

Please show me the rule that says nobody can read or comment on the contents of your talk page. I look forward to reading it! Twilight1701 (talk) 15:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear please re-read everything and see what you said and then what said okay dear peace. I never said there was a rule, you really need to learn and pay attention more, all I said is that that is not a users right and they are not entitled to do so because of unnecessary crap like this, I don't have time to deal with people such as you.--Sugarcubez

Santogold

Hi, there --

I notice at the article Santogold you reverted a number of edits, including some that I had made to the lead, without really explaining why. I can see that you are an experienced editor, but I just wanted to remind you to take care when making large or complex changes. If you disagree with an edit, it's best to discuss it or explain why you're undoing it, or to the check the edit history to make sure you're not changing something inadvertently.

I restored some of the edits I had previously made with more lengthy edit summary explanations. Please feel free to discuss them with me or on the talk page if you still feel they should be changed.

Thanks! Dylan (talk) 17:31, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Can you specify the edits? I only edited the change of pictures and structure of the article to further better the article.--Sugarcubez (talk) 08:49, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi.

Make sure you read WP:VANDAL on what a vandal is. A content dispute or a mistake is not vandalism. I saw what you said as a personal attack. Otherwise, you do good work on the project, keep it up. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 19:20, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi I have read WP:VANDAL, maybe should re-read it if the information has been recently updated. I did not mean to make any personal attacks whatsoever, can you specify the article you are talking about? And thank you..--Sugarcubez (talk) 20:22, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Then you must see that this edit, in which you called apparent vandalism, is not vandalism. Content disputes are not vandalism. I understand now your intent, and apologize for assuming a personal attack, when you did not mean as such. NonvocalScream (talk) 00:15, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I saw the edit (because someone else reverted it), that is why I said apparent vandalism, because it was so prominent in the article it self and it's already publicly known. I understand now your intent, that it was a mistake and a good faith edit, and apologize for making it seem otherwise. But as stated you can see why as thought that, since it was not a content dispute but the removal of information. Anyways thanks and have a good new year.--Sugarcubez (talk) 22:30, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• But then it confusing me as to why you make this edit after realing you made a mistake. You need to read biographies and sources better before making such edits about LGBT.--Sugarcubez (talk) 22:48, 3 January 2009 (UTC)