Wikieditor2008

Welcome! Hello, Wikieditor2008, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! ~ Troy (talk) 23:33, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Indiana Gregg

STOP reverting my edits and making ridiculous claims. I will address this issue with Phil Sandiford as you are vandalising and using wording that is not cited or substantiated (ie, stating that Gregg only played at two festivals when we know otherwise just because further sources have not been cited. Also, Sandiford mentioned that tabloid press is not a resource, therefore, since we still have no date of birth and we only have mixed comments about her age, we cannot start putting clumsy ages in the article. It makes the article sound ridiculous and wordy in unecessary places.Littleredm&m (talk) 17:58, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

a) we don't have "mixed" comments about her age! all the constructive editors (That is everyone beside you!) are reading the same stuff and were agreeing that she is "35 as of 2007" And what about your argument that that one aditional reference is a tabloid that should not be used as source? Whe i would agree with you on that then please explain why YOU added shortly after your last revert a figure about the placement of an album referencing exactly to the same tabloid source that you don't want to accept for the age figure?! And if you have read the BLP criteria and or read what that noninvolved editor mentioned abuot it on the gregg talkpage then you should know full well that exactly DOB figures are only to be added when they are sourced and not from original research. Since there is no reliable secondary source that gives the EXACT date of birth do you want to imply that a biograhical encyclopedia article about a person should not have any indication as to the subjects age AT ALL? How rediculous is that? And beside your argument about "tabloid", what about the other sources for her age? please note that even the site that you used as reliable source for one of your points do indeed mentin her age! The journalist says something like "35 summers". Now please do me the favour and argue that summers is not an age reverence! Anyway, your repeated reverting will win you another level of 3RR and vandalism revert warning! P.S. where do "we" know otherwise about the number of festivals? If you have stuff to back that claim up then enter the number, otherwise it is you that is vandalising and reverting substantial expanding edits! Wikieditor2008 (talk) 18:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikieditor2008, there are no other editors agreeing. We still do not have a DOB and the tabloid press articles are not being accepted on this page. Therefore, there are no reliable sources for this at the moment. She may be 40 or she may be 30. The truth is, we don't actually know yet and therefore should wait until a DOB has been found. We do know other things like that she lives in Glasgow and not in Lenzie according to the more recent newpaper clippings. Anyway, you have stated so many times that you don't care, so, why are you continually making threats and posting lies about edits?Littleredm&m (talk) 22:11, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I have left you an apropriate answer on your talkpage. Thanks for consideration. Wikieditor2008 (talk) 02:00, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I have rewrote the paragraph in question, it should be NPOV and sourced now. Further vandalism can now be dealt with from a neutral starting point rather then both versions before. You should also have a look at the way I did references and try to emulate (or doing it better in fact, using Template:cite and Template:cite web) them. Also, I commented on your request for protection on this article, please note to add full reasons for asking protection on an article. Also, on this article, semi protection would have been sufficient, if needed at all. In this case requesting to block the user would be easier. Regards --SoWhy ^Talk 17:20, 13 July 2008 (UTC) (if you choose to reply here, please place {{tb|Wikieditor2008}} anywhere on my talk page).

You said: [...]In this case requesting to block the user would be easier. [...]

Can you please point me to a place where I can learn where and how I can make such a formal request?

Thank you Wikieditor2008 (talk) 08:50, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

You can make requests for blocks at WP:AIV. Please consider though that there a tough rules for such requests, as you can read yourself at Wikipedia:Guide to administrator intervention against vandalism. If you want a request to be able to succeed, you will have to read that guide and all the guides and policies it links to very carefully and examine without being biased whether a block can really be justified. In this case here I am now convinced that Littleredm&m is trying to convey some points differently but I won't call it vandalism. It is more a case for mediation (see also WP:DR) I'd say. But you can read above links anyway to make yourself familiar with the policies. So#Why 11:31, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

thanks for the links, but at least at the moment it seems that that account littleredm&m is considered wasted too by the "player" and the new one (Wettendass2008 that registered together with Scotsmann2008 jsut day(s) ago) is engaging with me now. Well since i'm genuinly interested in expanding the article with as much public knowledge about her as possible I'm willing to risk my account in that engagements. I have no sockpuppet accounts nor am I a SPA one. So either it works or WP loses one newbee genuine editor after less then a month participation :-| Wikieditor2008 (talk) 11:40, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

If you want my personal opinion, do not try to request a vandal-block, it will not work I'm pretty sure. Take it to WP:M and let neutral third parties get involved. It may work better and it will not have a risk of losing accounts. After all, given your involvement until now, you are not very neutral towards those you think are doing it wrong and any block requested by you will be seen as an attempt to "win by admin intervention". So#Why 11:47, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Quote: Stubbornness Some users cannot come to agreement with others who are willing to talk to them about an editing issue, and repeatedly make changes opposed by everyone else. This is regrettable—you may wish to see our dispute resolution pages to get help. Repeated deletion or addition of material may violate the three-revert rule, but this is not "vandalism" and should not be dealt with as such. See also Tendentious editing Unquote -> Damn, I guess i'm indeed out of luck when I would request a "ban for vandalism" *sad* Wikieditor2008 (talk) 12:10, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

for my own reverence

Don't try to remember too many rules, remember their core values: Be nice to other editors, no matter how much you disagree with them. It's quite simple actually and as in real life it will influence others to do the same. I advise this because I know myself, despite being a Wikipedian for four years now, that you cannot know those rules by heart. I don't, I simply guess from the five pillars of Wikipedia (i.e. WP:NOT, WP:NPOV, WP:COPY, WP:EQ and WP:IAR to have them in full length but WP:5 is actually all you need to know for the daily routine or WP:SR if you need some more short advise). All rules are more or less interpretations of those pillars. Have a nice evening. --SoWhy ^Talk 18:21, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 08:43, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks you lovely bot, I did so, but sometimes it slips thru for a second and since you are an artificial stupidity you are faster then me in re-editing and adding the tildes :-P Wikieditor2008 (talk) 03:15, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

To Wikieditor2008

Wikieditor2008, please stop making edits that have no reference to this musician. There is a discussion about a given name and date of birth amongst the editors. It has been cited in several newspapers that the musician lives in Glasgow. We have absolutely no reference to her age or date of birth. Until there is an accurate resource that can be cited, it is not appropriate to make guesses. Also, please note that the most recent news citations about Indiana Gregg state that she is based in Glasgow: http://www.contentagenda.com/articleXml/LN824425060.html?industryid=45188Littleredm&m (talk) 19:17, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I counter your classification that the edits I made "have no reference to this musician".
The edits -in so far as they were not syntax error corrections, style or simple reverts of vandalism to prior edits of other wikipedians- I made are all provided with references. Either as inline ref or as extra mentioning on the talkpage. Wikieditor2008 (talk) 03:20, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Stop making accusations that are untrue towards other editors (ie: me). I have not reverted anything. You should perhaps tone down your criticisms. For someone one who considers this person a non-entity, (and repeats it over and over again), why are you showing so much interest in this particular page? Are you some kind of stalker?Littleredm&m (talk) 11:43, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I have left you an apropriate answer on your talkpage.Thanks for consideration Wikieditor2008 (talk) 16:18, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Lenzie is a suburb of Glasgow and is within their postcode enumeration zone, though in East Dunbartonshire Council area. Excalibur (talk) 17:18, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

A notice

Please reference the statements you add, or Littleredm&m will have every right to take them down once her 3RR warning goes away. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 20:50, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the mentioning, did so now. Wikieditor2008 (talk) 03:13, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 13:37, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Sock block

Just wanted to let you know: Littleredm&m and Wettendass2008 were blocked indefinitely for sockpuppeting under Checkuser evidence. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 14:03, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

While that getting rid of sockpuppets might be good for wikipedia in general, it is still bad for wikipedia having guys with page edit blocking power like Phil Sandifer! His latest behaviour regarding the Indiana Gregg article is nowhere better then the stunt that littleredm&m pult when "she" added the "citation needed" tags, and reverted the constructive good faith edits less then 5 minutes later without that anybody even could have a chance of add refs. While it was not him that "demanded" references this time but Swatjester that informed me about the OSR ticked and the likely ban of mine editing powers if I would readd my good faith expanding edits without references swatjester likewise did NOT made any clarifying atempt on the talkpage as to what references for what factual statement he would liked to have seen. Instead without that i could even add references I might thought about add worthy mighself it were jsut 4 minutes before the article got banned by "phil".

No thanks, with such admin kindergarten and shoot first (not asking questions later) guys like Phil in place i will not invest any more time (beside this last comment of mine here that is) in any edits on english wikipedia. 62.226.13.194 (talk) 15:27, 25 July 2008 (UTC) aka Wikieditor2008

P.S. since at least swatjester seems to be doing his Job with overview, someone might set him onto Scotsmann2008. THAT on also registered a few hours after the by him confirmed sock WD2008 and did also so far only one comment on IG talk page and nothing else! I bet indiana's million ants that he is just another one of the morrow puppets!

I've added the two "something2008" accounts to the SSP report and notified Swatjester about them. The abusive IP was also blocked for 3 months, so hopefully the article will stay quiet for a while. Come on, log in; the edit war seems to be over and we're at least in an advantageous position. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 16:05, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Norton it was NEVER a question of being in a "advantageous" positions or not. (well at least not for me since I thought the article talk pages that were there with a purpose!) It was not about having an agenda, beside having something Articlelike that was objective and woth the inclusion in an Encyclopedia!

And even if some "admin comitee" -or what ever internal functions WP has in place if an admin seems to be not so fit for the job- would see that a guy that uses his Admin power to decide that the source ref offered by an editor (even if it was only a sockpuppet named littleredm&m in that case!) was him personly to "tabloidish" [1]and therefor warrants the re-removal of the section, would come to the conclusion that this Phil should get stripped of his special-"page treatment"-powers which would be the treshold for me considering working on somethin in the EN article space of wikipedia again, I could not with my one and only created account since I have changed my PW to some long sequence of randomly key hackings and copied them without keeping a copy of that typing sequence I copied and pasted for myself here.

As I said I'm done with editing en for good where admins run around that think their personal likeness or dislikeness for tabloids should be the creterion if content deletion is warranted or not. Hell even those american college- and highschool kid juniour TPB-Mods are more reasonable then this guy "Phil" is in his actions! [And I know what I'm talking about here] 62.226.14.40 (talk) 18:16, 25 July 2008 (UTC) ->a.k.a. the guy formerly known as Wikieditor2008.

I agree, Phil made a mistake here. He had no right to remove a section based on a reference. Though, that doesn't mean all admins on Wikipedia are Phils. You've gotta realize Wikipedia editors aren't a group of scientists with PhDs and college degrees. They are persons like you and me. Administrators are somewhat similar, but way more experienced and helpful. I've been helped and assisted in a problem by administrators numerous times. Once in a while, though, you may get in problems with someone who doesn't understand your point of view and ignores the rules either because of some mistake or because of something else, thus acting the wrong way. This isolated problem is no reason to quit Wikipedia and this issue is just a one-time event. Since you follow the rules, you are very unlikely to get in problems like this one. Such admin mistakes rarely happen. I strongly suggest you to get a new account and continue editing. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 19:09, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I'll try to have the article unprotected. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 19:10, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

This is a very interesting conversation. Considering, you people had accused me of sockpuppetry. There is an 'agenda' about that page so I've read. I'm wondering whether Phil Sandifer may take interest in your little plot?21:52, 4 August 2008 (UTC)