Talk:Donny Tourette

message: He has left. Can someone please find a source for this, will take a few hours to filter through, on C4 now though. Anyway I'm off to bed. s p u n k o 2 0 1 0 01:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

message: Although the Big Brother website says he is 22, The Daily Mirror has obtained a birth certificate copy which states his date of birth as 1981. Also see link [3] on the main article (the one about him and Courtney Love), which states his age as 25. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sl84 (talk • contribs) 18:27, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Born in '81, not '84

message: See: . I've removed dob for now. — Matt Crypto 09:20, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Date of birth

message: Why are edits being reverted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.6.98.77 (talk • contribs) 11:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: NeverMindTheBuzzcocks

message: Why do people keep writing so much on this page about Tourette's appearance on Nevermind The Buzzcocks?  The edits are never remotely encyclopaedic and are always coloured by a clear dislike of the subject matter.  It's not unusual for someone to go on said programme and engage in 'banter' with fellow contestants and as such the specific 'banter' that took place when Tourette appeared on the programme is not notable. Petepetepetepete 08:17, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Numerous users are removing your edits, because you are violating copyright laws of the BBC, see WP:LINK. - Deathrocker 22:50, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

text: In the end, Amstell rigged the scores against Donny's Team. When Donny protested he was teased about his anarchist punk credentials, Bill said "Let's trash the system, but can he have another point?" and claimed Donny was as much a punk as Enya. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by FlatOfAngles (talk • contribs) 23:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, that proves you're totally unsuited to writing an encyclopedaeic article- you're clearly his fan, and as such would be unable to write an unbiased entry.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Himynameishelen (talk • contribs) 23:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

text: A lot of people appear to be having problems with this user, who seems to be a fan. If you manage to read this, Deathrocker, Wikipedia is not just for your edits. Everyone is allowed to edit what you write. You agree to this whenever you submit anything to Wikipedia. The general consensus here is that the Buzzcocks section was not neutral as it was. The new edit may not be completely neutral either. Feel free to change certain aspects. Do not revert it for no reason other than you don't like it. That is vandalism and will be reported accordingly.Jacob1453 17:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

text: And please don't accuse me of 'libel' when I am simply trying to report fact. That is a personal attack and is against the spirit of Wikipedia.  Jacob1453 18:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

text: It was me who initially cut down the Buzzcocks section to what it is presently. A user calling themselves Deathrocker, who has now changed their name to Daddy Kindsoul, was reverting everything that didn't paint Donny in a positive light. I felt the need to remove more or less everything, lest Donny sounds like a 'heroic rebel'. I'm sure everyone who saw that show is agreed he didn't really come off all that well. Unfortunately, the user in question refuses to discuss any changes here, and any unfavourable changes are immediately reverted, accusing the editors of vandalism and libel. Why the user refuses to use the talk page bewilders me - if you check the recent history they removed a rant from an angry person from the talk page (which was clearly the right thing to do), but ignored the comments from numerous other Wikipedians. But Wikipedia is a community! I put it to the user in question that what they are doing is petty vandalism. Jacob1453 20:23, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

text: But you are interpreting the actions of others and what happened on the programme.  You need to attribute these opinions to people.  violet/riga (t) 11:31, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

text: It was a step in the right direction but didn't resolve all the problems.  violet/riga (t) 11:31, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

text: From time to time, there is a sad influx of anti-Tourette POV placed on this article by peoples who probably have problems gaining attention from the oposite sex in real life. There is no other way to deal with the trolling than just reverting it an placing a warning tag on the guilty partys talkpage. Dvb23's bad intentions are clear when reviewing the content which he is adding to this article. - The Daddy 03:56, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Here's a start:  John Walsh: Tales of the City.  violet/riga (t) 11:37, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Nevermind The Buzzcocks

message: How can we request DeathRocker not to revert factual additions?
This page documents Donny Tourette so should include successes and mistakes.
This page is not part of the Donny Tourette promotional material.
DeathRocker, please allow negative facts to remain, aswell as positive ones. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.96.213.158 (talk • contribs) 18:08, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A lot of people appear to be having problems with this user, who seems to be a fan. If you manage to read this, Deathrocker, Wikipedia is not just for your edits. Everyone is allowed to edit what you write. You agree to this whenever you submit anything to Wikipedia. The general consensus here is that the Buzzcocks section was not neutral as it was. The new edit may not be completely neutral either. Feel free to change certain aspects. Do not revert it for no reason other than you don't like it. That is vandalism and will be reported accordingly.Jacob1453 17:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

text: And please don't accuse me of 'libel' when I am simply trying to report fact. That is a personal attack and is against the spirit of Wikipedia.  Jacob1453 18:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  DeathRocker non neutral reverts, please stop! 

message: Various users are reverting changes without discussion. The Buzzcock section is now far from an accurate reflection of what happened. What's to be done? — Preceding unsigned comment added by LifeRocker (talk • contribs) 00:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lack of neutrality issues 

message: I've added the POV header to the main page and Buzzcock section.
I saw the Buzzcock show. You too can see it for yourself. It's been posted to popular online video sites. In my opinion, Tourette got off to a poor start. He was rude about another band and insulting to Bill Bailey. Consequently he was mocked during the show. Similarly, his attempts to be cool were laughed at as were his smoking of a cigarette. Finally, he claims he is a punk, but Bill said he was as much a punk as Enya (not a punk right now). He did not come over as a punk, maybe as someone trying to be a punk, but not actually a punk. That was the message I got.
Many people have tried to edit that into the article, however, many other people have either uneditted it or just plainly reverted the edits.
As can be seen from the article history and this talk page, the article is being pulled in both directions.
Consequently, i've added the POV banners and this supporting explanation.
~~ FlatOfAngles.
I've put the POV banner back on the Buzzcock's section, which I and others believe is not an accurate reflection of what happened. The wikipedia guidelines for resolving these issues say to add POV banner and justification in the talk page, which I did. Please do not just remove the POV banner.
~~ FlatOfAngles.
:It was me who initially cut down the Buzzcocks section to what it is presently. A user calling themselves Deathrocker, who has now changed their name to Daddy Kindsoul, was reverting everything that didn't paint Donny in a positive light. I felt the need to remove more or less everything, lest Donny sounds like a 'heroic rebel'. I'm sure everyone who saw that show is agreed he didn't really come off all that well. Unfortunately, the user in question refuses to discuss any changes here, and any unfavourable changes are immediately reverted, accusing the editors of vandalism and libel. Why the user refuses to use the talk page bewilders me - if you check the recent history they removed a rant from an angry person from the talk page (which was clearly the right thing to do), but ignored the comments from numerous other Wikipedians. But Wikipedia is a community! I put it to the user in question that what they are doing is petty vandalism. Jacob1453 20:23, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV justification 

message: I've removed some of the Buzzcocks text per WP:BLP.  Uncited negative comments should not appear here.  If such material is to be included it is essential that it is referenced and NPOV.  violet/riga (t) 10:32, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: BLP issues

message: Well done, the article has now had to be protected because of this stupidity.  The content should not be put back without sources as I have already made clear.  Please find sources for this and we can progress with a NPOV, sourced version.  violet/riga (t) 11:25, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But you are interpreting the actions of others and what happened on the programme.  You need to attribute these opinions to people.  violet/riga (t) 11:31, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

text: It was a step in the right direction but didn't resolve all the problems.  violet/riga (t) 11:31, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

text: From time to time, there is a sad influx of anti-Tourette POV placed on this article by peoples who probably have problems gaining attention from the oposite sex in real life. There is no other way to deal with the trolling than just reverting it an placing a warning tag on the guilty partys talkpage. Dvb23's bad intentions are clear when reviewing the content which he is adding to this article. - The Daddy 03:56, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Protected

message: I've just tried to find some decent sources but the majority are forums or blogs and these are not acceptable as references.  I'll keep looking.  violet/riga (t) 11:35, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's a start:  John Walsh: Tales of the City.  violet/riga (t) 11:37, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources

message: Tourette's dubious accolades include masquerading as a rock star, although several observers have noted his band sound like a pub band or 'group of art students' experiments'. To date, Tourette has attempted to gain tabloid headlines by going to expensive London night clubs and kicking over bins.
This section needs to be rewritten with citations. I have added the weasel words tag. Phreakymonkey 00:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Towers of London section neutrality issues 

message: I happen to know Donny went to Chalfont Community College, my old school. The source below also states he used to live in Chalfont St Giles during his Big Brother moment, rether he still does or not I can not confirm.
Source -
http://www.bucksfreepress.co.uk/leisure/1105442.oh_brother_donny_tourettes_in_the_house/  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.104.49.106 (talk) 11:06, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Personal Life 

message: Considering their total lack of activity anywhere..
Their myspace page is dormant and hasn't been updated for months.
They have no record deal.
Their members have left and joined other bands publically.
Their official and un-official websites have long closed down.
Their last tour was 7 months ago.
Their last official album was deleted last year and is currently unavailable anywhere.
No sign of their 2010 "tv show"..
Much talk about a "spin off" band.
86.44.107.126 (talk) 10:45, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  HAVE THE TOWERS OF LONDON FINALLY CALLED IT A DAY..? 

message: Most recent edit (2012) states  "No longer active in the world of rock 'n roll, Tourette now works as a voluntary community spice-tester."
Can someone please:
*confirm this with some references;
*explain what a "voluntary community spice-tester" happens to be.
This sounds too much like some kind of joke. Denis (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 21:32, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible vandalism? 

message: Needs sorting out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.52.158 (talk • contribs) 21:37, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: This article is a mess