Talk:Biff Rose/Archive 1

message: We just uploaded a picture from one of Biff Rose's many sites, and now the article is locked? What does that mean? Oh I see. Anyhow, it seems as with everything that he touches, a controversy has erupted.Peter Pie Peter Pie 23:30, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture 

message: Hello, I was asked to take a look at this page by Steve Espinola. I've protected the Biff Rose page until the dispute can be settled. I don't know who is right/wrong, but remember to keep in mind the non-point of view policy. If he is generally known as an anti-semitic, then that could be mentioned. Also, I've removed the picture because it seems doctored/fake- Hitler obviously wasn't around in 2004. Finally, keep in mind WP:3RR- this rule applies to everyone. Thus, please try and solve out this dispute. Once you do, you can contact me or another admin, and we can unprotect it. One final note- you may also wish to try WP:RfC, where you can garner input from the Wikipedia community. Hope this helps! Flcelloguy | A  note? | Desk  23:33, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Response/Page Protection

message: OK, could some one *please* clarify something for me?  I had never even heard of Biff Rose until I followed User:Steve espinola's trail of desecration here, thanks mostly to vandalism on User:Willmcw's talk page. Is there any reason why this guy's bibliography would elicit so much sockpuppetry?  Is it just some fringe article some perv can get kicks on defacing w/o real fear of admin punishment?  I mean, xMule had its share of vandalism back in the day, but it was just dozens and dozens of random IPs over and over again.  (is it possible to protect one's talk pages from vandalism? :-/) — HopeSeekr of xMule (Talk) 22:11, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I explain it pretty thoroughly on user:Steve espinola's discussion page.  It's a guy who has had a vendetta against Biff for a long time for some reason.  He is operating under that username because I (birth name SE) began trying to remove the libel from the early versions of that article.  As to why he is vandalizing other articles, I really don't know, unless he is just trying to appear like a deep Wikipedia contributor.  I suppose it could be to make me look bad?  
Another way to answer this is that Biff's art illicits strong reactions, out of proportion to his current level of mass-media fame.  Not many people know his stuff (compared to commerical "top 40" "artists") but those that connect with it, positively or negatively, _really_ connect with it. He's a pretty radical and unusual artist, and has managed to keep a following in spite of a lack of corporate backing. Two CD compilations of his stuff will be coming out on reissue labels this year, so you may be hearing more about him soon.Sojambi Pinola 01:39, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

text: (Umm, I meant to say "elicits," not "illicits."  Ha ha!)  Sojambi Pinola 08:38, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why so controversial?? 

message: It's been weeks and weeks, so I've unprotected to let some people, you know, edit the article instead of just talking about it. --Tony SidawayTalk 08:48, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Unprotected

message: I trimmed the article somewhat because it was full of unsourced stuff and some rather blatant fandom.  --Tony SidawayTalk 04:53, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Trimmed somewhat

message: To help out a user, I have counted the reverts and listed them below, so he can evaluate them.
Remember, not every edit is a revert, and reverts are allowed as long as they do not accumulate or fuel an edit war.  Also, reversions made "just after" the 24-hour period can be counted in that period, if they are too close.  The edits below were not evaluated for their "validity" or quality, as this is not the issue in a revert war.   Additionally, no edits were found that can be described as vandalism; such edits do not count towards reversions.
Time period represented: Just over 24 hours.  Nothing before that period was analyzed; therefore, some of these reversions could qualify as violations if they are added to any previous reverts.
Jonah: 1RR
*  Basically "undoes" the refactoring preceding it, a refactoring which was not itself a revert (not that it matters).
* 00:03 19 Sept.
Marcuse: 1RR
*  This is also a reversion.  It "undoes" Jonah.
* 10:25 19 Sept. 
216.175.112.9: 1RR
*  Deleted two links added by someone else.  This "undid" their work.  Also additional non-revert edits.
* 22:49 Sept.
Willmcw: 1RR
*  Re-added links deleted by someone else.  This "undid" their deletion, and counts as a revert.
* 01:44 20 Sept.
Master of edits: 1RR
*  Among many other edits here, this user removed many links added by others.  This is a reversion.  Did not bother to check the very re-worked text; the reversion is there in the links.
* 02:02 20 Sept.  
Jonah: 2RR
*  More undoing of additions and deletions in the links and reference sections.  A revert; body of article not analyzed.
* Current version [[[User:Paul Klenk|paul klenk]] 08:39, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revert counts, by user 

message: Jonah, I've noticed that you have tried to delete several links from the article without explanation. In one case a separate editor "Master of Edits" vandalized the article and you kindly reverted it a few minutes later, except that when you reverted it you left out the links you were originally trying to delete. What gives? I think that it is a sound policy that we agree to discuss material in the talk page before deleting it with no explanation.  Please stop behaving so erratically.  thank you, Marcuse 18:33, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: For the time being we don't need to worry about extraneous info. We are still establishing the details of Rose's career and having references, even those which only substantiate a single  performance, are helpful. -Willmcw 22:39, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm not sure any of you are right. The details of Rose's career are not addressed by the referenced material. Only things that Sojambi likes from earlier in Rose's career. And they don't explain his later work, or earlier for that matter. I think they ae window dressing and take away from the article.216.175.112.9 02:09, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

text: *Whatever. I'm not even going to bother explaining why you are way out of line. If you are not Mr. IP address, then I suggest that you should take it up with him as to why he is making it seem quite obvious that he is you. Seems like the other editors got bored with your antics as well. Good luck with the article, its all yours. Marcuse 13:34, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unexplained Deletions 

message: This edit doesn't seem entirely right to me.  A lot of factual information seems to be removed without explanation.  What's up? --Tony SidawayTalk 02:12, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Marcuse, you may be on to something.  I've been trying to communicate with one of the editors, but I can't get any explanation.  This is all quite odd.  paul klenk talk 11:48, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Could someone explain this?

message: Jonah, it may have been a mistake, but you cannot mark an edit as "minor," as you did on the Biff page, when it obviously changes so much content, especially disputed content.
Minor edits are for adding wiki edits, correcting spelling or spacing, and suchlike.  This is why this feature is not made available to new accounts.
When you abuse this feature, you also abuse the trust of your fellow editors, and they will become less and less willing to work with you.  Please keep this in mind.
paul klenk talk 22:40, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this one was in good faith, though you are quite right that it was an improper use of "minor" tag.  It looks like Jonah simply reverted his previous edit.  It's fine to mark a self-reversion like that minor, so long as you note it in the edit summary.  As a personal aside, I find it astonishing how much effort is being put into a page about a fellow virtually no one has ever heard of or would remember if they had.  Derex 00:10, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Derex, this "reversion" has been going back and forth and back and forth, a long, slow and nasty edit war.  You are also right that he should have written something in the edit summary (which he didn't).  Jonah came to me before asking for help.  I'm trying to protect him, not the article.  He has now left a message on my page, which, I believe, establishes his IP as being no longer a suspected sock puppet but a confirmed one.   paul klenk talk 03:23, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: oh, no doubt.  in this particular instance, it looks like Jonah made an edit one minute and undid it the next.  so, i'm just saying that it doesn't look like johah was trying to conceal anything by misuse of the minor tag in this instance.  often, when someone misuses the tag, concealment is the intent. Derex 03:27, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

text:  Thanks sort of Derex. If you listened to Biff's later records, as I was forced to o na few occasions, you'll get the anger and ethnic slurs that can in no way be listed as theater. They are infuriating. He's a horrible drunkard and a nasty man. Anyone writing otherwise doesn't know him well. That's why I continue to edit here. I have to right the wrongs that Sojambi Pinola- a known friend and therefore Sock Puppet of Rose's.Jonah Ayers 02:16, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Jonah, did you leave that message on my talk page?   paul klenk talk 04:02, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Please don't remove relevant information from this article. -Willmcw 18:42, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

text: The entire text consists of five sentences.  How can that possibly be too much information? Also, you have only one non-Biff edit.  What's this "Pro Rose" stuff?  There aren't any "sides" here.  I'm not even going to pretend that I don't think you're a Jonah sockpuppet.  Sue me.  Derex 04:10, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Marking edits as "minor" 

message: The following rant was found on Rose's messageboard feature of his Biffrose.com website. It was signed by him, and has his email address above it.
"Dear Slave Rebel claiming to be FREE REBEL.....what's
this "....zeitgeist of 'that era' you speak of...?""""
Dylan's "era" is 60 to 65 and then he's
finished....his magnum opus is john wesley harding in
1969 where he "...falls in the arms of a
priest"...hiding again in a ...masked and
anonymous..posey....which is all he is in trying to
find an identity now as a nostalgia BUFF in the face
of my nostalgia BIFF..I lay a rose on the grave of the
un-insightful and go for the BIG ONE...not DYLAN or
CARLIN...their managers are pipsqueaks....next to
matthew mark luke and john for the BIG ONE...and my
name and idea is BIGGER than the BIG ONE meaning Jesus
Christ rose. with a BIFF like when you "GET" it you'll
see more clearly how limited those nostalgia buffs
are..carlin and dylan have gotten so-o-o-o-o-o close
to money power fame and glory they don't have a
*****in' clue who they are or what to do....carlin
will tell jokes and shy away from the eighth dirty
word....NIGGUH! I will pick up th slack ..move on to
the ninth dirty word...CUNT and form the TENTH dirty
word...as my prod, company and prod your ass into the
21st sentry....Nigguhcunt Prod...I will shift the end
of the world to merely th N of the WORD...and those
who have affection for those old farts will die with
their affections like those who continued to sing
Stephen Foster songs...I dream of jeannie with the
light brown hair after 1900 when Scott Joplin entered
the scene with a new musical lick....it's RAGETIME
folks....dylan and carlin to name two are relics of
the past ...I am a relic of the future...Dylan is
trying to re-make the story ...again and again of WHY
he "changed" his name.....last nite on PBS it was
because there was "...anti semitic" feeling when he
came to Minneapolis...in his book CHRONICLES he shows
what a jive ass liar he is when he writes ( I
paraphrase)......"I'm going to tell it to you right
straight....there was a biker with the San Bernadino
Angels named Bobby Zimmerman...he was killed when..."
but hey, folks ..stop the show...he says he's going to
give it to us RIGHT STRAIGHT? You mean he wasn't
giving it to you or me or US RIGHT STRAIGHT ALL 
ALONG..????...then ***** that son of a ***** jew piece
of pschitt no offense meant I'm sure none was taken
for trying to be CHRISTIAN when what's CHRISTIAN will
HIT you like A BIFF and suddenly you will see the
world turned UPSIDE down like everybody did you
grasped in a twinkle and a lighten-ning bolting from
the heavens a swipe of understanding as to how the
very lowest can be equal and moreso with the so-called
HIGHEST....dylan and carlin to name two are the very
highest and brought low thru the power of the LOWERED
and I am HIGHERED by the Lowered....now shall we go
slower? ...shall I start over? .....let's take it from
the top...we're here to edjucate people...or just
leave out the jew of edge-jew-cate and simply
EDGE-=cate the people....do you really think the jews
are going to control the story of the 2nd coming of
christ with me around...?...think again....have a 2nd
helping of who's controlling the story and thru what
means...and welcome to the electricity of the world
wide web.....remember..we have only RUSSIA to
ICON-vince....they have held steadfast with the
InterNYET and refuse to ICONtact GOOGLE...but prefer
GOGOL......and now a spatial note to Steve
Espinola....my new religion was called "Your Heart"
and th ONLY DOT COM/mandment was to fill your
heart...Saint Gregory of Kansas City said, "Wa-a-a-al,
Biff if'n ye gonna start a new religion ya gotta have
some sort of sacrifice....." so-o-o-o we decided to
sacrifice the new religion and keep your heart.... N
of story.....as for the red and white t-shirt....send
this e-mail off to Mark in London to remind him he is
aces up on the release of the Biff Rose compilation
cd...with the red and white t-shirt flying above the
self-portrait......shifting the red and white against
the blue ...skies to re-focus american patriotism so
that it reflects more american praytriotism and the
dot com/mand to be "Take up thy T-shirt and follow me"
instead of taking up the old wooden cross which is
heavy and which jesus is supposed to have done for you
anyway......as for the true cross....only one small
chip remains...so you don't have to carry the cross on
your shoulder..you only have to carry a chip....and as
for your faith being as that of a mustard seed...let
it be for this th"
It cuts off there. This is for all those who demand proof of his Anti Semiticism and Racism beyond his lyrics on his later Home recordings. Note how he tries to manipulate his usage and then just launches right in using Jew asa derogatory phrase to describe Bob Dylan. Jonah Ayers
::First of all, to be strictly technical, it proves nothing about the content of his LYRICS.  I just listened to his two 2004 albums yesterday.  Absolutely NOTHING on them that could be considered hateful to any race.  One love song to a black woman, another love song to a Korean woman....both songs mention their races, and even make puns (eg. "my career" becomes "my Korea,") but they are inarguably non-sarcastic and loving songs.
::Second, I could spend some time taking apart what he's saying here, and perhaps I will more, later.  He mentions that "Nigguh" is a dirty word.  The most charged thing he says is some challenge about whether Jews can "control the telling of the second coming," and I honestly can't explain what he is talking about.  From my experience, he is, at times, capable of equal-opportunity misanthropy, but I have not noticed him _excluding_ any particular race or religion from his tirades.
::So, on balance, still doesn't count as legit evidence as to the content and intent of his CDs.  Now, how's about that lunch meeting, Jonah?  And what of the email address you promised?
::-Sojambi Pinola 20:45, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh Jonah, please.  (rolls eyes.)    -Sojambi Pinola 05:42, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biff Rose Anti Semitic and Racist Tirade on his website posted here for your perusal 

message: Jonah, you keep reverting the article to a version that contains unsourced negative comments about "Roast Beef", and you keep removing the "comedian" link.  
Reviews of the record were not favorable, and it faded quickly.  Where is your evidence?  That comment is not true.
What is going on?  I spent a lot of time today trying to open up discussion here --that is a thought-out essay I wrote up there-- and you are not really participating or even responding to the points I am making. There's no debate going on. It makes it difficult or even impossible to work with you, and that's NOT what I want. The last revert, by Fvw,  said "Please don't remove content, and add sources for claims you add." You ignored that plea.  I don't even know that user!!
Please revert your reversion until we discuss this.  I'm taking this very seriously.  If reverting the reversion will not work for you, please suggest an alternate strategy whereby we can work together.  -Sojambi Pinola 05:24, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: what? you mean the article, 3 brief paragraphs.  or the talk page, hella long. Derex 18:51, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Continual reversions to non-sourced negative sentence

message: I don't like to think about if he didn't. The Abbey bar.But you people have taken this to a whole other level, a new degree of worship. I've seen the man perform. I've seen him call a black man nigger to his face. I had to stop serving him on numerous occasions in NOLA. When I moved, I never dreamed I'd think of him again, but here he is. And here all you are. This guy was a minor footnote, not a genre defying artist. He's a shyster, you know, trying to find a way to make a buck. There's not a lot more to it. Someone compared him to James Joyce, and it's obvious to me that dude has come off his rocker. This is Biff Rose, quasi racist bar patron. He spends most of his time in bars. Not writing. The words are stream of consciousness. Oh my god, you people are really in need of something to do with your life. Chill the f out. Write a new article or something. But give this one the ghost it came in on.Mary Hope 19:58, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  What the hell? 

message: I see that this article is the subject of content disputes.  I see that there have been too many reverts that use as an edit summary that they are reverting vandalism.  Removal of content that is the subject of a dispute as to whether it is correct or encyclopedic is not vandalism.  Claims of vandalism, when there is a real content dispute, are personal attacks.
Can we please try to summarize what the content issues are?
I see one content issue, which is that the statement that recent Biff Rose songs have racist content is a POV.  A statmenet that a writer has claimed that they have racist content is NPOV.  Robert McClenon 11:53, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone created a username of "Sojambi Pinolla" --extra "l"-- and made some familiar-looking edits. For the record, it wasn't me. Probably goes without saying. zzzz. Sojambi Pinola 05:45, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit Wars again