Talk:Biff Rose/Archive 2

message: Archive 2 of the long and tempestuous Biff Rose discussion. Peruse at your own risk.216.244.7.12 06:13, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

message: I noticed the back and forth on this page has resumed. I also noticed the previous discussion was archived. Why? As it is, the current version of the article is the one that was agreed on by general consensus. Please discuss any proposed changes here before making them. And stay civil.  Marcuse 04:30, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit wars 

message: Sojambi pinola-Sojambi Pinola is proven to be the same as poster 69.112.0.166 69.112.0.166
here's the proof.... (cur) (last)  07:52, 17 September 2005 Sojambi Pinola m (→Compilations - sorry...that was ME...not logged in. I am leaving the POV comments in for now, but please discuss them.)
(cur) (last)  07:44, 17 September 2005 69.112.0.166 (→Compilations - This is the correct title of this LP.)
(cur) (la
from the September 13th 2005 edits of Biff Rose article Mickey muos 20:57, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: sock puppets

message: It is sad, Jonah, that your uncooperative attitude has resulted in the article being butchered beyond comprehension. It is full of catty little remarks, reads terribly and really reflects nothing about the artist except your own petty little perception. Great job! See how far cooperation can get us? Marcuse 22:31, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Be Civil is one of the core principles of Wikipedia.  Robert McClenon 20:00, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I like the additions of the pics, and the discog as it stands it is very clear, and offers all singles, I don't believe a new heading revert will be in order, though Sojombi seems to think it nice.  I would also suggest that marcuse try and follow Robert McClenon's advice. Jonah Ayers 00:10, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incomprehensible Mess 

message: I removed the quote by critic Mike Regenstreif. I emailed him a couple of days to verify that the quote was his and he has not responded. Until this quote can be verified I am removing it from the article. Marcuse 03:33, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Unsourced quote

message: While most of us editors have been working towards a consensus on the article, editor user:Jonah Ayers has been sabotaging this process at every step, editing in bad faith and misrepresenting his edits in the edit summary. For example, in edit he claims to be rearranging the discography, but the actual edit basically substitutes most of the text for his prefered version. In this other innstance  he accuses an editor of vandalizing the article by deleting a picture (which he did not) and then claims to re-add the allegedly deleted picture in the edit summary while replacing the entire text of the article. Combined with his malicious, mean-spirited attacks on other editors, his   aggressive use of sockpuppets and anonymous IPs, I suggest he recuse himself from this article. I will be happy to recuse myself as well if he agrees to do the same.  Marcuse 01:44, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That could be construed as a legal threat, and anyone making one could be blocked from editing. -Will Beback 04:31, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Now let's please drop all this and get back to discussing the article. -Will Beback 05:26, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  That could be construed as a threat will, which in wiki land can also be determined as un wiki like and you could be brought up to the admins much like you were before you surreptitiously changed your name. AS for legal threats, I don't believe any were made, i merely pointed out that with the new law, Jonah Ayers could theoretically bring you into a court on charges of that most ludircous law, which states that anyone found to be annoying can be sued. That's that, you can try and manipulate the situation in any fahsion, and true to your nature, you have used your opportunity to be almost agonizingly patronizing, irritatingly smug, and mindbogglingly suspect in your biased approach at using wikipedia. I applaud you for your complete lack of self control and inability to be anything more than annoying- uh oh, I'm going to be taken to court for annoyingly calling someone else annoying. ouch. Now, let's talk about the sierra club, what exactly is your relation to them?216.244.7.12 05:42, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editing in bad faith