Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by ChrisB (talk | contribs) at 08:07, 4 May 2006. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Lyk, OMGZ!!!111 Where is our Chat?!!??????111???!One!!11:
Archive 1 (My sign up - 25th April 2006)

MJ reply

glad i could help. Drmagic 02:58, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Rod Fell Far

Booo!--Crestville 23:56, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

This hairist abuse is frankly dizzzzgusting. Rod Hull deserves recoginition, by big titted lad.--Crestville 11:06, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I chose to take that as a warm hearted complement. I love you.--Crestville 02:10, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

MJ discussion continues

Sounds like you and ChrisB have some history. He tried to browbeat me into accepting his revision. Thanks for the heads up though. --Mhking 23:48, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Continued discussion

to quote you, verbatim in one of your many million offensive comments: "Whose fucking version of "accuracy" are you talking about?" --Manboobies 05:41, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm continuing this here because I think we can agree it's not fair to do this on Mhking's talk page. And please read all of this - don't give up half-way through. If you don't understand what I'm saying, keep reading it until it makes sense.

The entire conversation you're referencing is on my talk page. The guy refused to actually discuss the problem, and backhanded my complaint as "deceptive inclusion". By the third response, can you blame me for getting frustrated? He was trying to redefine the word "Portlander" against consensus and the dictionary. Do you agree with his opinion that to be a "Portlander", you have to have been born there? You can't have lived there for a significant period of time?

I'm not denying that I curse. It usually happens when I get frustrated. But take note that when I do, I don't say something like "you're a fucking asshole". I never curse at someone.

I said this to you: "Oh, thanks, so your content doesn't fit, therefore the rest of the article is bullshit?" That wasn't a curse at you (though you seemed to take offense). You libelled the article and the entire FA process by claiming that the article somehow "sneaked through" the process. A lot of people contributed significantly to make that FA happen - I think I had every right to be upset by that comment.

also, it's not possible to do what you say and have it sound good. Yes, I have been near studio equipment, I have my own small studio, I've been in many, including some very big ones. Nobody uses tape any more. And again, the only record I can think that used speeding up the tape to good effect is Bohemian Rhapsody. Now, does that F#5 sound good to you? No. It sounds like a fast forwarded C4, which it is. I don't see the point in arguing with you, you're such a troll, you're always baiting people, your talk page is full chocka block with people complaining about your behaviour and Rv'ing without asking, and when somebody points it out you flip your lid. I'm more than happy to source every little thing you've done to wiki stalk me since April. Because you would have happened upon the MJ article and started arguing over it with me normally? Had you ever touched that article before in your life? Why am I even bothering with you?--Manboobies 06:00, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

It is certainly possible to record with pitch-shifting and have it sound good. The point I made about Van Halen's "Me Wise Magic" is because Eddie Van Halen discussed in an interview in 1996 that they used this method to help Roth hit the high notes. And, since we were talking about music recorded in 1990 and 1991, tape was certainly used.

But that was not the point I was making. The greater point is that any concept added to an article has to be written in a citeable, verifiable source. Yes, we can listen to a song and note that a person can hit a certain pitch. But to include it in a Misplaced Pages article, someone else has to make that discovery. We can't do it ourselves - the guidelines are specific about that. That's the point I was trying to make.

I still have issue with that paragraph in the Staley article. There are no articles on the Internet that discuss Staley's range. Rule of thumb: if a Misplaced Pages article is the first place that an assertion is made, it doesn't belong in an article, no matter how true it is.

The only reason I brought up the pitch-shifting thing again is because your version of our "dispute" pretty clearly demonstrated that you don't read what I write. You skim it and then accuse me of trolling. I explain myself at length, and I apologize for not being brief. But I want people to understand the details of what I'm describing.

I'm not "wikistalking" you, either. Look at your Watchlist and you'll see a big button that says "contribs" next to an edit. Whenever any editor that I encounter shows a significant history of violating guidelines, I double-check their other edits to see if they've harmed any other articles. And, usually, it's there in spades.

Same thing in your case. I firmly believed your edits constituted unsourced original research, so I checked to see what else you worked on. I saw the MJ discussion and was absolutely appalled at how the process was being abused. I had no intention of stepping in until I saw that. I cannot fathom how there could possibly be a happy result with how it's being conducted - you will still be battling this issue six months from now. (And, again, you didn't seem to understand the points I made about the voting process.)

I follow up on editors regularly. It's not about you. It's about people who damage the integrity of Misplaced Pages. More often than not, they damage articles that no one else would catch otherwise. For the record: that's why the Contrib pages are there. If an editor has caused problems in one article, it's more than likely that he's done so in others.

And my Talk page? Every one of those situations was resolved. The key here is that I don't usually add my responses to my own Talk page, so you're only seeing half the argument. If you care (and I can't imagine why you would), keep investigating. The people who have most disagreed with me are new users that are completely unfamiliar with Wiki guidelines. Usually, it's someone who "knows" something is true but can't cite it anywhere (and doesn't understand that it needs to be cited).

I didn't merge your articles out of malice. You shouldn't create articles for the sake of creating articles. Articles only need to be created when there's an ample amount of information that cannot be handled within another article. There was nothing in the Layne Staley Fund article that couldn't be included in his article. There was nothing more that could be said about it than was already in the article. And the content in the article was almost entirely in Staley's article to begin with. Discussion wasn't required because the merge was non-controversial and no content was removed.

If you've made it this far, I'm reiterating: read everything that I've written regarding your edits. I do not believe that you've done so thus far, and I believe that's the reason you think I have a grudge or that you think I'm trolling.

If you don't want to hear from me again: follow the guidelines. All of them. If you can do that, I pledge that I won't go through your edit history again. -- ChrisB 08:07, 4 May 2006 (UTC)