User talk:Nick Boulevard
|
|
| Contents |
Arts in Birmingham
Please stop reverting changes to Arts in Birmingham. If there are specific changes with which you disagree, then please take those to the talk page. The information about Hendrix and the claim that Jools Holand owns and runs the Jam House keep reappearing because of your wholesale reversions. I have explained on the talk page why I think that the Hendrix material is not relevant to Birmingham and I have worked with others to research the ownership and management of the Jam House. --Theo (Talk) 00:15, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Hi Theo, thanks for your comment, the reason why I keep part reverting that page is not to undo any work it is to retain the full relevant info on Brum music scene, Andy Mabbett keeps deleting Nick Mason from the article, he was warned about this when the article was on the main Brum page, also Jimi Hendrix info is also relevant IMO as he was one of the most influential Rock musicians ever, the fact that he first heard and recorded All along the watchtower due to a Brummie musician whose other band member played on other records by Hendrix is relevant enough to sit here surely, besides that article was part written by Valiantis and myself over many months. Thanks Nick Boulevard 18:45, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Hi Nick: I can see both sides of the Nick Mason issue: he was born in Birmingham but did not grow up in the city, so is he a Brummie. Personally, I would not include him in the article but if he is mentioned we should state that he did not grow up in Birmingham. I do not doubt the importance of Jimi Hendrix but I do not see that his friendship/collaboration/record borrowing with Brummies is sufficiently important to Birmingham to be included in the article; in my opinion its place is in the biographies of the various parties and possibly in the equivalent "Arts in …" article for the place where the events occurred. My impression is that we are discussing the boundaries of the article here. I feel that its title Arts in Birmingham indicates that it should be about things that happened or happen in the city. Artistes growing up here is significant because the local culture will have shaped them. The birth of those who did not stay is one step removed and association with Brummies is another one. --Theo (Talk) 10:08, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Hi Theo, as regards Nick Mason it has been a point of contention for many months, we do not know how long Nick Mason stayed in the city after his birth but without Birmingham where else would he have been born? IMO a place of birth is relevant to a musicians history, it's on his biog page and we are not saying that he was educated in the city (that took place in London) simply that he is a child of Birmingham I guess, unfortunately Andy Mabbett has a history of even deleting Nick Mason from the people born in Birmingham page (you can check the edit history for proof), he has a real problem with his assosciation wit h the city, this is actually surpressing the truth for his own means, many people have warned him about this behaviour and it makes me want to battle to keep his name there even more. As regards the Hendrix link, provided it is kept on the traffic and steve winwood pages I guess I can live with that removal from arts in brum :) Nick Boulevard 16:24, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Hi Nick: Thank you for explaining. Thank you, too, for accepting the deletion of the Jimi Hendrix stuff. I agree that it should be kept in the Traffic and Steve Winwood articles. I am sure that we can rely on you to watch those (great big grin!). I also agree that Andy has been unreasonable about Nick Mason. To my mind, a place of birth is relevant to a person but a person is not relevant to the place if it did not shape their development. As I said before, I do not mind whether Mason is mentioned in the article but if he is to be included it must say that he grew up elsewhere. Please do not let Andy's misbehaviour drive misbehaviour of your own. I find it helpful to go elsewhere for a while before responding to annoying edits (I do a griddler or a sudoku or even some work). --Theo (Talk) 09:36, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks Theo, we went through this ages ago, what I added some time ago was "Nick Mason (who was born in Birmingham and educated in London)" to keep the peace, Andy kept removing it until the page was protected. In the end we just opted for simply Nick Mason and then if the reader wished to know more they could read about him on his own page, I really would like to keep him there due to his significance to British music. Do you have any objection to using the above, both are factual. Nick Boulevard 14:10, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks Theo, I don't hold out much hope though? Nick Boulevard 23:21, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Is Andy Mabbett (pigs on wing) Brumburger?
I am quite sure it is the same person as they edit my work one after the other at exactly the same times, often deleting little snippets of relevant info along the way, I don't have time to list them all now but I can if need be. I thought that maybe Ray Girvan was the same user as well always appearing at the same time and always making a point of claiming it couldn't be as he was down on Devon and acting quite condesending which gets my back up, anyway I don't really care about any of these users or who they may or may not be, what I do care about is the fact that they are watching my every move, I don't mean generally I mean thay are giving me an exclusive treatment to they almost bullying style of edits, if something I have added is copyright then it would have been in enthusiasm for adding facts and bit of info relevant to Brum, it's wrong I know and I apologise but I can asure people that I am no mean ogre trying to bring down wikipedia, rather I am trying to expand the info on Brum related articles so as to create a vast wealth of factual info, I have gone to great lengths to sustain a pace of additions here and when copyright vio's are brought to my attention I will delete the offending material without hesitation ususally replacing what is removed with my own original version. In a recent case I actually contacted the person I took the info from and they didn't mind at all, in fact we are now friends. When I was at school there was NO such source for such a collaborative, collective imalgum of info on places like Birmingham and I am hoping that Wikipedia will be a place for many to learn from in the future as well as other professionally maintained sites.
I have recently stumbled across two pages that seem to be the work of Brumburger, Andy Mabbet (one and the same?) and RayGirvan, on one of the pages they are discussing tracing my IP address which I am sorry but I find quite disturbing, especially when you take a look at their contributions, mostly relating to myself? is this ok for wikipedia? here are the two pages:
Thanks Nick Boulevard 18:45, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I have gone to great lengths to sustain a pace of additions here and when copyright vio's are brought to my attention I will delete the offending material without hesitation ususally replacing what is removed with my own original version.
- On this point, I and others have tried to explain previously: there is a middle road. If someone copies stuff: it's a copyright violation. If someone writes it out of their own head: it's gonna be just as bad for being unsourced and unverified. Read up about copyright and how it works! You are allowed to quote (within reason) and rephrase (within reason) so that it's perfectly possible to write an article that's both original and properly sourced. RayGirvan 23:32, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- No, I am not Andy Mabbett. There is now an RfC open regarding you, at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Nick_Boulevard. Please take the time to read Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment and the instructions on the page regarding you, before you edit either. --Brumburger 20:47, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Sorry but I don't believe you and why are you trying to trace my IP address? Nick Boulevard 22:15, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- What do you mean "trying to trace my IP address"? You have admitted yourself that edits made by those IP addresses are yours, so they don't need "tracing". If you mean doing a DNS lookup, that's hardly rocket science, is it? Can you provide a single example of your own deletion of copyvio material that you have previously inserted? Put it on the RfC page, if so. --Brumburger 22:29, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- You know damn well that I changed my user page recently and I can asure people that it was before I read your notes on tracing my IP address.
- FYI, Nick B. seems to have used all the IPs in the range 195.92.67.65 - 78, plus 195.92.67.208 - 209. comment by Andy Mabbett.
- The difficulty being, then, that the address block (195.92.67.0 - 195.92.67.255) is the Energis UK backbone. I don't know how specific the sub-blocks get, but some of my edits before I signed up came out as 195.92.67.70, and I'm logging on via Wanadoo from Devon. comment made by RayGirvan
- I'd noticed that, and assumed it was Wanadoo (the numbers show up as the Planet Online webcache when you look them up, Planet being the ancestor of Freeserve and Wanadoo). comment made by Bumburgler.
- Why do you need to know what my ISP is? and why do you want to know my location? Nick Boulevard 22:39, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Nobody needs to know what your ISP is, but since you often don't log in and you've made multiple copyright-violation edits, the IP range is important. Nobody's mentioned your geographical location. --Brumburger 14:32, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Nobody's mentioned your geographical location Except Nick. Andy Mabbett 15:24, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Nick: Using abusive variations of editor's handles is usually seen as a form of personal attack, unless you are known to be friends. Such behaviour inflames passion and is not conducive to constructive interaction. Please remove your mockery of Brumburger and try to play nice. I think I understand that you feel beleagured by Andy, Ray and Brumburger but calling them names is not likely to win them, or anybody else, around. Your stalkers are trying to improve our encyclopedia. Ray has indicated that they suspected you of using multiple IP addresses to circumvent 3RR. In effect, they suspect you of the same thing that you suspect of them. --Theo (Talk) 10:08, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- The difference being that Nick Boulevard has admitted to the anonymous IP edits (many of them copyright violations) - he has complained that "his" articles have been removed or changed in cases where there were no edits made using his account, and has even signed "anonymous" comments when he wasn't logged in. He has produced absolutely no evidence that Andy, Ray and myself are the same person (unsurprisingly, since we are not). Nobody's "stalking" him outside his own mind. --Brumburger 14:32, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Ok, Andy Mabbett and Brumburger are following my every move on wikipedia and they are tracing my IP addresses. No different Nick Boulevard 16:31, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Brumburger: You are defending yourself, Andy, and Ray from an attack that was not made. It seems clear to me that the three of you are watching Nick and his various IP addresses to monitor his edits for copyvios. This seems appropriate to me. I apologise for the offence that the word 'stalker' has given you; on IRC it has a neutral sense of watching someone's actions and I am not alone in using it on Wikipedia to mean a person who has another user on a watchlist. Nick is not imagining the close watch that is being kept upon him. I do not doubt that Nick does not always login; I have no evidence that this behaviour is itself malicious, however. This is not a war in which I must take a side: I can see some undesirable behaviour by everyone involved in the RFC and I can see much more that is beneficial by everyone. None of this conflict would arise if it were not that all of us believe Wikipedia to be important. I think that it is helpful to bear that shared value in mind. [Nick: I expect you to be comfortable with me addressing this issue here. If you do have a problem with my talking to another editor on your talk page, please forgive me.] --Theo (Talk) 15:45, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Hi Theo, thanks for mediating here, you are probably quite accurate with your take on the situation, I appologise if I have come across as abusive but I can assure people that it is purely down to Andy's insistance on deleting things like Nick Mason and his/Rays condesending attitude, IMO we are all equal contributers on Wikipedia and we should work together so I am prepared to forget the past and try and formulate my arguments more professionaly (which I am quite capable of doing when I have time) providing that Andy Brumburger and Ray are more respectful and discuss their edits on the discussion pages, it really doesn't take long to do this. Nick Boulevard 16:31, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- One reason why I find this situation so exasperating is that it's a standard kind of dispute on Wikipedia. My viewpoint is best expressed by Larry Sanger who was paid editor for the Wikipedia project, at this Kuro5hin article (http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2004/12/30/142458/25): the bit about having to explain everything in detail to non-experts.
- I'm not setting out to be condescending. It's just that in some areas, frankly, I know my stuff: I am, though you may not believe it or like it, a professional journalist with fairly wide interests in topics like history of science, historical research and linguistics. This means that often I see text on Wikipedia that's just so wrong wrong wrong that deletion doesn't seem to need any explanation beyond a terse note in the Edit summary and providing a reference. It's intensely irritating to be expected to write an essay on the Talk page justifying small edits on matters you know inside-out, or matters that you know from general experience are highly likely to be questionable. For instance, statements like "X was first invented in Y" are almost always unreliable and need further investigation.
- I still think, however, that prior discussion isn't a general expectation on Wikipedia. Nick's request for this comes across as a desire to exert veto over the page, purely because few other users ask it. Mostly you just edit, say briefly why, and provide a source if needed. RayGirvan 19:23, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Ray, unfortunately you have totally blown my comments out of all proportion, I don't expect an essay if you or Andy make minor edits but if someone is to totally remove whole swathes of material and keep reverting then yes it does require a proper explanation and not I might add a snide condesending one. It is absolutely irrelivant to me what you say you do, I don't need or wish to know. I shouldn't insult you although my irritation is never meant with anger that is no excuse, I think that if you understood Andy Mabbetts history of deleting my work you may realise just why I act as I do sometimes.
- All I wish for is Wikipedia to have professional written articles with an unbiased format, I am sure that you feel the same so let us both try and get on, you obviously enjoy editing my work, I have given up hope of getting on with Andy Mabbett, it is a lost cause. Nick Boulevard 14:03, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Reply
Hello Nick, sorry I'm slow to respond. I agree it is rather odd that Brumburger and RayGirvan seem to agree with everything Andy does, but I dont think that there the same person, they all seem to have very different styles which would be very hard to fake by one person.
I have been fairly depressed lately and I dont have the stomach for getting involved in any disputes, I havn't been on the internet much lately.
That said I can sort of see everyones point of view here. I think you are well meaning, but everyone else here has a point, a lot of this mess could be sorted if you could provide sources for your additions. However I agree with you that Andy has a vendetta against you.
If it makes you feel any better, your not the only person to be irritated by Andy's antics take a look at User Talk:Leonig Mig, there seems to be a long standing pattern of behavoir here. There's even talk of an RfC against him if your interested.
G-Man 21:15, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks G-man, I am going to endevour to provide all my sources from now on and never... never use copyright violation, with regards to Andy Mabbett, If I'm not used to him by now I never will be but sometimes I have a lapse of cool.
- With regards to your depression, I hope it is not severe and I hope that it/the cause passes with time. I wrote a poem about depression once, It's a bit naff but, go see your talk page. Nick Boulevard 22:44, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Hey, I noticed you removed part of the statement of the dispute on your RFC, it's best if you no longer believe this for you to write that in your response, with regards to what you wrote above (about providing sources and never using copyvio) - that's great! you should include that in your response as well I think. -- Joolz 23:40, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks Joolz, I know this may sound a little trite but I am not sure that I can be bothered to "defend my defence" against Andy Mabbett (who seems to have stirred this all up for me), the truth prevails I usually find, I may sometimes be foolish but an honest fool means no harm. Nick Boulevard 23:55, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Pigsonthewing
Hi Nick, I've been having the same problems as you I think. I've decided to move away from the wikipedia page but I still think something needs to be done about Andy Mabbett.
I hope you'll agree that the problem is not what Pigsonthewing does for the wikipedia, which is of reasonable quality, but the following:
- Stalking. He will target work by specific users instead of finding new articles to work on. this happened to me, and I think has also happened to you.
- Obsessive. Once he has made an edit he will watch the page, and revert any changes made. He gets involved in revision wars all the time. Once he has made his mind up nobody else gets a lookin.
- Rude. His comments in the revision section are very snide. After you have reseached something to have it described as irrelavant hurts.
- Destructive. He removes from the wikipedia much more than he puts in.
I think it's very easy to beleive the internet is a kind of bubble, however he should realise he is interacting with real people and we all do it as a kind of therapy, as a kind of entertainment- we do it because we enjoy it! His work is not of low quality- rather his behavior is deliberatly anti-social- he obviously enjoys putting people's noses out of joint.
If you want someone to join in a test case for this I would be willing to contribute. I don't think he should be banned, but certainly I think his brand of abusive, bullying behaviour should be frowned upon by wikipedia as strongly as 'peacock terms' or 'copy violations'. Leonig Mig 18:33, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Paranoia
Hi Nick: I think that you were wrong about those users being sockpuppets so please let it go. More importantly, please do not let Ray's intemperate language get to you. I have no problems with your contributions to the Talk:Arts in Birmingham debate; indeed I am delighted that we are cooperating in this way. Please do not muddy things with accusations of bad faith. If you feel the need to rant, please do so by email and we can talk through your concerns without inflaming others. Please remember that all four of you are likely to be a bit sensitive just now. We all need to be gentle in our public statements if things are to cool and heal.—Theo (Talk) 08:09, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Theo RFA
Thanks for the praise. Please email me.—Theo (Talk) 18:40, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Letting things go
Nick: Please would you disregard any accusations or criticisms that Andy, Brumberger, or Ray may level against you, however unfair. If we could all focus on the articles instead of the editors we can all spend more time building the encyclopedia.—Theo (Talk) 19:12, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Ok, no probs. Nick Boulevard 21:51, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)