User talk:Sp1955
May 2010[edit]
{{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Rodhullandemu 01:50, 22 May 2010 (UTC){unblock| Rodhullandemu, I don't understand why I have been blocked. I try to make a useful edit. It gets deleted. I try to discuss it on the talk page. That discussion gets deleted as well!!! I mean, it's ridiculous. It's like everything I do, no matter how justified, gets deleted. What do you want me to do? How can make good edits, when they get deleted one after another! Please unblock. I have only added useful info. Sp1955 (talk) 07:41, 22 May 2010 (UTC)}
- You haven't formatted your request correctly, but I noticed it anyway. It is not acceptable for you to have more than one account. Because you keep changing accounts, which is against the rules, we are enforcing the rules by removing everything that comes from you. It isn't even possible for us to try to discuss your desired changes, or to try to teach you about the rules, because you change accounts, and so no one can communicate with you. Some of your desired edits are useful, but most of them aren't, and we're tired of dealing with the constant disruption of the article on George Harrison. Sock puppeters rarely get unblocked, because the use of multiple accounts is so disruptive and dishonest- one thing I've seen work in the past is that you stop editing Wikipedia completely, under any username, for a period of time- one week for each account or ip you've used is a good rule of thumb. Then read enough of Wikipedia's rules to have a clear understanding of what was wrong with your editing before. Go back to your first account and make a (correctly formatted) unblock request. In that request, include (a) a list of every account you used, (b) a promise to use only that one original account in the future, and (c) a clearly stated plan for editing in a useful way in the future. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:36, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks FisherQueen! I don't think I'll petition for an unblock. I don't want to cause any more commotion. I was just thinking maybe these facts would be interesting to add to the George Harrison wikipedia from the source: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0365600/bio. Other than that, I have nothing else to say. "He played 26 instruments: guitar, sitar, 4-string guitar, bass guitar, arp bass, violin, tamboura, dobro, swordmandel, tabla, organ, piano, moog synthesizer, harmonica, autoharp, glockenspiel, vibraphone, xylophone, claves, African drum, conga drum, tympani, ukulele, mandolin, marimba, and Jal-Tarang.
Spoke German, but not fluently Was an ace Monopoly player.
Though the guitar chord - 7th + sharpened 9th - became known as "The Hendrix Chord" through its heavy use on "Foxy Lady" and "Purple Haze," the 7#9 was actually used several months earlier by George Harrison on "Taxman" from The Beatles' 1966 album "Revolver".
The only Beatle whose childhood was not marred by personal tragedy.
After his lung cancer was found to have returned in March 2001, Harrison was operated on in June and had half of one lung removed. By November of that year however the cancer had spread to his brain, making recovery impossible. The Harrisons were common-sense people, but allowed their children to pursue their dreams, and encouraged George to take up music. Mrs. Harrison invited The Beatles over to practice early in their career, and sometimes came to see them perform. The family remained close, even after daughter Louise married and moved to America, and George became famous; Louise frequently made herself available for media interviews about her younger brother, and hosted his early American visits. He provided for their parents to retire comfortably, while his home at Friar Park was a family affair indeed, tended by he and his older brothers." Again thanks. Sp1955 (talk) 16:27, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
- Just wanted to add that it is very important that you stop this behavior of creating a new user account practically every day. I notice you created this new user account today. This is absolutely a very dishonest thing you are doing and you absolutely must stop doing it. All of us want to be very clear about this: Do not create another user account. prhartcom (talk) 23:12, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
- Another note: Your edits show an almost total lack of competence. To edit Wikipedia, Competence is required. prhartcom (talk) 00:34, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Prhartcom, I didn't create this account today- it was created yesterday. Thanks for your points. I do agree that some of my edits have been useless. However, some do add important points to the article. The matter of what is adequate to add into the article is very subjective. Thus, I think it's pointless to argue about which edits can be added to the article. The important part is that the claims have references, which I always provide. I will not create any new accounts. As I have said before, I have nothing else to add to the GH article other than the points I posted above, which I want to discuss. Other than that, I am finished with the article. So what does everybody think about the edits I proposed? Sp1955 (talk) 00:55, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
- Since it's user-generated, like Wikipedia, IMDB doesn't meet the reliable sources standard. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 02:28, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
- It's good to finally talk with you, as I have been observing your behavior on Wikipedia for some time. From your words above, it sounds like you can be reasonable. And most important, you just said, "I will not create any new accounts." We will just have to wait and see if you are telling the truth this time.
- I already know that you mean well. I said so on the GH talk page. It means something to know that you have good intentions.
- Despite your promise to no longer create new accounts, and despite your good intentions, there is the competence problem. I am very sorry to be the one to tell you this, but none of your contributions above are appropriate. If you want to know why, please learn the Five pillars and the List of policies (and I would add to that the Manual of Style). I already asked you on the GH talk page to do this. FisherQueen has also asked you. So have you done it?
Prhartcom, thanks for the kind words. Yes, I did read the wikipedia rules, but I'm still unclear why my proposed edits on this talk do not fit into this category, assuming we find a better source. I don't see how Harrison's interest in motor car racing is important to add, but my information about the chord structure that he used and his childhood isn't. People add all sorts of info. on wiki. Sp1955 (talk) 18:30, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
- Dmerkurev1 (that's the first user account you ever created, right?), I understand where you're coming from. You're excited about George Harrison, and you're excited to add a URL-cited improvement to a public article all about him. But there's a problem. Despite your excitement, you make a mistake--just like so many of us do on our first edit: You fail to realize that Wikipedia: the Encyclopedia is ALL that is important here--NOT George Harrison or 'insert your favorite subject here'. It is the ARTICLE that is important. It is an article on an ENCYCLOPEDIA--something that could still be around 100 years from now. It must be correct! We must put aside our biases. We must watch and observe other people and learn the culture. We must NOT do all of the DUMB THINGS we have been doing.
- Dmerkurev1, you are banned from the Wikipedia George Harrison article. Because of your past actions you are never again allowed to edit there. But if you still have a desire to edit any of Wikipedia's millions of other articles--if you have truly decided you understand that the Wikipedia article is more important than the subject, then I strongly suggest the following: Use this time right now during your block to just READ Wikipedia. And then read the talk pages of Wikipedia. And then read the history pages of Wikipedia. Watch and observe. Learn the culture. Wait. And wait some more. Find new articles that interest you. Read and wait. And then, one day, return to the talk page of Dmerkurev1 and put together a properly formatted unblock.
- I see what you mean when you ask why the information you provided about the chord structure that George used isn't suitable for, not just any wiki, you understand, but for Wikipedia. That's a fair question. The answer is that it isn't necessarily unsuitable--it could be suitable. You would have to have found this information from a reliable source--not just from any old website out there but from a real published source, like a book or paper from the library or a scholarly website about George Harrison. Then after you find the source material, you must write sentences in a new style, a style that does not reveal if you adore or hate the subject matter, a style that has a neutral point of view. You say you have read the rules about Wikipedia; I hope you remember reading about these two important rules--two of the most important pillars and policies of Wikipedia--two rules that you repeatedly broke. You may want to go back and read them again.
- But the real answer to your question: It's not just the lack of reputable source. It's that you put forward these submissions while actively trying to be dishonest with us. We would have liked to have helped you learn to find a reliable source or write in a neutral point of view, but we couldn't find you. You actively avoided engaging help from us and then tried to be sneaky and be more than one person with us. Do you see now why you must now stay away from the article?