Talk:Bad Boys Blue: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 22:51, 17 June 2010 edit92.112.200.196 (talk) →for user: Harout72 ← Previous edit		Revision as of 22:51, 17 June 2010 edit undo92.112.200.196 (talk) →Page protection should be implemented to this article to prevent it from daily vandalism.Next edit →
Line 8:		Line 8:
	}}		}}
	]		]

	== Page protection should be implemented to this article to prevent it from daily vandalism. ==

	An IP-hopper - turned - ] user vandalized the page at least 10 times as of today. After monitoring the page for some time, it is clear what this vandal is doing on daily basis. His intent is to disrupt the article and twist it in the way he/she feels fit. Not a single edit of the user had been constructive. The page should be protected to keep vandals like ] away. ] 15:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

	:I suspect that ] could be a sock-puppet of a user who several weeks ago added an image of himself together with... john's formation, namely ]. If you look at the pattern of edits done on bbb pages of several other languages, including german and french, you will see a striking resemblance in IP's of this IP-hopper prior to his becoming ] AND user ] along with his non-user name IP entries, at the time of the same image being uploaded on various pages by this ] or his non-user name IP version. I suspect that since he clearly supports john's formation and wanted to have only that image on the bbb pages, he decided to create a diversion, supposedly promoting andrew's formation, in order to have the latter eventually removed. That is, the goal is to make enough ridiculous alterations, "promoting" andrew's (less significant) formation as a more important one, that will make any mentioning of andrew's formation so annoying that eventually it will have to be removed from the page all together. After all, not that many bbb wiki pages tend to even mention about andrew's formation. So, it would be very convenient for john's formation supporter to indirectly cause to have andrew's formation obliterated from wiki. In fact, ] made a (very twisted) reference to the same image as the one posted by ], in a way that would not make sense... unless you can find a direct connection between these two user names. I could be wrong with this sock-puppet theory, but I doubt that I am. ] 05:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

	::{{RFPP\|d}} The page is hardly being vandalised daily. Yes, vandalism is frustrating, but I won't ] the page for one person who is vandalising the page once every few days. Feel free to request a review of this at ]. -- ] ]</sup> 21:57, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

	:::the same s.o.b. made 15 reverts since November 24. look at the article history page. not enough vandalizing, eh? sure... whatever you say. ] (]) 22:37, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

	::"The page is hardly being vandalised daily." Really? Let's see: between Nov. 24 & Dec. 16 there are about 23 days, during which there were about 15 reverts made. So, 15/23 is about 2/3 which means the page is regularly vandalized on 2 occasions during every 3 days. I say, 2 out of 3 is close enough to call it "daily". I highly doubt you're ''that'' mathematically challenged not to realize it. I'm sure you can do better than just giving a nonsensical excuses for declining valid page protection requests. ] (]) 23:38, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
	::One more point. Look at the thread-starter's initial entry: Dec. 3, when he says like "it's a 10th vandalism attempt". Between Nov. 24 & Dec. 3 there are EXACTLY 10 days!!! "Hardly daily"??? Do you even know what you're talking about? I hope this is not how you earned your editorial stars. ] (]) 23:54, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
	:::Page-protection is generally for massive moment-by moment vandalism attacks, across several IP addresses. This guy shows up every week or so, makes a dick of himself and gets reverted. Also, calling an admin 'ignorant', simply because they aren't jumping through hoops for you isn't going to help your case, nor is insulting the vandal in your edit summaries. ] (]) 16:50, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
	::::Do you have a better idea? (btw, I'm the "IP range" who's done most of the reverts - now I have my account) ] (]) 17:39, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
	::::Beyond 'Revert, wipe, continue', no. Unless you're getting hit every few minutes or so, you'd be told basically the same thing on the ] page: You're just not getting hit hard enough to warrant protection yet. This guys is almost literally doing it only a couple of times a day when he does it at all. ] (]) 18:43, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
	:::::That's the problem. If my theory (2nd post in the thread) is correct then it is the guy who knows the system well enough to avoid the 3rr rule or the warrant to have the page he trashes be protected, because the user in question is actually an admin in Polish wiki. That's why I say that the vandal is not some dumbass whom he tries to portray - he actually knows exactly what he's doing. ] (]) 18:55, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

	== The pending edit war ==		== The pending edit war ==

Revision as of 22:51, 17 June 2010

Biography: Musicians Start‑class

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians.
	This article has been marked as needing immediate attention.
	An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

/Archive 1

The pending edit war

I can understand why some editors want to revert some of the changes made by the now-blocked COI user BAD BOYS BLUE. But you can't just revert to the version of the article from before those changes were made, because other changes have been made since then. Also, the edits made by user BAD BOYS BLUE were not entirely vandalism. Some of the changes removed some blatant promotional spam, and fixed some other problems like inline external links, and to put that back in now would be a mistake.

I'm afraid at this point the best you can do is go through the article section by section. A bulk revert to some point in the past isn't going to work. Rees11 (talk) 20:50, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

You are correct, the banned user's edits were not entirely vandalism, and I did already incorporate a few of his inputs in the article. If he placed a valid point in it - there' s no reason why it shouldn't stay. All of my most recent edits show a transition of the article to the form that it will assume eventually, edit by edit, including incorporation BADBOYSBLUE's edits, as well as yours, and other contributors - all valid inputs will be incorporated, I only ask that the October 6 version is not used as a template for revisions. Please rest assured, the article will not stay in its present form, just allow some time for the process to take place. Esoteriqa (talk) 01:28, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

You may want to read Misplaced Pages:Ownership of articles. Rees11 (talk) 15:11, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Locked

I have locked the article after receiving a complaint, reviewing the article, and deciding that Esoteriqa's version is not well sourced enough to comple with WP:BLP. It won't be unlocked until that version is better sourced. The new version can be drafted at /New. There are also problems with the new version linking to copyrighted works on Youtube - ensure this doesn't happen, please. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 16:20, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Member of the band can make up anything he/she wants to and accuse a neutral version as a made up one instead. Whose word do you take? Looks like his/her self-promotion got paid off. Esoteriqa (talk) 21:50, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Most of the attention this article has received recently, including the attention from the editors you are reverting, has been because the "BADBOYS BLUE" editor was making inappropriate edits to the article, so I doubt that anyone here wants that self-promotion to stay. Esoteriqa, you are well within your rights to undo the edits made by an editor who was blocked for making such edits. No fault to you for your desire to do so, it's pretty routine in fact. But if another editor objects to the removal, or at least wants to use some of the material that was added, you are no longer in dispute with that blocked editor but you are in dispute with the new editors. Insisting on reverting everything back to an old version, undoing both the edits of the blocked editor and the contributions of editors in good standing is not a good thing for you to do. You've only succeeded in halting some badly-needed improvement in this article.

You seem to have the same goal as everyone else currently working on the article, to remove bad information and clean it up. So it shouldn't be difficult to work with others. But you're attempting to ensure that the article is only edited your way and Misplaced Pages doesn't work that way. You have to collaborate with other editors. I'm actually dismayed by this because looking at your history on this article you don't seem to have had a problem working with other people in the past, so why now? -- Atama頭 22:31, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

As I said on my talk page, I was not insisting on reverting the article back to the old form, only to the old template, from which I made more than a dozen of changes already - before the process came to a screeching halt. The reason why I wanted to edit the page a certain way, as you pointed out, because the new editors are clueless as to the content of the article, yet it is the version that obliterated the core paragraph of the article addressing the transition as well as deletion of all trivia among other things - is what the new editors were working off, and this is what I was dismayed by. Esoteriqa (talk) 00:41, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

And that's the problem. Statements like "new editors are clueless as to the content of the article" show how you are unwilling to collaborate. Misplaced Pages works on consensus. Everyone can view the article history and can also read what's in the article now, so it's unnecessary for you to assume that other editors are blind in some way that you are not. You're assumption that other editors are "clueless" is going to stand in the way of developing this article. You also need to familiarize yourself with Misplaced Pages policies such as WP:BLP which your personal "template" is in violation of. -- Atama頭 01:16, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I see your point. However, I wanted to continue altering template as well as incorporating new edits from new editors - I've said that time and again. Right now technicalities stand in the way of improving the article. I am just not sure if my further input in it will be worthwhile. Esoteriqa (talk) 02:39, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Esoteriqa, that template - if I know what template you mean - is simply not acceptable from a BLP point of view - it can't form the basis of any new article. Sorry. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 23:01, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

File:Bad Boys Blue - Heartbeat album cover 1986.jpg

File:Bad Boys Blue - Heartbeat album cover 1986.jpg needs to be removed from the artist infobox as a non-fair use of an album cover per Misplaced Pages:Non-free content. Aspects (talk) 23:24, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

NFC doesn't allow for album covers as part of discographies; however, individually, they're OK as long as they've got fair-use criteria. It would be safe to shrink that image a little bit, though... m.o.p 01:31, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Unlisted Remixalbum

I bought a remix album at amazon.com entitled "Rarities Remixed", which is not in the list. But why? --77.118.139.242 (talk) 13:30, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Deleted Picture

{{editprotected}}

File:Bad Boys Blue - Heartbeat album cover 1986.jpg needs to be removed from the artist infobox because the image was deleted per a File for deletion discussion. Aspects (talk) 21:29, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Done Ronhjones 23:36, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Categories: