Talk:John Lennon/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Discography

It seems that one of his songs is missing, "Pakistanis Go Home" from the latter Apple Trax Album.Bigage 21:57, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

That track was never released officially, the Apple Trax album will be an illegal bootleg and so the track does not belong in any discography. Furthermore, the song is McCartney's, not Lennon's. And lastly, the song was intended as an ironic comment on Enoch Powell and the growing racist intolerance in the U.K. during the late 60s. It wasn't released partially because the group feared the irony would go over some dull-witted people's heads. MarkB79 22:52, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Can you cite that last part, pls? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:49, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

It's in countless Beatles books, the best account is in Many Years from Now. It states in there that "Pakistanis Go Home" was a satire attacking Powell and the rise of the far-right in Britain and it evolved into Get Back, but with a third verse retaining some of the "No Pakistanis" lyrics. McCartney decided to drop the third verse and the whole satire on racism thing as he didn't want the group to be "hostage to misinterpretation". Not that this has anything much to do with Lennon anyway, it wasn't his song. MarkB79 00:50, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thanks for the heads up.

Protection?

Why is this page protected? 216.165.96.57 03:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Because unregistered visitors like to vandalize it. Sixstring1965 01:16, 23 October 2007 (UTC) (disruptive comments by sockpuppets struck through)

The Beatles

If you like contributing to articles about The Beatles, you should add your name to this list... :) --andreasegde 22:08, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Recreation drug usage

This section is in dire need of citations, as fact tags have been sitting there since February. I think the info is needed, but it also needs citation. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:18, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Any chance of you adding your name to this? :) --andreasegde 19:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Done. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

obvious anachronism "dialed 911"

( or more correctly a procronism I suppose ) Towards the bottom of this article, when going into detail about Mr. Lennon's death, the article states that "Hastings ...immediately dialed 911"

Obviously no such thing existed at the time. it is truly sad that this is probably the work of a determined wiki jerk to corrupt content rather than a young contributor who did not realize there was no 911 at the time.

While I'm on it, the quotes that follow have no source and are written in literary style.

tisk tisk. I would have fixed it if it wasn't for douchebags who cause articles like this to get locked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.5.200.2 (talk) 02:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Would it be too much trouble to ask you to cite that New York didn't have 9-1-1 service at the time? Or, rather than cite a negative, maybe cite when New York City began using 9-1-1. From the article on the subject, it appears to have been in place during hte time in question. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 06:10, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I tried to find one for you, but it's really difficult to find anything on 911 and New York as search terms on this ol' internet, thanks to Sept 11. The difficulty here is even though 911 existed in 1980, it was not in common use in most places. It was not wide spread for many years. Can any New Yorkers vouch for this? Was 911 in common use in 1980?

Might you have been searching "911" as opposed to "9-1-1"? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm a little surprised by this, since I thought that 911 became widely used in the early-mid 70s. It should be sourced, but more worrying to me is the use of the word "immediately," as I'm sure Hastings didn't have a cellphone on him at the time, and couldn't have immediately called. faithless (^speak) 01:22, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Hastings would have had a phone in his office. But if so he didn't use it. He had an alarm button under his desk that summoned police directly. Check the Rolling Stone Jan. 22, 1981 articles on Lennon's death. --Bluejay Young 09:03, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I've changed the substance of the statement to sidestep the issue, and I thank Bluejay for providing the little lightbulb that inspited it. I've changed the statement to reflect that hastings summoned the police, which I think resolved the matter nicely. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:06, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

IRA?

Check this: IRA connection but no money changed hands... --andreasegde 05:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Current Top Photo

Why doesn't one of you geniuses email David Spindel. You'll get a response telling how he gave permission to use that wonderful 1980 photo in Wikicommons. His email addy is attached to it. Oh yeah, Spindel is pissed that J.O. Gustafson (a man who lives up to his initials) deleted most of his page. Arcayne, stop being such a Wikicunt. MindGuerrilla 00:05, 10 November 2007 (UTC) ("disruptive comments by sockpuppets struck through,")

I was going to simply excise this post, as yet another of SixString's sockpuppets, but I figured its good to have an object lesson in what to avoid, wiki-wise. He wasn't able to post anywhere else and damage any articles before this sock was caught. Sigh. My adoring fanclub grows by one. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 07:41, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

We did get permission from Bob Gruen. Hotcop2 15:24, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry you had to deal with that, Hotcop - the anon user is yet another of SixString's sockpuppets. Note the attacking of an image that you actually went to the trouble of getting permission for; Six only claimed as much and was tossed out for it. As well, note how his edits here only addressed editing the posts of MindGuerilla, another one of Six's proven socks. Apparently, Six is unfamiliar with with the term 'indefite ban'. Perhaps we need an admin to watch over this page for a bit. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Photographer Bob Gruen has given permission for his iconic photo of Lennon for this Wiki page. Hotcop2 00:04, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

SO did Spindel.Realsanpaku 02:04, 13 November 2007 (UTC) (disruptive comments by sockpuppets struck through)

How would you know that, precisely? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 07:57, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Arcayne, Why are you such a twat? Realsanpaku 02:04, 13 November 2007 (UTC) (disruptive comments by sockpuppets struck through)

I guess I just hate your sockpuppets, Sixstring1965. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 07:57, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

GA

There are a lot of citations in this article, but it needs a good clean for POV and unreferenced sentences. Can anyone imagine that it could be a GA? It would be nice to see John on the same par with McCartney. --andreasegde 18:03, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree. It's so crammed that some things fall out of order. Can we divvy up sections and try to make them a little more coherant? I volunteer for the 1970-75 years. Opinions? Hotcop2 18:53, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I just reworded the 1980 section a little for flow and clarity. When we knock this into shape, I know where we can find most of the citations needed, but, have no idea how to put them in (as Arc knows too well) Hotcop2 19:14, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

This article is an abortion. It has zero flow and is all mixed nuts. I say wipe it and start new.24.168.17.212 15:06, 12 November 2007 (UTC)(disruptive comments by sockpuppets struck through)

The picture on top is tagged wrong and should be deleted.24.168.17.212 15:09, 12 November 2007 (UTC)(disruptive comments by sockpuppets struck through)

The photo is tagged correctly. Hotcop2 15:25, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know who's been editing this article but, it stinks. The opening statements include In his solo career, Lennon wrote and recorded songs such as "Imagine" and "Give Peace a Chance" Paul helped write GPAC. That should go. This article should be deleted and rewritten.Realsanpaku 21:01, 12 November 2007 (UTC) (disruptive comments by sockpuppets struck through)

Pardon me, but the anon/new user calling for the deletion of the article are none other than yet another group of sockpuppet of Sixstring, like Mindguerilla before him. Is there some way we can extirpate this annoying presence?

With respect, the article isn't that messed up, and doesn't need deleting. It needs work, sure. But it has plenty of references and sinply needs work. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Unless you have an impressive source to back it up, I don't think it's correct that Paul McCartney helped write 'Give Peace a Chance'. Lennon said he credited it to Lennon/McCartney as a thank you to Paul for helping him record 'The Ballad of John and Yoko' and agreeing to put it out as a Beatles single. I've never read any account that states that Paul actually had any hand in 'Give Peace a Chance' and the suggestion is pretty controversial. If he had, I think he would have had something to say when Yoko removed his name from the credit a few years back. As for the article, it probably does need work and needs organising but it dosen't need deleting, that's more than a little extreme. MarkB79 22:54, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Mark, you are correct. I meant to say it was credited with McCartney so it shouldn't be listed in the opening. I feel that it should list Imagine and possibly Starting Over. Isn't it a kick how Arcayne harps on Sixstring? Look at his edits. All he does is put in {{Fact}} tags. Nothing requiring brain power. The tit knows nothing about The Beatles.Realsanpaku 02:15, 13 November 2007 (UTC) (disruptive comments by sockpuppets struck through)

Well leaving aside the abuse directed at Arcayne, I don't think that the fact that John put McCartney's name on the songwriting credit for 'Give Peace a Chance' as a gesture is really a reason why the song should not be mentioned in the opening paragraph as a prominent Lennon solo record. It is a solo record and considered as such regardless of the publishing credit (and McCartney's name isn't even on it anymore, even if Yoko was probably wrong to remove his name since Lennon wanted it there for personal reasons). But in truth it probably isn't that important to name any of his solo records specifically in the opening paragraph, and if one is to be mentioned, it should probably just be 'Imagine'. 'Starting Over' was a major hit, but the other two are probably mentioned instead becuse they are his major peace anthems. MarkB79 19:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I reported Arcayne as a sock puppet. He's socking and blaming me.Realsanpaku 05:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC) (disruptive comments by sockpuppets struck through)

Actually, that isn't accurate; the SSP (suspected sockpuppet) report was filed here. What Realsanpaku tried to do was to switch out his name and insert mine. Unfortunately, it appears that a number of contributors here (24.168.17.212 and Realsanpaku) might very well be sockpuppets of Sixstring1965, who was indefinitely banned some time ago, and has been creating sockpuppets ever since. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 07:50, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

As per the conclusions of the SSP, which found Realsanpaku and 24.168.17.212 to be socks of Sixtring1965. After consulting with an admin on the subject, I've decided to strike through (instead of removing) the comments by the socks, as some of them are connected to responses by valid users. As this tends to icky up the page a bit, I could archive, but I am thinking that the old conversations should either be concluded or continued in a new section. Thoughts? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Ono statement quote

I had to pull the citation listed as the source for Ono's released statement to the press via Dave Geffen: "John loved and prayed for the human race. Please do the same for him."

The actual quote was: ""There is no funeral for John. John loved and prayed for the human race. Please pray the same for him. Love, Yoko and Sean." I'll add the proper statement with a more reliable source to the article. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 12:11, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

That is false and was previously discussed here. In your edit summary, you write, "the reference listed doesn't have that statement." In fact, the reference listed does have the statement cited, on p. 212 of ISBN 1843536927. Second, your edit summary also states, "I am tagging it and not removing it". That's strange, as you did remove it in the very edit where you claim not to: [1]. Then, in an edit summary marked, "added precise quote with verifiable citation", you added a reference to "The Death of John Lennon in 1980", an article on the Rolling Stone website that I originally added to the talk page at 21:30, 30 September 2007. But you altered the quote to read "Ono later issued a statement through David Geffen: "There is no funeral for John. John loved and prayed for the human race. Please pray the same for him. Love, Yoko and Sean"[2]. Even stranger, the cite you added says nothing about Ono issuing the statement through Geffen. Care to explain this? And how is citing a web page that lacks publication and author variables more "verifiable" than a print publication that has both? Although I am still trying to track the article down, it appears (not yet confirmed) that an 1980-12-10 article in the New York Times by Paul L. Montgomery, "Police Trace Tangled Path Leading To Lennon's Slaying at the Dakota", states the following: David Geffen later issued a statement in her behalf: "John loved and prayed for the human race. Please do the same for him." (Page A1) —Viriditas | Talk 13:22, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I was able to find the print version of the Rolling Stone article with all of the appropriate referencing. I am therefore replacing the author-less, date-less, and unverifiable sample that you added to the article, with the full reference, but removing the Geffen info pending verification of the NYT archival source which does not appear in the current article. —Viriditas | Talk 13:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

You might want to watch your tone, Viriditas; why is your aggessiveness and uncivility a consistent issue both here and on other pages? How many times do you have to be blocked for your behavior before you start acting a more mature manner?

I replaced the citation with a more reliable one. I removed the previous citation after adding a 'cn' tag, as it had remained in contention and unresolved for months. The reference desk request had gone unresolved for over a month. I decided then to actually see if an alternate source for the citation could be found, and find one I did. I also removed a broken/malformed link. Had it been of vital importance to you to take care of over the past month, you would have made the repair or sought out a better citation yourself. Yet you only acted immediately after I did.

Now, I could be uncivil and suggest that you were just trailing my edits like a lamprey, and bitching about the fact that they are edits I made, all the while while improving on the very edits you are complaining about. However, maybe I'm not considering the other options. maybe its something simple, like you are just infatuated and have a boy-crush on me, While I am indeed flattered, you should know that I am a guy and just not that into you, and you are far too young.

I am glad you were able to find a tighter reference for the Rolling Stones source. Good job; see, that's how you thank people for doing the work that you were apparently too lazy to do yourself. I gave you the carrot instead of the stick, son. if Pavlov's dogs can learn, then perhaps you should make more of an effort to be gracious and polite, as well. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:27, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

A few things: Your statement that the quote in question did not appear in the book that was previously cited was false the first time you made it, and false the second, third, and fourth time you tendentiously repeated it. The ISBN above demonstrates your error, which to this day, you refuse to acknowledge, preferring instead to continue to repeat the same false statement over and over again. I can easily scan an image of the page and book in question for you if you would like, but knowing you all to well, you will only change your position again, this time claiming that you never said it in the first place. Further, your claim that you replaced an accurate, verifiable print source "with a more reliable source" is absurd; the previous source was a fully referenced print publication which you replaced instead with an author-less, date-less URL to a music magazine. You may wish to revisit WP:RS and WP:V so you don't run into this problem again. In another instance, you claimed that you "removed a broken/malformed link". The link wasn't broken, so as much as it was missing the footnote. Your removal of this link left a previously sourced statement unsourced. The link could easily be fixed merely by adding the footnote. There's no need to thank me for helping you out, but you might want to learn how to fix broken citations. It's easy to do, and helps maintain references. It's hysterically funny that you accuse me of being "lazy" simply for cleaning up after you, but at least I can depend on you for a laugh or two, so thanks for the giggles. —Viriditas | Talk 15:01, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Um, okay. I could as easily scan in the page that contradicts at least three of your six tired, little arguments, but honestly, you just aren't worth my time. I accept your bungled, left-toed apology and thank you, though. Now, toddle back off to wherever you came from. Bye bye. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:46, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going anywhere. I've been watching this page since Dec. 2005 [3] and I'll continue watching it long after you're gone. You may be able to fool a few naive people with your false accusations, distortions, and misleading edit summaries, but for the most part your childish behavior is transparent. I'll be here to clean up your mess, as usual. And, I challenge you to scan in any page that contradicts a single thing I've said - you won't because you can't. On the other hand, I can, and I've given you the ISBN that does just that. What is the title page information, date, and publishing history of the book you have? I've asked you this before but you haven't responded. There's obviously a reason for your silence on this matter, and I'll take that as a concession and admission of your erroneous claim. Try to be more careful about making outlandish claims in the future, as editors like myself will call you on it. In the future, try to tell the truth, rather than making stuff up. —Viriditas | Talk 01:38, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Sigh, if I scan in the page and it points out what I've been saying all along, are you willing to close your account in Wikipedia forever? I am tired of having to deal with your incivility and sad little pot-shots at my expense, and seem keen to call me a liar, Had you been so interested in fixing articles, you'd've lent a hand during the image searches, post-SixString1965. Your transparnetly tendentious edits only follow me, they never surpass me. If I scan in the page and it shows that I am not, you have to be willing to go away for good and never darken our collective doorstep again? Do you agree to this? If not, kindly go away. You aren't worth any of my time, but if you want to sweeten the pot, I am more than happy to oblige.

Since I am sure that you will not agree to the terms of me calling your bluff, can we move on? The statement is properly cited and phrased. The matter is concluded. However, if you still want to bitch about how mean I am to you, take it somewhere else. we discuss the article here. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 01:50, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

You're stalling for time again. I'm ahead of you. Not only do I have the book in front of me, but I've taken a dozen photographs of the book, the pages, the content, and I've used the timestamp feature on my cell phone camera to show that they were taken today. Now, I will ask you one last time, what is the ISBN of the book that you claim to own, and the publishing history? I know you aren't going to scan the pages in because you don't own the book, and I suspect you never have. I'm ready to add the images of the book directly to this page to show that you've been trolling and edit warring in bad faith for months. But, I doubt you will accept it. —Viriditas | Talk 03:25, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Not stalling for time. We've been through this before. I have the same ISBN that you do. I own the book, the more current version of the book, and the quote is not there. the reference desk wasn't able to verify your claim. I posed a question. If I go to the trouble of scanning in the image, are you prepared to leave Wikipedia forever? If so, say so, and I'll scan it in. If not. don't go 'way mad; just go away. Don't bother responding with any more hemming or hawing. Its a yes or no question.

Since I know you are going to avoid answering yet again, and the citation you are incorrectly defending isn't even the one being used in the article, your demand that we carry on a discussion that will only serve to get you banned is kinda pointless. Since i feel that you have your uses, editing in your burrito, hippie and Hawaii articles, i am prepared to let you off the hook. You may leave now. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:33, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for answering my question directly. The reference desk never addressed my claim, so its irrelevant at this point. I want to give you one last chance to clear your name, as I don't believe in kicking people when they are down. You've stated above that you own the book, "the more curent version of the book, and the quote is not there". You have neglected to quantify what you mean by the "current version". In your multiple reverts to this article, you claimed that the quote did not appear in the ISBN I cited, which was referred to in the citation that you removed as the "10th edition, January 2007". I want to be clear that this is the most current version of the book and ISBN number in question that you claim the quote does not appear in, and I want you to understand that when I post the images to this page, it will make you look like a pathological liar. I don't want to do that. Take some advice: step away from this. Go enroll in admin training; create a new article; help answer questions on the help desk; go do something constructive rather than feeding on negative attention. I am here because I have a passion for knowledge. You are forcing me to portray you as a pathological liar, and I don't want to do that. I believe that people deserve second chances. I believe in redemption, in change, and in admitting mistakes. Take this as a learning opportunity and move on. There's nothing for you to say or do here. It's your choice. —Viriditas | Talk 06:17, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Yep, I rather thought you were going to avoid answering the question. I'm archiving this material, as it's ranged far from the discussion of the actual subject and turned into yet another one of your rants. If you are keen to report this to an Admin, please feel free to do so. Aside from my notification that eidts had been made, your contribution at the discussion level was uncivil and laced with attacks. Any time you wish to take me up on my offer,let me know. I'll scan the page in, and you can leave WP. I think we're done here. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 07:35, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Please don't reply to a current discussion and then archive it as it is ongoing and pertains directly to this article. You have repeatedly claimed that a citation added to this article was not accurate. I corrected your error, provided an ISBN and a page number, and yet you refuse to retract your statement. This means that you did not understand what you read. It's important and directly relevant to this article because the source in question states, "A distraught Yoko issued a statement immediately". (p. 212) On the other hand, you have recently added the unsourced allegation that Geffen issued the statement. I wanted to clear up any misconceptions you might have about this source so that it can be used in the article, as it contains additional content. Therefore, you should understand that the source was accurately cited, and does contain the information that it was used to reference. In case you still dispute this, I will be adding cell phone images of the book below. This will also give you some time to compose a retraction and an apology for your continuing disruptive edit warring in this article. —Viriditas | Talk 08:57, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Arcayne, on 05:48, 12 October 2007 (UTC) you wrote on Talk:John Lennon: As for retracting statements, when I am wrong, I admit it son.

The following images document the quotes in the January 2007 tenth edition of the Rough Guide to New York City - the quotes that you claim do not exist. I expect you to issue a retraction for both your false accusations against me on Talk:John Lennon and your edit warring on John Lennon over the past few months, and I expect that retraction to be placed here, on your talk page, on my talk page, and on Talk:John Lennon. —Viriditas | Talk 13:29, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Retraction

Arcayne, I'm waiting for your retraction of the false claims you made about me and my edits above. The images clearly show that the source was accurately cited. —Viriditas | Talk 01:41, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

As I said before, you will grow old waiting. I've told you how to prompt my involvment. Ignoring my stipulations isn't going to work; it hasn't worked in any of the disagreements you and I have had over the course of the year. I have tried to disengage this argument by archiving it as off-topic and not pertinent to the article, which you agreed to, and then suddenly went on the offensive again. I am not going to play your game.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Arcayne (talk • contribs) 12:54, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Read WP:CIV. You made false claims about me, about my edits, and about the sources I used in the article. This is not a game. —Viriditas | Talk 13:09, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Hopefully Arcayne can simply admit he was wrong and everyone can move on. --MPerel 03:26, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

When I am wrong, I will say so. As I am not, perhaps it is better fro you to move on. Say, aren't you the same MPerel who edits in many of the same articles that Viriditas does? Hmmm. Perhaps you aren't a very neutral party here.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Arcayne (talk • contribs) 12:54, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

That's a strange thing to say when the images directly above your comment refute your claim. The quotes are on p. 212 of the January 2007 edition, right where I said they were. Continuing to deny that they are there is bizarre and outlandish behavior. —Viriditas | Talk 13:06, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

That's all I ask. What doesn't sit right with me, is that he didn't just tell a little fib, he told many. First he said the material didn't appear in the 2002 book, and he reverted my addition to the article.[4]. When I patiently provided a link to Google Books, showing the material was accurately sourced,[5], he changed his tune, claiming that he owned the 2007 book instead. (See above discussion) When I patiently pointed out that the 2007 version of the book had the exact same material, he refused to accept it,[6]; so I took out my cell phone camera and snapped a few photos and posted them above. Arcayne continues to claim that his version of the book doesn't have the information, but I contacted the publisher and I was told that this was impossible. I've repeatedly asked him to check the title and publishing history of the book to make sure we are talking about the same publication, but he's been too busy accusing me of fabricating citations. This is ironic, as Arcayne is the one fabricating citations in the article, as can be seen in this edit. The statement that he added, "Ono later issued a statement through David Geffen", does not appear in the Rolling Stone article he referenced. The entire "dispute" seems to be a way for Arcayne to deflect criticism away from his own editorial misconduct. —Viriditas | Talk 03:49, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Your Incivility and personal attacks aside, could you please answer me this one very simple question? As the citation you keep arguing about is not in use in the article (having been replaced by more reliable info), how is this continued diatribe pertinent to the improvement of the article? I mean, that's what the discussion page is for, right? Explain to me how is this not a matter better resolved in dispute resolution?

If you want me to do as you demand, you have to agree to my terms. If you don't, you will not garner my involvement. I recommended then and now that we both walk away from this and avoid each other's edits. Consider this my final word on the subject - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 12:54, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Arcayne, please read the behavioral guideline of Wikipedia:Disruptive editing. Under the section "Definition of disruptive editing and editors" it lists "misrepresents reliable sources" as a criteria. I've documented your behavior above. All you have to do is stop doing it. Asking you to retract your false claims about my edits and the sources in question is not a "demand": it's official policy. You made a mistake and now it's time for you to own up to it. The source is still relevant in relation to other aspects of the article. —Viriditas | Talk 13:05, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Viriditas and Arcayne: Enough Already

Can you two please take your argument somewhere else? John Cardinal (talk) 13:28, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Cardinal, I have tried to archive the discussion as off-topic twice (1, 2 3), and even asked Viriditas on his own User Talk page to let the matter go. Viriditas has repeatedly continued to argue the matter. I have done nothing further to extend what I feel is a fairly pathetic argument. Please, feel free to re-archive the discussion, as the argued-about citation isn't even in use in the article. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:23, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Disruptive behavior needs to be nipped in the bud immediately, and as it concerns the sources being used in this article, it's important to address the issue, not ignore it, as the edits in question are still ongoing. —Viriditas | Talk 13:41, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Gee, I'm gone for two days and miss all this excitement. ;-) Hotcop2 (talk) 13:47, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

And its about a citation that isn't even beingused! lol. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:23, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Whatchoo talkin' bout Willis? This has been going on for over a month! —Viriditas | Talk 13:53, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Geffen and Ono

On 08:10, 31 March 2006, 59.181.28.205 (talk · contribs) expanded the murder section, adding the following statement: Yoko Ono, crying "Tell me it's not true," was taken to Roosevelt Hospital and led away in shock after she learned her husband was dead. David Geffen later issued a statement in her behalf: "John loved and prayed for the human race. Please do the same for him.[7] Although unsourced, this remained in the article unchanged until 14:54, 7 January 2007, when Andreasegde rewrote the article, cutting the last part down to Geffen later issued a statement, confusing the attribution and making it seem like Geffen wrote Ono's statement.[8] More recently, User:BGC fixed this problem[9], but his changes were reverted by another editor asking for a source. I provided a source on behalf of this user, citing the 2003 book The Rough Guide to New York City, which states that "a distraught Yoko issued a statement immediately" and quotes the same passage. This is easily confirmed in other sources, such as Robert S. Levinson's 2002 book The John Lennon Affair, which on p. 125 describes the "copy of the public announcement Yoko Ono had written for release to the media". Both of these sources can be viewed on Google books. A good web source that also confirms the statement can be found in "The Death of John Lennon in 1980" an article on the Rolling Stone website.[10] —Viriditas | Talk 21:30, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for providing an alternative and accurate citation. You happened to reinstate the the one source I happened to know did not include those words. As for the edit summary, I have to admit that i found the term "dishonest vandalism" a bit funny, ever more so coming from you. Nice to see you learned at least something from your block. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:28, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

You write, You happened to reinstate the the one source I happened to know did not include those words. On the contrary, the "one source" I initially reinstated (The Rough Guide to New York City) did indeed include the words, so I don't know what you are trying to say. You can view the statement in the book, here: [11]. —Viriditas | Talk 22:37, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

My apologies; I didn't realize you were citing an earlier edition of the book. That quote - uncited - in the '04 edition. It isn't in the '07 edition, which I own. Perhaps it was removed from subsequent editions due to the improper citation error. Either way, it doesn't really matter. Another, somewhat more reliable citation was found. Done and done. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:00, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm at the bookstore holding a copy of the latest and greatest January, 2007 tenth edition of The Rough Guide to New York City in my hands. (ISBN 1843536927) The text in question most certainly appears on p. 212, the same as in the 2003 edition previously cited. Perhaps you own a different book. —Viriditas | Talk 06:34, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

(inserted comment) You are claiming to be actually standing in the store with your wi-fi'd laptop all steamed up, are you? lol - not bloody likely. Dude, I own the book, and I have looked at the page in question. The comment is not there. Perhaps you are - yet again - unaware that this is a POINT disruption on your part. An alternate citation has since been found, so I think we're done here. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:14, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. I've made more than 10,000 edits to Wikipedia from my PPC-6700 cellphone, and I've discussed my use of this cellphone on Wikipedia in various places over the years, including Jimbo's talk page. In fact, I wrote Children of Men from my cellphone. If you actually owned the book in question, you will notice that the information you claim does not exist most certainly appears on p. 212 of the January, 2007 tenth edition of The Rough Guide to New York City (ISBN 1843536927). No "alternate citation" was found; I merely added a more thorough treatment of the subject from another source. This does not change the fact that contrary to your repeated claims, the material appears in the book. I copied down the ISBN number for you above for you to see and acknowledge your error. You may own a book, but you do not own this book. The simplest explanation is that you own a different book by the same name, which was published as ISBN 1843537532, The Rough Guides' New York City Directions 2. They are very similar, but different books, and have different titles. This actually makes a lot of sense, because that book is only 255 pages and does not include the full 512 page treatment of the city. —Viriditas | Talk 00:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I find it hard to AGF with someone who claims info not in evidence. I don't need a cell phone; I own the book, as I have only mentioned three times now - no error. I am not sure that you should be claiming to have written CoM - as it is both wildly inaccurate and you have a fairly checkered history there. Maybe you would like to forget that I own the book in question again, or asume that you are somehow better at sourcing than I am (which we both are fully aware isn't the case) but it doesn't really change the info. You are wrong in this instance. It was most recent editon of the book that you claim to have used the cellphone to find. Perhaps you might wish to stop beating a dead horse, since a better citation was found. Perhaps you can let the matter drop, son. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 02:39, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't understand what you have written above. To recap, I have provided the page and ISBN number of the book in question. If you need an administrator to help you understand what I have written, please request one. In the meantime, I will restate the correct reference that refers to the most current version of book, page number and ISBN. I would also ask that you check the ISBN of the book you claim to own and the number of pages. The book being cited has 512 pages, not 255, and the ISBN is ISBN 1843536927 not ISBN 1843537532. Please check your copy of the book to confirm these two details. —Viriditas | Talk 03:32, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I am afraid your failure to comprehend is not really a priority on my part. I asked that you not adjust citations within the article that are inaccurately depicted. I know for a fact that - your cell phone escapades aside - the book you cite is not the correct edition. As there is already a solid source in place that perfectly covers the statement, and you have been told by someone directly that the edition you are citing is incorrect, I would presume that any further discussion not carried out here is a POINT discussion aimed at simply seing disruptive. If you feel this point merits mediation, please consult an admin/mediator and let them sort it out. I am stating here that you have cited a source incorrectly, as I am in possession of aforementioned source, and know your edit to be (at best) misinformed. You are welcome to flog a dead horse further, but you might want to consider how just coming off an edit-war block and edit-warring again might look to others. Please stop. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

The book I have cited is correct and reflects p. 212 of the January, 2007 tenth edition of The Rough Guide to New York City (ISBN 1843536927). Your allegation that I have "cited a source incorrectly" is wrong and should be retracted. Your reversion of a more current reference is also in error, as references should be timely and accurate. I have asked you to provide the ISBN number of the book you own, but you haven't done this. I've also explained how you have confused two different books with similar titles. Your false allegations against me and bad faith reverts are not justified or supported. —Viriditas | Talk 03:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, as you already listed the ISBN for the book you claim has the info in it, it would be rather redundant for me to list the same ISBN and say it doesn't - as I have already done at least three times (maybe this time, you will actually read the post). As for retracting statements, when I am wrong, I admit it son. I am not wrong here, and I stand by my edits. I am not sure why you are citing the book incorrectly, and I don't much care. I have no issue with submitting a photocopy of the page in question to a mediator, but I am guessing you'd end up in quite a bit of trouble for submitting false citation information repeatedly. I am going to advise you to back off your edit. You are wrong, and it is pathetically easy to prove it. Your edit is unnecessary, and you engaging in a pissing contest by repeatedly adding it, Of course, you are welcome to let us all know why you feel your edit is vital to the piece. Go on - we're all waiting.

By the way, you are at your 3RR limit for the day; you might want to refrain from edit-warring. Again. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:48, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

As someone who has spent the last three years creating, researching, and citing articles on Wikipedia, I stand by my earlier statements 100%. The ISBN number of the book in question is correct and the content appears in the page cited. I would suggest that you double-check the ISBN number, title, publishing date, and number of pages in your book one last time. You may notice a discrepancy, one that I have discussed and explained above. I find it bizarre that you would continue to claim that I am "citing the book incorrectly", however I am willing to review a digital image of your version of the book and compare it with a digital image of my own which will prove once and for all that the material appears in the book, accurately cited by myself. I would also recommend a consultation with the reference desk, so that a third-party can confirm or deny either of our claims (Subsequent refdesk request made here). I look forward to a quick resolution of this matter. I am willing to allow for the possibility that I am wrong, and I hope you are mature enough to do the same. —Viriditas | Talk 08:08, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if I am the one to have caused a fuss, but I actually don't remember cutting that (Ono/Geffen) bit out. I shall have to look back at my edits and (if guilty) slap myself on the wrist for being so careless. Apologies all round. --andreasegde 14:59, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I just fixed some minor errors in the above and added diffs so you can look at the edits. —Viriditas | Talk 21:22, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Roughguide 212 Lennon.jpg

Image:Roughguide 212 Lennon.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to [[: If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:54, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Roughguide 212.jpg

Image:Roughguide 212.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to [[: If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Roughguide backcover isbn.jpg

Image:Roughguide backcover isbn.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to [[: If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Roughguide backcover.jpg

Image:Roughguide backcover.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to [[: If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Roughguide frontcover.jpg

Image:Roughguide frontcover.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to [[: If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Roughguide frontinside.jpg

Image:Roughguide frontinside.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to [[: If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Roughguide frontinside2.jpg

Image:Roughguide frontinside2.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to [[: If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:56, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Roughguide index.jpg

Image:Roughguide index.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to [[: If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:56, 26 November 2007 (UTC)