Peter Phillip Charles Leoni

Welcome!

Hello, Peter Phillip Charles Leoni, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Stacy Gunn, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may not be retained.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{help me}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

• Your first article
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• Biographies of living persons
• How to write a great article
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Help pages
• Tutorial

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! DanielRigal (talk) 21:55, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Stacy Gunn

The article Stacy Gunn has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. DanielRigal (talk) 21:55, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Stacy Gunn

The article Stacy Gunn has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No evidence of reliable source coverage, fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Everymorning (talk) 19:23, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Copyright problem: Stacy Gunn

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Stacy Gunn, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to contain material copied from http://stacygunn.com/bio/, and therefore to constitute a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policies. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are liable to be blocked from editing.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under license allowed by Wikipedia, then you should do one of the following:

• If you have permission from the author to release the text under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), leave a message explaining the details at Talk:Stacy Gunn and send an email with confirmation of permission to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". Make sure you quote the exact page name, Stacy Gunn, in your email. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
• If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License and GNU Free Documentation License, and note that you have done so on Talk:Stacy Gunn. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for instructions.
• If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted "under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), version 3.0", or that the material is released into the public domain, or if you have strong reason to believe it is, leave a note at Talk:Stacy Gunn with a link to where we can find that note or your explanation of why you believe the content is free for reuse.

It may also be necessary for the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at this temporary page. Leave a note at Talk:Stacy Gunn saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved.

Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! Adam9007 (talk) 02:42, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Stacy Gunn for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Stacy Gunn is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stacy Gunn until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. DanielRigal (talk) 18:31, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Stacy Gunn

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Stacy Gunn, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which articles can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may be soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:

• It seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. (See section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Business for more information.
• It appears to be about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), individual animal, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. (See section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Compassionate727 (talk) 18:48, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Stacy Gunn

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Stacy Gunn, and it appears to include material copied directly from https://www.newikis.com/en/wiki/Stacy_Gunn.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 19:49, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Stacy Gunn

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Stacy Gunn, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Wildthing61476 (talk) 19:55, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

You may not copy material from other websites to Wikipedia

Your addition to Stacy Gunn has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. —C.Fred (talk) 19:56, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

August 2015

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to introduce inappropriate pages to Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. If you need guidance on how to create appropriate pages, try using the Article Wizard. 2601:188:0:ABE6:5D65:637D:D70A:E45F (talk) 20:05, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Stacy Gunn

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Stacy Gunn, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Wildthing61476 (talk) 20:06, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Your autobiography doesn't belong on Wikipedia

Please do not write or add to an article about yourself. Creating an autobiography is strongly discouraged – see our guideline on writing autobiographies. If you create such an article, it may be deleted. If what you have done in life is genuinely notable and can be verified according to our policy for articles about living people, someone else will probably create an article about you sooner or later (see Wikipedians with articles). If you wish to add to an existing article about yourself, please propose the changes on its talk page. Please understand that this is an encyclopedia and not a personal web space or social networking site. If your article has already been deleted, please see: Why was my page deleted?, and if you feel the deletion was an error, please discuss it with the deleting administrator. Thank you. 2601:188:0:ABE6:5D65:637D:D70A:E45F (talk) 20:10, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

August 2015

Please do not remove speedy deletion notices from pages you have created yourself, as you did with Stacy Gunn. If you believe the page should not be deleted, you may contest the deletion by clicking on the button that says: Contest this speedy deletion, which appears inside the speedy deletion notice. This will allow you to make your case on the article's talk page. Administrators will consider your reasoning before deciding what to do with the article. Thank you. Valenciano (talk) 20:11, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove a file deletion tag from the file description page of a Wikipedia file without resolving the problem that the tag refers to. DanielRigal (talk) 20:12, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove a speedy deletion notice from a page you have created yourself, as you did at Stacy Gunn. Valenciano (talk) 20:13, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Notability

The reference www.stacygunn is recognized by SOCAN, and evidence is shown here. Peter Phillip Charles Leoni, CEO of Stacy Gunn Music and an authorized member of SOCAN. www.stacygunn.com thus is a legitimate reference, much more legitimate than facebook pages or tabloid internet news sites, which are accepted. Referencing one arbitrary statement does not prove the validity of the whole article, yet with most articles only a minute portion of the material is referenced, yet you people arbitrarily deem this ok. I contest the use of references as an arbitrary convention and instead have referred EVERYTHING in my article to a legitimate source which is recognized by SOCAN, evidence of my membership and approval by SOCAN is given here.

I contest the arbitrary rules, I contest the complaints that people had. There is no puffery but statements of fact: Stacy Gunn (which is my artist pseudonym) is in fact currently working with grammy award winning producers listed, and this is of course relevant information. If need be I can give you evidence of this with our interaction through email. Regarding articles being autobiographies, an autobiography of a dentist is not suitable, but for people in the public spotlight, these relevant details are of interest to the general public and are often the subject of interviews and news stories. As far as the notability, I am notable - I have been written about in articles (see www.stacygunn.com), I have played across the country, I am internationally recognized through myspace, Facebook, and the like, and I am currently negotiating backing by Universal, though my own label has had plenty of notability in the past years (I can also give you evidence of this if requested).

Encyclopedic content must not be confused with useless content. Just because information sparks up emotion is not evidence that it is not suitable, but rather that it is important to people. Such controversy is often encountered when real personalities such as myself attempt to challenge stereotypes.

I am more than happy to welcome any edits by Wikipedians, please, do me the honor, I am not an expert at the internet. Granted though as the CEO of my company, that they are approved by me. For instance, the edit "Stacy Gunn is Canadian rock artist" is not suitable by my standards, because my genre is glam rock, and randykitty attempting to force that on me is oppressive. That is not accurate, and it is ridiculous for someone like her to attempt to edit when she hasn't even heard my music. What does she know about me? Nothing. I repeat my article is referenced in its entirety to my website which is authorized by SOCAN. Please add links if you like, but everything must be approved my me. I am in charge of how I am presented on the internet and in any scenario.

What randykitty calls statements of encyclopedic information are actually things that are not useful to say. Encyclopedic and scientific and accurate information can result in an emotional or phsyciological reaction in us - in fact - if they don't, they don't deserve to be written. I know that emotions are important even in the most rigorous science, just ask Albert Einstein, as I studied physiology and I received the Canadian Governor General's Medal for academic achievement. I can send you a picture of my medal if you so require it.

Please, all you people, be reasonable and think of the content rather than always being hung up on arbitrary conventions of presentation. The CONTENT is important, the most important thing, because there is an artist, which is hugely needed in society that works hard and cares and can guide humans in their journey, using and not ignoring emotions like randykitty, to higher fulfillment and understanding. Please take a look at the information and materials on my website, www.stacygunn.com/the-great-redemption, regarding the artistic merit of my new album. Everything I mentioned is true, that I am working with grammy-award winning producers, and that I am negotiating a deal with Universal at the moment. I'm not going to write that I'm on Universal if we haven't yet finalized the deal. This artist is currently working with huge names in the industry to produce this stuff for the public. This is relevant.

Is it really worth it to negate the people of this extremely interesting, pioneering, relevant information, when the hits on my website are starting to skyrocket, because of ARBITRARY CONVENTIONS which don't even make sense. I could easily reference an article written about me, but I chose not to, because it doesn't actually have any of the information that I wrote about. That would be arbitrary, and like I said, I don't do arbitrary, I am here to challenge it, and I believe that is the original purpose of many of these internet corporations - a place to gather accurate information for the people by the people, and that's what I am standing for. I want to clean up wikipedia, and people going around monitoring arbitrary conventions and overlooking content (randykitty the expert in overlooking emotion and thus content) is not legitimate. I contest, the Stacy Gunn page does pose any real problems regarding sources, style, verifiable information or length. Rather it is a step up and a benchmark to attempt to reach for wikipedia, in that ALL the information on it is ACTUALLY referenced to a legitimate source authorized by SOCAN, and it does not necessitate the referencing of illegitimate sources (Facebook, the onion, huffington post etc.) - this marks a linking of the internet world with the real one - after all the internet is part of the real world, and it is totally out of line that you have blocked the content. You claim that its for the people, but at the end of the day your word rules - thats not freedom, so please instead of lying, allow the content and understand its value. This information is relevant for everyone, I urge you all to use this "scandal" to acquaint yourself with the art that is unmatched anywhere in the world which you will find on my website, and please be positive - aid the free flowing of relevant information and art, not the censorship of it.

Below is evidence of my membership in SOCAN.

File:Screen Shot 2015-04-30 at 4.09.20 PM.png Evidence of my membership in SOCAN. If this doesn't work I sent a screenshot of this at permission-en@wikimedia.org. All information is true. Please answer me.

I request that the article be put back up.

Thank you.

Peter Phillip Charles Leoni

None of what you say is evidence of notability. The bar for joining SOCAN is very low: to "be a music composer, songwriter, or lyricist" who has "created a musical work or part of a musical work that has been recorded" and membership is then free. That covers millions of people who have ever twanged on a guitar or tinkled on a piano and is very far from being notable, as virtually everyone who makes music therefore qualifies. "CEO of Stacygunn music" sounds very grandiose, but as "Stacy Gunn was born Peter Phillip Charles Leoni", according to Stacy Gunn's about page, giving yourself pompous titles and being CEO of a company that you created establishes nothing and neither does setting up a website about your music, which, again, anyone can do, see the policy on self-published sources. To deal with your last "claim to fame" i.e. working with "grammy award winning producers" .... the vast majority of producers will work with anyone provided they're paid enough. Incidentally, you're wrong on a couple of other things as well: we generally do not accept Facebook pages and would only use them when the subject has already established themselves as notable in other reliable sources. You say that you will welcome any edits by Wikipedians provided "that they are approved by me" (ironic, since you then go on to speak about censorship later.) Not how it works here. Even if you got the article which you do not qualify for at the moment, you do not own the article so anyone could add sourced material to it, negative or not. Lastly, recording your complaints of censorship, Wikipedia doesn't censor genuinely notable material which meets our notability requirements. Yours doesn't and there are plenty of other websites which you can use to promote yourself. For now, you would have to meet one or more of the criteria at WP:MUSICBIO and you currently miss it by a country mile and Randykitty has correctly deleted it on that basis. Since your only reason to be here seems to be to promote yourself, I suspect that you will soon be blocked from editing as an advertising only account which is WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. Valenciano (talk) 09:02, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Valenciano for pinging me. Peter Phillip Charles Leoni, please refrain from personal attacks against me or any other editor. I deleted "your" article because it was an unsourced "BLP", no emotions involved. And to echo and expand on what Valenciano says above, please get acquainted with WP's policies and guidelines (a start would be to read the links posted in the welcome template on top of this page and in the already quite numerous warning templates on this page). If you continue the way you have been doing, your wiki career will be short. --Randykitty (talk) 09:39, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Many articles on here have only one reference, which only verifies one piece of information yet you deem it to verify the whole article. examples: dazzer longknife. the necessity to have one reference, like you clearly said, which would immediately legitimize my article, which is what was said initially is ARBITRARY - its a rule established because you like rules but doesnt actually increase the legitimacy of the material - and this is what I am contesting. It is the turning of the cheek to the many illegitimate articles and many illegitimate references like this one that causes you to raise the alarm when a legitimate one comes along. if something comes up whos notability is sketchy, you give the rule - provide one, often random illegitimate reference, and we won't even bother to judge you or the notability, we'll put you up - great - that's easy to do for anyone - and when someone comes along that wants to use all their energy to work rather than provide random references - no go for you. your conventions are shooting yourselves in the foot - and when conventions become cumbersome the intelligent person questions them, which is what I am begging you to do now. This is how we interact and create a new world - there's no rules, lets talk it out. your wikpipedia conventions may work but therey are always subject to scrutiny aren't they? well let's see if we can't work to find the best system possible. Initially your problem was one - probably because you thought that was enough to get me off - but now the issues have been raised about nearly all the issues on wikipedia. if one doesn't work, lets raise another - which makes it seem to me that you're not being fair but just want me off - because my information is different from a lot of wikipedia - which is records of past notable achivements - whereas mine is a present one - a work in progress. this adds some life to wikipedia - to be somewhere where we can share new interesting material, one that is relevant to us now - to open your page to new up and coming notable achievements would be a good move to make it more relevant and take away negative connotations with the association of late.

Why so suspicious? I'm a (relatively) young person trying to navigate this new world that seemingly has no or very little rules, and I, like you, want to work together with my peers to build it the way we want, and we can build it any way we want. I can assure you, I have no money in my pocket and have worked for the last 15 years straight making music professionally, and amateur before that, pretty much my whole life. This is what I spend every day, day in and day out doing, figuring out what will be good for the future and what will last and aid in creating the world we want. This type pf omformation, more than information on things of the past, is relevant to us and people who want to move forward, I try to hard to find music which is DOING SOMETHING - for a purpose and that is what I am all about. I didn't pay any producer a cent, I have been approached by Adam Kasper (Nirvana, SOuoundgarden), London Bridge (Soundgarden Pearl Jam) and Cherry Beach (Mark Ronson, Bruno Mars), just on the strength of my demos and concept on my website. I spent 12 or so years working the rich underground, and this is my move into the mainstream. This is a notable achievement already, and I am working with them on pre-production as we speak, while working on my major label deal in order to provide the proper budget, which is relatively high for such a high quality embarkment. Anyone of 30+ generation knows how big of a deal this is - we've had indie rock, we've had dance, but nobody has yet really built upon the rock n'roll giants of the past Nirvana and Soundgarden - to build music and evolve it into something more refined - glam rock. This is what I am doing. It really is very exciting, and not to brag but I am in a class of my own. Please, I suggest anybody who is interested or curious to go on my website an check out hte material old and new for yourself. This is they type of situation where your emotional reaction really is your guide - which is why I contest the philosophy of randykitty - I'm not insulting but providing constructive criticism - if you're an expert on hiding your emotional reaction, you won't go far in science. look at Plato, copernicus, galileo, albert einstein or even stephen hawking. They were passionate leaders and spokespeople who spoke with their heart and imagination just as much as thier intellect. Once again, I know because I studied physiology and almost became a doctor, but instead I am in music. instead of having random arbitrary rules and protecting yourself by imposing them on everyone, why don't you guys open up discussion and possibility for reform and change, based on what is reasonable - what we have here is a kind of second enlightenment - let us work together instead of being reactionary.

wiki career? what about career in general - wikipedia might be important, but its not that important. What's important is that I get up every day and I work with these wonderfully talented people doing something that matters. wikpiedia's place is really just to provide accurate information and report - its part of real life and there is another problem with randykitty's philosophy - that she treats wiki and the internet as not part of the real world - let the internet reflect what goes on in the real world - don't spend your time pumping up your internet persona, but spend your time being a good workrer, at your craft, and then you just have to report that stuff on the internet - this is why everything on my write-up is true - and I'm sorry if it causes emotional reactions it all really happened. you can imagine something that is interesting will cause emotional reactions. I think its interesting for people to know that someone like me exists. you might ask for me to come back when I have finalized the record deal - but what's the point? there's no parents here we can do what we want - and I think this information is notable. Many people are rightfully interested - who doesn't want a great new artist to take the reins? But lets get nitpicky then:

SOCAN is legit. They make it that way to support quality artists even though they might temporarily be independent, which is a good thing and I don't understand why you people have to so conventional, suspicious and corporate in your leanings - come on guys didn't you guys start the site to be progressive? so you're not going to recognize an indepndent artist when the society for canadian authors composers and music publishers does? I can assure you, buddy with a creepy twitter account where he twangs his guitar doesn't have a membership to socan. That's because it is hugely full of judgment and pomp because all of the artists on it are estabilshed - like serena ryder or bryan adams. thus, when you're going to apply they make you feel like a useless piece of shit, so that randoms just don't bother/ I'm a person, but I bothered because i am confident, and its worth it. trust me, nobody who wasn't a full-time professional would bother applying. Let me send you email interactions with me and the big name producers - evidence that they are even giving me special prices like Adam Kasper, who worked on In Utero, for their work because, and I quote him "we are supportive of quality independent artists trying to get to the next level. I'm sorry that guy wouldn't give me the time of day if he didn't like my music. and i'm sorry as far as musical tastes I'm going to have to go with adam kasper rather than randykitty - and maybe you guys should take a page from their book and check it out. music affects us - I can see that you guys put the goldfrapp article on feature the day we were having discussions - everyone uses music to anchor themselves and make sense of their world so rather than ignoring that and hiding it - once again the randykitty response - be open about it, I encourage that - I will be happy to send you evidence that this producer approves of my music, and its only in the works before the common people will agree - so why don't you get a head start and be a little understanding and a little intelligent about what you allow up here - I push you guys to evolve and to learn and to find better methods of doing things.

Alright advertisements. come on guys - I work my anus off every day for 15 years, and you expect information on me to not be promotional? how do you do something good, and then talk about doing something good - without being positive about it. I'm sorry randkyitty, but 'encyclopedic' for you is another term for boring and not necessary. HOw do you talk about music without being a little emotional - right come on seriously lighten up - go and listen to the music and get back to me - that should be your criteria for putting up the article. I contest anyone even talking to me about myself (or trying to tell me what kind of artist I am - randykitty) without even going on the website - not to nitpick mind you - but with a glass of wine or beer at night for entertainment - after all that's what its for, and then get back to me. How do you even make a discussion without giving a person the proper chance. My credentials might get you intrugued but its the music that counts - go and check it out - and remember the main album is in the works. I understand that you guys need rules - but rules can always be reworked - the rules you guys made are not unconditional - so lets work together.

Last but not least, nobody was touching my page until, once again, randykitty complained. before that we had the usual - we don't necessarily condone this, we don't necessarily want to get on board with somebody who is openly breaking conventions, but on the other hand, are you really going to go and delete something that is positive? go out of your way to make sure that doesn't get heard? I mean its like the police right - there are laws - and they enforce them but there's different ways to do that. many times they will let something go in the real world - see if the effects are positive or negative - and then make the decision if its worth their time. randykitty instead believes in arbitrary conventions and that they rule us above all else. above all esle this is what I contest and we could all learn something here. nobody even did anything until she started an editing war with me - tried to tell me what kind of music I play, without probably even checking it out herself, and got everybody involved from top to bottom, on what really seems like a personal situation for her. Yes, I already know randytkitty, that I went on one of your articles and deleted it, I' aware I did that, you don't have to keep reminding me. I did it because I contest that you make it your personal battle to fight for arbitrary conventions when it seems like the people on top don't actually really care - at least they weren't doing anything about it which is the important thing, and you stand for "emotionless information" and all your articles are about the journals that you studied at school, that if somebody is interested they will look up themeleves. academia, I know is different from pop culture fundamentally, pop culture is popular academia is not for everyone. is ist really relevant to tell the whole world that the journal of molecular neuorbiology is a monthly peer reviewed journal? should everyone know about this or is really mostly relevant to the people that studies it? do you think you're educating the world with writing about all the journals in your graduate program, or do you think people already know journals exist, and they will look them up themselves is they are interested? do you think everyone should know about intricate workings of physiology or do you think it is unrealistic to push that on people, and important scientific findings will instead trickle down to the relevant parts for the public? I think you are being elitist and insinuating that everyone should know this and that you are better than others for being a part of it, and of course the write ups being "encyclopedic" nobody can take them down right? well I contest this because this is not relevant ifnomration for everyone, they have their own jobs they work hard at like I work hard at mine, and you really need to understand this. pop culture, in contrast, is made specifically and tailored for everyone, and can guide them in their fulfillment, with expert pushes and guides made deliberatlely by the artist, which is what I am working at, and it is hard work. so by contrast the field is one that is relevant to everyone, and I push you people to understand this and use wikipedia to freely share this relevant information. To have our generations David Bowie or Paul McCartney in the works is relevant information for everyone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter Phillip Charles Leoni (talk • contribs)

I don't think it's reasonable to expect anyone to read that rant. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. The bottom line is, any article subject has to meet notability guidelines. In this case, the guidelines are WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. Wikipedia is a community project and these guidelines were established by the community. Repeated submission of content that does not adhere to community guidelines shows a disregard for community editing and is not a behavior compatible with the community. The basic rule of thumb is: "article subjects require significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic." Existence does not = notable. Using your own website as the only reference in the now-deleted Stacy Gunn vanity article doesn't satisfy the significant coverage requirement, doesn't satisfy the independence aspect, etc. Please stop trying to advertise yourself on Wikipedia. Go tour and get a ton of press coverage from reliable sources and when someone who is not you decides that the subject is notable, they'll write an article about you. Wikipedia has no deadline. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:57, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Wow, an expert on the music industry - thanks for the advice - go tour - however I'd rather continue how I have chosen, to focus my energies on the one aspect that is notable - my music, rather than follow in the humiliating trajectory of my peers - check out diemonds wikipedia - pulling every string possible and following every convention to get a "ton of press coverage" and end up releasing a dismal sad piece of music (a couple days ago) which is bound to flop. No connection or no sucking up will guarantee you success - look at most established musicians now - their lives are failed - the only thing that can guarantee you success is focusing all your energy on quality music, something that nobody has on me. Wikipedia is not a place to advertise yourself but apparently its a place to give fatherly advice on how to navigate the music industry? Wow, I'm gonna tell that one to Adam he is bound to have a laugh. It's a good thing I don't take your advice or the music would never get made. After sucking up to everyone for press coverage your left with nothing but humiliation. Sorry bud not for me. I've already got very positive reviews and press coverage bud - go on my website - but none of them verify anything that I wrote about - which would make referencing them useless. But you guys want useless referencing - that is your benchmark - well I got to say that says a lot of about the relevance of the information on here. I contest - using a random reference that does not verufy anything, and they guy that wrote it is probably less legitimate than you are - does not do anything. We've got famous authors I read about that didn't get on wikipedia because apparently they are not authorities on their own work. I'm trying to prove something - that nobody has a right to say what you are except for you, and you say that a person doesn't exist unless they sketchily do someone a favour to write about them. Alright, you guys exist only at the mercy of others by sucking up and see how long that lasts, I will exist from doing my craft optimally and letting the content speak for itself. I refuse to do even one useless convention to appease you guys because it is against my philoshopy and music. When notability stems from interest of content rather than on arbitrary conventions humanity will have evolved. and we are on the cusp of it now. I assume that this is exciting for all of us - whether you openly admit it or not - which is why none of you piped up until randikitty complained, so I assume that this is positive for all of us. Put the page up and unblock me please. If you want vanity check out the diemonds wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter Phillip Charles Leoni (talk • contribs)

This is all TLDR but I would like to say this:

Stacy, you already have a website of your own. You can pontificate there as much as you like and we won't try to stop you or demand that you host our egotistical ramblings on your site. All we ask is that you show the same respect to us. You are clearly not here to help us build an encyclopaedia and your presence here is becoming disruptive. You can't use Wikipedia as a vector for promotion so, unless you want to change tack completely and help out, I suggest you pursue your promotional objectives elsewhere and stop wasting everybody's time, including your own. If you continue in this vein you are going to get fully blocked. There are many other places on the web where you can go where your presence will be welcomed and where you can gain exposure for you music. CoughMySpaceCough --DanielRigal (talk) 20:37, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, just two more things:

1. You are not currently blocked.
2. If you ever do become world famous, what you have written here may become a source of embarrassment to you (as it should already be). Should that be the case, please request the deletion of this page. We won't be vindictive and keep it for posterity. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:45, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

You're right, Peter Phillip Charles Leoni, I'm not an expert in the music industry. I was offering a suggestion for how you might become notable per Wikipedia standards while helping to downplay the fact that you are not yet notable per Wikipedia standards, and while pointing out that you have a clear conflict of interest. I don't care what you do, but at least now you know you're going to need press from reliable sources independent of yourself and your lengthy protestations. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:02, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, Peter Phillip Charles Leoni, but you seem to be delusional. I never edited the article Stacy Gunn and even less "edit warred" over it with you. I deleted it because it was unsourced and had clearly been tagged for deletion for a week without anybody, including yourself, apparently bothering to add any sources. If you think you are notable in the WP sense, show us some independent reliable sources that say so. Even you should be able to figure out that you yourself saying that you are notable cannot be enough of an inclusion criteria here. And please stop dropping these huge walls of text, nobody is going to wade through that logorhoea. --Randykitty (talk) 21:31, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Guys, seriously, it is you guys who are egotistical. This can all be boiled down to the fact that you think that "creating an encyclopedia" (nice with the latin spelling - pomp) is more important than doing stuff, which is the problem we have today - the form is deemed more important than content. Compiling the list of people who did stuff is an important job, but not as important than doing it itself -esp in this case because you're all amateurs. if this was britannica you might compare my career with the editors of that -but not you guys. Not everyone here is a wikipedian and that's not cool - some people do stuff, and without anybody doing anything interesting there is nothing to compile. But at the end of the day the difference is that you guys are volunteers, another word for that is amateur. IN YOUR SPARE TIME, after work, you come here and edit and play god, and you don't like somebody doing something that overshadows your amateur activities. My activity on wikipedia is part of my professional life - which I am engaging on with you in between emails of pre-production (we are only working online with adam kasper and london bridge and cherry beach right now - except for a few meetings), and this is MY JOB FULL-TIME. So you guys come here after work and because of arbitrarily rules you have compiled after work - you won't let me do my job, and put my information on wikipedia which is a convenient albeit not perfectly acccurate place for people to start thier searches. now that I am in talks with record labels, I am making a not very good impression because of your arbitrarily rules - made up in your spare time, that you don't even really care about because its not your real job. SO referring me to other corners of the internet where failed people to pretend they are relevant (myspace) is not really good advice. If I was on my spare time, like you, looking to entertain myself by pretending I'm more important than I am, I would do that, but I'm not I'm trying to work and you people are making it really hard. Can you understand I'm not trying to "compile an encyclopedia" but rather work at a real career right now, and you guys are assuming I'm just playing around on the internet. Nothing could be further from the truth and you guys thinking your more important than you are gets in my way PROFESSIONALLY. I will not lower my professional standards by adding references which don't verify anything. We all like to talk ourselves up, why can't you do it too, yeah that's right, but if you havent noticed talking myself up is PART OF MY JOB, its a good thing that the material and the content warrants it. Seriously YOU GUYS ARE NOT THAT IMPORTANT, and playing around on wikipedia makes you feel more important than you are you are getting in people's way. On the other hand wikipedia exists, it is a novel concept and it can work, through volunteer effort, if you people take a slice of humility. Its a good service you're doing at the end of the day - but if you claim openness then get rid of the random arbitrary rules - if its an encyclopedia for the people you really can't go an block me. My article is notable relevant and good. Let it up and you will get your proper references soon trust me. Don't worry about deleting our conversations, everything I say is always in line with my philosophy and honestly, no matter what people write officially, I am assuming that people like my philosophy and they like somone to take the reins a bit, as long as its reasonable. I've gained all the contacts I have clearly fighting all my battles as I am now, an nobody has anything to say about it, so there really is nothing unprofessional about speaking your mind, having a philosophy and sticking to it. shows character really. and don't worry about my career trajectory that's my business, and my decisions are deliberate and reasoned. seriously understand the importance, and allow me to put the article up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter Phillip Charles Leoni (talk • contribs)

A lot of unfounded speculation and effete zingers. Best of luck in your future endeavors! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:38, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Blocked

As an FYI:

1. The article's not going back up based on anything you've said above. You're welcome to notify your boss of that fact.
2. Part of our conflict of interest policy is that you were required to disclose your now-self-admitted conflict of interest in creating the article in the first place. You failed to do that.
3. You've explicitly stated you have no intention of following several of our core policies and guidelines
4. You've explicitly stated you're not here to build an encyclopedia.

As such, I've blocked you accordingly. Thank you for your candor, and we regret being unable to meet your professional requirements.

--slakr^\ talk / 22:20, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Hands up who didn't see that coming a mile off?

Sorry Stacy. We tried to warn you but you just wouldn't listen. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:23, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Alright thats fine but thank you for clarifying the purpose of this service from the claimed purpose - sharing accurate information - to what it really is - an arbitrary boys club. When it comes down to it I would rather be one of the people that does something, rather than the people that compiles information on someone that does something - well to be honest not even, that would actually be more britannica's job. Your purpose is - well- now I am confused what is your purpose other than pumping yourselves up in a vacuum.

Let this thread stand as a testament to what you guys stand for. When you want to interact with the real world, you know where to start. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter Phillip Charles Leoni (talk • contribs)

Yes, an arbitrary boys club made up of millions of editors from all over the world, many of whom are also girls (typically known as women), who come from a variety of social, economical, and career backgrounds, and who achieve consensus and establish site policy through discussion, not through ranting and finger-pointing. You've got us all pegged and you've shown us all a little something new about ourselves. If you'd like to contest your block, please use the template {{unblock | reason=your reason here ~~~~}}, but please be forewarned that you will have to demonstrate an understanding for why you were blocked. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:08, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

off-topic rant

Forcing users to abide by arbitrary conventions is against the law. The constitution of the United States, Canada, Britain, and democratic countries is lifted from the American declaration of independence, the british magna carta, and the original and most important document in the history of democracy, the French Declaration of the RIghts of Man, written during the French Revolution, after the ideologies of revolutionary enlightenment thinkers were put into practice, after the taking down of autocratic rule. This is the world we have been living in from 1789 to now, and in the second decade of the 2000s, you people on the internet think you're above it. Here is the declaration which your and my constitution is based on. It clearly states thst the LAW is the expression of the will of the people, not arbitrary rules made by random people, and that it is illegal to force arbitrary rules that are not laws on people. We need to re-legitimize the institutions, anybody says they don't partake in is a hypocrite - free market, corporate culture, government with its 3 bodies - legislative (make laws), executive (enforce - police) and judicial (punish and sentence). Threat and co-ercion (randykitty's threat that my wiki career will be short if I don't abide by your arbitrary conventions) is against the law of democratic countries, insinuating that conventions must be followed if you want to be successful is illegal, banning people from webspace in a free country is illegal, countributing and building a community which takes over the majority of the internet (which is real) but forcing users to abide by rules which are not laws and don't make sense is illegal, claiming to give everyone freedom but forcing stipulations is illegal. In a society where freedom and natural rights are not currently being protected (which is why nobody has done anything) by the 3 branches of government self-policing is not the answer, appointing yourself in charge is not the answer, sucking up to whatever sketchy company seems on top (randykitty) is not the answer, the one and only answer is work to fill the positions of institutions with people who understand and champion the values of democracy started in 1789. Nobody has a right to ignorance, read and understand where our society (up until just a few years ago) actually comes from and is actually going. Taken from Wikipedia. Please note that forcing arbitrary rules which are not laws at any time is illegal. If you have an interesting take, write your MP, become a politician, become an activist, do anything you can, but forcing it, through threat, co-ercion, shaming, "populism" "will of the people", whatever is illegal. This is the foundation of democracy. It pays to pay attention at school, nobody has a right to ignorance in an enlightened world. The Declaration of Right of Man and Citizen Men are born and remain free and equal in rights. Social distinctions may be founded only upon the general good. The aim of all political association is the preservation of the natural and imprescriptible rights of man. These rights are liberty, property, security, and resistance to oppression. The principle of all sovereignty resides essentially in the nation. No body nor individual may exercise any authority which does not proceed directly from the nation. Liberty consists in the freedom to do everything which injures no one else; hence the exercise of the natural rights of each man has no limits except those which assure to the other members of the society the enjoyment of the same rights. These limits can only be determined by law. Law can only prohibit such actions as are hurtful to society. Nothing may be prevented which is not forbidden by law, and no one may be forced to do anything not provided for by law. Law is the expression of the general will. Every citizen has a right to participate personally, or through his representative, in its foundation. It must be the same for all, whether it protects or punishes. All citizens, being equal in the eyes of the law, are equally eligible to all dignities and to all public positions and occupations, according to their abilities, and without distinction except that of their virtues and talents. No person shall be accused, arrested, or imprisoned except in the cases and according to the forms prescribed by law. Any one soliciting, transmitting, executing, or causing to be executed, any arbitrary order, shall be punished. But any citizen summoned or arrested in virtue of the law shall submit without delay, as resistance constitutes an offense. The law shall provide for such punishments only as are strictly and obviously necessary, and no one shall suffer punishment except it be legally inflicted in virtue of a law passed and promulgated before the commission of the offense. As all persons are held innocent until they shall have been declared guilty, if arrest shall be deemed indispensable, all harshness not essential to the securing of the prisoner's person shall be severely repressed by law. No one shall be disquieted on account of his opinions, including his religious views, provided their manifestation does not disturb the public order established by law. The free communication of ideas and opinions is one of the most precious of the rights of man. Every citizen may, accordingly, speak, write, and print with freedom, but shall be responsible for such abuses of this freedom as shall be defined by law. The security of the rights of man and of the citizen requires public military forces. These forces are, therefore, established for the good of all and not for the personal advantage of those to whom they shall be entrusted. A general tax is indispensable for the maintenance of the public force and for the expenses of administration; it ought to be equally apportioned among all citizens according to their means.[19] All the citizens have a right to decide, either personally or by their representatives, as to the necessity of the public contribution; to grant this freely; to know to what uses it is put; and to fix the proportion, the mode of assessment and of collection and the duration of the taxes. Society has the right to require of every public agent an account of his administration. A society in which the observance of the law is not assured, nor the separation of powers defined, has no constitution at all. Property being an inviolable and sacred right, no one can be deprived of it, unless demanded by public necessity, legally constituted, explicitly demands it, and under the condition of a just and prior indemnity.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter Phillip Charles Leoni (talk • contribs)

I'm going to hazard a guess that you are not a constitutional law graduate, but that's neither here nor there. Editing at Wikipedia is a privilege, not a constitutional right. Wikipedia is also a global encyclopedia, not the encyclopedia of the United States, and Wikipedia is also not a democracy. You are welcome to respond to your block by filling out an unblock request, but any rants or rambles will be ignored.

To file an unblock request, use the following template: {{unblock | reason=your reason here ~~~~}}

Please note that unblock requests that do not show an understanding for Wikipedia policies and guidelines are typically ignored, and administrators responding to off-topic rambles may decide to revoke your talk page access instead, since Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:35, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

more soapboxing

Nothing may be prevented which is not forbidden by law, and no one may be forced to do anything not provided for by law. Any one soliciting, transmitting, executing, or causing to be executed, any arbitrary order, shall be punished. These laws are relevant in any democratic society post 1789 - post autocratic rule. They extend to any interaction or situation or place within any democratic country in the world (ie. the internet and the country you are in). Wikipedia is not your own random autocratic country, but just people interacting freely within their own countries and with others- ie canada to united states in this case, which means this law applies to both me and you and it is protected by the three branches of both our governments. wikipedia is most certainly not a privilege - its just computers attached to each other through electromagnetic waves - as is all the internet, no boundaries. right now for instance i am talking to you or anyone else that sees this message - in the same way I would be talking to somebody on the phone - in person, through facebook, email, twitter, wikipedia, a chat room or whatever group of ever shifting association on the internet 0- they are all equivalent no matter what the interface looks like - and as such are all subordinate to the laws of the nation in which you reside - its not no mans land but clear real interaction within your country, following your ocuntiries laws, also known as the general will. wikipedia, facebook, twitter, i love cum guzzling asians r us, and the like ARE ALL DEMOCRACIESa, as is talking to someone on the street, and talking on the phone or emailing, WITHIN A DEMOCRATIC COUNTRY. you can't section off a random part of cyberspace, thats always changing anyways and ahas no rules to begin with (other than your countrie's laws, as always), like a little kid in a car sectioning off your side when your sister is bugging you, and make your own arbitrary rules. this gets in my way it gets in everyone's way, and IT IS AGAINST THE LAW. yes, nobody has yet done anything about it because its a daunting task and you posers and nerds are so used to getting your way because youve been nerding out and making random rules ala dungeons and dragons for so many years now and you feel entitled to it - BUT YOU ARE MOST CERATAINLY NOT. its quite obviously sgainst the law and obviously retarded, and there will be repurcussions. We are slowly filling up important institutionalized positions in society with educated people who uphold the law - for example we went from Rob Ford to John Tory in Toronto, and the prime Minister of Canada is Stepehen Harper who works for and understands the law, rather than whipserings in the wind and arbitrary rules. As far as wikipedia is concerned, I went straight for the jugular when I arrived - your arbitrary rule is the ARBITRARY REFERENCE. It doesnt matter how stupid inaccurate or unnotable an article might be, as long as it has ONE RANDOM REFERENCE, verifying one random statement within the article, it goes up. Better no rules, than one stupid one that makes no sense 0- so there you go - wikipedia follows the laws of the country your in, thats it, nobody else has really any original concept on here but that. as such the information is free (as is supposed to be as you claim) and its for everyone (illegal to block me), and anything that anybody writes goes up (which is pretty much the stuation, minus your own stupid rule - that is against the law) - not everything will go up - lots of people don't want to write stupid stuff that isnt true - because its embarassing and everyone in the world sees it - so it will weed itself out like that. however your actions are ILLEGAL as they stand, and I will pursue rectification if I am not given my rights (unblocked and I'm allowed to post just like everyone else). Legal action will be taken against your illegal actions, unless this freedom is accepted.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter Phillip Charles Leoni (talk • contribs)

Do not make legal threats, please. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:44, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

August 2015

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.  Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:42, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Stacy, I strongly suspect that there may come a time when you come to your senses and realise that what you have written here is, at the very least, embarrassing to you. Due to your boorish behaviour you are no longer able to edit even this page but you can still contact the administrators and ask for it to be removed, if you wish. Of course, that would not unblock you, or hide the fact that you are blocked, but it would prevent any risk of this record of your wholly unjustified ranting dogging you in your later career. That said, Wikipedia user talk pages do not rank highly in a Google search anyway, so you may feel it is not worth pursuing, but the offer is there. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:24, 24 August 2015 (UTC)