User talk:Onefortyone/Archive1

Don't edit or post replies to this archive page. If you want to reply to specific topics here, do so on my main talk page, copying the section you are replying to if necessary.

Mediation

Going on vacation right before a mediation somewhat complicate matters. However since it is unreasonable to expect you to plan your life around wikipedia I am implementing a truce and suspending mediation for two weeks. The truce will last unitl 6:00 UTC August 6, 20005; if mediation is not resumed within two days of the expiration of the truce I will consider the mediation closed. - JCarriker 02:01, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

User:Wyss has withdrawn from the mediation process. -JCarriker 02:44, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Hello, just a quick note to let you know that I am back from vacation. It is a pity that Wyss is not willing to participate in the mediation process. Onefortyone 14:28, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It would be inappropriate for me to weigh in on the arguement considring that I briefly mediated the dispute. If you want others involment, try puting the Adams and Elvis pages on request for comment or file an RFC against the users you are having the problem with. I would suggest the former over the latter. -JCarriker 20:25, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

I'm willing to participate in mediation. Truth be told I wouldn't mind at all if you filed an RfC on any of the articles (Nick Adams, Natalie Wood, Elvis Presley and so on). I would, however, strongly urge you not to file an RfC against any users involved in this. I think you're wontedly a helpful and productive contributor to Wikipedia. I see no reason to prolong the dispute.

I don't pretend to understand your reasons for these edits, or why you don't make them under your usual username (which I don't want to make an issue of). I can't speak for Ted Wilkes in any way, but I'm willing to be reasonably flexible about including the content you want into these articles. For me, it's only a matter of how the information is presented (and where it appears in the article). Now that you are using a username, if you are willing to discuss this directly with me, I'm sure we can come to a mutual understanding. Once we have implemented the result in the articles, I'll work with you to protect it. How 'bout it? Wyss 04:53, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Wyss, in my opinion, your strategy to delete everything what I have written and your statement on the Talk:Nick Adams page clearly show that you are not seriously willing to participate in the mediation process. I have cited several independent sources to support my view. You are frequently disparaging these sources. Onefortyone 13:40, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Are you refusing to participate in mediation? Wyss 14:02, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am willing to give mediation a last try. Do you accept that references to my sources (books, articles, etc.) are given on the related pages? If not, then you are not seriously willing to participate in mediation.Onefortyone 14:08, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, yes. Look... This whole thing has been a source credibility dispute and we can agree to disagree on that. One way that would work for me, without the need for a blistering disclaimer, would be to put this material into a separate section called Was Nick Adams gay? or Later rumours or whatever we might agree on... and make it interesting for the reader too. We could include your cites of rumours and quotes, Wiki links or external links etc. If there's a single, mild disclaimer of some sort, like "there are no court records, letters from Adams or other documentation from his lifetime to support these stories" (and I'm flexible there too), I'll be comfortable enough and I'll defend the content thereafter. If it's worded right, nobody'll be able to get away with deleting it for long anyway and I want to stabilize this article. Please let me have your thoughts. Wyss 14:43, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There is already a "Rumours" section on the Nick Adams page. What's wrong with including the quotes there? The disclaimer that "there are no court records, letters from Adams or other documentation from his lifetime to support these stories" should also be placed at the end of the paragraph. In my opinion, it it not necessary to create a new page. Onefortyone 14:52, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That works for me, 100%. Please feel free to now add your material and please attribute quotes and remarks to the publications etc you got them from. I'll defend them in that section. If called for, I'll tweak the wording for flow and style but if it shifts the meaning you can say, "Hey Wyss, that changed the meaning!" and I'll fix it until you're ok with it. Wyss 15:02, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to put the Dean/roomate and Spreckles items into the rumours section since I removed them from the main body of the article. I've never seen any evidence (like a statement from Adams or any mention from that period etc) Dean and Adams were actually roomates. Personally I think the Spreckles reference is a real stretch but I know it's part of the "Hollywood gay" canon and if it shows up in the rumours section that's ok with me. Please feel free to discuss this more here if you think we need to. Wyss 06:09, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for rewriting the Nick Adams article. That's fine. I have only added a note on Adams's friendship with Elvis. Sorry for having confused you with Ted Wilkes some time ago. Onefortyone 13:07, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder why you have deleted the passage on Adams's friendship with Elvis on the Nick Adams page. Even Ted Wilkes has confirmed that this friendship existed. Red West, member of the Memphis Mafia and himself a close friend to Elvis, says: "...Nick Adams - I don't know if you remember Nick Adams - did a series called "The Rebel". He was a friend of Elvis's and I went to Hollywood and met him. He helped me get into the first door..." Onefortyone 13:24, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We just had an edit conflict... here's what I wrote...

Thanks 141, I truly have no problem presenting this stuff in the rumours section. My only remaining concern (and I suspect we can work this out one way or another, if it needs to be worked out at all) is using Spreckles as a source that NA and EP were buddies. It was widely known back then that Adams was friends with Presley, even as a paid member of his "entourage" in 57 and there are tons of sources available from which to cite their close social connection. Citing Spreckles is misleading, as if we require her as a source for some sort of hush hush secret they were friends. There was no secret. Spreckles is un-needed to establish a friendship between EP and AN. Wyss 13:32, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Update to your update... these celebrites have tons of social connections which are unnecessary to ever cite in an encyclopedia article. I know you want to mention them because it advances the Nick Adams was gay rumours. I imagine we can get them into the rumours section, because the only significance they have is to the published allegations that he was gay, which we have agreed to relegate to the rumours section. Anyway, let's discuss this as needed. The content you want is no problem for me, it's only the presentation that concerns me and truly, the last thing I want to do is deface the article with scathing disclaimers. Keep in mind, I think the rumours are unfounded, but they exist, so we can (and likely should) report them, as such etc. Wyss 13:32, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Proposition

Please read my proposition to you on the Elvis talk page. (129.241.134.241 03:22, 10 August 2005 (UTC)).[reply]

Gay Elvis rumours

Ok, different subject altogether. If you want to create a section in the Elvis article called Was Elvis gay? and cite the published rumours/gossip nowhere but there, I'll support that approach so long as we can put some sort of disclaimer at the end of the section indicating there is no documented evidence to support them (with whatever wording that might be agreed on). Again, I think those Elvis rumours are unfounded, but the published rumours exist and readers coming to the article looking for that info would at least see it presented in a helpful, encyclopedic context. Wyss 14:02, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've noticed that a reference to Bret has already appeared in the trivia section of the Elvis article. I think it's helpful there, I support its presence there and while I'm always open to hearing your comments on this if need be, would suggest the trivia section as the appropriate place for unsupported, published gossip and urban legends like this one. Wyss 17:58, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have included a new section on "Rumors about Elvis's homosexual leanings". Wyss changed it to "Was Elvis gay?". I hope this will be satisfactory to all. Onefortyone 14:27, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like (and I hope) you and I may have only one minor unresolved disagreement remaining... on how to characterize "the Elvis industry's efforts to overwhelmingly characterize him positively"... let me try one more wording on this... let's discuss as necessary. Wyss 14:47, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re your edits to Nick Adams

Your Revision as of 14:33, 8 August 2005 [1] includes these three statements:

1) "In his 2004 biography Natalie Wood: A Life, Gavin Lambert writes, "Her first studio-arranged date with a gay or bisexual actor had been with Nick Adams..."

I regret, I can't find the direct quote you give. Would you kindly supply the page number so I can verify it.

This seems to be your personal problem. Lambert writes on page p. 199: "Her first studio-arranged date with a gay or bisexual actor had been with Nick Adams, whom the publicity department considered a more likely "beau" than Sal Mineo for the New York premiere of Rebel. ... Her next arranged date, after A Cry in the Night, was with Raymond Burr, who played the sophisticated Older Man of the World and escorted her to Romanoff's and La Rue." Onefortyone 13:18, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lambert clearly says of Natalie Wood: "Her first studio-arranged date with a gay or bisexual actor had been with Nick Adams..." He also says that her second date was with Raymond Burr. For the exact wording of the passage from Lambert's book, see also [2] and [3] By the way, even User:Wyss has confirmed on the related talk page that "Lambert does make a passing reference to Adams ('Her first studio-arranged date with a gay or bisexual actor had been with Nick Adams...')."

Note that the links are to Amazon.com where you need a credit card to access a part of the book, the contents of which are unknown. Ted Wilkes 22:21, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps there is a copy of the book in your public library. Onefortyone 13:18, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

2) "David Bret's book Elvis: The Hollywood Years (2002) even claims Elvis Presley was intimate with Adams."

Again I regret, I can't find such a claim by David Bret that "Elvis Presley was intimate with Adams." Would you kindly supply the page number so I can verify it.

Bret has written on page 19: "That Elvis was obsessed with James Dean during his formative years as an actor cannot be denied. ... He subsequently became involved with two of the late star's friends, Nick Adams and Natalie Wood. Adams, who since Jimmy's death had admitted that they had been lovers during the shooting of Giant, later claimed that he had had a brief affair with Elvis after Elvis had 'agreed to be his date' for a preview performance of his 1956 film, The Last Wagon." Onefortyone 13:18, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There is a short summary of a Globe review of Bret's book available on the Web. See [4] The Globe reports Elvis may have been gay: In a story titled "Elvis' Gay Secret," we learn that according to a new book by writer David Bret, Col. Tom Parker had such a Svengali-like grip over Elvis because he continually threatened to reveal that Elvis romanced a young actor named Nick Adams. According to the story, "Elvis' sexual experimentation began with a 'teenage crush' on movie star James Dean that grew into an obsession." Onefortyone 15:29, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, User:Onefortyone/ANON 80.141 doesn't answer the question. Instead of the page number, what we actually get is an article making fun of a The Globe (tabloid) article about Bret's book. Ted Wilkes 22:21, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

The blurb of the book clearly says that Bret "unearths the truth about the powerful hold exercised over Elvis by 'Colonel' Tom Parker, which revolved around Parker preventing a leak about Presley's relationship with another man from going public and then using this knowledge as a persistent threat to ensure his protégé's loyalty." Onefortyone 13:18, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

3) "That the singer had an affair with Adams is also confirmed by Elvis's stepmother, Dee Presley."

In accordance with Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines, would you please cite your source that meets the standards under Wikipedia:Verifiability by giving the publisher's name, exact date of publication, author's name of the book or article, and the title of the book or article that contains the statement by Dee Presley and the proof offered that "the singer had an affair with Adams."

The Madison Entertainment Group, Inc., a subsidiary of Madison Group Associates, Inc., a now defunct company formerly based in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, once acquired the worldwide rights to "The Intimate Life and Death of Elvis Presley," a "very private and revealing" manuscript documenting "never-before-released accounts" of Elvis's life, including the said claims. Here is the source which proves that the manuscript exists: [5] The accusations have also been discussed in newspaper articles and by Elvis fan groups. I remember that there was even a statement by Ann-Margaret who refused to believe Dee Presley's claim that Elvis may have been gay. Onefortyone 15:29, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yet again, User:Onefortyone/ANON 80.141 doesn't answer the question. Ted Wilkes 22:33, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

In keeping with the Wikiquette guidelines, would you kindly advise me of the information requested for these three items on my User talk:Ted Wilkes page or directly cite all three in the Nick Adams article. Thank you. Ted Wilkes 01:47, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Done. Onefortyone 13:18, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re your edits to Gavin Lambert

You stated that among the Hollywood gays Lambert claims she dated was actor James Dean .
- I can't find such a claim by Mr. Lambert. Would you kindly supply the page number so I can verify it. Ted Wilkes 19:14, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

p. 574: "But I'm a Fool (1954), the TV show that introduced her to James Dean, suggests a "new" Natalie, anxious and romantic, ready to emerge when someone gives her the chance.

p. 575: "During her second major scene, with James Dean and Sal Mineo in the deserted mansion at night, Natalie goes through another series of emotional changes." Her comic impersonation of a selfish, uncaring mother is followed by a reversion to childhood in a game of hide-and-seek with Dean, then by sisterly concern for lonely Mineo, and finally by her declaration of love to Dean, surprisingly and effectively chaste. She begins by explaining, half to herself, that she admires Jim as "a man who can be gentle but free." Then she realizes: "All this time I've been looking for somebody to love me, and now I love somebody."

p. 576: "As Natalie later recalled, he [Nick Ray] felt that 'it was important to know a lot personally about the actor ,' and he also felt that the director had to discover as much as he could about himself. When he pointed the finger at absent or inadequate fatherhood in all three families, it pointed at himself as well. He drew on his own life to understand and probe the bisexuality of Dean and Mineo, and as Natalie's lover, he knew the intensity of her need for love." Onefortyone 14:29, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is an excerpt from a review of the book:

"And this in turn brings up the gay angle, for besides Nicholas Ray, Natalie Wood was the "Grace" to an army of Hollywood "Wills," including James Dean, Tab Hunter, Nick Adams, Scott Marlowe, and Raymond Burr. The brilliant but utterly self-loathing Jerome Robbins even asked her to marry him. No fool, she politely declined, preferring to do her part for gay history by supporting Mart Crowley in a manner that made it possible for him to write his seminal The Boys in the Band. He had planned to do something for her by adapting Dorothy Baker's novel about twin sisters. Cassandra at the Wedding, for the screen. But Hollywood wasn't ready for twin Natalie Woods--one of whom would have been a lesbian." See [6]

Once more time, User:Onefortyone/ANON 80.141 doesn't answer the question. Instead of a page number, we get a comment (hearsay) from a supposed book reviewer. Ted Wilkes 22:33, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

For the page numbers, see above. Onefortyone 14:29, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, you may also have a look at this interview:

"...why did Wood have so many gay men in her life?” ... Lambert ... replied: "I have two answers to that. One is specific to her, and the other is specific to a lot of actresses. Actresses like gay men because they know there’s going to be no problem of them making a pass, and therefore they feel that they are not being used and all that stuff."

"In Natalie’s case," he continued, "she grew up in a drastically dysfunctional family, feeling like an outsider, and she responded across the board not only to gay people as outsiders but to anybody who felt alienated in some way because of their life experiences. She particularly responded to gays because they were very entertaining about it, which some of the others were not. She didn’t like self-pity or anything like that. What she did like were people who would say the unconventional things and be entertaining about it. She was a great shit kicker, and in part, gays tend to be, too, and she liked that." See [7] Onefortyone 15:29, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What does this have to do with anything? More delays, more avoiding giving answers to direct questions. Ted Wilkes 22:33, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

In his quest to make Elvis gay,User:Onefortyone aka ANON 80.141. quoted gossip writer Gavin Lambert as referring to Nick Adams as gay in his book on Natalie Wood. Note that The Guardian newspaper also opens their comments on Gavin Lambert's book on Natalie Wood by reminding readers it is high-class gossip. As such no encyclopedia would quote from it but I find it interesting that while there is a direct quote about Nick Adams asserted to be from the book, User:Onefortyone aka ANON 80.141. neglected to state the quote was made as offhand gossip without facts of any kind and with respect to Presley, did not mention the following from page 119:

"Nick Adams, who happened to be in New York that week, had recently managed to ingratiate himself with Elvis Presley. He told Natalie (Wood) that the singer wanted to know if he might ask his favorite actress for a date. "Natalie was all shook up after Presley called and asked her to go out with him when she got back to Los Angeles"

- Ted Wilkes 22:53, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Dispute notice to User:Onefortyone aka ANON 80.141. etc

Please take note that I have filed dispute notices regarding text placed by you in the Elvis Presley and Nick Adams articles. Because your comments in the two articles are interconnected, the reasons for the dispute notices is being stated first on Talk:Elvis Presley# Article dispute notice and will subsequently be dealt with in the Adams article. Ted Wilkes 15:11, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Violating Wikipedia rules

To my mind, my opponents User:Ted Wilkes and User:Wyss are violating the rule that there should be no personal attacks against other Wikipedia users on discussion pages. Ted Wilkes has even deleted my recent contribution to the [[Talk:Elvis Presley] page. See history. I have only summed up some facts and presented an additional source which proves that the claims by Dee Presley have been discussed by Elvis fan groups. Significantly, when I stated that I was moving on some days ago, my opponents had nothing else to do than immediately hurry to the Nick Adams, Natalie Wood and James Dean pages in order to delete all contributions I have written. I think this is not fair play. Onefortyone 14:33, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I think 141 is gaming the system with variously fabricated and inappropriate citations in order to sell Bret's book. There are so many WP violations here, I continue to be a bit surprised this wasn't nipped in the bud long ago (worse, I find Presley boring as a subject to begin with :) Finally, although I agree with User:Ted Wilkes' summary of 141's contributions, I'm uncomfortable with some of his arguments and more so with his tactics: He just deleted from the talk page an extensive post by 141. This is a violation of WP policy, never mind it completely distorts the comments I've left in response to 141. I'm rather close to referring the whole thing over to RfC. Wyss 14:41, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is again an example of a personal attack, as I am frequently citing many independent sources to support my contributions. Here is my contribution which has been deleted by Ted Wilkes: [8] He has also deleted other relevant passages from the Talk:Elvis Presley page, for instance, the excerpts from the critical article by Professor Dr Wall. See [9] Onefortyone 14:54, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

IMO both 141 and User:Ted Wilkes have strayed so far outside WP policy, nulling the possibility of reasonable consensus discussion, I must defer for now to others less involved. Wyss 15:19, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I do not think that I "have strayed outside WP policy" as I always cite the sources (books, articles, reviews, webpages) which support my contributions. Onefortyone 15:34, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's rather plainly established you've been skillfully gaming the system, using both fabricated and worthless citations to seed WP and its mirrors with misleading keywords in order to promote Bret's discredited book. Wyss 15:37, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is your second personal attack. I frequently cite several independent sources. They all support my view. You and Ted Wilkes are the users who, from the beginning, were constantly denigrating these sources. Onefortyone 15:48, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're conflating WP policies on sources with those regarding personal attacks. Your cites have repeatedly been shown to be worthless, and worthless cites need not be included in an article ("independent", a word you often use in this context, is not enough btw). Wyss 16:07, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Wyss, it is only your personal opinion that these cites are worthless. Others would say that they are relevant. Onefortyone 16:10, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the paragraphs which User:Ted Wilkes has deleted from the Talk:Elvis Presley page:

Rumors about Elvis's homosexual leanings

Just a few remarks as I don't want to waste too much time here. I have a family life that I am happy to put a lot of time into.

1.It is a historical fact that Elvis biographer David Bret has written that Elvis had an affair with Nick Adams and may have been gay. These claims have also been summarized in some newspaper articles (for instance, in a review in The Globe).

2.It is also a historical fact that a manuscript book by Elvis's stepmother, Dee Presley, exists (see [10]), in which she claims, among other things, that Elvis had an incestuous relationship with his mother and sexual relationships with men. It is also a fact that there was a summary of her claims published in the National Enquirer.

So we have two independent published sources including the claims. Some of Dee Presley's accusations have even been discussed in books, articles (for instance, in an article by Professor Dr Wall) and by fans on their websites. Here is one further example:

From a discussion at "TCB-World, where Elvis fans meet":

Why Elvis didn't say bye bye to Colonel???

Look i refuse to believe what i am about to say, plus this is how rumors start, but...According to Dee (and apparently she saw it so she says) that she saw E having affairs with guys...stuned, man i was when i read that, and still i refuse to believe it, but apparently he and Nick Adams had a thing going, and this may be the reason why E never said good bye to the cigar muncher, and the one arm bandit, man has the colonel got a lot to answer for, i am not going to start a bitch here, but i have a lot of resentment for the whole crowd that was around him (although i do have a lot of respect for Red) but who knows, why he did not let the Colonel go, this is what i read on some web site, where Dee had been interviewed, mind you this is like late 90's so a lot of time has gone by, and you can now say what ever you like about the man, he is not here to defend himself, but then again if things had been different he would still be here...What a loss...

Dee Stanley appeared on the Geraldo show in America a few years ago claiming that Elvis and his mother had been lovers. It was the most sickening claim that has ever been made against Elvis. She appeared on the show with the owner of the National Enquirer who had run the story. She stated that the relationship between Elvis and Gladys had been incestuous and talked about Gladys having a drink problem because she couldn`t deal with it. She stated that a member of staff at Graceland had told her that she had seen them getting out of bed and that she knew something had happened and also that Vernon had told her about it and how he had always been an outsider in his own family. ... JD Sumner ... said she even claimed he was gay in the book. ...

These are clear statements by fans who knew that the accusations exist. It should be taken into account that there are different claims by Elvis's stepmother both in her manuscript book and in her article for the National Enquirer. Not all authors are discussing all of these topics, but there is also a webpage summarizing Ann-Margret's statements concerning all the claims by Dee Presley, including the gay accusation. See [11] So it is clear that these accusations really exist and that the topic was widely discussed after Dee Presley's newspaper article was published. It is no wonder, however, that Ann-Margret, who was one of Elvis's girlfriends, and most fans rejected all these claims. Therefore, the following critical note (and it is indeed a critical note) should be included in the article, perhaps in a special "Rumors" section under "Relationships":

Decades after his death, two independent sources claimed that Presley was involved in a homosexual relationship with actor Nick Adams. In Elvis: The Hollywood Years (2001), author David Bret stated that Presley was gay. Bret (who made a career on sensationalized claims of homosexuality of deceased male celebrities) said Colonel Tom Parker "held secret information about a homosexual affair between Elvis and actor Nick Adams over his head like a sword. ...that is why Parker had so much control over him." According to Bret, journalists' attempts to "out" Elvis in the past were thwarted by his manager.

In an unpublished but often cited manuscript book The Intimate Life and Death of Elvis and an article in the National Enquirer Elvis's stepmother Dee Presley claims that there was a relationship between Elvis and his mother Gladys and that the singer had sexual encounters with men, particularly with his friend Nick Adams.

However, David Bret has been widely criticised for being careless and even inventive with basic facts in his various books about celebrities and Dee Presley has been criticized for having personal and financial motives for her claims. Out of over 2,000 books published about Elvis Presley, these two are the only known sources of these claims and one of them is unpublished. Supporters of the claims made by David Bret and Dee Presley note that while most authors do describe Elvis as heterosexual, they are writing in the context of a worldwide Elvis industry which has a tendency towards supporting only favorable views of the singer. [12] Critics of this view note that it is contradicted by the success of books by authors like Albert Goldman and several members of the Memphis Mafia which have been scathingly critical of Elvis's lifestyle.

It should be again emphasized that this is a very critical discussion of these claims in these paragraphs, as it is clearly said that the accusations are rejected by most others. What should be wrong with including these facts in the article?

Significantly, my opponents have accused me of lots of things, for instance, of "hijacking specific Wikipedia content with an orchestrated violation of precepts and distortion of facts" (see above). As I have frequently cited my sources and only repeatedly reinstated what has been deleted by my opponents, I think this and some additional accusations are personal attacks which are not allowed on Wikipedia discussion boards. It has also been said on this talk page that every contributor should be prepared to establish the academic/journalistic integrity of the sources used. The only academic, peer-reviewd source on Elvis I know is the critical article by Professor Dr Wall I have cited above. If there are any other sources of this kind, would you please list them below? In my opinion, most stuff written about Elvis in the many books thrown on the market is no more than gossip based only on hearsay and tabloid publications. So if you would like to base this Wikipedia article on peer-reviewed sources alone you must delete most of the so-called details from the article.

I also wonder why my opponents have now deleted all my contributions from other Wikipedia pages, although these contributions were based on several independent sources. See Nick Adams, Natalie Wood, James Dean, etc. My opponents User:Ted Wilkes and User:Wyss only claim that all these sources are not reliable enough, but they are unable to present sources which prove that the authors I have cited are wrong. Very interesting indeed. Onefortyone 13:23, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's plainly established that the sources you've provided are not encyclopedic and that you're rather adept at gaming the system. Wyss 16:17, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Wyss, this is only your personal opinion. There are published, and independent, sources supporting my view. Onefortyone 16:22, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Some other paragraphs which have been removed from the Talk:Elvis Presley page by Ted Wilkes:

There is now a section entitled "Was Elvis gay?". In view of the critical remarks by Professor Wall (see [13]), the following passage should also be added to the end of this section: "Despite such statements that Presley may have been bisexual or gay, most other authors, writing in the vein of the worldwide Elvis industry which has a tendency toward supporting only a 'favorable' view of the singer, describe Elvis as heterosexual." Onefortyone 14:35, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Here are again the relevant passages of Professor Dr Wall's critical article:

It is clearly stated that one of the strategies of the worldwide Elvis industry is " 'community policing' to achieve governance at a distance and typically effected through the various fan clubs and appreciation societies to which the bulk of Elvis fans belong. These organisations have, through their membership magazines, activities and sales operations, created a powerful moral majority that can be influenced in order to exercise its considerable economic power. Policing by mobilising the organic ‘Elvis community’ – the fan and fan club networks – has been achieved in a number of different ways, for example, when Dee Presley, nee Stanley, Elvis’s former step-mother, wrote a supposedly whistle blowing account of Elvis’s last years. The fan clubs refused to endorse the book and condemned it in their editorials. The combined effect of this economic action and negative publicity was poor sales and the apparent withdrawal of the book. With a combined membership of millions, the fans form a formidable constituency of consumer power. Dee Presley subsequently wrote an article in the National Enquirer about Elvis’s alleged incestuous relationship with his mother. This action invoked an angry reaction from the fans; for example, the T.C.B. Gazette, journal of the Looking for Elvis Fan Club in Mobile, Alabama, published an open letter by Midge Smith to encourage all fans to boycott the Star, a US tabloid: ‘[a]s Elvis fans, we all feel compelled to protect Elvis from those that profit from his name and image, only to turn the truth into trash’. Smith’s stance was supported by the fan club, which appealed to ‘‘‘Elvis’’ fans world-wide not to purchase the Star magazine any more’.

Another interesting, but slightly complicated, example of the de facto ‘community’ policing of Elvis occurred after the organisers of the Second International Elvis Presley Conference, held at the University of Oxford, Mississippi in August 1996, invited San Francisco-based Elvis Herselvis, a lesbian Elvis impersonator, to perform at the conference. The conference organiser, Professor Vernon Chadwick, sought ‘not to provoke controversy gratuitously’, rather, ‘to test the limits of race, class, sexuality and property, and when these traditional strongholds are challenged, controversies arise from the subjects themselves’. Furthermore, as an official University event, the conference must comply ‘with all applicable laws regarding affirmative action and equal opportunity in all its activities and programs and does not discriminate against anyone protected by law because of age, creed, colour, national origin, race, religion, sex, handicap, veteran, or other status’. Whilst these intentions were widely known, a number of local Baptist Ministers complained to the Mayor of Tupelo about the inclusion of Elvis Herselvis on the conference programme and sought to block funding for the conference. The church’s concerns were supported by the organiser of the Elvis birthplace and Museum, then EPE followed suit. Conference organiser Chadwick argued that these actions ‘really get interesting when you throw in all the indigenous racism, homophobia, and class distinction that Elvis suffered in the South and throughout his career’. Chadwick received a formal, but diplomatic, letter from EPE’s licensing officer which formally POLICING ELVIS withdrew support for the conference. It referred specifically to the controversial nature of the ‘performers’ invited to the 1996 conference and alluded to the ‘possible [negative] media exposure of this controversial event’. Indeed, it seems probable that the estate’s own actions were themselves forced by the broader community view. Whilst the withdrawal of Graceland’s support was not critical to the survival of the conference, the organisers were disappointed because of the event’s cultural affinity with Graceland." Onefortyone 14:46, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Look 141, after pondering all this I've decided I'll support restoring the Was Elvis Gay? section. Wyss 17:46, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. I always agree that critical remarks concerning these claims should also be included in the said section. Onefortyone 19:16, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

Please do not keep undoing other people's edits without discussing them first. This is considered impolite and unproductive. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. Thank you. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 23:08, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, the problem is that there a two users repeatedly deleting what I have written. I have frequently cited my sources according to the Wikipedia guidelines. Onefortyone 23:12, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that there is a content dispute. However, revert warring is never an acceptable means to deal with content disputes. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 23:16, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Block

You've been blocked fro twenty-four hours for violating the 3RR at Gavin Lambert. Violating the 3RR isn't acceptable except in cases of vandalism; Ted Wilkes' behaviour is very poor, but it isn't vandalistic (except in the case of Talk:Elvis Presley, for which I've blocked him too). When the block expires, stay within Wikipedia rules; that's no reason to give up trying to make your case, but rather than taking the moral high ground you're all mud-wrestling in the moral Fens... --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:04, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Disrupting WP to make a point

If you vandalize Wikipedia articles you may be banned (you've just come off a 24 hour block for violating 3rr). Please be aware that any ban could include your regular Wikipedia username (and I'm not referring to User:Onefortyone). Finally, you might want to review Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Wyss 20:35, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Am I right that you are unable to provide supported records for every contribution you have made to Wikipedia articles? If so, then you should stop demanding such standards from other editors who frequently cite independent sources supporting their view. Further, you should read the Wikipedia article on double standard. By the way, what do you mean by "regular Wikipedia username"? Onefortyone 21:45, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I never said that. I think you know what I meant by my reference to the username. Wyss 22:08, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You never said that? Sorry, Wyss, on the Talk:Gavin Lambert page you have written, "I've removed content from these articles because it is unsupported by the documented record". Remember, the content you have removed was supported by independent sources I have cited on the related talk page. And I don't know what you mean by your reference to a "regular Wikipedia username". Onefortyone 10:07, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another Elvis heading!

You asked me to take a look at a proposed paragraph on the Elvis Presley talk page. I've done so and left my opinion of it there. I'm not sure it's what you were hoping to hear though.

In doing so, I made mention that I felt some of your edits, and the proposed paragraph were POV, biased and so forth. I hope it's clear from the tone of my comment that this wasn't a form of personal attack, but rather my reading of the situation. If there's anything which has crossed the line between assessing the overall situation and making personal comment, then please let me know and I'll apologise as profusely as humanly possible. Sorry not to have been of any actual help, other than weighing in with my opinion. KeithD (talk) 22:17, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your personal remarks. I would be grateful if you could explain to me which specific paragraph, from your point of view, is POV and biased and why. Onefortyone 01:20, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The paragraph you proposed on the Elvis talk page is, in my opinion, POV, as I explained there. In addition, the fact that disproportionate weight is being given to what amount to very weak sources is biased (as I explained at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gay sex rumors about Elvis Presley.

As I see it, we're dealing with a situation where the final content, after all the debates, would amount to something along the lines of

"The National Enquirer, an unpublished book, an unnamed scandal mag (which might well have been The National Enquirer), and an author who is "widely criticised for being careless and even inventive with basic facts" say that Elvis Presley had homosexual dalliances. The overwhelming majority of biographical work about Elvis Presley suggests that this isn't true. Professor David S. Wall suggests that works critical of Elvis are suppressed by a blinkered world-wide fan base. Many others say that if the criticisms had more basis in fact, Elvis fans would be less critical of them."

I'm putting words in people's mouths there, and being POV myself, but that made NPOV would be the rub of it. Given the choice between a wishy-washy paragraph like that or nothing, I'd plump for nothing.

Compare that with a possible paragraph saying:

"The National Enquirer, an unpublished book, an unnamed scandal mag, and an author who is "widely criticised for being careless and even inventive with basic facts" say that Elvis is alive and living on the moon. Everyone else says this is nonsense. Professor David S. Wall suggests that criticism is suppressed. There are no facts to suggest that Elvis is living on the moon."

I would imagine that sources with the same credibility could be found for the moon story as have been found for the homosexuality story.

The fact that all this debate is stemming initially from very weak sources makes its lengthy mention disproportionate, and thus pushing a particular POV despite the lack of credible evidence, and thus unencyclopaedic. KeithD (talk) 08:35, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think that your example "that Elvis is alive and living on the moon" is striking. The problem is that you are uncritically picking up opinions of my opponents, for instance the denigration of David Bret's writings. They do not like what this author has written and only claim that he was "widely criticized for being careless and even inventive with basic facts." Did you read his publications? There are positive reviews of his books. See, for instance [14] and [15]. Indeed, there may be some mistakes in his publications, but you can find such mistakes in every book, particularly in the many gossip books on Elvis my opponents use for their contributions. It should also be taken into account that the same claims that Elvis had some homosexual leanings are to be found in a manuscript book (see [16]) and an article by Dee Presley, Elvis's stepmother who lived at Graceland with Elvis for over ten years. A professor is criticizing the world-wide Elvis industry which suppresses different opinions which are not in line with the view of most fans. Do you really believe that all these sources are weak and what several independent authors say is nonsense? You may also have a look at the Talk:Nick Adams page and the related archive [17], where my opponents frequently denigrated the many independent sources which support the view that Elvis's friend, Nick Adams, was gay. Onefortyone 19:56, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'm going to politely bow out of this discussion now. It's a shame when fellow Wikipedians describe each other as "opponents". We should all be on the same side, with our sole goal to be the improvement of an encyclopaedia.

The problem is that there is an edit war going on, and users Ted Wilkes and Wyss are on the other side. Some administrators tried to mediate, but there is still a huge difference in opinion. Onefortyone 00:23, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've read a number of talk pages regarding this issue (which I actually have next to no interest in, and only stumbled into by accident), and followed links to sources that you have cited there. I've seen very little in those sources, or in what you've said, that has convinced me that those sources have much credibility at all. I've seen nothing that suggests that the rumours of Elvis' homosexuality are anything more than rumours. This review of another of David Bret's works approximately sums up my opinion of the credibility of him as a source: [18].

Thank you for a forthright discussion on the matter, in which we vehemently disagreed, but were able to remain polite to each other throughout. I hope you'll reconsider your feelings re: other Wikipedians being your opponents just because they too don't feel the sources are credible. My interest in Elvis articles has left the building. KeithD (talk) 22:24, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your opinion. Just a question. Are you identical with User:Wyss ;) ? It is interesting that you, as third party, stumbled across a link that Ted Wilkes had submitted several months ago shortly before Wyss has placed the same link on the Elvis talk page. Onefortyone 00:23, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Now that 141 is sure he has not found an "ally" against his "opponents", the politeness quickly erodes. Readers should be aware that Onefortyone previously asserted User:Ted Wilkes and I were one in the same. This was checked into by a couple of admins and a bureaucrat and very quickly dropped. Anyway it's a standard tactic of Onefortyone to find whatever adroit but disruptive means he can to ultimately seed Wikipedia with keywords relating to the subjects of ~~his~~ David Bret's books. Wyss 01:02, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You make me smile. Do you really believe that I am identical with biographer David Bret? Sorry, I have not written a single book on celebrity stars. By the way, it is interesting that Wyss, and not KeithD is replying to my question. Onefortyone 01:30, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My point is only that you behave like you might be him. IMO only money (and lots of Internet mirror sites) could make someone so singleminded, circular and repetitive about getting the terms homosexual, gay and David Bret into this cluster of articles. Wyss 02:42, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I'm not Wyss. I don't know Wyss in any capacity whatsoever. I don't think I've even had any interaction with him on any articles or talkspaces at Wikipedia. It certainly appears that we have similar opinions about the credibility of the sources for the rumours about Elvis' homosexuality, but so, apparently, do vast numbers of Elvis fans world-wide. For the record, I'm not every single Elvis fan world-wide either! To satisfy yourself that we're not the same person, perhaps the best option is for you to ask admins or bureaucrats to look into it, as Wyss has suggested. KeithD (talk) 08:17, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I'd find some strong evidence that we're not the same person. Between 20:04 and 20:08 on the 23 August 2005, I was reverting a large number of Willy On Wheels move vandalism pages, as can be seen from my user contributions. (I picked this time, as it was an occasion when I was making near constant page edits, and thus wouldn't have any time in which to log out as one account, then log in as another and post something else. I'm sure other times can be found when Wyss and I were posting at the same time, but I've plumped for this one as the most clear). During this time, Wyss happened to be making contributions to the Hertha Thiele article, according to his User Contributions page. As I say though, if you're still not satisfied that we're different people, please do have someone official check into it. KeithD (talk) 08:50, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop

Please stop vandalizing Wikipedia. Wyss 23:54, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am not vandalizing Wikipedia. I am only providing additional sources supporting my contributions which are not in line with your personal view. You seem to be unable to cite sources that support your view. Onefortyone 00:13, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As you know, I have made no assertions other than to point out that your citations have been either non-existent, misleading or unsupported tabloid hearsay. Please stop vandalizing Wikipedia. Wyss 00:20, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I frequently cite independent sources (books, reviews, articles, websites) which support my view. You seem to be unable to provide such sources. Onefortyone 00:31, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You're the one making the assertions (not me). You're the one who can't provide encyclopedic support for them. Please stop vandalizing Wikipedia. Wyss 00:44, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

All you have done is denigrate sources and people that do not agree with you. Onefortyone 00:48, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A quick look at my contribution history will show otherwise. Please stop vandalizing Wikipedia. Wyss 00:59, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Elvis impasse

Given that your most recent contribution to the Elvis Presley talk page was to cut and paste large swathes of text that you'd previously posted on that talk page, and that the only possible reply to such a post would be to cut and paste the previous responses to those points, I'd suggest that the issue of Elvis Presley's rumoured homosexuality is at an impasse, with nothing new being added to the debate by anyone at the moment. Would you concur?

Do you have any suggestions as to how we can work through this impasse?

As I have detected additional sources which support my view, it is of some importance to have a special Wikipedia talk page relating to these matters. Onefortyone 20:43, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My suggestion would be that given the article has been listed at Articles for Comment, in the hope of getting other Wikipedians' points of view on the matter, that perhaps those editors currently involved in the debate (namely User:Wyss, you and me) could step back from the article, and all related articles, for a week. After that, hopefully other Wikipedians will have contributed their thoughts, and we can reassess the situation, reply to any points they've made, and answer any questions they may have asked any of us.

I don't know that it's a particularly useful suggestion, as it depends entirely on what's said by other users, and we may end up in the exactly same situation one week on. I don't know whether it would be acceptable to either or both of you and Wyss. It's all that I can think of though.

Do you have a better suggestion? Would this suggestion be acceptable to you if not? KeithD (talk) 16:07, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As you, Wyss, Ted Wilkes and an anonymous user are frequently denigrating my sources which support the view that Elvis had homosexual leanings, I have now created a new Talk:Elvis Presley/Homosexuality page. Onefortyone 20:43, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know that this will do anything to address the impasse. It seems to be just moving the exact same debate to a subpage, and doing nothing beyond that. KeithD (talk) 20:53, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've nominated it for deletion. Wyss 21:53, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Notice to User:Onefortyone, Anon 80.141.235.81 and others under a Dynamic IP

Please be advised that I consider your conduct at Wikipedia to be totally unacceptable and that you are a Disruptive Force. As such, I am filing forthwith a Request for arbitration against you. Ted Wilkes 21:57, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summary

Hi 141. Would you mind posting an edit summary every now and then? An edit summary is by the way required, and is in way a sign of curtsey to other people having a given article on the watchlist, think of it as the "Subject:" line in an email. Thanks. Oleg Alexandrov 23:17, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration procedures

I reverted your unauthorized edits at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/ Onefortyone/ANON 80.141.et al/ Supplement. If you wish to make further comments beyond those you have done already at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration please read Wikipedia:Arbitration policy and if you are still uncertain please avail yourself of the services of a member of the Wikipedia:Association of Members' Advocates. Thank you. - Ted Wilkes 12:43, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Verification of your assertion (s):

To User:Onefortyone/Anon 80,141. et al:

You inserted on the Talk:Elvis Presley page this edit that stated as fact the following:
- "In his book, The Boy who would be King: An Intimate Portrait of Elvis Presley by his Cousin (1990), Earl Greenwood, Elvis's second cousin who paled around with Elvis for many years before and after his success, says that Elvis had a affair with Nick Adams."

- I decided to invest a $1.15, and ordered a copy of "The Boy Who Would Be King : An Intimate Portrait of Elvis Presley By His Cousin" by Earl Greenwood from here. Would you please provide the direct quote from the book and the page number so I can verify your assertion. Thank you. - Ted Wilkes 17:48, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Onefortyone arbitration

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Onefortyone has been opened. Please place evidence at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Onefortyone/Evidence. Fred Bauder 19:58, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please be advised that the first set of evidence corollary to that presented with my complaint about your conduct at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Onefortyone is being posted today at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Onefortyone/Evidence. - Ted Wilkes 12:47, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re:

Just for your information. I stumbled across this discussion thread which is very interesting indeed. It seems as if Ted Wilkes's false assertion that I am fabricating texts is confirmed by this contribution by user Wyss: [19]. Significantly, Wilkes didn't cite my reply to this claim. Here it is:

The anon now confirms the "Grace" quote is from the Advocate (which I had to uncover on my own a few days back). The anon originally claimed it was from Lambert. For more information on this (including the anon's admitted interest in seeding misleading keywords into Google), please see User:Mel Etitis's talk page. Wyss 20:12, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What is your argument? I didn't state that the quote is from Lambert. I only said, 'She was called "the 'Grace' to an army of Hollywood 'Wills'.' By the way, I have already cited from the Advocate review on the Talk:Nick Adams page some weeks ago, long before your claim that you had to uncover this source. But this shows how carefully you are reading the discussion pages. Such reviews are indeed valuable sources. Many Wikipedia editors regularly use reviews for their contributions. If you do not agree with the facts I am presenting you must support this with evidence. I am frequently citing my sources. 80.141.204.148 21:16, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See [20]. In addition, here are my contributions of 1 June and 10 June 2005 to the Talk:Nick Adams page including the reference to David Ehrenstein's Advocate review: [21] and [22]. For this review of Lambert's Wood biography, which includes the statement that "Natalie Wood was the 'Grace' to an army of Hollywood 'Wills,' including James Dean, Tab Hunter, Nick Adams, Scott Marlowe, and Raymond Burr," see [23]. By the way, this review proves that gay historian David Ehrenstein has no doubt that Nick Adams was gay. I hope that the arbitrators will have an unbiased look at my contributions and statements and all the sources I am citing to support my opinion. Onefortyone 20:30, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

For what its worth I don't personally believe your fabricating these things or trying to influence google counts. My guess is your simply advocating a POV. I personally don't feel that is contrary to our encyclopedic purposes, but the arbcom does. The case involving LaRouchites sets a clear precedent in a similar case.

Sam Spade 20:40, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries

Could you please use edit summaries when posting? It makes it easier for other Wikipedians if you do. Many thanks. KeithD (talk) 13:47, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Second request for Verification of your assertion (s):

I am posting this now because I see you are online. I have now received the book "The Boy Who Would Be King : An Intimate Portrait of Elvis Presley by His Cousin" by Earl Greenwood AND Kathleen Tracy (hardcover or paperback – I bought both for $3.00). You never replied to my September 19th request on this page (above) that you to provide me with the direct quote from the book and the page number. To save me wasting my weekend reading something I have zero interest in, please give me the page number so I can immediately verify your absolute statement that:

"In his book, The Boy who would be King: An Intimate Portrait of Elvis Presley by his Cousin (1990), Earl Greenwood, Elvis's second cousin who paled around with Elvis for many years before and after his success, says that Elvis had a affair with Nick Adams."

Thank you. Ted Wilkes 14:29, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Still waiting patiently for your reply. - Ted Wilkes 15:55, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for replying so late, but I found the information on an Elvis fan site and was unable to provide the exact page numbers. But last week I also bought a copy of the book, as it was very cheap, and I read it. Here is my reply:

On pages 284-86 you will find the information you need. It is clearly said that Nick Adams was Elvis's "persistent friend." They "shared a mutual enjoyment of prescription drugs," and "Nick became a regular at whatever house Elvis was renting." "Elvis still hated sleeping alone, and he grew close enough to Nick to ask him to stay over on nights he was feeling particularly blue but not up to a sexual confrontation with a woman." When he heard that his friend had died, "Elvis's immediate reaction was to sit on the steps, frozen and mute, then his eyes welled with tears and his body shook, as he rocked himself back and forth, arms clutching his sides. Elvis was devastated and suffered through it for days. He sequestered himself upstairs and could be heard crying through the closed door. ... Elvis talked about how close they had been, particularly after a couple of foursomes, and admitted he had 'spurned' Nick's friendship later, saying he had needed 'room to breathe,' because Nick had wanted 'too much, ya know?'..." The author adds that "some pointed comments were made about the two of them years later by a disgruntled hand Elvis just fired..." "Regardless of any intimacies, Nick didn't kill himself over Elvis - it turned out he had a lot of demons haunting him. But Elvis beat himself over Nick's death for a long time."

Interestingly, on page 165, there are some further remarks about the fact that Colonel Parker had told young Elvis "he needed to sharpen his stage presence and develop an image, and to play up his sexuality and make both men and women in the audience want him. ... The idea that he could control men ... had never occurred to him, until Parker brought it up. Not by sleeping with them but by daring them not to notice his sexual smolder. And he found the thought of being wanted by a man oddly erotic, and it made him feel powerful and superior." Onefortyone 00:24, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Final decision

The arbitration committee has reached a final decision in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Onefortyone. →Raul654 01:01, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WARNING TO Unanimously convicted Wikipedia Abuser Onefortyone. I removed your game-playing edit from the Elvis Presley article about the Memphis Mafia that was part of your fraudlent campaign for which you were censured. If you post this again, I will immediately refer your conduct to arbitration. Further, you have been repeatedly warned about posting copyright violations and continue to do it. And, your fraudlent assertions continue unabated, making more unsubstantiated claims. - Ted Wilkes 15:44, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Ted, all my contributions are well supported by credible sources, for instance, books on Elvis by reputed Elvis biographer Peter Guralnick. On their own homepage, the Memphis Mafia members say,

Elvis and the guys usually stayed at The Sahara Hotel. Their normal routine for Las Vegas was to stay up all night and sleep during the day. Elvis and the guys normally started their day about 5 p.m. See [24]

Significantly, Ted Wilkes also deleted an external link to this Memphis Mafia page from the Memphis Mafia article. It seems as if he wishes to suppress any critical voices from the Elvis related articles. Onefortyone 13:01, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To User:Onefortyone - I removed your improper edit regarding the Memphis Mafia. Your actions on the Presley article and fabrication at User talk:Fred Bauder are unacceptable. As such, please be advised that I am preparing a refererral to the Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee for a violation of your probation. - Ted Wilkes 18:28, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. It is to be hoped that the arbitration committee will criticize you for your false accusations and personal attacks against me and other users. Onefortyone 22:08, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that 141 has violated his probation and should be blocked. Wyss 02:59, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Onefortyone placed on Probation

1) Onefortyone is placed on Wikipedia:Probation with respect to the biographies of celebrities. He may be banned from any article or talk page relating to a celebrity which he disrupts by aggressively attempting to insert poorly sourced information or original research.

He is not banned from editing celebrity articles. Automatically reverting his contributions on the basis that he is "banned" is not justified. An administrator may ban him from particular articles if he gets carried away, but so far he has not been banned from any articles. My impression is that he is trying hard to find suitable sources. He is complaining to me about your actions. I think his complaints are justified. If he took you to arbitration over this I would vote to accept the case. Fred Bauder 14:07, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than trying to reopen the case, ask for clarification at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration if this does not clear up.

A new committee

See Wikipedia:Mentorship_Committee#Onefortyone. Perhaps they may be of assistance to you. Fred Bauder 02:17, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. This is your official notification that the MentCom has taken your case on! In short, what we'll be doing is, we've got a bot running in an IRC channel on Freenode (#wikipedia-probation) which alerts people in the channel of edits by you. We then go look at them, and if they are bad, we'll revert them. If they are really bad, or violate your probation, we tell ArbCom or whoever. That's basically it. --Maru (talk) Contribs 02:26, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah- three long-time and respected editors are generally assigned to each case (put a bit of a human face on MentCom, I suppose. Also makes avenues of communication clearer). One of them is me. The other two are NicholasTurnbull and FCYTravis. --Maru (talk) Contribs 02:29, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I recommend you always stay signed in, next time you sign in click 'remember me'. R e dwolf24 (talk) 02:31, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also like to say that we are here also to work with you, I hope, to resolve issues that could result in your being blocked before that step has to be taken. --FCYTravis 02:36, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Right. This may seem adversarial, but if other admins know you're one of our cases, then they can simply come to us or ArbCom instead of saying or doing intemperate things, so it really defuses things. --Maru (talk) Contribs 02:38, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. I have now added some passages to the Memphis Mafia article. For the sources I have used, see my remarks on the Talk:Memphis Mafia page. These contributions have now been reverted by User:Ted Wilkes without further commentary. See [25]. Onefortyone 13:44, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

141 (you don't mind if I abbreviate like that, do you?), my advice right now would to be confine your editting to the talk page currently. I've looked at the edits (the bot seems to be working well) and they don't appear to be life-or-death pressing issues, so it's not worth risking starting up another edit war (which you would undoubtedly come off worse in regardless of the merits of the matter, since you're the one under probation and such). --Maru (talk) Contribs 15:45, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think spamming user talk pages with the same message is endearing you to anyone. --Maru (talk) Contribs 16:50, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Response

Re this: Users Ted Wilkes and Wyss are working together to suppress my contributions to articles on celebrities which are not in line with their personal opinion, but are well supported by many independent sources. See, for instance, [2] and [3]. Significantly, in his edit summary, Wyss claims, "rv edits by user who has been banned from editing celebrity articles". The same user also says on my talk page: "It seems to me that 141 has violated his probation and should be blocked." See [4] and the reply by arbitrator Fred Bauder: User_talk:Onefortyone#Onefortyone_placed_on_Probation. Ted Wilkes and Wyss even ignore your argument on the Talk:Nick Adams page. See Talk:Nick_Adams#Further_sources_supporting_the_view_that_Adams_had_homosexual_leanings. I think this behavior is unacceptable. Perhaps you may have a further look at the related pages. Thank you. User:Onefortyone 14:11, 12 November 2005 (UTC),

It's not for me to participate in your dispute with the arbitrators, which predated my interest in the Nick Adams' article. Whatever points I have made are based on my own independent observations of what's in the article and what's been discussed on the Talk page. If they happen to support your position, so be it. If they don't, also so be it. I will continue that policy. JackofOz 05:05, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gavin Lambert

I removed the "insightful chronicler of Hollywood" bit because it is a POV "peacock word." That is, it's a fluff statement that doesn't tell us anything about the actual person. It is much more powerful to show him as an insightful chronicler of Hollywood in his own words and writings. FCYTravis 18:33, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. I have included this because film historian Professor Joseph McBride has written,

The novelist, screenwriter, and biographer Gavin Lambert, a British expatriate who has lived in Los Angeles since the 1950s, is a keenly observant, wryly witty chronicler of Hollywood's social mores and artistic achievements. See [26].

Would you agree to include the following passage in the article:

According to Professor Joseph McBride, Lambert was "a keenly observant, wryly witty chronicler of Hollywood's social mores and artistic achievements." Onefortyone 19:49, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, exactly. A properly sourced statement is what you need. I would say "According to screenwriter and cinema Professor Joseph McBride" - which more clearly explains his credentials. FCYTravis 19:55, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well done. May I suggest that next time, you make use of the edit summary feature? Thanks. FCYTravis 20:41, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Bauder thread

The thread on Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration regarding the Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Fred_Bauder has long since ceased to be productive. May I suggest a cooling off period with regards to that thread and that any follow up discussions be take to individual talk pages. FuelWagon 02:32, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration

A request to reopen your Arbitration case has been filed. R e dwolf24 (talk) 02:48, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have checked your newly added diffs. It would appear that whatever dispute occurred between you and Wyss and Wilkes was resolved on teh 13th, when attempts to resolve the dispute were made by numerous editors. Can we declare whatever dispute occurred to have been resolved as of the 13th and move on? This doesn't mean that they did not harrass you prior to that point (nor does it mean that they did, either), but simply that whatever dispute occurred has been resolved. Thanks. FuelWagon 23:04, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure whether all of the problems have been resolved as of the 13th, because Ted Wilkes made this edit on 16 November which is certainly part of the edit war with me. There are still some unresolved problems concerning the articles on the Memphis Mafia, the content of Priscilla Presley's book, Elvis and Me, etc. Onefortyone 23:25, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a request for arbitration against Fred Bauder to be harrassment against you. He brought up some history about you, but it seemed to relate to how he felt that Fred Bauder was acting inappropriately. But that's just me. As for content issues on articles, welcome to wikipedia, that's what we deal with. At some point the disputes stop being about policy violations are become more a matter of opinion as to proper content, at which point everyone needs to learn to compromise. I don't know what to tell you otherwise. It just seems to me that a lot of this dispute is really a matter of emotions that have gotten out of control. The thread on the RfA talk page showed a number of people giving as well as that got, but I wouldn't recommend blocks, people just need a chance to cool off from this. The way I see it, more arbitration and more blocks right now isn't going to help resolve anything. Again, that's just me. FuelWagon 23:40, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't had first-hand experience of the aggressiveness of this user who frequently accuses me of fabricating texts, of being a vandal, a liar, a troll, etc. Onefortyone 23:51, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct in that I have not had first hand experience of either Wyss or Wilkes being aggressive towards me. Which is not to say I haven't had some of the wildest, craziest, most-likely-to-win-the-banshee-of-the-month-award kinds of editors attacking me. I've had people who clearly needed medical or psychological treatment hound me. I've had rabid gangs of administrators pile up on me. I've had mediators personally attack me in violation of NPA. I've had members of arbcom vandalize me. The only thing I'm missing is a string of NPA violations from Jimbo Wales himself against me, and then I will have collected the whole set.

I don't know what either Wyss or Wilkes has done to you in the past. Hopefully most of it got resolved by arbcom, and the rest you'll have to accept as being "water under the bridge". The thing with Wyss posting this is that it isn't a violation of policy to have an opinion or express that opinion to another user. Not an opinion of someone's personal character because that might border on a violation of No Personal Attacks, but an opinion of what he thinks your behaviour reflects. That Wyss doesn't like your behaviour is not a violation of policy, nor is changing Wyss's opinion something fit for wikipedia's "dispute resolution" system. You can't make someone like you. Make your edits that you think make articles better, follow policies, try to work with editors who disagree with you, and when it becomes a matter of someone making direct violations of policy, then go through the dispute resolution system. FuelWagon 22:37, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration re-opened

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Wilkes, Wyss and Onefortyone has been reopened. Please place evidence at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Wilkes, Wyss and Onefortyone/Evidence. You may make proposals and comments at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Wilkes, Wyss and Onefortyone/Workshop. Fred Bauder 01:31, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

edit summaries (talk:elvis)

I saw that you took a big chunk out of archive6 and I reverted it. I was about to visit your talk page and ask "wtf?" But I realized you were copying it back to the main page for further discussion, so I changed it back. Forgive me for assuming bad faith; I merely saw your username (which I am not familiar with btw) removing 12.3k of text from an archive page with no edit summary. Well, it kinda raises a red flag. Let people know what you're doing next time, eh? Later. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 16:56, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

dispute

Kelly posted something to Wilkes which appeared to have resolved the dispute between Wilkes and you. Wilkes's dispute with arbcom is a different dispute. If wilkes has been attacking you directly since Kelly's post, give me some diffs and I'll talk to him. Also, please note that "attacks" are separate from comments on your behaviour as an editor. FuelWagon 15:54, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

On 16 November, Wilkes falsely claims: "As usual, discredited User:Onefortyone/Anon 80.141 et al quotes out of context and distorts facts. See [27]. He also falsely claims that his complaint against arbitrator Fred Bauder "had zero to do with Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Onefortyone." See [28]. But this is not true. The two cases are connected, as Wilkes himself confirms on 17 November: "Mr. Bauder continued to prejudge and with me he used intimidation tactics in trying to suppress my right, and the right of User:Wyss, to edit out improper edits by someone on probation [i.e. Onefortyone] for fabricating information." See [29]. Onefortyone 22:50, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

On 5 December 2005, User:Ted Wilkes returns to his tactic of denigrating all sources which are not in line with his personal view and continues edit warring. See [30], [31], [32], [33], [34]. See also James Dean and related talk page. Onefortyone 21:36, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

IPs from Canada?

Just a question. Are the IPs 66.186.250.106 and 66.61.69.65, which have deleted some of my contributions and denigrated my sources, also logging in from Canada? See [35], [36], [37], [38] and [39]. Onefortyone 13:05, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are continuing to push the envelope. That is why you are on probation. Fred Bauder 13:47, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The question is of some importance to me. If all these IPs are really logging in from Canada this would explain a lot. Onefortyone 19:41, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Final decision

The arbitration committee has reached a final decision in the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Wilkes, Wyss and Onefortyone case. Raul654 20:34, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cary Grant

I also left this message on the article's talk page, but please leave the paragraph out of the article pending discussion here from other editors. And do not make another personal attack on me as you did in your last edit summary. I have given you a clear explanation why your edits do not appear to meet Wikipedia policies. | Klaw ¡digame! 23:35, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked you more than once to stop the personal attacks. I shouldn't have to ask again. | Klaw ¡digame! 23:56, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I have only stated that it is probable that your reverts on the Cary Grant page were done in order to suppress additional sources which support the view that Grant may have had bisexual leanings. There were no personal attacks, especially in view of the fact that there was already a dispute concerning the same topic in which another user said, "Don't presume to whitewash someone else's life just because you don't agree with it." Onefortyone 00:22, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're clearly not sorry, because you keep repeating the baseless attack. Accusing another user of anti-gay bias is absolutely a personal attack. (The prior dispute had nothing to do with me.) Since you can't justify your attacks at all, please remove your accusations of anti-gay bias from Talk:Cary Grant. | Klaw ¡digame! 00:44, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I can only repeat myself that this was not a personal attack. It is a fact that fans do not like the claims that Cary Grant may have had a sexual relationship with his friend Randolph Scott. But it is also a fact that these rumors are widely discussed. Perhaps we can work out the dispute concerning the relationship between the two actors. Onefortyone 00:56, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Those comments weren't about me or my reverts or edits to that page. Those comments were placed on the talk page on August 7th. My first edit to Cary Grant came on August 16th. Again, please remove your accusations of anti-gay bias. It is completely inappropriate and unjustified, and I shouldn't have to ask you twice to do so. | Klaw ¡digame! 01:24, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

O.K. Sorry for confusing you with another user. As you said in your first statement on the Talk:Cary Grant page, "Given the discussion above...", I was of the opinion that you were the person involved in this discussion. Let's forget it and move on. Perhaps we can come to an agreement that would seek to satisfy concerns at both ends. I would prefer a third party decision maker in this case. Onefortyone 01:38, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer that as well. However, I still have a serious issue with you accusing me of anti-gay bias simply because I don't agree with your edits. Grant's sexuality is of no concern to me. The issue is whether we can find reliable sources on the subject. You had no basis for accusing me of being anti-gay, and when asked to stop the accusations, you persisted. What justification do you have for that behavior? Why, when asked to stop, did you continue? | Klaw ¡digame! 04:53, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I said I was of the opinion that you were identical with the other user involved in the discussion about Grant's sexuality above. Forget it. Onefortyone 19:26, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notice to User:Onefortyone, Anon 80.141.et al under a Dynamic IP

Please be advised that your edits at Wikipedia are unacceptable and that you are a Disruptive Force who has violated your Wikipedia:Probation and who has inserted a reprehensible libelous statement that has placed Wikipedia in legal jeopardy. As such, I am filing forthwith a Request for arbitration against you. Ted Wilkes 07:43, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems as if your only aim is to denigrate my contributions. You made this unfounded request for arbitration accusing me of having inserted fabricated information into the Nick Adams article and claiming that Adams and his wife were never divorced. This request was immediately, and significantly, deleted by a Wikipedia administrator.

Nick Adams's divorce from his wife is mentioned on the following webpages:

"... he had waged a long and tedious divorce and custody battle with his ex-wife, Carol Nugent... Nick won an expensive custody battle after proving that Carol was an unfit mother because she was having an affair with a fellow named Paul Rapp." See [40]

"He had a troubled life, which included separating from his wife (but retaining custody of his 2 children)..." See [41] and [42]

"His personal life was in turmoil as well, as he and wife Carol Nugent became increasingly estranged." See [43]

"... unfortunately by the time he got back to the states it had already severed his marriage with actress Carol Nugent." See [44]

"Married to actress Carol Nugent, and his divorce from her was expensive. However, he won the case, since it was proved Nugent had an affair, and he was given custody of their two children." See [45]

Here is the best account of Adams's divorce from his wife:

"While appearing on 'The Les Crane Show' the following evening to plug Young Dillinger, Nick shocked audiences by announcing that he was leaving his wife. ... After that announcement, Nick's career and personal life went into a tragic free fall. Nick and Carol publicly announced a reconciliation a week later, on Jan. 19. ... Alienated from Carol, Nick fell in love with actress Kumi Mizuno and even proposed marriage to her later. ... Nick and Carol's reconciliation didn't survive Japan. At the end of July 1965, they decided on a legal separation. Carol filed for divorce in September. Nick was still in Japan when Carol was granted a divorce and custody of the children on Oct. 12. On Jan. 26, 1966, Nick and Carol announced another reconciliation on a local television show, 'Bill John's Hollywood Star Notebook.' It wouldn't last. ... On Nov. 26, 1966, Carol resumed divorce proceedings and obtained a restraining order against Nick. Carol alleged that Nick was 'prone to fits of temper' and in a special affidavit charged that Nick had 'choked her, struck her and threatened to kill her during the past few weeks.' 'I'm going to fight this thing all the way,' Nick said. 'I want to keep possession of my home and possession of my children.' It was the beginning of an acrimonious, contested divorce and child-custody battle. Nick became enraged after discovering that Carol's boyfriend was physically disciplining his children and telling them that Nick was 'a bad man' and a 'bad daddy.' Nick hired an attorney, former L.A.P.D. officer Ervin Roeder. Robert Conrad says, 'He (Roeder) was a very, very tough guy and he was a kind of man that was tough to like.' Nick got a restraining order prohibiting Carol's boyfriend from coming to the family home and being in the presence of the children. On Jan. 20, 1967, while waiting for a court hearing to begin, Nick was served with an $110,000 defamation suit by the boyfriend. Ervin Roeder's job was to wrest custody of Allyson and Jeb Adams from their mother. It was one he did well. On Jan. 31, Nick won temporary custody of his children. It was a hollow victory in his tug of war with his wife. Jeb Adams said, 'He saw it as a competition, basically, more than anything of getting custody of us. But, a matter of a week or two later, he gave us back to my mom.' She later regained legal custody of her children." See [46] Onefortyone 16:08, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about this, but he does have a right to insist that you not violate the probation you are under. I'm not going to look into it, but if you have put unfounded material into an article then you might be banned from the article. However that is up to the administrator who looks into it. It is not grounds for a new arbitration case. That is why it was removed. Fred Bauder 16:33, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Violation of probation

With respect to the material you and Ted Wilkes have placed at User_talk:Fred_Bauder#Violation_of_probation.3F I don't have time to sort it all out. What we need is for a few administrators to take an interest. All I can suggest is that you post this material at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. If we can't get enough administrator interest in monitoring this we may have to revisit it and find solutions that don't require administrative attention. That however would probably involve solutions which would ban editing by one or both of you in the affected areas. Fred Bauder 18:03, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your commentary. The problem is that User:Ted Wilkes, who is placed on probation, is now continuing edit warring with me, simply because my contributions, which are based on several indepentent sources, are not in line with his personal view. Onefortyone 23:26, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Message from Mike

Thanks for the headsup on our friend.Michael Dorosh 21:10, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry etc.

FYI, I have the talk page on Hitler's sexuality on my watch-list, so there's no need to copy comments from there to my user talk page. As I said on the talk page, I don't give two hoots if Hitler was homosexual. I'm more interested in his racial policies, his genocide, and his war-mongering. Also, I am not in the slightest interested in being informed of allegations of sock-puppetry. Thank you. Camillus (talk) 21:20, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As Ted Wilkes clearly broke his probation I have blocked him for 24 hours. If he breaches it again the time limit will increase. If he does it 5 times I will block him for one year as per the arbcom ruling. Wyss's edit, though technically a violation, was so minor IMHO (moving a word to correct the grammar) that it did not warrant a block. He shouldn't have been editing the page but sometimes people do edit pages they shouldn't purely to correct a grammatical error. I trust that he will have the good sense not to breach his restrictions. He doesn't seem like the sort of user to go so. If he does, however, feel free to let me know. The rule with both is simple: the topic is now out of bounds for them. FearÉIREANN\^{^(caint) 01:32, 27 February 2006 (UTC)}[reply]

Thank you for your intervention. Yes, you are right, Wyss isn't the driving force in the edit war and should not be blocked. Onefortyone 02:24, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Block

You are blocked for 24 hours for a violation of the probation terms laid out in Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Onefortyone. --DDG 20:42, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think that this was necessary, as I have only provided additional sources to the topic I am interested in. But I accept it. I hope that Ted Wilkes will also be blocked. Onefortyone 20:47, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ted Wilkes

May I suggest you present your evidence at WP:ANI? If he is, indeed, DW, then he should be banned, but we need community consensus. User:Zoe|^(talk) 21:21, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hollywood Star

Hi. The article you asked about is written by "Bill Kern," whom I believe is the same guy as "Bill Dakota," the publisher/editor/principal author of all issues of Hollywood Star. Kern was apparently Nick Adams' secretary, and if I recall correctly, he claims that Adams had affairs with James Dean and Robert Conrad as well as Elvis. I don't remember any substantive evidence being presented--he just tells anecdotes: Adams would go off to visit Elvis in Memphis while telling Louella Parsons that he was going to NY for an audition, that sort of thing. Kern asserts that he knew about the Elvis/Adams affair because of his close relationship with Adams. It's possible that William Kern or "Bill Dakota" is still out there somewhere, if you're really interested in that story. If you are interested in gossip about gay celebs of that era in general, track down some copies of the Hollywood Star--almost any issue will do. BTfromLA 00:43, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this information. Onefortyone 01:46, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopedic Referencing

Do not mistake my referencing scholars such as historian Dr. Brigitte Hamann or historian and University of Bremen professor Dr. Lothar Machtan on the issue of homosexuality with the tabloid tripe you are inserting in articles. Karl Schalike 16:34, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How are you so well informed about all of my edits? Significantly, my opponents Ted Wilkes and Wyss also falsely accused me of only using unencyclopedic tabloid sources for my contributions. Onefortyone 02:46, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've also noticed that the "sources" for your edits (particularly in Elvis Presley) are weak at best 141, not to mention that they're contradicted by the bulk of other more scholarly articles and books. Guess that means I'm a sockpuppet of Ted and Wyss too! lol.--Count Chocula 10:50, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, it only suggests that you may be part of the world-wide Elvis industry or a member of an Elvis fan club. They both have a tendency toward supporting only a 'favorable' view of the singer, as thousands of publications prove. This has already been shown by Professor David S. Wall. Once I had created a critical new paragraph based on the peer-reviewed studies of this scholar, but this paragraph was deleted by the Elvis fans who dominate the Elvis Presley article:

==The world-wide Elvis industry==

Most authors who are writing books and articles on Elvis are part of a worldwide Elvis industry which has a tendency towards supporting primarily a favorable view of the singer. Many of the stories about Elvis are written in order to feed the fans and to sell records or CDs. More than 2000 books have been published and the content of the majority of them could be characterized as based on gossip about gossip, only occasionally providing some new surprizing details. There are not many critical, unfavorable publications on Elvis's life. An example is Albert Goldman's controversial biography, Elvis (1981), in which the author unfavorably discusses the star's weight problems, his performing costumes and his excessive sex life. Some unfavorable voices sensationally claiming that Elvis had a sexual relationship with his mother or another man, that he raped his wife or had committed suicide because he had been suffering from bone-marrow cancer may have been motivated by money. All such publications are frequently disparaged and harshly attacked by Elvis fan groups. Dr David S. Wall has shown that one of the strategies of the worldwide Elvis industry is " 'community policing' to achieve governance at a distance and typically effected through the various fan clubs and appreciation societies to which the bulk of Elvis fans belong. These organisations have, through their membership magazines, activities and sales operations, created a powerful moral majority that can be influenced in order to exercise its considerable economic power. Policing by mobilising the organic ‘Elvis community’ – the fan and fan club networks – has been achieved in a number of different ways, for example, when Dee Presley, nee Stanley, Elvis’s former step-mother, wrote a supposedly whistle blowing account of Elvis’s last years. The fan clubs refused to endorse the book and condemned it in their editorials. The combined effect of this economic action and negative publicity was ... the apparent withdrawal of the book. With a combined membership of millions, the fans form a formidable constituency of consumer power."

To my mind, these critical remarks may be included in the Elvis article. Other users may add further details. Onefortyone 22:01, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um, as an admin, I've had to block you more than once for unencyclopedic sources following your RfA. I guess that makes me and all the arbitrators who decided your case sockpuppets of whoever as well. You should write a shocking, wildly unbelievable magazine article about it! Just not here. --DDG 14:42, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can see, I have only been blocked twice. You have blocked me one time (on 8 March 2006). See [47]. In my opinion, this wasn't necessary. It should also be noted that you, as a supposed Elvis fan, were involved in the discussion about the credibility of some sources on Elvis I have provided. Therefore, I am not sure if you were the right person to block me. A third-party administrator should have done this. But I did accept it, as I already told you. So what. As for Ted Wilkes, there is enough evidence that he is indeed identical with multiple hardbanned User:DW and that he uses different sockpuppets. Onefortyone 22:01, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Probation notice

Per your probation arrangement at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Onefortyone, you are hereby banned for one month from Elvis Presley, Memphis Mafia and Elvis and Me and their talk pages for disrupting them by aggressively adding poorly-sourced material and irrelevant links. Violation of this ban may lead to blocks of up to one week. Do not remove this message from your talk page before April 16th, 2006. Stifle 09:51, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just a question. Administrator Stifle has banned me for one month (!) from Elvis Presley, Memphis Mafia, and Elvis and Me "for violation of probation by tendentiously adding links and poorly-referenced claims." See [48]. I do not think that this was necessary. I have only discussed some newly discovered sources with other users on the Talk:Elvis Presley page. See [49]. As for the other pages, I only reverted repeated edits by Ted Wilkes. Certainly this is part of a long edit war. His contribution to Elvis and Me includes false information. Original quotes from Priscilla Presley's book, Elvis and Me undoubtedly prove that the following paragraph Ted Wilkes has added to the Elvis and Me page is a fabrication:

She says Presley was a very passionate man, however, because of attitudes at the time, strongly reinforced by his Pentecostal upbringing, he told her that her virginity was a scared thing to him. Presley's generation still had a double standard that cheered men for their sexual prowess with women, but insisted a girl should remain a virgin until married and if she did not, she was labeled a slut.

The words "Pentecostal", "virginity" and "slut" (included by Ted Wilkes) nowhere appear in Priscilla's book, as an Amazon search shows. See [50], [51] and [52]. I corrected the text but Wilkes repeatedly reverted my version to the fabricated one he has written. See [53], [54], [55], [56], [57], [58], etc. For direct quotes from the book, see [59]. On the Memphis Mafia page, Wilkes is frequently deleting two external links to sites related to the Memphis Mafia arguing that these websites are "improper" and personal websites. See [60], [61], [62] etc. etc. It seems as if Wilkes does not like the content of these pages. Significantly, the two external links to websites he had inserted are also links to personal websites. Isn't this double standard? See also this comment by administrator Tony Sidaway [63] and Talk:Memphis Mafia. So I don't understand why an administrator has now blocked me for one month from these articles, especially since my opponent in the edit war is also on probation for his contributions (and for harassing me) (see [64]) and there is much evidence that he is identical with multiple hardbanned User:DW alias User:JillandJack, etc., who was constantly gaming the system in the past. See [65]. I am not sure whether User:Count Chocula, who claimed that I violated my probation, is somehow related to Ted Wilkes. Their editing interests are very similar.

lol, very comical that simply because I reported you for violation of your probation that suddenly I'm now Ted (a checkuser will state otherwise if you wish to take it that far). It's nothing personal 141, but i felt that you violated your probation and so i reported you for it.--Count Chocula 02:47, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think that I have violated my probation, as I have cited my sources. I don't know who you are. You may only be an Elvis fan who doesn't like my contributions. Onefortyone 03:49, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is exactly why you were banned from the articles — the ArbCom has previously found that you tendentiously pushed your own opinions on them. There does not appear to be consensus to support your own version of the article. If you feel other people are tendentiously editing, POV pushing, etc., feel free to start an RFC or RFAR. If you start an article RFC on any of these articles, then you can consider yourself unbanned from their talk pages. Incidentally, the remedy states that you may be banned if you insert poorly-sourced material, and that is what has happened. Stifle 13:30, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Onefortyone edited the Talk:Elvis Presley page on March 17, in violation of this probation. I am implementing a block for 48 hours. --DDG 15:41, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is very interestinmg. You are personally involved in our discussion on the Talk:Elvis Presley page and you have now, as an administrator, blocked me again simply for inserting a quote from an additional source which says that Elvis had problems with his sexuality. See [66]. Immediately after this, User:Lochdale has deleted the following passage from the Elvis Presley page which is fully in line with the new source I have provided:

However, a recent Playboy article by Byron Raphael and Alanna Nash claims that "the so-called dangerous rock-and-roll idol was anything but a despotic ruler in the bedroom" and "really wasn’t all that keen on doing the wild thing. He was far more interested in heavy petting and panting and groaning" and "he would never put himself inside one of these girls ... within minutes he’d be asleep." Priscilla Presley relates that Elvis told her that he didn't make love to Anita Wood the whole four years he went with her. "Just to a point," he said. "Then I stopped. It was difficult for her too, but that's just how I feel." In her book on Priscilla's life, Child Bride, Suzanne Finstad claims that Elvis wasn't overtly sexually active.

This is exactly the same passage which User:Count Chocula deleted on 27 February and on 1 March 2006. See [67] and [68]. Bye the way, this user has also posted the following message on the administrators' noticeboard page: [69]. Very interesting indeed. It seems as if I am the only person who frequently cites his sources. What are the other users doing? They are deleting my contributions which are well sourced. To my mind, this behavior clearly shows that Professor David S. Wall is right with his statements about the activities of the world-wide Elvis industry. Onefortyone 18:00, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My only "involvement" on that page has been to enforce the wikipedia policies of citing sources, notability, credibility, the three-revert-rule, and to warn you and block you for your frequent violations of the terms of your probation. The fact that you continue to commit the exact actions that caused your probation in the first place, and you show no sign of choosing more reliable sources shows to me that you are only pushing an agenda. I will continue to block you if you edit the Talk:Elvis Presley page, as it is in violation of the ban placed upon you. Cheers. --DDG 18:58, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You may remember that you were deeply involved in the discussion on the Talk:Elvis Presley page since 2005. See [70], [71], [72], [73], [74], [75], [76], [77], [78], [79], etc. See also your statement against me here. You said that I am "the worst kind of malicious editor, and should be treated as such." I do not think that this was NPOV, especially since I later provided evidence that the sources I had cited really did exist. See, for instance, [80] and [81]. So I do not think that you are the right person to block me. By the way, the additional remark that "There is no denying the fact Elvis was a homosexual" was not added by me to the Talk:Elvis Presley page. This was included by user 195.93.21.67 who didn't sign his post. See [82]. Further, administrator Stifle has banned me from the Elvis Presley, the Memphis Mafia and the Elvis and Me pages, not from the Talk:Elvis Presley page. However, I do not think that this was necessary, especially in view of the fact that Ted Wilkes is pushing an agenda by repeatedly deleting my contributions. As an administrator, you should also keep a watchful eye on the activities of this user who seems to be identical with multi-hardbanned User:DW alias User:JillandJack and may have created several new sockpuppets. Onefortyone 20:46, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looking through the edits you've cited there, I believe that all of them were made with the goals I mentioned before, policing sources, researching the contested sources that you cited, and enforcing NPOV. As for Ted Wilkes, I have blocked him in the past when he violated policies as well. I think that the fact that you continue to edit the Elvis Presley pages in violation of your probation and the ban laid against you by User:Stifle, means that my earlier assessment was spot-on. However, if you like, in the future I will not be the admin to block you, but I will notify other admins of the violations, so that they may do it instead. Cheers. --DDG 22:13, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just a moment, please. Truth be told, as far as I can see, I was only banned by administrator Stifle from the Elvis Presley, the Memphis Mafia and the Elvis and Me pages, simply because a relatively new user (who significantly deleted the same edits from the Elvis page Ted Wilkes had removed in the past!) accused me of violating my probation. These article pages I left untouched, though Ted Wilkes has now again included his POV versions. What should be wrong with discussing new sources I have discovered on a talk page? I didn't claim that all of these sources undoubtedly prove that Elvis had homosexual leanings, but there can be no doubt that Elvis wasn't overtly sexual towards women. This should be mentioned in the article, although some Elvis fans do not like these facts. It should also be taken into account that, in most cases, I am providing direct quotes from published sources. This is what the arbcom demands from me. On the other hand, what are my opponents doing? They are deleting paragraphs which do not support their personal view that Elvis was a womanizer. I think that my edits are well supported by several independent sources. You may have noticed that there is now another user who seems to share my view. See [83] and [84]. Perhaps this anonymous user can provide some additional information. I admit that, in the past, you were more neutral, DDG. Onefortyone 23:04, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Per your probation arrangement at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Onefortyone, you are hereby banned for two months from Elvis Presley. When this ban expires, please begin a practice of asking other editors to review your contributions for you in order to help you avoid creating new narratives in articles and to avoid lapsing into idiosyncratic readings of source material. Jkelly 17:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Regarding your question, I'd like to begin by pointing out that "other users such as Lochdale" do not have a history of derailing the article that stretches back to 2005 and has been the subject of an ArbCom case, and are not on probation. The entire point of our laborious dispute resolution process is to get to a place in which normal article editing can proceed. What has been happening at the Elvis Presley article, and to a lesser degree at Talk:Elvis Presley is that all attention has been on your adding content to lead a reader to conclusions that Presley was incestuous or homosexual. The ArbCom remedy specifically mentions violations of WP:NOR, which itself discusses the creation of new narratives -- precisely what you have been engaged in by cherry-picking quotes. If you are genuinely confused about what the problem is, all I can do is to point you to what I suggested above; accept that your editing at Elvis Presley has been meeting with strong resistance for close to a year now, accept that your behaviour continues to lead other editors to believe that the situation is unresolvable except through ArbCom sanctions, and commit to proposing changes to other editors instead of editing the article directly. I'd suggest using the next two months to try out such a system. Jkelly 21:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalizing a User page with false accusations

Your falsehood posted as of 14:35, 11 March 2006 to my User Page is vandalism and is also a groundless personal attack that you have perpetuated elsewhere on Wikipediia. If you do this again, I shall file a complaint with the Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee. Danny B. (usurped) 16:40, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is enough evidence that you are a sockpuppet of Ted Wilkes, but you may delete the notice from your user page if you like. Significantly, as an allegedly new user, you are accusing others of vandalizing Wikipedia pages as Wilkes is frequently doing. Onefortyone 01:56, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See this request for CheckUser: Ted Wilkes, Danny B. (usurped) and Karl Schalike are the same person. Mushroom (Talk) 06:40, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ted Wilkes has now been banned for 1 year from editing WP as per the arbcom ruling. FearÉIREANN\^{^(caint) 19:18, 19 March 2006 (UTC)}[reply]

Just noting that I did receive your message on my talk page concerning User:Ted Wilkes; as he has now been blocked for a year, the matter is moot. Stifle 23:24, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement

As a member of the arbitration committee, I don't enforce the decisions; if you believe a user has been violating a decision, please note it on WP:AN/I. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 02:21, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for edit summary

When editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labelled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this:

The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature.

When you leave the edit summary blank, some of your edits could be mistaken for vandalism and may be reverted, so please always briefly summarize your edits, especially when you are making subtle but important changes, like changing dates or numbers. Thank you.

– Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 23:54, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your editing at Elvis Presley

Hi. I assert that the view that Presley was homosexual/pedophilic/incestuous is a fringe viewpoint, and does not deserve any attention whatsoever in the article. It may well be possible to come up with a citation that he was a Martian. We don't need to republish this stuff. Jkelly 22:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong, as the claims are to be found in books on Elvis written by reputed authors. I am not talking about stupid things that Elvis may be a Martian. Onefortyone 23:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that I'm saying that your sources are all frivolous. It is more your attempt to include material in an attempt to lead the reader to a conclusion that is rather far outside a mainstream narrative. Jkelly 23:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So you are of the opinion that the Elvis article should only contain material which is in line with the view of most fans who frequently endeavor to suppress critical voices? I see. Onefortyone 23:16, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are in serious violation of wikipedia standards on putting material into articles that has no relevance and has been refuted - this is not a soapbox. --Northmeister 05:25, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong, Northmeister. In my opinion, you are clearly pushing an agenda, as you are deleting paragraphs which are not in line with your personal opinion. You have removed well-sourced material from the Elvis Presley article. See, for instance, [85], [86]. Among the sources I have used are several independent publications, for instance, important biographies on Elvis and a peer-reviewed study on Elvis's alleged racism published by an American university press. On your user page you admit that you are an Elvis fan. Could it be that you are part of the world-wide Elvis industry and therefore endeavouring to suppress critical voices from the Wikipedia article? Professor David S. Wall has already published some interesting essays on the tactics of this industry. The Wikpedia article is not a fan site. It should present a balanced view of the star and different aspects of his life, based on material to be found in published sources. Onefortyone 11:50, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Remember all your publications must be mainstream or scholarly for use. You make some wild claims like the above that another user called attention to. I've stated, the Elvis Presley article should be about his life, his music, and his effect on American culture or pop culture. Wikipedia is not a source for every hair-brained theory some author decides to comment upon. That said, I've started the process of working on the article as you have agreed to. The opening is our first task - once we agree on the the opening, then we will tackle the next section and so on, until all sections are agreed on and complete - from this moment forward per your agreement, nothing further shall be added or changed, without each others prior consent. --Northmeister 00:44, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Northmeister, you have again deleted nearly two-thirds of the Elvis Presley article, including passages and paragraphs on Elvis's youth, his movies, his relationships, the FBI files and the allegations of racism. Before we can start the process of working on the article the content of all these well-sourced sections which have been removed by you should first be restored. Onefortyone 12:22, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've been in a serious attempt to work with you, not knowing your history of abuse and constant stalking of other users, making information up, use poor sources, getting into constant personal attacks on those who disagree with you and more. My attempts to placate you have failed, as you do not wish to work in collaboration, but as evidenced above wish to use wikipedia as constant source of false, badly sourced, agenda driven - material on Elvis and other celebrities. You were both blocked and brought to the attention of mediation and arbcom in the past. I highly recommend you update your sources, learn to use wikipedia properly, and learn what collaboration means. You were also banned from the Elvis page this year, and I can see why. --Northmeister 23:58, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This statement, which seems to be a personal attack, clearly indicates that it was not your intent to work with me on the Elvis article. Your deleting tactics were all too transparent. Onefortyone 00:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We've had some headway on the opening, let's continue in that fashion. Let's work each section over - section by section. Look at the Louis Armstrong article, that is my model for the Elvis article. The Armstrong article was a featured article and contains the right amount of material in a NPOV manner - let's use that as a guide for our efforts. Please, do not keep reverting. Much of your material may be restored depending on whether it fits the model of what the article should be, keeping the article at my re-format, is the best way to get it done. We should work on his life first, together with his music and movies and impact. Much like the Armstrong article does...relationships should be strung in his bio at the right place and does not need as much coverage as you give them, with so many quotes - summary of the material is best for an encyclopedia...people can be given links to read further. But, we will work on that when we tackle that issue. Let's get the opening resolved and move onto his early life first. I like your opening, I added a sentence to the third paragraph, see if you agree, if so, then we have an opening and can move on. --Northmeister 02:04, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The opening is O.K. now. Why not using the most detailed version of the article for improving the whole thing? The many passages you have deleted are well sourced. Onefortyone 02:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not disputing your sources for now. What my version was trying to do, is to organize the article along the lines of Louis Armstrong or wikipedia standard. As it was, the article was disorganized and way to long. I don't mind the information you provide - its just way to much on one subject, it needs summary, not extensive quotation. But, we will tackle this when we get to it. My deletions, are not final, in the sense that I deleted some of the material to organize the article, not to make a final "it can't be included" deletion. I don't think you understood what I was doing. Right now, the page is protected. Let us work on the new version from scratch. We have an opening we agree to, with the exception of Hoary, I am waiting for his version. The next task is to tackle organization. Look at the Armstrong Article again. If we can agree to organize the article in that manner, with a few possible exceptions, then we have a FORMAT to work with and to organize the article on. Let me know. --Northmeister 02:29, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On your user page you admit that you are an enthusiastic Elvis fan. Interestingly, you intentionally deleted only those paragraphs from the Elvis article, that included information which was not in line with your positive view of the singer, although these sections were supported by reputable Elvis biographers. That's the problem. I hope you can provide direct quotes from Elvis books for the "improvements"that will follow. Onefortyone 02:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you continue to take an aggressive approach, pointing out the obvious? Why not work with me - we can balance each other out. Although I am an Elvis fan - that does not mean I am for taking out anything critical - he was a man afterall, and all men have flaws. Being a fan does not exclude someone from being reasonable; as you continue to insinuate to others as well as myself. I am not sure why, but this sort of stuff is what gets you in trouble. Elvis fans are not monolithic, we may love his music, but realize his flaws - don't judge people by labels but by intentions which I have repeated to you on numerous occasions - Assume Good Faith and work with me, you keep trying to pick a fight, thats not right. --Northmeister 03:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See my new version of the opening section on the Talk:Elvis Presley page. Onefortyone 03:16, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is the point of your new version? We had one disagreement - and you eradicate the agreed to opening? Hoary had a comment on that sentence, which we can work with, on the 'icon' word that is. I am waiting for his version. Now you move to reduce text to covering little? Not acceptable. Again, what is the point of such a thing as now changing your opening completely - what caused this change of mind? Why not include actual facts relevant to Elvis life - his poverty to wealth (a major theme of his life), that Graceland is visited by more people other than the White House in the USA. These are facts worth mentioning in the opening - you've replaced your well written opening for the new version? Seems odd to me. Explain. --Northmeister 03:20, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was your intention to make the whole thing shorter and more encyclopedic. That's what I am doing now. Additional facts can be included in the following sections. Onefortyone 03:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

True, but your version was just right. I think the first part of my added sentence should be taken out, just include the notion on rags to riches, representing the American Dream leading to the national historic site, which would not have been declared otherwise as a worthy finish to the opening. I concur on reduction overall. But the opening was too short, compared to the rest of the article. It should have three paragraphs. One on birth-titles etc. summary. Two, on his impact and music (brief summary), three on his legacy per the American Dream sentence and Graceland...that summarizes the article. Then starting with section one, we begin to work on his life - which I posted and yet to have a comment on - what are your thoughts there. If you can accept your original with my edits, taking out the first part of the third paragraph sentence about 'icon' and be willing to accept some addition of music from Hoary in the future to paragraph two, we have a fine opening; that with a few tweaks to wording is ready. Additional facts will be included in the following sections as well, the opening is a brief summary as noted above. --Northmeister 03:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I said on the talk page, the opening shouldn't have three paragraphs. We don't need a passage about Elvis's legacy here, as it is already said that he was a very popular singer who had many number-one hits and that he remained a popular star long after his death. There are certainly lots of people who do not think that Elvis was an "icon". See, for instance, our AOL user who seems to be a member of the African American society. Onefortyone 03:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The AOL user is a troll and vandal, if not racist in his thinking. Not a good example. He should get an account and edit. I already stated taking out the icon part, are you not reading my commentary and attempts at working with you? Three paragraphs are standard wikipedia policy for good articles, although that does not necessarily need following. We should mention Graceland as a national historic site, which the US government recognizes, which is noteworthy - and that Graceland receives more visits per annum than any other house outside of the White House in the USA - that President Carter himself mentioned Elvis impact on America. Just because you seem to despise this man for whatever reason, doesn't mean that real facts should not be included. Your agenda seems very clear, I'm trying to reason with you and your working against any efforts I make to solved our differences - agreeing to a version then rescinding agreement etc. I see why you were banned. This is not collaboration, it is disruption of editing to make a point. Why even edit if your not going to work with me and others but play games - over and over again? --Northmeister 04:10, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, what are you talking about? We are discussing here what should be included in the opening section, and I am of the opinion that Graceland definitely does not belong to this section. Onefortyone 04:22, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sandbox

We've moved forward somewhat on the Sandbox. All I ask is that before putting material back into the main article we agree. I'll let you fix up the remaining article and will check back in a couple of days. My main concerns are two: One I would like to see more Summary of the material you use rather than direct quotes - and two I would like to see you work within the parameters of the headers for length of article. The racism stuff may have a place within those contexts or within an overall Criticism section - I'll check back to see the progress on the Sandbox and we can work from there. --Northmeister 07:39, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Onefortyone, the sandbox is to work out differences. There is no edit war as far as I see. I am unsure what your objections are. If you have problems with my edits address them there or on my talk page - like I said, you completely misjudge my intentions there. I am not out to promote Elvis or to demean him. The article must be presentable and acceptable NPOV. I would like to see it as a featured article someday; but in its present form it doesn't work - too many quotes and to little summary. Parts of the movie section were moved to 1968 to put them in context - and other parts are already covered. Material should be sourced, but because something is sourced doesn't mean it automatically goes in as written - it has to be in context and notable enough from a credible verifiable source. --Northmeister 01:44, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly there is an edit war going on, as your so-called "summary" omits many points made by the authors I have cited. As far as I can see, you have deleted several quotes from independent sources which all agree that Elvis's low-budget films were "stupid movies" featuring "poor soundtracks". Furthermore, the parts you have removed are not already covered, as you claim. The quotes concerning Elvis's movies should be included in the movies section. Therefore, I have now rewritten the 1968 comeback section. Onefortyone 03:09, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We are not going anywhere without a bit of compromise on your part. Another user concurs that what I summarized was good. We don't need endless quotes from endless authors - but a summary of the generally accepted biography on Elvis. If you wish to create an article about Elvis controversies or books I encourage you to do so. On the actual article, lets stick to summary and precise language and avoid words like "stupid" and "bad" as they are POV. We simply need to mention as I've done that critics did not like the movies. I really wish you would see my point here. I put the stuff about Elvis not liking his own later movies in the 1968 section as that was a major reason for returning to singing full-time. I don't see why you disapprove of that as I pretty much put it there verbatim from your edits with only minor alterations. This needs to be a team effort - an effort to keep the article NPOV and straight. --Northmeister 23:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is now a shorter version of the said section. I have removed words like "stupid", but I think it is important to say that critics called the movies "a pantheon of bad taste". As Elvis also didn't like the movies of the early sixties, I think the quote from Priscilla Presley's book must be included in the movies section. Somebody else may add that Elvis acted well in some of these movies. If the editor could provide direct quotes from published books in order to support his/her contribution, this would be fine. I have removed the passages concerning West Side Story, The Godfather etc., as I have not yet seen a reliable source supporting these claims. Onefortyone 17:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tab Hunter

Hi! You eliminated some text from the Tab Hunter article on the basis that it is "nonsense". Although it does perhaps sound nonsensical, Hunter was in fact arrested for dog beating, and the trial + publicity was a pivotal time in his career. He also goes into great detail in his recent autobiography about auditioning for West Side Story. --Skeezix1000 20:04, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your information. Perhaps I made a mistake. Could you please provide direct quotes from the book, Tab Hunter Confidential: The Making of a Movie Star in order to support your statement above? Onefortyone 23:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I'll add cites when I get the chance. But there is no need for direct quotes - the information is adequately described. --Skeezix1000 11:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Preview on Talk:Elvis Presley

I would like to thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. However, it is recommended that you use the preview button before you save; this helps you find any errors you have made, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Thanks again.

--Pcj 14:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Elvis Presley

Sorry for bothering you with this matter again. As you are one of my mentors, perhaps you can explain to me why administrator Jkelly has banned me from the Elvis Presley page for two months (see [87]), although I have frequently cited my sources. Meanwhile, editor Lochdale continues to delete my contributions (see [88], [89], [90]), etc etc. He even deleted a passage rewritten by administrator Hoary. He has also repeatedly included false information in the Elvis article (see [91], [92], [93]) and is constantly denigrating the many sources I am citing, but he is not yet banned. I think this is not acceptable. Onefortyone 18:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Significantly, administrator Jkelly, wo banned me from the article, was involved in the controversial discussion between me, User:Lochdale and a few other users on the Talk:Elvis Presley page (see [94], [95]) taking sides with my opponent in the edit war. For instance, Jkelly's statement here calls the false claims by user Lochdale a "good edit". See also my replies here and here which prove that Lochdale has added false information to the talk page. Administrator Jkelly even deleted a critical paragraph I had written and which was well sourced from the Elvis Presley article. See [96]. Therefore, I do not think that Jkelly is the right administrator to ban me for two months from the Elvis article. May I ask you for advice concerning this matter. Thank you. Onefortyone 20:55, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Onefortyone: Thanks for dropping me a line about this. Hmm. Well I've had a look at what happened, although to be honest it's not terribly clear which edits Jkelly is referring to as being in violation of your probation, or indeed what type of violation it was; I can only assume it was in reference to the Sources cited by Onefortyone arbcom finding. The diffs quoted by Jkelly on the probation log refer only to other users' concerns about your editing, not particularly the edits in question. So, what I'll do is ask Jkelly for further clarification, and go from there, I think; that's probably the best way of proceeding. Despite not really being fully appraised of the facts, I'll outline what I think was the primary set of issues:-

I noticed there was quite a lot of fairly heated debate between yourself and other contributors on Talk:Elvis Presley which didn't seem go get anywhere, and the edits you were making were in general to enumerate certain claims by particular sources speculating about Elvis Presley's homosexuality. I think probably these claims are not particularly mainstream, and are probably localised to particular sources; whether these sources meet Wikipedia:Reliable sources or not I am not really sure, although I personally think the claims in question might be a little too speculative in terms of satisfying WP:V and WP:NPOV. Should the restriction on your editing of this article be lifted as a result of my discussion with Jkelly, I would suggest the following: 1) avoiding concentrating on the pro-gay aspects of editing, since that was one of the areas in which the arbcom made a finding of fact against you and thus you are likely to be banned by administrators if you make any edits in this area; 2) perhaps be a little more accommodating of the views of the other people on the talk page, and a little less heated in debate; and 3) make edits that reference more standardised sources, versus comparatively obscure ones, thus removing the issue over whether the sources are of decent quality or not. In the interim, I will, as I said, follow this up with Jkelly, and see if we can come to some sort of mutual agreement on this. Best regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 23:00, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your help. You are right. There was indeed a rather heated debate between me and editor Lochdale. I hope we can work out the problems. However, in my opinion it is not acceptable that other users add false information to the article. Onefortyone 23:46, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Onefortyone: You are perfectly welcome; my mission is to try and bring perhaps a little more peace to Wikipedia. I also hope we can come to some sort of resolution. Regarding users adding false information - I think I should point out this often-repeated maxim that Wikipedia isn't concerned with the "truth", merely what is verifiable, as mentioned in WP:NPOV and WP:V. If editors are making claims that either aren't supported by the sources they cite, are uncited and of questionable veracity, or are cited to unreliable sources, please let me know, providing diffs to the edits, and I'll help you sort it out, since I'd like to be able to solve this issue as best I can. Peace, and best regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 23:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just one example. Lochdale has included the following sentence in the Elvis article: "However, Adams is not noted as being a particularly close friend of Presley in either of Peter Guralnik's lengthy works on Elvis or in any of the books written by Presley's former bodyguards." See [97]. As I have already written on the talk page, reputable Elvis biographer Peter Guralnick, in his book Last Train to Memphis: The Rise of Elvis Presley, clearly says that Elvis "was hanging out more and more with Nick [Adams] and his friends" (p. 336) and that "Elvis was glad Colonel liked Nick" (p.339). On p.410, Guralnick says that Elvis

enjoyed being back in Hollywood. It was good running around with Nick again - there was always something happening, and the hotel suite was like a private clubhouse where you needed to know the secret password to get in and he got to change the password every day. On the weekend Nick called up his friend Russ Tamblyn, who had a small, one-bedroom beach house on the Pacific Coast Highway just south of Topanga Canyon, and asked if he could bring his friend Elvis over. Tamblyn, who at twenty-two had been in the business from early childhood on, both as an actor and as a dancer, and who saw Nick as something of a hustler, said sure, come on out.

In his book, Careless Love: The Unmaking of Elvis Presley, Guralnick writes: "Nick Adams and his gang came by the suite all the time." So it is quite clear that Elvis spent most of his time with Nick Adams. Interestingly, on p.347-348 of his book, Last Train to Memphis, Guralnick writes that June Juanico didn't doubt that Elvis loved her, but "she didn't know if she could ever get him back. Elvis told her he had just heard from Nick and that Nick was coming to town tomorrow or the next day. He started telling her all about Nick and Nick's friends and Jimmy Dean, but she didn't want to hear." This statement certainly proves that June was jealous of Elvis's friendship with Nick Adams. Guralnick even cites Nick Adams's "charming account of his friendship with Elvis" which was published in May 1957. See also these photographs showing the two men together: [98], [99],[100]. Onefortyone 23:57, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator Hoary has now deleted the "Nick Adams stuff" from the Elvis article. See [101]. He has also deleted well sourced material from another section of the article which is backed up by several independent university studies. See [102]. It's unbelievable! Onefortyone 00:10, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really not interested in getting involved in this issue but I must take umbrage with your assertion that I fabricated information. Your edits made it seem that Adams and Presley were best friends when they were anything but. They were friends and they knew each other but that was about it. Compare the many references in Guralnik's books to West or Schilling and then you might get an idea of what the "closest of friends" actually means. Moreover, you were using Presley's knowing Adams as a means to allege he was having a gay affair with Adams. Ask yourself this question, does Guralnik at any time suggest that Presley and Adams had a homosexual relationship? Of course, he does not. So what you are attempting to do is to use quotes from a reputable source to butress your fringe agenda. The only thing "unbeliveable" about any of this is that you have managed to get away with this sort of gamesmanship for so long. --Lochdale 05:47, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Lockdale, you are constantly repeating yourself. Certainly my quotes support the view that Adams was Elvis's best friend for a period of time. Another reputable Elvis biographer, Elaine Dundy, writes in her book Elvis and Gladys (p.250), "Of all Elvis' new friends, Nick Adams, by background and temperament the most insecure, was also his closest." You cannot deny historical facts. Onefortyone 10:11, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Once again you are missing the point. The vast, vast majority of works on Presley do not list Adams as his best friend or even an especially close friend. Guralnik notes that they were friends but nothing more. What you are trying to do is the following: 1. Establish Presley was good friends with Nick Adams. 2. Establish that Nick Adams was gay. 3. Use innuendo to then suggest Presley was gay. You have an agenda and it has nothing to do with the 'truth' or with 'historical fact'. --Lochdale 16:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So you still think Nick Adams and Elvis were not close friends? Here are some more quotes from Guralnick's book, Last Train to Memphis: The Rise of Elvis Presley, relating to the time when their close friendship began (p.339-340):

"Nick didn't have anything better to do, so he was going to come to Tupelo ... Elvis was looking forward to showing him Memphis for the first time. They flew into Memphis on Saturday, September 22, and went out to the fair briefly that night. On Monday they visited Humes, where Elvis introduced Nick to his old homeroom teacher, Miss Scrivener... They visited the Tiplers at Crown Electric, too, and Nick put his feet up on Mr. Tipler's desk while Elvis explained, said his former employer, "how he had his money arranged so he wouldn't get it all at one time." They even went by Dixie's house one afternoon, and she told Elvis she was getting married, and he congratulated her and wished her well. On Wednesday they left for Tupelo around noon." etc. etc.

p.343:

"Elvis and Nick had returned to Hollywood by the weekend..."

Does this sound as if Guralnik only notes "that they were friends but nothing more", as you falsely claim? Of course not! It seems as if you have an agenda - trying to deny the well-known fact that Adams and Presley were close friends. Of course, such a close friendship must be mentioned in the article, as it is part of Elvis's personal life. Onefortyone 02:04, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Analysis on Elvis Presley débâcle

Dear Onefortyone: Further to your request that I look into the Elvis Presley issue, I have received adequate information from yourself, User:Jkelly, User:Hoary, and obliquely User:Lochdale, about the status quo. Below, I present my opinion on the matter of your ban by Jkelly from the Elvis Presley article, the editing issues you raise regarding article content, and the issue in general.

I have examined both your edits and those of other users to Elvis Presley. Consequently, I have come to the decision that my place as mentor to you does not extend to me making judgements on the nature of factual article content, or the manner in which content is decided; rather that my duty is to advise you on Wikipedia practices and policy, and to act to assist you in relation to editing matters. Thus, I will not pass judgement on whether the edits made are either POV or NPOV since in order to do so would require study on my part into the minutiae of Presley's life (a task I am neither interested in, nor see the purpose, of undertaking) - instead I will look at it from the perspective of editing behaviour, and adherence to WP:RS, WP:V, WP:CIVIL, etc.

Editing of Elvis Presley

It would, I think, be correct to state that editing interactions between yourself and other users on the article are characterised by mutual dispute and disrespect; so the fruitfulness of any kind of editing of the article is thus diminished greatly, since the whole thing devolves into an aimless mud-slinging dispute in which no work is accomplished. This is adequately evidenced, I think, by the dissatisfaction of yourself and other users relating to the opposing party's editing, which simply causes contributions to be deleted (as you pointed out to me).

As such, WP:CIVIL isn't really met in spirit by the state of the issue before your ban, and as the later exchanges show (on the talk pages belonging to you and I, for example) it is still not met to a degree I would consider satisfactory for a reasonable editing environment. Consequently, it appears doubtful to me that, were it to be arranged for you to edit the article again, it would be possible for cooperative editing to take place on that article between yourself and the other involved parties. I also personally feel that you hold perhaps too strong an opinion on the subject of Elvis Presley's life and alleged homosexuality which you feel should be advanced in the article; such a view, alas, often prohibits one on being able to edit an article with equanimity.

With the above situation in mind, I feel it is not advisable for you to edit the Elvis Presley article on Wikipedia either now or in the near future, for both the sake of reducing conflict on Wikipedia in order to carry on the intended goal of actually writing an encyclopaedia versus arguing over content issues and for the sake of your own personal experience, since I feel you will simply be further irritated and dissatisfied with continued participation in the conflict. It is, then, my opinion that it is advisable for all concerned for you not to be editing the article until the dispute has perhaps dissipated somewhat, and so I cannot in any conscience consider Jkelly's ban to be improper, in the spirit of peace on Wikipedia.

Issues over deletion of material from article

You indicated to me a series of diffs showing Hoary's removal of the sections of the article that you previously wrote. Looking at the sections of text in question, it does seem (without, as I stated above, going into the factual issues) that the text you wrote in the article relies too heavily on drawing conclusions across sources, versus quoting individual sources' statements without modification - which would seem to come close to, if not being, original research. This was, as I am sure you recall, one of the issues your earlier arbcom case. Thus, as per WP:NOR, WP:V etc., it does seem the removal of this text, due to the speculative, as opposed to strictly factual, nature of the material, was in fact proper.

However, I would say that perhaps with some degree of modification the elements that you quoted from the sources you used may have some worthwhile inclusion in the article provided they are worded correctly and taken as direct claims from sources versus as speculative conclusions, and also only placing claims as general fact where they agree with majority opinion on the subject. This would also lead me to believe that Hoary's request to Jkelly was, in itself, not improper; although I think it might have perhaps been better if a completely uninvolved third party had invoked it to avoid any accusations of impropriety, but that is not to say that Hoary's invoking of the remedy was as a result incorrect.

Editing of other users

Another issue you raised with me was that of the editing of Lochdale (talk · contribs) was indicative of a user entity with the sole purpose of removing your contributions to the article; I also saw Lochdale's response to you on your talk page. I would personally feel this view is rather dramatic, and likely not probable, but I would say that Lochdale is editing fixatedly and in a manner not conducive towards a mutually cooperative editing environment. Arbitration Committee precedent is that users editing an article fixatedly may be banned from it (see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Regarding The Bogdanov Affair, for one example) and as a consequence I would suggest that this user should also be banned from this article in a manner analogous to your ban set by Jkelly. If necessary, I shall invoke this ban myself on discussion with Jkelly and Hoary beforehand, but I think this would be the fairest manner of proceeding.

Advice for the future

Personally, Onefortyone, I think the best thing for you to do on Wikipedia is to take a step back, and try not to let your own interests and opinions influence what you would like to see in the article. Wikipedia is just a bunch of 1s and 0s on disk that make text files, and what is written (or not written) on Wikipedia is not a matter of life and death. Perhaps you could publish a paper of your own researching the homosexuality issues of Elvis Presley? That way, your opinion and findings can be of best value to the academic community, since Wikipedia is a tertiary source - it outlines what people have generally found to be true, rather than being a vehicle for the publication of new information.

I would also suggest trying to distance yourself from what you are editing as much as possible, and taking the viewpoint that when you click the Save button, what happens is out of your control after that; such is the way of the wiki world. If you get frustrated about editing something, don't start getting embroiled in argument with those who don't feel the same way - take a break, watch a movie, do something relaxing; I usually chant, but of course, each to his own. :) Just focus your attention somewhere else. I would also avoid editing articles that you can expect you will have some contention in editing, to cause yourself and other contributors less stress, and so contribute to a more peaceful wiki.

In closing

I hope that the above analysis may be of some use to you, and I am always at your service; I would like, if at all possible, to work with you to make damn sure that Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Onefortyone 2 never becomes a blue-link, as I am sure you would likewise wish. :) I am always here to help you should you require it, and if you would like me to act on your behalf to suggest changes on Talk:Elvis Presley, please let me know. I wish you all the very best of success on your future Wikipedia editing efforts. Peace, and best regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 23:48, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your statement. You are right that the best thing for me to do on Wikipedia is to take a step back. It's a good idea to take a break, as I have wasted too much time in edit wars. However, there is still the problem that User:Lochdale repeatedly included false information in the Elvis article. This is not acceptable. Interestingly, another new user has "dropped in" who falsely claims on Talk:Patricia Bosworth to have found "a factual error in the Patricia Bosworth article" I started some weeks ago. Significantly, this new user is only interested in "errors" allegedly produced by Onefortyone in the Patricia Bosworth and the Elvis Presley articles. It seems as if this user intends to start a new edit war concerning the "Allegations of racism" section of the Elvis article. See [103]. I would recommend to have a watchful eye on both Lochdale and User:Bookmind alias IP 207.67.145.214. There is something going on that makes me suspicious. Could it be that my old opponent User:Ted Wilkes, who is blocked for one year, has reappeared? Onefortyone 01:37, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Evidence that IPs 66.61.69.65 and 24.165.212.202 and NightCrawler alias DW alias Ted Wilkes alias Duisburg Dude are identical with user Lochdale

IP 24.165.212.202 is identical with User:NightCrawler alias multiple hardbanned User:DW alias User:Ted Wilkes and somehow related to the "copyrighted trademark owned by EPE" (i.e. Elvis Presley Enterprises, Inc.), as this edit proves: [104]

Abbreviated for convenience in responding --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 07:56, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[...] this IP is identical with User:Duisburg Dude, who was recently hardbanned for being a sockpuppet of User:Ted Wilkes. To my mind, there is also the suspicion that Ted Wilkes has created lots of new sockpuppets in order to circumvent his one-year block and to push his agendas. Onefortyone 01:29, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there Onefortyone. I have reviewed the various diffs you have cited in your message to me; my opinion is that yes, you are correct about similarity of editing focus and editing pattern, but the summation that this element is sufficient to identify the users as one and the same is I think slightly too tenuous. That is not to say you are incorrect that they are sockpuppet users, which is possible, but rather what I am trying to point out is there could possibly be a legitimate reason for an unrelated editor fitting the profile. To quote Goethe, "the eye sees what the eye brings means of seeing" - I think you are perhaps becoming a little too paranoid that people really do care enough to create sockpuppets solely to remove your material out of spite alone. What I suggest is to make a Request for Checkuser about this, which would provide a more definitive answer on whether these editors are ban evasion identities or separate editors.

I must, however, point out to you that I am your mentor, not a substitute for AN/I; I cannot get directly involved in the Elvis Presley article to avoid conflict-of-interest, let alone apply administrative actions as a consequence. Of course requesting that someone else apply them is another matter - but nonetheless, my ability to assist you in regards to this sort of matter is very minimal, and you would I think have better success with WP:AN/I. There is not much point, really, in simply informing me about individual user contribution patterns, simply because I can't do anything about it if the user is indeed a sockpuppet. I hope you understand this difficulty. I also suggest that you not spend such an inordinate amount of your energies in analysing all the edits made to the article because it will undoubtedly just make you feel more irritated by the other editors. Best regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 07:56, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your personal statement. The problem is that I feel being harassed by these sockpuppets of Ted Wilkes, as they are frequently deleting what I have written, although I have cited my sources. They are also jointly responsible for banning me from the Elvis article. I am not sure if a Request for Checkuser about the matter would provide enough evidence in support of my suspicion, as DW alias Ted Wilkes is operating under too many different IPs and seems to be using lots of different PCs. Onefortyone 01:06, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Onefortyone, while Ted Wilkes may be operating under several IPs, Lochdale has provided us with some personal information about himself that I personally checked and verified, and I believe several other admins have also done so. I understand that you have been under some heavy fire from Ted Wilkes, but I am going to assume good faith and give Lochdale the benefit of the doubt for now. --Deathphoenix ʕ 04:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, sorry for not getting back to you earlier. The proverbial circumstances beyond my control arose. Having been wikistalked in the past I understand what your experience has been with Wilkes and agree that we need to be very vigilant. On the issue of Lochdale there was very strong evidence to support the suspicion, and I immediately placed a ban. Checkuser was then used to check (I don't have access to CU so I couldn't do a check first and where the odds suggest that someone is a hardbanned user, it makes sense to stop their edits pending a checkuser result). The edits showed clearly that Lochdale is not Wilkes. Whatever about the clashed you and Loch have had, or may have, I think on the evidence that you should treat him as a bone fide editor and not a sockpuppet. I know from experience how being targeted by sockpuppets can be tramatic. It can lead the victim to jump to conclusions that may be right four times out of five but on the fifth time isn't. I think the Lochdale case is that proverbial fifth case.

We may need to do set-up a hardbanned user investigation unit so that cases can be investigated speedily. FearÉIREANN\^{^(caint) 19:36, 14 August 2006 (UTC)}[reply]

Thank you for your statements. What still looks very suspicious to me is that User:Lochdale, on his user page, claims to have a Doctor of Jurisprudence degree. Ted Wilkes has much legal knowledge, too, and claimed to have written a book on questions of commercial law. He even used his legal knowledge in his mud-throwing campaign against arbcom member Fred Bauder. Furthermore, Lochdale has not yet contributed relevant and well-sourced material to the Elvis article. This unencyclopaedic entry, which is only fan stuff of the first degree, is one of his recent contributions.

Concerning the death of Elvis, User:Lochdale asks on the Talk:Elvis Presley page, "is there any proof he died on the toilet?" and he falsely claims that "Guralnik makes no mention of it so it might be just conjecture." See [105]. It should be noted that this user, who seems to be an Elvis fan who has a tendency toward supporting only a 'favorable' view of the singer, more than once added false information to the article and talk pages. He is also frequently removing passages from the article which are not in line with his all too positive view of the megastar. Here is what reputed Elvis biographer Peter Guralnick says about the Elvis Presley's death:

The only thing that appeared to have been missed, aside from the empty syringes, was the book that Elvis had in the bathroom with him when he died, a study of sex and psychic energy that correlated sexual positions with astrological signs. Warlick found a stain on the bathroom carpeting, too, that seemed to indicate where Elvis had thrown up after being stricken, apparently while seated on the toilet. It looked to the medical investigator as if he had "stumbled or crawled several feet before he died." ... nine pathologists from Baptist cond acted the examination in full knowledge that the world was watching but that the results would be released to Elvis' father alone. ... Francisco announced the results of the autopsy, even as the autopsy was still going on. Death, he said, was "due to cardiac arrhythmia due to undetermined heartbeat." ... But there were in fact at that time no results to report. The autopsy proper went on for another couple of hours. Specimens were collected and carefully preserved, the internal organs were examined and the heart found to be enlarged, a significant amount of coronary atherosclerosis was observed, the liver showed considerable damage, and the large intestine was clogged with fecal matter, indicating a painful and longstanding bowel condition. The bowel condition alone would have strongly suggested to the doctors what by now they had every reason to suspect from Elvis' hospital history, the observed liver damage, and abundant anecdotal evidence: that drug use was heavily implicated in this unanticipated death of a middle-aged man with no known history of heart disease who had been "mobile and functional within eight hours of his death." It was certainly possible that he had been taken while "straining at stool," and no one ruled out the possibility of anaphylactic shock brought on by the codeine pills he had gotten from his dentist, to which he was known to have had a mild allergy of long standing. The pathologists, however, were satisfied to wait for the lab results, which they were confident would overrule Dr. Francisco's precipitate, and somewhat meaningless, announcement, as indeed they eventually did. There was little disagreement in fact between the two principal laboratory reports and analyses filed two months later, with each stating a strong belief that the primary cause of death was polypharmacy, and the BioScience Laboratories report, initially filed under the patient name of "Ethel Moore," indicating the detection of fourteen drugs in Elvis' system, ten in significant quantity. Codeine appeared at ten times the therapeutic level, methaqualone (Quaalude) in an arguably toxic amount, three other drugs appeared to be on the borderline of toxicity taken in and of themselves, and "the combined effect of the central nervous system depressants and the codeine" had to be given heavy consideration. See Peter Guralnick, Careless Love:The Unmaking of Elvis Presley (1999), pp.651-652. Onefortyone 02:11, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm not even going to bother to refute your constant Ted Wilkes suggestions (I'm not him, there is no connection. Get over it). I'll note that this is what I wrote in the discussion piece Well I supposed it's not something I would be interested in but perhaps it is a big trivia question? Iguess the answer is is there any proof he died on the toilet? Guralnik makes no mention of it so it might be just conjecture. I'm not sure as I must admit it's nothing I've every researched.

So I am quite open about my lack of knowledge on the area. You bold certain areas, such as drug use, in Guralnik's text despite that fact that (other than speculation that one of Presley's cousins removed drug paraphenalia from the death scene)I have never removed any reference to Presely's clear drug use. Further, just because I have not added any "orginal material" to the article is meaningless. It's not a bad article as it stands. I don't have much to add. What I object to is your obsession with Presley and your use of questionable secondary sources, innuendo and conjecture to suggest Presley was gay or had incestous relations with his Mother etc. etc. Indeed, you seem to spend an inordinate amount of time on just one article or articles relating to the Presley article. If anyone has an agenda here it is you. Lochdale 02:56, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Elvis

The edits I mentioned to the Arbitration committee didn't mention their source. If you add it, or link it if the source is already mentioned in the article, that would help a great deal. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: User Lochdale

User:Lochdale has again removed well-sourced paragraphs I have written from the Elvis Presley page. This is not acceptable. See [106], [107], [108], [109], etc. Lochdale's behavior supports my suspicion that this user identity has primarily been created to remove my contributions and to harass me. See also his contribution history from the beginning. Onefortyone 01:02, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Onefortyone: I am sorry to have to be this blunt with you, but the particular diffs you cite above are not really an infraction on Lochdale's part; the material was as such that any editor would be within their rights to remove it in the interests of article quality. It may have been "well sourced" but it made improper attribution of generalities (e.g. "most people" suggesting a widespread view of multiple sources, in reference to one author's opinion of Presley's sex life).

It is also questionable of what merit the addition of such material in the articles in question is, especially since the various quotations do not appear to assert fact, rather offer analysis and opinion - remember Wikipedia is meant to be an encyclopaedia, and thus should generally stick to the factual elements of a given subject. That should not, of course, be taken to completely abrogate the idea of including multiple POVs referenced to sources in order to work towards NPOV; but in general Wikipedia aims towards what is, by and large, accepted by the mainstream when dealing with autobiography.

After all, Wikipedia is neither an advertising mechanism nor an exposé. You keep posting talk page messages to me asserting malefaction on Lochdale's part; it is undeniably true that there is a clear tit-for-tat going on between the two of you, but I have stated before that you both need to stand clear of the dispute. If you continue to tenaciously follow each other's every move, and attempt to reverse each other's editing attempts on the subject, that is precisely all you will achieve; an argument, ad infinitum. In this particular case, indeed, Lochdale is not actually incorrect to remove the material, and so it would strike me in this case that the best course of action would simply be to restrict yourself to editing material that you do not possess a desire to promote a given POV within.

I do hope you understand that in saying this, I have interest in both reducing conflict within Wikipedia and to resolving the long-running dispute that yourself and Lochdale have been engaged in for far too long. I have reiterated such sentiments repeatedly, and frankly I think this is the last time I will try and make this point to you. In future any accusations relating to Lochdale's actions would be best posted on AN/I than written to me, because I have already offered you my advice on that subject. Should this continue, however, it may be the case it is necessary to have greater restraint via Arbcom placed on one or both of you to bring this rather irritating mess of an issue to a permanent close, as I am tired of it. That said, if at all possible, I would like to avoid the use of authority-controlled action as I consider you are intelligent enough to appreciate the need for you to change your behaviour and would consider it fairer all round if such a course of action was not necessary. Best regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 10:49, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that Lochdale simply claims that my edits are questionable, but this is not true. He also claims that most books do not support my contributions, but he is wrong, as facts show. You should have noticed that, as a kind of compromise, I didn't mention sources such as the controversial manuscript book by Elvis's stepmother Dee Presley in my last contributions, primarily centering on what is written in reputable Elvis biographies. But this material has also been deleted. It seems as if Lochdale did not read any of the major Elvis biographies. I have not yet seen that this user has given direct quotes from one of the sources he claims to have read. He frequently misquoted Guralnick's name as "Guralnik" in the past (see, for instance, this discussion), and he didn't even know the exact title of Guralnick's book Careless Love: The Unmaking Of Elvis Presley, as he cited it as "Careless Whisper". See [110]. He also disparages university studies I have used for my edits. He says, "I would disagree with that the information presented is really worth mentioning as a lot of it seems to be from college disertations etc...." See [111]. This statement speaks volumes. Lochdale's only aim seems to be to delete my contributions. Just one question. Is there a reasonable argument for excluding the whole paragraph on Elvis's male friendships from the article? See [112]. These friendships with members and employees from the Memphis Mafia are well documented and part of every Elvis biography and they are certainly accepted by the mainstream, as all these people played a significant part in the singer's life. Why should this paragraph be totally removed from the article? On the other hand, look at the unsourced "Trivia" sections of the article, for instance [113], and sections such as Elvis Presley in the 21st century or Elvis Lives?. These sections are fan stuff in no small degree, as they are always singing the praise of the megastar. Is all this material encyclopaedic? I don't think so, but some user's, among them Lochdale, do frequently support these sections by their contributions (see [114], [115]). Though I am not of the opinion that all this material should be included in the article, I never removed these paragraphs, as Lochdale frequently does with my contributions. In my opinion, Lochdale is part of an Elvis fan group which endeavors to suppress specific details about the singer's life from the article, if he is not somehow related to multiple hardbanned User:Ted Wilkes (we have already discussed my suspicion here and elsewhere). And what about the well documented FBI files I have cited and the false claims by Lochdale concerning these files? See [116]. It seems as if I am the only user who frequently, and accurately, cites his sources, and Lochdale is frequently deleting the passages I have written. These are the facts, and Lochdale's deleting tactics are not acceptable. Onefortyone 13:42, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Onefortyone: I can understand your response to the foregoing looking at it from your perspective, but it still strikes me you have rather missed the point. Let me be even blunter:

— Just because something is sourced does not mean that it belongs in the article especially when those sources are the only provenance of a given claim.

— Wikipedia is not the place for revelations about Elvis Presley's sex life. Wikipedia is not interested in obscure and rather tenuous factoids or inferences about a dead rock star's sexual relations.

— This fruitless dispute is wasting both your time and that of other Wikipedia users. It thus detracts from what we're actually meant to be doing - writing an encyclopaedia.

— I have no interest in your theorism about who is, or who is not, forming clandestine organisations in support of Presley's reputation.

Perhaps that is clearer. Best regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 14:27, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry that I may have missed the point. However, as Elvis is often referred to as a "sex symbol" who allegedly had many one-night stands, some sources which prove that this was not the case should be mentioned in the article. By the way, this is only a very short part of my recent contributions. What about Elvis's male friendships which played an important part of his life and which are documented in every biography? All this material has been deleted by Lochdale. I have now rewritten some parts of the said paragraphs. Onefortyone 14:44, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've been looking at your talk page and some of your edits, and I've come to the realisation that you are a complete nutcase. To completely obsess for more than a year over the sexuality of people who have been dead for around 30 years makes you one of the biggest freaks I have ever seen. You really need some help you weirdo. User:58.169.55.123

Hello, 58.169! My old "friend", multiple hardbanned user Ted Wilkes or one of his supporters seems to have a new dynamic IP address. Not incidentally, you enthusiastically applauded edits by one of Ted Wilkes's many sockpuppets, and you are, as usual, removing my well-sourced contributions from the Elvis Presley page. See, for instance, [117], [118]. Now you are personally attacking me, as Ted Wilkes frequently did in the past. Onefortyone 12:25, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, I'm just one of many other users that thinks you're a sick freak who is completely obsessed with the sexuality of dead people. No one agrees with you, and most importantly no one likes you. Just talking to a weirdo like you actually makes me sick, and I have no interest in starting lame editwars over your perverted edits. So I'm outta here. Goodbye weirdo.

So much for the words of a member of an Elvis fan group who didn't want to hear the truth about his favorite star.