Talk:You Ain't Goin' Nowhere

I have removed the tag stating that this article does not cite any references or sources. This is because I have added many new inline references myself to remedy the problem.Kohoutek1138 19:54, 28 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

>>> someone please change #10 link to http://www.bobdylan.com/songs/you-aint-goin-nowhere >> link contains hash folder which is gone now — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.231.104.46 (talk) 00:04, 9 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

I don't see how this is a reliable source. Bjorner.com is a personal website that's owned by someone who doesn't seem to have any sort of credibility; even if they are showing their work, it's quite plainly a fansite and should not be used as a reference. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 04:49, 5 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

It seems Hullaboo won't leave Ten pound hammer alone, also personal websites can never be reliable sources, Ten pound on the other hand try to avoid calling him a douche, this won't look good on your part, its time someone uninvolved stept in as hullaboos wikistalking is causing ten pound to lose his patience, i think you two need to leave each other alone for a bit--Lerdthenerd (talk) 13:40, 5 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

I've just added a much more reliable source from Paul William's Performing Artist book in an attempt to resolve this dispute. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 14:25, 5 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Agree, not a reliable source. TFD (talk) 14:48, 5 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

It's clear that nobody here has bothered to check out the point I made when initially restoring the source: that the online pages are simply an online edition of professionally published material, and therefore not excluded as inherently unreliable. The print edition is cited in the references to the main Bob Dylan article and can be verified here [1]. The reliability of the site was discussed in several places on Wikipedia (for example, here [2]), and consensus has been that it meets RS requirements. It's now cited in dozens of articles. And, as I noted in a subsequent edit, it's been officially endorsed on behalf of the musician himself: "The best online source of sheer data on Bob Dylan's recording and touring history, including set lists is Olof Bjorner's site." [3]. Some of us bother to check out the relevant facts before we edit; others attack without regard to them. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:43, 5 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Now how hard was it to just frakking say that instead of blindly reverting my edits with vague edit summaries? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 18:48, 5 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

I know it's more work to edit if you take the trouble to make sure what you say is accurate, but that doesn't give you an excuse. What part of ""online edition of published work isn't a 'bad source'" could you possibly have found vague? What lack of simple human decency possesses you to gratuitously and falsely insult the author involved? Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:23, 5 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Admittedly I overlooked that edit summary. What lack of simple human decency causes you to wikistalk me? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 21:11, 5 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

That explanation is completely unworthy of belief, given the extent to which you've been searching through my comments. And nothing that you so falsely accuse me of doing justifies the lie you told about a completely blameless author here. For someone who flings around insults so freely, you have a peculiarly thin skin.You know I haven't "stalked" you, or anyone. You're just eed off that I've caught you saying things that aren't true, and people are noticing. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:53, 5 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Tell me how the hell "that's owned by someone who doesn't seem to have any sort of credibility" is a BLP violation, first of all. Maybe you are catching me at "bad" things (a very tenuous claim at that), but it seems you're following me around, waiting for me to slip up, and then screaming at me for it. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 00:27, 6 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

It's objectively false and reflects poorly on a living person. That makes it a BLP violation. It's a claim regarding a living person made without any factual basis but with derogatory intent. It's a claim presented as factual even though the speaker ha no basis to believe it is true. That makes it a lie, and denying that simple fact is an act of moral cowardice. As for "following you around," you profanely and uncivilly demanded a response. Describing that response as "following you" or "stalking" is no less dishonest. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:01, 6 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

So "doesn't seem to" is an attack hmm? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 02:35, 6 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Of course it is; hiding behind your weasel words is hardly more than a transparent evasion. Were I to comment that you seem to have the character of a child molester, I would, justifiably, be quickly excluded from this community. You had no basis or reason to post a false and derogatory comment about a blameless third party, and your behavior was shameful and grows worse with each response. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:22, 6 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Unwarranted Reputation Smearing

I am the editor of the Hardinge Simpole academic series All Alone on A Shelf in which the Olof books appear. I think someone with the skills of Ten Pound Hammer has no place on Wikipedia. His ignorance is embarrassing and brings Wikipedia into disrepute. When we first put the idea of mirroring the multi-volume reference work on the net for free to Lord Hardinge various advisers opposed this as the feeling was the net had far too many fools and charlatans who would misuse it. I opposed that view. All involved in the books are pleased that those who purchase reference books can buy them and those without the means to do so can have it all for free. And both have the updates. No one foresaw as ignorant, insulting and crass a reaction as Ten Pound Hammer has made public. I see no point in someone who cannot read a source, contributing and editing in Wikipedia. If Ten Pound Hammer had any credibility himself we would sue for damages to Björner's reputation. But anyone can see Ten Pound Hammer's statements have no merit, so there is no damage.

"I don't see how this is a reliable source. Bjorner.com is a personal website that's owned by someone who doesn't seem to have any sort of credibility; even if they are showing their work, it's quite plainly a fansite and should not be used as a reference. Ten Pound Hammer"

100% incorrect.

(Could someone message me and outline how we make a formal complaint to Wikipedia about this contributor?)

Eduardo Monteverdi Ricardo

EDLIS Café 19:20, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:You Ain't Goin' Nowhere/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk) 02:06, 20 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: none found

Linkrot: one found and fixed.[4] Jezhotwells (talk) 02:10, 20 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose):   b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):  

   The article is reasonably well written and complies sufficiently with the Manual of Style

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references):   b (citations to reliable sources):   c (OR):  

   The references support the statements and all appear to be reliable sources. i assume good faith for off-line sources.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects):   b (focused):  

   Sufficient detail without unnecessary trivia.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:  

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:  

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):   b (appropriate use with suitable captions):  

   One image used, tagged and captioned.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:  

   A well formed article. I am happy that it meets the good article standards so I am passing it. Congratulations. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:23, 20 November 2010 (UTC)Reply