Talk:Chris Sharp

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Chris Sharp. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090908012847/http://www.grammy.com:80/GRAMMY_Awards/Winners/Results.aspx to http://www.grammy.com/GRAMMY_Awards/Winners/Results.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:31, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

COI

It appears to be pretty clear that USer:Plinkachoo has some sort of Conflict of interest with regards to this article. They have only ever edited this article, and the text they have added has later appeared on Chris Sharp's official website, word for word, as their biography. That could be a coincidence, but seems unlikely. Canterbury Tail talk 20:35, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

The only thing that's pretty clear is that you have some problem with me. I have no idea who Plinkachoo is, but they did a great job writing up my career highlights, so I used it for my webpage, which you couldn't even find using Google.

Question: if I am responsible for this article and not the copy I placed on my website, why is the picture so outdated? I'm ten years older and 60 lbs lighter now. Why wouldn't I have my COI plant fix my image?

This lack of logic should be enough to have your power abuse stopped. If you continue to accuse me, I will look at what I can do to deal with you. However, it's not the first problem we've had. Last time I backed away because I was in the wrong and didn't know the rules. I won't back down so easily this time because I am not mistaken, I know more of the rules, and I'm learning even more to fight this slander. You put a flag there with no proof. When removed, you put it back, stating that you're correct, despite having no evidence and failing to address the argument against your position. I've already read enough to know that what you did violates and abuses your limited authority. You should not have any ability to harass others on Wikipedia. Chrissharp80 (talk) 11:54, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Can some Wikipedia moderator please look at this that isn't @Canterbury Tail (perhaps @C.Fred)? I think the real conflict here is this person @Canterbury Tail. The citation says to have conversation here but there is none. It has been more than a year when I responded to this made up claim and nothing has been said or done. How does one resolve having their public image tarnished because some other person has personal problems? Thank you and I look forward to an honest moderator resolving this unfounded COI claim. Chrissharp80 (talk) 21:01, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Um I never accused you of anything, I accused User:Plinkachoo who should be a completely separate person than you. However you seem to have decided that that is an attack on you. That can't be possible unless there is a conflict of interest here. Canterbury Tail talk 21:33, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

I think it is pretty obvious that Plinkachoo has a conflict of interest, and I think it is also pretty obvious that this complaint of yours, a year late, has no merit. If you continue to attack the good faith of Canterbury Tail and others, I will be more than happy to block you, because the combination of COI editing and personal attacks is not acceptable. Drmies (talk) 21:06, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Plinkachoo isn’t the person who’s been made to look guilty when anyone clicks on the page. Read the full history before bragging on the good faith of your friend. You are all breaking the rules and, if necessary, I will hire an attorney. So block me if you want but if you don’t either provide proof or remove me tag then I’ll do whatever I need to do to force right out of you. No matter the cost. If you can’t follow the rules and you’re unfit to judge anything. Hearsay and opinions are insufficient. Read the damned rules

And if you don’t think it’s a personal attack, then you’re not paying attention. I was accused of a conflict of interest with zero evidence other than I copied the write up and use it as my biography on my personal webpage. That was this person’s evidence. But in all of his wisdom, he couldn’t even provide the link to my personal website. But it’s me tarnish and he is good name and I’m the one being threatened. I’m not sure who you’re used to dealing with Bud, but threatening an innocent person while defending someone who is clearly guilty isn’t how things work where I come from. And you can block or do whatever little power trips you have, but you can rest, assured that I will hire whatever lawyer I need to deal with you, and the other people who refuse to follow the rules that you swore to follow when you decided to do this power trip cleanup job.

He can’t provide the website where he got his opinion, and even if he could, that’s not proof of anything. I don’t know who the other person is. Apparently they can’t even find a recent picture of me or don’t care to because of all this damned drama. Chrissharp80 (talk) 12:29, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

I just realized I had to login from my name to show up so I logged in. All the replies are from me. Chrissharp80 (talk) 12:04, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

And I’m gonna guess that you won’t read the rules. Because if you had, you would’ve noticed that they clearly state that if you use that tag the admin that uses it has to provide proof. The only thing provided was an opinion and then somebody saying I can’t find the website where I got the opinion. If you can’t fulfill that then remove the tag Chrissharp80 (talk) 12:27, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

External link

Note the chrissharpmusic.net site was functional yesterday, it's still in my cache, something appears to just be wrong with its hosting today. Canterbury Tail talk 20:37, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm getting a bluehost landing page with a brief notice that the page has moved. —C.Fred (talk) 20:41, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Yeah I'm seeing the same thing, but it was definitely working yesterday. Maybe it has suddenly upped and gone. Canterbury Tail talk 21:57, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Here's your "proof" that you couldn't even find. And if this isn't a witch hunt then why were you hunting? Keep going @Canterbury Tail. Your day is on the say friend. https://chrissharpmusic.com/

Feel free to check how many days this has been down in the past 3-10 years. Zero. You just don't know what you're doing. But you sure like to blame and accuse based off of "the link must be wrong" - no - you are wrong. You have been wrong. And you will continue being wrong because the last I checked, it's not against anyone's rules for me to copy a good writeup of myself and use it. It's certainly not the proof required for your COI tag. And YES, you ARE attacking me personally when you make as big of an effort to find evidence as you did. I suggest you provide the evidence or remove the tag. I'm pretty done messing with this and I'm pretty done with your abuse. Chrissharp80 (talk) 13:12, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Excuse me? What on earth are you on about? This discussion was me reinstating the link, i.e. adding it back in, because someone had removed it thinking it was dead but I reinserted it on the grounds that it was working so it was unlikely to have disappeared. Your message above is the personal attack here. I was defending the link to the website, not removing it or saying its disappeared, you may wish to re-read things. I really don't know what your problem is, but if you continue with this accusatory approach to everything you may find yourself blocked from editing. Canterbury Tail talk 14:39, 24 October 2023 (UTC)