```Under Attack``  User page has been under attack and will be protected until the vandals have stoppedSteve espinola  * Wow!! Fucking double speak, [wo]man. Lol! If your page was vandalised, what about the stuff you did to mine? :-) No, I think we got a little double think going on now, which I find double plus plus bad but simultaneously double plus plus super double plus funny.   Help support and spread newspeak today! For you have already significantly adopted the other tenets of Big Brother gov'ment.   All I can say:   * War is peace * Slavery is freedom * Vandalism is fine editorial skill   — HopeSeekr of xMule (Talk)    ``Mexican Estaban 'Steve' Espinola,`` I feel that your claims of wrongs perpetrated on you deserve documentation. Given all your talk of vandalism to your page, I think it makes sense that all the drama around your presence on Wikipedia be returned to your talk page, where it belongs. Signed, the Brooklyn Steve Espinola, user name: Sojambi Pinola      new text  [This was left on User:HopeSeekr of xMule's discussion page at . Basicially, he cut everything from his own page, items 1 through 20 below, and pasted it onto HopeSeekr's.]  I've added my whole talk page to your talk page, as you've been creatively editing yours, I choose to creatively edit my own. Steve espinola     * LOL!~!!!!! ROFLMFAO!!!! OK, pay attention ``Steve``: Notice above how many people thank me for my edits? Now look below...see how many people gripe at you for yours? Hmm...I still have trouble figuring out why a single person would become your advocate but I guess every one needs an attorney no matter what the crime. Thanks for making this page even more vibrant. — HopeSeekr of xMule (Talk)     Mmmmmmbo  good luck!!! I think your version is great Mmmmmmbo  [this was left, unsigned, by User:Steve espinola at  which pretty much solidifies that this user is also User:Mmmmmmbo.      Can you please explain your edits to Biff Rose? They appear to express a negative POV towards the person. -Willmcw    For willmcw  I think its high time you stopped trying to rearrange my words. The information contained on the biff rose site colelcts the pertinent info. It is not a billboard for his achievements, but an overview of his career. I think records that were pressed and sold are of worth. Ones that were not around in copies more than fifty or a hundred are not. I've interviewed Rose, I know which ones sold and which ones didn't. You can beef up a discog with murky details, but it won't help the whole wiki crowd. Stop being bullheaded, and agressive, because though you've been given power through edits, you have also become that which you supposedly fight against. You are not allowing the newer versions of this piece to come to life, but instead are so closely guarding the information disseminated from within that you have become like a fascist. Terrible!!!  [left unsigned by user:Steve espinola at ]  Why do you delete the number of ``Carson`` appearances? Why are you deleting the name of his biggest song? What does it matter to you if the records sold 10 or 10,000 copies? Do you have some personal animus towards Rose? Please note that your personal feelings, and your personally-obtained interviews, should not be used to influence the article. It's a biography, and should present a comprehensive picture of his life. It's not a place to gain revenge on someone you don't like. -Willmcw     I've copied this discussion to the talk:Biff Rose page. -Willmcw       Any info deleted was moved from prominence to more esoteric reading of it, to make the article read better, and have a decent flow. That Rose was in Time magazine once in 1965 is not of note. That he wrote a song that was covered by both Tiny Tim and David Bowie is. That that song was co written Oscar winning musician Paul Williams is important. Also of note, it should be mentioned that Rose has disavowed the Williams connection in several interviews, until in late 2004 on his own website's message board he admitted he was falsefying William's own involvement in the song. But a small 200 word blurb in time 50 years ago is not of worth. As for Rose's appearnaces on Carson, there has been no reall connection with the amount of times Rose officially appeared on the show, and how many times he taped performances. He alleges, himself, that he appeared on the show 12 times. Producerss from the Tonight show remember him being on with much less regularity. Therefore, a distinction, to leave out embrassment, would be something like, ``Rose appeared with some level of regularity on the tonight show in the end of the decade.`` Of note> Rose was banned from any more performances on the Tonight Show because he refused to cut to a commercial break during his last performance, reciting a poem he often claimed as his own, which in fact was a poem by Paul Newman's uncle, Joseph Newman. This was chalked up to Rose's irrascible nature. I think it is important to notice to, the anger that first rears its head here, and then seems to pop up, on the record he did in 73, and beyond, to his later self released recordings where Rose is heard calling african americans niggers, and making fun of the jewish religion, citing Hit5ler as a genius, who clearly had a vision. Willmcw is trying to keep the previous words someone else wrote about Rose being a child molester, which were clearly vandalism. I did not write that, and the anti semitic sentiments attributed to Rose are very easily found in his records and his websites. Willmcw is a vandal and works against my own edits in a nasty and un wiki fashion.Steve espinola       Greetings  Greetings and welcome to wikipedia. Please excuse the rude treatment you've received from the administrator who has engaged most of your attention thus far. He has a bad habit of disregarding Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers, especially where a newcomer has made edits to an article or subject he deems to be his territory. You should not let a hostile reception deter you from participating here and I hope you will stay. While editing I encourage you to review Wikipedia's policies and guidelines located here. Please make a good faith attempt at abiding by each, and if you believe that another user you have encountered is not doing so a proper recourse is to inform him/her of it. Thanks and welcome once again. Rangerdude   I don't think that this is a new user. -Willmcw     A hunch that somebody's a returnee, absent clear proof, is no basis to harass him or her. Unless you have proof and are prepared to make a case of it, please assume good faith. Rangerdude        I'm not harassing anyone. I came to his talk page to ask him to not delete material from an article. The fact that he is using a different username today didn't seem like sufficient reason to call out the welcome wagon. But you go right ahead if you like. Cheers, -Willmcw           Revert warning  You are in danger of violating the three revert rule. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from further editing. -Willmcw    REad this  Willmcw, I understadn yo uare trying to avoid vandalism, but by manipulating this site into your view you promote FASCISM.  MY edits are good on the subject of Biff Rose.  Look at his website, research his recordings. Time magazine has written numerous articles, are these mentioned in other wiki posts... NO. So why here?  As for Rose's self released recordings, I did a favor to you by listing them. Are Other performers non accesible recordings listed? NO.  Do a better job editing and less of one POlicing because you stink at it.  [left, unsigned, by user:Steve espinola on    Redirect  The article at Biff rose is improperly-titled because it is not capitalized correctly. Please leave it as a redirect to the properly-named article. Thank you. -Willmcw    What the?  Hey, why are you reverting my edits and removing the photo of Biff Rose? I found a separate article on the same topic (where you seemed to be the main author), incorporated the main points from it in an attempt to mege them. Someone later redirected it. Why are you deleting my additions? Marcuse   However much I abhor racism, anti-semitism, etc. I think that whatever Biff Rose currently espouses seems more like it should be taken with a grain of salt. Not quite the same as David Duke. I have no problem with these things outlined in his bio, but it should really not have the form as something showing a personal point of view. It seems like the way the article was, was fairly balanced, showing both old and new aspects of the artist. And let the quotes and links speak for themselves. Why did 