User:Fair Deal/discussion archive

concerning Stevie Ray Vaughan

Hi i recently made some alteration to stevie ray Vaughan page. i am just wondering why you reverted ALL OF IT. i did spend hours on that and yes some of it may of been non factual etc but a lot of it did fit the criteria and should of been allowed. WHY? i spent a long time on that and i just want srv to be represented in the best way ?????????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lowesie123 (talk • contribs) 01:26, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

yes i agree with your reversion. i can see now. however there is someone else who made the majority of the changes. i looked at the page yesterday and saw how it was differant. so being new to wikipedia i decided to make a few changes. all i did was add a few images and alter some text. there was much more editing already dun by someone else. i dnt know who. do you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lowesie123 (talk • contribs) 01:43, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

IPs. 172.X and 86.X to list a few. Just read the policies and try to find citations the meet WP:RS criteria. Fair Deal (talk) 01:47, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

OK. thank you very much. just got carried away (big SRV fan) i realize how bias it was lol. in future i will take notice of the rules and regulations. is there anything wrong with the srv page as it is now? i would recommend a few more images or audio files maybe. what you think?--Lowesie123 (talk) 02:17, 4 June 2009 (UTC)--Lowesie123 (talk) 02:17, 4 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lowesie123 (talk • contribs) 01:53, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Concerning The Byrds article

Hi, I see that you've undone some of the changes that I made to The Byrds article a few days ago; for the most part I can see why you've made the changes. However, there are 4 specific points I'd like to address...

1. I've actually changed the articles 3rd paragraph again to reflect that the Byrds melding of the British Invasion sound with elements of contemporary folk/pop music was something that they did initially, on their first two albums. The other subgenres that they dabbled in came later - I think that's an important distinction to make.

2. Only a small thing, but personally I feel that any mention of the Byrds' recording of Turn! Turn! Turn! should be represented by its full title "Turn! Turn! Turn! (To Everything There Is a Season)". The songs title is written this way on the original 7" single, the back cover of the Turn! Turn! Turn! album and on the most recent CD reissue of that album.

3. Why did you remove the www.allmusic.com citation that I put after the claim that the Byrds forged subgenres like Space Rock, Country Rock etc, etc? Was there some error on my part in putting an inline citation there?

4. Why did you put a "neutrality" tag at the top of the article? I refute your claim (in the "History" page) that my recent edits have "added/altered much of the content". My edits were largely concerned with citing references, improving grammar and adding links. I actually changed very little of the article’s tone. The major exception being my reordering of the details about line-up changes during The Notorious Byrd Bros. sessions - which were simply incorrect, as indicated by the citations I have included.

What can I do to improve the article so that we can remove this "neutrality" tag?

Thanks, Kohoutek1138 21:00, 08 June 2009 (UTC)

Lead sections

Many lead sections do not include references, because they are reporting the most obvious information about the subject, for one. Statements of common knowledge that are not likely to be challenged do not require references. Most popular musical artists have a signature song and it's reasonable to mention that in the song's article. Are you challenging the statement that "Livin' On A Prayer" is Bon Jovi's signature song? The article does not claim that Sambora was the first musician to use a talk box as a lead instrument (obviously there's Peter Frampton, for one). Are you challenging the statement that Sambora had not used the talk box as a lead instrument in one of the band's songs prior to this one? And if you are challenging those statements, why, and why wouldn't you simply do so with a cite fact tag or a talk page query? Of course I have no problem with the removal of the other claim about the names, which had been tagged for a long time. I'll watch your talk page for your response here in the interest of keeping the conversation together. Thanks, Abrazame (talk) 01:52, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi, as I see you've made edits to this page and not responded to my above post I will assume you understand and do not intend to respond. No problem. I am taking your page off my watch list now so I will not expect any further response to me here. Thanks, Abrazame (talk) 14:36, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Show me please

Show me please the inapropriated link that I have posted here. (JoaquimMetalhead (talk) 23:04, 18 June 2009 (UTC))

Was this? http://www.musicmight.com/artist/usa/pod

Well, I see it here as a reliable source, that also are being used on the list of nu metal bands' page.

Only to say, I don't work in the Musicmight. (JoaquimMetalhead (talk) 23:07, 18 June 2009 (UTC))

The edits that were reverted all clearly showed you trying to use amateur fansites as valid references. Fansites are never to be linked on Wikipedia. Continuing to ignore the rules will result in you being blocked. Fair Deal (talk) 23:08, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

But what sites? Purevolume? Musicmight? Musicmight is a amateur site? Is a fan site? See the List of nu metal bands and see that this site is being used as a reliable source. (JoaquimMetalhead (talk) 23:11, 18 June 2009 (UTC))

I think you've got the wrong guy

I just opened up Wikipedia's home page a few minutes ago and got a message saying that my recent edit of the "Bobby Orr" article was reversed because it did not contain constructive information (or something to that effect). As far as I can tell, the edit you claim that I made appears to be changing "ice hockey" to "floor ice hockey". I agree that such a change would be neither warranted, nor constructive. The thing is, I can guarantee you that neither I nor anyone else with access to my computer ever made such an edit. Like any kid who grew up in Canada, yes I know who Bobby Orr is, but aside from that I have never had the slightest interest in hockey, and would not be even looking up the article on Bobby Orr, let alone editing it, let alone making such a silly and obviously incoherent alteration.

I have been accessing Wikipedia for a couple of years now and have always found it an excellent source for information (as long as taken with a grain of salt), but I rarely do any editing (that's why I've never bothered to open a user account). The few times I have tried my hand at editing, I have tended to limit it to issues of spelling, grammar, clarity, or minor additions of relevant links. Not everyone may agree with the few changes I have made but I defy anyone to look at any of my edits and say I haven't at least been trying to add constructive and what I felt to be relevant information (even if at odds with other users).

As it always says at the top of the page, since I don't have a user account, my IP address is open to public scrutiny and that's part of the reason why I have always kept my few edits to be as irreproachable as possible, but aside from what it says up top, having little experience at editing, I have no understanding of the process by which Wikipedia records my IP address but I can only conclude that either a computer glitch or a human mistake was made when you concluded that I performed the said edit of the "Bobby Orr" article.

I realize that this was a relatively innocuous edit this time, but what concerns me is what happens if someone makes a more serious change or act of vandalism and somehow my IP address is again mis-identified as the source? As a matter of fact, a few years ago, shortly after I first discovered Wikipedia, upon opening the home page I received an even stronger message claiming that a recent edit I had made may be considered to be vandalism. This was much of a surprise since the only recent edit I had done at the time was some minor spelling and punctuation corrections to a rather mundane and non-controversial article that I had just happened to be looking up and noticed that several grammatical mistakes had been made. Being even more inexperienced than I am now, I had no idea what to do or who to ask about it at the time. At least this time, I think I've figured out how to contact the person who sent me the message so I can ask for clarification and at least put it on record that my IP address has indeed been mis-identified.

I graciously welcome your response. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.216.98.104 (talk) 05:32, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Follow up

I just noticed a possible explanation for the mis-identification. The warning message I received earlier tonight was addressed to IP # 74.216.63.206. Now, I am embarrassed to say that I don’t actually have any idea what my IP address actually is but when I posted my response on your talk page, the address that appeared at the bottom of my message was indicated as 74.216.98.104. If I assume this second address to be my correct IP, and if your warning was intended for the individual with the first aforementioned address, obviously we are not the same person. Also, I just noticed that the message is dated January of 2009. Since it is the 21st of June as I write this, shall I simply assume that some software glitch has somehow directed an old message to my computer that was never intended for me at all? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.216.66.130 (talk) 06:19, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

SRV Death

Since you seem to be one of the Hawks that watch this page, and revert everything, am I going to be wasting my time by correcting the aviation related facts in the "death" section? I can't stand incorrect information. I know nothing about Fender Guitars, but I do know aviation. I can fix this section if someone would just let me. I will do my best to follow all of the rules. Currently it is in a sad state affairs. It has information that is copied from the Dallas Morning News, which is copyrighted, and stuff the editor flat made up. There is no verification of the corners report that is cited, and the crash information is incorrect. I am not going to waste my time and effort to correct it if you are going to revert or delete it, because you feel the other version is "better" despite the incorrect information. If you want a sensational flashy article you have already got it. If you want one that is factual, I would be glad to help. Dfwaviator (talk) 01:44, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Popups? Not me!

Hi Fair Deal, I am not using popups, I am trying to post factual information about some of the good things Allen did before he passed away. I am not trying to advertise, I tried to keep the posting as brief as humanly possible, and I really do not know why you deleted it all. Don't you think people would like to know about the Gibson tribute? What is wrong with saying that Allen founded Roll For Rock to raise awareness? And why remove the links to his official tribute pages that have been maintained by his friend and co-founder for over 20 years? I do NOT want to get into another "edit war" over this, so please explain why you feel it necessary to revert my edits, and I will word them to your liking. Allen was a notable person; founding Roll For Rock was a notable act, and I am acting in good faith. Please be kind, polite, and explain yourself, because I don't see the problem. Respectfully, Anita

Popups is a Wikipedia tool used by editors, incl. me, to revert vandalism or, as in your case, content that is not welcome on Wikipedia. The unanimous consensus by all editors reverting your additions is very clear. Whether you use an account or an IP sockpuppet, your contributions will be reverted. Fair Deal (talk) 23:57, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Just realized I was not signed in so you cannot reply to my query. Sorry about that, please reply.R4Rvolunteer (talk) 23:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Please explain why my edits are not welcome on Wikipedia. I do not understand why I cannot post these facts; they are interesting! Would you mind explaining the "unanimous consensus" by other editors? I am under the understanding that we should ALL work together to reach a consensus, not just allow people to revert all parts of an edit without talking about it first and explaining what needs to be changed. I am happy to make changes that will better suit Wikipedia, I really am trying to just let the world know that the '86 accident was not the last thing that Allen should be noted for. Is that fair? I am trying my best here. Thanks, Anita

Hello,

I am not trying to be a bother. Bareen Hunter was kind enough to take time to explain the workings of Wiki to me, and to also explain why I had such a disaster last time I tried to edit Allen Collins. I really thought that is was improper for other people to remover the entire edit, that is how I got into the edit war, I just kept posting! Live and learn. Now, I really am trying to go about this the right way. I just want to hear why you feel that my new edit, which is not promotional in any way, will NEVER be allowed on Wikipedia. It seems to me that is quite unfair, and I would like an explanation. Bareen told me to try to talk these things out, that is what I am trying my best to do, so reply if you are able becuause I sure would appreciate an explanation. I apologize for annoying people last week, I was not really sure what I was doing, I am learning and I am doing my best to just post the facts. FACTS have a place in an encyclopedia. R4Rvolunteer (talk) 00:18, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Again, no need to create a new section for the same topic. You were requested to provide third party sources for your information. But, so far, none have been shown. You may move further discussion to the article talk page. Fair Deal (talk) 00:34, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate that Fair Deal, and I have posted in the discussion. It probably won't get me too far, but I would appreciate any help you can offer. Thanks again for your time and for the explanation. Best wishes, R4Rvolunteer (talk) 01:44, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Help Needed on "Jimmy Page"

Since you are a member of Wikiproject Led Zeppelin, I need your help to correct inaccuracies to the equipment on the article Jimmy Page.

Many of the equipment details are wrong or poorly cited, and the last time I tried to correct and source it, I was flagged for vandalism. Please refer the last section on the Jimmy Page discussion page and leave a reply there if you have time. Thank you, TheQueenCorner (talk) 18:06, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Reply to my page comment: Jimmy Page Is filled with many mistakes. Firstly, Gibson's 2004 model was NOT based on his #2 Les Paul and NONE of the cited sources say that. There is not a single site on the Internet that confirms that, NOT EVEN THE SOURCE LISTED. If you keep marking my valid changes as vandalism, you will be reported to staff. I have a right to provide Wikipedia with correct information and sources that reflect it.

"Music Theory" and "Music Analysis" entries

Hello,

I see you removed my section to both the "Music Theory" and "Music Analysis" entries, in which I added references to the major English-language scholarly journals in music theory/analysis. If not on these pages, then where should this information be placed? As a college professor in music theory, I know that one of the first things grad students usually want to know is "what are the major journals," and "where do I find out more about them." This seems to me to be a logical component of any entry on thee topics. More essential than the "Further Reading" section at the bottom, which includes some froth that one interested in a contemporary perspective on music theory/analysis would not likely consult.

Yalemusician (talk) 04:42, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Re-added Speedy delete request

Hi Fair Deal. A speedy reqyuest you placed on Eonian Records was removed with the reason that the label had notable acts. I checked and found all the blue links on the page were DAB links so I cleaned them up and re-added the speedy delete reqyuest. You can monitor. Hopefully it will be removed soon. The Real Libs-speak politely 13:06, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Libs. Fair Deal (talk) 01:06, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Jimmy Page Les Paul

Hi, Im not sure why you reverted my edit about his Les Pauls. If you even looked at the references which were from Joe Walsh and Page you will see his #1 Les Paul is the guitar fron Joe. Also the VIDEO interview with Page clearly shows and he himself tell us all the modification (push pull only for out of phase pick ups)on the guitar and its history. So unlesss Jimmy Page is wrong about his own Les Paul then I am not sure what is wrong with my edit to the equipment section. TheQueenCorner (talk) 19:30, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Trajectory Metal

Hi, I'm the creator of the page Trajectory Metal, everything on that page is of significance. The authors of the site are comedians their statements tend are suppose to be funny and irrational, this does not mean they do not have any significance. The site is one of the lead news sites about Dallas Fort Worth Metroplex news have they have quite a substantial standing in the world of Metal Blogs.

This page shouldn't be under question for speedy deletion do to the fact that everything on the page is verifiable via the Trajectory Metal website, and is also verifiable via interviews between the two with me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Id33k (talk • contribs) 18:30, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

It still fails wp:web and also fails wp:rs as simply just another low-quality amateur metal website. Fair Deal (talk) 18:34, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Look, it's not low quality in the least bit, I've tried to explain to you. It's quite a popular.

Also What does it fail again? Let's see I could list a thousand other sites on Wikipedia that are WORSE QUALITY THAN TRAJECTORY. It meets every criteria to create a page for the site on Wikipedia. You obviously have never even looked at the site you catorgrizing it because they use the .tk address or the fact that they use Wordpress.

I would like to add that both of the Writers have a Bachelor degrees in Creative Writing. So they are not amateur in the lest bit.

Yup, whatever you say. If there are worse heavy metal blog articles on Wikipedia then feel free to nominate them all for deletion. Fair Deal (talk) 18:59, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Led Zeppelin and Led Zeppelin ii page

I did give correct and valid notes on why article was changed. The source in question, did not state what was implied, and does not specifically state that they were "inspired".

Please don't remove the influences, with no valid reason, i'm just stating what was in the book and were his and the band's influences. No reason to remove, this is not some thing, just to annoy people.--JohnLonnnnnn (talk) 00:30, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

There is a valid reason. Its called WP:CON. Fair Deal (talk) 22:47, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

April Wine

Hi Fair Deal. I was just wondering if the (removed) "see also" section at article April Wine might be correct if restored to the way it was in this previous version. -- WikHead (talk) 07:05, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

That was removed because it was an incorrect use of a see also section. Fair Deal (talk) 00:13, 17 August 2009 (UTC)