User talk:Willondon/Archives/2014

Please don't revert for the sake of reverting

If you have an actual reason why you think the article is better off with a partially inclusive list of original research that was tagged for two years, I'd really like to hear it. Joefromrandb (talk) 07:00, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

(Regarding this edit [1])

P.S. Thanks for the walk down memory lane [2]. I see how woefully incomplete the list was. Willondon (talk) 03:42, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Backgammon rules

Hi, I guess I meant to say that there are basically three ways of interacting with the other player's checkers -- capturing/hitting; stopping, like in Tapa; and blocking, like in Gul Bara. 87.121.162.185 (talk) 00:48, 22 January 2014 (UTC) And I tried to edit the article as little as possible, but it just ended up badly phrased. 87.121.162.185 (talk) 00:54, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Bands

Hi Willondon,

I noticed you removed Jackyl from the page BAND. Would you please let me know why this was done? I noticed that Blue Day is listed and they haven't had the impact that Jackyl has, Blue Day doesn't even have a WIkipedia page (not my business, but just a point to make), and Jackyl does. The singer of Jackyl also has a page as does his television show, and other points of interest. The band is relevant now more than ever and I had hoped it would remain on the page. Please let me know?

Thank you very much24.99.49.178 (talk) 18:39, 25 March 2014 (UTC)Sadie

I didn't think the band illustrated anything new regarding rock and pop four-piece music groups. The band is certainly notable, but for an article about music ensembles, the line-up is pretty typical (okay, except for the chainsaw) and adequately represented.

You'll see that a bit further down in the article, there's a comment cautioning against adding any more band names to the list. As with the paragraph we edited, there are already a large number of groups named, and there are dozens if not hundreds of bands that could also be used to illustrate four men in a rock and roll band. (Chilliwack should really be on that list, if anything).

Did you mean "Green Day"? Green Day has a wikipedia page, of course, but now that I take a look, I removed them from the list, too, because I think they're probably more known from their days as (officially) a trio.

The comment says "unless they've made a large impact", but I think that's the wrong criterion to use. Notability is necessary, but unless a band illustrates something the others on the list don't, the current lists are more than adequate in my opinion. Willondon (talk) 00:57, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Willondon,

While agree with most of what you have said here (certainly can't list every band out there!), I felt is was worthy of a discussion for a few reasons:

1. Blue Day (? who knows who Blue Day is, they don't have a page, this wasn't listed as Green Day which is better known as a trio, nice showing of your "Rockstar knowledge", well played, Sir!)

2. Jackyl is a multi-platinum award winning band who has (and continues to have) made a huge impact in the areas of music, rock, television, band spin-offs, solo projects, civic responsibility, patriotism, and has worked with the biggest names in the industry..it goes on for awhile...Let's just say, the band has been around for decades and has achieved things other bands have not (and some have surpassed, I"ll give into that one).

3. By adding them to appropriate pages, like Bands (music), it only brings more people to Wikipedia. I suppose the chainsaw is different too :-) but their story goes much deeper than can be discussed here. Is there a happy medium we can come to on this?

Thank you very much for your detailed response, I look forward to working through this with you. I notice Blue Day is still there and does not link to anything in Wikipedia or outside of Wikipedia. I would be happy to take the place of Blue Day for Jackyl. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.99.49.178 (talk) 02:27, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I suggest that you add Jackyl to the list again, and remove two other bands. I won't object.

(I have no clue what "Blue Day" you are referring to, as I don't see it in my copy of the article. I'm assuming a humorous reference to "Green Day". Hey, I'm not stupid, it's the medium.)

It's not really me you have to work things out with, but the Wikipedia community. The stats say there are 76 people watching the page for changes. So if you want to reinstate Jackyl as an example of a typical four piece rock band, I won't object.

To me, your argument for including Jackyl seems motivated more by a passion to promote Jackyl, than an interest in improving Wikipedia. This is an article about Musical Ensembles. But we agree that Jackyl is as excellent an example as any to include in an already bulging list. So go for it, just don't make the list any longer.

I'm glad our conversation revealed that "Green Day" could be ditched from the list of four-piece rock bands. I would be happy to see you add Jackyl, and remove two other bands from the list, in the interest of shortening it.

In my opinion, examples of rock or pop ensembles are ideally well known and stable (Led Zeppelin and The Who didn't change members or musical roles during their most recognized years) or perhaps represent the exercise of a particular instrumental line-up in an unfamiliar genre.

Anyway.. I suggest that you add Jackyl to the list again, and remove two other bands. I won't object. Willondon (talk) 03:43, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Willondon,

Thank you so much for your response! The Blue Day I am referring to is here on this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rock_bands#Rock_and_pop_bands stating the following:

"Some bands will have the bassist on lead vocals, such as Thin Lizzy, The Chameleons, Skillet, Pink Floyd, Motörhead, NOFX, +44, Slayer, The All-American Rejects or even the lead guitarist, such as Dire Straits, Creedence Clearwater Revival and Blue Day"

My interest is in improving Wikipedia for sure, by using the Jackyl "story" in appropriate areas, I think people will understand what I have just recently learned about the band, their awards, patriotism, activism, history, involvement in television, movies, etc. It is a story of a multi-faceted band that not only plays music and sells music, they are businessmen...in a band.

It is a story that took me by surprise for sure, but it is a valid one. I think what you are picking up on is my wild passion for all things "music", biographies, history and such. :-) I will read it over again before making changes to ensure I write it properly. I welcome your input at anytime. Thanks so much! You ROCK!

24.99.49.178 (talk) 23:19, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Ah, yes. I see the reference to "Blue Day" now. I edited that band name out of the list, too. A bad week for bands with names of colourful days, I guess. (I'm glad that confusion was cleared up.)

I've detected a faint undercurrent of enthusiasm for the band Jackyl in your remarks. Keep in mind that the article is on "Musical Ensembles", and that we're all meant to edit with the goal of improving Wikipedia.

But like I said, Jackyl is as good an example as any for a four-piece rock band with two guitarists (one on lead vocals), a bassist and a drummer. I still think your enthusiasm for the band is your primary motive, but I can see where placing Jackyl in the list could benefit Wikipedia. I heed your comments in point #3, related to keeping things relevant. Willondon (talk) 02:58, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Willondon,

1. I think we need a Willondon page! :-) 2. I read through other people's "talks" about this page, what do you think about separating Classic Rock Bands from Modern? I know this will eventually have to be updated as the Modern bands that are worth a poop will be Classic Rock Bands, but, you and I will be dead by then, and this way we can differentiate by addressing some of the "talk page" comments.

Honestly, I am totally unsuited to such a task. I've enjoyed pretty much all types of music during my fifty whips around the sun so far. I play music, write it, and improvise, and I find it a lot easier if I don't get into classifying music.

I appreciate the job that music critics do, and categorizing music and musicians is an important part of that job. I'm happy exploring the trees in the forest, and I worry that that joy might disappear if I could actually see the forest for the trees.

You've demonstrated an interest in music and musicians, and a willingness to engage in discussion as you edit Wikipedia. I wish you luck, and predict positive results on your editing journeys. Willondon (talk) 03:17, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Isaac Brock

You'll probably have noticed that I reinstated Grace Church having found the Guardian interview used by About.Com - just searched on the quote and 'Guardian'. There's a lot more in the interview that could be used in the article, but I've not got the time. Dougweller (talk) 11:45, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I think the "Early Life" section is starting to bulge as it is, so I wouldn't recommend adding much more. It's good that you took the time, though, to get the Grace Church material properly sourced. I came to edit this article because the original editor seemed to have an agenda. All their edits were over a brief period of time, and they added almost the same thing across a number of different articles. I believe they were acting in good faith, and the assertions may or may not be true, but the referencing was horrible. I also felt that factual or not, their tunnel vision focus on the religious heritage of various entertainers seemed to ignore the context of the individual articles and how relevant or important the fact may be there.

Anyway, good job on finding a proper reference. Willondon (talk) 13:59, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

David Bowie records sales

Let me tell you that I DO really care about him, and please look at this List of best-selling music artists, Bowie certification sales is TOO LOW for claiming 140m-albums. His records sales is nothing but 100m-records, that's why his name could not get into that list. thanks Politsi (talk) 01:18, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

The statement gives a source, and the source says 140 million. It may be true that sales are 100 million, but you haven't given a source for that fact. The article Wikipedia:Verifiability explains why Wikipedia values verification before truth. Willondon (talk) 02:47, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Edit war at White Rabbit (song)

Did you not see the three warnings I left at the IPs talk page? I'm not sure what the issue is here. Radiopathy •talk• 00:04, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I'd never posted a notice on the Admin Board before, so I had to learn the template they suggest, how to include diffs, format the whole thing. It took me a while in the sandbox [3] to learn how to do it proper. So between when I started, and when I finished, those warnings transpired without me checking up on things. I still think I did a pretty good job.

Sorry about that. Next time, I'll be faster, and have all the latest info in my complaint.

There's no longer an issue for me. The page has been semi-protected, which will probably prevent the repeated assertions that I wanted stopped. Sorry to involve you, but it seemed only fair to let you know about my Admin Board post.

Cheers (straight up with no sarcasm) Willondon (talk) 00:56, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Tweenies episode

I thought that was an episode (Towers), sorry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.5.226.142 (talk) 15:17, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

The future of Mötley Crüe

From Jakefb828 (talk | contribs):
(moved from my user page)
motley crue is doing their last show in 2015 therefore the years active are 1981-2015 no longer present