Talk:Right Now (Van Halen song)/Archive 1

Use of the song in Chicago Bulls games
I think the article is wrong, the song played at Bulls games was 'Sirius' by The Alan Parsons Project —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.198.239.67 (talk • contribs) 22:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * You are absolutely right about that, anonymous. Also, how can a song from 1991 be featured on the soundtrack to a movie from 1984? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.233.254.147 (talk • contribs) 18:03, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I was just about to write the same thing. Good spot, anonymous. I will amend the article accordingly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pygmypony (talk • contribs) 16:13, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I think a lot of people are getting confused because both 'Sirius' and 'Right Now' are used at Bulls games. The difference is that one is used in the introduction of the Home Team and 'Right Now' is used directly prior to the tip-off. But this song is definitely there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.22.202.77 (talk) 17:29, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Complaints
This article keeps getting vandalised by Rtphokie. He/she keeps trying to inject leftest political propoganda, include irrelevant content and cite gossip blogs as legitimate references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.225.25.161 (talk • contribs) 03:18, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Needless trivia including lists of different people and/or venues that have played this song at one time or another is immaterial. This information is not encyclopedia quality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.225.25.161 (talk) 10:50, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Please assume good faith. You are reading things into actions of this user that are not apparent to most other people. - Tbsdy lives (talk) 12:03, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * "most other people" = Weasel Words —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.225.22.253 (talk • contribs) 02:21, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Commercial use of this material
I notice that "Commercial use" keeps getting a trivia tag added. I hardly see how the commercial use of this song is trivial - I'd say that this is fairly significant in that it demonstrates the use of the song. - Tbsdy lives (talk) 10:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Tbsdy lives, You need to learn what the meaning of the word trivia is. Whether or not some guy named "Richie Sexton" or any of the other thousands of people that have used this song before do NOT need to be mentioned in the article about the song. IT IS NOT RELEVANT. If it is important to the "Richie Sexton" or "Pittsburg Pirates" wikipedia entry then move it there. I suggest that it is NOT in that case either. It's trivial NONSENSE and NOBODY cares. It is a complete waste of space and totally unprofessional. How long would this list be if we included EVERY time or place this song was played?  That is NOT the purposes of an encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.110.68.30 (talk) 11:23, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I am well aware of what Trivia means, given that I've so far merged, sourced or removed trivia from over 350 or so articles to clear the backlog at articles with trivia sections. However, I would not say that nobody cares about the informationyou refer to and I'm afraid that the section that you keep adding the trivia tag to does not just mention Richie Sexton. It currently reads:
 * "Right Now" has been in various kinds of commercial usage since its release. For example, it was in Crystal Pepsi commercials between 1992 and 1993. The song has been used as theme music by a number of collegiate and professional sports teams such as the UCLA Bruins, the Des Moines Buccaneers, the Pittsburgh Pirates and the Indianapolis Colts. World Wrestling Entertainment has also used the song to promote live events. Richie Sexson has used it as his entrance music when he steps up to bat at Yankee Stadium.
 * I think the fact that Pepsi used the song in commercials and also the fact that it was used by the sports teams mentioned are quite significant. Can you tell me why you don't think this is significant? - Tbsdy lives (talk) 11:30, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * As I have been reverted again, I am taking this to RFC for comment. - Tbsdy lives (talk) 11:32, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

No, I do not believe you are very well aware. This is one of the major problems with wikipedia, that people like yourself with no scholastic credentials take it upon yourself to edit articles as you see fit. Making the same mistakes many times over does not give you expertise on the subject. It's why this place is such a mess of rumor, propaganda, vandalism, inaccuracy and needless trivia. A list of sports teams and/or individuals is TRIVIA. Mentioning "in general" that corporations or sports teams have used the song is NOT how the article is currently written. The article gives anectotle examples of various entities with NO citations and NO foundation. It is not verifiable nor relevant to this song. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.110.68.30 (talk) 11:34, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * That's your opinion, I have now taken this to RFC. As previously stated, please sign your comment when commenting on a talk page. This can be done by typing in ~ at the end of the comment. This will add your username (or in your case your IP address) and a timestamp. - Tbsdy lives (talk) 11:41, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

As it was your opinion. You can take it anywhere you want. You are still wrong and will be wrong afterward. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.110.68.30 (talk) 11:45, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The trivia tag is used to mark sections which have a random collection of information, often just a poorly formed list, which would be better incorporated into appropriate sections of an article. The prose in this section is reasonably well formed and related so the trivia tag does not seem appropriate in this case.--Rtphokie (talk) 11:53, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

It is trivia, no matter how many times you try to rewrite it or twist the wording of the wikipedia definition. You are trying to use spin in order to somehow justify your continued involvement in this article where you are clearly NOT needed. In addition, you have changed other portions of the article by editing out cited references to include your own original research without providing ANY sources at all. Use of this song, by individual political candidates was referenced properly before you came along. You cannot replace this with your own preferred wording just because you want to see yourself type something. For example, claiming "the republicans" used the song is generalizing and factually inaccurate. The use of the song by a sound technician at a particular political rally or event hardly constitutes a party approved platform position. This is clearly your own opinion for which you cannot provide a source. Leave the facts the way they were and keep the trivial list of when or where the song has been played at a commercial event out of the article. It is a song, it was intended to be heard. It is played on public airwaves, jukeboxes, sporting events, etc all over the country and world every day. We do NOT need an itemized list of every time YOU personally heard it played somewhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.110.64.224 (talk) 06:42, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't believe that I am. The Bush campaign used it fairly significantly, even to the point of incorporating it into their slogan. Given this, I doubt that the decision to play it was made by a lowly sound technician, however this is speculation and I can't prove or disprove this point. But then, neither can you!
 * In further defence of my edits, I have not removed any referencing and I have not really changed what has been said in this article. While it is significant in its own right that the Republican party used it during campaigns, I must note that I'm quite glad to see however that another editor corrected the information (not added by myself) that Sammy Hagar said that he was happy for only the Republicans to use the song.
 * I really think you are taking this a might too personally. The material you are looking at in the article was added by others, as I'm reasonably certain you know as you've been editing this article for quite some time since I came upon it to restructure it. - Tbsdy lives (talk) 11:14, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * (in reference to speculation) Cite a reference to this or remove from article.Coberloco (talk) 22:22, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The statement Sammy Hagar issued was in specific reference to the McCain use of the song. That is a simple point of fact. It's inclusion in the article was apparently to provide additional information to balance out the previously mentioned tabloid article. Hypothetical senarios involving other possible uses of the song are not really relevant.  It appears this was added simply for political purpose when in fact this is an article about the song, not political ideology. If another campaign decides to use the song and there is a subsequent controversy then we can cross that bridge at that time. Let's stick to facts people.Coberloco (talk) 22:22, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It's very bad form to comment in the middle of someone's comments, because then it makes it hard to see who said what. I have moved your comments to the end of my comment.
 * In response to the "hypothetical scenarios" - sorry, I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about here! However, their was a sentence about the band playing the song to full screens - it was unsourced and it appeared in the bit about the Republican party using the song, so didn't really make much sense. Hence I have removed it.
 * The truth is, the Republican party have used the music in their campaigns. That says nothing about the band's political allegiances, except for the fact that there was some controversy which Sammy Hagar made a statement about where he said that any party could use the song. The fact that the Republicans used the song in a few campaigns, and the fact that it was used in the Pepsi commercial is a great example of how the song has been used in various contexts. I'm afraid that I just don't see the issue.
 * I think it's time to put to bed accusations of my so-called political bias. The fact of the matter is that I have no allegiance to either the Republican or Democratic parties as I'm not an American. I'm an Australian! As I have stated several times - assume good faith! Frankly, I'm getting more than a little sick of being accused of holding positions that I don't and never have held. - Tbsdy lives (talk) 04:41, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

None of your speculation needs to be contained in the article. Nowhere will you be able to produce a reference that the "Republican party" endorsed any use of any song for any individual's campaign. I seriously doubt McCain or Palin cared what song was played. And the song writer is a Republican financial supporter who played at the republican national convention. This is FACT. Whether it suits your idiology or not. You are a total twit and a clear example of why people should use REAL encyclopedias instead of this hodge podge of propaganda and unprofessionalism. - —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.110.64.224 (talk • contribs)
 * Sigh. If the Republican party used the song, then it used the song. That's basically what the article says. I don't believe that the fact is given undue influence in the article, other than noting the fact that it was played which is significant in its own right.
 * I'm sorry you think that Wikipedia is a "hodge podge of propaganda and unprofessionalism", but if you want to pack your bags and go home then please don't let me stand in your way. - Tbsdy lives (talk) 10:15, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

The Republican party didn't use the song. The song was played by whoever the candidates hired to do lighting and sound at these rallies. Nowhere in the article does it cite a reference indicating that this was a party decision or even that McCain or Bush's decision. No where does it even cite a reference to the supposed year 2000 use of the song. No where does it cite a reference to the Republican party's endorsement of this song. These are all assumptions. Assumptions have no place in an encyclopedia. Whether or not the candidates are Republican, Democrat or other has nothing to do with the song itself or any single person's decision to play this song. The pure mentioning of it is nonsense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.110.64.224 (talk) 08:55, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit confused. The Republican party played the song at their convention. Therefore, the Republican party used their song. - Tbsdy lives (talk) 04:45, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Since you are Austrialian as you say, maybe you do not understand that the McCain campaign and the Republican party are two different things. And clearly YOU ARE confused about the Republican party playing this song at their convention. Sammy Hagar played this song at a kick off show before the Republican convention at a separate venue. This song played at a McCain rally 4 days before the Republican convention at a venue in another state. The song did not play at the Republican convention. And the "Republican Party" is not one individual. Legally they are not the same as the McCain campaign. Please get your facts straight or at least learn about the US policital process before making incorrect statements. What you are doing is no different than saying "white People" used the song; or "Arizonians" used the song. (McCain being a member of both of those groups as well) You are making a generalization for which you have no evidence other than your own assumptions. There are NO references to the fact that "the party" used or approved this song for party business. There are merely some anectotle examples of this song playing at a rally or two for candidates that also happened to be Republican. There may be countless other examples of politicians from several parties in several countries that have used this song. When you have evidence of individual use, then cite it. Otherwise leave the specific references and facts alone and quit making generic statements that you cannot back up.69.225.25.152 (talk) 06:00, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I checked the reference here, which clearly says the GOP used the song to introduce Palin. Therefore, the GOP used the song, it played at their convention . Comment stricken after rereading the source. However, you are still in the midst of an edit war, please stop.


 * Palin was NOT introduced at the Republican convention. Look it up for goodness sake before you print something. That Rolling Stone article refers the playing of the song "Barracuda" by Heart at the Republican convention after Sarah's speach. This particular article is about "Right Now".
 * True, didn't get introduced with the song, but perhaps you should watch the speech? Right at the very end it kicks in. There you are - proof positive it was used. - Tbsdy lives (talk) 10:00, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That video clip is from a speech in Ohio 4 days prior to the Republican National Convention at a John McCain rally. The date in the video clearly shows August 29.  The Republican convention began on September 2nd after a 1 day delay due to Hurricane Gustav.  Palin did not speak at the convention until September 3rd.  There is your proof positive that it was NOT at the Republican National Convention. You keep making this mistake over and over. Please do your research properly and stop including erroneous information. And FYI, the Huffington Post is a gossip blog and not a news source. How could you have made this error? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.225.22.253 (talk • contribs) 00:09, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Again, please stop the edit warring on the page. You're discussing the matter here, please try and gain a consensus on the matter before changing. Currently, consensus is against you. Please continue the discussion. Dayewalker (talk) 06:14, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * It is not an edit war on this end but merely a determination to keep false information and political propaganda out of the discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.225.25.152 (talk) 06:30, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The article was correct before Tsbdy Lives started changing it. He is the one that changed it without consensus and with FALSE information.

Policital Use Of This Song
Dispute Resolution, A particular user Tbsdy lives(talk), has taken it upon himself to include uncited political nonsense in this article. He continues to change the facts and the article to suit his own propoganda. He then attempted to lock the article up so that only his false entries could be maintained. I am now asking for a more senior or more intelligent member of the wiki community to look this article over and remove ALL uncited and politicized trash from it.

I had this on my watch list after a previous dispute resolution. It looks as though Tbsdy lives might have over stepped his or her authority here. While I don't agree with the language used by the anonymous comments I can see the point. This article was at one time factual and cited references. Now it appears to be little more than one editor's attempt to dominate the topic with his own personal opinions and squash disagreement. This is a step backwards.Coberloco (talk) 10:29, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know what authority is being referred to here. What we have here is a simple content dispute, for which I have been fairly reasonable and have made a good faith attempt at cleaning up the article. Unfortunately, an anonymous editor made it more adversarial than it needed to be. However, it might be worthwhile to state precisely what political propoganda suits me, as I'm not clear on this matter. As for unsourced material, I am in agreement that it should either be removed or the source be provided. I think the record shows that this is what I've done previously, and in fact as per the comments below, I have now removed another bit of unsourced material. - Tbsdy lives (talk) 11:29, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The article as you are writing it contains too much speculation and original research. You have made general statements without providing supporting references. The article was more factually accurate before you began to edit war with other users.Coberloco (talk) 20:03, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Hardly. Quote one sentence that is speculation in the current revision that I have added. And no, I'm not talking about the revision you keep reverting to, btw. I'll expect you to back it up with the exact diff where I added the material, which as there aren't that many edits I've made compared to the total number of article revisions I'm sure you'll find easily enough - should such a mythical revision exist of course. - Tbsdy lives (talk) 09:33, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Please note: I think it's reasonably clear that Coberloco is actually the anonymous editor I was speaking of - 69.110.64.224/69.110.68.30. I say this because the anonymous editor is the one who has taken the request to dispute resolution, yet Coberloco is the one to sign the comment in this section. Obviously without someone with checkuser to verify this I can't be 100% sure, but it looks too much like coincidence to my way of thinking. I would like to note that I'm quite fine with the user editing anonymously, but I do think that their behaviour below should indicate that this dispute can and should be wrapped up fairly shortly. Far too much Wikidrama for such a minor article! - Tbsdy lives (talk) 11:37, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I did not sign the comment section for the dispute but instead responded to an unsigned comment. Anyone can see that my statement is the second paragraph.  Tbsdy lives in the future, without proper verification, maybe you should refrain from making any more assumptions.  This is what has caused this "wikidrama" as you put it in the first place.  I would like anyone with checkuser to post the results of Tbsdy lives speculations.  When they are proven false I would expect an apology.Coberloco (talk) 19:51, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair call. As I have my suspicions, I have asked for someone with CU ability to verify your claims. See Requests_for checkuser/IP check. I am more than happy to apologise if I am wrong! - Tbsdy lives (talk) 05:09, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Please Tbsdy lives, this is getting to be a little out of hand. I have no obligation to disprove a negative. You have made an errant accusation. You should know this by now and yet still no apology. May I ask why you continue to edit this article?  Many of us have worked on it, provided facts, references, and research only to see it erased on your whims. I do not know Bigdee, I do not know Rtphokie, I do not know "anonymous". Yet you have deleted information contributed by all of us.  I have looked this over completely. I am sorry to say that I am in agreement with the others.  The information you are providing is simply not accurate.  Please stop.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coberloco (talk • contribs) 08:53, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, it's quite easy to disprove a negative. If you have never edited from either of those IP addresses, then I am wrong and you deserve an apology. If not, then you are the anon trying to gather consensus by creating new accounts. That's called astroturfing. Anyway, when CU is done we'll soon see. As you have nothing to worry about, then I'm sure you'll be fine with us doing this.
 * However, I must comment on "Many of us have worked on it, provided facts, references, and research only to see it erased on your whims." I have not removed any references, and if you feel that I have, then I challenge you to provide a diff where I did this. I should note that I added a new reference to the actual MTV movie awards, which was reverted. - Tbsdy lives (talk) 08:59, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, Tbsdy lives the CU has come back and you were wrong. I am waiting for the apology.  Please in the future do not use the blocking system as a weapon to silence your critics.  You have lost all credibility in my eyes.Coberloco (talk) 04:57, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I fixed the link to my user page. I hereby unreservedly apologise to you for accusing you of sock-puppetry. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 14:54, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

There are, effectively, two versions of this article as I look at it (I came from AN/I). Without regard as to the accusations all over this talk page which make you both look like cretins, the version which asks for citations about the creation of the song, and which discusses the political use in a separate section, looks better. By separating two wholly different ideas which each hold enough content for at least one solid paragraph, it provides structure to the article. I also agree that the creation section needs citation, though I find the over-application of CN tags a bit pointy. I suspect that the Rolling Stone article mentioned which I saw in skimming the talk page will support the entire paragraph. Find a citation and leave this alone. I was looking for the C&D letter from VH's record co. tot he GOP when I reviewed the article, and think that others, interested in what comes of that, will appreciate seeing that political uses section segregated for ease of use. ThuranX (talk) 13:36, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You found the source, thank you. For the life of me I couldn't find it - though shouldn't we note that it was actually the Boston Globe that reported it in a cite news template?
 * I should note that I hardly think we need yet another person coming in to make personal attacks. For goodness sake, the cretin comments are not called for - we are trying to calm down this page and discourage personal attacks! So while I appreciate the source, again I must remind people not make personal attacks on anyone (me, or the anon).
 * One more question: why have you put back unsourced information? - Tbsdy lives (talk) 05:12, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Third Opinion
This article is no longer eligible for a third opinion, both since another person has commented, and because it has been escatalted to AN/I. Jclemens (talk) 03:43, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * WTF? Where the hell is that policy written? that's a damn convenient way to eliminate a 3O you don't want to hear! ThuranX (talk) 03:59, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, but it's an easy way of reducing the wikidrama that was driven by one individual who wouldn't edit nicely (yes, it was only one person causing all the grief). - Tbsdy lives (talk) 05:13, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * With that editor gone, there should be no expectation of further wikidrama so a third opinion would be a reasonable idea (IMHO). I feel that more eyes would be useful.
 * Cheers, This flag once was red   10:21, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * No disputation from me here. The more eyes the merrier! - Tbsdy lives (talk) 11:27, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Strangely, being described as the one editor driving the wikidrama and now gotten rid of by this invented policy makes me feel wonderfully loved. I can see the sunset on my wikitime from here. ThuranX (talk) 20:29, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The reference was to the anon, who is "gone" by virtue of the page being semi-protected. To clarify; I believe this article needs more editors, not less, and I have no issue with your presence here, ThuranX.
 * Cheers, This flag once was red   20:35, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment to ThuranX: According to Third opinion, the purpose of a third opinion request is to get a tie-breaking vote in a dispute between only two editors. If more than two editors have commented, then a "third" opinion has already been offered, and so resolving the dispute should be via other means, such as WP:RFC to get more people to participate and form a consensus. Also, a third opinion request becomes meaningless if one of the two parties has been banned. As far as I know, there is no policy invalidating a 3O request just because of a conversation on WP:ANI. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:43, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I've unwatched this page, I wouldn't be posting this but that I saw my name again on AN/I, and come here to find one user saying 'no ,it wasn't aimed at me, and the next, anatulic, says, no, it was aimed at me. go to hell. ThuranX (talk) 04:31, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, for the record, I didn't say that you were the "one editor driving the wikidrama" :-) I was just a little annoyed at being described as a "cretin". Tbsdy lives (talk) 06:34, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Eh, what? Where did I say anything was aimed at you? I was simply answering your question above regarding policies. And remember WP:CIVIL. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:01, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Is the commercial use section trivia?
An anonymous user does not believe the section Commercial use of this material is necessary to the article and has consistently readded the trivia tag. A few users do not agree, so I'm bring this to RFC for a wider audience to comment. I believe that the material is not actually trivia, and that the information that Pepsi used the song in its commercials, along with the fact that it's used by sporting teams is significant. - Tbsdy lives (talk) 11:43, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

A list of sports teams and/or individuals is TRIVIA. Mentioning "in general" that corporations or sports teams have used the song is NOT how the article is currently written. The article gives anectotle examples of various entities with NO citations and NO foundation. It is not verifiable nor relevant to this song. - —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.110.68.30 (talk • contribs)
 * You were asked politely to sign your posts. Please don't add in unnecessary sections. Now on to the issue - no citations is a reasonable objection, though this was not the one you originally made. I will try to fix this. - Tbsdy lives (talk) 12:14, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I have removed the sentence "The song has been used as theme music by a number of collegiate and professional sports teams such as the UCLA Bruins, the Des Moines Buccaneers, the Pittsburgh Pirates and the Indianapolis Colts." as this can't be verified. - Tbsdy lives (talk) 12:21, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I am in agreement with the anonymous commenter. This is clearly a list of trivia. It is a collection of miscellaneous facts that reference no sources. Additionally, it appears these claims might have come about from original research. Because of the haphazzard way these facts are assembled and the unverifiability of the claims, I suggest that this section be removed or rewritten to proper standards. This kind of information provides no real useful meaning to the subject of the article.Coberloco (talk) 12:26, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, I have done a rewrite of this article. How does this look? - Tbsdy lives (talk) 12:30, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Good, now remove the Richie Sexton and WWE information since neither lists a source nor is it relevant to the article about this song. If this was important to either Richie Sexton or the WWE, this information would be listed on their own wiki pages. (Provided a reference could be cited) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.110.68.30 (talk) 12:33, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Have removed this information as I can't verify it. If I could find a source I'd leave it in there, but as I can't I think that it's fair enough to remove the information. - Tbsdy lives (talk) 12:38, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

You have totally screwed up the article and template. This is ridiculous. Why don't you just butt out? - —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.110.68.30 (talk • contribs)
 * Sigh. In what way have I screwed it up? I have improved it by removing unnecessary sections, I have removed the material that is unsourced. I'm sorry, but you do not own this article, you are acting in a way that is not conducive to calm and proper editing of Wikipedia. I will not "butt out", you must learn to edit Wikipedia correctly yourself. I see that you are someone new, and don't really know the ropes. I do hope that someone steps in soon, I will not revert again, but I firmly believe you are in line to be blocked due to violation of the 3RR. - Tbsdy lives (talk) 13:00, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * P.S. haven't edited any templates. Not sure what you are on about. - Tbsdy lives (talk) 13:13, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

First of all, I am not new and you need to quit stroking your own ego. Your attempts to sound intelligent or experienced come off pretentious and silly. Whatever amount of skills that you think you have in this matter clearly do not manifest in your decision making processes. I suggest that a trained monkey could make better edits than you could. So yes, butt out. And you cannot whine and cry everytime you don't get your own way. There is NO way to block every IP address on the internet when you it suits you. You cannot take your ball and go home. It's time for you to grow up and move on to some other article where no one cares if you screw it up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.110.64.224 (talk) 06:23, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You have now been independently blocked, and not by myself as I am not an administrator (I used to be one, but gave up this privilege some time ago). As stated above, you do not own this article, you should not make personal attacks and you should assume good faith. If you aren't new, then you have some serious issues in that you still haven't worked out even the most basic mechanics of Wikipedia, namely signing your posts. Perhaps after your 48 hour block you might like to contribute again, only this time work with us and not against us? - Tbsdy lives (talk) 10:26, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * P.S. I can always ask for the page to be semi-protected to stop you from abusing process. - Tbsdy lives (talk) 10:27, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Which I have now done. - Tbsdy lives (talk) 10:16, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

New reference
I added a reference to a blog that listed theme tunes for a whole bunch of campaigns. It points to this blog entry. I think it's reliable enough... what do others think? - Tbsdy lives (talk) 10:30, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * There is a lot of interesting information there but unfortunately it's essentially a blog and not a reliable source.--Rtphokie (talk) 12:51, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, fair enough. I have removed the material until a more reliable source can be found. - Tbsdy lives (talk) 11:32, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:ANI
Hi

Please be advised that this article is currently being discussed at AN/I.

Cheers, This flag once was red   00:01, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikilink is Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. - Tbsdy lives (talk) 05:12, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * (Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive477) — Athaenara ✉  17:44, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Personal attacks - just not acceptable on Wikipedia
I'm getting more than a little sick of the amount of personal attacks coming my way on this talk page!

So far, the personal attacks are as follows:
 * "This is one of the major problems with wikipedia, that people like yourself with no scholastic credentials take it upon yourself to edit articles as you see fit. Making the same mistakes many times over does not give you expertise on the subject. It's why this place is such a mess of rumor, propoganda, vandalism, inaccuracy and needless trivia."
 * "You have totally screwed up the article and template. This is ridiculous. Why don't you just butt out."
 * "Your attempts to sound intelligent or experienced come off pretentious and silly. Whatever amount of skills that you think you have in this matter clearly do not manifest in your decision making processes. I suggest that a trained monkey could make better edits than you could. So yes, butt out. And you cannot whine and cry everytime you don't get your own way. There is NO way to block every IP address on the internet when you it suits you. You cannot take your ball and go home. It's time for you to grow up and move on to some other article where no one cares if you screw it up."
 * "You are total douche bag and I will edit it whenever it contains crappy entries. You need to get a life. I cannot be "blocked", so grow up."
 * "You are a total twit and a clear example of why people should use REAL encyclopedias instead of this hodge podge of propoganda and unprofessionalism."
 * "Use your brain here for a minute... Stop being an idiot."
 * "And I will go right around it the minute I feel like it. You are not God here. You are simply a nerdly little troll with nothing better to do."
 * "A particular user (Tbsdy lives) has taken it upon himself to include uncited political nonsense in this article. He continues to change the facts and the article to suit his own propoganda. He then acted like a spoiled brat and attempted to lock the article up so that only his false entries could be maintained. I am now asking for a more senior or more intelligent member of the wiki community to look this article over and remove ALL uncited and politicized trash from it."
 * Note that the spoilt brat comment was later removed here.

As you can see, the anon has now told me that I am pushing propoganda (whatever that might be), told me to "use my brain" (hardly civil), told me to "butt out" of the article (seems to believe that the article is their own), accused me of being "pretentious and silly", said that a "trained monkey" could make better edits than myself, told us all that he can't be stopped from making unilateral edits no matter what administrators are forced to do, told me to "grow up" and move on to another article "where no one cares if you screw it up", told me I am a "total douche bag", a "total twit", a "nerdy little troll" and a "spoiled brat"!

Look, I was amused at first, but now things are getting a little silly. I do actually want to work on other things, but this editor is getting in the way of this.

I urge the anonymous editor to please stop the personal attacks, and to read up on our important policies and guidelines before editing. In particular, I refer him/her to assume good faith and no personal attacks. - Tbsdy lives (talk) 05:01, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Here's my proposal: until an admin intervenes, if any registered editor disregards WP:CIVIL I'll file a wikiquette alert.  If any anonymous editor disregards WP:CIVIL I'll request semi-protection.
 * I don't care which "faction" they're in - this dispute is way over my head.
 * I also have better things to do than keep this article on my watchlist ;-)
 * Cheers, This flag once was red   05:52, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Sounds fair. Look, I didn't start this. All I did was try to clean up the article! - Tbsdy lives (talk) 05:54, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately though, you did not clean up the article. You have added erroneous information without consensus and deleted well cited references that did not suit your own purposes.69.225.25.152 (talk) 06:36, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Please assume good faith and remain civil when dealing with other editors. Bidgee (talk) 06:39, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I've requested semi-protection for the article.
 * Cheers, This flag once was red   06:42, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Bidgee's rewrite looks good. Please leave it alone now.69.225.25.152 (talk) 06:47, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Bidgee, through no fault of his own, cleaned up an old revision. Much of the info that he's added fact tags to has been removed already! I have left a message on his user talk page. This is why reverting and ownership of articles is frowned on so greatly. - Tbsdy lives (talk) 08:09, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * No he didn't. You seem to assume a lot.  Please stop vandalizing this page. Your information is inaccurate.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.110.64.21 (talk) 08:40, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * None of it is inaccurate. - Tbsdy lives (talk) 09:01, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Sammy Hagar's contribution
What's the thought on this part of the article? It seems to be in there as a counter-point to the band's inclusion of the "regret" line, but it doesn't really prove anything. It simply shows Hagar donated money, and seems to be a personal issue. Did Hagar donate money to any Democrats? As I see it, it's WP:OR to imply Hagar's contribution should be there to override the "regret" line. If there was a reliable secondary source showing so, that would be fine, but right now it seems WP:OR. What's the thoughts on that? Dayewalker (talk) 07:03, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

The description of the 2004 concert tour is uncited. The supposed comments from music critic "Sarah Rodman" come from a blog belonging to some random guy named AF Grant. Not exactly the best source available. In comparison, the reference to see ALL of Sammy Hagar's political donations is valid. This is factual information, not original research. You can view the actual Federal Election Committee (FEC) filings where both he and his wife Kari have contributed. It is relevant because he is the co-writer and vocalist for this song and the subject of political use has been raised and he has issued a press statement recently regarding this song. Certainly this would provide insight into his thought process.69.225.25.152 (talk) 07:19, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, but in the revision you keep reverting there is no mention of the music critic "Sarah Rodman", and there are no blog entries. There is also no mention of Sammy Hagar's political donations! What are you complaining about - you are the one who keeps readding this information! - Tbsdy lives (talk) 08:19, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes it does. Maybe you need to refresh your browser. And please do not presume to know what anyone else was thinking.  A third party has rewritten this article and you have yet again taken it upon yourself to place incorrect information and delete the proper version.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.110.70.85 (talk) 08:25, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The revision I'm currently looking at is this one. Has none of what you are talking about. The rewrite was of the reverted revision. - Tbsdy lives (talk) 08:28, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * P.S. you are blocked, you shouldn't be editing. - Tbsdy lives (talk) 08:29, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

That is not the current version. Stop messing with it for a minute and refresh your browser. - —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.110.70.85 (talk • contribs)
 * It was, until you reverted. - Tbsdy lives (talk) 08:30, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Your participation is no longer needed here. Third parties have looked at it, corrected your mistakes and yet you have restarted your edit war. - —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.110.64.21 (talk • contribs)
 * WP:OWN. - Tbsdy lives (talk) 08:52, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

(OD)Well, I've come back to find that the IP has started a fight completely irrelevant to the point I was making. I also see Sammy Hagar's political contributions have been removed from the article, which I agree with. I still see it as WP:OR, or some variant of that using primary and not secondary sources. Wikipedia doesn't "provide insight," it reports facts from reliable secondary sources. Dayewalker (talk) 23:20, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

"Singing the same song"
Does anyone know the source for the following?
 * Vocalist Sammy Hagar has said that he was writing the lyrics to this song at the studio very late one night, and he heard Eddie Van Halen in an adjacent room working on a piano melody. Hagar said he suddenly realized that "we were writing the same song," so he walked into the room and began singing his words over Van Halen's music.

It sounds great, but where does this come from? - Tbsdy lives (talk) 09:16, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I found the reference -, which in itself apparently refers to Rolling Stone. - Tbsdy lives (talk) 09:28, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Huffington Post Reference
The Huffington Post is a gossip blog with a heavy political slant owned by a political activist. Obviously it is not a valid source of news content. This reference needs to be removed in accordance with wikipedia rules. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.225.22.253 (talk • contribs) 00:16, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Many news services maintain blogs (CNN, NBC, etc.). The Huffington Post is a politically-slanted news service much like Fox News, with contributing journalists and all. It also happens to host a blog. The citation in question doesn't appear to point to the blog area of the Huffington Post. The article cited isn't even controversial. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:22, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The Huffington Post is simply a blog and the reference in question is a blog entry that is not even signed. Comparing that website to CNN, NBC, FOX, etc is not credible.  Check your facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.225.22.253 (talk • contribs) 02:47, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, the Huffington Post is seen as a credible source of political news and commentary in some quarters now. - Tbsdy lives (talk) 07:53, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * No, it is not. It is a blog run by a political activist.  It is not a credible source of news.  It's designation as an "internet newspaper" is self-described by the site owner. This alone does not qualify it as a real newspaper. No responsbile news organization in the world recognizes the "Huffington Post" as legitimate. And the use of "some quarters" is what wikipedia calls Weasel Words.  Now that being said, regardless of your opinion of the Huffington Post, the reference that was used for this article (Right Now - Van Halen Song) was an unsigned, unsourced blog entry.  Debating the accuracy or news worthiness of the Huffington Post should be moved to it's own discussion page. It doesn't belong here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.225.22.253 (talk) 02:05, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Sign your comments. You began "debating the accuracy or news worthines" when you started this section, by characterizing the publication as a "gossip blog", so don't complain when your bare assertions are challenged. As I stated earlier, the site has a news section and a blog section, like many news services. This article references an editorial article (not a blog entry) on the Huffington Post. NO news publication signs or sources editorials. Furthermore, it seems appropriate for this article to point out the left-wing's response to the McCain campaign's use of this song. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:04, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Please sign your comments. Weasel words applies to the main article space, and not the talk pages. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 03:48, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

U.S. Republican Party Use Of This Song
The song was not used at the Republican convention as has been reported. The Republican Party has never used this song in any official capacity. The facts are that this song was played by Sammy Hagar, (the writer/singer) himself at a concert 2 days prior to the 2008 Republican Convention in Minneapolis. While it too was in Minneapolis, this concert was sponsored by Edison Electric, Wal-Mart, Aflac, the National Association of Homebuilders, Peabody Energy, Duke Energy, the Wine and Spirits Wholesalers Association, the Coalition of Private Investment Companies, and the Nuclear Energy Institute. This was not a RNC sponsored event and did not take place at the RNC facility. It was also mentioned that McCain and/or Bush played this at a rally at some point and so therefore "The Republicans" played it. Also not true. The McCain campaign played this song at a rally in Ohio 4 days prior to the Republican convention. The Bush reference in the article is still uncited. Editors from outside the United States may be confused over the legal distinction between "The Republican Party" as a entity and individual campaigns such as Senator McCain's. Legally these are not the same and there are very strict laws regarding this subject. The continued inclusion of false information could be considered libelous. There are no cited references to the Republican Party ever using this song. (An individual that uses this song and also happens to be a Republican does not qualify as official party business) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.225.22.253 (talk • contribs) 23:56, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

A user by the name of "Tbsdy Lives" keeps citing an MSNBC video link of Sarah Palin speaking at a John McCain rally in Ohio on August 29, 2008. He has included this source in the article as proof of his claims. However, the date is clearly shown in the video as being Aug 29. In fact, in the video clip John McCain mentions that it is his birthday. Which is easily verfiable as being on August 29. "Tbsdy Lives" is obviously confusing this speech (at the McCain rally) with Mrs. Palin's own acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention on September 3, 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.225.22.253 (talk • contribs) 00:28-00:34, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Just so everyone is aware. This editor "contributed" the following edits to my user page: . - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 22:10, 1 October 2008 (UTC)