User:Wether B/talkarchive

= Archive of old and dead discussions from my main talk page =

Allen Collins
My name appears no where on the work, it was a gift to R4R. The CD insert is owned by LAAC, they have author credits. Nice try loser —Preceding unsigned comment added by R4Rvolunteer (talk • contribs) 22:56, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Classic rock
Is classic rock a radio format?! Really? Is it true? [edit] --62.16.168.57 (talk) 18:29, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Glenn Tipton
I recommend you actually have some idea of what you are talking about before you remove revisions that actually correct the inaccuracies on display. From the comments of others below, it seems you have angered a good few other people with your insistence to stick to false information.

You criticise me for (apparently) not citing official, verifiable sources of good standing - even though I have cited from an official book (including interviews). And yet you have the audacity to cite a web page as a valid reference point for your wild and wholly inaccurate claims.

As a pro guitarist of 20 years, my ears tell me what Glenn Tipton's style is made up of. But I chose to leave that out and instead cite the verifiable and legit source of a guitar book composed of licks and solos from Tipton's career. This book (which confirmed what I had figured out myself by analysing Tipton's music) was written by the leading guitarist/teacher/journalist Nick Bowcott. And as said, this book contains interviews with Glenn Tipton himself - all of which backs up what I wrote. But oh no, that wasn't good enough for you.

I also rounded off my references with a link to a web site where they know what they are talking about - and one just as valid as the rubbish that you referenced.

All in all you revert the ACCURATE edits I made to the INACCURATE info that caused me to sign up and edit in the 1st place. And you are the only person on Wiki who DOESN'T follow the rules of assuming everyone else acts with good intentions. Instead you leave arsey messages.

Congrats. Not only on being a douche. but one who knows sod all what he is talking about.

NemesisRogue (talk) 03:12, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Simon Wilcox
I added some references to Simon Wilcox. You may want to revisit Articles for deletion/Simon Wilcox. -- Eastmain (talk) 01:06, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Pete Townshend, travel restrictions
You appear to support the current wording of the Townshend article where it mentions "travel restrictions". It is, however, patent nonsense. I have tried to correct it and remove it, but people keep putting it back to the "consensus text". I keep trying to insist that people source it, because in trying to provide sources, it will be discovered that the material is nonsense. I say the material is nonsense. But you you restore it, it is down to YOU PERSONALLY to prove that there are limitations on Townshendn's foreign travel that have been waived by someone. I quote Biographies of living persons:
 * The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia, but especially for edits about living persons, rests firmly on the shoulders of the person who adds or restores the material.

Wiki-is-truth (talk) 01:35, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Megadeth '90s albums
Can I ask why the '90s Megadeth albums are still being tagged with incorrect, unverifiable genres? Risk (album) is the only applicable album that can be tagged with hard rock. Provide sources that distinctly say "Megadeth is now hard rock and not traditional heavy metal" or it's just POV. The main article has had that incorrect tag rejected, so it's high time we clean up the articles of that rot. -MetalKommandant (talk) 04:06, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Since you are the only person who seems to be edit warring over the subject it is you who needs to produce a reference saying that they aren't included in that genre. IF you can't then the link can be added back to the pages. Wether B (talk) 21:12, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Source?
Since the discography of Megadeth as well as "Kill 'Em All" and "Ride the Lightning" is the majority of Dave Mustaine's work, I do not see where you're getting "hard rock". "Risk" and the MD. 45 side project are two minor aspects in his musical career.

Deleting something does not require a source. Adding something that outrageous and alternating, however, would. -MetalKommandant (talk) 03:35, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Far from outrageous. It describes much of the guitarist's work since he moved away from thrash metal in the late 1980s. Wether B (talk) 03:46, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

No... that was standard heavy metal music. Risk (album) is the only thing you could be referring to. Countdown through Cryptic were basic, standard heavy metal albums, while The World Needs a Hero was a return to the traditional style with elements of traditional heavy metal with them.

So, you're telling me '90s Megadeth is no different from '90s Metallica, which could be possibly described as hard rock? I do not believe Megadeth had an era of rock albums influenced by southern rock and blues... See bands like Iron Maiden and Judas Priest to see what I mean by standard heavy metal. Believe it or not, there's an area between thrash metal and hard rock. -MetalKommandant (talk) 11:47, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You should not try to express an opinion on a subject that you seem to have absolutely no knowledge on. Wether B (talk) 12:29, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

You seem to have an opinion, as well. "No knowledge"... I suggest you not take a holier-than-thou stance here... -MetalKommandant (talk) 02:52, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Bad edit
Re: this edit - (a) the picture you replaced was freely licensed, but your edit summary makes it clear that you apparently did not check. (b) Contrary to your statement in the edit summary, we DO NOT have to use the most up-to-date photo. In general, we want the best quality photo, and the photo you replaced was substantially better than the one you replaced it with. I have reverted. In the future, be more careful before making detrimental edits. Raul654 (talk) 22:11, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Roger Fisher (guitarist)
Thanks for that. I was contemplating how to merge the two versions, decided it was too much work, and put the thought in the "for later contemplation" basket. (aka the "too hard" basket.) Actually, I disagree with your "NPOV" categorisation, or at least I disagree that POV is the primary problem. My major problem is that he has removed ALL references that were there, and has no supporting references for anything he says, a small amount of which I know to be incorrect. Once again, thank you for solving my problem for me. Perhaps not the solution I would have preferred, but none-the-less, a solution. By-the-way, that anon has a long history of useful contribution to the page; we're probably about to embark on an edit war. If you feel the need for assistance, don't hesitate to drop me a line on my talk page. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 01:56, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

The Fixx
Wether, you reverted edits I made to The Fixx page. My belief was that The Fixx is singular, not plural, so I changed verbs accordingly. "The Fixx are a band" sounded awkward to me. I had thought that if a band did not use a plural noun, it would be referred to in the singular. Or, take a band like Journey. There are several members of the band but no one (I don't think) would say "Journey are a band." I don't think I'm alone in this. In any event, you referenced my edits as vandalism, which was obviously not my intent.--Lindsay (talk) 04:15, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Misfits
Regarding this edit you just made, would you mind commenting at Talk:Misfits (band) as to why you made it? I've been making the case for the article's opening sentence to use the more general term "rock", based on WP:LEAD and the fact that there are sources describing that their '90s material was mostly heavy metal. But there are other editors who believe that the opening sentence should state straight away that they're a punk rock band. Not many editors have participated in the discussion on the talk page, so your thoughts would be appreciated. --IllaZilla (talk) 02:34, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Thin Lizzy
Thanks for your edit to Thin Lizzy. When I re-wrote the article, the style section was the one part I didn't write myself. I don't really like it and I nearly took it out altogether, plus it's unsourced. Do you think it should be taken out or somehow changed? Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:06, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much for your comments! I wasn't particularly knowledgeable about the early twin-guitar bands which was mainly why I left the style section alone. I'll try to find out some more, I should have some books somewhere that should cover it, and I'll look online as well. I think you're right that there's nothing in the section that isn't basically true, but it needs some Thin Lizzy-centric adjustments. I'll try and add something about "Still Dangerous" as well. Thanks again :o) Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:31, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You're a lucky one to have seen them at that time - gigs like that are hard to find these days and I was too young back then... "Still Dangerous" is at the top of my wishlist right now :) Bretonbanquet (talk) 14:32, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Glam Metal
Ok, i assume you are referring to my point about the media itself (which is indeed true though). However, is it necessary to delete the information on the bands themselves. As that is not opinion. It is fact.

Here are some links to the bands themselves featuring exactly what i said. glam influenced image and music.

www.myspace.com/realcrashdiet www.myspace.com/blackfuckinrain

Any photo links, video links, interview links you want i can also link you. Surely it is ok to leave the section on the sleaze metal genre. As it is important information to the evolution of the scene itself.

(im still new to editing wiki. so excuse any bad html etc)

Glam Metal (response 2)
Ok.

http://www.crashdiet.org http://www.crazylixx.com http://www.hardcoresuperstar.com/news.shtml www.geminifive.com :The official websites of bands that dont use myspace as their main webpage.

Here is a quote from one of the bands biography pages (on the official hardcore superstar website)

"Many bands play it safe – Hardcore Superstar doesn't. The Swedish four-piece had the balls to marry two styles that grew up hating each other. We're talking about thrash metal and sleaze rock. The former hard, aggressive and ugly, the latter catchy, melodic and decadent. "

Now thats a band using the label Sleaze Rock. I cannot understand how wikipedia can decide whether a term exists or not. Blessed By a Broken Heart, a band listed on the wikipage label themselves as "Glamcore", now ive never heard anyone use that. Perhaps the genre is in its infancy. But are you telling me non of this can be wrote about just because its not covered in the pages of a biased magazine like "Kerrang!"? . To me it sounds hypocritical as it is opinion on whether a genre is valid or not.

Here is a video of Crashdiet http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AaqZJANa0Jk the glam influence is fairly evident, would you not agree?

http://www.swedmetal.com/ that is a label which has often temporarily signed upcoming acts, often of the newer glam metal genre to give them a push.

Eitherway. Regardless of whether wikipedia feels Sleaze Rock is a genre or not. There is no denying that these artists are apart of the Glam Metal timeline.

http://images.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://img.letssingit.com/artists/tb1zb/bio2005b.jpg&imgrefurl=http://artists.letssingit.com/crashdiet-tb1zb/pictures/239244/1&usg=__j5aA_2DJLzRtQnEDMXnPu2lTaas=&h=351&w=234&sz=88&hl=en&start=14&tbnid=0n43ZcxTKboB8M:&tbnh=120&tbnw=80&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dcrashdiet%26gbv%3D2%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26sa%3DG <<<Look Pretty glammed up to me.

So, is all of the above good enough to give these bands a section. I cant see why it isnt, the information is there in black and white.


 * See WP:CITE, WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NOR. Wether B (talk) 21:03, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Regarding this...
...I think it can be reconstructed in a manner that only includes the citable ones from such sources as this. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 23:48, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the author of your book fails WP:BIO, the book fails WP:RS and the list is fanboy list crufting. Wether B (talk) 23:58, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

???
Testament was clearly speed in it's early years. Why revert it? --HaniballCartho (talk) 01:20, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Your edit is an unreferenced personal opinion edit that is not supported by the content of the article. Wether B (talk) 01:23, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Anyone who's heard them pretty much knows.--HaniballCartho (talk) 01:25, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * All of their recorded works are thrash metal. Wikipedia isn't based on uncited original research. Wether B (talk) 01:27, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

But there is a differnce with their new albums to their old even though they're both thrash. I won't bother though, leave it as it is.--HaniballCartho (talk) 01:31, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Speed Metal
'Lo. Just wondering why you reverted the Speed Metal article recently. (Albert Mond (talk) 20:22, 28 March 2009 (UTC))

The Game (Queen Album)
I don't understand why it's just THAT article. The article is better in the LONG version. Besides, it's USELESS without the song information.--Greg D. Barnes (talk) 14:13, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Broken, Beat & Scarred genre problem
The Death Magnetic article lists the genre for the album as Heavy and Thrash, so shouldnt the genre for the song be that as well? Suede67 (talk) 23:32, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Shred Guitar
Hi mate,

I'm new to wikipedia can you help me out. Did you delete my edit on shred guitar because the reference could not be checked? Just trying to improve the history section of this page which at present is very confused - guitarists names are linked together without any real sense of chronology. E.g - Blackmore, Di Meola and Malmsteen just listed as examples. Better to explain the influence from 70s pioneers of both picking and neo-classical styles leading to the sound of players like malmsteen. Just my opinion. Edguitar777 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edguitar777 (talk • contribs) 15:36, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Anthrax Chronology
Hi - can you please point out exactly where the chronology rules you linked to when you undid my changes state that EPs and LPs are listed separately? The only text I see references studio albums vs. greatest hits albums. Thanks... (You can reply here, I'm watching it)Luminifer (talk) 07:08, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Your revertions to my edits on album articles
As I said in the edit summaries of the Offring albums, Sputnikmusic music reviews are only permitted if they're staff reviews, as per WP:ALBUM, the reviews in question are user submitted and not reliable sources. I'm going to presume your reverts were a mistake, however. Rehevkor ✉  14:29, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Stevie Ray Vaughan Death
Sir, the section on Stevie Ray Vaughan's death contains inaccurate information. Statements that are made as fact that are verifiably incorrect. I.E. "Laurel Land Cemetery, Dallas, Texas." This is not a factual statement. Mr. Vaughan is buried at Laurel Land Memorial Park and Cemetery, in Oak Cliff Texas. Other information in the article is written in from point of view, and cites information that is not verified, and therefore is not applicable. Fix the incorrect information, and I won't delete it. My contributions have been deleted for less.Dfwaviator (talk) 22:01, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism
Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. Vandalism cannot and will not be tolerated. Common types of vandalism are the addition of obscenities or crude humor, page blanking, and the insertion of nonsense into articles.

This is from the vandalism page on wikipedia. You stated that I had vandalized the page. I did not. I removed poorly written, unverified information presented as fact. I have corrected the only verifiable information in that article with correct verified information.

I would suggest you review the FAA and NTSB case file regarding the helicopter accident. There you can find hard fact that can be verified and documented. That would be the manner in which to proceed. Statements about who switched seats with whom, and things of that matter can only be verified by sworn statements of the individuals present, which would be included in the FAA and NTSB report. Dfwaviator (talk) 22:12, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Blanking entire sections is vandalism. You can correct inaccuraries, IF, you provide valid references for your changes. But you cannot simply blank sections that you do not like. Wether B (talk) 22:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Allen Collins
Ok, why would you say that I am using popups? I see that you have done this to many many people. I work closely with Roll For Rock which is owned by Bill Massey Jr. and Allen's father, Mr. Larkin Allen Collins, Sr. I am only posting that Allen Collins founded Roll For Rock, and what it is for. There are no popups, the information is factual, and the world needs to know about Roll For Rock so that more people who are living with physical challenges can get the help they need. What is your problem with that? Please do not remove my material again. ROLL FOR ROCK
 * Ok, I wrote the CD insert for the 25th anniversary edition of Here, There & Back by Allen Collins Band, and I designed the insert. I am using my own work, which is factual and accurate.  STOP REMOVING IT! I will "cite" my CD insert work (that I voluntarily created to help this charity) if that will make you feel better.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by R4Rvolunteer (talk • contribs) 22:39, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

SRV Removal Not Vandalism
Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. Vandalism cannot and will not be tolerated. Common types of vandalism are the addition of obscenities or crude humor, page blanking, and the insertion of nonsense into articles. Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Even harmful edits that are not explicitly made in bad faith are not vandalism. For example, adding a controversial personal opinion to an article once is not vandalism; reinserting it despite multiple warnings is (however, edits/reverts over a content dispute are never vandalism, see WP:EW). Not all vandalism is obvious, nor are all massive or controversial changes vandalism. Careful thought may be needed to decide whether changes made are beneficial, detrimental but well-intended, or outright vandalism.

The information in the article regarding the accident conflicts with information in the NTSB & FAA reports in regards to this accident. The article is also poorly written, and lacks continuity.

If you want to get the facts straight, and present the information in a factual manner, by all means. Until then, please refrain from re-posting poor quality material. Dfwaviator (talk) 22:56, 13 June 2009 (UTC)