User talk:Atlantictire/Archive 1

Harmonizer (album)
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a search with the contents of Harmonizer (album), and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: Harmonizer. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page&mdash; you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally trying to rename an article, please see Help:Moving a page for instructions on how to do this without copying and pasting. If you are trying to move or copy content from one article to a different one, please see Copying within Wikipedia and be sure you have acknowledged the duplication of material in an edit summary to preserve attribution history.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. CorenSearchBot (talk) 17:49, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

September 2010
Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to Harmonizer has been reverted, as it appears to have removed content from the page without explanation. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 (Contact) 17:49, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I removed the warning I left you. I'm not sure what you are trying to do, but it looks like you are acting in good faith.-- Kubigula (talk) 18:09, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Ditto. --Ixfd64 (talk) 18:24, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry that I warned you, as said above, you seem to be acting in good faith. Anyway. Maybe you should do that reverting yourself, as I'm not familiar with the topic. Now that we know that you aren't any vandal, you may do whatever necessary to change that page back where it was not a disambiguation, or whatever that was you explained on my talk page. Greets, DARTH SIDIOUS 2 (Contact) 18:43, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Harmonizer
Thank you for your note - I now understand what you were trying to do.

Do you think there is enough to write about harmonizers to justify a separate article? Harmonizers are covered in the Effects unit article, and we could simply redirect any searches to that page.-- Kubigula (talk) 18:48, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Almost every effects unit mentioned in that article has its own separate article that discusses the history of the device--how it was invented, when it started being used, and how it's been used--as well as information on the device's underlying audio science. In any case, harmonizer definitely needs its own page as many articles on sound recording and rock albums have harmonizer links.--Atlantictire (talk) 18:55, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

A fight against a bot LOL
Smackbot does not like to take no for an answer! Maybe Lucky #7 will work! Active Banana   ( bananaphone  01:11, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi there
Thank you. Many have contributed, and it has taken a while!! Sure thing, my suggestions are on the GA page. I've tried to address your concerns. Lifebonzza (talk) 08:40, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yep, point taken. But if she's cited as an inspiration and an influence by numerous artists out there, why shouldn't that go in the lead? No subject article lists every artist that cites them as an influence right? So long as it's reliably sourced and attributed, it's all good. I'm just tidying up loose ends I'm reading now. Also, can I ask, why does my post here keep moving to the wrong place when you edit it? Lifebonzza (talk) 16:00, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok cool. When she's cited as an inspiration and an influence by numerous artists out there, from Thom Yorke right through to Vampire Weekend, why shouldn't that go in the lead?Lifebonzza (talk) 16:19, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * How about if I tweaked it like this:

"Her music and style have been cited as a source of inspiration and influence by numerous artists across the music spectrum....Lifebonzza (talk) 16:26, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * As you don't disagree that she is cited as an inspiration and influence by numerous artists, I'm afraid I disagree with your logic, as it stems from whether you view a band/point as notable or not based on your own views of bands and music. That's why we have policy on reliable sources and attribution. No reliable source negates the fact numerous artists specifically cite her as an influence and inspiration, it's what is reality, and so should go in the lead, written as such. I know your edits are in good faith, but I hope my point is clearer. :) Lifebonzza (talk) 16:50, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah dude, I get that. But the second point: it's the artists who are citing her as an influence/source of inspiration, so I'm just including it as such: "numerous artists cite her as an influence/source of inspiration". That's all. :) Lifebonzza (talk) 17:09, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Again refer to my point above. You don't deny that these artists cite her as an influence. Whether you personally view a band as notable based on what you may have read somewhere is not relevant. The article is based on what the majority of the references state, and undue weight should not be given to fringe opinions. It does not negate the fact numerous artists cite her as an inpiration and source of inspiration in their work. Unless you can find reliable sources that states numerous artists do not cite M.I.A. as an influence in their work...." or anything similar (a point too redundant to include in a wiki article), it does not violate neutrality and is notable enough for the lead. The point is not that they're commenting on her influence, they are specifically citing her as an influence to them. Hope that's clearer now....Lifebonzza (talk) 17:28, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I don't doubt you care about neutrality. I just think I didn't clearly get my point across before, but I think I have now. I like your copyediting style! :) Lifebonzza (talk) 17:56, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

M.I.A. article concerns
That's a highly contentious article which should not be used as a source - WP:Neutrality, lol but here's a paragraph from Arular a featured article, with sources:

...she was introduced to the Roland MC-505 sequencer/drum machine by electroclash artist Peaches, whose minimalistic approach to music inspired her. She found Peaches' decision to perform without additional instrumentation to be brave and liberating and felt that it emphasised the artist. Returning to London, she unexpectedly gained access to a 505 owned by her friend, the former Elastica singer Justine Frischmann. M.I.A. used the 505 to make demo recordings in her bedroom. I'll be copyediting the article to make this clearer if not already so.... Lifebonzza (talk) 18:24, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * She may or may not have contested other parts of that article, but there are plenty of others who have....

http://www.nowtoronto.com/daily/story.cfm?content=175225 http://www.spin.com/articles/understanding-mia-5-things-you-need-know?page=0%2C4 and the list goes on. Its condemnation as a hatchet job hit piece by critics is discussed on other articles, http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2010/jul/11/mia-maya-album-review http://bnreview.barnesandnoble.com/t5/Rock-Roll/Illygirl-Steppin-Up/ba-p/2907 and its inclusion would thus negate neutrality. Her confrontation is mentioned briefly in the article so as not to violate undue weight. As far as the Simon reynold's Village Voice article is concerned, I have no problem in including this quote if it's absolutely necessary, but I don't think this debate is widespread enough to warrant a mention on her article. I don't think the article would suffer without it. The article says M.I.A. is both commended and criticised over some issues in the later article body... Here's an article in the Village Voice attacking Simon Reynold's claims as "cheaper tack": http://www.villagevoice.com/2005-02-22/music/burning-bright/ Here's another article by Simon reynold's himself arguing that she could be artist of the decade... http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/musicblog/2009/dec/16/mia-artist-of-the-decade

Do we include all this too? Lifebonzza (talk) 18:39, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I was just abt to address the issue of her drum machine. Lifebonzza (talk) 18:51, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * But like I said above, would it then not be fair to include his subsequent argument of her as artist of the decade, and the point criticising his 2005 article as "cheaper tack." I stand by my opinion the article doesn't suffer without it, but it's worth bearing in mind that it propbably hasnt been included here before for a reason, because its argument isnt widely noted in many sources, and its inclusion would probably be giving undue weight to a particular impression of her....I'm sure I could find 2 sources for every thousand that levels similar arguments towards, I dunno, Patti Smith, or Bjork, or Dylan, or Reed. Do we start including them on their articles? It's not about whether I agree with him, but where yu draw the line on opinions to include without violating neutrality. Lifebonzza (talk) 19:08, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, like I said, the article does say she is commended and criticised over some issues, so I have little problem in the objectivity of the article being upheld. I repeat, I'm not fussed if this quote attributed to him goes in as a detractor's opinion. But neither will I have a problem with the other points going in after it - to maintain objectivity.Lifebonzza (talk) 19:22, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree there's still time to elapse before the true magnitude of M.I.A.'s influence is assessed :D.Lifebonzza (talk) 19:42, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

My Chick Bad
If you think that a song that charts in the top twenty of the Billboard needs to be directed, then I would prefer someone else review the article. Candy o32  05:48, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I just want to understand how a song that makes #11 on the Billboard is not notable while per WP:NSONGS any song that even charts period is notable for its own article? Candy  o32  06:17, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It's fine if you want to continue the review I just wanted to make sure your basis on everything. Candy  o32  06:31, 17 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I have to say I TOTALLY disagree with your vast deletion of all the content of the lead. Per WP:LEAD the lead should summarize EVERY ASPECT of each section of an article. I'm not trying to be blunt or anything but its this your first time reviewing a music article? A lead should summarize the article, giving points of critical reception, chartings, composition, reviews and the music video section, such as in featured article "4 Minutes]", and other GA's like "[[One Time" and "Lil Freak"  Candy  o32  20:13, 17 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I think it would be better for both of us if you failed the review and I get it re-nominated or re-assessed, because there is too much confusion. Sorry if I am coming off as brash but things kind of started off on the wrong foot with the sudden unneeded deletion, and then has continued with the massive lead reduction, I believe a GAR needs to start from scratch. I respect that you know grammar and wording and other things, but I am the contributor to +25 GA's and never had a lead problem or other miscellaneous errors. Candy  o32  00:55, 18 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I believe so, if you are still subject to making vast prose changes. Candy  o32  06:45, 18 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm confused at what I did to your talk page? Redacting your talk page to save face? And btw, I don't spend my whole life on Wikipedia. I do have school, sports, ec's and like to have fun...12:49, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Have a look at the M.I.A. article
Hi. I'm relatively new to wikipedia and wanted to help out with reviewing music articles for GA status, since there seems to be quite a backlog. Unfortunately, I quickly arrived at an impasse with one of the editors of the page. Since you seem to be very experienced and good at this I was wondering if you could have a look--and also give me some advice on how to do this better!

The editor has worked really hard and I would like for the article to be rated GA. Your input/advice would be very much appreciated.--Atlantictire (talk) 16:52, 17 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Your GA rubric shows that you have given the process a great deal of thought and you are focussing on the GA criteria which new reviewers don't always do. And I like that you have explained in terms appropriate to the subject the nature of "Broad coverage" and "Neutral". Music bio topics do tend toward hyperbole, and that can be difficult to address, especially when the most popular sources, such as Allmusic.com, and "official" biographies, use such hyperbole. If enough reliable sources use hyperbole, then unfortunately, it becomes appropriate to include it; and I note that you are aware of that.
 * You are willing to enter into discussion with nominators/contributors - and that is important, as sometimes (usually?) a review is a collaborative affair, and is a matter of discussion, interpretation and negotiation. The reviewer develops an independent overview of the article, and that independence is important. It should be the reviewer's decision if the article has met GA criteria - though it is appropriate to enter into discussion on areas of uncertainty, and a nominator can challenge or ask for an explanation of the reviewer's views. However, if the reviewer has in good faith reached a decision about "broad coverage", and has explained that decision with reference to the GA criteria and Wikipedia guidelines, then it is fully appropriate for a reviewer to close a review as fail if the issue is not being addressed. If the nominator disagrees they can take the matter to WP:GAR or even relist the article. Failing a GAN is not the end of the matter! You as reviewer feel the article doesn't meet the criteria - the nominator disagrees and doesn't wish to address your concerns. You have a choice of addressing the concerns yourself or closing as a fail. While a reviewer is encouraged to fix small matters in an article, they are not expected to - and if fixing the matter is going to lead to a conflict, it is sometimes better to back off.
 * I haven't read all the sources or the article in detail - though I have got the impression that the Hirschberg article is a significant item, and has been commented upon by other reliable sources, and so some mention of that article would be appropriate, which would include reference to the content of that article. How much weight should be given to it, I don't know - but I would leave that judgement up to you, as you have looked into the matter closely enough.
 * What do you feel needs to be done to make the article match GA criteria?  SilkTork  *YES! 10:40, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

It'll be fine!
You've done a really good job and have worked really hard on the article. I was just trying to help clear some of the nominations out of the GA backlog, and really didn't mean to start such a debate. Hopefully the next reviewer won't be such a sticker and M.I.A. will get her GA status!

Sincere best wishes.--Atlantictire (talk) 15:59, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi there. Thanks, I'm sure it'll be fine. I think it'd be appropriate if you failed the review, and then I'll relist it and work from there. I won't mind. Best Wishes. Lifebonzza (talk) 09:07, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, fail it, it's no problem. Where there are any claims, be it praise or criticism, counter claims, that come from reliable sources that are non-questionable, they are listed in a conservative disinterested tone, attributed with respect to WP:Undue, noting the appropriate weight that should be given to such views, and the prominence of these views. That has all been taken into consideration. Thanks.Lifebonzza (talk) 15:16, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That would not be appropriate, as to do so would give inappropriate weight to such views, and a discredited questionable source. We do not cover such gossip on wikipedia, as per WP:BLP, and WP:Notability. Her confrontation is covered in a line, which is what made it "notable," which frankly as a mention is more than what it warrants, but there you go. To a disintersted reader, your suggestion would be inappropriate. I believe you when you say you know little about M.I.A., but your insistence on this "he said she said" episode being played out in a paragraph contravenes your earlier suggestion to me to let readers decide, and doesn't add up with wiki policy. To be honest, readers should read a biography of living people that does not violate wiki policy. I'd rather it was failed and then it got renominated it and assessed in GAR, because we are not going to agree on this.Lifebonzza (talk) 22:11, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * To say "it's a huge part of her story" is your opinion, saying "loads of people know about it" is weasel words and not a reliable source. That alone does not address the fact it violates wiki policy to go into it. What came of that story is given appropriate weight. Thank you, but there's no point in this going back and forth, fail it and I'll have it reviewed by someone else. Lifebonzza (talk) 22:34, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Blind Willie Johnson merge
Are you going to state on the talk page of either Blind Willie Johnson or Dark Was the Night, Cold Was the Ground why you think these articles should be merged? If not, can you remove the templates from these articles, please? --Moni3 (talk) 17:12, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Hey we're on a roll. One more revert and we both may get blocked. How about slowing down and talking about this on the talk page? The article should stay in a better state until you find the sources you're seeking. Right now, with this this version, it's a much better article. --Moni3 (talk) 03:17, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Atlantictire, please be advised of WP:3RR, and refrain from edit warring. Also, article discussions belong on article talk, not user talk pages.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 14:05, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

M.I.A.
Hi, Atlantictire. I have just passed "M.I.A. (artist)" for GA status. Do you have any other comments about it at present? Best wishes. Axl ¤  [Talk]  10:59, 15 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I am taking the matter to WikiProject Musicians. Please feel free to comment here. Axl  ¤  [Talk]  10:52, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Ultimatums
Please do not issue ultimatums as you did here, Wikipedia has no time limit. You are being opposed, or at least not supported, by every other editor in that discussion so an ultimatum is highly inappropriate. It simply is not the way we do things on Wikipedia. We work by consensus in a collegiate atmosphere. Pressing ahead with edits which are known to be controversial is going to destroy that atmosphere. I note that you have been previously warned for edit warring. Please take note of that warning, it is not something treated lightly.

You are still a relatively inexperienced editor, having been here less than a year and with around a thousand edits. I think you would benefit from submitting to Editor review or seek advice through other channels from more experienced editors.  Sp in ni ng  Spark  09:07, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Mind if we keep this on one page?  Sp in ni ng  Spark  19:50, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Sir, those merge banners have been on the page for seven months. Consensus is a nice thing to plea for when someone is determined to leave something unchanged... as you can always thwart consensus. You're over-reaching in your assessment of the other editors' positions. Most seem interested in fixing the article. I personally would much prefer that you present a plan for what you think should be in the article than lecturing me about wikipedia niceties. Yes, consensus is generally preferred. Meanwhile, seven months later...--Atlantictire (talk) 16:19, 24 April 2011 (UTC)


 * You are entirely misreading me if you think I am determined to keep the article as it is. I am not trying to prevent a merge, although if you want a suggested plan from me I am with Binksternet and Interferometrist that individual articles plus a main article in summary style are preferable to an all-embracing merge.  My fundamental objection to what has been going on is that factual information should be found a home somewhere and not deleted out of hand.  If you adjust your editing to take that into account we are going to be cool.  I am all for improving the clarity of articles.


 * There is an underlying problem with your attitude here. Consensus is not a "Wikipedia nicety", it is fundamental to the way Wikipedia operates: it is a policy and pillar number 4 of the five pillars.  Your edits show a disregard for this.  Take this edit for instance.  You have deleted something with "who cares?" in the edit summary.  Now please don't take this as criticism of the deletion per se, I might actually agree it needed deleting.  But obviously the person who inserted it in the article cares.  Many people care about the history of technology - did you search sources before deleting to see if this amplifier really was important in the development of equalisers?  I get the impression that you are not very interested in the history of technology, or the technical details themselves.  What you need to appreciate is that many different readers come to Wikipedia for many different reasons; they are not all going to have the same interests as you.  The scrap of information you want to delete as uninteresting may be the very thing the next reader is searching for.


 * You make numerous technical errors in your haste to "simplify" articles and pay little attention to other editors when they tell you you are making mistakes. I might be mistaken, but I don't think your technical knowledge is very deep and you seem to be relying on your own interpretation of what your read in Wikipedia rather than the original sources to arrive at your version of the text.  Copyediting has its place and many editors do only that, but what you are doing goes beyond copyediting.  To accurately rewrite and article you need to understand it, and to understand the real facts you need to read the sources.  I have never once seen you introduce a reference into an article so I find it hard to believe that you are doing this.  If you were you would appreciate how much hard work goes into providing the information you so casually toss out.
 *  Sp in ni ng  Spark  19:50, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Effects unitss: I'd say over 95% of the references in this article were added by me. The history section is something I researched and composed in its entirety, save for maybe two sentences, referencing as I wrote.
 * Look, I write, edit and grade papers for a living. Just because something is factual doesn't mean it's relevant. That's why we don't see facts about parrots in articles about rhinos. Or shouldn't. If you are going to add a fact to an article you ought to contextualize it and make its relevance plain. Contrary to what you might think, I try to find homes for orphan facts. But when you have an article that is drowning in poorly organized information, yes, perhaps sometimes I can't keep track of all of it and facts get deleted. But like I said, if one is particularly dear to you, for the love of God put it back!!
 * While people may come to wikipedia for many reasons, it is an encyclopedia and should do an encyclopedia's job. If engineers did a better job keeping a general audience in mind as they wrote then we wouldn't be at the mercy of others' attempts to translate their jargon. Of course, correct factual errors. But also at the very least write a lead I can actually read.--Atlantictire (talk) 20:30, 24 April 2011 (UTC)