User talk:DFelon204409

http://www.purevolume.com/greer http://www.hxcmp3.com/bands/12660

= Emo =

Honestly, man, if you truly believe the stuff you're trying to cram into the Emo article, then you should remove yourself from the writing process.

Regardless of what Gravity was doing in the early 90s, it doesn't change the fact that in 1995 and 1996, the indie scene equated Sunny Day Real Estate with emo. And I'm not talking about Rolling Stone. Do a search in Google Groups for newsgroup postings on emo from 1995-1999, and you'll see that the writeup in the article is 100% accurate. (I was there when that stuff happened - I saw it myself.)

The whole point of a Wiki article is to describe the past and reflect the present as accurately as possible. "Grunge" was a word created by the media. Nirvana and Pearl Jam wanted nothing to do with the term. But popular perception was that they were grunge, so they are now permanently listed historically as grunge bands.

You can't coin a new term and force it on people. I agree on your point - I would prefer that people not use the term "emo" to describe the new music. BUT THEY DO. Telling people that they should call it "pop hardcore" because you think they should doesn't work. NOBODY calls it "pop hardcore", so an article on the subject would be entirely invalid from a journalistic standpoint.

EVEN IF YOUR VIEWPOINT IS RIGHT, it's irrelevant. Thousands of kids view "emo" to be exactly what it is today, whether you or I like it or not. Read the Wiki guidelines about an article, and it's pretty clear: "When you wonder what should or should not be in an article named 'whatever', ask yourself what a reader would expect under "whatever" in an encyclopedia."

A seventeen year old kid looking for an article on "emo" isn't going to show up looking for an article about Gravity Records and Indian Summer. Having the historical elements about where the term originated is fine. But claiming that emo diverted in the 90s towards some other sound is not relevant when thousands of people use the term to describe something else.

I hate to say it, but you're not only outnumbered by the other contributors, but by civilization itself. All the bands you're describing (Circle Takes the Square, Hot Cross, City of Caterpillar, Funeral Diner, and A Day in Black and White) should do themselves a favor and call themselves something else. Coin a new term that hasn't been destroyed by popular culture. "Emo" isn't something that a Wiki article is going to be able to take back from the masses. -- ChrisB 08:07 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Special interest
May I ask you to pay some special interest to WP:COI, WP:NOT (especially the section WP:NOT, WP:SPAM, WP:EL. When in doubt, I would suggest you discuss on talkpages first.  Thanks.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 17:40, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:
 * 1) editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with,
 * 2) participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors,
 * 3) linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Spam);
 * and you must always:
 * 1) avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially neutral point of view, verifiability, and autobiography.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see Business' FAQ. For more details about what constitutes a conflict of interest, please see Conflict of Interest. --Dirk Beetstra T C 22:25, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

172.212.38.243
Thanks for alerting me. I have reversed the vandalism. If there is further vandalism, you may reach out to me again or report him to WP:AIV and I or someone else will block him. However, feel free to revert that and any vandalism yourself in the future. Goodnight mush Talk  18:49, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Burton Wagner
Unfortunately this individual does not meet our criteria for a musical act article per WP:BAND. The article has been deleted, though personally I will say that his music sounds intriguing, particularly the fact that he did a Darger concept album. If you feel he meets WP:BAND, give me some links and I'll review the situation.--Isotope23 talk 12:58, 31 October 2007 (UTC)