User talk:Eccabw07

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.&mdash;Kww(talk) 16:00, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Every edit I made but one, is cited. Drake Bell is "alternative rock" like Kurt Cobain was an opera singer. Drake Bell's music is teeny bopper pop. Regarding the Hawk Nelson song, Drake Bell did not "collaborate". The writing credits for that song include no one but the band member's of Hawk Nelson. Drake Bell lip-synced in a video for the song -- as I stated. Drake Bell's album It's Only Time was a failure, was trounced by critics and there is a citation for that edit.

Regarding iTunes "release" of a Radio Disney song, iTunes doesn't release songs. Songs are released by the owners on iTunes. My edit is accurate.

Superhero Movie was panned by critics and my edit cites one critic's opinion.

Regarding Drake Bell's "influences". Critics have not "described his music as heavily influenced by The Beatles and The Beach Boys", this comes from a press release that is quoted on every website you can find that does an article on Drake Bell. It's from his press release. Therefore my edit stating that Drake Bell claims his music is "is heavily influenced by The Beatles and The Beach Boys" is accurate and the edit you insist on reverting to again and again is in fact wrong. So I would ask you to please refrain from making unconstructive and inaccurate edits to Wikipedia. I'm sorry if you're a big Drake Bell fan and some unflattering edits about him disturb you, but facts are facts and my edits are facts and I will be reverting the article to my edit. Eccabw07 (talk) 16:45, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Don't make the mistake of thinking I'm a Drake Bell fan. Never heard the man, don't watch Disney TV ... I'm way out of the demographic. Wikipedia articles are not intended to be hit pieces, and the language you are adding to the articles is way out of the range of that permitted by WP:NPOV. Feel free neutrally add material from critics that dislike him. Do not include pejorative adjectives, insulting descriptions, and similar items in the Wikipedia text. Continuing along those lines will result in your account being blocked.&mdash;Kww(talk) 17:32, 28 January 2010 (UTC

Let me just run through a few of the edits I made that you think are "pejorative" or "insulting" and felt the need to change.

A. I changed his music genre to "teeny bopper pop". You changed it back to "pop rock" and "alternative rock". He's in no way an "alternative" artist. Now I could see if you wanted to be hyper-sensitive and call "teeny bopper pop" a pejorative term, but then if that were really what was bothering you, you'd replace "teeny bopper pop" with "pop rock" and leave off the "alternative rock". You claim you've "never heard the man", but you seem to think you know enough about him to decide what genres his music belongs in. And while you've "never heard him", you know what his demographic is, so you know that the vast majority of his fans are no more than 16 years old. Therefore, "teeny bopper pop" is accurate. So, you could have left that alone. But you didn't.

B. I changed "In 2005, Bell collaborated with Hawk Nelson on a song called "Bring 'Em Out," which was featured in the movie Yours, Mine and Ours." to "In 2005, Bell lip-synced in a video for the Hawk Nelson song "Bring 'Em Out", which was featured in the movie Yours, Mine and Ours." That's what happened. It's as neutral as you can get. He did not, as I previously stated, "collaborate" with Hawk Nelson. He has no song writing credit for the song. You could have left that alone. But you didn't.

C. I changed "Bell's second album, entitled It's Only Time, was released on December 5, 2006." to "Bell's second album, entitled It's Only Time, was released on December 5, 2006. The album, an abject failure, was trounced by critics with one describing it as a "Second Album of Lightweight, Empty Pop Songs". The album was a sales failure. It was also a critical failure. Do you not like the term "abject failure". Again I see that as a bit of hyper-sensitivity. But it's a fact. You could have left that alone. But you didn't. Would you like: "The album performed poorly in the charts and was panned by critics with one describing it as a "Second Album of Lightweight, Empty Pop Songs"."? I'd be happy to make that change.

D. I changed "On October 16, 2007, iTunes released a Radio Disney single edit version of his song "Makes Me Happy", the second single for Drake's album It's Only Time." to "On October 16, 2007, the single edit version of his song "Makes Me Happy", was released on iTunes." That's completely accurate and "neutral". iTunes does not "release" songs. iTunes sells songs, Radio Disney released the song on iTunes. Again, as neutral as it gets, and factual, and you could have left that alone. But you didn't.

E. I changed ..."Superhero Movie called "Superhero! Song"." to ..."Superhero Movie, (described by critics as being "more enjoyable than Epic Movie but then, so is getting stabbed in the chest....with a relentless mix of sadism and farts") called "Superhero! Song"." and I included the citation to the criticism. You said: "Feel free neutrally add material from critics that dislike him." I did just that and you could have left that alone. But you didn't.

F. I changed "Critics have described his music as heavily influenced by The Beatles and The Beach Boys, with the Beatles being his main influence. Two of his other influences are Elvis Presley and Buddy Holly." to "Bell claims his music is heavily influenced The Beatles and The Beach Boys, with the Beatles being his main influence. He also claims Elvis Presley and Buddy Holly as two of his other influences." And I cited his own MySpace as a reference. Critics have not "described his music as heavily influenced by The Beatles and The Beach Boys...", he has in his own press release and on his own website and on his MySpace. The whole quote is taken from his press release when it is used by "critics". As neutral as you can get. Furthermore, the original citation is not to a critical piece but to an MTV "bio". So you could have left that alone. But you didn't.

G. I changed "A DVD entitled "Drake Bell In Concert" was released on December 16, 2008. The DVD contains footage of him and his band live on stage while they toured in Mexico, in October 2008. It also features 2 new songs and 5 covers, all of which are exclusive to the DVD." to "A DVD entitled "Drake Bell In Concert" was released on December 16, 2008 to miserable sales, being unable to crack the 2008 or 2009 Top 100." Fact! With a citation. You could have left it alone. But you didn't. Are you objecting to "miserable sales"? What would you like (and why do you get to decide?) "...did not sell well, being unable to crack the 2008 or 2009 Top 100..."? How about just "...released on December 16, 2008. The DVD failed to crack the 2008 or 2009 Top 100"?

You say "Wikipedia articles are not intended to be hit pieces...", they're also not intended to be puff pieces.

The article is far more balanced with my edits than is the article that you insist on reverting to. Eccabw07 (talk) 19:04, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * OK. Yes, I read "teeny-bopper pop" as pejorative. I don't think that is hypersensitive. Nor are:
 * "Bell lip-synced in a video" He provided vocals, did he not? Are you aware of any music videos performed live with a singing performer>?
 * "The album, an abject failure,..." is a clear POV violation.
 * "getting stabbed in the chest....with a relentless mix of sadism and farts is certainly a cherry-picked quote. Want to reference a 15% approval rating at Rotten Tomatoes? Fine. Objective, and gets the point across.
 * "...claims..." violates WP:WEASEL.
 * "miserable sales" violate WP:NPOV. State a figure and move on.

As for why I am wholesale reverting, it's because your edits have a clearly inappropriate tone and intent. As I said, balancing the article is fine. Turning it into a hit piece is not.&mdash;Kww(talk) 20:11, 28 January 2010 (UTC)