User talk:Willytheslip

Re: Elvis Presley inspiring U2
Had you read the inline note instead of removing it, you would have seen that it stated to not add any more artists to the list as it is not intended to be comprehensive. The problem with your point is that it forces us to, in your own words, "assume". This is a violation of WP:OR. The poem does not explicitly say that Elvis inspired Bono; to say that he did is original research and violates the above policy, as well as WP:SYNTH. Finally, this is the article about U2; not Bono. Nowhere in that source does it say that Elvis inspired Bono, let alone the whole band. It is far more appropriate in the Bono article, where I believe it is in fact already mentioned. Rather than simply removing the inline note and adding an unsubstantiated claim about Elvis Presley, it would have been far appropriate for you to initiate the discussion on the talk page; it's your onus to back up your claim, not mine to do it for you. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 02:01, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not me who decided anything, it was a decision by the people who colectively edited the article as it became featured, hence why the inline note was included in the first place. There has to be a cutoff. And nice try but that Rolling Stone article still does not work. You are once again inferring what is said in the source to mean something that it does not say. The fact that they worked with Jack Clement and recorded at Sun Studios does not mean that they were influenced. You need to find something that explictly states he influenced the group (instead of something that you just assume it means) and then you need to bring it up on Talk:U2 for discussion before adding it. Per WP:STATUSQUO, If you make a change which is good-faith reverted, do not simply reinstate your edit - leave the status quo up. If there is a dispute, the status quo reigns until a consensus is established to make a change. Instead of engaging in an edit war, propose your reverted change on the article's talk page or pursue other dispute resolution alternatives. Please also read WP:V for further explanations. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 02:24, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 02:38, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not making this into a game at all. I've outlined all of the relevant policies to you repeatedly: WP:OR, WP:V, WP:SYNTH, WP:STATUSQUO, and now WP:3RR. You need to read and understand how Wikipedia works, especially when it comes to featured articles. I know that you're edits are made in good faith; I've already said that. But you can't add something that is not verified, even if it made in good faith. Bono wrote a poem about Elvis; that doesn't make him an influence. Bono said Elvis was a great musician; that's an appreciation of his musical ability, not an influence. If you have concerns about the quality of the sources for Beatles and Patti Smith, I'd suggest that you bring that up on the talk page as well when you open the discussion about Elvis instead of engaging in an edit war. And please, indent your talk page comments using the colon key; it's a common courtesy to aid in readability.
 * That second source does work to verify it; that's the kind of thing we need to have to back up our claims in articles. I still don't see how the poem has any relevance, so I've compromised by adding in both Rolling Stone sources and formatting it in a similar manner to the way the rest of the section is laid out at its expense. To indent, use the : at the beginning of each line in your responses. You can see the way it's laid out by my responses on your talk page (the initial message is not indented, the first reply has one :, the second reply has two :, etc.) I've already explained that my initial revert was because the edit was at that time original research and so had to be removed, as were all my subsequent edits. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 03:14, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: U2 & Rock Band
That is saying they would like to be in a game, not that a game is in development. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 18:53, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd bring it up on the talk page for discussion first to see what the other U2 editors think. Given the scope of what the article covers, my personal opinion is that expressing interest in a project like that is too trivial for inclusion. Rumours for this game have been going back for at least a couple of years, but there hasn't been anything solid to date. Though if it is confirmed I can certainly see a sentence being added to cover it.
 * Additionally, I think that we definitely got off on the wrong foot yesterday. I'd like to apologize for that. You're a new editor to Wikipedia, so if you have any questions about policies, article format, etc, I'd be more than happy to help you out with it (I promise I won't bite again)! MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 19:29, 6 December 2009 (UTC)