Talk:Gary LeVox

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Biography / Musicians (Rated Stub-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians.
WikiProject United States / Ohio (Rated Stub-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Ohio.


This article should be merged, as this article makes no claim of notability for this individual apart from his band. If no objections are made in the next 48 hours, I will do the honors myself.--Esprit15d • talkcontribs 19:31, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I can't think of an instance where a band, who establishes notability through several sources, doesn't have a lead singer who isn't notable as well. I don't think the merge is warranted. The Equilibrium (talk) 00:35, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Amen! Gary, Jay, and Joe Don are all notable in their own right along with being part of Rascal Flatts. Merging would be a bad idea. Yes, the article needs to be expanded, but merging is not what should be done. Would you merge Don Henley into The Eagles? No. Additionally, you can't arbitrarily merge because you feel like it, you have to go through proper channels and not put random time limits on things. KellyAna (talk) 23:29, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


Unless a VALID reference can be found that says Gary took the name LeVox because it means "The Voice" the reference isn't relevant. Do not add non-relevant references. There are many names that mean something in Latin but it's not valid to the articles. KellyAna (talk) 01:33, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Is it not valid or is it not relevant? It does not say why Gary took the name, it just says what the name means. It's not a name that 'means something in Latin,' it is a Latin term. You said my edit was satire, the re-addition was vandalism, it was comedic, you templated me 2x and used hostile edit summaries. You're kinda all over the place. I would say that your MO is a bit unnerving, but that's Latin, and likely to be reverted. The Equilibrium (talk) 06:43, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't find the commentary, which it is, commentary not necessary fact, relevant to the article. Are you going to go around to all the articles where a singer or actor changed their stage name and explain what it's latin meaning is? That would be an unnecessary waste of time. As for the reference, it's an opinion, not a demonstration of fact relative to the article. Do you know that's why Gary took the name? Is there a different source that states such a thing? Without finding reference that says he took the name because that's what it means, I don't think someone's commentary should be part of the article's heading. Without judging you appear to be a new editor, maybe you should take a look and see if other articles are written as you tried to write this. You'll find that they are not. As to any warnings or agressiveness, that should be talked out on talk pages, not article talk pages. Please take the conversation there. IrishLass (talk) 14:11, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Uhm, let's see. His name is LeVox, which in Latin means "The Voice" and he is a singer. Martin Sheen isn't a glossy object, if he were, then a reference stating that Sheen has a literal meaning of Shine would be relevant. The source is a reliable one, it is not a satirical addition. It's a fact. A fact backed by a reliable source. The article is a stub, so why are you rejecting sourced, relevant material? LaraLove 14:20, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I said that unless there's proof that's why he took the name the addition, being solely commentary not based on facts about Gary LeVox should be excluded. Is there proof that's why he took the name? If not, there's really no relevant reason for inclusion. The fact that removal of fact, his cousin being a member of the band, is being replaced by opinion is also troubling. IrishLass (talk) 14:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't matter why he took the name. The point is that the name has a literal meaning of "The Voice", which is relevant considering he's a singer. Whether he took it on purpose or he flipped open a name book with his eyes closed and stuck his finger down on a page and hit LeVox doesn't matter. It wasn't claimed that's why he took it. Trivia sections are discouraged on Wikipedia. Trivia itself is not, as long as it is notable, relevant and backed by a reliable source. This information is a fact. LeVox is latin for The Voice. That's a fact. There is no additional claim being made. It's backed by Rolling Stone which is a reliable source.
Also, if you've determined that the editor who added this information is new, need I remind you of WP:BITE? Because the edit summaries and template warnings are not helpful to an editor who is obviously working to improve the article. Finding a stub tagged as unreferenced and adding references, which I noticed were added using templates and those templates were removed, which is fine, but with them went the authors, which is not appropriate. We give credit where credit is due, and it is not helpful to dismantle the work of new editors while being bitey on their talk pages and in edit summaries. LaraLove 14:35, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I didn't feel I "bit" him, I gave him no warnings, I commented on an article I've watched for months. KellyAna probably did, she bites a lot, but I didn't give any sort of warning to anyone.
After thinking about this, the "fact" if you want to call it that, is TRIVIA, discouraged by Wikipedia. Now, if you can find a statement that says "LeVox chose the name because it means, "The Voice" then it can be used, otherwise it's just trivia about the word. IrishLass (talk) 15:42, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
As I said above, trivia sections are discouraged on Wikipedia. Trivia itself is not, as long as it is notable, relevant and backed by a reliable source. I also never said you bit him. I didn't name you. My warning about biting new editors with template warnings, snippy edit summaries and dismantling their work applies to those who have wrongfully done any or all of them. Now, back to the content, I hope this is the last time I have to clarify this; there has been no assertion that he chose the name for that reason. It is a relevant piece of information as he is a singer and LeVox means "the voice". We're working with a stub and there is absolutely no reason whatsoever to exclude this information. LaraLove 17:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
My understanding is unnecessary trivia is discouraged PERIOD not only when an editor feels it might be relevant. It certainly isn't relevant in the opening paragraph. It certainly isn't relevant if it's based on a source that is opinion and not based in fact other than his opinion. His second comment in the reference shows a level of ignorance that calls the entire source into question. I have attempted to engage in discussion, but been met with accusations, regardless of how you perceive your comments, they followed mine and were addressed to my reply. As I was offering opinion, which a valid way to make decisions about articles, I find the warning inappropriate and should have been directly addressed to the person who "did the biting" with no implications if you've determined that the editor who added this information is new is expressly directed at me since I noticed his new status.
As it stands, at this point, the TRIVIA is unnecessary in my opinion when the source is opinion/commentary. Before addition, more comments should be allowed as others think it is relevant. I find it non-sensical commentary just to hear one's self talk. That is my impression of the source. Validity is truly in question based on the information I read.IrishLass (talk) 19:15, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I've expressed my opinion but now I'm backing out of this. I only had the article watched because of a long ago past issue. I'll let you discuss it as I am just not fond of biographies. I'll take geography instead. Less opinion, more fact in a plot of land than in people. IrishLass (talk) 19:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
IrishLass, I apologize for making it appear as though I was accusing you of biting. The warning was a broad one directed at no one person but to anyone it may apply. WP:TRIVIA reads Sections with lists of miscellaneous information (such as "trivia" sections) should be avoided as an article develops. Such information is better presented in an organized way. Trivia is definitely permitted, it just needs to be correctly presented. LaraLove 20:52, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Accepted. Thank you. I still object to the inclusion but more for the reasons below, the author appears to be mocking, at least a little, Wikipedia. As the article includes the phrase "Put it on Wikipedia" the connotation that he's attempting to get his original research on the site is disturbing. IrishLass (talk) 20:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

In the interest of avoiding COI, the Equilibrium is my account. No one had any prior knowledge. It's just my way of solely editing article space. But the lesson learned here is so disheartening. Irish said it best when she queried just why she came back. My using a legit article sock was peaceful until such a disaster. So you can all feel free to direct responses to my talk page for continuity, as I will be using this account for all edits. Not intended, but what a lesson in what it is like to be new here. I would never do it over again. the_undertow talk 07:49, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Rollingstone source[edit]

Just wanted to point out the opening paragraph

Foo Fighters, Echoes, Silence, Patience & Grace [Full Album Stream]Fact, The album’s title comes from the name of Dave Grohl’s four Lhasa Apso. Look it up! By which we mean: Put it on Wikipedia!

It appears that the author is mocking not only Wikipedia but everyone he's commenting about. Just wanted to point that out as a further reason to question the source. Thank you. IrishLass (talk) 20:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)