User talk:Willondon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Smoke on the Water[edit]

Hello, in response to my undoing an edit and in my comment. In retrospect, if the only change to the article was the organ part I likely would not have reversed it so I should have been more selective (as you were) and only taken out "from the left", which I think would have been a "minor" change to the article. As for my comment: I strongly believe that if one is going to introduce a new element into the middle of a phrase/sentence/paragraph that a reference should be provided. Thank you for pointing this out to me, I will make an effort to be more judicious in my reverting and clearer in my comments. Peace. J04n(talk page) 11:13, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

List of Hillside Festival performers[edit]

If you'd like to get started on a comprehensive list of performers at the Hillside Festival, you can start working on User:Twas Now/List of Hillside Festival lineups by year. I'd like to see at least a few entries for each year before we move it into main article space. — Twas Now ( talkcontribse-mail ) 23:04, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Do you intend on pursuing this? — Twas Now ( talkcontribse-mail ) 00:40, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
No, sorry. I don't have the time for that.

Christian Slater[edit]

Hi, sorry for the delay. Normally I would reply more quickly, but I've been away. You are right in saying that the mangled edit to Christian Slater drew my attention, but I also think it is usually unnecessary to dispel rumours. I don't honestly know whether this is a big rumour or a small rumour, so I'll leave it your judgement. I can see reasons for keeping it and reasons for not keeping it, but if you believe it is worth mentioning, I'm not going to disagree. Regards, Rossrs (talk) 15:31, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh by the way, I should mention that I put it back into the article in the "personal life" section. Rossrs (talk) 15:33, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Talking stick article, nice input[edit]

I have to admit to bias towards the talking stick/council circle as the better "worldview." I got to hold an eagle feather last week in an East Coast ceremony, just after launching the perfect birch bark canoe, and a day after a sweat with a perfect beaver stone pipe. The page was unacceptable when I started, but is probably one of the best pages on this wiki (which is generally, and rightfully, rejected by educators). I attempted to combine the material with council/talking circle, as the two are inseparable, but... --John Bessa (talk) 16:51, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

All in the Family[edit]

You hath put a smile on my face with your comments my good sir. =) Thank you for the kind note and explanation on my user talk page. =) I can appreciate any positive editor with good communication skills like yourself. As far as the edit in question goes, I know what you mean about the difficulty in putting your finger on it and finding the words. Plenty understandable. And thank you for the compliment. Hope you don't mind I'm adding you to my user page as a constructive editor. We need more like you here at Wikipedia. =D AmericanDad86 (talk) 16:49, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I've added you to my talk page here: User:AmericanDad86 =D AmericanDad86 (talk) 17:13, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Amanda Todd’s prezi[edit]

You state in the revert message that no evidence that the author is Amanda Todd, or of when it was made. I would consider the date of creation displayed by prezi to be enough evidence that it was made before Amanda died; and I consider the probability of someone else making a prezi about cyberbullying under her name before her story went viral to be almost negligable. You could have inserted a word like prezi probably by A.T. Torzsmokus (talk) 13:52, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

When I reversed your edit, my thought was "How do we know this isn't someone (not necessarily you) faking a Prezi by Amanda Todd?" I reviewed the link. My thoughts on verifiability boil down to how much of a reliable source Prezi.com is.
I assume a date stamp would be hard to fake (7 September 2012, in this case) unless you had inside access to Prezi.com. It would be easy to fake her name, although you point out that someone doing that before her story got widespread attention is extremely unlikely. We also know, from her YouTube video, that she did use Internet media to express herself on the issue.
Your response tells me that you've reflected on the issue. I'm not totally convinced, so I won't reinstate the edit; but I invite you to redo the edit if you think it's accurate and an improvement. I won't object. I see there are over one hundred watchers of the article, so if nobody else objects to your reassertion, then I guess it's just me. Willondon (talk) 20:40, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Please don't revert for the sake of reverting[edit]

If you have an actual reason why you think the article is better off with a partially inclusive list of original research that was tagged for two years, I'd really like to hear it. Joefromrandb (talk) 07:00, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Regarding this edit [1] Willondon (talk) 03:42, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
P.S. Thanks for the walk down memory lane [2]. I see how woefully incomplete the list was. Willondon (talk) 03:42, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Backgammon rules[edit]

Hi, I guess I meant to say that there are basically three ways of interacting with the other player's checkers -- capturing/hitting; stopping, like in Tapa; and blocking, like in Gul Bara. 87.121.162.185 (talk) 00:48, 22 January 2014 (UTC) And I tried to edit the article as little as possible, but it just ended up badly phrased. 87.121.162.185 (talk) 00:54, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Bands[edit]

Hi Willondon,

I noticed you removed Jackyl from the page BAND. Would you please let me know why this was done? I noticed that Blue Day is listed and they haven't had the impact that Jackyl has, Blue Day doesn't even have a WIkipedia page (not my business, but just a point to make), and Jackyl does. The singer of Jackyl also has a page as does his television show, and other points of interest. The band is relevant now more than ever and I had hoped it would remain on the page. Please let me know?

Thank you very much24.99.49.178 (talk) 18:39, 25 March 2014 (UTC)Sadie

I didn't think the band illustrated anything new regarding rock and pop four-piece music groups. The band is certainly notable, but for an article about music ensembles, the line-up is pretty typical (okay, except for the chainsaw) and adequately represented.
You'll see that a bit further down in the article, there's a comment cautioning against adding any more band names to the list. As with the paragraph we edited, there are already a large number of groups named, and there are dozens if not hundreds of bands that could also be used to illustrate four men in a rock and roll band. (Chilliwack should really be on that list, if anything).
Did you mean "Green Day"? Green Day has a wikipedia page, of course, but now that I take a look, I removed them from the list, too, because I think they're probably more known from their days as (officially) a trio.
The comment says "unless they've made a large impact", but I think that's the wrong criterion to use. Notability is necessary, but unless a band illustrates something the others on the list don't, the current lists are more than adequate in my opinion. Willondon (talk) 00:57, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Willondon,

While agree with most of what you have said here (certainly can't list every band out there!), I felt is was worthy of a discussion for a few reasons:

1. Blue Day (? who knows who Blue Day is, they don't have a page, this wasn't listed as Green Day which is better known as a trio, nice showing of your "Rockstar knowledge", well played, Sir!)

2. Jackyl is a multi-platinum award winning band who has (and continues to have) made a huge impact in the areas of music, rock, television, band spin-offs, solo projects, civic responsibility, patriotism, and has worked with the biggest names in the industry..it goes on for awhile...Let's just say, the band has been around for decades and has achieved things other bands have not (and some have surpassed, I"ll give into that one).

3. By adding them to appropriate pages, like Bands (music), it only brings more people to Wikipedia. I suppose the chainsaw is different too :-) but their story goes much deeper than can be discussed here. Is there a happy medium we can come to on this?

Thank you very much for your detailed response, I look forward to working through this with you. I notice Blue Day is still there and does not link to anything in Wikipedia or outside of Wikipedia. I would be happy to take the place of Blue Day for Jackyl. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.99.49.178 (talk) 02:27, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I suggest that you add Jackyl to the list again, and remove two other bands. I won't object.
(I have no clue what "Blue Day" you are referring to, as I don't see it in my copy of the article. I'm assuming a humorous reference to "Green Day". Hey, I'm not stupid, it's the medium.)
It's not really me you have to work things out with, but the Wikipedia community. The stats say there are 76 people watching the page for changes. So if you want to reinstate Jackyl as an example of a typical four piece rock band, I won't object.
To me, your argument for including Jackyl seems motivated more by a passion to promote Jackyl, than an interest in improving Wikipedia. This is an article about Musical Ensembles. But we agree that Jackyl is as excellent an example as any to include in an already bulging list. So go for it, just don't make the list any longer.
I'm glad our conversation revealed that "Green Day" could be ditched from the list of four-piece rock bands. I would be happy to see you add Jackyl, and remove two other bands from the list, in the interest of shortening it.
In my opinion, examples of rock or pop ensembles are ideally well known and stable (Led Zeppelin and The Who didn't change members or musical roles during their most recognized years) or perhaps represent the exercise of a particular instrumental line-up in an unfamiliar genre.
Anyway.. I suggest that you add Jackyl to the list again, and remove two other bands. I won't object. Willondon (talk) 03:43, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Willondon,

Thank you so much for your response! The Blue Day I am referring to is here on this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rock_bands#Rock_and_pop_bands stating the following:

"Some bands will have the bassist on lead vocals, such as Thin Lizzy, The Chameleons, Skillet, Pink Floyd, Motörhead, NOFX, +44, Slayer, The All-American Rejects or even the lead guitarist, such as Dire Straits, Creedence Clearwater Revival and Blue Day"

My interest is in improving Wikipedia for sure, by using the Jackyl "story" in appropriate areas, I think people will understand what I have just recently learned about the band, their awards, patriotism, activism, history, involvement in television, movies, etc. It is a story of a multi-faceted band that not only plays music and sells music, they are businessmen...in a band.

It is a story that took me by surprise for sure, but it is a valid one. I think what you are picking up on is my wild passion for all things "music", biographies, history and such. :-) I will read it over again before making changes to ensure I write it properly. I welcome your input at anytime. Thanks so much! You ROCK!

24.99.49.178 (talk) 23:19, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Ah, yes. I see the reference to "Blue Day" now. I edited that band name out of the list, too. A bad week for bands with names of colourful days, I guess. (I'm glad that confusion was cleared up.)
I've detected a faint undercurrent of enthusiasm for the band Jackyl in your remarks. Keep in mind that the article is on "Musical Ensembles", and that we're all meant to edit with the goal of improving Wikipedia.
But like I said, Jackyl is as good an example as any for a four-piece rock band with two guitarists (one on lead vocals), a bassist and a drummer. I still think your enthusiasm for the band is your primary motive, but I can see where placing Jackyl in the list could benefit Wikipedia. I heed your comments in point #3, related to keeping things relevant. Willondon (talk) 02:58, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Willondon,

1. I think we need a Willondon page! :-) 2. I read through other people's "talks" about this page, what do you think about separating Classic Rock Bands from Modern? I know this will eventually have to be updated as the Modern bands that are worth a poop will be Classic Rock Bands, but, you and I will be dead by then, and this way we can differentiate by addressing some of the "talk page" comments.

Honestly, I am totally unsuited to such a task. I've enjoyed pretty much all types of music during my fifty whips around the sun so far. I play music, write it, and improvise, and I find it a lot easier if I don't get into classifying music.
I appreciate the job that music critics do, and categorizing music and musicians is an important part of that job. I'm happy exploring the trees in the forest, and I worry that that joy might disappear if I could actually see the forest for the trees.
You've demonstrated an interest in music and musicians, and a willingness to engage in discussion as you edit Wikipedia. I wish you luck, and predict positive results on your editing journeys. Willondon (talk) 03:17, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Isaac Brock[edit]

You'll probably have noticed that I reinstated Grace Church having found the Guardian interview used by About.Com - just searched on the quote and 'Guardian'. There's a lot more in the interview that could be used in the article, but I've not got the time. Dougweller (talk) 11:45, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I think the "Early Life" section is starting to bulge as it is, so I wouldn't recommend adding much more. It's good that you took the time, though, to get the Grace Church material properly sourced. I came to edit this article because the original editor seemed to have an agenda. All their edits were over a brief period of time, and they added almost the same thing across a number of different articles. I believe they were acting in good faith, and the assertions may or may not be true, but the referencing was horrible. I also felt that factual or not, their tunnel vision focus on the religious heritage of various entertainers seemed to ignore the context of the individual articles and how relevant or important the fact may be there.
Anyway, good job on finding a proper reference. Willondon (talk) 13:59, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

David Bowie records sales[edit]

Let me tell you that I DO really care about him, and please look at this List of best-selling music artists, Bowie certification sales is TOO LOW for claiming 140m-albums. His records sales is nothing but 100m-records, that's why his name could not get into that list. thanks Politsi (talk) 01:18, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

The statement gives a source, and the source says 140 million. It may be true that sales are 100 million, but you haven't given a source for that fact. The article WP:VERIFICATION explains why Wikipedia values verification before truth. Willondon (talk) 02:47, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Edit war at White Rabbit (song)[edit]

Did you not see the three warnings I left at the IPs talk page? I'm not sure what the issue is here. Radiopathy •talk• 00:04, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I'd never posted a notice on the Admin Board before, so I had to learn the template they suggest, how to include diffs, format the whole thing. It took me a while in the sandbox [3] to learn how to do it proper. So between when I started, and when I finished, those warnings transpired without me checking up on things. I still think I did a pretty good job.
Sorry about that. Next time, I'll be faster, and have all the latest info in my complaint.
There's no longer an issue for me. The page has been semi-protected, which will probably prevent the repeated assertions that I wanted stopped. Sorry to involve you, but it seemed only fair to let you know about my Admin Board post.
Cheers (straight up with no sarcasm) Willondon (talk) 00:56, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Tweenies episode[edit]

I thought that was an episode (Towers), sorry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.5.226.142 (talk) 15:17, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

The future of Mötley Crüe[edit]

From Jakefb828 (talk | contribs):
(moved from my user page)
motley crue is doing their last show in 2015 therefore the years active are 1981-2015 no longer present