User talk:72.215.154.27: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Click Five/power pop article |
←Blanked the page |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
== Click Five == |
|||
I'm trying to keep a civil discussion going regarding the power pop notable songs list, but your calling people "sore losers" is not helping. You call the band the "epitome" of power pop, but your references don't come close to supporting that. All you really have shown is that the group is often described as power pop, and the song itself sometimes is. I could do that with literally thousands of songs. (A point I made on the talk page for the article, if you'd care to discuss it there.) You didn't want to include "Buddy Holly" on the list, but there are plenty of citations for that: http://www.magnetmagazine.com/2009/06/30/the-overunder-weezer/, for example, calls it "one of the most perfect pop moments in rock history" and says the group "managed to record some of the best power-pop anthems of the past 15 years", which is far better support for the song being on the list than anything you've shown for The Click Five. www.onlineseats.com/weezer-tickets/index.asp calls it "a power pop masterpiece". http://agentcausation.wordpress.com/2010/01/08/the-top-ten-power-pop-songs/ puts it in the top ten power pop songs. And so on. |
|||
I haven't changed your edit, although I suspect others might. I don't want to get see things turn into an edit war, so I hope you and the others will participate on the talk page. You're right that the list isn't very well supported by citations, but people are trying to keep it clean, in the face of lots of people trying to throw their favorite songs on it--someone tried to list a Beyonce song, for goodness' sake--and most of the things there really do turn up on lists of the biggest power pop songs from people who know the genre. If you do have a basis for them being such an important power pop band, I look forward to seeing it. [[User:Brettalan|Brettalan]] ([[User talk:Brettalan|talk]]) 08:27, 2 March 2010 (UTC) |
|||
== December 2009 == |
|||
[[Image:Information.svg|25px]] In a recent edit{{#if:| to the page [[:]]}}, you changed one or more words from one international variety of English to another. Because Wikipedia has readers from all over the world, our policy is to [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English|respect national varieties of English]] in Wikipedia articles. |
|||
For subjects exclusively related to Britain (for example, a famous British person), use British English. For something related to the United States in the same way, use American English. For something related to other English-speaking countries, such as Canada, Australia, or New Zealand, use the appropriate variety of English used there. If it is an international topic, use the same form of English the ''original'' author used. |
|||
In view of that, please don't change articles from one version of English to the other, even if you don't normally use the version the article is written in. Respect other people's versions of English. They in turn should respect yours. Other general guidelines on how Wikipedia articles are written can be found in the [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style]]. If you have any queries about all this, you can ask me on my talk page or you can visit the [[Wikipedia:Help desk|help desk]]. {{#if:|{{{2}}}|Thank you.}} <!-- Template:uw-lang -->--[[User:John|John]] ([[User talk:John|talk]]) 20:16, 6 December 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:If you do not understand that there are different forms of English, and that some articles use non-American English, please leave them alone. The [[Thin Lizzy]] article is grammatically correct and it is inappropriate to use US English. Further reverts may get you blocked from editing. [[User:Bretonbanquet|Bretonbanquet]] ([[User talk:Bretonbanquet|talk]]) 20:25, 6 December 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::Not only condescending, but wrong. What are you a scholar of? Clearly not the various forms of English as used around the world. It has been explained that Wikipedia rightly uses different forms of English depending on the subject of the article. Whether or not you recognise those non-US forms as correct or acceptable is irrelevant. That you fail to understand British English is nobody's problem but yours. Showing such a lack of respect for variants of English that employ grammar rules different from your own is very unhelpful and impolite. The article is grammatically accurate, whether you're aware of it or not. [[User:Bretonbanquet|Bretonbanquet]] ([[User talk:Bretonbanquet|talk]]) 21:21, 6 December 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:::Again, I mean not to quibble over Wikipedia's tendency to oversimplify qualified authorship, but I am a graduate communication scholar with a fair handle on English, Spanish, and Portuguese grammar, linguistics, phonology, phonetics, morphology, and syntax. If Wikipedia proposes that the best way to serve the English-speaking world is to vary grammatical approaches according to a page's subject matter, then I don't intend to stand in its way. After all, it is a free, and very helpful, resource. Rather than argue with you, I will simply point you back to the point of my original contention. Please, fix the inaccuracies that I noted concerning the Thin Lizzy article. You owe it to both Wikipedia and Thin Lizzy. Thanks! |
|||
::::Your issue with Wikipedia will not be served by bringing it up with me, so we can leave that there. You'll have to clarify your concerns with the Thin Lizzy article in a more specific way before I can tell you whether there are any inaccuracies or not. I'll point out to you first that band names are plural nouns in British English, so there will be no "Thin Lizzy is" etc. Also, please sign your posts with four tildes so a timestamp will be left. [[User:Bretonbanquet|Bretonbanquet]] ([[User talk:Bretonbanquet|talk]]) 22:41, 6 December 2009 (UTC) |
|||