User talk:Tvccs

Ari Hoenig

The article on Ari Hoenig was actually requested on the Wikipedia Musicians list needing bios. The mere fact you're not familiar with Hoenig doesn't mean he's a "garage band" for your rage. Get a life.

No it doesn't, other things do. There's extensive guidelines on what constitutes notability and even extended specific ones as they relate to music and musicians, Ari Hoening doesn't fit them as notable enough to sufficiently warrant their own article. Perhaps rather than trolling at me here are some things you might consider to sate the request for the article and obviously your own desire to create it.

• I'm not sure what sort of music Ari does, but consider a section on them in the article for that genre.
• If there's an article about the music scene of the area they play in, consider mentioning them in there.
• If there is any festival or forum in which they have played which is notable enough to have it's own article, consider adding content about Ari Hoening to it.

My userpage states my position on this stuff, it doesn't mean that I don't believe Ari Hoening belongs on the Wikipedia, it means that I (and the administrator that accepted my nomination of it as a CSD agreed) have helped out keep the Wikipedia encyclopedic by flagging what I felt was an article about someone not notable enough to stand alone.

Thanks for dropping by.

Elomis 08:12, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Ari Hoenig

Doing more research into it, it may not have qualified for speedy deletion but I'll stick by my original contention that he probably isn't notable enough to deserve his own article, unfortunatley (and I'll readily admit that this probably is undeserved and unfortunate) the fact that he is a jazz musician probably means that he misses out on a lot of the normal notability guidelines and tests (for example he probably hasn't had a notable hit on the music charts) but he certainly seems to have a reasonable following in (exclusively) the jazz world. Is it possible to put content about him in an article about a band or bands he has played with? As I mentioned in my first comments I don't and wouldn't content he doesn't deserve his place on Wikipedia but I will stand by the belief that he doesn't deserve his own unless his notability can be asserted properly, if you wanted to write an article exclusively about him have a look through the notability guidelines and see what is required to asset his remarkability properly. BTW, thanks for spamming my userpage, perhaps you could use that content in the article. Hopefully you can see how difficult it is to keep Wikipedia reasonably low on articles about musicians trying to get famous, and keep it to ones that are, and therefore the importance of asserting their notability from the outset.

Elomis 09:07, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Ari Reply, Hopefully Final

I didn't spam your page...I simply posted one of the most extensive and world-ranging gig lists you'll see for ANY musician anywhere, as an FYI.

Based on your criteria, hundreds of jazz musicians would never "rate" a page on Wikipedia because they weren't famous enough to someone sitting in Australia who apparentl..

...a link before you flame my entry as unqualified - I'd never dream of doing that for something I new nothing about. It's unneccessary to rework every musicians career into an extended Wiki article right off the bat, but if others want to that know more...I thought that was the idea of this whole project.

I guess we've got to the very crux of it, I know next to nothing about jazz other than I know I liked Harry Connick Jr. when I saw him at the Opera House but it's not about how much I know about jazz, progressive metal, dressage or milkshakes; from the outset of an article it's not neccessary to work the article into an extended biography but it must assert sufficiant notability, perhaps you could consider editing an article in an external program ensuring that notability is asserted before submission, making sure that it meets the guidelines in here. Mentioning in the article that Has gone on an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one large or medium-sized country, reported in notable and verifiable sources. as per those guidelines would certainly help.

I'm sorry if you feel upset that I nominated this and the administrator agreed, remember that the article was deleted because it didn't assert the notability, not necessarily because Ari isn't notable.

Elomis 09:36, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Re:Ari Hoenig

Thanks for the heads up - I will see what I can do. --cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 13:12, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Don't sweat it

The wiki process really does work, most of the time. Not always. But, if you ever have another situation where a legitimate article is being questioned, just drop me a message and I'll help out however I'm able. Friday (talk) 05:46, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Derek Sherinan Planet X 2.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Derek Sherinan Planet X 2.gif. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 14:05, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:PlanetXPromo-1.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:PlanetXPromo-1.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 09:07, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:TheNiceElegy-400-1.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:TheNiceElegy-400-1.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 17:08, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:TheNiceVivacitas-250-1.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:TheNiceVivacitas-250-1.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ResurgamII 19:15, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Award

		The Original Barnstar
		I award you this barnstar for recent tireless work, especially on Derek Sherinian, Planet X, and numerous other music related articles!!! RockyMM 11:31, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

This is a barnstar!! :) Something else, when I first started editing Derek's page, I had big plans for it (I wanted to include as much info from his site, considering education, early years and more as possible), but no time or clear vision how to do it. Derek's article as it is now by far surpasses what all my plans were for that article. Keep up the good work! --RockyMM 11:31, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Block...?

I just deleted the article, not protect it. You should be good to go to recreate it under the original title. I figured that the entry was either an experiment or technical glitch. Thanks for asking.  :) - Lucky 6.9 06:11, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

United States of America

We seem to be putting together a reasonable consensus on this ! Re Paul Welborne and a couple of other changes I made to the AMC personnel list, I have just copied what is on the record sleeve and know no more. Now I've found the AMC vinyl, I've discovered my old turntable doesn't work properly, and a CD seems to be unobtainable ... Let me know if I can be of any more help re the Rock Machine sampler. Ghmyrtle 09:28, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I've changed Joe Byrd to Joseph Byrd. I don't know anything about Lyrwiki - never looked at it - but will see if I can find the time. Thanks Ghmyrtle 12:19, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

AOL blocking

Are you still blocked? Unfortunately there was no way I could know when I blocked that user that he was on AOL. AOL has always had serious problems with people getting blocked as part of anti-vandal blocks, and some days are worse than others. Academic Challenger 21:32, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

RE:Joseph Byrd

Hi! I don't see the problem with the Joseph Byrd infobox, maybe it was just a temporary problem or just the browser you were using? It looks good to me. Good job on that page by the way :) Andrzejbanas 17:26, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Please unblock...AOL User...thank you

Your user name or IP address has been blocked from editing. You were blocked by (aeropagitica) for the following reason (see our blocking policy): Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "YJ2kool". The reason given for YJ2kool's block is: "vandalism.". Your IP address is 64.12.117.10. Tvccs 05:40, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

YJ2kool has now been unblocked. (aeropagitica) 15:16, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

MagicKirin Block

Hello, My block was done without any discussion from Jaranda who is abusing his position. Can you unblock? Thans 152.163.100.195 21:56, 4 October 2006 (UTC)MagicKirin152.163.100.195 21:56, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Response on McGovern Article

1) If you are going to talk to me, please do so in a civil tone. 2) Please do not think of yourself as more intelligent then me because of an age difference. 3) Please read WP:OWN with regard to who is allowed to contribute to which articles. 4) "Dirty tricks" is a POV word and "illegal tactics" gives off the exact same meaning without the implied point-of-view and that is why it was changed. I hope you can give me the same respect I am giving you right now, I could have easily responded in kind but I won't. Good day.--Jersey Devil 04:05, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

The statements above were made civilly...it's incredibly annoying (and I could have said far more) to have people editing articles on which they have no direct knowledge - the Wikipedia article on dirty tricks specifically details the Watergate/Nixon era of said, and my age comments were directed at the fact that nearly any American alive in that period would associcate dirty tricks and Nixon. It was a mistake to make the revisions you did as the original phrasing was far more historically accurate phrase, as is supported by the article on dirty tricks and dozens of historical accounts of that period. You are certainly free to contribute to articles, and its obvious in reviewing your contributions (as I did before I left my original comments) you have made many substantial contributions. More power to you, but don't sanitize historical fact, as you did in this case - dirty tricks is NOT a POV, and in that case you are completely wrong. And as an FYI, I write for a major newspaper group you likely read. Thank you. Tvccs 04:21, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

The following entry is from the Wikipedia article dirty tricks. Watergate era dirty tricks

For a full history see: Watergate

The Nixon Committee to Re-elect the President (CREEP), a private non-governmental campaign entity, used funds from its coffers to pay for, and later cover up, "dirty tricks' performed against opponents by Nixon's employee, Donald Segretti. Nixon's use of the FBI to investigate, slander and abuse opponents goes beyond simple pranks or dirty tricks into the realm of government initiated crime.

As a result of post-Watergate reform legislation, such activities are strictly regulated, though other private entities still may practice what has become commonly referred to as questionable or unethical dirty tricks.

Recent nomenclature equates a Dirty Tricks Squad to any organized, covert attempt to besmirch the credibility or reputation of a candidate, individual or organization so as to render them ineffective.

For you to claim dirty tricks is a POV, then you should suggest the entire article should be removed, and any Wikipedia editor can do so. However, there isn't one chance in a hundred it would be, as dirty tricks is NOT a POV, as I stated earlier. Tvccs 04:29, 17 October 2006 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jersey_Devil"

This is somewhat odd, since I have absolutely no dog in this fight at all, but since you wrote something on my talk page, I'm going to respond.

You are certainly entitled to believe that people should only edit articles on subjects with which they have direct experience. You should understand, however, that such an idea is directly contradicted by official policy. Know that the policy you're advocating could easily be turned against you; I'd doubt you'd like it if some right-wing Nixon apologist started reverting your edits with comments like "I have a Ph.D. in History from Harvard, so I'm more qualified than you are to edit this article." --Descendall 05:45, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your recent comment, and it's obviously not possible to have direct knowledge of all subjects - there is a huge need, and it's a major weakeness of Wikipedia editing, for editors to have a substantial knowledge level of whatever they edit, politically or otherwise, as I have advocated since joining Wikipedia. I have no political POV on the suitability of inclusion material, rather its accuracy and sourcing...I added the following to User_talk:Jersey_Devil...

Let me offer the following as well...there is a so-called "sourced" quote in that article about McGovern and 20 million people leaving the Democratic party. The source for the quote isn't original, however, I traced the source back to a columnist for the National Review, who I found an e-mail address for, and who I sent an e-mail asking for the source of said quote - he responded it had been said by McGovern in a 1993 PBS program he helped produce - no transcript or tape of said program is available, and I could remove the quote if I wanted to be a jerk, but the reply of the original source is sufficient for me - I actually did the legwork and the research, as I would as a reporter or producer. Tvccs 05:05, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not speaking of anything here that isn't very well documented on a historical basis, and I take the time and effort to do the actual research. Please don't make this a degree-oriented etc. qualification issue, as it isn't - it's a matter of research and knowledge, as well as not sanitizing history and claiming something like dirty tricks is a POV when it flat out is NOT. That's my dog, per se, and I think any and all Wikipedia editors need to research before they make edits, regardless of whether they agree with whatever might be said. There are certainly tons of things I don't "like" on here, but I don't remove/edit anything unless I am well-researched, multiple sourced, and as certain as I can reasonably be as to what I edit, and I very rarely touch other's material unless I am as certain as I can reasonably be it's factually incorrect. Others can certainly pursue editing as they see fit, I'm just following the credos required by major media organizations that care about accuracy first. I have actually found publishing material on here, in following that philosohy, helps improve my editing/fact checking, which is a good thing. Again, thanks for your comments. Tvccs 06:01, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Message from Nazamo (moved from User page)

Hi, sorry to plunk this down here, I can't find a "add talk here" place (perhaps I missed it). I saw your site, and I appreciated a lot of your points, about learning about a topic before you edit a page. Here are some friendly responses to your message....
Thanks for your comments.
Your changes are generally a mess--Just trying to do good-faith copyediting to improve flow, and downgrade strong claims to a more defensible position (e.g. I proposed changing Jaco from the "most celebrated bassist" (or similar phrase), which may be hard to prove, because many bassists have been "celebrated" in bass magazines to "innovative")
I think it's a reasonable forward to claim that Jaco Pastorius and Stanley Clarke were likely the two most influential bassists with fusion ties to the 70's. That commentary was here before I arrived, and I believe it's generally accepted within the fusion community from all that I've read over the past 20-30 years. I'm a former record buyer with a major chain and know many of these people personally as well...have 10,000 recordings, have written liner notes, have music blogs, etc etc etc. God forbid we have anything "OR"...In regards to the layout issues, you have to look at the images on a page and adjust those as well if you're going to mess with copy, not just edit copy and leave a page looking like hell with edits - I don't touch pages unless I'm prepared to edit not only the copy, but the layout as well, and I've had to learn various tricks to make that easier. I might prefer a shorter lead as well, but the prior lead, with the Miles Bitches Brew cover, looked like hell from a layout standpoint, and I didn't want to move the Miles cover just because of my own preferences as it belonged there according to others. Another editor took my original section on virtuosity and time signatures and moved it up into the lead, which I thought was a good move (see the page discussion). I thought it was a good thing to add the Tony Williams Lifetime cover art, which helped balance the layout, and it means the lead is longer than usual. It's a matter of balancing layout and content, and I thought it was the best option at the time. Leaving huge gaps in displayed pages looks terrible, and as I've reviewed pages cited by Wikipedia as excellent I've found layout is an important issue, as it should be. I should also add that I'm reluctant to delete or edit the work of others much except for very minor grammatical cleanup and obvious fact errors or omissions, this is supposed to be a collaborative effort. I'm not the god's gospel on this, and I know people, like the guys that run Audiophile Imports, that can run circles around me. I'd rather add and build than chop and diminish.
and there was no POV in the article as it existed, I argue that statements like "In addition to Davis, the most important figures in early fusion were.." could have some POV. I argue that the POV exists in the phrase "the most important". If it was softened to "other important", sure, that's defensible. But to say a list of 6 or 7 are "the most important," I believe you'd need an expert source saying this.
Again, there are plenty of "expert sources" that have agreed on this for years to the point of common knowledge - there are not a lot of definitive fusion bibles out there, actually none. There are articles referenced at the bottom of the page that do generally support those contentions, however.
and you made no specific references to where you saw a POV. Sorry, should have been more specific in edit summary
You also butchered the layout,I didn't believe that the radio airplay para was needed in the Lede...but if you call that "butchering", OK.
See above commentary about balancing layout and copy - One of the things I have consistently found since I was a record buyer in the 1970's, and have seen and heard dozens of times since, is people asking why they never hear this music on the radio, in the U.S., whereas Scott Henderson and other people have talked about a much wider acceptance overseas.
better spent researching and linking/bookmarking...I agree with this point...I have started some articles, and there are some editors who just keep cutting and deleting, and I feel like you...If you feel so strongly that X content is unsourced or whatever, why not improve it, and don't just cut it out. For the record, I don't think I actually ERASED content, I just tried to copyedit and downgrade claims.
I'm glad you sense the same, and I try to stay away from deleting "unsourced" material I know is reasonable when there are no traditional sources, which is most of the time in what I write about. And yes, there was siginificant content that was deleted in the form of edits.
deletions you made on Soft Machine...references to bands being leaders of scenes are commonly made in music pages...However, I believe these claims, since they are subjective, need to be backed up by a quote from an expert (music critic/music historian). Your point that Soft Machine are the leaders may be fine...but many Wiki editors claim that XXX singer is the leader of YYY scene, or ZZZ band is the leader of the QQQQ scene, without references.
Read the Canterbury scene Wiki page, the Soft Machine page, there are books on Canterbury, many other references, it's generally, not universally (there are a few Caravan and National Health junkies for example), accepted that Soft Machine was the lead band from the Canterbury scene, and that has been the case for 30-plus years, and they have the record sales to support it, having outsold anyone else Canterbury-related with the exception of Pink Floyd by a wide margin. I already referenced the Hugh Hopper interview in my prior comments. In this case we aren't talking about today's bands, per se, this is established and discussed ad nauseum history.
It's also not appropriate to move the radio section down to the 1990's and 2000's section you renamed, it's not related. Sorry, probably not a good place, but I didn't believe the lede was a good place.
See above.
And the majority of other edits, no matter how well-intentioned, create havoc with the prior article, and reflect your own POV.Just trying to improve the article.
Again, your improvements need to be balanced against the contributions of dozens of others, especially when you start chopping up copy. I try and respect the time and effort of others, regardless of whether I totally agree with what they've said, or exactly how they said it.
you are the only contributor to that article in the last however many months that feels that fusion was "well-represented in the 1980's - nearly everyone else has concurred otherwise.Maybe it is a problem of definition of fusion, but the facts indicate that there are Grammy Awards for Jazz Fusion throughout the 1980s....Grammy Awards of 1989: Yellowjackets for Politics Grammy Awards of 1988: Pat Metheny Group for Still Life (Talking) Grammy Awards of 1987: Bob James & David Sanborn for Double Vision Grammy Awards of 1986: David Sanborn for Straight To The Heart Grammy Awards of 1985: Pat Metheny Group for First Circle Grammy Awards of 1984: Pat Metheny Group for Travels Grammy Awards of 1983: Pat Metheny for Offramp Grammy Awards of 1980: Weather Report for 8:30...plus other albums from the 1980s, such as Weather Report (self-titled album) summer of 1981, Yellowjackets Yellowjackets 1981. Yellowjackets Mirage A Trois 1983, Yellowjackets Samurai Samba 1985, Yellowjackets Shades 1986, Yellowjackets Four Corners 1987, Yellowjackets Politics 1988. Yellowjackets The Spin 1989, plus Chick Corea Elektric Band...
The above list generally speaks to the exact issue of the submergence of fusion into the smooth jazz genre and the resulting confusion about fusion (ha-ha). I actually added something to the smooth jazz page on this. By this time Weather Report was a Birdland-driven whatever that was a shell of its original improvisational monster, the Metheny albums cited are from his smoothest phase (and from which many commercial themes were taken - I heard one for Publix Supermakets to the point of near insanity), David Sanborn and Bob James are well-known as smoothers, as is Yellowjackets. The music the Grammys awarded has little or none of the experimentation/improvisation fusion was best known for and is far more littered with the safe and catchy hooks, etc. of smooth jazz, which is why the section on confusion, etc. is appropriately included in the article. If you looked at the smooth jazz station playlists of the time such as the pioneering WLOQ-FM in Winter Park, Florida, the albums you cited above would be all over their air, whereas they wouldn't have touched Allan Holdsworth with a ten foot pole.
You also removed the section on virtuosity, which is also your POV - you have to be a virtuoso to play most of that music, and very few musicians can at the highest levels, or play and improvise in those meters, etc. I would argue that all top professional instrumental musicians with solo careers in genres ranging from bebop, classical, or bluegrass are probably virtuosos on their instruments. If you claim that fusion musicians have an exceptional level of virtuosity, beyond say a top bebop player or classical soloist, then please add in an expert source (musicologist/music critic) to support this.Nazamo 14:44, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Classical musicians have a high level of technical virtuosity, but rarely improvise at anything near the level of the best fusion players, or play in odd meters with rare exceptions, and the improvisation that does exist, no matter how beautiful, is generally limited by the form with some rare exceptions. Be-Bop players and especially some avant-garde players obviously improvise, but again, you rarely hear the complexity of odd meters and changes combined with that improvisation (I'd point to maybe the Art Ensemble of Chicago as the best exception), as opposed to a band like Planet X, for example, that may make dozens of meter changes in a single song, or something like Don Ellis playing in a 19/8 that almost no one can play period. Bluegrass players rarely mess much with meters as well with some exceptions, and I wish like mad bands like Union Station would use their gifts of improvisation more as the virtuosity and ability is obviously there - but again, I don't hear bluegrass recordings where you hear the aspects of fusion where you have extended track lengths and soloing combined with mutiple meter changes, odd meters and virtuosity. If you know of any, please point them my way - I was, for example, disappointed in the recent Union Station live DVD which featured great playing all over, but almost nothing that varied much from what had been recorded and released in the studio, even when the songs seemed to scream out for improvisation live. I should also add/clarify that much of my thoughts on virtuosity is aimed at the rock genre, where people like Bruce Hornsby have made a point of talking about how rare a real concentration on virtuosity is in the latest generation of musicians. I have made an adjustment to the virtuosity section, and will edit it further in order to clarify/improve it. Again, thanks for your comments, and I hope you find mine useful as well. Tvccs 22:49, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Thanks for your well-thought-out comments and ideas. Now I understand the term "butchered" as you used it. I must admit (shamefully) that I don't know about how to organize spacing/pictures on the Wikipedia page yet : ( .... I will learn how to do this, because I agree with you - the appearance and layout of images and text is important. Perhaps the jazz fusion article could have a paragraph describing the differences between hard-hitting 1970s fusion (monster improvisation, mixed meters, 20 minute songs, etc) and soft 1980s radio-friendly "smooth jazz" fusion. I looked again at the edits and realized that I did remove some content. I agree with you that removing content should be done with caution. However, not speaking about the jazz fusion article, but generally about arts/music articles, in some cases, there is a bloat factor, with lots of rumours and detailed stories interpolated into the article. I have trimmed this type of content from articles on David Bowie, Rick Wakeman, Robert Smith, and the Cult. Nazamo 13:23, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Timmy12

You might want to look at Mattisse's contributions today as well. Ekajati (yakity-yak) 18:57, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Removing tags from articles is vandalism

See [1]

There is a difference between citations and references. Please learn. WP:V requires that you use WP:CITE. Please read and absorb. If you continue your present course of behavior, despite with what clique of friend you agree, you will be reported for vandalism. Your personal views do not count. It is Wikipedia policies that matter. It is not a question of voting along with friends for a particlar point of view you all like or want. Follow the rules. I have friends too. And we will not let you continue to bully the Wikipedia population into compliance with your whims. Stop pressuring and threatening people. It isn't nice behavior. Nobody owns the articles. You may not like that (you and your friends act as if you do) but it is true.

Jst read the Wikipedian rules and follow them, despite what you want. Timmy12 05:35, 24 October 2006 (UTC)