Jump to content

Talk:Mike Skinner (musician)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Tender"

[edit]

I was hoping this argument would have been settled on The Streets talk page, but apparently someone doesn't like the way consensus went. The adjective "tender" is not encyclopedic, it gives undue weight to the statement, and is non-neutral. Therefore, it doesn't belong in the article. Any further attempts to add it to the description of when Skinner began playing piano will be treated as vandalism. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 15:24, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually there was no such consensus. There were conclusive arguments, and a majority opinion in favour of retaining the word. It is perfectly valid to use the adjective "tender" to describe the age of five for the commencement of keyboard playing. As demonstrated in the reference provided, this is an unusually young age. This fact is not self evident to those unfamiliar with music tuition and practice in early childhood. The phrase "tender age" means "unusually young in this context". To say that future edits will be treated as vandalism is the height of arrogance, when you are the one making unjustified alterations to the original text, and the restoration of the word "tender" is, in fact, simply undoing YOUR vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.150.51.210 (talk) 10:50, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Be careful of throwing that word "vandalism" around, and of confusing it with bold editing as part of the normal editing cycle. Such accusations have a bad habit of coming back on you, especially when you decide to get into an edit war over one word.
Oh, and blogs are not considered reliable sources. That's why I removed the one you referenced. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 14:16, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
While I am unable to decide whether I think that the word should be in the article or not, The I.P. is correct in that a consensus was not actually reached at the talk page for The Streets. FM [ talk to me | show contributions ]  15:04, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would not call it vandalism, but the word is unnecessary and not encyclopedic. In my opinion, it's always better to simply state a fact and let the reader make their own judgements about them. SeaphotoTalk 18:18, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More evidence of your arrogance is your titling of this post "Tender does not belong in the article". Campaigning much? Regarding your dismissal of the reference "blogs are not considered reliable sources" - you're showing your ignorance. On the very page you link to, the Wikipedia guidelines state the following under Self Published Works: ""Blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some news outlets host interactive columns they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write." The learning of piano or keyboard at a young age is not the subject of news, it is a matter for expert opinion. Rachel Branston, as a highly experienced early childhood piano teacher and writer IS a published and recognised expert in the field, and the linked article is republished in several places online. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.150.51.210 (talk) 17:20, April 13, 2011 (UTC)

I'll thank you not to alter my text. Doing so is considered vandalism. That said, if you intend to support your use of the word 'tender', do so by reference to reliable, verifiable sources. That rules out blogs in general. If there's a secondary source that uses her evaluation, and you can cite it to support your position, that is perfectly acceptable. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 17:24, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary adjectives (double-plus ungood), continued

[edit]

The edit warring continues. There are adjectives which sentimentalize and trivialize the subject. This is one such instance. 99.156.70.138 (talk) 13:26, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The adjective lends relevance to the age, by indicating that it is exceptionally an young age at which to learn. 124.148.229.170 (talk) 11:41, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't been active on Wikipedia since early March, but you - and by you I mean the Australian unknown IP who keeps adding 'tender' - left me no choice but to actually respond.
You still do not fully grasp the idea of Wikipedia's guides on neutrality. Like you said yourself, it might be an exceptionally young age (and I actually agree with you there), it still has no place in this online encyclopedia. In this context the word 'tender' implies something which is special, out of the ordinary. It is not up to us to emphasize the fact that Skinner was a highly talented child, but if we add 'tender' we do. We have to let the readers decide what to think of these facts. Neither can we say that Muhammad Ali was the best boxer in his days or say that the Holocaust was a terrible thing. Both very, very true of course, but we can't say it because that is breaking neutrality. I hope you understand this time. --Soetermans. T / C 18:32, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the concept of neutrality just fine, but there's such a thing as taking it to ridiculous extremes. Perhaps you would also like to change the sentence "he has suffered from epilepsy since he was seven", because we can't be certain he suffered, or perhaps it's just too emotive. The article also makes reference to a "miniature recording studio". Is that too opinionated? Perhaps "miniature" should be removed or replaced with the precise physical dimensions in order for readers to form their own judgements about whether it's "miniature". It also says he worked in "fast food" jobs - perhaps that should be removed in case the particular restaurants are considered by some readers to be fine dining. The fact that 5 is a tender age to be playing keyboard is a statistical fact. No judgements about that are being made. 124.148.229.170 (talk) 18:01, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You don't get it, you really don't. It is not a statistical fact, it is an opinion. It is something out of the ordinary for a five-year old to be playing the keyboards, that is what tender implies. The difference is that between your examples and 'tender' is that "suffering from..." or "fast food" are commonly accepted terms in the English language without a point-of-view bias.
Just because the article needs more editing is no argument! Wikipedia is filled with poorly written articles, why don't you look there first? over 60,000 articles actually.
What I also find strange is that even after dozens of reverts of your edits you keep thinking you're right. Isn't there a small chance you could be mistaken? It would help a lot if you'd just realize "gee, I must be mistaken with all these Wikipedia editors thinking I'm wrong". Just saying. --Soetermans. T / C 09:41, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You claim that "suffering from" and "fast food" are commonly accepted terms in the English language but "tender age" is not.. then why does it appear over 1200 times on Wikipedia and why is it in every major online dictionary? As for a "point of view bias", that's nonsense, it's a fact that most people who learn piano start at a much later age. Your argument that "all these Wikipedia editors thinking I'm wrong" is invalid, as this is not a democracy. Imagine the Justin Bieber page if it was. By the way, your condition is known as "Asperger's Syndrome", and although it's untreatable, with the proper care you can still lead a fulfilling life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.148.214.148 (talk) 16:36, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia has more than 3,5 million articles. 1200 articles containing the words "tender age" makes up for 0,03% of all articles. Since Wikipedia is the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit, those 1200 articles are - in my opinion at least - in need of some editing as well. Besides, dictionaries aren't restricted to NPOV rules, are they?
Can you back that up, please? What is the common age for people to start playing the piano? And at what age do you consider it to be "tender"? You see, there you go: it's something that you have an opinion on - which makes it not suitable for Wikipedia. Besides, what's wrong with the sentence without the word "tender"? It's pretty much the same, but without a POV to it.
You're right, Wikipedia is not a democracy. But that doesn't automatically mean you're right. Myself and several other editors have tried to convince you, but with no success. This is no argument either, but I've here on Wikipedia for over 5 years now, editing and discussing on literally hundreds of different articles. You on the other hand keep switching from IP addresses editing pretty much just the word "tender". I see no point in removing it again, so why don't you take a look around? I really do encourage you to check out some other articles, see what could be done with it.
And it's just downright childish to go insulting me. This whole time we've been on two complete opposite sides of this discussion, but now you've resorted to make it personal. Make you haven't heard yet of that guideline, but please, no no personal attacks.

--Soetermans. T / C 10:37, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The tenderness continues, so I've added 'heart-achingly' as well. As long as we're okay with B-grade prose, I suggest we up the ante and add further adjectives--delicate, precious, etc. 99.0.82.226 (talk) 17:56, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think the best way to handle this is to remove the offending prose, not add to it. A better edit would be to remove "tender age". JavierMC 17:59, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I know. My apologies---I just can not believe this has been going on for months. Beyond that, it's best that I bite my tongue, hold my nose, and look the other way. 99.0.82.226 (talk) 18:20, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's been a long while, but my fellow Wikipedians, we won.

[edit]

SUCCES! --Soetermans. T / C 23:02, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Years active 1983 – present

[edit]

If he was born in 1978, how is that possible he started his carrier at 5 years old ? as a musicien ? A new Mozart ? I meant It's amazing or it's just an error ? Thanks for answering. BT — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.220.210.191 (talk • contribs) 18:44, 20 february 2012 (UTC)

The article does mention that he started playing with keyboards at that age and I guess that is what has been followed (although he didn't actually start making music until the early 1990's). I believe that early 90's would be a better start date but the parameter guidelines for the infobox do not state when an artists career officially 'starts' so it can be hard to decide the date used in the infobox in some cases natch (such as this one). FM [ talk to me | show contributions ]  20:05, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Beats

[edit]

The beats has since been reopened, and the first signing is Welsh rapper Elro, with his first release out soon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.216.69.186 (talk) 17:47, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, I have found a source, I will add it in in a bit. FM [ talk to me | show contributions ]  20:35, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lecture by Sir Geoffrey Hill?

[edit]

In context, the sentence I deleted is very misleading: "Dave Simpson particularly praised Skinner's 'dazzling wordplay.' The article and Skinner's lyrics were discussed in an Oxford Professor of Poetry lecture by Sir Geoffrey Hill." is very misleading. It makes it sound like Sir Geoffrey Hill's eminent status reflects well on both Simpson and Skinner. Having listened to the hour-long linked lecture (quite dull, btw), this is pretty far from the case: He had read Dave Simpson's article and disagreed with it... (@1hr04m20s) "What dazzling new word-play? [said with heavy sarcasm] Presumably 'thickens' is supposed to rhyme with 'mittens' and 'conditions'; and if not, care should have been taken to avoid the suggestion. And what have plots ever done than 'thicken'?... [my objection is that] compared to even a minor poet, it is so verbally inept." That is literally the only reference.

I'm a big fan of The Streets (and 'Let's Push Things Forward'), but using this reference in the article to borrow significance from a pompous Oxford poetry professor is giving Sir Geoffrey more credit than he deserves for a passing insult. The Streets are (were) great on their own terms - UK garage - and don't need Oxford professors for validation. Dave Simpson is a credible and respected journalist and quoting him makes sense without the irrelevant Oxford reference.[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Popkd (talk • contribs)

References

  1. ^ http://media.podcasts.ox.ac.uk/kebl/general/2011-hill-poetry-2.mp3

What does it stand for?

[edit]

Mike Skinner and Rob Harvey got really evasive when they were asked what the letters in The D.O.T. stood for. This article just says they got "uncomfortable" when asked, while they straight out threatened to walk out of a live broadcast on Xfm. It seems to be a pretty significant detail about that act - so, what's the story behind the name? Cfmdobbie (talk) 14:43, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just musicians being pretentious. Nothing new. 2A02:C7F:8E0C:6600:843:7087:D803:1944 (talk) 01:12, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mike Skinner (musician). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:09, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mike Skinner (musician). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:40, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mike_Skinner_(musician)&oldid=1198734616"