Talk:Shaka Rock

Reviews

Can you please add the following review:

• TuneLab Music link

• Bullz Eye - no credibility: "Online men's magazine"?
• Hardrock Haven - perhaps a valid website, but not a valid source of 'professional reviews' - to put it in the same list as Rolling Stone is ludicrous.
• JB Hi-Fi is a retail outlet, so it is not a reliable source. End of story.
• PureGrainAudio - another amatuer music site.
• Rave - only claim it has is it's a published (street) magazine.
• Strange Glue - self-ran website with one reviewer, why should one man's opinion be flashed across Wikipedia alongside the opinions of hundreds of actual professional music critics? It's detrimental to the rest.
• The Tune - I recently added this to Wikipedia:ALBUM#Non-professional reviews after I observed them admittedly adding it themselves to articles. It should not be featured anywhere on WP, it is a blog.

Long story short, only use reviews with Wikipedia pages, it establishes notability and reliability straight up. All of these also have no wikipedia pages. Please don't question my judgement with "oh you hate JET" arguments, it's a load of crap. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 14:12, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello, my sources were legit, Bullzeye is not a men's magazine, the JB hi fi music mag is a critical book from an independent, alternative perspective, and other sources were also professional too. If you don't like the positive critical praise, feel free to add more negative reviews, but in the mean time, please do not vandalise the pro reviews which I have added. If you don't like the band, thats fine, but false claims that the sources weren't professional are incorrect. If u wish to push an Anti-Jet bias, the only proper way to do it would be to add more negative reviews. : ) Feel free to, but please cease vandalising the article, and false-claiming the sources are not credible, and using vague-ites to sway a POV against the band. -Cheers --Aliciocoopera (talk) 23:41, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

From what i have read, u seem to be stretching things, for a supposed expert, and appear to be distorting sources to put the band in a less favourable light. You seem to be playing cowboy, and downplaying certain "professional" aspects of certain reviews, with bias towards larger sources from a negative standpoint, as indicated by the reviews left in. While claiming others as unfavorable and illegal just because u don't like them. Bit of a stretch. --CosmicLegg (talk) 00:04, 1 September 2009 (UTC)--CosmicLegg (talk) 00:07, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Kiac, Then why did u keep in the Rave magazine article with a negative review the first time you altered the article, and took out the majority of decent positive reviews? Face it, your trying to falsely distort any minor technicality you can to try and make the album appear in a negative way, just because you disapprove, and resent the way the album was received. Nobody took out any of the negative reviews, except sputnik coz that wasn't allowed, and i've evaluated whats allow. Oh and other than name, the JB hi fi magazine is a not what you think it is, its is actually a critical look at music, as well as news. Unlike for instance, a Blockbuster music magazine, which is really a retail advert. If thats the only one to debate maybe, the rest are fine, and please cease graffitti on the article. --Youhavebeenthunderstruck (talk) 01:03, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

The tune has been added no the no go list, so i removed that review, rest appear fine. --Youhavebeenthunderstruck (talk) 01:14, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

the reviews appear presentable, and as much as I fuggin hate Strangeglue, it is not done by one person from what I can see. Still if thats the one review I'd like removed and source placed on the banned list, it'd be that one... :))--LookWhatIveDone (talk) 01:24, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Quit being a pretentious git, your beef isn't with whats "professional", its what you personally see as "respectable". If u wanted to debate that sort of thing, their are plenty that argue Rolling Stone is pretentious garbage. Your Point of view does not overule something just because of opinion. Who died and made u judge, jury and executioner?!--Starchild567 (talk) 03:13, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I will try to address as much of this as I can. Is there a point? Not really, I should probably be taking the easy way out and just revert it again. Responded chronologically, so search for your response accordingly.

• Bullz-Eye: Go to the home page, the page title is "Bullz-Eye.com - Online Men's Magazine". Now this is clearly no Playboy or AskMen.com, and they wouldn't even be valid as music critics. JB Hi-Fi is non-negotiable, it flat out fails WP:RS.
• Making claims that I am vandalising with POV, are you serious? Look at my contributions, I've done this to hundreds of articles because these people come advertise there blogs and websites on Wikipedia. This has NOTHING to do with the band, as I have told CosmicLegg on his talk page I do not mind them, in fact I'd even admit in a public domain that even though they rip off many, many acts, as many reviews point out - I actually like them. So please do not assume crap.
• I never said I was an expert at anything, I just don't come here to support a band to the point of trying to tell others what is right when I have no clue - I work out what is right first. "with bias towards larger sources" this is exactly what should be there, in fact, that is all that should be there. A band as big as JET and the 10 best known sources for reviews (infoboxes only permit a maximum of 10 reviews) you can find include amatuerly-run websites and blogs? That is what would be offensive to the band. For example: Would you not prefer a 3/5 from someone like a Rolling Stone, over a 4/5 from "The Tune"? Lol.
• I decided to keep Rave the second time because of my comment above, it is a published magazine - technically making it a Reliable Source, even if it may only have a small audience and thus credibility (obviously being a "street" magazine, it has a limited audience).
• Graffiti? Wow... so a graffiti artist (linked, just in case you need some sort of definition) is now someone that cleans up the muck on the side of train tracks? You made my day!
• Great research on StrangeGlue, Aidan Williamson has done every single review I have ever read from there.
• Who died? Michael Jackson died, but that has nothing to do with this. As does my opinion. How you can include a bunch of amatuer articles written by chumps like you, me and the rest of you alongside professional critics, I don't know. Thinking back, I honestly didn't even look at the ratings... k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 12:58, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Again could u please cease the wild claims and bizarre contradictions... I don't write for those websites and they're not blogs, your conspiracy theory is ridiculous, and mystifying : ), this is more about your opinion and as stated above (see above), (oh and I am not a WP:SOCK), this does appear more to be about 'prestige' to you then anything else. --Aliciocoopera (talk) 01:49, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I never said you wrote for any of these sites. They add it and leave, leave it up to fans like yourself that have no idea about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines to hold up an argument with absolutely no merit - you'd have to have a massive ego to even try and defend your amatuer site when it's up against major publications (somehow they establish notability through Wikipedia though, wow internet advertising through an encyclopedia, genius!). Anyway, I shall write no more, I have made it very clear, explained what I can to you; you can continue to ignore and be reverted (probably eventually blocked), you can wise up and actually read what I am saying with both eyes open (no agenda), or you can travel here and ask for more editors to backup my claims on these being unreliable sources for reviews: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 02:30, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Yet u call Jet a rip-off band, and still keep in the Rave mag negative review, removing numerous other positives... again these are professional, now please cease this Trolling. --Youhavebeenthunderstruck (talk) 05:55, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Kiac:Most changes unwarranted, however yes only 10 allowed, brought down, this is final, and NewYork is 5 star (5th star second line), Any other unwarranted vandalisms shall result in your banning.--CosmicLegg (talk) 14:27, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

You are a very persistent editor, I'll give you that. But you are also quite intolerable, you have still not paid any attention to what has been said. You are POV pushing by claiming amatuer reviews are more professional than trusted and well-known publications because of the mere fact they are 'non negative'. But I am the one who has an opinion on this? Because i remove these amatuer websites? Double standards buddy. The reviews included are not determined by how much you agree with them, they are determined by notoriety and a balance which accurately summarises the wholesome view of the album, which is definitely not shining like you are trying to perceive (You removed bloody Rolling Stone you nitwit! lol.. and you want me to take you seriously?). Had you even heard of any of these sites? Would your neighbour have heard of these? Would any reader of Wikipedia give a toss about what Hard Rock Haven thinks of JET's new album? NO. You need to wake up to yourself, it works both ways, I have taken into account everything you have said and your only argument is that you think you are right, that you think they are okay to include over Rolling Stone (I still can't believe this).

The NYP clearly uses that 5th asterix as a bullet point... it is no mistake, the review is 4/5. Otherwise Willie Nelson's "American Classic" would be sitting on a ***1/2* out of 5.

Oh and, you lazy sod. You reverted the correct format, didn't even bother to fix it up yourself. I know Jet would sure love your willingness to go the distance for them - you didn't even bother to maintain the references which are now required by WP:ALBUM. One final thing - I added an extremely negative review to Dirty Sweet yesterday, by Stylus Magazine, would hate to see them getting blighted on Wikipedia, you must go remove that too! And to the person who denies Jet are a rip-off band... I shall now ignore everything you say. I shall enjoy my ban, all that graffiti I've done... hahaha. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 15:12, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

No it doesn't and This appears to be a more of a case of agree to disagree. You could debate what im saying and what other people are saying,

I don't really have the patience to argue, cbf. But if u really want the reviews, meh, to tired to realy change, but that New York Post review does actually have 5 stars (please read what i wrote on the edit, its on the second line the 5th star), if u don't believe type the review into a search engine and the 5 stars appear together. Other than that I really don't have the patience to fix any of ur persistent Nazi edits. haha, kidding or am I? :-j But if that review from the New Yorker is altered that will be considered a case of vandalism, as I have already gone through this with ya.

Oh and for your Info, that Lust For Life rythm came from bands like the Vandalas, soul and Mowtown, and the band is fans of that type of thing, and thats were they got it from. Iggy is a rip offer too. You probably read that somewhere and just repeated it. On the radio the band made it clear that they didn't get it from him, And when they Met Iggy, he agreed they didn't get it from him. And every band rips stuff a little.

-please read what i wrote and not skim it... type shaka rock new york post in yahoo! if u don't believe: http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=shaka+rock%2C+new+york+post&vc=&fr=yfp-t-501&toggle=1&cop=mss&ei=UTF-8&fp_ip=AU

The nelson bit is an error meant to say 4 1/2 stars. I hope this has been informative. --CosmicLegg (talk) 23:29, 3 September 2009 (UTC)