Talk:The Talleys

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christian music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christian music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Christian musicWikipedia:WikiProject Christian musicTemplate:WikiProject Christian musicChristian music articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	It is requested that an image of this person be included in this article to improve its quality.

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved by The Earwig (talk · contribs) to "Talley Trio", which appears to be correct, according to sources and their own website. PeterSymonds (talk) 12:08, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talley trio → The Talley Trio — The proper name (capitalized). Musdan77 (talk) 00:06, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just moved this to Talley Trio, without noticing the move request, to fix an earlier copy-paste move. I did some quick research, and I think their name is "Talley Trio", not "The Talley Trio"; which one is it? — The Earwig ^(talk) 05:28, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Preogressive gospel

Check the reference Muds.... The talley website plainly states they are progressive. It says absolutely NOTHNG about contemporary. The word contemporary is a fabrication and simply a judgemental call on your part. Accept the fact that they are progressive in style. Do not revert this edit, as doing so will result in edit warring and the article being locked down with an administrator and impartial referee calling the issue using the cited reference.

Please cite any reference and verifiable citation proving that they are contemporary and not progressive! Read the citation and check the source Mud.

74.233.198.52 (talk) 02:05, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Protected

The article has been fully protected for three days per a request at WP:RFPP. The person who made the request, User: Musdan77 has made no comments here about the problems which are leading them to revert. If you have any concerns about the article, please explain on the talk page what they are and try to reach consensus. After protection expires, the normal rules against edit warring will be enforced by blocks if necessary. If agreement can't be reached in three days, you should follow the steps of WP:Dispute resolution. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 16:42, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with the edit warring started on this article. The article's cited source specifically states that the band is a "Progressive Southern Gospel" group. The link is http://thetalleys.com/about/

The exact wording, as found at the above link is quoted here...

"The Talleys have become one of the most beloved and respected groups in Christian music. The east Tennessee family’s unmistakable style of progressive southern gospel has kept them at the forefront of gospel music for many years. The hallmarks of the “Talley” sound are their lush arrangements, close-knit harmonies and powerful vocals."

I was perusing the article and references and came across the erroneous description in the Wikipedia article. I edited the Wikipedia article to correct the erroneous information contained within. However, the erroneous and inaccurate information is still contained in the article due to the fact that Musdan77 reverted the correction and edit done by me. He/She refuses to acknowledge that his/her beloved and owned article is inaccurate. He/She refuses to comprehend and accept that this band would call themselves progressive and not contemporary. I reverted Musdan77 revert of my correction and added a new section on the talk page explaining why I had done so. (See above) I merely quuestioned why he reverted my correcting edit and explained why I did so. He has refused the input of other editors and he/she continued to revert the article until the edit warring became heated, nasty and ugly.

I have no agenda with Wikipedia. Excuse me, If I have no user name or administatorship with your site. I am under the impression that Wikipedia is a work in progress and that anyone and everyone is entitled with the opportunity of editing articles with corrections and improvong the articles for the benefit of all users who may peruse this site. I question why an editor, such as Musdan77, continues to deny others the aforementioned opportunity to correct inaccuracies contained within any article.

I must point out that Musdan77 has done other such reverting of edits on many other articles, with many other editors as well as myself. He/She consistently removes any questionable material when someone corrects the inaccuracies contained within. He/She is a controlling, aggressive and unfriendly editor in this forum. I mean no disrespect. I am merely pointing out his/her actions in the past against myself and others.

Your assistance in reining in this editor would be apppreciated by the users and editors of Wikipedia.

184.32.60.179 (talk) 01:40, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let's go over this step by step. Anyone can see in the history exactly what happened:

On November 3, IP 65.8.150.227 changed the genre. That was fine. I had no problem with it. Then I made a minor copyedit for punctuation and capitalization. Then on November 4, 74.233.153.223 reverted it and said "correction per talley website. specifies progressive and not contemporary" which made no sense because the word "contemporary" was not in the article. So then, 74.233.198.52 started getting belligerent and name-calling and removing much more content for no good reason. This is also the same person who was deleting huge amounts (including refs) at the Gaither Vocal Band article. I know this because I traced the IP addresses to the same home address. So no wonder why I didn't reply to this person here.

I certainly welcome good edits, but I am especially protective of certain articles, like this one. --Musdan77 (talk) 03:27, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay wiseguy...prove that it was the same home address.... What is the home address? Tell me the home address? Put it right here and prove that you can even state that you have such information. Liar, that is why!

The fact is...why does the article still state that they are contemporary and not progressive? if you are admiting that they are progressive? The reason is...your ego and manipulative game playing attitude is coming out and you do not wish to admit it like a good christian should! Why did you allow the incorrect information to remain, if they are, infact progressive as you have recanted and communicated here? Admit it, you are manipulating the facts and a liar too!

The fact remains that any and all articles that you "own" are yours and yours alone to rule over and dictate what it says, how it says it and when they will be changed, and by who! Your MO is to never, ever use the talk page first. You never answer any one editor, except with nasty comments telling them that is the way it is and that those are the rules in Wikipedia. When in fact, you manipulate the rules and do not take kindly to others editing the articles that you claim ownership to.... Isn't that correct Musdan77?

65.8.141.242 (talk) 08:28, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You see, it does no good to try and reason with this type of person. Facts are facts. Everything that you have said is untrue, and everything that I've said can be verified. Anyone can go see the history page, anyone can use the IP tracer, anyone can see the current article page and see that it says progressive, not contemporary -- like it has for days. And they can see that you started this whole mess, that you instigated edit warring, and that it wasn't until after you were trashing the article that you used the discussion page. Those are the facts. --Musdan77 (talk) 16:32, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What's my address, if you can prove anything? I am only one half of the equation in this edit war. You are the one that threatened to expose my identity by claiming you could possibly know my home address. That is a violation of the Wikipedia TOU and is grounds for expulsion from this forum. Did you know that? Is that something that a loving, understanding Christian would threaten and use to manipulate a person? You are the phony and liar, pal. So, I say again...what is my address? Even just tell me what county and state I live in? Prove that you know anything about anything wiseguy!

184.32.1.180 (talk) 04:06, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You know very well that I did not threaten anything. Don't even try that. I just stated what I had found. And you are the one requesting your address to be revealed here -- which is not allowed. Wikipedia provides links to IP tracers so that when an anonymous unregistered user is continually vandalizing, they can be dealt with. That's one reason why it's a good idea to become registered.

About edit warring: In most cases, an edit war happens when two adults disagree on what should/shouldn't be included in an article, and neither one wants to back down or compromise. But, this was a case, from my perspective, where one user started acting like a bratty child, that kept acting up, and treating Wikipedia like some kind of play-thing and abusing it. And the other user was like the adult telling the child, "No, you can't do that" and fixing the damages. --Musdan77 (talk) 19:03, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Typical response and lies from an ignorant fool. There are benefits to being registered. However, my IP is no less exposed or more anonymous to be registered. You can see my IP and I can see yours as a registered user as well! This I can assure you. So, tell me why did you bring up an asinine comment that I am the same person with the same home address, if you were not attempting to intimidate me with that "Special knowledge" of yours? I am not an ass. Your identity is just as exposed as mine. It means nothing to be registed or not when it comes to protection of identity. Check the facts on that! However, your comment I take as harassment and a potential threat to my identity, safety and the wellbeing of my family. If you know anything about me and my location, I suggest you familiarize yourself with the laws of my state and the right of oneseef to be safe in it, in my vehicle, on the street, in public and in the workplace. Take that and ponder that thought.

Child...adult... I am a free and independant individual. I have as many rights and freedoms as you on wikipedia and anywhere else for that matter. You are not special, nor possess any authority to ever tell me (or anyone for that matter) anything regarding facts. It is you that allowed the article to contain erroneous information forever. It is you that wishes to perpetuate wrong information. Remember that? So, tell the wall and your dog that you were correct, it holds no weight, water or substance with me pal! 65.8.141.22 (talk) 01:01, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to talk to you is like talking to the wall. It just bounces off, and nothing sinks in. You don't even understand a metaphor.

"tell me why did you bring up an asinine comment that I am the same person with the same home address, if you were not attempting to intimidate me with that "Special knowledge" of yours?"

I was speaking to the admin, not you. And he could verify whether or not what I told him was true. If you read the rest of what I said, you should understand why I said it. I've tried to explain myself, but you're not interested in resolving anything. You just want to argue, (falsely) accuse, call names, and attack. --Musdan77 (talk) 21:14, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. Where is the metaphor? You don't even know what a metaphor is....Please do not bother to try to explain that one. Have a nice day. 65.8.148.239 (talk) 23:22, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]