User talk:Mattheckatight

Welcome!

Hello, Mattheckatight, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! -- WikHead (talk) 06:02, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

December 2010

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Before saving your changes to an article, please provide an edit summary, which you forgot to do before saving your recent edit to Auto-Tune. Doing so helps everyone to understand the intention of your edit (and prevents legitimate edits from being mistaken for vandalism). It is also helpful to users reading the edit history of the page. Thank you. -- WikHead (talk) 06:02, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I see that you are still not supplying edit summaries at Auto-Tune. Because you've removed categories, references, inter-wiki links, etc. you are running a big risk of having all your edits reverted... so please start explaining what what you're doing. -- WikHead (talk) 06:37, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia,

Sorry about all that. The old article about Auto-Tune contained a lot of false information, and wasn't nearly as comprehensive as it could have been. I have updated it with new information and further expanded on some of the topics only briefly touched on in the previous article. For one, I corrected some false information concerning the technology used by auto-tune, I provided more information on the history and implementation of Auto-Tune, and I better accounted the controversy surrounding its use. I also added several new pictures and added to the organization and clarity of the article. If there's anymore information you need concerning my editing, I will happily supply it. Thanks, and sorry again about that.

Mattheckatight (talk) 20:33, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Auto-tune

The info on Auto-tune looks good, but you can't just replace everything that was there, which is why you got reverted. Please incorporate your stuff while also including most of the old stuff too. BollyJeff || talk 14:50, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, BollyJeff is one hundred percent correct. I really did not want to revert, but couldn't just leave the article broken... and my attempts to establish a line of communication had gone unanswered. We both encourage you to continue editing, but please exercise a bit more caution when it comes to the removal of existing content. Thank you. -- WikHead (talk) 18:36, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you'll read through my article, you'll notice I spent a lot of time expanding on the original author's thoughts, and I think you will find that much of my information is better supported and in better detail then the original article. I found it easier as I was writing it to do a complete replacement rather than try to integrate my own writing with theirs. And I can guarantee that my article was well researched and the information presented is both correct and more thorough than the previous one. I know it's kind of crazy to replace an entire article, but the previous one was short and enough of the same information contained in the original is present in my article to where I more or less absorbed the old one. Sorry to alarm you guys by changing it, but my article is complete. Can you explain what you mean by broken?

Mattheckatight (talk) 20:40, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There were 23 web links that you removed, and went with only book refs. Your book references cannot be easily verified; you did not include ISBN numbers. Granted your new article is probably better than the one that was there, which focused mainly on the artists who did or did not use it and criticisms, but please try to include relevant info that was there before along with the web references. I will read it fully and see what else should be included from the old version. BollyJeff || talk 21:02, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, BollyJeff is correct. Some method of merger needs to be devised in an effort to retain as many good web-based references as possible, even if it entails a dilution of existing content in order to do so. You must understand Mattheckatight, that BollyJeff and I are both supportive of your efforts and are interested in seeing the results in the form of a well conducted merge. The new version however, must include categories and interwiki-links, and should retain an infobox of sorts as well. Anything between the head and the foot is the creative canvas. With that said, this discussion thread really should be continued on the article's talk page in order to shake up some feedback and ideas from those who regularly contribute to the article. I'll be keeping an eye out, and look forward to seeing you there :). -- WikHead (talk) 01:49, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello? Are you gonna finish the article? BollyJeff || talk 05:03, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mind if I merge them for you? BollyJeff || talk 00:26, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]