Talk:Robert Stewart (saxophonist)/Archive 1

Archive 1

About changes

I'm a new user here, and my recent article entry has been edited by Vmavanti who seems hostile (or strongly biased) against the subject of the article. I've given my reasons for revising this persons' recent edits (don't know if he or she is an administrator or just a hater, for I've received no questions or offer of discussion), and he or she responded with a retaliatory distortion of the chronological order of the article, numerous citation tags, and blatantly unnecessary new sections. I still have my original article saved on my computer thank goodness. Consequently, is there an older / matured person here who can help me with the seemingly intolerant Vmavanti. I thank you :-) --2601:646:4180:6B0:C424:A60:BDF9:A04A (talk) 20:40, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

To anonymous editor, which changes would you like to discuss? You can address disagreements on this page.
–Vmavanti (talk) 23:15, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

If you click on View History, you can read the brief Edit Summaries that accompany each edit. I encourage you to read some of Wikipedia's documentation for thorough answers explaining my edits and other questions you might have. The maintenance templates at the top are self-explanatory if you click on the links to read more. I hope I can answer any specific questions you might have.
–Vmavanti (talk) 23:28, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

I (Robert Stewart) have been alerted to changes to the article

I had my biographer (anonymous) write this for Wikipedia. So, to test the good faith gesture of Vmavanti, I will sign in later as myself (Professor Reason) and post the original (and my preferred) layout of the article by anonymous. We can go through Vmavanti's suggestions together. I'd still like to have other administrators weigh in, for according to the bylaws of Wikipedia, there is no DICTATORSHIP by one individual. Writing style varies from person to person, indeed. I thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1010:B051:3DD2:2688:EEF8:DE1B:A150 (talk) 03:03, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Why don't you comment on the article as it exists right now? What particular edits do you have a question about? Have you read my edit summaries? Have you read any of the Wikipedia documentation?
–Vmavanti (talk) 03:22, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

As a test of good faith, I take Robert Stewart at his word that his biographer has written this article. That raises the possibility of a conflict interest and therefore a Conflict of interest template being applied to this article.
–Vmavanti (talk) 13:17, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Dictatorship rather than discussion

A user has decided to revert my work without giving an explanation. That is a choice for dictatorship, not discussion. My edit summaries contain justifications for my edits, and so does the Wikipedia documentation. Those haven not been addressed, nor have my comments on this Talk page. I'm ready to begin discussion, starting with the frequent use of peacock terms.
–Vmavanti (talk) 12:59, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

I (Robert Stewart) wish to commend Vmavanti on being an EXCELLENT wiki-script editor, and would like to thank him or her for enhancing the article written by my biographer. However, I prefer to keep my biographer's original section format, for it maintains the chronological order of events, and location of events. This person used the page of my long time friend ROGER INGRAM (trumpeter) as my precise format preference. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Ingram

Further, Roger Ingram uses DESCRIPTIVE terms before the names of known (factual) legends in the music industry; not POV. These appear on his page:

(1) international pop star Tom Jones (2) the great Louie Bellson (3) the famous Woody Herman (4) jazz greats of the day, including Louis Armstrong (5) Maynard Ferguson, and recorded three albums with the high note LEGEND.

Roger uses other descriptive words before the names of obvious icons. I expect the same to be left intact in my article regarding BLACK music icons. To regard John Coltrane, Eddie Harris, etc., as mere "saxophonists," and Quincy Jones as just another "producer" is disrespectful and offensive.

I've read your responses to others and your list of words that you don't prefer. However, everyone has a right to their views and word preferences, so I won't judge yours.

As for the mere two quotes at the beginning of my biographer's article, the page of my mentor Pharoah Sanders was used:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharoah_Sanders

Saxophonist Ornette Coleman once described him as "probably the best tenor player in the world." ALSO Albert Ayler famously said: "Trane was the Father, Pharoah was the Son, I am the Holy Ghost".

Consequently, I'd like the two quotes that describe how I'm known to the jazz world to remain, or for you to remove Pharoah's quotes in his first paragraph as you have done in the past with mine.

Lastly, all of the "citations" that you have attached to my first section are available at the links that were provided:

http://therobertstewartexperience.com/reviews-interview.html http://therobertstewartexperience.com/reviews-cd.html http://therobertstewartexperience.com/reviews-concert.html

Just read the some 60 or so newspaper and magazine articles about me. THANKS for your time and efforts regarding my biographer's article here, and I hope that we can work together, rather than against each other. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Professorreason (talk • contribs) 13:50, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

In good faith my friend Vamanti, give me a day or two to cite the things you've asked

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Professorreason (talk • contribs) 14:37, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Mr Stewart. I've passed along your request to someone whose work at mediation I've seen. It's up to him to take on the project, pass it along, or do nothing.

By all accounts, you are a fine sax player, but that's not what Wikipedia is for. You don't need Wikipedia to blow your horn, so to speak, with all the other praise you've received. You seem like an interesting person who has played with many of the biggest names in jazz, and you can articulate that. Maybe you should consider writing a real autobiography on real paper. Everything on the internet is ephemeral. Good luck.
–Vmavanti (talk) 20:49, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

And you (Vmavanti) are a brilliant script editor! I've seen much of your work here and have reviewed your history. You are like Master Yoda around here. ;-) My only concern is that the timeline of events (formatting) remain. I'm always amenable to compromise on sentence structure, grammar, and such. So, please send me input at anytime if you see something that I may have missed or can improve, for I'm a novice at all of this. I'm only putting this page up after decades, because I'm retiring. I THANK YOU AGAIN, my friend. :-) Robert Stewart — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1010:B051:3DD2:F84E:43A0:A20B:A468 (talk) 00:05, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

I am neither your friend nor your enemy. I am not Master Yoda. I am not a brilliant editor. I deserve neither false praise nor false condemnation. I am, to you and to everyone on the internet, a stranger doing a volunteer job.
–Vmavanti (talk)

Request for a third opinion

@Professorreason and Vmavanti: I've received a request from Vmavanti to provide an opinion on the matters being discussed here. Professor Reason, I see that you have requested help from an administrator. I am not an administrator and, if you insist on administrative assistance, I'll be happy to withdraw. But please be advised that administrators are unlikely to use their special status to resolve disputes over content. Instead, they are much more likely to suggest that you seek assistance through one of the venues available for the purpose, such as seeking a third opinion or moderated dispute resolution. These forums are staffed by volunteers who are not necessarily administrators.

If the two of you agree to my involvement here, it will be of great help if each of you will -- as concisely as possible -- state the nature of the dispute. I'm not looking for a list of specific "charges". Instead, I'm looking for statements about what you believe to be the essential disagreement.

Professor Reason, if you do agree to engage in this process, it will be polite of you to remove the request for administrator assistance (so that an administrator will not waste time in an unnecessary response). If this process fails, you will be free to restore your request.

Although I can not promise to provide "real time" response to your postings, I will keep this Talk page on my Watchlist and will guarantee a response to postings within 24 hours. I look forward to working with both of you. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:32, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

WELCOME & I THANK YOU for offering your assistance with my humble endeavor. I'm in the process of citing many more sources over the next day or two. Please inform me of that which you perceive may be improved. Nice to meet you NewYorkActuary, and thanks again my friend :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1010:B051:3DD2:F84E:43A0:A20B:A468 (talk) 00:12, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

@Professorreason and Vmavanti: Thanks to both of you for engaging in discussion. Later this evening, I'll open up a discussion in the section that Vmavanti started below. For now, I have two comments for Professor Reason. First, I don't know how often you check your talk page over at Wikipedia Commons, so you might not be aware that both of the images in the article have been nominated for deletion. I didn't nominate them, and neither did Vmavanti. But someone else did and it was done five days ago. That means that there's a good chance that those files will be deleted within two days. You can find the locations of the deletion discussions by clicking through the images themselves and reading the deletion notices that are on the information page.

Second, in my initial look at the article I saw that the introduction includes a quote attributed to Billy Higgins, but which is being sourced to the Stewart web site. This can't be done. TheRobertStewartExperience.com is considered a self-published source and cannot be used to cite statements made about parties other than Robert Stewart himself. See item #2 in our guideline on self-published sources, WP:SELFPUB. Just to be clear -- I have no doubt that Mr. Higgins actually did say the thing that is being quoted. It's just that you need to find a reliable non-self-published source for it. Immediately after posting this, I will remove the quote. I'll be back later in the evening to begin the discussion. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:53, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Dear NewYorkActuary,

I will find another quote from Billy in the vast number of articles written about me over my 30 year career. Consequently, other than that quote, please leave the rest of the article as is until I've done more corrections and added more citations. I've not yet finished this task. Will get back to it in a few hours.

I'll handle the photo issue at the Wiki commons site. Thanks for the heads up for this newcomer novice.

I'm also considering Vmavanti's descriptive word grievances, and I will rewrite some of them when I'm at my computer in a few hours. I will leave only the super-giants / undisputed legends descriptives intact. Thanks again for your help!

Signed-Robert Stewart. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1010:B05E:C9F5:853F:9F31:20C6:C4D5 (talk) 01:45, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Mr. Stewart: Thank you for your response. It's good to hear that you are receptive to addressing Vmavanti's concerns about the use of subjective descriptions. But please be aware that this is not simply a question of Vmavanti's opinion. It is a basic issue that is addressed in Wikipedia's Manual of Style, specifically at WP:FLOWERY. Describing a person as a "sensation" or as "legendary" or "iconic" is inherently subjective and, if such descriptions are to be included at all, must be attributed to a reliable source that actually does use that description (i.e., [NAME OF PERSON], writing in [NAME OF PUBLICATION], once described Bobby Freeman as a "pop vocalist sensation"). And that attribution must be referenced to that reliable source. Doing all of this will certainly remove the concern about subjective descriptions (because you would be stating a reliably-sourced fact about what someone said). But it raises the question of why all of that verbiage and sourcing needs to appear in this article. The proper place to tell a reader what someone said about Bobby Freeman is in the article on Bobby Freeman, and not here. The same is true for all of the other persons for whom you use subjective descriptions.

I see from above that you are relying on the use of similar language in the article on Roger Ingram. But that other article carries very little weight here, because the subjective language there never received serious scrutiny from the Wikipedia community. In order to see a jazz biography that has received such scrutiny, take a look at Bix Beiderbecke. This is a Top importance article that has attained Wikipedia's highest honor of "Feature Article". And when you read that article, you'll see that it mentions plenty of high-powered names from jazz history. But there is nary a mention of "iconic" or "legendary". This is how Wikipedia articles need to be written -- reliably-sourced facts, without opinions or judgments.

Good luck over at Wikipedia Commons on the files. I'll check back here tomorrow to see where we stand on the issues here. Have a good evening. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:01, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Making sure that there is no double standard or bias against my article

I hope that I'm not being UNFAIRLY OVER-SCRUTINIZED by you two friends of each other. I have read the Bix article, and found these un-sourced peacock words or phrases:

1) one of "the most influential (POV)" jazz soloists of the 1920s 2) demonstrated an "unusual purity (POV)" of tone and a "gift (POV)" for improvisation. 3) he helped to "invent [citation needed]" the jazz ballad style 4) "best-known [citation needed]" and "most prestigious (POV)" dance orchestra in the country: the New-York-based Paul Whiteman Orchestra. 5) Beiderbecke's "most influential (POV)" recordings date from his time with Goldkette and Whiteman

Now, I don't see citations after each peacock term in the preceding: "most influential" "unusual purity of tone" "A gift for improvisation" "most prestigious" "most influential," etc.

Consequently, as a highly educated man, I WILL NOT ACCEPT being unjustly held to a double standard by anyone at anytime. So, I expect for you two to PATROL (as you do with mine) the Bix article (and Roger Ingram's) and REMOVE all descriptive words of embellishment that do not have the precise & exact wording from a reliable citation source.

I'm in an airport now, for I've just arrived back in my home town. I'll get to my computer sometime today and deal with my corrections. However, I will restate, if you don't remove the peacock terms before the names of Tom Jones, Woody Herman, Louie Bellson, Maynard Ferguson, and those in the Bix entry, I expect mine to be LEFT ALONE as well. I will fight injustice to the death with my last breath. It is the "hood way" in East Oakland, indeed. ;-) I thank you

--Professor Reason (talk) 17:16, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

I have not read the Bix article, though I will. I agree with Mr Stewart about the peacock words he mentions. To that he lists already have "citation needed" templates next to them. I doubt I would use "influential" (subjective) or "unusual purity of tone" (a phrase that seems meaningless to me, anyway). "Best known" sounds subjective, though it might be verified by looking at the popularity of a group or song or album based on sales, size of audiences, radio play at the time, and so on. "Most prestigious" is subjective, though we can agree that some venues are more prestigious than others, as when Robert discussed visting the White House.

NewYorkActuary is not a friend of mine. We haven't met or conversed online or off. I know his username only because he mediated a dispute in the past and I wanted to refer this entry to someone capable of handling it. There are no sides here. I don't want to see a double standard and I doubt he does either. If you want to see some of my other editing to verify that I have deleted peacock terms in the past, you can click on "Contributions" in the upper right corner.

It's not surprising to find another Wikipedia entry that has broken a rule. As you can see by the templates, Wikipedia is in a constant state of flux and repair. There are many entries on Wikipedia, and many get changed every second. I can defend only my work because that is what I know and have looked it. I did not work on the Bix entry. Wikipedia editors are not a team so much as a loose aggregate of strangers. Improvements regarding any entry can addressed on their respective Talk pages. That's how it works.
–Vmavanti (talk) 04:49, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

First paragraph citations complete. Will need a few days to do this for the entire article. However, my word will be kept indeed

Although excessive citations (every other word) are an eye-sore for the reader, I will do it so that my page here will be left alone by any who may harbor disdain or subliminal biases toward my accomplishments. I'm OVERWHELMINGLY accustomed to those of this disposition after 3 decades in this business. Consequently, I have perpetually performed above and beyond expectations, for it has been and continues to be necessary for any person of color in this country and around the globe.

I'll need time to meticulously cite all that you've asked, so please allow me the days that I need to do so. I THANK YOU.

--Professor Reason (talk) 17:16, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Peacock terms

The article uses peacock terms. The use of peacock terms violates the neutral point of view, one of the three core content policies of Wikipedia.

The article uses terms such as "iconic jazz saxophonist", "legendary R&B group", "musical dynasties" "saxophone titans", "jazz giants", "Jazz greats", "world renowned venues", "trumpet colossus", "saxophonist extraordinaire", "trumpet dynamo", "vocal sensation", "drum legend", "organ phenomenon", "trumpet mega-titan", "saxophone juggernaut", "iconic rock group", "vocal legends", "industry titan", "prestigious Red Records label", "music industry icon", "bassist extraordinaire", "piano elder statesman", "Esteemed veteran Jazz critic", "Jazz solo drum founding father", "prestigious "Jazz Times Magazine", " vocal icon", "bass founding father", "drum legend", "most recorded drummer in Jazz history," "prestigious Nagel-Heyer Records".

I deleted these peacock adjectives, but they were reverted. In response, I entered comments on the Talk page, but they were ignored. I added the peacock maintenance template at the top of the article, but that was deleted, too.
–Vmavanti (talk) 17:32, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Definition

Words that may introduce bias (Puffery)

"... legendary, great, acclaimed, visionary, outstanding, leading, celebrated, award-winning, landmark, cutting-edge, innovative, extraordinary, brilliant, hit, famous, renowned, remarkable, prestigious, world-class, respected, notable, virtuoso, honorable, awesome, unique ..."

"Words such as these are often used without attribution to promote the subject of an article, while neither imparting nor plainly summarizing verifiable information. They are known as "peacock terms" by Wikipedia contributors.[2] Instead of making unprovable proclamations about a subject's importance, use facts and attribution to demonstrate that importance."

Peacock example:

• Bob Dylan is the defining figure of the 1960s counterculture and a brilliant songwriter.

Just the facts:

• Dylan was included in Time's 100: The Most Important People of the Century, in which he was called "master poet, caustic social critic and intrepid, guiding spirit of the counterculture generation".[refs 1] By the mid-1970s, his songs had been covered by hundreds of other artists.[refs 2]

"Articles suffering from such language should be rewritten to correct the problem or may be tagged with an appropriate template[2] if an editor is unsure how best to correct them."

"Peacockery is an example of positively loaded language; negatively loaded language should be avoided just as much. People responsible for "public spending" (the neutral term) can be loaded both ways, as "the tax-and-spend politicians borrowing off the backs of our grandchildren" or "the public servants ensuring crucial investment in our essential infrastructure for the public good"."

Insults

My changes, edit summaries, and Talk Page comments were met not with discussions but with insults, such as

• "Vmavanti seems obsessed with my entry and heavily biased"
• "Vmavanti who seems hostile (or strongly biased) against the subject of the article"
• "don't know if he or she is an administrator or just a hater"
• "he or she responded with a retaliatory distortion of the chronological order of the article, numerous citation tags, and blatantly unnecessary new sections."
• "is there an older / matured person here who can help me with the seemingly intolerant Vmavanti."
• "Roger uses other descriptive words before the names of obvious icons. I expect the same to be left intact in my article regarding BLACK music icons. To regard John Coltrane, Eddie Harris, etc., as mere "saxophonists," and Quincy Jones as just another "producer" is disrespectful and offensive."
  –Vmavanti (talk) 17:42, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

That was my biographer, not me (Robert Stewart)

I will go through and edit some of the descriptives, but not the historically factual legends, icon, etc., so thanks again for your input dear Vmavanti.

Signed-Robert Stewart

Honorific (Mr.)

Honorifics: re: Mr Gillespie, Mr Jones

"In general, styles and honorifics should not be included in front of the name, but may be discussed in the article. In particular, this applies to:

• styles and honorifics derived from a title, position or activity, including The Most Noble, The Most Honourable, The Right Honourable, and The Honourable;
• styles and honorifics related to clergy and royalty, such as His Holiness and Her Majesty. Clergy should be named as described in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (clergy)."

–Vmavanti (talk) 20:17, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Capitalization and italics rules

Manual of Style/Music

Capitalization

• Standard English text formatting and capitalization rules apply to the names of bands and individual artists (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trademarks and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Proper names).
• The first letter in the first and last words in English song, album and other titles is capitalized. The first letter in the other words is also capitalized, except for short coordinating conjunctions, prepositions, and articles ("short" meaning those with fewer than five letters), as well as the word to in infinitives. For details, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (capital letters)#Composition titles.
• The vast majority of music genres (jazz, classical music) are not proper nouns, and thus should not be capitalized.
• Use lowercase, not capitals, for instruments (piano, guitar, vocals, etc.) in personnel lists.

For title case, the words that are not capitalized (unless they are the first or last word of the title) are:

• Articles (a, an, the)
• Short coordinating conjunctions (and, but, or, nor; also for, yet, so when used as conjunctions)
• Prepositions containing four letters or fewer (as, in, of, on, to, for, from, like, over, with, etc.) but see below for instances where these words are not used as prepositions
• The word to in infinitives.

The following words should be capitalized in English-language titles:

• The first and last word of the title
• Every adjective, adverb, noun, pronoun and subordinating conjunction (Me, It, His, If, etc.)
• Every verb, including forms of to be (Be, Am, Is, Are, Was, Were, Been)
• Prepositions that contain five letters or more (During, Through, About, Until, Below, etc.)
• Words that have the same form as prepositions, but are not being used specifically as prepositions
• Particles of phrasal verbs (e.g. "Give Up the Ghost", "Puttin' On the Ritz")
• The first word in a compound preposition (e.g. "Time Out of Mind")

(The)

Names (definite article) An authoritative source will determine whether the word "the" is part of a band's name. For example, it should be included in the case of the Velvet Underground, but not in that of Black Sabbath. For articles named after a band, a redirect (or disambiguation) should be created with the alternative name (with or without "the").

Mid-sentence, per the MoS, the word "the" should in general not be capitalized in continuous prose, e.g.:

• Wings featured Paul McCartney from the Beatles and Denny Laine from the Moody Blues.

However, "the" should be capitalized mid-sentence when it begins the name of an album or other artwork:

• The double album The Beatles is commonly known as the White Album.

Italics for album titles, quotation marks for songs

• In popular music, album, mixtape and EP titles should be italicized and song and single titles should be in quotes: "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds" by the Beatles was included on their 1967 album Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band.

• The names of concert tours are not formatted beyond ordinary capitalization.

Avoid referring to an artist's second album or single as "sophomore", as this term is not widely understood outside North America.
–Vmavanti (talk) 20:41, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

I thank you!

Professor Reason 2600:1010:B05C:46C7:FBE8:97FD:9106:DD3C (talk) 22:18, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Giant picture

On my browser, under the section Performance career, there's a giant picture that fills about half my screen.
–Vmavanti (talk) 15:48, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

You may certainly make it smaller, for I haven't studied how to do this. I thank you. Professor Reason (talk) 20:54, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

BRITANNICA AND OXFORD ENCYCOPEDIAS DESCRIPTIVES FOR "EVIDENCE"

I withdraw the accusation, but your terms DELUSIONAL,PUFFEREY, and vandalizing my approved site by TWO before you was, brash or snobbish to say the least. I'll overlook this, however. Professor Reason (talk) 13:10, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm always amenable to talk to anyone. However, CIVILITY must be a TWO-WAY VENTURE. Firstly, the last two editors AGREED that my descriptive language had to have outside sources. I DID THIS AS AGREED. They then agreed to leave my page as is. I would hope that you would abide by their previous agreement. Secondly, I've been reading encyclopedias for over 40 years now. ALL of them use DESCRIPTIVE words for color so as not to bore the reader to death. Here are examples from ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITANNICA & OXFORD ENCYCLOPEDIA:

BRITANNICA: https://www.britannica.com/biography/Michael-Leonard-Brecker

Brecker, Michael Leonard, (born March 29, 1949, Philadelphia, Pa., U.S.—died Jan. 13, 2007, New York, N.Y.), American tenor saxophonist, whose stark, jagged, yet driving jazz style influenced many tenor saxophonists in the late 20th and early 21st centuries.

OXFORD: http://www.oxfordreference.com/search?submittedFilterId=by-availability&sort=relevance&btog=chap&q=tom+jones&pageSize=10&isQuickSearch=true&avail_0=free

Tom Jones Subject: Music

Stage songwriting team. Often departing from the norm in their stage projects, the partners created some unique musicals, none more unique and successful than The Fantasticks (1960)

Consequently, I prefer the Britannica and Oxford style being that they are world renowned encyclopedias. Since, I have over 100 citations as agreed with the other two critics. Please leave my quotes intact for they are verbatim. Lastly, the instructions clearly state that we are to put what's in the articles in OUR OWN WORDS, not plagiarize the articles word for word. I have done this as requested. Hope we can work this out, for all that is written is FACTUAL with nearly 100 publications on my career.

Professor Reason (talk) 13:17, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

The other two editors stated that terms associated with puffery are not approved of here, sourced or not. Wikipedia has its own standards, which are referred to above. Your examples: "stark, jagged, yet driving jazz style influenced" is descriptive and would be fine here, too, with appropriate sourcing. "created some unique musicals, none more unique" is badly written, but could pass if it was a direct quote from a WP:RS. But there are whole paragraphs of exaggeration and puffery in this article... We can go through each sentence/paragraph that you want to change and discuss each one. EddieHugh (talk) 14:06, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

...but instead of discussing, you revert for the fourth time... EddieHugh (talk) 14:08, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Not true, for this is the VERBATIM QUOTE from their words to me: "Words such as these are often used without attribution to promote the subject of an article, while neither imparting nor plainly summarizing verifiable information. They are known as "peacock terms" by Wikipedia contributors.[2] Instead of making unprovable proclamations about a subject's importance, use facts and attribution to demonstrate that importance." So I went through and added articles that used the verbatim descriptive for it is disrespectful to refer to John Coltrane as just another sax player. It's nonsensical and non-factual. Professor Reason (talk) 15:07, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

You're missing the point (and you're still in violation of WP:3RR and you still shouldn't be editing an article about yourself!). The point, as stated by User:Vmavanti and User:NewYorkActuary, is that puffery/peacock terms are not appropriate; i.e. don't add them. EddieHugh (talk) 16:11, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

"CIVILITY must be a TWO-WAY VENTURE" – On the internet, the use of ALL CAPS is considered shouting and therefore uncivil, as are accusations of racism, thumbing one's nose at the rules and procedures of Wikipedia, repeating points that have already been explained and settled, and claiming this is "my page" when it isn't. No one owns these pages. The subject of the article ought not to be involved. As time goes by, many people will read the entry and make changes. Learning requires humility, the ability to accept, tolerate, and change. Encyclopedias traditionally deal in fact, impartiality, and objectivity. How many times does the idea of puffery have to be explained?
–Vmavanti (talk) 17:22, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

stark, jagged, yet driving jazz style – Here's a free piece of writing advice. Even if this were allowed in any publication, it's not something I would write because it's meaningless. Those words could be used to describe almost any musician, and almost anything. They are too vague and abstract to mean anything. Is a driving style the same as fast? Then why not say fast? Does stark mean slow, fewer instruments, quiet, minor chords? Does a jagged style mean atonal and cacophonous? It's not just jagged. It's jagged and driving, as though the reader would have concluded that a jagged style is a non-driving style. Meaning what exactly? I know what a jagged rock is. I don't know what jagged music is, though I've heard plenty of bad music. I, too, have letters after my name, but I prefer to let my words carry the weight of persuasion rather than puff out my chest and blow my own horn. I've read Down Beat, too, and I've read much else, and I know nonsense when I see it. What will a reader have gained from these words? Will he say to his friends, "Fred has that jagged, yet driving style". Words are used, but they don't signify. It's like Seinfeld, a conversation about nothing. Comical, laughable, easy to ridicule, and being ridiculed is not itself a badge of honor or sign of profundity.
–Vmavanti (talk) 17:36, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

One more point. Vandalizing is a serious accusation in the real world and on the internet. On Wikipedia, Vandalism is the intentional harming of Wikipedia. I doubt any regular, experienced Wikipedia editor vandalizes. Changes are made, and people disagree about changes, but I doubt any editor is trying to make Wikipedia worse. The accusation of vandalism is uncivil. Someone made a change you didn't like. Say that. Someone made a change you disagree with. Say that, and say why you disagree with it. But don't accuse of someone of intentionally do you or your work harm.
–Vmavanti (talk) 17:47, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm not going to argue with Britannica or Oxford (nor any other major encyclopedia) over their use of descriptive terms constantly and consistently for decades. You all don't prefer this for your own writing styles. I totally understand, but tolerance of everyone's personal styles and opinions would make the world a better place for sure. Further, as the actual living person of this entry, I'm the best source to affirm the validity of my historical facts. I will listen to suggestions as I've done until now. However, I will not accept someone removing or altering my verbatim history (quotes) for a distortion or misinformation agenda. I've seen thousands of articles on Wikipedia over the years. Some are online books (Bix Biderbeicke for example) with no "trimming of the fat" as some like to call it. So, I don't mind anyone adding information to my history. But, no one is qualified to remove my history as relayed by the evidence of the numerous major publications about me. I've done as you all have asked, and hope that we can always discuss issues in the future.

Professor Reason (talk) 16:04, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Please (please, please, please) read Wikipedia:Ownership of content (e.g., "a person or an organization that is the subject of an article does not own the article, and has no right to dictate what the article may say") and Wikipedia:Autobiography (e.g., "Avoid writing or editing an article about yourself, other than to correct unambiguous errors of fact"). These are not opinions; they are the established norms of Wikipedia, to be followed by everyone. Editors other than you will make changes, probably substantial, to the article. EddieHugh (talk) 19:02, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

I have taken your advice of reading guidelines here again, and came across these:

Dealing with edits by the subject of the article

Subjects sometimes become involved in editing material about themselves, either directly or through a representative. The Arbitration Committee has ruled in favor of showing leniency to BLP subjects who try to fix what they see as errors or unfair material. Editors should make every effort to act with kindness toward the subjects of biographical material when the subjects arrive to express concern.

Articles Already Written About You Section: In clear-cut cases, it is permissible to edit pages connected to yourself. So, you can revert vandalism; but of course it has to be simple, obvious vandalism and not a content dispute. Similarly, you should feel free to remove obviously mistaken facts about yourself

I've received nothing but dictating overtones and hostilities (not kindness) from those involved in this talk page since the person who wrote this biography alerted me (Robert Stewart) to the problem. I've complied with all asked of me as this talk page fully underscores. Those who have biases against me (knowingly or subliminal) should simply not read this article. Some have seemed obsessed with diminishing my status in the Jazz idiom. I do not know the reason for sure, but hope that this non-neutrality will not persist. I'm willing to listen to anyone who has suggestions as is clearly evident since my agreement with the other other two editors. Professor Reason (talk) 20:25, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for reading them. Your summary is appropriate and sets the bounds of what the subject of an article may do. I suggest, as a follow-up, reading through WP:NOT VANDALISM, so that you're familiar with policy on what edits are not regarded as vandalism. EddieHugh (talk) 22:15, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

No, you haven't done what was asked. There are mistakes here I pointed out last November that you either refused to change or reinstated. One of them is in your recent message. "Jazz" isn't capitalized. I don't know if you consider that comment dictatorial or hostile, but it's the truth. Wikipedia has rules. Telling them to you doesn't make me a dictator. You aren't in charge here. All articles are supposed to be impartial. That means that a person who writes about himself is not the best source about his life, nor is someone he knows the best source, because then the article is slanted, not impartial, and often slanted with a lot of opinion and cheerleading. Sometimes the slant is excessively negative, sometimes excessively positive. I've made clear points, I've provided links, and yet here we are a year later talking about the same subjects.
–Vmavanti (talk) 23:04, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
• Wikipedia:Here to build an encyclopedia
• Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not
• Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources
• Wikipedia:Manual of Style
  –Vmavanti (talk) 23:04, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

For the record, Eddie Hugh must not have read these words to the previous editors:

NY Actuary wrote "if such descriptions are to be included at all, must be attributed to a reliable source that actually does use that description (i.e., [NAME OF PERSON], writing in [NAME OF PUBLICATION], once described Bobby Freeman as a "pop vocalist sensation"). And that attribution must be referenced to that reliable source. Doing all of this will certainly remove the concern about subjective descriptions (because you would be stating a reliably-sourced fact about what someone said). But it raises the question of why all of that verbiage and sourcing needs to appear in this article.

Vmavanti wrote "Words such as these are often used without attribution to promote the subject of an article, while neither imparting nor plainly summarizing verifiable information. They are known as "peacock terms" by Wikipedia contributors.[2] Instead of making unprovable proclamations about a subject's importance, use facts and attribution to demonstrate that importance."

Peacock example:

   Bob Dylan is the defining figure of the 1960s counterculture and a brilliant songwriter.

Just the facts:

   Dylan was included in Time's 100: The Most Important People of the Century, in which he was called "master poet, caustic social critic and intrepid, guiding spirit of the counterculture generation".[refs 1] By the mid-1970s, his songs had been covered by hundreds of other artists.[refs 2]

In light of what was asked of me by TWO editors before EddieHugh, I gave verbatim quotes from verifiable sources in every single instance of my using descriptive terms before anyone's name. The evidence is in the over 100 citations in the article itself. Here is further evidence of my words to the two previous editors:

First paragraph citations complete. Will need a few days to do this for the entire article. However, my word will be kept indeed

Although excessive citations (every other word) are an eye-sore for the reader, I will do it so that my page here will be left alone by any who may harbor disdain or subliminal biases toward my accomplishments. I'm OVERWHELMINGLY accustomed to those of this disposition after 3 decades in this business. Consequently, I have perpetually performed above and beyond expectations, for it has been and continues to be necessary for any person of color in this country and around the globe. I'll need time to meticulously cite all that you've asked, so please allow me the days that I need to do so. I THANK YOU.

I completed the task as I'd agreed to do and have over 100 citations in the article for evidence. Joe Lovano has only 14 citations and Michael Brecker has 11. I have as many as Brad Mehldau and Bix Biederbieke and I'm still being hounded or excessively scrutinized. All quotes are completely factual and verified by over 60 newspaper and magazine articles. However, I now know that I can reach administrators by email, and will do so if this EddieHugh individual does not stop obsessing over this entry which has stood for almost a full year and vetted by two editors before him. Professor Reason (talk) 13:40, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Right. Anyone who changes an uppercase letter to a lowercase letter in YOUR article is a racist. OK.
–Vmavanti (talk) 16:54, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

I wasn't talking to you Vmavanti. You've changed numerous things in the article and I haven't had a complaint. Even complimented you on being an excellent script editor. Since you have made the corrections necessary some time ago, I didn't ask for nor do I need a FOURTH editor on this straight forward simple relaying of the evidence page. So, I'll find an administrator to deal with this EddieHugh individual. He can't get me out of his mind. I feel sorry for him, actually. He has mistaken his mere volunteer status for an actual paid job it would seem. Professor Reason (talk) 19:25, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

"I haven't had a complaint"! How about here: "I want another (neutral) administrator to view my article as it is, and give their feedback. Vmavanti seems obsessed with my entry and heavily biased". That was a year ago. Now you're saying exactly the same thing about me!

...I don't know what can be done. You've shown an understanding of autobiography issues, but ignore them. You've shown an awareness of ownership issues, but ignore them. You've been told about puffery/peacock terms numerous times, but still insist on their inclusion. You've been given examples of misrepresentations of sources, but have reinserted them into the article. You've removed sourcing tags, but not addressed why they were added. You've removed an autobiography template, but know that you shouldn't. You've claimed support from other editors even when those editors have directly and plainly stated the opposite... perhaps an admin will be able to sort something out. EddieHugh (talk) 20:14, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Found this on YOUR talk page as evidence for the administrator that I will pursue. You've really chosen the wrong individual for your personal vendetta Mr. Eddie "big man behind a computer screen" Hugh :-) LOL:

Do you know of any sensible, higher level, diplomatic administrators who can address the complaints by Mr Stewart? I've been under the impression that Amazon and CDbaby can't be used as sources. Ever. Isn't that correct?
–Vmavanti (talk) 17:01, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

There may be some sort of emergency in which they could be used; I don't know 100% for sure. But choice of source is a minor matter in comparison with others regarding the article. I suggest contacting Ritchie333, who is an administrator with experience in music. Let me know if you need back up (although I'll probably notice anyway!). EddieHugh (talk) 18:00, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

EVIDENCE of collusion manifest indeed. I'll find a neutral administrator to deal with you two if the article about me isn't left alone and will use the obvious bias -& obsession of you two here as evidence. I have copied this talk page to my computer. Professor Reason

Professor Reason (talk) 20:43, 14 October 2017 (UTC) Professor Reason (talk) 20:43, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Again

The same problems described in detail above have been re-inserted into the article. I've already reverted them three times and been accused of racism twice. Anyone is welcome to make constructive comments on how to proceed. EddieHugh (talk) 13:08, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

ON the contrary, you did not offer to talk with me until I mentioned it. Secondly, who are you anyway. I don't have to accept your PREFERRED writing style. You've OVER MARKED my page and vandalized my verbatim quotes. I say let an administrator deal with this. You are FAR TOO BIASED, seemms personal.

Professor Reason (talk) 13:25, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm an editor. Read Wikipedia:Ownership of content: no one owns this or any other page, so referring to "my page" is simply wrong. You can look at my editing record: I've been adding properly sourced material, tagging unsourced information and removing fluff for several years, mostly on articles on jazz. No one has to accept a particular writing style, but basic conventions have to be adhered to (see the lists above) and the norm is to follow consensus (I'm the third editor who's pointed out what's wrong with the edits you make). Your "verbatim quotes" were misquotes or puffery. For example, I removed "This recording was also well received by jazz critics; one even described Stewart as 'the most lyrical and melodic saxophone improviser of his generation.'" The only thing close to that in the source is "Stewart is at heart a lyrical and melodic improviser." EddieHugh (talk) 13:53, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

You are partially quoting the articles which state my UNIQUENESS among my generation. It is fact and documented. You have removed whole sections of VERBATIM quotes from my recordings sections. I will accept removing a word here and there which you (personally or your writing style) dislike. But, I will not remove verbatim quotes regarding my 30 year career with the greatest musicians in history. Bix Biderbieck has an online book full of quotes that you have not read syllable by syllable as you are doing with mine. I see a double standard as with the last two as is clear above. We had an agreement, but I never expect mere humans to honor agreements. So let's get started. Professor Reason (talk) 14:51, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

You cited an album review, but that review did not contain the words that you presented as a quotation! That's misquoting, not a writing style preference. The Bix Beiderbecke article is a featured article, so someone will have gone through it word by word, checking. Three editors have gone through bits of this article and provided feedback to you on Wikipedia norms, which apply to all articles. You're ignoring them. In addition to all of the things already mentioned, you've removed sourcing tags, which is simply the wrong way of doing things here. EddieHugh (talk) 16:20, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Not a conspiracy

It isn't collusion because no one is conspiring. I asked EddieHugh two questions: one, if I was following the rules correctly about certain sources, and two, if he knew an administrator who can address Mr Stewart's complaints. I don't know any administrators and I don't know how dispute resolution works. We don't work in one place. We're spread throughout the country and the world. Eddie has been my go-to-guy for jazz articles. He's been here longer than I have and he knows what he's doing. Although there is no urgency to this article, I think a year is enough time to to have gotten some of these problems resolved. Getting advice seemed the best solution. One other point. It's confusing about whom I'm talking to. When you reply, please make it clear who is doing the writing, Mr Stewart or the professor. That might head off some misunderstanding.
–Vmavanti (talk) 22:55, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

I see that Vmavanti & NY Actuary were simply lying when they made me do all of those citations for descriptives for nothing. I never trust any humans, so I'm never disappointed when they relay falsehoods. Just stating facts that are in the records since my arrival here, nothing more. Professor Reason (talk) 07:10, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Moved the template here from top of this page (doesn't belong there; and what is with the "adult non-male" specifications?). I have left a warning note for Professorreason, as even disregarding all other issues, any editor with strong conflict of interest are discouraged from editing the article directly in the first place. Alex Shih^Talk 05:40, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Alex Shih, to answer your question, I never do business with males, for there is always the "chest thumping, mega-testosterone, I'm badder than you, Neanderthal head trip." I hire all women in my business dealings. They bring logic, reason, and sensibilities to a problem and work with me to rectify it. I'd hoped that Wikipedia would give access to them rather than these here. These males haven't been kind since the minute I arrived as my first outreach clearly outlines. But, it is what it is now. Oh well. Professor Reason (talk) 07:10, 15 October 2017 (UTC)