User:ItsAlwaysLupus/Adoption with Realist2
(Redirected from User:RockandDiscoFanCZ/Adoption with Realist2)
Story continues
[edit]So Realist, what are you thinking 'bout the death of Michael Jackson? :( I like his three albums from post-disco 80s era, but event of his death was shocked me so much like for 1 first-class Michael Jackson's fans, although I wasn't some grand MJ's fan. RockandDiscoFanCZ (talk) 17:08, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, I'm a little gutted, I had tickets to see him live. How are you? — Please comment R2 17:48, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
- Michael Jackson
just like /or Elvis Presleyhe was such a huge influence.. nah, forget Presley.. he was just some kind of (but excellent) plagiator/mash-up artist who mixed white redneck country music with pure R&B gold music of Louis Jordan/Chuck Berry/Little Richard/ etc, but Michael? He IS musical genre or category itself. Michael comes with groundbreaking and innovative music and so do his "musical clips techniques/shoes/dance moves", tell me, which pop icon influenced the music so much very lot, just like Michael Jackson?
- Michael Jackson
- Unfortunately I never couldn't see him, because in Prague (city where I live) was Michael Jackson just once in 1996, so this is so bitter moment for me, because I used to saying to myself: "someday I have to go to his concert". And now it's impossible.
- Summary: We lost a great innovate musical icon of 20st Century. What a pity moment to all of us. RockandDiscoFanCZ (talk) 22:48, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Intro
[edit]OK, RockandDiscoFanCZ what made you decide to join Wikipedia and how have you found it so far? — Realist2 19:56, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
- Uhm, help a little to wikipedia with my (little) musical experience (I'm too realist and I call it "amuater experience". To professional musical critics work I have long way ... umm I'm afraid not, this sentence is quite inarticulateness. I put mind to music since I have fourteen, from classical music to jazz of 30's, later dixieland, 40's.. big band music (I remembered my favourite musicans - Frank Sinatra with Tommy Dorsey Orchestra and the vocal group The Pied Pipers, such a great big band-pop music! :-) yes, memories), swing... and later I discovered rock & roll (days before I was hard jazz purist and I hate rock & roll :-D), R&B and that doo-wop harmony vocal music.. and so on.. and now I'm stagnating in 80's (you know, that New Wave/Synth-pop/Pop metal/Post-Disco/Hi-NRG/Electronic/Electro-Funk/Golden age hip hop era) and in modern alternative rock/post-punk revival ways + Contemporary R&B, horror punk, swing & rockabilly revival, and so on.. by-way music is my big wide life, without music I'd die.
- so because I like adding infos (most of all, infoboxes, chart discography, and others) about music to wikipedia :-).
- Most precious article I've edited (and extending) is (perhaps) Freeez.
- so because I like adding infos (most of all, infoboxes, chart discography, and others) about music to wikipedia :-).
- And I'm word-splitter, detailist and some rock 'n' roll song I would categorized as a swing (you know, that shuffle), country (that textures), blues (that guitar textures), and other
- And again, I'm very sorry for my bad english, for you, native english-speaker person it perhaps is a big long agony.
- +Second answer: I'm also a wiki admirer (wiki format in articles is so fabulous - I mean pretty slick)RockandDiscoFanCZ (talk) 20:46, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
- Great! Lot's of interest then. I think the most important thing to learn about is reliable sources (WP:RS) as already mentioned. Wikipedia is an important site, it's quite mainstream and if often used by other people as a trustworthy, reliable source. You should get into the habit of providing a source for any piece of new info you add to Wikipedia. Infact, even if you know or believe something to be true (for example, the Beatles have sold 600 million albums), unless you can provide a source it is best to not write the claim at all.
- Eventually you will get into the habit of learning what sites are reliable and which are not. Infact, we could construct a list, over time, of sources that are/aren't reliable. Eventually you will remember them off the top of you head. You will be able to correct other editors when they use bad sources then.
- Yes, I see. I at all times trust to information that are somebody provided in wikipedia, for example: Chart positions of some song and I (for the standard reader) don't want unsourced claims and lies, because I'm in Wikipedia, not in debatable blog... :-D
- However, sometimes there is such articles that are totally underground and unknown (for example Post-disco article) and there is a too little sources (some claims that... and that, you know, tightly facts are hard-to-find) to check up these informations. Better way is leave this article (less unverifiable claims, less problems) but ... should somebody extend this article... someday? :-D
- Probably best source is it from the official web of its musical (or other) artist, you know, that site tells everybody's that "he's/they (are)/she's playing Funk music" and this information is the most exactly reliable source that somebody can trust to it.
- It's be nice for you, thank you :-). If I write some drivel, there is a backup way and this way called revertion, before somebody see it. :-D RockandDiscoFanCZ (talk) 18:41, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
- It is generally agreed on Wikipedia that we should only have articles on things that are reported by reliable third party sources. If sources are really hard to find then potentially the topic lacks WP:Notability. Sometimes articles are deleted if they lack notability. Hopefully someone will find sources to add to it. You can also use books if you can't find anything on the internet. Your library might contain some very useful books (books are generally reliable to use so long as it's not a novel). — Realist2 20:05, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, yes.. I see,.. someday can somebody verified it, that's the reason why exist a "Citation needed" item :-)... and books, that's true, thanks. RockandDiscoFanCZ (talk) 19:33, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, "fact tags/citation needed tags" are a good thing to use, just copy {{Fact}} if you want to tag something. If something has been tagged for a few months and no citation has been added, it's usually best to delete that piece of info. That said, you should never add a piece of information to Wikipedia, add a fact tag and expect someone else to find a source for the claim. If you add something and fact tag it yourself then someone else should/could remove the unsourced piece. If/when you need any help using a book as a source let me know. :-) — Realist2 19:43, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
- For example, this should be avoided where possible. You should only fact tag other peoples work, not your own. Other than that your work to that article has been great so far! You should spend some time looking for those sources so you can remove the tags then :-) — Realist2 19:50, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you for offer to help :-),... I need most of all, some verifiable source (in books) of that unSourced post-disco songs to keep that lines in the article... if in that various books didn't been a verification, last way is remove that lines that don't have a credible source. :-/
- For example, this should be avoided where possible. You should only fact tag other peoples work, not your own. Other than that your work to that article has been great so far! You should spend some time looking for those sources so you can remove the tags then :-) — Realist2 19:50, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, "fact tags/citation needed tags" are a good thing to use, just copy {{Fact}} if you want to tag something. If something has been tagged for a few months and no citation has been added, it's usually best to delete that piece of info. That said, you should never add a piece of information to Wikipedia, add a fact tag and expect someone else to find a source for the claim. If you add something and fact tag it yourself then someone else should/could remove the unsourced piece. If/when you need any help using a book as a source let me know. :-) — Realist2 19:43, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, yes.. I see,.. someday can somebody verified it, that's the reason why exist a "Citation needed" item :-)... and books, that's true, thanks. RockandDiscoFanCZ (talk) 19:33, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
- It is generally agreed on Wikipedia that we should only have articles on things that are reported by reliable third party sources. If sources are really hard to find then potentially the topic lacks WP:Notability. Sometimes articles are deleted if they lack notability. Hopefully someone will find sources to add to it. You can also use books if you can't find anything on the internet. Your library might contain some very useful books (books are generally reliable to use so long as it's not a novel). — Realist2 20:05, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
- that's right, but if came to this article (for example, post-disco) some editor, that he/she don't know me and he/she don't trust the line, for example "Feel Alright (1982) by garage-funk band Komiko" and then remove it, because he/she suppose to a belief that band Komiko is an.. hmm.. death metal artist, not band.. what's do after? Reverting back? I don't know, but this act is like a cat 'n' mouse' game :-D, ....
- ..what a joy! I recall now for one question, can I validate some... that information with the YouTube? You know, near by that line, for example "feel alright ..." I add a YouTube link for the verification.. and that person can listened it and beliefed to that song is really post-disco song, nor death metal thing... .. hmm, I know, silly idea.. this is a wikipedia not a musical museum for listening :-D
- overall, I didn't know that thing about tagging other but not mine work (probably it's not recommended), thanks :-) I'd just believed to that Fact tag item I can use very often and frequented just like .. hmm .. changing a soxes :-D RockandDiscoFanCZ (talk) 17:52, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
- Ooops, there is an semi-answer to my YouTube question (Wikipedia:YOUTUBE). Can be that audio a "verifiable source"?RockandDiscoFanCZ (talk) 17:58, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
- overall, I didn't know that thing about tagging other but not mine work (probably it's not recommended), thanks :-) I'd just believed to that Fact tag item I can use very often and frequented just like .. hmm .. changing a soxes :-D RockandDiscoFanCZ (talk) 17:52, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
OK, youtube is almost never allowed. I would advise you just to avoid it, the policy on youtube can be complicated. If someone removes your material because it had a fact tag then don't revert them. That's why you shouldn't fact tag your own work. Only add info to Wikipedia that you can source straight away. Shall we set up a table of sources that are and are not reliable and add to it as we progress? :-) — Realist2 18:04, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, beacause that YouTube contributioners are claim probablly original research informations.. it's just, you know, fan discussion on particular videoclip ("hmm, this song are contain some fine funky elements" but, where is the fact? -- music analyse of that song isn't a inadequate thing).
- and, please, what template is for "I add some info & source later"?
- yes, it'll be fine. Thanks. :-) RockandDiscoFanCZ (talk) 14:26, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
- Correct, youtube should be avoided because it is a Primary source and can be original research. Another issue is copyright laws. Just like images and audio clips, we can't show some things for financial reasons. There isn't a template for "I add some info & source later" because that's not allowed. You should source your info straight away. If we had such a template some people would abuse it in order to add anything to wikipedia. — Realist2 14:31, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
- So, probably best resolution is adding a verifiable source to that information or erase it (if that verifiable source don't exist). RockandDiscoFanCZ (talk) 19:20, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- Absolutely :-) How have you been recently? Been away a little while. — Realist2 22:36, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- I'd just tried to be not a wikiholic, it's just like a box of chocolate (spoilering Forrest Gump), first choco bar... , second and subject become uncontrolled :-D. Recently, I use the 'technique' "hit and run", just adding some little things and I go away... :-D... and how are you?
- Absolutely :-) How have you been recently? Been away a little while. — Realist2 22:36, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- So, probably best resolution is adding a verifiable source to that information or erase it (if that verifiable source don't exist). RockandDiscoFanCZ (talk) 19:20, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- Correct, youtube should be avoided because it is a Primary source and can be original research. Another issue is copyright laws. Just like images and audio clips, we can't show some things for financial reasons. There isn't a template for "I add some info & source later" because that's not allowed. You should source your info straight away. If we had such a template some people would abuse it in order to add anything to wikipedia. — Realist2 14:31, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
- New topic: By-the-way, do you know sitcom named "Married.. with Children"? RockandDiscoFanCZ (talk) 19:41, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
- I'm very good, although Wiki is taking up all my time these days, so many vandals :-(. I agree it's best not to get addicted. No I don't own that sitcom sorry, I'm not a big TV watcher. — Realist2 19:46, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
- I see, too many jobs with the vandals. Why wikipedia's admins don't inhibite writing with no account? I mean, best solvent is avoiding the writing under the guest IP...
- I'm very good, although Wiki is taking up all my time these days, so many vandals :-(. I agree it's best not to get addicted. No I don't own that sitcom sorry, I'm not a big TV watcher. — Realist2 19:46, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
- New topic: By-the-way, do you know sitcom named "Married.. with Children"? RockandDiscoFanCZ (talk) 19:41, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
- Hmm.. I remembered one week (when I'm join up the wikipedia) that I'm all-night-long (it's a joke :-D) sitting in the chair and writing and writing and writing and writing.. and I can't stop. It was a problem. :-D
- Yeah, I know, TV watching only the people over 50+ :-D (that is very often saying my mother :-D). RockandDiscoFanCZ (talk) 20:15, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
I noticed you were blocked for edit warring the other day, hmm. Please don't edit war, at least you know not to do it again. Also understand that 3RR does not give you a free pass to revert 3 times. If you feel you are getting into an edit war, step away from the computer for 15 minutes, speak to the editor on his talk page or start a discussion on the article talk page. If you do not get a response within 48 hours you could revert using the edit summary "editor would not engage in communication on the issue after 48 hours". — Realist2 22:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
- ... actually that edit war (abided for 6-8 hours, and that's not a joke) was been also in Disco template, disco infobox, (Cont.) R&B infobox, (Cont.) R&B template, NY garage, and many others. I told to yanekleklus that he should have to discuss his edit changes with other editors, but he continued. And when we starts to talk in talk page of disco infobox, he did the same thing as before - reverting infobox back to his "version". Sequentially, I've tried to make "original" infobox with no OR (now is presented in the disco article; also contain some OR elements from revisions by yaneklekus) - but this step was regarded as a duplicating fake-template (yankeklus adding a "fake" advice to disco template version 2). However, this "story" is so complicated to comprehension :-D.
- But thanks to "editor would not engage in communication on the issue after 48 hours" line. I'll do it if will occurs some problem with that yaneklekus (or his socket puppets). :-) RockandDiscoFanCZ (talk) 16:42, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
When replying to your talk page messages
[edit]A word of advise, if you receive a talk page message off of someone you should reply on your own talk page and send an identical copy of that message to the other editor. If someone accuses you of something bad on your talk page, your response (basically your defense) needs to be clearly visible on your talk page. If people only read one side of a story they automatically believe that version. — Realist2 00:37, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
- So in his/her talk page I just post some of that robotic text like "I replied on my talk page"? (if it'll be a standard reaction) RockandDiscoFanCZ (talk) 16:47, 6 December 2008 (UTC)