Jump to content

Talk:Meco

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

[edit]

I'm moving this content over from Millennium Record Company and putting a redirect there to this article. It doesn't look like there was anything there that shouldn't be in this article instead, but since there's no sources on any of it, I'm not sure how much is relevant and should actually be included. So here it is:

Millennium Record Company Originally Started In 3 West 57th Street New York, N.Y. 10019 When 1977 Came. The Staff At Millennium Records Joined With Casablanca Records & Filmworks, Along With Neil Bogart's Permission. Meco Monardo Signed With Millennium Records When He Came Up With Making His 1st Album "Star Wars & Other Galactic Funk" Meco Monardo's Stage Name Was "Meco". In The Fall Of 1977, He Made His 2nd Album Titled "Encounters Of Every Kind" With The 3 Hit Singles "Topsy", "Meco's Theme" & "Theme From Close Encounters". In Early 1978, Meco Had The Idea Of Making His 3rd Album Called "The Wizard Of Oz". When Millennium Records Decided To Move To RCA Records In The Fall Of 1978, Meco Stood By Casablanca Records & Filmworks. Neil Bogart & The Staff At Casablanca Records & Filmworks Knew How Much Meco Loved Working With Millennium Records. In October 1978, Meco Made His 4th Album For Casablanca Records & Filmworks Called "Superman & Other Galactic Heroes". The Casablanca Staff Loved The Idea. In 1979, Meco Made His 5th Album Called "Moondancer" With The 3 Hit Singles "Moondancer", "Grazing In The Grass" & "Devil's Delight". In 1980, Meco Made His 6th Album Called "Music From Star Trek & Music From The Black Hole". In 1981 Meco Made His 7th & Final Album For Casablanca Records & Filmworks Called "American Warewolf In London".

—Cleared as filed. 18:25, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please add reference

[edit]

If you can add a reference to the deleted text (In a matter of just three weeks they arranged and recorded Star Wars and Other Galactic Funk which soon outsold Williams' original soundtrack.), please do so. Otherwise it stays out. It is the responsibility of the editor who includes any information which may be challenged to add the necessary reference. Thank you.--Technopat (talk) 11:13, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is also customary to add request tags to such statements before simply removing them. We're not dealing with a BLP issue here after all. __meco (talk) 12:17, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please just add the requested references. The wikilink you so kindly added above states the following (my bold type):
"Be very firm about the use of high quality references. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons — whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable — should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion, from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space".
Thank you. --Technopat (talk) 12:29, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are clearly stretching the gist of the BLP provision way beyond its intended focus. WP:BLP has been instituted to protect the individuals who are the subject of articles from adverse affect, and the stringent prescription which you quote is directed at biographical material and with regard for the subject's privacy. If you go on to actually read Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons you will immediately understand that this is not directed at the type of information which we are here dealing with. You should also note the fact that you did in no way stop to reflect on the fact that when you made your revert you insisted on removal of content that the editor who did the original removing did not intend to remove, i.e. showing that you are acting in this without employing common sense but on a blind misreading of the BLP guideline in an interpretation which dictates that reference requests can never be applied to biography articles. __meco (talk) 15:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just reference it, please. This is an encyclopaedia, not a fan site. Thank you.--Technopat (talk) 17:39, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Claim that Meco Star Wars single sold better than John Williams' soundtrack

[edit]

That claim cannot stand in the article without a cite. If it really is true, it probably shouldn't be too hard to find a good cite. I also removed the dubious claim from Star Wars and Other Galactic Funk that the single is the best selling instrumental single of all time. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Mike R (talk) 11:15, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As you will notice, I have attempted to argue a point concerning this removal with another editor who has a somewhat idiosyncratic approach to collaborative work and dialogue. I do concede your point, but I also figure that the claim about sales of the album surpassing John Williams' original score has a better chance of getting verified if it remains in the article with a maintenance tag, pending fulfillment of the reference request. If after 3 – 6 months the request hasn't been fulfilled, it would be appropriate to remove the statement. I believe this would be well in line with common practice in a matter where BLP is not an issue. __meco (talk) 20:01, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Meco - why add the template requesting verification now after having put the claim there yourself almost a year ago (11 December 2007)? Please stop gaming the system. Regards from your friendly, neighbourhood "idiosyncratic" Wikipedia editor. Copy to Meco's talkpage. --Technopat (talk) 20:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Apart from your consistent facetious joviality, which I find inappropriate and a sign of lack of civility, and adding to that a show of bad faith, you seem to subscribe to the notion that an editor who makes a contribution to an article has the sole responsibility of making corrections to their contribution. I have written most of this article based on information provided by a fan website. That means obviously that some of the information which I have decided to include will have to be verified at a later time. As one such statement has now been identified, it should be dealt with as a matter of course and normal procedures, not as an urgent BLP violation, which this most certainly isn't, which is the course that you have demanded in this case. __meco (talk) 20:44, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just reference it, please. This is an encyclopaedia, not a fan site. Thank you.--Technopat (talk) 20:57, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My view is that uncited but uncontroversial and believable claims can remain with a "citation needed" tag. Highly dubious ones should be removed. We use our editorial judgment to determine the difference between believable and dubious, and we work toward editorial consensus if there is disagreement. Mike R (talk) 21:59, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree that a claim of a world record should not be allowed to stay pending fulfillment of a citation request. If you find the assertion about record sales surpassing the original movie soundtrack also to be too dubious for it to stand with a request tag, I am indeed surprised, however if that's your call, I will not contest it. __meco (talk) 22:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Meco. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:37, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Meco. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:06, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Meco&oldid=1208952918"