User talk:KaiBasenberg

Welcome!

Hello, KaiBasenberg, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing 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 for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Calm Omaha (talk) 05:43, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Soaked in Bleach

Hello, I'm DonkeyPunchResin. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Soaked in Bleach have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse. Thanks. DonkeyPunchResin (talk) 04:12, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm KaiBasenberg. I wanted to let you know that one of your recent contributions to Soaked in Bleach have been undone again because they did not appear constructive by removing an external ressource link. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help Desk. Thanks. The external link is a reference to the movie about Fisk's involvement (now Lieutenant of the Seattle Fire Department, experienced paramedic) in it and contributes to get an objective overview about the making of this film, which is labeld as fictitious in its own rolling credits. --KaiBasenberg (talk) 06:55, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Kai. The opinion from John Fisk seems. irrelevant. Nowhere in Soaked in Bleach does John Fisk give his opinion on the matter. Not only is the sentence about his opinion awkwardly placed but when I read it I thought ... ok ... who cares. The documentary doesn’t have anything to do with his opinion, he is in it to recite facts. Plus he has no expertise to give his opinion credibility or standing as to why it’s relevant . A flag recitation of his opinion is meaningless. I’m sure other factual witnesses from the documentary have opinions too but why should we add those? Are we going to start adding their opinions too? Finally, the quote mischaracterizes the tone in the article as well as he indicates the documentary made him change his view on the matter as he states he believes the investigation should be reopened. I suppose I’ll add this to the talk page so no one will ever comment on it. Sorry for the edits. I didn’t realize you own this Wikipedia page. However claiming the edits do not appear constructive is a violation of Wikipedia’s assume good faith policy. I believe your efforts to shoehorn this awkward irrelevant bit in the article is not constructive too. I do see that adding stupid templates to each others talk page is not constructive and puerile however. I take this back though if the chastising of yourself above was intentional though although I do not understand why you would’ve crammed the opinion back on the page then. DonkeyPunchResin (talk) 14:44, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, DonkeyPunchResin, the talk page should be used to discuss how we can improve the page and therefor Wikipedia as an encyclopedia, meaning adding sources / articles which focus on factual information concerning the subject of the discussed Wikipedia page. Hence the circumstances of the musician's death portrayed in a docu drama. That includes information from John Fisk and any other involved interviewee, who appeared in the movie, too. Deleting this information would only make the page a promotional piece and subject to deletion as well. Wikipedia is not a Marketing platform. How would you improve the page without deleting worthy information? Looking forward to a fruitful discussion. --KaiBasenberg (talk) 16:13, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Make the page a promotional piece? Make the page subject to deletion?? Lololol. You cannot be serious. Are we supposed to add everything anyone in the doc has to say about it? His line about the doc is part of his opinion on the matter in general, it adds nothing of relevance to the article as he was in the documentary for a factual recitation of events - not his opinion as he has no expertise - it would be bizarre if they included his opinion, and the reference is currently used misrepresents his actual opinion - the doc changed his mind in that he now thinks the investigation should be reopened. DonkeyPunchResin (talk) 20:25, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

--- Hi DonkeyPunchResin, John Fisk recalls the events surrounding the making of the movie and adds his opinion that seems to contradict with the viewpoint of Tom Grant/the filmmaker Statler. You are referring to him saying that he would if nothing else OUT OF CURIOSITY (because his impression about Grant shifted not his opinion) but still believes it was a suicide, also being a HUGE conspiracy skeptic. Please, read the article again. It adds to the Controversy about this movie. How can we now improve the page with that information, in your opinion? --KaiBasenberg (talk) 07:28, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]