User talk:Sprecher

Welcome!

Hello, Sprecher, 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:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Anupam^Talk 00:04, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reasons why you should join WikiProject Christianity:

Obtain answers to your questions about Christianity on the noticeboard (watch)
Work side by side with friendly and welcoming editors who are passionate about Christianity
Free subscription to our informative newsletter
Explore Christianity in depth with one of our 30 specialty groups
Get recognition for your hard work and valuable contributions
Find out how to get your article promoted Featured class at the Peer Review Department
Choose from a collection of over 55,000 articles to improve

Join today!

Genres, genres, genres

MUST we do this again? It's getting increasingly tiresome now. If you wanted to dispute the genre, you could've just discussed it on the talk page first like we agreed to do TWICE. But noooooooooooo... Mac Dreamstate (talk) 10:43, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Watchdog", huh... I like it! In actual fact, I (as well as other serious editors) have many pages on my watchlist for that very purpose. If edits are made I can see them immediately, which avoids the need to go around checking things manually. As for "taking care" of the Streamline article, that's not entirely accurate. Granted, I've maintained its basic format for some time without much change from anyone else, but in no way am I claiming ownership of anything on Wikipedia. If people want to make constructive edits, then I'm happy to go along for the sake of improving things for a worldwide music-loving audience. That I reacted in the manner I did upon your coming along and deleting a genre was not down to territoriality. Rather, I deemed the edit to be unconstructive because no prior discussion had taken place. Had it have been anyone else, I wouldn't have blinked an eyelid. But since it was you, I interpreted it as yet another baseless 'challenge'—which wasn't too improbable a thought, considering our track record. I'm sure you can understand that. It's almost like you're my nemesis on here sometimes! (And I mean that in a completely friendly way, because we're all here to improve Wikipedia in the end). Mac Dreamstate (talk) 13:48, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I too like the term watchdog; namely because that's what you and I both are. That's why I called you a "watchdog". Once again though, you pull up sources that do not even say "instrumental rock" in them or even just plain "rock". The sources say "jazz funk, jazz fusion, jazz rock, crossover jazz"; yet where is the instrumental rock? Also, I do not believe that you should get the info of genres from a bloggers post. Basically, sombody can just put down whatever the heck they want. In reality the Lenny White album is a mixture of jazz-funk with jazz fusion. Lucky for you though, I could care less about this album. Lenny White is one of the main forces in jazz, fusion, & jazz-funk; but instrumental rock? I don't think so. I just don't like to see albums labeled with extremely b.s., extremely subjective crap. Thanks. P.S. The reason why I edited this article is because I thought it would be a good change since I was not able to find any sources saying it was instrumental rock. Also, had I known you babysit that article, I probably would have left it alone. Like I said: I look through many articles on wikipidia. I don't always write down why I changed something; namely because a lot of times the articles seem like ghost towns where nobody really maintains them or checks them. I was thinking this article was the same way. Sorry. I mean seriously, how was I supposed to know that you where maintianing/checking that article? Sprecher (talk) 00:22, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so now that we're all calm on this cold December's first, I'll explain my viewpoint one last time as clearly as I can regarding the instrumental rock thing (and I'm sure you're as tired of seeing that term as I am):

The reason I've labelled specific jazz fusion albums with that genre is because I strongly feel as though the presence of rock, whilst not predominant, is still notable enough to warrant a mention for the sake of informativeness. Who am I informing? Everyone, not just music experts. By supplementing a genre which co-exists alongside a main one, I'm catering to a worldwide readership who may not know much about the subject matter. I don't need to be informed and neither do you, but others might not be as much in the know. This is the real crux of the issue, rather than my trying to sneak in some kind of elitist 'pro-rock' agenda just to satisfy my own tastes or encroach upon the territory of jazz fans (as you may have mistakenly interpreted).

What I've found is that some purists may be inclined to hear only certain elements within this type of music, but because I avidly listen to both jazz fusion and rock, I'm often able to hear underlying elements of the latter as well (hallmarks such as simpler scales, crunchy riffs, distorted guitar tone, standard drumming, etc.) In the case of Streamline, whilst it is indeed a landmark jazz fusion album, there are some songs which are clearly more on the rock side of things—"12 Bars from Mars" and "Pooh Bear" being prime examples. Quite frankly, they sound exactly like something that can be found on a late 1980s Jeff Beck album. If that's "extreme B.S." or "extremely subjective crap" to some, then I can only pity their close-mindedness. Maybe some ears need to open up more.

As for the sources I provided for Streamline, they weren't written by "bloggers" as such (linking to blogs is inadvisable, since they often contain download links and whatnot). Rather, they are reviews as part of the ProgArchives site; just like those found on Amazon, allmusic or CD Baby. The album itself is listed as "jazz rock/fusion" on its main page, and whilst I could've used that page instead, I chose to include the two reviews because they mentioned the term rock on numerous occasions. When it comes to the "instrumental" part, I've gone over this many times but you've always chosen to ignore it. Maybe you have some kind of prejudice against the term because in your view it carries negative connotations of shred guitarists or something. I don't know. But what I do know, when it comes to Streamline and a few others, is this:

1. Is the music primarily jazz fusion? Yes.

2. Are there noticeable elements of rock alongside it? Yes.

3. Is all jazz fusion instrumental? No.

4. Is this particular music instrumental? Yes.

Hold everything! Read those last two parts again.

Read them yet again.

One more time.

Got it? OK.

5. Do sources label the music as "instrumental rock"? No.

6. Do sources label the music as "jazz rock"? Yes.

7. Is there a Wikipedia article for jazz rock? No.

8. Is there a Wikipedia article for instrumental rock? Yes.

9. Since jazz rock doesn't have an article, what is the next best thing? Instrumental rock.

... If that doesn't explain it, then hey—at least I got a good typing workout out of it.

Now, I will admit that in the past I've been a tad liberal with splashing around instrumental rock for albums where jazz fusion is absolutely predominant (like 90%, to give a ballpark figure) with only minute traces of rock. Good examples are most of Holdsworth's albums, and Gambale's first four. Looking back now, I can see it was the right decision to change them all to solely jazz fusion. Was I wrong in originally labelling them additionally as instrumental rock? Not necessarily wrong, but it was list crufting. The rock was simply minimal, at best. Was I right to change my mind after thinking it over? Absolutely. Not everything on Wikipedia is set in stone, and there's always room for constructive change if there's a consensus.

What I won't concede on, however, are those albums which undoubtedly have a strong rock background to them, i.e. Passages, Truth in Shredding, etc. There are sources which label them as rock, and because they are of the instrumental variety—an aural fact which cannot be denied, regardless of sources—what is the most logical article to link to? Instrumental rock. Why not jazz rock? Because there is no distinct article for that. What will give the reader the broadest scope on the music? In this case, instrumental rock. It's not because I like the look of the word, nor because I love typing it endlessly (as if we haven't already done so) or listening to it like a fanboy. What I'm merely doing is informing the reader that:

"The music on this article contains prominent elements of rock, alongside a primary basis of jazz fusion, and it is instrumental. Here is a link to the article about this subgenre of music, along with some related sources, which will explain things further and allow you to form your own opinion".

... It really does make the most sense if one thinks about it without blinkers on.

As for not knowing I was maintaining/watching the Streamline article (as well as originally creating it), one look at the edit history should indicate clearly enough that I'm what's known as a "primary contributor" on that one; as in, most edits happen to be made by myself, due to keen interest. Although as I've mentioned before, this is not the same as outright claiming ownership of an article, which would look more like this: "Don't edit MY article, because YOU know nothing about the subject matter and I'M the man around here!" Obviously, nobody's adopting such an attitude in this case. At all times I seek to engage in discussion whenever there's a dispute, so I'm certainly not guilty of commandeering anything. Nor am I some big, bad babysitter watchdog whose typing everyone has to fear. In the end, anyone with as much interest as we have in these genres of music are considered valuable contributors to the project. In Wikipedia's terms, we'd be called Most Interested Persons. Take care and happy editing. =) Mac Dreamstate (talk) 02:35, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you must sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 00:24, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jazz rock

There is already a sub-article for jazz rock, which forms part of the main jazz fusion article (same as how contemporary jazz effectively links to smooth jazz). At one point I did consider including jazz rock for some album articles, but linking to an article within an article seems like pointless cruft, when a separate yet related one (instrumental rock) becomes a more informative solution. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 19:43, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jazz pop

Since I don't have much interest in jazz pop as a whole, your best option is to make a request on WikiProject Jazz for the creation of such an article. Just go to their talk page and create a new section at the bottom (name, surrounded by two equals signs) detailing your ideas. Also, please remember to use four tildes ( ~~~~ ) to sign any posts you leave on talk pages. It creates a signature for you, so that everyone knows who's saying what. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 13:29, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Sprecher. You have new messages at Gnowor's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Gnowor^T_C 07:43, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Gambale "bootlegs"

Gambale only has one album with "bootleg" in the title, that being Resident Alien – Live Bootlegs. It is the official name of the album, released through his own Wombat Records label. Often musicians will title some of their live albums as "bootlegs", as a sort of humorous reference to actual unauthorised bootlegs which tend to plague their discography. Progressive metal band Dream Theater does this a lot for their fans. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 08:29, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Testing, testing, asldkfj aslkfja Sprecher (talk) 08:59, 14 December 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Talkback

Hello, Sprecher. You have new messages at Gnowor's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Gnowor^T_C 18:05, 14 December 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Genre labelling

As you asked, I listened to the four songs for which you provided links, and here is my reckoning on each of them...

First song (Hiromi Uehara – "XYZ"): definitely pure jazz fusion. There's a strong back beat with complex drumming and prominent bass work; the piano work on its own could be considered more along the lines of normal jazz, but all the rest of the accompanying instrumentation are playing 100% in a jazz fusion style. Also, the lack of lead guitar makes it easier for me to label this as such, because that instrument can often be the difference-maker in terms of tone, technique, etc. In this case, the song could not possibly be anything other than jazz fusion.

Second song (Chick Corea Elektric Band – "Charged Particles"): this one has much more of a rock flavour to it. Something this catchy wouldn't have sounded out of place on a rock station at some point a few decades ago, but I'd still call it jazz fusion without hesitation, albeit not 100% so. Underneath there's definitely some rock going on—Gambale's guitar tone has a harsh edge to it (more so than on his studio albums), and his soloing is an energetic mixture of complex fusion techniques and standard instrumental rock licks. Overall, it can safely be called jazz fusion on its own. To call it anything else would be unnecessary embellishment, even though it has a distinctly rock-orientated foundation and sounds very accessible to a mass audience.

Third song (Steps Ahead – "Beirut"): pure jazz fusion again. The note intervals and chord changes are all very jazzy and unpredictable, the instrumentation is complex and very diverse, and it's a long song.

Fourth song (Return to Forever – "Hymn Of The Seventh Galaxy"): at a stretch, one might be able to associate some elements of progressive rock with this one due to the overdriven guitar tone and some of the shred stuff being played during the solo, but otherwise it's a safe bet for the jazz fusion label alone. It'd be needless to call it anything else.

Hope that helps. Admittedly I'm not too good at describing individual songs in technical terms, but I always try to pay attention to what's going on and say what I'm hearing. I'm better at labelling entire albums as a whole, because it's easier to group together a bunch of songs which collectively have a certain vibe or feel to them, rather than individually picking out details within those songs and coming up with a bunch of genres. What I mainly look for when labelling rock/jazz genres is the guitar work. As I said before, I feel as though that is one of the dealbreakers because it is usually the most prominent instrument. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 23:14, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did indeed enjoy them all. These days I don't have much time or patience to listen to new music (I tend to get by with the albums already in my collection), so getting the chance to sit down and actually analyse stuff was a nice challenge. It's not something I'd be able to do all the time, but I very much appreciated hearing something new. As for YouTube comments, I usually try not to pay attention to them. Most of it is either childish bickering about Justin Bieber, or a heap of fanboy affection like "This guy is sooooo amazing omg it made me cry!!!!!" I've heard it all before, and I don't need others' comments to help me form an opinion about music.

With regards to my being "rock-sensitive", I'm not quite sure what was meant by that, although I would consider myself being naturally 'tuned into' hearing rock elements in whatever music that has it. On the other hand, notice that I didn't claim to hear any of the sort in the Hiromi Uehara track—in fact, one would likely have to question the logic of anyone who claims it to be something other than pure jazz fusion. Music is often highly subjective, but sometimes a genre can be locked down without much discussion. Now, I realise that it may seem as though I'm going around actively searching for tiny details or making a conscious effort to nitpick anything that sounds even remotely like rock, but that simply isn’t the case. As I said before, I barely have enough time to listen to new music these days. If something jumps out at me, like with "Charged Particles", then I will make it clear that I don't only hear one style in there and thus explain my reasoning. Whether one wants to call it "sensitivity" or something more flattering, that's their business. I'd say it just shows an open mind and a keen ear for different types of music.

Moving on.. For that post-bop section you mentioned for "Charged Particles", I also noticed the change in style from 2:34 onwards, in that the chords and note choices suddenly became very jazzy. I don't know much about post-bop, but I can clearly hear the stylistic shift you talked about. Immediately after 3:22, however, Gambale switches back to doing the standard 'screaming' rock bends and melting our faces off with his shredding licks (much like his work on The Great Explorers or Passages). He may be known as a jazz fusion player, but he always somehow manages to 'rock out' whilst doing his thing. I'm sure he knows it, too. It's a testament to his versatility.

"Beirut" had a very, very slight hard edge to the guitar tone in some parts, but that’s as far as any rock elements go. Besides, it’s too low in the mix to be considered rock, where guitar is at the forefront of everything. The drums didn’t sound particular punchy to me, either—the rest of the instrumentation is actually being showcased far above them, which makes it easier to label as pure jazz fusion. If there’s a lack of distorted guitar and punchy drums, it’s very difficult to pull out anything to do with rock.

As for "Hymn Of The Seventh Galaxy", I think you might've taken my mentioning of progressive rock out of context. What I said was that at a stretch some listeners of famous progressive rock pioneers like Rush, Genesis and Yes might be able to associate some of the stuff being played on that song—i.e. the guitar solo and the use of a distorted tone, the extended length of the piece, and the way it builds up (or 'progresses') in sections—with the work of those three aforementioned bands. Nothing more than that was implied. I myself wouldn’t say there’s much progressive rock to be found in there, but others may have a different take on it. I’m only giving you my opinions here, since you asked for them. Also, at no point have I said that progressive rock always had vocals. In the discussion we had here, I clearly stated that it usually has vocals. Instrumental songs do form an important part of classic progressive rock, but they are by no means a definitive hallmark of the genre.

Finally, the song lowdowns, but these will have to be the last ones for now..

Michael Brecker – "Upside Downside": this starts off as pure jazz fusion. The chord changes, note choices and clean guitar tone are all very Holdsworth-like. However, this changes when the distorted guitar solo kicks in at 2:29. From thereon, it becomes pretty much a straight-ahead instrumental rock fest with a few passing tones that manage to keep it within the realms of jazz fusion. Otherwise it sounds like something that the Greg Howes, Tony MacAlpines, Joe Satrianis and Steve Vais could've easily played on their earlier albums (back in the days when they were more creative). After that part finishes, the EWI solo returns the piece to jazz fusion at 4:58, with the bass work and rhythm section having never deviated from it. Nonetheless, the drums are very punchy and 'huge'-sounding, which again is enough to suggest an underlying rock foundation. I'm a firm believer in that the heavier the drums in a song, the more towards rock it becomes. But ultimately, because only 25% of this piece could be considered instrumental rock (the guitar solo), I'd label it solely under jazz fusion. Calling it anything else on an informative list would be cruft, but it doesn't hurt to acknowledge in discussion that it's not exactly of the unadulterated variety.

Pat Metheny – "Roots Of Coincidence": here we have something that I find pretty easy to label as 50% jazz fusion and 50% instrumental rock, or 55–45 in favour of the former if one wants to get really nitpicky. There's all sorts of stuff going on here, which safely puts it into both categories. We have heavy strumming of distorted chords (the way in which they're performed could almost be considered metal), complex soloing which continuously goes in and out of both jazz fusion and rock, and the rhythm type is something that can be found in all sorts of genres like jazz fusion, rock, industrial metal or even techno (I think Jeff Beck used something like it in "Nadia" from You Had It Coming). That it received an award for Best Rock Instrumental Performance doesn't influence me much, since the same award was given to Holdsworth's Road Games, and I've never found that to be particularly rock-orientated except for a few bits and pieces here and there. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 00:07, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, one can easily get "more fusion" than Stern's solo. You may not realise it, or choose not to, but what him and Gambale are playing isn't that much locked into jazz fusion, nor are they particularly mind-blowing. Most of Holdsworth's solos are a million times more complex than theirs in all sorts of ways, and quite frankly make them look tame. There's no way I'm searching YouTube or my music collection just to showcase examples of rock guitarists playing jazz fusion or something similar to Stern and Gambale. That's actually a slightly ludicrous request, because this is a huge spectrum of music we're talking about here—plenty of musicians have been known to blend styles or try out different things; some of which may or may not resemble Stern and Gambale's work (a certain degree of subjectivity inevitably becomes involved). One can easily find out about said musicians with some determination, interest and an open mind.

As for rock solos having less notes, that is utterly false. One of the hallmarks of instrumental rock are heaps of notes played with technical proficiency, although not necessarily at fast speeds. Anyone who's made a genuine effort to listen to a wide range of it (and I don't just mean the basic Satrianis and Vais) should already know that. I have already given as detailed an explanation as I can for why Gambale and Stern's solos have rock elements to them, therefore that will have to suffice. I've done my part. If you don't agree with my observations—from someone who plays a bit of guitar—then that's not my problem. I'm not a guitar instructor nor a music teacher, so there's a limit to how much I can keep explaining these things. As much as I occasionally like to type out these mini 'essays', I simply haven't got the time to keep doing it. Plus, it's not like I'm receiving any money from this. I normally type for a living. ;)

Next.. When it comes to telling someone that their music is "inferior", I will stay well clear of that. I find it rather immature to get into arguments about whose music is "better", because there are seven billion of us on this planet and we all like different things. Hell, I like sushi whilst many people don't! My musical tastes range from rock, metal, jazz, hip hop, soundtracks, electronic, industrial and then some, but I can understand why someone else wouldn't like them. "One man's poison..", as they say. I also don't think it benefits anyone to go around preaching the merits of technical superiority, because some of the most highly acclaimed music ever written hasn't been technical in the slightest. If anyone is a true fan of music, then they'll realise that it doesn't have to be technical to sound good. Your cousin may indeed be far off the mark when it comes to his opinions, but you can be the better person by just letting him be. Maybe one day he'll wake up from his elitist mindset and discover something new. Conversely, you yourself don't seem to be too fond of standard rock and metal, so the elitism seems to go both ways. I absolutely loathe stuff like Justin Bieber, Rihanna or Lady GaGa, but their fans don't need to hear about how jazz fusion is technically superior, and it's not my place to tell them that.

Finally, why don't I listen to post-bop? Well, as I said I barely have time to listen to new music these days, and hadn't even heard of that genre until you mentioned it. Granted, I know a bit of jazz fusion here and there, but I've never claimed to be an expert at every subgenre in existence. It'd be like asking why I don't listen to punk rock, screamo metal, R&B, avant-garde or classical—it's because I've never been interested. I'm happy enough with the stuff I already have on CD (that being a collection of more than 400 albums). On the same note, I can't really say when I'd be available for more song reviews, as whilst I am somewhat active on Wikipedia, I always have a backlog of other stuff to do. I appreciate the interest in hearing my opinions, but you'd likely get better input on dedicated music forums. People there would have far more technical knowledge than me, and would regularly be on hand to engage in discussion. I don't know of any such forums offhand, but I'm sure a Google search will come up with a few.

For now, all the best of luck with your musical 'enlightenment'. =) Mac Dreamstate (talk) 20:42, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Darek Janus album

I had a look around and couldn't find that CD for sale or download anywhere. It seems to be extremely rare, which is a shame considering how good that song sounds (no reviews from me this time!) Mac Dreamstate (talk) 14:18, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vocals on Road Games

The vocals on Road Games (and any of Holdsworth's albums which have them) are just flat-out weird. They're like a mixture of rock, pop, opera and 1970s progressive rock. The thing with Holdsworth is that he's one of the more difficult guitarists to pin down, genre-wise, because his music always covers a wide variety of styles. Whilst he himself plays guitar mainly in the style of jazz fusion, his fellow bandmembers are often doing something else, i.e. his singers trying their hand at rock/pop/opera, and the keyboardists doing goodness knows what. And I don't think there are any such thing as jazz fusion vocals, since that genre can only be defined by its other instrumentation. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 22:24, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gambale's Passages and Thinking Out Loud

I've left comments on the respective talk pages here and here. Each could do with a response, but make sure each article is discussed separately—as in, keep all talk regarding Passages in its own discussion, as with Thinking Out Loud. No overlapping. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 17:29, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So are we going to edit war over these articles again or come to yet another agreement on this stuff? I'm sure you're aware that this is the fourth time we've been over this, yet on each occasion you're the one who suddenly comes back after some months with "Let's change it again because I've found more sources and more genres! Let's delete this, add this and change this around!" Mac Dreamstate (talk) 23:32, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing I significantly changed was taking out normal jazz, which you impulsively put back in for whatever reason. Hopefully you're done on that front, and realise how unnecessary it is to have it in there. In a minor move, I also put instrumental rock and jazz fusion first because they form the first five tracks, with smooth jazz coming afterwards on the next six. That's not really a huge majority; more like a logical, accurate description in the sense that "the first half of this album is a mix of two genres, the next half is another". What problem could you possibly have with labelling it like that? As I said, six tracks to five is not a significant majority, and the way you keep wanting it to be misleads the reader into thinking the album is primarily a smooth jazz release like Note Worker or Thinking Out Loud, which it most certainly is not. Besides, there are two sources stating jazz fusion and three for instrumental rock, with only one for smooth jazz. Now that is clearly a majority.

Also, you're the one constantly changing your mind—four times now—on which I have to keep on challenging you. Not the other way around. If anyone's breaking agreements, it's you. On an edit you made last July, you stated: "This album is more rock oriented, but still not pure rock. More on the fusion side". Check the edit history to see your own quote. You yourself agreed that it's fusion! Only last week did you come along and suddenly decide to put smooth jazz ahead of everything else. That was indecisiveness on your part, which you've exhibited four times in the space of eight months, each time saying "Yes, I agree with how it is now", followed some months later by "Now I want it differently, and I'm going to keep changing your edits until you give in!" Honestly, what is that supposed achieve? It's not what Wikipedia is about, and it's not constructive.

Regarding your smooth jazz preference, where did that come from anyway? Only recently did you start hankering on that genre, having at one point considered jazz fusion (alongside instrumental rock) fine for a description on this article. Then you went and started up again with your usual crufting; at one point having four closely related genres for one simple album, which is absolutely ludricous. And finally, what's with this "contemporary/smooth" cruft you keep putting in? Just use smooth jazz already, since that is what Wikipedia calls contemporary jazz.

In the end, I do hope you'll take time out to discuss this matter first instead of continuing with the edit war (as in, putting smooth jazz first despite originally agreeing with fusion), but what I'll do is be the better person and not revert your future changes until we reach yet another agreement. You can go ahead and revert my edit as usual, but that'll only be a temporary solution unless you want me to keep leaving messages on your talk page questioning your motives. I can certainly do that if you like. Besides, it's not like you've been averse to leaving me messages asking for song reviews and all sorts of random stuff, even though Wikipedia is not a general discussion forum. The question is, how long do you want to keep doing this same old shit? Mac Dreamstate (talk) 14:55, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In retrospect, I propose a more radical interim solution: instead of going back and forth by constantly switching the genres around in the hope that one of us will give up on changing it (as we've both done so far, leading only to a stalemate), I've taken the initiative to remove them all completely until we can reach an agreement. As it stands, the genre is not the most essential part of an album article compared to the bulk of the information, so it's not a huge deal to leave it out for now. From my end I can agree to not add them back until we decide on how to leave it, as per Wikipedia's guidelines on negotiation, but if you choose to decline this temporary agreement and add them back, then that's your choice. I'll simply interpret that as unwillingness to participate in further discussion to improve the article, which in turn will have the effect of making you look worse off. "Your move", as they say. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 15:49, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're right about one thing on Kudpung's talk page, in that I am open to compromise. At least I've got you to talk instead of edit warring with an itchy mouse finger. Call it a 'ceasefire', if anything. One thing I'm not, however, is biased. I enjoy all sorts of music genres (as I've stated many times in the past, which you've always conveniently ignored) and refuse to give any one of them preference just because I happen to like it. That wouldn't be objective editing. The only thing I'm doing here is striving for accuracy. In which case, why don't we analyse the songs on Passages individually...

"Little Charmer" – OK, truthfully, isn't this one of the most basic, straightforward songs you've ever heard Gambale play? This sounds just like any other instrumental rock guitarist, or a leftover from The Great Explorers. The melody/riff is downright baby-level simple, the drum beat isn't complex in the slightest, the solos are basic, and overall there's not one instance of jazz to be found. Not even a trace. 100% rock. Why the aforementioned points have never been mentioned in reviews is totally beyond me, but then again there aren't exactly many of them around. I should've got a job as a music reviewer, for at least I'd get it right. Maybe one day...

"6.8 Shaker" – again, that intro is totally rock. The only thing that could be considered jazz fusion here, at a stretch, are the keyboards underneath the distorted melodies (the latter of which are basic as hell). This sounds like another leftover from The Great Exporers, and there's no way this is 50–50 rock/fusion. 80–20 at the most, and that's scraping it. Just listen to those solos—bog-standard rock with 'screaming' bends, shredding, the works. Too bad the so-called "professional" reviewers never went into detail about any of this. Either that or they don't really know what they're talking about. It's not as if they sat down to analyse the songs individually; rather, they just slapped a genre onto it without mentioning specifics. I'd actually like to know on what grounds Wikipedia considers Allmusic and CD Baby as gospel, since they're based just as much on user-submitted opinions as Amazon. Very reliable, I'm sure(!)

"Passages" – *yawn* Satriani has played watered-down instrumental rock like this for 25 years. People often rag on him for it, and do you know why that is? Because it's so basic! Now, before you start ragging on me for always bringing up Satriani's name, there is a perfectly good reason for my doing so: I'm using him as an example because he just happens to provide a good comparison in this particular instance. If there's anyone that Gambale sounds like when he's playing rock, it's Satriani. Even the Allmusic review for The Great Explorers mentioned it explicitly (too bad they weren't knowledgeable enough to do the same for this one). There are other guys too, but they're more obscure, so name value is the only reason I bring him into this. There's nothing more to it, and I hope I've made that clear. Either way, I had to chuckle a bit at this track because it sounds like a slowed-down predecessor to "Until We Say Goodbye" (Engines of Creation, 2000). The squealy tone, 'crying' melodies, bog-standard rhythm and everything else is pure soft rock of the instrumental kind. Genuine jazz fusion could never sound this tame, and even smooth jazz has more balls. To be melodramatic: a monkey could tell this isn't jazz. Maybe CD Baby should pay a few musically-trained chimpanzees to write for them, since even they'd probably come up with a more accurate review than the anonymous one we're treating as gospel. "Warm and smooth it's like honey"... give me a break! That's all on which they've based an entire review? No wonder they didn't leave a name.

"White Room" – what's this? Oh, I know, it's a cover of a rock song by a rock band named Cream. You've got your rock foundations all over the place here, starting with the über-distorted intro which then turns into another bunch of basic riffs, melodies and solos that even The Rolling Stones could've played at one point. Jazz fusion? Smooth jazz? On here?! Whoever was paid to write these reviews we've been digging up was nuts. I'm really starting to wonder about the reliability (get it?) of Wikipedia's reliable sources policy, because they're clearly misguided when it comes to music. I'd love to challenge those policies, but unfortunately there aren't enough people outside of the inept folks at CD Baby and Allmusic writing about this kind of music. The readers of the article are the ones who lose out in the end.

"D-Day" – wow, another basic instrumental rock track with a baby-simple melody and rhythm. I've heard YouTube kiddie guitarists play more complex stuff than this, and they probably wouldn't know a thing about fusion. Since you're a jazz elitist (I like jazz too, but I don't feel the need to adopt an elitist attitude about it), wouldn't you be embarrassed to be labelling something this basic as jazz fusion, which is a complex genre with highly technical playing? This is neither complex nor technical. More like The Great Explorers Part 2.

Well, so far, pretty much halfway through the album we've had one song which just about scrapes a trace of jazz fusion. Majority: rock. Now we'll move on to the contentious second half...

"Nunzio's Near" – ah, see, now it suddenly sounds exactly like Thinking Out Loud. Awesome. I'll give you your smooth jazz here. Looks like Frank finally decided to start playing in the style for which he's best known. Maybe some people were getting worried that he'd gone over to the 'dark side' with all that rock stuff, huh? By the way, I absolutely adore this album. I think it's easily one of his best (not that I intend for this to be a review; just an analysis, albeit one for which I'm not getting paid... which is a shame).

"Free Spirit" – smooth jazz again. No problem here. You'll have to pick something, though. It's cruft to have both contemporary and smooth jazz, when they effectively link to the same article on Wikipedia. Just pick the closest one for the sake of simplicity. Notice, however, that along with the body of the review, CD Baby lists the album solely as "jazz: smooth jazz" (which basically means "use this subgenre"), so why not go with that? Funnily enough, I've actually yet to see any of our sources label it as contemporary jazz. Yes, that genre is listed on the CD Baby page for Passages, but it doesn't mean it applies to that particular album. Look closely at where contemporary jazz is mentioned, and you'll see it under "Genres you will love". Therefore it's just a suggested genre (as with the "Recommended if you like" section, linking to Satriani and others), not the actual one pertaining to this album. I'm surprised you hadn't noticed that.

"One with Everything" – more smooth jazz. Now we're really getting somewhere.

"Roxana" – the smooth jazz fest continues. There's definitely a pattern here, for I haven't heard him play one lick of jazz fusion on this album so far. This is all so basic compared to his ferocious 1980s work, wouldn't you say so?

"Uluru" – it's not really looking good for jazz fusion, because this is all smooth jazz. If our beloved fusion is going to show up, it's leaving things very late.

"Another Alternative" – finally! I was beginning to wonder. That intro is pure fusion, and sounds exactly like his first two albums (the saxophones make all the difference). Onto the solos: they contain a noticeable touch of instrumental rock because of the distorted tone and shredding, whilst the keyboards are just fusion. The drumming does get a bit more complex from about 3:00 onwards, which puts it into fusion territory. Note the chords in the background, which are 'heavy', hence some more rock foundations. Overall, it's firmly a jazz fusion song with a prominent rock flair mixed in. Listen to Frank on those last solos—he's rocking out like a madman. 6:42 returns everything to jazz fusion again. Leave it to Holdsworth to do pure fusion, I say; Frank is never locked into one genre, which is the reason we love the guy, right?

I'll await your response to all that, if you will, but in the meantime I propose this: for the Passages genres, why not have "Smooth jazz, instrumental rock, jazz fusion". As you can see, instrumental rock is not at the forefront, which from what I understand was your main problem, and there's no cruft in terms of word overuse or excessive amounts of genres. All are somehow sourced one way or another, and it's representative of the prevalence of each one (smooth jazz being 50%, instrumental rock 40%, jazz fusion 10%). Smooth jazz is mentioned explictly in one source, [instrumental] rock is basically covered by three sources, and jazz fusion is mentioned in one other. I, for one, fully acknowledge that smooth jazz is undoubtedly the primary genre for this album. There. I'm honestly very happy to say that. Doesn't that make you happy as well?

I know you're probably as frustrated as I am about all this, but I'm just looking to resolve the matter and get the genres back on the article. Like I said, I won't be adding them back until we've finally agreed on how they should remain, but you're free to do whatever you want. This isn't a race. And once again, I implore you—in all friendliness—to learn to sign your posts properly because the way you do it keeps messing up the structure of my talk page. Try to avoid cutting and pasting the timecodes when you edit something. Leave the time and date as they are. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 18:19, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you seem to think that Allmusic and CDBaby are not reliable sources. Really they are pretty descent sources. I won't say they're the 100% absolute best, yet they get the job done. Heck, Allmusic states that Allan Holdsworth does art rock! That's ridiculous! Now maybe if they were to go into detail and say something in their paragraphs about how he does art rock, then I'd take it into consideration. The thing is that Allmusic and CDBaby are not like Amazon. On Amazon, anybody can just log on and say whatever the heck they want. On Allmusic, the statements made are by actual/certified/payed reviewers who, well for the most part seem to know what they're talking about. On CDBaby the little paragraph in the middle left hand of the page is written by Frank Gambale or his staff. The two genres that you see on the bottom left of the page are also put down by Gambale or his staff. Now, I treat the paragraph in the middle left hand of the page as gospel, considering it was carefully written out by someone who knows what they are talking about (Gambale or his staff). The two genres on the bottom left part of the page I don't think we should treat as gospel unless they are described in the middle left hand paragraph. Also, that paragraph under "Album Notes" should be treated like gospel, considering it was written by Gambale or his staff. I mean, what more do you want? What would you consider a 100% excellent source? What do you treat as gospel!? Personally, I wish we could find a source stating how this album has instrumental rock; but we don't. Yes, the reviewers are kind of weird for not mentioning the instrumental rock component. Maybe it's because to them the rock just doesn't stick out that much. To me I view these songs as 50/50 rock/fusion, yet you may view them a bit differently. A while ago I was editing Miles Davis' page and I wrote down "jazz-rap" under the genre category. A day later somebody deleted it and said, "you'll need a cite for that". It was soon after this I realized that it was quiet hard to find sources stating Davis' final album was jazz-rap, even though I could swear it was jazz mixed with rap. Through this experience I realized how important a source would be in determining the outcome of extremely subjective stuff, even if I could swear that I was right.

On a different note, considering you write articles for a living, I would like to know what type of articles they are? Are they music related? If they are, then why couldn't you write some type of review for Gambale, then you could source it on some well established website? Just an idea.

Also, please show me your three sources, because if I remember correctly they are not as good as my sources. I have one that firmly states it is smooth jazz. I have another that firmly states it is contemporary jazz. And I have a weaker one that proves it is contemporary jazz and smooth jazz. Show me yours please. Thanks!

'Scuse me butting in folks, but speaking as a former jazz critic (established German print media) where I was allowed my own opinions, I think we have to accept that at Wikipedia we have to go along with what the sources say. I know it's interesting to analyse the tracks from our own points of view as jazz musicians, but at the end of the day, that's all it is: WP:POV. Perhaps turning track-list pages into proper articles by mentioning the various genres that have been accorded to the music by critics and reviews, with of course referenced sources and balanced for neutrality, would be of greater interest to our readers. Kudpung (talk) 06:35, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Concession

What I realise now is that my problem isn't with you, since even you've acknowledged (albeit grudingly?) that Passages does deserve to be classed as instrumental rock; my problem is actually with Wikipedia and its policies on reliable sources. The more I think about it, my gripes extend to that of CD Baby and Allmusic as well. At this point I can't do anything about them, nor argue my points any further, so what this will have to mean is that I'm OK with leaving out instrumental rock. However, my grounds for conceding are only due to the ineptitude of Allmusic and CD Baby's reviewers. I think I've consistently put forth my points extremely well, but they're clearly in vain if poor quality reviews hosted on the aforementioned sites are what Wikipedia considers reliable sources. As I said, maybe one day I'll either find a concrete source for instrumental rock, or I'll get paid to write an accurate review myself. Before we agree on adding back the genres to the article, I would first like to see your source on contemporary jazz. I've only seen one source which specifically states smooth jazz (CD Baby), and another for jazz fusion (Allmusic). If you could show me that, we can move on. I'm fine with it being labelling as "smooth jazz, jazz fusion" on the infobox. What I don't agree with is having the word "jazz" mentioned three times, so I would still encourage you to pick between smooth and contemporary, to minimise cruft. Since CD Baby only states smooth jazz (contemporary jazz being only a recommendation), then go with that?

One more thing regarding the aforementioned sites: I've read about Allmusic and CD Baby employing reviewers who apparently know their stuff, and that's all good and well to know, but their credentials are nonetheless nowhere to be found. There is no name given for the individual who wrote the glowing CD Baby review on Passages. If Gambale or his staff indeed wrote it and gave his own work five stars, then isn't that completely against Wikipedia's own policy of not advertising and promoting one's own work? In fact, that would be a total conflict of interest. Talk about shoot oneself in the foot when it comes to neutral point of view! As for what I would consider gospel in a music review/rating, the main thing would be credentials. Some of the Allmusic writers have a genuine background and even their own Wikipedia articles, but others like Robert Taylor or the anonymous one on CD Baby... well, who exactly are they? What are their qualifications as music critics? What information do we have on them? Where can that information be found? That's my main gripe here, which unfortunately neither of us can do anything about. Wikipedia seems to have decided upon these two sites as gospel when it comes to categorising and rating music, but I've yet to see any consistency in their practices. As you said, Allan Holdsworth playing art rock? Nuts!

Moving on: when I mentioned a while ago that I type for a living, I meant in the sense that my line of work involves various forms of data entry (i.e. databases, typing large amounts of information and occasionally audio typing) which aren't related to music. Stemming from all this inaccuracy on Wikipedia, now that you mention it I would quite like to get the chance to write a few music reviews professionally (at least for those genres that I like), but that's not a priority career move right now, especially in this day and age where sticking to the job one already has is pretty much the only way to survive. I'm glad that you at least somewhat sympathise with how I feel, in that how we can be vehemently certain about an album genre, yet not have enough—or any—reliable material from which to source. In a way it showcases both the limitations of Wikipedia and the Internet as a whole. Maybe one day every album ever made will get some kind of accurate coverage. Right now, I'd say there's a long way to go.

Finally, now that I assume we're nearly finished with this matter, I've got a favour to ask of you for a change: suggest to me some contemporary jazz to listen/watch, and explain the differences between that and smooth jazz. I'm interested to know more about it, since you mentioned they're not the same thing. Furthermore, a few examples of post-bop wouldn't go amiss either. Get back to me on my talk page, if you will. You're clearly passionate about good quality music, and that's a great thing, so consider this my extension of a kind hand to engage in discussion about the possibility of working together to create future articles like jazz rock, jazz pop, contemporary jazz, etc. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 06:44, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There was a time, I think (if I remember rightly - I'm retired from it all now), when during the late 90s I felt the great jazz mückern were running out of ideas. They certainly started introducing elements of very contemporary popular genres (and some old ones) into their compositions. If the world's most renowned jazz bassmen and drummers start making instrumental rock with slightly metallic riffs and straight forward rock rhythms (Ok, with a few fusion-type breaks), it doesn't necessarily make it jazz. There are so many genres around nowadays, I can't even put a label on my own compositions these days - good thing nobody else has to play them or write about them! Basically, I believe the musicians make the music that gives them the most fun, and to hell with how the pundits label it. Kudpung (talk) 07:20, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well actually I like to label stuff. I mean I like to know what the heck I'm listening to. I know it's not really the politically correct thing to label music nowadays. So pretty much I say screw political correctness. Sprecher (talk)

I used to use a checklist I concocted. To define a piece as Jazz, it started off by looking for features not generally found in rock: unusual chords and harmonic progressions; uneven, unusual, or rapidly changing time signatures, unusual ABA formats. Then it would look to distinguish prog rock from fusion (eg Emmerson, Lake, Palmer, and The Nice.) Anyway, all that is not Wikipedia related ;) --Kudpung (talk) 02:34, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And all of this basically goes into 'splitting hairs' territory for any genre. To use further examples, it can often be difficult to differentiate between hard rock and heavy metal; heavy metal and progressive metal; or thrash metal and early black metal. Now, obviously rock as a whole isn't as complex as jazz and its own subgenres, but it's certainly no less of a hassle to break things down at the best of times. I'm also one of those individuals who like to label things, but after all this crap I feel like I never want to do it again! I actually remember a grand debate on Wikipedia sometime in late 2008 (I can't find the archived discussion anywhere), in which the genre section was completely removed from the infobox for a short while. It just disappeared overnight and a lot of editors were left wondering as to why the genres weren't appearing in album articles. Eventually it was reinstated, but looking back on things maybe it wasn't such a bad idea... Mac Dreamstate (talk) 10:55, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propensity

I haven't actually heard this album, although the name sounds familiar. Before creating the article, make sure you have all the usual information such as performers, track listing, Allmusic review (if any), timecodes, recording location, production credits; that sort of thing. I always use the basic template as seen on the articles we've both edited (including a few minor tweaks in the syntax), with the lead introduction always written in a consistent style as you've already seen. The best advice I can give is to copy the entire contents of any album article you've seen me edit, and just change all the information to reflect the new one. I can give you a hand for anything else. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 00:41, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fusion

That track from Zappa doesn't sound like jazz fusion to me at all. Not one bit. I've never been a fan of his work, nor do I know as how it should be labelled, but from what I've heard from other people it's mainly rock (albeit of the weird kind, which really doesn't interest me). By the way, doesn't the riff at 00:42 sound like a bit like Gambale's "A Touch of Brasil" from the Brave New Guitar album? I wonder if Frank took some influence from that...

As for the Digital Dream Door list, I don't usually pay attention to any of that "100 greatest" stuff for anything (be it music, films, TV or anything), because such lists are hugely subjective. For example, I always disagree with Led Zeppelin or Guns N' Roses being included on a list of the "100 greatest heavy metal bands", because to me they are hard rock exclusively. I guarantee you'll find such subjectivity in every music genre. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 19:44, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Possible new article for "jazz-rock fusion"

Hi there. I figured you might be interested in having a look or throwing some ideas around here. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 19:58, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

John Petrucci

You've now twice deleted jazz fusion from John Petrucci's article. I've twice reverted your edits. The Allmusic reviews for the first two Liquid Tension Experiment albums (here and here) state fusion as a genre, and this review states fusion for An Evening with John Petrucci and Jordan Rudess. Whether you agree or not, that's what the sources say. After all, according to Wikipedia, we're meant to treat Allmusic as gospel, and the other one seems OK too. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 16:29, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever it says in Portnoy's infobox is of no interest to me. If he also has to be labelled as jazz fusion, having played on the Liquid Tension Experiment albums, then someone else can do that. For editing purposes, I'm only interested in Petrucci because I've heard more of his work outside of Dream Theater. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 10:38, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gambale and post-bop

I have no doubt that Gambale has played post-bop. If you can find a source or two which states a Chick Corea album as post-bop on which he's played, then by all means add the genre to Gambale's infobox. As for why he isn't already labelled with it, you might want to remember that Wikipedia isn't capable of editing itself—it's us human editors who need to be proactive if we know there's something in need of doing. In this case, until now nobody seems to have realised the need to have post-bop in there. So, go for it. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 10:25, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove cited material without discussion

The young Earth creationism material that you removed was all properly cited. Please start a discussion before removing it. Thanks. PaulHA2 (talk) 02:10, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Umm no PaulHA2 is incorrect. It is perfectly acceptable to edit boldy. The bold, revert, discuss cycle is the usual method in these situations. Sprecher edited, PaulHA2 reverted, now it is time to discuss.--Adam in MO Talk 04:46, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

okay. PaulHA2 (talk) 04:50, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I just thought that the article was taking a one sided approach. I could probably find quotes stating how young earth creation is the opposite of what those quotes propose. All in all, it seems like someone wanted to give it a bad rap. The article should take a more neutral approach. I feel it does not take a neutral approach, so that's why I changed it up. Sprecher (talk) 05:46, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Express that on the talk page.--Adam in MO Talk 06:23, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Post-bop opinion

I thought I'd get an opinion from you on whether Mike Stern's Upside Downside album is post-bop. Allmusic describes it as such, along with fusion, but I don't know these things too well. It's all just fusion to me (much like Gambale's saxophone-laden albums), so since you seem to be better at dealing with the various jazz sub-categories, perhaps you could have a listen to it. If you don't have the album at hand, I'm sure YouTube has it somewhere. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 02:55, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense. I didn't think it sounded at all like 'traditional' jazz, hence the reason I had doubts as to whether post-bop should be listed as a genre. I take it you're now starting to see why Allmusic can be such a frustrating source, in that there's often no rationale given for obviously inaccurate and sometimes ridiculous genres. I still think CD Baby suffers from this a lot as well, but at least their reviewers aren't paid professionals. In any case, which of Stern's albums would you say are post-bop, in case I start editing/creating more articles for his work? (What with Upside Downside being such a tremendous album. In fact, the reason I decided to check him out is because I still had that video you linked me to last year.) Mac Dreamstate (talk) 15:14, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So here's another new Stern album article I just made—Time in Place—but rather than post-bop, to me this sounds more like smooth jazz; that being based on the detailed (and helpful) explanation you gave me last year. It actually reminds me a lot of A Present for the Future and, to a lesser extent, Note Worker. Again, Allmusic states fusion and post-bop without providing any rationale for those genres, even though I think it's quite different to Upside Downside. More 'jazzier'. As such, I've held off adding any other genres besides the obvious and obligatory jazz fusion. Looking forward to seeing what you think. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 04:30, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Stern's post-bop influenced ablums would be: Who Let The Cats Out, Big Neighborhood, (Peter Barshay's) Pit Of Fashion, (Alex Riel's) Rielatin'. These are all based off of some sources that I was able to find stating how these albums had a "bop" influence. As for Time in Place, I was not really able to find a source stating how it fell into the bop or smooth jazz categories. Considering you are making album articles, do you think you could make an article for Allan Holdsworth's Propensity album? Also, what did you do with the long list of albums that Holdsworth participated in? Sprecher (talk) 04:19, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a look at making an article for Propensity when I've listened to it. I got rid of the long list on Holdsworth's discography because (as I mentioned in the edit summary) it was beginning to look like a messy hackjob of every minor recording in which he's participated, rather than a focused list of his own work—the latter being the most important thing on a bio article. If people really want to find out what he's done with other artists, they can check his website. Besides, I already made a huge effort in re-writing the prose of the article to detail the most notable works on which he's played, so including them again in a long list is pointless. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 12:41, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, unfortunately I really really liked that list. It is really hard to make a list that gets every album he has ever played on. I mean, I even put a few albums on the list because I wanted people to be able to see which albums he has played on. It really is a cool thing. I hate it whenever I am looking around on the internet for different albums and I'll come across some random album that Frank Gambale has played on for example. I sometimes wish there was some list that had every album that a particular artist has ever played on. That's all. Sprecher (talk) 04:19, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hi Sprecher. It's good to meet you. I just wanted to pop in and second (third?) the suggestions above from Adamfinmo and PaulHA to discuss some of your edits on the article talk page. One of your edits recently came up on my watchlist, which is how I ran into you, and I noticed that a number of your recent edits have been reverted... almost all of the ones to creationism or evolution articles, in fact. It might be best to take a different approach and discuss your proposals on the talk page instead of editing too aggressively without discussion. It would be really helpful if you found sources for some of your content as well, since sources are king here, and really set the pace for what content we include to what degree. I don't think continuing to edit these heated articles the way you have been is going to be very constructive. However, if you work with other editors on the talk page, we may be able to discuss what changes are best for the article and why. Thanks! — Jess· Δ ♥ 06:36, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@ Sprecher, don't edit war: the WP:3RR rule is a convention that if you revert others three times within a day you're liable to be blocked. Flood geology is a "fringe view" in Wikipedia terms, and as such has to be shown in the context of due weight to majority expert views. With verification from reliable third party sources we can show how these views are received, but can't use the primary sources of creationist publications to present issues from that minority perspective. If an argument's not been given that third party coverage, it's unlikely to be significant enough to feature in an article, and we have to avoid "original research in presenting our own evaluation of a topic. So, please discuss the case on the talk page rather than reverting. . dave souza, talk 06:50, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Well first off, I was not doing any "original research". All I was doing was presenting the creationists side along with a source. I was also deleting a lie that stated that the Karoo fossil formation could not go along with the conditions postulated for the flood. Creationists postulate that the pre-flood world had a larger land to water ratio, thus the Karoo fossil formation is not a problem. Sprecher (talk) 07:38, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing is a problem with magic, but it's not science for that very reason. Presenting a fringe side without a third party source showing how the fringe view has been received is putting your own evaluation on what is considered in Wikipedia to be an unreliable self-published primary source. . dave souza, talk 08:13, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well actually this has absolutely nothing to do with magic. Flood Geology revolves around the Hydroplate Theory greatly. The page should represent the theory accurately (which it does not), as well as show it's weaknesses and it's strengths, and any rebuttals by creationists who propose this theory. Wikipedia is a place meant to learn, not to be shown just one particular side. I was considering using something from one or two of the three articles on this page: http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/k/author-guy-berthault/v/recent

AiG is not typically a reliable source, except to express the opinions of its authors. It falls under our policy of WP:QS. With that said, there's no reason we can't include more content in the article, but this discussion should be had on the article's talk page, not here. Thanks! — Jess· Δ ♥ 05:24, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

June 2012

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Kent Hovind. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Please stop edit warring on Kent Hovind regarding the sentence "his views are contradicted by scientific evidence". If you want his sentence changed, please discuss it on the talk page. Coming back every few days to make the same change is disruptive, and could lead to a block. Please stop, and discuss. Thank you. — Jess· Δ ♥ 21:54, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sprecher, you have a history of attempting to add a POV sympathetic to creationism to multiple articles that contravenes WP:FRINGE and WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE. Because you do so slowly it has generally slipped under the radar but the fact of the matter is that it's WP:DISRUPTIVE none the less. For this reason, I'm leaving a psuedoscience discretionary notice below. Please keep in mind that because Wikipedia is a neutral, secular encyclopedia, our articles are written from the POV of experts in their respective disciplines, and for evolution this means biology, not religious preachers.

File:Yes

The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions (information on which is at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions) on any editor who is active on pages broadly related to pseudoscience. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, satisfy any standard of behavior, or follow any normal editorial process. If you continue to misconduct yourself on pages relating to this topic, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The Committee's full decision can be read at the "Final decision" section of the decision page.

Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, with the appropriate sections of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures, and with the case decision page before making any further edits to the pages in question. This notice will be logged on the case decision, pursuant to the conditions of the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions system.

SÆdon ^talk 22:16, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Diego Maradona, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Native American (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:26, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:28, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]