User talk:142.167.66.181

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hello wiki user 142.167.66.181,

While you are threatening me with getting me blocked from editing, I would like to point out that:

1) You are not properly registered with wikipedia. If you don't even sign up, nobody can be sure how serious your contributions should be taken because A) you are not taking full responsibility for your additions B) nobody can ask you to clarify your opinions. This makes it difficult to establish communication.

2) You have blanked highly significant parts of the Mick Taylor article. These were not long winded sections and were not taking up a lot of space. However they are important elements of the story. Your referral to the Rolling Stones article is misguided, naieve and besides the point because the Rolling Stones article focuses on the career overview of the band as a whole and will never tell the story from Taylor's perspective. Anyone that wants to look up the Rolling Stones article can do so because the wiki entry on the band is linked automatically every time the word "Rolling Stones" is mentioned. Therefore you do not need to create a separate referral to the Stones article. Assuming that Taylor's story will be done justice in an article about the Rolling Stones is like believing that his version of events of events will be represented in a book published by them. Anyone with a minimal amount of knowledge on Taylor's career and his decision to leave the band will understand that that is not the case.

3) You have also edited out sections that have undergone major changes in the last week. After long deliberations and research the editors have eventually come to an agreement on the wording of those sections, only for you to come in and take important details out. You have also removed a reference to the detailed Andy Johns interview with Paul Laurence which has recently been included in the reference list. Obviously it is important that this can be accessed by those that are interested. However to place John's comments in the right context, readers should then also be aware that AJ was only at the Musicland (Munich) sessions in and was absent for the later Stargroves (England) sessions.

4) Any claim contained in the article is still there because it has been tried and tested and can be checked against published sources. Although you might assume someone has added their own personal opinion, the statements that are still there can all be traced back to objective sources. While I was busy repairing the deletions you made for no good reason, you had already done the same thing all over again, before I could even look up or insert the exact references.

5) Nobody is going to block someone for having a different opinion than you. Furthermore, you might need to take into account that your opinion on what is important and what's not might not be concurrent with the way others see this.

6) If you have any questions about Taylor's career or where the external sources can be found that have formed the basis for this article, I will be happy to answer your questions. (If you sign up to wikipedia first). In the last seven years I have been involved with uncovering the facts and reconstructing events (e.g. regarding the legal cases in the 70s) for various book and film projects and have received official acknowledgement from the authors/directors. The last book I lent my assistance to is Ethan Russell's book "Let It Bleed: The Rolling Stones 1969 Tour" which was publised two months ago. My name is mentioned in the credits on this website: www.letitbleedbook.com. (It's on this page: http://ethanrussell.com/images/page-letitbleed/Thanks%20and%20Acknowledgement_.pdf )

Strawberryfields100 (talk) 14:06, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. You do not need an account to be a valid contributor. I have over 30000 edits without an account and have no intention of getting one. IF you have anti-anon prejudice then you have chosen the wrong hobby. 142.167.66.181 (talk) 14:08, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

In your last four edits of the Mick Taylor article you have taken out at least two references. If you really wanted to improve the article or were concerned about missing citations, then your actions are contradicting this. The quality of the article has decreased since you started interfering with it. This article has existed for several years and has benefitted from contributions by many different wiki users. I have never said anything that remotely resembles a statement that I have ownership of the article. The problem with editors that make a competition out of getting the highest number of edits is that they often have only very superficial and limited knowledge of the subject, and unfortunately this is reflected in the quality of their edits.

You have not addressed any of the other points I have brought up in my note to you. There are very legitimate reasons for not removing the information you have blanked (as explained above). Yet you have not taken a blind bit of notice and have reverted my corrections. You have also blanked a purely objective list of the Stones records that embody Taylor's playing, you have taken out background information regarding the making of the IORR LP (which the editors had just reached consensus on last week) and you have removed at least two important citations. Strawberryfields100 (talk) 14:42, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


You might want to look up the discussion page of the Mick Taylor article, particularly the part where I asked other editors to include exact details when citing magazines or books. All the information in the article can be found back in publications but sometimes the details need to be relocated.

How can anyone even get the chance to include references if you make reversions every 10 minutes and immediately remove sources that were included, failing even to consider that this was consensus reached between editors after consulting those exact sources. Where did you see "production credits"? They were not included anywhere in the article. The whole point of this article is to provide information to people whose interest goes further than a Stones' career overview. While you might not care much about those details because you merely know how to spell Mick Taylor's name, I don't see why you should deny others the right to read more about him and the contributions he made to the music produced by the Stones between '69 and December '74.

Your assumption that I would not be familiar with WP:EDIT, WP:MOS, WP:CITE, WP:V, WP:ATT, WP:AWW WP:RS or WP:NPOV speaks volumes. Have you convinced yourself that you are the only one that is authorised to decide what is relevant and what is redundant. When you start editing an article on wiki regarding a subject that you don't really know much about then why exclude the possibility that others might just have a better overview than you. Strawberryfields100 (talk) 15:17, 26 January 2008 (UTC)