User talk:Freespirit13

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Led Zeppelin III album artwork

Please stop deleting the information about the album cover and replacing it with unsubstantiated information. The information in the December 2007 edition of Classic Rock magazine, a copy of which I have at hand, does NOT support what you have been writing. Jimmy Page is interviewed in the magazine (at pages 36-37) and he mentions nothing whatsoever of the album cover. The only information in the magazine comes from a feature article on Zacron (pages 57-58), who claims that Page was pleased with the album cover. But this is NOT fist hand information from Page himself, it is only Zacron's recollection. It is therefore misleading to say that "in an interview with Classic Rock in 2007 Page had nothing but good to say about Zacron's artwork for Led Zeppelin III."

Furthermore, you cannot delete the following quote without a valid reason:

"I thought it looked very teeny-bopperish. But we were on top of a deadline, so of course there was no way to make any radical changes to it. There were some silly bits - little chunks of corn and nonsense like that."

This information is direct, first hand information from Page from an interview he gave to Guitar World magazine in January 1998. This quote is duly cited. If you wish delete it you need to provide a valid rationale.

If you have another reliable source to support your edits, other than the December 2007 issue of Classic Rock, then by all means cite it. Otherwise please leave the information alone. Edelmand (talk) 13:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I notice that you have ignored my request and continue to revert the page, replacing verified information with unsubstantiated information. Please familiarise yourself with the Wikipedia policy Wikipedia:Verifiability. You claim that your information is derived from "first hand experience of the events" but this is not allowable under Wikipedia policy, which clearly requires that:

"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. 'Verifiable' in this context means that readers should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed."

You accord your "first hand information" to an interview with Brad Merritt in Classic Rock magazine. There is no such interview published in the December 2007 edition of this magazine, only a feature article on Zacron which does not support what you have written Edelmand (talk) 00:27, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Dear Edelmand

Please understand that I have no wish to undermine the good work that you are doing in writing about Led Zeppelin by removing a negative quotation allegedly from Jimmy Page about the Led Zeppelin Artwork made in 1970.

Through the years members of the group have said many things and often later made an altogether different statement. Please respect me when I say that the particular quote you offer damages the artistic integrity and visual understanding of Jimmy Page who from first hand experience doese not hold this view as a continuing observation of the work.

I feel that in offering quotations whether truly reported or not (and I suggest that there has been a strong element of sensational embelishement at work here) you are reporting simply what somebody claims to have heard and though printed is open to speculation and first hand confirmation to the contrary.

I appeal to the finer elements behind your usually excellent writing and ask you not to include this petty and negative comment, true or not as it does little to support the group and the creative people involved.

It's inclusion contaminates an otherwise productive text, drawing attention to the idea that the group mistakenly commission the artist envolved, when the reality is that they spent a long time trying to track him down and had previously purchase his work.

You use words like 'claimed' but do not use this word in juxtaposition with Page's opinion. You use a word like 'novelty' when clearly the better and more correct word would be 'innovative'. You are thanked by all of us for keeping that correction in.

So, please reconcider leaving that negative quote out of an otherwise good piece of writing for which I thank you. Please do this one thing, in due course I will leave you in no doubt that it is the best way forward. There is always the possibility that I could add tremendously to your database from a mass of first hand knowlege.

Best wishes.

Dear Freespirit13,

I appreciate that you are passionate about the album artwork. However, this issue is not about whether or not the quotation damages the artistic integrity of the band. The fact is, the information you have removed is a direct, first hand quotation from a member of the band (Jimmy Page), which is cited to a reliable source. Therefore, under wikipedia policy, you cannot simply remove it on the basis that you claim first hand information about the event which contradicts Page's version of events. I am not saying that you do not have that first hand information, but if everybody on wikipedia made whatever changes they want and justified their changes on "first hand information" then the whole system would break down. That is why wikipedia demands that information be referenced to reliable, published sources, because it enables people to ascertain the accuracy of that information.

For the record, it is not my intention to defame the image of the band or the artwork. My intention is only to make this article as accurate as possible, filling it with information which fully accords with wikipedia's policies. If you haven't already done so, I ask you again to please read Wikipedia:Verifiability.

Regards Edelmand (talk) 01:08, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Dear Edelmand

There is something beyond policy, it is about the overall spirit of the writing and the tone of your intentions which I am starting to wonder about. You are part of our friends in Australia and I have many where you are, but what you write is not in the spirit of friendship nor is it pleasing people including the group. It is not relevant to the great history of the art alone (you only just touch on that) and bring in the petty and personal, can't you see that. It is like somebody writing gossip about you or your friends and family for global consumption, you would not like it.

So please allow discretion to be the better part of valour and realise you are causing damage to us the very people you write about! I have maintained a polite friendly tone and appeal to the good in you, but what I won't do is simply go away.

[edit] Three-revert rule warning on Led Zeppelin III

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. -/- Warren 09:52, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

By including derogatory and superficial quotes in an article about the history and mechanism the Led Zeppelin III art while saying nothing that shows an understanding of the art itself reduces the article to the cheap tactics of gutter press and not an encyclopedic article.

I think highly of Wikipedia but I have to say that this falls outside what I and many users have come to respect. It opens the way for patchy, inconsistent writing that is not well informed and use cheap jibes true or false, in the place of useful information. The only excuse I can make for this 'contributor' is that he is removed geographically from the group and those that work closely along side of them and that he has come to appoint himself as a fan-documenter and recipient of the media not engaged physically in that which he claims to know about. It is my opinion that he is damaging the good name of Wikipedia and as long as tittle-tattle like this remains on line to despoil great things in our society, he will continue to damage Wikipedia. He has not understood that it is not whether a thing is true but the thoughtful selection of the content and what it is trying to achieve that is part of good and worthwhile writing in an encyclopedia. This encourages people to be indiscriminate, just as long as somebody said it and can give the name of the magazine its all right with Wikipedia.

The one redemption in the light that whoever is administrating does not see the light, is that we this end have led a devoted life to the active passion of being creative and engaging on all levels to help people less fortunate than ourselves so this is like a scratch on the belly of the blue whale, however since the scratch appears globally it does tarnish many. Among the best of the many bad reactions we are receiving in the UK, is that it is inconsistant, what more can I say.

Thank you to the administrators of Wikipedia for at least the opportunity to communicate objectively.