User talk:Landon1980/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Dwrayosrfour for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. Hoponpop69 (talk) 23:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


I would like to welcome a checkuser to check this out. I'm sure this will exonerate me. Landon1980 (talk) 23:39, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

The above case has been closed due to the report being harassment, and unwarranted. However, I'm leaving it on here to show how far some people will go just to try and get what they want. Never ceases to amaze me. 66.240.236.33 (talk) 12:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I think I have to leave it on my talk page anyways, not sure. It doesn't bother me though so I'll leave it there for now. Landon1980 (talk) 12:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Family Force 5 edits

Hi Landon,

Sorry for the delay in getting back to you. I first wanna say that I don't in any way intend to be argumentative, or get into an edit war over this, so for now I'm going to hold off on editing the article until this is resolved.

I'm glad that you gave a reason for your most recent edit relating to reputable sources, I really do appreciate that, but could you explain why you reverted edits like this and this? Was this simply a mistake? I ask this because those edits weren't altering references or the band's genre, but rather productive, unrelated cleanup edits. It just appears that you were reverting all of IronCrow's recent edits without thinking much of it or giving reasons. That's why I reverted all of your edits in a whole bunch, since it looked like there wasn't a reason for your removal of content. I might have seemed too revert-happy there, but when edits aren't blatant vandalism, there should always be a reason given for reverts – See this.

Did you actually intend to revert those two edits, or was it just a mistake?

Kind regards, JamieS93 20:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

No problem, Landon. :) It's just that those couple of reverts looked unproductive, but I knew you were acting in good faith. Now, I know the issue of these references is a different matter. I plan to generally leave that between you, IronCrow, and whoever else steps in to arbitrate it, unless either of you would like my perspective on this. I do have a few possible refs that I'll leave on the article's talk page. I may not agree with your side of the debate, but I do thank you for being open to talking about this and hopefully resolving it. --JamieS93 21:43, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, you asked for my opinion Landon, and I am going to have to disagree with you. Family Force 5 is a Christian band. They are self-evidently so; they participate almost exclusively in Christian package tours and Christian music festivals, and they are reviewed heavily by Christian magazines... You asked for my opinion; there is plenty in the cited sources to call them a Christian band (and not just a group who happens to be Christian... They are clearly part of the Christian music scene)... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 23:46, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, if you want sources, this google search is FULL of them: [1] There's enough there to clearly show that most reliable sources consider them a Christian band. Contemporary Christian Music Magazine has awarded them several "readers choice" awards (see [2] ) and other reliable music review sites (see [3] ) identifies them as Christian Crossover. Look, just because that one source that that one person added wasn't that reliable doesn't mean that we have to fight over what is essentially a small, minor, uncontroversial point, especially when reliable sources are so abundant, and where those sources clearly support what he was trying to say... Instead of simply removing his statement, why not just replace his reference with a better one?!? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:12, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
On the contrary, if I want to find out about a physics topic, I don't read psychology textbooks. Contemptorary Christian Music magazine is where I would go to find out reliable information on Contemporary Christian Music, just like I might watch CMT to find out about country music or read VIBE to find out about hip-hop, or Down Beat to learn about Jazz. There are numerous reliable genre-specific music journals, why should the Contemporary Christian ones be uniquely unreliable?

Be aware

Both the claim of 'taking to arbitration'[4] and 'checkuser/sockpuppetry' [5] were filed incorrectly in the wrong forum. Either IC is sloppy, as unfamiliar with Wikiprocedures as a newcomer, or intending to cause intimidation. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 22:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)