User talk:Smoovedogg

Welcome!

Hello, Smoovedogg, 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:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

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!  Academic Challenger 08:26, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I have noted that you often edit without an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This is considered an important guideline in Wikipedia. Even a short summary is better than no summary. An edit summary is even more important if you delete any text; otherwise, people may think you're being sneaky. Also, mentioning one change but not another one can be misleading to someone who finds the other one more important; add "and misc." to cover the other change(s). Thanks! -- No Guru 22:20, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Otis Redding

Just wanted to let you know that I've reverted your recent additions to the Otis Redding article because they were technically a copyright violation. The text you added was copied word-for-word from the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame web site.

I noted that you did cite that web cite as your source in footnotes. So obviously you were not making any attempt to plagiarize (and thank you sincerely for that). However, just for your information, even with a footnote attribution, you still cannot copy the material word-for-word quite like that. You need to either rephrase the concepts in your own words and then cite with the footnotes like you did, OR . . . if you feel that retaining those exact words is important, then you would need to not only cite with footnotes, but also cite in the article text and use quotation marks. Something like:

According to the [[Rock and Roll Hall of Fame]] web site, Redding's name is "synonymous with the term soul, music that arose out of the black experience in America through the transmutation of gospel and rhythm & blues into a form of funky, secular testifying."<ref>http://www.rockhall.com/hof/inductee.asp?id=177</ref>

Thanks . . . and happy editing! Mwelch 21:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Little Richard

Hello, please take a look at Little Richard's talk page and contribute your comments there, we are interested to hear what you have to say. Simply adding text which has been previously removed from the article and commenting on other users is not constructive. 2help (message me) 15:50, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

August 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we must insist that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not on Little Richard. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Wildhartlivie (talk) 17:53, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Please do not attack other editors as you did at Little Richard. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Your edit summary commentary is in violation of Wikipedia policy, is basically snarky and is not productive. They start out questionably and eventually cross the line. These summaries violate policy and the proper use of summaries[1] [2] [3], which in WP:Edit summary says "Avoid using edit summaries to carry on debates or negotiation over the content or to express opinions of the other users involved." Also please note that WP:ELNO specifically excludes the use of pages such as the MySpace tribute page you are pushing, in saying "Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject one should avoid: 10. Links to social networking sites (such as MySpace and Facebook),[2] chat or discussion forums/groups (such as Yahoo! Groups), Twitter feeds, USENET newsgroups or e-mail lists." It doesn't matter how many music historians created a MySpace tribute page, it violates Wikipedia policy on External links. Wildhartlivie (talk) 18:36, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

signing posts

thank you for remembering to log in and to use four tildes to sign your posts on talk pages. but please don't "sign" edit summaries - only your posts on talk pages and other discussion-type pages. thanks. Sssoul (talk) 10:17, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Mediation

The Mediation Cabal: Request for case participation

Dear Smoovedogg: Hello, my name is MacMed; I'm a mediator from the Mediation Cabal, an informal mediation initiative here on Wikipedia. You've recently been named as a dispute participant in a mediation request here: [[{{{1}}}]] I'd like to invite you to join this mediation to try to get this dispute resolved, if you wish to do so; note, however, it is entirely your choice whether or not you participate, and if you don't wish to take part in it that's perfectly alright. Please read the above request and, if you do feel that you'd like to take part, please make a note of this on the mediation request page. If you have any questions or queries relating to this or any other dispute, please do let me know; I'll try my best to help you out. Thank you very much. Best regards,

Regards, MacMed^talk_stalk 01:17, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Little Richard. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Aussie Ausborn (talk) 22:02, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. There are disruptions from people who are not discussiong the proposed changes prior to doing so. I have working on this section from the beginning and people are jumping in and removing things that are justified.--Smoovedogg (talk) 22:45, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Please note that edit warring usually results in at least a 1 to 2 week block or more depending on how much you guys were being silly on here. Just resolve the solution now, or a report may be sent in.(Zaxby (talk) 02:22, 20 August 2009 (UTC))

Thanks for your post on my talk page. I don't think informal mediation has any meaningful downside. In fact, by taking part in some form of dispute resolution, your far less likely to blocked. The other parties have signed up to these ground rules. Could you have a look at them, and tell me what you think? I'm obviously happy to clarify any items that you're not sure about. I guess the most important aspect is that my role as informal mediator is merely to assist the parties reaching consensus - I don't have any authority to impose a solution. PhilKnight (talk) 18:38, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Smoovedogg, following your recent post on The Source of Wiki Power's talk page, I should probably tell you that although it isn't apparent from looking at his page, he has been blocked indefinitely for conduct unrelated to the Little Richard article. Just to let you know in case he doesn't reply. PhilKnight (talk) 10:33, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for this info. I only want participation from those who will be professional in his or her conduct and was hoping that would be the case if they were to continue to be involved. As somewhat of a newcomers compared to many others, I wish I understood how to navigate through Wiki better because through examination of the talk pages(and histories where information has been 'deleted') of at least one other user, I am finding what appears to be 'unfair practice' occuring, on the part of at least one user who was 'on the other side of the fence' of the user who was recently blocked. This practice has been trickling into the Little Richard page, riding the rails with the 'informal mediation effort, and possibly tainting the editorial process.--Smoovedogg (talk) 14:00, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

complaint

Are you aware of this [4] Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#Problems with Wiki Libs? If you are having problems with a user and have documented them, I might suggest you do something similar... Luminifer (talk) 20:24, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I am not familiar with wiki and how to lodge complaints, as I am fairly new. But I have been gathering evidence and will proceed with further action along with others who have similar complaints if people help me along with this. Also if thee is a case for any legal action outside of Wiki, I will move forward with this as well. I have focued a lot of time on improving the Little Richrd article to make it more accurate, but LR is lightning rod for controversy. In the outset I went overboard by inserting too much information and agree that it was not very encyclopedic. But I have been studying FAs and have been working within these parametres recently. I have contributed accurate information to sections of the article that are standing the test of time and now the article is more accurate (eg. intro, influence section, and the start of the bio). I remain committed to working on this and ensuring that I am entirely accurate with my references/citations, even if some of us have to contend with editors who are so narrow-minded that you could blind them in both eyes with the head of a pin.--Smoovedogg (talk) 22:36, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

By the way, LR has had enormous influence on a number of musical genres (R&B/Rock n Roll/Rock/Soul/Funk/Contemporary Christian) but when one tries to mention examples (with citations), there is great jealousy from some fans of other rock n roll pioneers who go wild and delete them. An example is that LR was a first major rock n roll influence to key artists, such as Otis Redding, Mick Jagger, David Bowie, Bob Seger and Angus Young from AC/DC (some of the biggest selling artists of the last century), but they are quickly deleted. Bob Seger, John Fogerty and Rod Stewart remain but whenever it indicates that LR was "a frist" major rock n roll inspiration it is removed and replaced with amoung the first major rock n roll influences. Some will fight tooth and nail to keep out any reference of the article to him having been the first to do anything.--Smoovedogg (talk) 22:36, 4 October 2009 (UTC)