Talk:Anthony Marinelli

Biography update

Polling for interested editors on this article, I have a significant update at User:009o9/Draft Anthony Marinelli. I'd appreciated a review, check for neutrality, the article should be able to be pasted right over the existing article, so we retain the edit history and talk page. Thanks! -- 009o9 (talk) 06:46, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Closing request for edit as per this discussion. Thank you for your input, User:Cunard for edits and User:Drmies for review. -- 009o9 (talk) 03:38, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Restoring and repairing some good faith edits

Previous good faith edits has (hosed) the reference section by deleting cited materials.[1] Restoring the following sections and will be repairing any other problems from that point.

1. Filmography. There is no reason to remove the filmography table, nor limit the content to top level film scoring -- the subject's career spans more occupations than just film scoring. The sortable table is designed to delineate the credits instead of creating multiple tables for each film occupation. Creating a separate production filmography / discography has been discussed, it is a weak candidate for WP:SIZESPLIT. If the editor has input let's talk about it here.
2. Speaking engagements. Referenced and dated lecturing invitations establish WP:N at an early point in career. If the editor has a problem with the stand alone section, let's discuss working them into the prose. Paid Editor -- User:009o9^Talk 16:52, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

• Change of plans, I will be reverting to the last working version [2] due to changes (mostly citation deletions) made by User:Unbuttered Parsnip. Will be glad to work with @User:Unbuttered Parsnip and @User:Robsinden and will be re-incorporating improvements made by User:Robsinden. Paid Editor -- User:009o9^Talk 17:07, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Pinging @Drmies: and @Cunard: for second opinion regarding this, due to their prior involvement. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:37, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Extended content

Bringing everyone up to speed. User Rob Sinden is having a WP:DEADHORSE issue with a an RfC proposal he lost in May. The Proposal: Should we restrict filmographies included in navboxes to directors for films and series creators for TV shows? --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:53, 22 April 2015 (UTC) The Result: The result was no restriction; people such as producers are crucial to films and shows, therefore warranting inclusion of productions in navboxes (non-admin closure) Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:12, 22 May 2015 (UTC) The editor came to this article and removed about half of Marinelli's Filmography and changed the section heading, which is beginning to look a lot like he is trying to discount Marinelli's notability in support of the navbox TfD I have challenged. Subjectively claiming that other composers are more "important," based upon successful films, or film awards I guess. (His edits removed some very successful films.) The TfD The failed RfC by the nominating editor. The Film project statement specifically allowing all creative navboxes except Actors. The Film MOS explaining the logic for the ban on Actor navboxes The film project does have a restriction on navboxes for actors, but specifically states: "Per this discussion the restriction only applies to actors. Navboxes templates for other creative such as writers, producers, etc. are welcome."[3] --Emphasis mine. This topic is also under discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Film#Navboxes_for_film_score_composers.3F Paid Editor -- User:009o9Talk 00:51, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

• I can't rightly tell what's going on in here--whether this is three comments by two editors or something else. Either way, this article is, I'm afraid, a puff piece and it's not acceptable, as far as I am concerned. Drmies (talk) 23:03, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
  • The above extract is irrelevant to the matter at hand. It relates to my nomination of the navbox for deletion and has nothing to do with the content of this page. I've collapsed it. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:50, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
• To address your questions, regarding the filmography table, this gave far too much excessive detail. The table shouldn't include every film that featured a song that he was a musician or song arranger on, nor do we need to know who directed each film. That said, if the table was revised to comply with WP:FILMOGRAPHY (i.e. no directors, only one column for his roles) it might not be so much of a problem. However, that might be more suited to an Anthony Marinelli filmography article, leaving just the scores here. It can be judged on its own merits in that capacity, rather than creating clutter here. This might be something to consider for the discography too. Regarding the speaking engagements, just no. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:46, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

• You might examine WP:TPO (a behavioral guideline): Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page.

I'm already working on the separate filmography article, what you deleted was only the Feature films, there's more. The directors in the table are basically in the notes section, I'll change the column heading if you like. Marinelli often covers multiple roles (duties) so those columns will also stay in. The table is designed to be sorted, so that the the reader can examine his credits by director and/or credit. The writing and tables are to give the reader a complete picture within each section -- the way these articles are meant to be read. Sorry, I can't help the fact that people with multiple vocations always require more words and more space.-- Paid Editor -- User:009o9^Talk 14:56, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

I'd remove the director column completely to stop the table getting out of hand. It's not relevant in the context. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:20, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

P.S. Collapsing irrelevant content is standard practice. I have not edited anything. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:22, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

So let me get this straight, per your RfC and elsewhere, you are contending that directors and only directors should have film navboxes and at the same time saying the director cannot be relevant in the notes section of a filmography? -- Paid Editor -- User:009o9^Talk 17:54, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

• A few filmographies that follow the tradition of naming the film and director: Natalie Portman filmography, Stanley Clarke, Michel Audiard, Walter Chiari, Giuseppe Fiorello, Arthur Brauss, Guy Marchand, Vittoria Belvedere and Fernando Rey. Noting the director's names in conjunction with a film is traditional and should not be arbitrarily restricted from a notes column.
• Marinelli has film credits under various job titles (roles), the filmography table I designed is much like those with similar, multiple function, career histories. Quentin Tarantino filmography and George Lucas filmography

Yes, there are a few that do, but there are many more that do not. Listing the director is not standard practice, and, to my mind not good practice. See the recommendation for good practice at WP:FILMOGRAPHY, where there is no mention of director. It's not really relevant in this context. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:29, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Template tagging article talk

There is an interested editor here, it is customary and good etiquette to discuss changes on the talk page before applying them when other interested editors are involved. See WP: Tag bombing -- Paid Editor -- User:009o9^Talk 19:30, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Template Advert

This section has been broken down to a subsection signing my comments -- Paid Editor -- User:009o9^Talk 19:30, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

• (From template: Advert) The advert tag is for articles that are directly trying to sell a product to our readers. Don't add this tag simply because the material in the article shows a company or a product in an overall positive light or because it provides an encyclopedic summary of a product's features. -- Emphasis mine -- -- Paid Editor -- User:009o9^Talk 19:30, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
• Reference doc Template:Advert

Template BLP sources

This section has been broken down to a subsection signing my comments -- Paid Editor -- User:009o9^Talk 19:30, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

• The article had 80 references before it was tampered with BLP Sources fails. Please inline Template:Citation needed and I will handle these directly.-- Paid Editor -- User:009o9^Talk 19:30, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
• Reference doc Template:BLP sources

Template Overly detailed

This section has been broken down to a subsection signing my comments -- Paid Editor -- User:009o9^Talk 19:30, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

• Overly Detailed this tag is too vague, please use Template:Overly detailed-inline and I will evaluate directly. -- Paid Editor -- User:009o9^Talk 19:30, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
• Reference Doc Template:Overly detailed

Template Peacock

This section has been broken down to a subsection-- Paid Editor -- User:009o9^Talk 19:30, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

• Reference doc Template: Peacock

• I'm leaving that article tag up, but a section tag would be more helpful and this is likely the editor's real problem with the article. There is an interested editor here, it is customary and good etiquette to discuss changes on the talk page before applying them when other interested editors are involved. -- Paid Editor -- User:009o9^Talk 00:05, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Template COI

This section has been broken down to a subsection -- Paid Editor -- User:009o9^Talk 19:30, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

• Reference doc Template:COI (Paid disclosure is already in head of talk page.) 009o9 (talk) 22:11, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

• Please stop removing the tags. Your clear COI is blinding your editing. There is far too much detailed information you want to add (full filmography, public engagements) and it reads like a hagiography. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:14, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

• Another in a string of many misrepresentations -- you removed the filmography.Diff -- Paid Editor -- User:009o9^Talk 19:30, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Ha ha, hagiography that's a new one on me, my COI is clearly disclosed on the talk page as per the Foundation guidelines, that issue is mute. Instead of edit-warring, try using inline and we will discuss where you are seeing a problem. Just saying the whole thing is fubar is not constructive.-- Paid Editor -- User:009o9^Talk 10:23, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Please note that this was tagged by User:Drmies, not me, I just happen to agree. I only added {{COI}} into the mix as the article is clearly suffering from this also. Please cease from removing these, or disruptive edits like this until the concerns are addressed. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:34, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Actually, you are attacking the this article on a vendetta towards me from the TfD, and inadvertently attacking Marinelli. He had a crappy inaccurate volunteer biography that he hoped would get fixed for years, he's well aware of totalitarian atmosphere behind the scenes on the Wiki. I removed the articled tags, with the reasons stated above, leaving the one directed at me and Drmies had nothing to say about it. You restored them, they are yours now. The idea that you can flag an article with the expectation that someone else will fix it to your specification, without providing input at to what you object to, is completely unreasonable. If you insist on going down this road, I have plenty of time. -- Paid Editor -- User:009o9^Talk 15:25, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Firstly, WP:AGF. I'm not on any vendetta. You obviously feel threatened by the level of scrutiny here, but you should not be removing tags when you have a stated WP:COI. They are genuine concerns which should be addressed, and I don't think the editor that added them had time to object to your removal. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:50, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

There is plenty prior evidence that you do not come here is good faith, and it is in the Diffs [4]perhaps you don't recall misrepresenting the outcome of your RFC stating "no consensus" when your motion clearly failed with consensus according to the closing editor. See WP:AOBF concerning bad faith. And I still think you are way out of line editing my comment, under the heading of "Extended content" because it is content that you don't want other interested editors to see. -- Paid Editor -- User:009o9^Talk 17:43, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Gosh, you really are a nightmare aren't you. You're trying to wikilawyer with every bit of syntax. I think I said that there was no consensus to restrict. And there wasn't. I was seeking to find consensus to restrict, and did not find it. A technicality in wording, not bad faith. It's difficult to see you acting in good faith here, especially when you plaster irrelevant discussions about deleting templates in the middle of a discussion about the content of this article and then complains when it collapses. As far as removing things that "you don't want other interested editors to see", I note that you've collapsed the issue tags. Which includes the one that notes your COI. I've never encountered a paid editor before, but when someone is editing for financial reward, it stands to reason that they should be under much closer scrutiny as they cannot be objective. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:38, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

1. There is nothing irrelevant about disclosing that you arrived at this article as a result of a conflict of ideologies in another discussion.
2. At best you are unclear on your writing, and since you are pushing an agenda per your RfC, the way you disclosed the RfC in that conversation was a misrepresentation of both the opening and closing statements. This Film project passage, which you offered, specifically allows all navboxes except actors. So either you are operating in bad faith to support your agenda, or you have extremely poor reading comprehension. If the case is the latter, one might understand why I am not receptive to your opinions and editing here. By coming here and simply removing content you raised the stakes (WP:ALIVE) to the highest threshold and you did not even take the time to understand the references structure before removing content, leaving the entire reference section in distress.Diff
3. As for paid editing, I am one of the very few that have disclosed. When an opposing editor demonstrates that he is opposed to paid editing, it exposes bias and non-neutrality -- thus, you also have a COI (exposed in the above comment) and technically, you should refrain from editing paid articles.
4. As for Wikilawyering, so I'm just supposed to shut-up and accept your faulty interpretation of the guidelines? Basically, here is how it has gone, you cite a an essay/guideline, I go get the relevant section that displays your confusion and you respond with a cite that has an inflammatory name like wikilawyer.
5. Finally, you are the one who insisted on collapsing "extraneous" commentary (by your judgment), taking your action in consideration, I merely restored template:multiple issues to its intended purpose, to inform the user community that there is a maintenance discussion ongoing and to not take up 25% of the casual reader's screen with multiple templates. In fact, Template Multiple issues should be collapsed by default, I'm looking into why it isn't anymore.-- Paid Editor -- User:009o9^Talk 19:30, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

As per WP:DETAG, the maintenance tags have been up more than "for a few days" (ten day on this one). For paid editing, Template:COI specifically directs that the paid user template should be used rather than COI, that template was already properly present on this page. Furthermore, the talk page discussion above has no constructive information as to what passages have "biased or has other serious problems," this after I have requested section and/or inline tags to isolate what needs improvement. From template COI "This tag may be removed by any editor after the problem is resolved, if the problem is not explained on the article's talk page, and/or if no current attempts to resolve the problem can be found." See also WP:Tag bombing.-- Paid Editor -- User:009o9^Talk 23:07, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

I recently gave this article a run-through and attempted to "de-peacock" it. I think the article may still have too much intricate detail that is probably not notable for a biography, but I agree that inline tags would be more useful for diagnosing instances of too much detail. As for the COI tag, since it is disclosed per relevant policy on the talk page, I don't see the need for it to be on the article as well. Safehaven86 (talk) 15:54, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

@Safehaven86: Thank you for looking this over and your red-lines. A couple of sections, Synclavier and Polaroids will probably become passages in other articles. From my fresh read with your edits today, I can see that the various topics need to be regrouped. Thanks again! 009o9 (talk) 20:31, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Article dates

Even though the article established the dmy format and has been since May 2012, [5] and we should not even be discussing the change per the second paragraph of WP:MOSNUM and WP:RETAIN (this was never brought up for discussion on this talk page). I do not have a preferences on date format with the exception of accessdates and archivedates because databases and API are likely to be expecting one of two specific formats as specified in the guidance -- either now, or in the future.

The mdy format is fine with me for the body of the article, the question here is the citation style access and archive dates should conform to the guidance. It appears that the bot can easily accommodate by using the "body dates to mdy" function/parameter.

MOS:DATEUNIFY

• Access and archive dates in an article's citations should all use the same format, which may be:

• the format used for publication dates in the article;
• the format expected in the citation style adopted in the article (e.g. 20 Sep 2008); or
• yyyy-mm-dd

For example, a single article's citations might contain either of the following:

Jones, J. (20 Sep 2008) ... Retrieved 5 Feb 2009.

Jones, J. (20 Sep 2008) ... Retrieved 2009-02-05.

When a citation style does not expect differing date formats, it is permissible to normalize publication dates to the article body text date format, and/or access/archive dates to either, with date consistency being preferred.

Template:Cite Web sets the citation style within this article, here is the guidance there citation style which I emphasized above.

Publication dates in references within an article should all have the same format. This may be a different format from that used for archive and access dates. See MOS:DATEUNIFY.

Additionally, Template:Use mdy dates states:

In general, the date format used for publication dates within references should match that used within the article body. However, it is common practice for archive and access dates to use the alternative ymd format. This usage is valid and is specifically mentioned at MOSDATE. In those cases, the archive and access date formats should not be altered when fixing dates.

Finally, dmy is the format that the citation interface prefills the accessdate and the archivedate follows suit. The subject is an American but also holds Italian citizenship and his work is published internationally. The date format in the article body does not concern me. My concern that editor zeal for a personal preference may be creating a Y2K like problem because expected date-format is not being followed. This appears to be a simple case of RTFM and reading comprehension, so I've provided the exact verbiage in the talkquotes above.

If you wish to persist, please use "body dates to mdy" and it appears that the regex will not modify the Reverence section's archive and access dates. Cheers! 009o9 (talk) 19:07, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

First of all, as a WP:COI editor, the comment in this diff is unacceptable. Normal procedure would have been to address this on the talk page, not the reverting. Secondly, his Italian citizenship is not referenced neither does he reside in the country, rendering it irrelevant. Thirdly, I can see no issue with the archive and access dates being different. Fourthly, assume good faith, there is no evidence of 'editor zeal for a personal preference' anywhere. Inviting other editors to comment: @Tony1:, @Robsinden:, @Drmies:, @Cunard:. Karst (talk) 10:45, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

I have no idea what this person is talking about. When I came across this article, we had "Anthony Marinelli (born 19 March 1959) is a classically trained American pianist, composer and conductor." at the opening. That goes against the engvar guideline. And we had "Born: March 19, 1959" in the infobox. It needed harmonisation for article consistency. I'm being accused of having "zeal" for one date format ... I couldn't care less, as long as it's consistent, and in this case follows engvar. I'm not American. Please don't waste my time or that of other people. Tony (talk) 10:55, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

User talk:Tony1 Every other date in the article was dmy, the solution to harmonize would have been to add "df=yes" to the Birth date template. I realize that you are simply running a bot, but when you found there was an interested editor and your edit conflicted with the WP:MOS third paragraph, you could have responded to my well documented concerns with more than "yes I do mind" and then reverting my corrections.009o9 (talk) 13:36, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Karst With your diff, you are presenting the discussion from the middle, as if I did not try to communicate. Here is the discussion. Here is the first Diff of me agreeing with Tony1's body-date and bluelink changes, but restoring only the references section to comply with the citation style as I've discussed above.

A couple of dates may have needed harmonization, but that harmonization should have been to retain dmy as is the case from the entire history of the article, (Anthony Marinelli (born 19 March 1959)), and all of the guidance, including the page that contains WP:ENGVAR (THE MOS) states that "editors should not change an article from one of those styles to another without a good reason".

I am not the first editor, however I do have a degree in Computer Science and spent a year of 14 hour days preparing for Y2k. The guidance in MOS:DATEUNIFY clearly states that ymd dmy and yyyy-mm-dd are the accepted formats for access and archive dates. That guidance refers to MOS:DATEFORMAT "Special rules apply to citations; see Wikipedia:Citing sources § Citation style." I simply prefer to error on the side of caution and the broader consensus in the MOS than to rely on your assurance that there is no donkey somewhere in the Wikipedia source code and that all external API users (i.e. WikiData, Freebase, MusicBrainz, AllMusic) will have done the extra work to accept unexpected date formats. 009o9 (talk) 13:36, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Edit request

• Specific text to be added or removed: New Section -- after Synclavier synthesizers and before Studio CEO

Thriller memorialized

In 2015, Marinelli sat for an interview with the BBC, reflecting on his memories and contributions to Michael Jackson's Thriller. Tom Bahler had introduced Marinelli to music producer Quincy Jones. Jones hired Marinelli and business partner, Brian Banks, as session musicians at Westlake Studios in West Hollywood for the creation of Thriller. In addition to bringing in three truckloads of synthesizer gear, preliminary duties consisted of briefing Michael Jackson on the capabilities of the emerging technologies, sound creation and programming.

The BBC "Witness" radio podcast was followed by three How We Created It pilot vlog series. In the first episode, Marinelli demonstrates how to recreate the "falling star" sound that opens the "Thriller" song. The following two-part series is called "Studio Stories". Quincy Jones' production assistant, Steven Ray, joined Marinelli to reminisce in 2020. Marinelli and Ray continued recording episodes and were approached by Audivita Studios for the creation of Stories In The Room: “Michael Jackson’s Thriller Album”, with 72 episodes, posted as of February 2024.

Stories in The Room guest appearances include:

• Matt Forger (sound engineer)
• Lorraine Fields ("Thriller" zombie dancer)
• Larry Williams (keyboards and reeds)
• Greg Phillinganes (keyboards)
• Steve Porcaro (keyboards, composer on "Human Nature")
• Paul Jackson Jr. (guitar, no relation to Michael Jackson)
• The Waters Family (vocal ensemble, Julia Waters Tillman. Oren Waters, and Maxine Willard Waters)

With Stories in The Room largely completed, Marinelli continues to discuss music topics like sound creation, musical gear and composing on his own Youtube channel. Episodes that have gained media attention include: "How I Programmed The Bass On Michael Jackson's PYT", "MJ's Billie Jean Bass - It’s 4 Instruments!" featuring Paul Jackson Jr., and "The Billie Jean Chord Stack - It’s 4 Sounds!". Additional noteworthy topics include jams with Doctor Mix, and a discussion of Giorgio Moroder's work process with engineer Ross Hogarth,

Marinelli appears in the film Thriller 40 (2023) (Showtime - Paramount+) from his studios.

• Reason for the change: Publisher of content for those interested in how the Thriller album was made
• References supporting change: this article was found with "different" method of referencing, references go in the REFLIST template, inline references are shortcuts. I continued with same style. See List-defined references

References

Thank You! Apriltools (talk) 22:21, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

• All edits posted. I actually watched some of his videos on Youtube about making of the Thriller. Amazing work.Redcarpetstage (talk) 08:52, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you! Apriltools (talk) 18:32, 3 July 2024 (UTC)