| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Johnny Angel (song) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
Untitled
editMy understanding is that the song was originally performed by Laurie Loman in 1960.
Here's a YouTube video of that...
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=riMvyrTulOE>
- Unfortunetly Youtube isn't a reliable source. I'm not sure, but I believe that Loman may have recorded the original demo. Caden cool 04:25, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
- Update: I found a source that says Laurie Loman recorded it before Fabares. Caden cool 18:36, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Georgia Lee
editA while ago an editor had added info stating that the song had been originally recorded by Georgia Lee. I've been unable to find a source to back up this claim. If anyone can find a source for that please add it. Caden cool 01:07, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- Update: I found a source that says Georgia Lee recorded it before Shelley Fabares did. Caden cool 18:38, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Version
editThe discussion has been up for over a month at WT:SONG, and you have been requested to discuss issue on this song (here and here) and others, please do not change if you don't want discuss it. Note that per WP:BRD, discussion is an important element when there is a dispute, refusal to discuss is disruptive. Hzh (talk) 11:30, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
- I have explained many times to you but you have failed to explain your preferred version. Explain your preferred version to me. I'm tired of asking you. Furthermore stop stalking me and my edits. I'm fed up telling you again and again. What is wrong with you?? Caden cool 18:51, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
- You have been warned about not attacking other editor, including calling them creepy. The article is mainly Shelley Fabares recording of the song, there is no need to mention that it is Shelley Fabares's version. Hzh (talk) 19:33, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
- Once again, where is the evidence that supports your preferred version? Give me policies and guidelines. Show me it. And let me remind you that you have been warned to stop harassing me through multiple threads on multiple talk pages. You were also warned to stop stalking my edits. Stop your games. Enough is enough. What is wrong with you?? Caden cool 19:37, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
- You have been warned about not attacking other editor, including calling them creepy. The article is mainly Shelley Fabares recording of the song, there is no need to mention that it is Shelley Fabares's version. Hzh (talk) 19:33, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
- It is a simple matter of organizing the article. As already explained, the article is about the song, who primary version is Shelley Fabares', there is therefore no reason to mention it again. You are doing that makes no sense, all you are doing is just sticking the word "version" everywhere, however inappropriate they may be. Others have also complained about the way you organized many articles, you have in fact consistently refused to justify your edits in WT:SONG where others have explained why they are wrong. You rely on reverts instead, and that is disruptive. Given that you needed to be explained what the meaning of "version" is, then WP:COMPETENCE applies. Hzh (talk) 22:22, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
- Yet once again, I ask you, where is the evidence that supports your preferred version? Give me policies and guidelines. Show me it. Caden cool 22:27, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
- It is a simple matter of organizing the article. As already explained, the article is about the song, who primary version is Shelley Fabares', there is therefore no reason to mention it again. You are doing that makes no sense, all you are doing is just sticking the word "version" everywhere, however inappropriate they may be. Others have also complained about the way you organized many articles, you have in fact consistently refused to justify your edits in WT:SONG where others have explained why they are wrong. You rely on reverts instead, and that is disruptive. Given that you needed to be explained what the meaning of "version" is, then WP:COMPETENCE applies. Hzh (talk) 22:22, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
- I'm still waiting for you to reply with policies and guidelines that support your preferred versions on all of the articles you stalked me on and reverted me. Your explanations await you at WP:SONG, where i left you 3 separate posts. Caden cool 22:34, 29 April 2016 (UTC).
- Like I said, it's simple competence. Everything needed to be explained to you over and over again, for example it has already been said many times that writing of a song is applicable to all versions, therefore it would be wrong to put it under one version, yet you still do it in I Will Always Love You. There is a requirement that you actually know what you are doing, given that you have consistently refused to justify your edits, then I will assume that you cannot. Hzh (talk) 22:39, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
- Policies and guidelines please. Caden cool 22:40, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
- Already done so, those who cannot edit with some competence (and need explaining simple meaning of words) are disruptive to Wikipedia. Hzh (talk) 22:42, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
- I totally disagree. Show me the policies and guidelines that support your preferred edits. I want you to show me now. Caden cool 22:45, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
- Already done so, those who cannot edit with some competence (and need explaining simple meaning of words) are disruptive to Wikipedia. Hzh (talk) 22:42, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
- Policies and guidelines please. Caden cool 22:40, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
- Like I said, it's simple competence. Everything needed to be explained to you over and over again, for example it has already been said many times that writing of a song is applicable to all versions, therefore it would be wrong to put it under one version, yet you still do it in I Will Always Love You. There is a requirement that you actually know what you are doing, given that you have consistently refused to justify your edits, then I will assume that you cannot. Hzh (talk) 22:39, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
- Where are these so called policies and guidelines at WP:SONGCOVER or WP:SONG that support your preferred versions on all of the articles you reverted me on through stalking? Show me now please. Caden cool 22:49, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
- Guidelines cannot cover everything. There is no specific guideline that says you must understand the meaning of words to edit Wikipedia, there is however a general guideline that require simple competence. Will you explain why you put the writing of the song under one versions for "I Will Always Love You"? If you cannot, then that would suggest you don't understand the basic organization of articles. No one is stalking you, all these articles were part of the discussion over a month ago which you refused to participate. Hzh (talk) 22:51, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
- I asked you specifically, where are these so called policies and guidelines at WP:SONGCOVER or WP:SONG that support your preferred versions on all of the articles you reverted me on through stalking? Caden cool 22:55, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
- I'm sure we can formulate something something on WP:SONG through discussion. In this case, it is a simple matter of understanding the hierarchy structure of Wikipedia article that is true for all articles, not specific to song articles. I, as did others, have spent a lot of time already explaining why the writing of a song is applicable to all versions, therefore why can't you offer your own reason for you edits? If you cannot, or simply do not want to, then you should ask yourself whether you can ever work in the collaborative environment of Wikipedia. Hzh (talk) 23:13, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
- I'm growing real tired of your games. Now answer my questions. Where are these so called policies and guidelines at WP:SONGCOVER or WP:SONG that support your preferred versions on all of the articles you reverted me on through stalking? Caden cool 23:15, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
- It is not a game, it is how Wikipedia works, everyone's edits may be challenged for whatever reason. You are not a special case where your edits can stay without explanation when other people ask you why. If you don't want to explain your edits when challenged, then you are not following Wikipedia guidelines per WP:BRD. Hzh (talk) 23:58, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
- Enough of your highly distruptive games! Answer my questions immediately. Point me to where these so called policies and guidelines at WP:SONGCOVER and at WP:SONG that support your preferred versions on all of the articles you reverted me on through stalking? Caden cool 00:11, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
- Perhaps it would help if you listen to what other people say instead of keep repeating yourself. Hzh (talk) 00:17, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
- Practice what you preach. Answer my questions. Where are these so called policies and guidelines at WP:SONGCOVER and at WP:SONG that supports your preferred versions on all of the articles you reverted me on through stalking? Caden cool 00:21, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
- Perhaps it would help if you listen to what other people say instead of keep repeating yourself. Hzh (talk) 00:17, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
- Enough of your highly distruptive games! Answer my questions immediately. Point me to where these so called policies and guidelines at WP:SONGCOVER and at WP:SONG that support your preferred versions on all of the articles you reverted me on through stalking? Caden cool 00:11, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
- It is not a game, it is how Wikipedia works, everyone's edits may be challenged for whatever reason. You are not a special case where your edits can stay without explanation when other people ask you why. If you don't want to explain your edits when challenged, then you are not following Wikipedia guidelines per WP:BRD. Hzh (talk) 23:58, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
- I'm growing real tired of your games. Now answer my questions. Where are these so called policies and guidelines at WP:SONGCOVER or WP:SONG that support your preferred versions on all of the articles you reverted me on through stalking? Caden cool 23:15, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
- I'm sure we can formulate something something on WP:SONG through discussion. In this case, it is a simple matter of understanding the hierarchy structure of Wikipedia article that is true for all articles, not specific to song articles. I, as did others, have spent a lot of time already explaining why the writing of a song is applicable to all versions, therefore why can't you offer your own reason for you edits? If you cannot, or simply do not want to, then you should ask yourself whether you can ever work in the collaborative environment of Wikipedia. Hzh (talk) 23:13, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
- I asked you specifically, where are these so called policies and guidelines at WP:SONGCOVER or WP:SONG that support your preferred versions on all of the articles you reverted me on through stalking? Caden cool 22:55, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
- Guidelines cannot cover everything. There is no specific guideline that says you must understand the meaning of words to edit Wikipedia, there is however a general guideline that require simple competence. Will you explain why you put the writing of the song under one versions for "I Will Always Love You"? If you cannot, then that would suggest you don't understand the basic organization of articles. No one is stalking you, all these articles were part of the discussion over a month ago which you refused to participate. Hzh (talk) 22:51, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
I hope you have now calm down and not keep repeating yourself. However times you may repeat it won't make it a valid argument - I could ask the same question of you, and you won't find the policy and guidelines to support your preferred edits. You have therefore nothing no which to argue your case. The point of discussion is to thresh out a solution, but that means you would need to make a positive contribution to the discussion by answering points made. You cannot also keep making strange accusation of stalking when you knew perfectly well that this article were subjects of a discussion at WT:SONG. That you ignore the discussion, but now choose to frame it as stalking, suggests that you are just throwing accusations randomly hoping that one will stick. However, if you do genuinely feel victimized, then by all means take it up with an uninvolved third party or the administrators. I would strongly encourage you to do it, because throwing random accusations while refusing to answer points made as well as making derogatory remarks to other editors is not conducive to a collaborative editing. Note that other articles like "I Will Always Love You" were also the subject of the same discussion, and I hope you would fix that instead of forcing others to fix it. Hzh (talk) 18:54, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
- Practice what you preach and enough of your petty distruptive games. You have failed to answer my questions and I want you to show me these so called policies and guidelines at WP:SONGCOVER and at WP:SONG that supports your preferred versions on all of the articles you reverted me on during your busy time stalking. I'm waiting. Caden cool 19:09, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
- Like I said, I could also say "show me these so called policies and guidelines at WP:SONGCOVER and at WP:SONG that supports your preferred versions on all of the articles you reverted me". You can't do it of course, all you are therefore saying is that you cannot be challenged on your edits and your edits must stay, and that is not how Wikipedia works. I have made points about the hierarchical structure of article section, you don't want to address that. I'll simply take it that you are refusing all attempts to engage in any meaningful discussion, but choosing instead to repeat the same thing over and over again and to throw wild accusations. Hzh (talk) 19:22, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
- Like I asked many times, where are these so called policies and guidelines at WP:SONGCOVER or WP:SONG that supports your preferred versions on all of the articles you reverted me on through your stalking of me? Caden cool 19:26, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
- Like I said, I could also say "show me these so called policies and guidelines at WP:SONGCOVER and at WP:SONG that supports your preferred versions on all of the articles you reverted me". You can't do it of course, all you are therefore saying is that you cannot be challenged on your edits and your edits must stay, and that is not how Wikipedia works. I have made points about the hierarchical structure of article section, you don't want to address that. I'll simply take it that you are refusing all attempts to engage in any meaningful discussion, but choosing instead to repeat the same thing over and over again and to throw wild accusations. Hzh (talk) 19:22, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
- For the purpose of leaving a record behind, the following articles: Da Doo Ron Ron, Johnny Angel (song),Money (That's What I Want), Shop Around, Emotion (Samantha Sang song), and Leader of the Pack were not a part of the discussion at WP:SONG (the thread opened by my stalker). He deliberately stalked me on these pages, reverted my work, and harassed me by opening multiple talk page threads on those articles when none of these 6 articles were even a part of that discussion. This is further evidence that User:Hzh singled out both me and my edits. Caden cool 16:47, 2 May 2016 (UTC)