Talk:Will to Power (band)

Untitled

Thanks Zephyrnthesky —Preceding unsigned comment added by GLOBALCREATOR (talk • contribs) 03:03, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

May 2009

I'm hoping that I can participate in a discussion with any interested editors on ways that we can work together to improve this article. Will to Power established their notability in the late 1980s, and I think it's good to provide information about them that is factual, well-referenced and neutral point of view. I believe that with a little work, this article could become much better than it reads now. A few ideas I've had are:

• Break the bulk of the article up into sections, such as "Formation", one for the first album, one for the second album, one for the most recent work of the 2000s, "Lineup changes", "Hit singles" and any other category that applies. Currently almost the whole article is under the broad heading "History", and subsections might make the page easier to navigate.
• Find references that are mutually agreeable to everyone and present facts about the group, particularly at the height of its success (which, as it stands right now, is about 1986-1992). The quotes from newsgroups don't seem to be reliable sources, at least to me, but I'd welcome the opportunity to discuss this with somebody else.
• Try to be as inclusive and accurate as possible when it comes to various musicians or singers who have been members of the group and/or participated in noteworthy music released by the group.

I don't have any connection to the group, and I think ideally the best way to improve the article would be with input from other editors like me, so as not to inadvertently fall under a conflict of interest. Responses are welcome, thanks. Zephyrnthesky (talk) 03:38, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree; the History section needs to be reorganized and split into sections. Here are some ideas.

1. Many musical group articles follow this organization: History, Band members, Musical evolution, Legacy, Discography — check other Wikipedia articles for ideas
2. The History section should be chronological
3. Major influences, genre-related info, etc., fit a Musical evolution section
4. Consider All Music Guide as a source — that's where Yahoo Music got its info

I added an infobox to the top of the article, but it needs details I don't have. See Template:Infobox_Musical_artist

Mtd2006 (talk) 17:51, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions and the addition of the infobox. I'm hoping to get some input from one or two editors who check this page frequently, so I'm in a bit of a holding pattern for the moment. I could probably use some assistance when the page revision starts up, so any help you feel like providing would be appreciated. Thanks. Zephyrnthesky (talk) 00:56, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

<--I haven't received any other responses yet, so I'm tentatively going to proceed with making some changes to the article. For now I'm going to build the article from the top down, copying text that exists as needed and basically smushing everything else towards the bottom. This will hopefully lead to a gradual improvement of the article (that's my goal, anyway). Comments and feedback are welcome while this goes on. Zephyrnthesky (talk) 20:38, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, for what it's worth, I've made an effort to expand, reference and (hopefully) improve the quality of this article. I want to thank everyone who assisted with this process and ask that if anyone wants to further improve it and maintain the article's neutrality, by all means feel free to do so. This article shouldn't read like a blog entry or a fan site, and constructive comments or suggestions are welcome here or at my talk page, if you'd like my input. Thanks. Zephyrnthesky (talk) 05:04, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Suzi Carr

Knock it off, everybody. I've archived the Suzi Carr so now people can discuss it calmly and rationally. Any further arguing and personal attacks gets archived and users warned. Now, what in the world is the issue? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:38, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I am requesting administrative action. Even the edit summaries used by GlobalCreator can be considered personal attacks. Globalcreator is also close to breaking the 3revert rule. GlobalCreator has not attempted to explain his edits in the discussion, but instead removes information that is reliably sourced.Drew Smith What I've done 01:16, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

May 2009

RVV made because of Zephyrnthesky's vandalism of this page. The information that was documented was replaced by undocumented lies. I request the page be locked down or deleted.AKATheBeast (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:01, 14 May 2009 (UTC).

Everything zephyr added was well sourced.Drew Smith What I've done 10:05, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, and again, I'm sorry that you're upset about this. My sincere intent was to improve the article, nothing more. Regarding your statements above, adding well-referenced, neutral point of view info to this article is in no way considered "vandalism"; however, constantly reverting it back to the way it was before can be considered as such. Very little of the previous information was "documented", that was a big part of the problem (and some of the info that was documented was because I put it into the article before, by the way). "Undocumented lies" is just ridiculous, I added more references to this than any article I've ever worked on. I don't think it should be deleted at all, because the band achieved notability by having a few pop and dance chart hits - but if this turns into a crusade or something, I wouldn't object to the "locked down" suggestion. Finally, please read the link to WP:OWN, it really is helpful. Thank you. Zephyrnthesky (talk) 18:38, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

June 2009

Greetings. I am here to add some pertinent information. I replaced the Blog/Letter by Bill Tanner who was the first Program DIrector to play Dreamin'. He also gave the group direction and single handedly got Baby I Love Your Way added to about 30 P1 stations because it was evident that CBS/Epic was not promoting the Dance material to Pop radio. Baby I Love Your Way was not supposed to be a single but after 30 stations added it, Epic had no choice.

This blog/letter also discusses the inspiration for Dreamin' which was the death of his sister, Robin. Please do not remove this letter. It is documented in the S FL Radio Group Archives.

RegardsHLinden2009 (talk)HLinden2009 (talk)

I have made some minor changes myself. I added two links, Will to Power's official Facebook group and Bob Rosenberg's Hot 105 Hotmixes.

I corrected previous editors line which was taken out of context and made it appear that the author of book was discussing the single "Journey Home" when in fact Chuck Eddy was discussing the album. I inserted the full line which changes the quote significantly

I added """Will to Power" "Journey Home" 1990 Title track of what might wind up my favorite album of the '90s,... RRRAR15 (talk)

I'd like to make a few comments to the above editor(s) regarding some of the recent changes to the article. I fell into a rather nasty kerfuffle a few months ago when I tried to reorganize and improve the quality of the article, but I own this page no more than anybody else does. My comments are as follows:

1. I notice that almost everything that was added into the article in the past few days is what was taken out back in May. The reason I deleted the comments from a Yahoo message board is because that doesn't meet the standard for a reliable source on wikipedia. I could go onto any message board right now and claim to be anybody I want, and there's no way to verify that. A verifiable, neutral third-party source would be what is needed for the comment to belong in the article, IMHO, but I've left it alone for now because it may be more crucial to the article than I realize.
2. I took out the part about "king of the edits" again (for like the fifth time) because that kind of statement doesn't seem to add anything of substance to the article. An article that talks about this concept of "peacock terms" can be found here. Besides, the reference doesn't say anybody is the "king", it merely states that Rosenberg remixed that song on the album.
3. I use the word "collaborate" to denote any two people working together on something, whether they approach it as equals, close to equals or not really equal at all. Apparently there are distinctions to be made when using that word, and since a previous editor disliked the use of the word in the edits I made before, I have tried to reword those sentences.
4. Under "Critical reception", the additions of selective words by the author of the book didn't really add anything to the section (again, IMHO) and created a clunky, confusing sentence. I thought it made more sense the way it was worded before.
5. Would you happen to have a reference (again, neutral and third-party) to whether or not a new WTP album will be coming out this year and/or if the vocalist mentioned is indeed collaborating working with the musicians? That has had a cite tag for a while now.
6. Finally, the seas of wikipedia are swimming with things/people referred to as "bots", often programmed to check for relatively minor errors and such. Wikipedia suggests that every comment on a talk page be signed by adding three or four tildes (this symbol: ~ ) after typing. I believe that this is to attach a name and date/time to every comment. Going in and removing signatures, either your own or (worse) another editor's gives the impression that somebody is up to something and trying to conceal their actions. Besides, the page history function has all the who-what-when info already. It's kind of an etiquette thing, and I'm pretty sure it's one way the powers that be around here can tell who is or isn't trying to help. Just an FYI.

Zephyrnthesky (talk) 04:09, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

If the "King of Edits' is title does not add to Will to Power article (In your humble opinion) Why does it add to the 2 Live Crew article? That article can use it but Will to Power's can't?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2_Live_Crew

"The year 1987 saw the release of The 2 Live Crew Is What We Are, featuring profane and sexually graphic lyrics. Rudy Ray Moore's comedy albums and other XXX assorted comedy albums provided the material for most of the explicit samples that "Mr. Mixx" used. The album was produced by Mr. Mixx. Bob Rosenberg, a south Florida DJ who would later form the dance-pop group Will to Power, remixed and edited the song "Beat Box".[1] "

I also wonder that you claim you are trying to help the article but use one half of a sentence which changes the entire meaning. Here is your half sentence:

"Eddy states that the song is seemingly based on "Cruising with the Deuce" by Quarterflash and that Rosenberg "says he's got to keep his motor running, but not only can you feel the machine's momentum (in the rhythm), you can also feel stormclouds settling in (in the voices)."[23]"

Here is the full sentence. You cut off the the part where he claims it his his favorite album? Why? You edited his sentence and put in one section out of context. Put this back in or I will.

" Eddy states: "Will to Power" "Journey Home" 1990 Title track of what might wind up my favorite album of the '90s, seemingly based on "Cruising with the Deuce" by Quarterflash and that Rosenberg "says he's got to keep his motor running, but not only can you feel the machine's momentum (in the rhythm), you can also feel stormclouds settling in (in the voices)."

If Wikipedia has a problem with a Yahoo Archive, the letter from Bill Tanner is posted on many other sites which I will provide.

I am doing everything by the book. Your statement: "Going in and removing signatures, either your own or (worse) another editor's gives the impression that somebody is up to something and trying to conceal their actions. Besides, the page history function has all the who-what-when info already. It's kind of an etiquette thing, and I'm pretty sure it's one way the powers that be around here can tell who is or isn't trying to help. Just an FYI."

The signature I removed was one I accidentally put on the main article. You find that strange when Wikipedia instructs not to do it?

It does not seem like removing a chunk from the middle of a sentence while leaving out it was Chuck Eddy's favorite album of the 90s gives the impression that you want to remover any positive statements by legitimate reviewers. Also, your Google book reference "The Accidental Evolution of Rock 'n' Roll does not even contain page 274 which contains said sentence.

I will be going over each one of your references to make sure they do not lead to dead ends. I have just as much right to edit as you do and I am going by the protocol as best as I can. I will earn more in time.

RegardsHLinden2009 (talk) 06:46, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Alright. Apologies, I just noticed is the 2 Live Crew article does NOT mention Bob "King of the Edits" Rosenberg anymore so your deletion is fine.

On this point:

1. Would you happen to have a reference (again, neutral and third-party) to whether or not a new WTP album will be coming out this year and/or if the vocalist mentioned is indeed collaborating working with the musicians? That has had a cite tag for a while now.

Delete that section if you like. I do not have any confirmation as WTP seems to be releasing one single at a time.

On this point:

1. I use the word "collaborate" to denote any two people working together on something, whether they approach it as equals, close to equals or not really equal at all. Apparently there are distinctions to be made when using that word, and since a previous editor disliked the use of the word in the edits I made before, I have tried to reword those sentences.

Bob used Fro Sosa (Expose' programmer) to program every song on the first album. No musicians were present and the parts were already complete. The musicians just had to plug in their equipment and let the sequencer do the work. All other parts were written solely by Bob Rosenberg.

On this point:

1. Under "Critical reception", the additions of selective words by the author of the book didn't really add anything to the section (again, IMHO) and created a clunky, confusing sentence. I thought it made more sense the way it was worded before.

Seems odd that you broke a short sentence in half because is sounded clunky (IYHP)? The beginning of the sentence claims it is the reviewers favorite album of the decade and that is the part you chose to delete. The middle of the sentence that you added gives the impression that Eddy was discussing the single when he was discussing the full album.

I am watching this page too now and compiling many sources that actually say what they are supposed to. Pleasure to work with you.

HLinden2009 (talk) 07:11, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I'd like to respond to at least a few of the points you have raised. First of all, I hadn't even noticed that the article itself had been signed with four tildes, I was referring to this edit, where a bot called SineBot added the date and time to your signature on this talk page and you deleted it. Other editors have done similar things on this page before, and as I said, it gives the impression that somebody may be trying to conceal their actions or confuse the flow of the talk page. I'm not accusing you of doing that, but it can look that way to outside observers, especially if things get testy. It was FYI, since you only created your account recently (just trying to help).

Re 2 Live Crew, the point isn't whether the other article says it, the point is that calling somebody the "king of something" is a peacock term, as I linked to above. There are all kinds of other articles with parts that could/should be fixed, but that's not good enough to justify including something in another article. If anything, I think your argument validates that I was sincere in trying to improve the article the first time around by taking that out. Besides, the quote you offered refers to a "Mr. Mixx", not any regal terminology.

Wikipedia does have a problem with message board comments, but as I said I left that alone because I had this sinking feeling that when that gets deleted it will become unpleasant. A message board is not a reliable source, and if a comment from a message board gets posted online somewhere else it still derives from the same source, which doesn't change anything. See here (or here, #10) if you'd like to get a sense of what is or isn't acceptable. For the record, it's probably a good thing certain online sources aren't acceptable, because I ran across a substantial number of blog entries about WTP that were, well, less than complimentary, and none of those got included.

Re the Chuck Eddy book, that is another point of contention you happen to share with the editor(s) from this past May, and I don't see it as that big a deal. Omitting parenthesis and punctuation makes a sentence look clunky, he's talking about the song ("title track"), he doesn't say it was his favorite album of the 90s ("what may be my favorite..."), but whatever. I had taken that part out previously and added it back in to appease one of the editors who wound up borderline-harassing me later, and to be honest I have regretted trying to be conciliatory about that sentence ever since.

Finally, I hope I'm not suggesting you read too many links to other articles and essays, but this one came up before and may be relevant again now. I'm not trying to be a dick, but the amount of contention and nastiness surrounding this article is starting to get to me. The most important thing is to present information that is neutral, unbiased, well-referenced and informative. A WTP fan site would read completely differently than this article should read, because the former would be written like a resume or a press release from a marketing whiz, just like so much of what passes for fact in the world today (one of the biggest things wrong with the world, IMHO). The relative absence of that here is a good thing that I feel should be protected. Zephyrnthesky (talk) 20:36, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

On your points:

Hi, I'd like to respond to at least a few of the points you have raised. First of all, I hadn't even noticed that the article itself had been signed with four tildes, I was referring to this edit, where a bot called SineBot added the date and time to your signature on this talk page and you deleted it. Other editors have done similar things on this page before, and as I said, it gives the impression that somebody may be trying to conceal their actions or confuse the flow of the talk page. I'm not accusing you of doing that, but it can look that way to outside observers, especially if things get testy. It was FYI, since you only created your account recently (just trying to help).

This is not true. I signed it with 3 (~) instead of 4. Try it yourself, it does not leave a date and time so you are falsely accusing me of "trying to conceal my actions". The fact that my account is new and that I am rather naive to all of the protocol at Wikipedia does not make me the editors that you allude to. I am certain that I do not have much Wikipedia clout but I need to start somewhere.

Wikipedia does have a problem with message board comments, but as I said I left that alone because I had this sinking feeling that when that gets deleted it will become unpleasant. A message board is not a reliable source, and if a comment from a message board gets posted online somewhere else it still derives from the same source, which doesn't change anything. See here (or here, #10) if you'd like to get a sense of what is or isn't acceptable. For the record, it's probably a good thing certain online sources aren't acceptable, because I ran across a substantial number of blog entries about WTP that were, well, less than complimentary, and none of those got included.

I will do a more comprehensive search later. "Dreamin" was written by Bob Rosenberg before any idea of "Will to Power". Dreamin' was written about the untimely death of Bob's twin sister Robin. Yes, this means a lot. It says it on the CD cover and on the original 12". Here are 2 links that came up on the first search. I will spend time researching the subject this weekend but for now, I am putting this important statement back.

http://www.bookrags.com/wiki/Will_To_Power_(band)

http://www.radiokeysdan.com/Featured_Artist_Will_to_Power.html

Re the Chuck Eddy book, that is another point of contention you happen to share with the editor(s) from this past May, and I don't see it as that big a deal. Omitting parenthesis and punctuation makes a sentence look clunky, he's talking about the song ("title track"), he doesn't say it was his favorite album of the 90s ("what may be my favorite..."), but whatever. I had taken that part out previously and added it back in to appease one of the editors who wound up borderline-harassing me later, and to be honest I have regretted trying to be conciliatory about that sentence ever since.

Once again you are falsely assuming I am the editor from May. This is a major big deal. Your omission of the first part of the sentence changed the meaning from positive to negative. It also changes the entire meaning of the sentence. Chuck Eddy was referring to the entire Journey Home album, not the single which your omission implies. You also list the Google version as your reference but the page in question is not even on that site.

I will also go carefully over Fred Bronson's "Billboard Book of #1 Hits" as his site does not contain any of the information you use it to reference.

Finally, I hope I'm not suggesting you read too many links to other articles and essays, but this one came up before and may be relevant again now. I'm not trying to be a dick, but the amount of contention and nastiness surrounding this article is starting to get to me. The most important thing is to present information that is neutral, unbiased, well-referenced and informative. A WTP fan site would read completely differently than this article should read, because the former would be written like a resume or a press release from a marketing whiz, just like so much of what passes for fact in the world today (one of the biggest things wrong with the world, IMHO). The relative absence of that here is a good thing that I feel should be protected. Zephyrnthesky (talk) 20:36, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I do not appreciate the assumptions of sounding like the editor in May. As you said yourself, you do not own this page. The higher ups at Wikipedia can see for themselves that a mistake of 3 (~) were made instead of 4. Nothing was omitted or delted.

I signed my first post with "It is nice to work with you". You removed most of my editions. Now you claim " but the amount of contention and nastiness surrounding this article is starting to get to me. " It appears that most of the contention is coming from your end. If I appear "nasty", I sincerely apologize as it was not or is not my intention. I am sure you did a good job on editing the former article but I am also trying to contribute to making this entry as factual and representative of the truth as possible.

I will once again ask that we can work on this entry in a friendly and peaceful manner. HLinden2009 (talk) 02:36, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi,

I did not replace the deleted paragraph until just now so I am providing more explanation. On July 22, 2009 other editor claimed that he would not remove the section. On July 26th, 2009 he removed it with nothing but an edit note. No full explanation was given on Talk Page about editor's change in Heart 4 days later. Again, I have included an extra site and the the fact that the entire record was a memorial to his (Bob Rosenberg) sister Robin, comes up on a few sites and is on both the original Dreamin' 12" and the LP. I think this is significant and stirs emotions in many but it seems to "get to you" for some reason so 4 days later it was removed. I replaced it and if you really find the need to do so, perhaps you can edit it without editing any actual sentences. The change you made to Chuck Eddy's sentence has nothing to do with quotes or punctuation.

This quote from you "He doesn't say it was his favorite album of the 90s ("what may be my favorite...")" tells me that you removed the section of the sentence because it says "May be my Favorite" rather than "Was my Favorite"? If I claimed he said "Was my favorite", it was my mistake but it is still an important fact ("what may be my favorite album of the 90s") from a major music critic which you seem to think makes the sentence clunky. In "LA Weekly" article by Chuck Eddy, he also says this and it is a sidebar note.

I removed the 2 Live Crew "King of Edits as you requested and I also removed Kristy Kay and new album info as you wanted references and I do not see any. I am working with you, perhaps you can work with me and not let this "get to you".

Again, I hope we can both come up with what ends up as a NPV, factual and BALANCED entry. Best regards to you. HLinden2009 (talk) 16:11, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

August 2009

I started a new section, since it's now August. I've just edited the article again, and I'd like to explain the changes I have made. First of all, Billboard reconfigured their website, which meant that all the references that worked back in May now lead to error message pages. For the two albums, I linked to the newly-configured pages on the Billboard website (I also added an external link to the main artist page). Some of the songs, such as "Dreamin", didn't have any chart positions listed on the new Billboard song pages, so in those cases I instead added AllMusic's chart overview as the reference. This took some research and effort on my part, so I am requesting that the references remain as they are now, as I know that these work.

On a similar note, the Google Books reference about the Chuck Eddy book also showed the page in question when I spent many hours working on improving this article back in May, but after earlier comments on this talk page I too realized the page from Eddy's book was not visible anymore. I don't know enough about Google Books to know whether this is common or not, but since I don't own a copy of the book I have replaced the reference with a cite tag. HLinden2009, the fact that you have tried to use the way the sentence was worded before as some kind of proof of a nefarious conspiracy on my part (you have mentioned it numerous times on this talk page discussion) is something I am at a loss to comprehend. As you may or may not know, the previous version of this article mentioned the Eddy book, and part of the quote was right; but when I read the page that used to be on Google Books, what was here before was not an exact quote from the book. I'm now doing this from memory since I can't go back and read it again, but in May I summarized the first part of the listing in the book and kept the quote about the "motor running...storm clouds settling", etc, intact. I am frankly at a loss that a single mention of a song from an album that some author enjoyed could be construed as the absolute, most definitive proof of the music's legacy. I was doing quite a bit of repair to the article over the week or so that I spent trying to improve it (when I wasn't discussing the situation with other involved editors and seeing my contributions reverted), and I used my best judgement as the overall combination of sentences in that paragraph was pretty much right down the middle in terms of pro vs. con. I also left out a number of blog postings about Will to Power's music (a few positive, more than a few negative) that would have fit in that section, which leads me to the next point.

I left the message board comments alone before because I (rightly, see my comments in the above section) guessed that removing them would not go over well with any of the editors that keep inserting that back in. I never said they should remain in the article, though, and that's because of the wikipedia policy regarding the verifiability of self-published sources. I linked to this in my edit summary, so it's not like there was no clue as to why this was done, but I'll include the link here again. Basically it states that a comment on a blog, a message board, Twitter, MySpace, etc. cannot be used to reference the inclusion of material on this site. The comments as a whole push a point of view and don't merit inclusion in the article, and multiple editors have reached the same conclusion (if you're unfamiliar with the drama this article saw back in May, I'd suggest reading the earlier talk page comments, some of which have been archived and can be read by clicking on the number 1 next to the word "Archive" at the top of this page). The two points that I could see being a part of the article are a) the PD who played the song "Dreamin" first in Miami, and b) the inspiration for Rosenberg writing the song. They need verifiable references, though. The bookrags site is merely a "bootleg" copy of a previous version of this article on a wikipedia-mirror site, so that can't be used. The second one, radiokeysdan, doesn't seem like a great reference either (not just my opinion, mind you, but as far as wikipedia-defined reliable sources), since I don't know how much Dan fact-checks the info he puts on his site. After I complete my comments here, I will add a sentence to the article about the inspiration of the song with Dan's site as a reference, but be warned that someone may take that out at a later date, so my advice would be to find a better source for that statement.

HLinden2009, I doubt you'll believe this, but I have been trying excruciatingly hard to be fair and neutral in regards to this article's content. This has been a challenge for me, and I cling to my belief that something good will come out of all this. I sincerely hope that neither myself nor any other editors on here have discouraged you from participating in editing, be it on this article or any of the almost 3 million other ones on this site. If you're interested, I would happy to collaborate with you in creating a new article for the one notable WtP song that doesn't have a page yet, "Dreamin". I have taught myself how to create song articles that are at least stub-class and not at risk of deletion by citing references, adding categories, infoboxes and the like, and while there is no one right way to do this, I have accrued enough experience that I know my way around. Just let me know. Zephyrnthesky (talk) 04:10, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

(Struck part of earlier post) I added the mention of the inspiration for writing "Dreamin", but I couldn't use Dan's site to reference it because, for one thing, I couldn't find where his site mentions anything about Rosenberg's sister. Instead I used a site called MusicStack, which has a copy of the original 12" single for sale, to reference the inclusion of the song's inspiration. Dan's site doesn't seem to be accurate or up to date, anyway, as it mentions new WtP music coming out "in Early 2009". In addition to Dan needing a copy editor, some of what's on his site also looked word-for-word like what was on this article before, which would have been a copyright violation had the article not been rewritten. Zephyrnthesky (talk) 04:45, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Motorcycle used in the music video "Baby I..

I have looked at the video that Rosenberg is riding in the music video. I am uncertain about the make and model. Answer anyone?

Rev09Bones (talk) 14:13, 3 February 2019 (UTC)