Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:38, 19 September 2008

	Van Halen (inactive)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Van Halen, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Van HalenWikipedia:WikiProject Van HalenTemplate:WikiProject Van HalenVan Halen

Songs Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of songs on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SongsWikipedia:WikiProject SongsTemplate:WikiProject Songssong ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

Use of the song in Chicago Bulls games

I think the article is wrong, the song played at Bulls games was 'Sirius' by The Alan Parsons Project

You are absolutely right about that, anonymous. Also, how can a song from 1991 be featured on the soundtrack to a movie from 1984?

I was just about to write the same thing. Good spot, anonymous. I will amend the article accordingly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pygmypony (talk • contribs) 16:13, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

This article keeps getting vandalised by Rtphokie. He/she keeps trying to inject leftest political propoganda, include irrelevant content and cite gossip blogs as legitimate references.

Needless trivia including lists of different people and/or venues that have played this song at one time or another is immaterial. This information is not encyclopedia quality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.225.25.161 (talk) 10:50, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. You are reading things into actions of this user that are not apparent to most other people. - Tbsdy lives (talk) 12:03, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Commercial use of this material

I notice that "Commercial use" keeps getting a trivia tag added. I hardly see how the commercial use of this song is trivial - I'd say that this is fairly significant in that it demonstrates the use of the song. - Tbsdy lives (talk) 10:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Tbsdy lives, You need to learn what the meaning of the word trivia is. Whether or not some guy named "Richie Sexton" or any of the other thousands of people that have used this song before do NOT need to be mentioned in the article about the song. IT IS NOT RELEVANT. If it is important to the "Richie Sexton" or "Pittsburg Pirates" wikipedia entry then move it there. I suggest that it is NOT in that case either. It's trivial NONSENSE and NOBODY cares. It is a complete waste of space and totally unprofessional. How long would this list be if we included EVERY time or place this song was played? That is NOT the purposes of an encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.110.68.30 (talk) 11:23, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I am well aware of what Trivia means, given that I've so far merged, sourced or removed trivia from over 350 or so articles to clear the backlog at articles with trivia sections. However, I would not say that nobody cares about the informationyou refer to and I'm afraid that the section that you keep adding the trivia tag to does not just mention Richie Sexton. It currently reads:

"Right Now" has been in various kinds of commercial usage since its release. For example, it was in Crystal Pepsi commercials between 1992 and 1993. The song has been used as theme music by a number of collegiate and professional sports teams such as the UCLA Bruins, the Des Moines Buccaneers, the Pittsburgh Pirates and the Indianapolis Colts. World Wrestling Entertainment has also used the song to promote live events. Richie Sexson has used it as his entrance music when he steps up to bat at Yankee Stadium.

I think the fact that Pepsi used the song in commercials and also the fact that it was used by the sports teams mentioned are quite significant. Can you tell me why you don't think this is significant? - Tbsdy lives (talk) 11:30, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

As I have been reverted again, I am taking this to RFC for comment. - Tbsdy lives (talk) 11:32, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

No, I do not believe you are very well aware. This is one of the major problems with wikipedia, that people like yourself with no scholastic credentials take it upon yourself to edit articles as you see fit. Making the same mistakes many times over does not give you expertise on the subject. It's why this place is such a mess of rumor, propoganda, vandalism, inaccuracy and needless trivia. A list of sports teams and/or individuals is TRIVIA. Mentioning "in general" that corporations or sports teams have used the song is NOT how the article is currently written. The article gives anectotle examples of various entities with NO citations and NO foundation. It is not verifiable nor relevant to this song. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.110.68.30 (talk) 11:34, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

That's your opinion, I have now taken this to RFC. As previously stated, please sign your comment when commenting on a talk page. This can be done by typing in ~~~~ at the end of the comment. This will add your username (or in your case your IP address) and a timestamp. - Tbsdy lives (talk) 11:41, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

As it was your opinion. You can take it anywhere you want. You are still wrong and will be wrong afterward. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.110.68.30 (talk) 11:45, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

The trivia tag is used to mark sections which have a random collection of information, often just a poorly formed list, which would be better incorporated into appropriate sections of an article. The prose in this section is reasonably well formed and related so the trivia tag does not seem appropriate in this case.--Rtphokie (talk) 11:53, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

It is trivia, no matter how many times you try to rewrite it or twist the wording of the wikipedia definition. You are trying to use spin in order to somehow justify your continued involvement in this article where you are clearly NOT needed. In addition, you have changed other portions of the article by editing out cited references to include your own original research without providing ANY sources at all. Use of this song, by individual political candidates was referenced properly before you came along. You cannot replace this with your own preferred wording just because you want to see yourself type something. For example, claiming "the republicans" used the song is generalizing and factually inaccurate. The use of the song by a sound technician at a particular political rally or event hardly constitutes a party approved platform position. This is clearly your own opinion for which you cannot provide a source. Leave the facts the way they were and keep the trivial list of when or where the song has been played at a commercial event out of the article. It is a song, it was intended to be heard. It is played on public airwaves, jukeboxes, sporting events, etc all over the country and world every day. We do NOT need an itemized list of every time YOU personally heard it played somewhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.110.64.224 (talk) 06:42, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe that I am. The Bush campaign used it fairly significantly, even to the point of incorporating it into their slogan. Given this, I doubt that the decision to play it was made by a lowly sound technician, however this is speculation and I can't prove or disprove this point. But then, neither can you!

In further defence of my edits, I have not removed any referencing and I have not really changed what has been said in this article. While it is significant in its own right that the Republican party used it during campaigns, I must note that I'm quite glad to see however that another editor corrected the information (not added by myself) that Sammy Hagar said that he was happy for only the Republicans to use the song.

I really think you are taking this a might too personally. The material you are looking at in the article was added by others, as I'm reasonably certain you know as you've been editing this article for quite some time since I came upon it to restructure it. - Tbsdy lives (talk) 11:14, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

None of your speculation needs to be contained in the article. Nowhere will you be able to produce a reference that the "republican party" endorsed any use of any song for any individual's campaign. I seriously doubt McCain or Palin cared what song was played. And the song writer is a republican financial supporter who played at the republican national convention. This is FACT. Whether it suits your idiology or not. You are a total twit and a clear example of why people should use REAL encyclopedias instead of this hodge podge of propoganda and unprofessionalism.

Is the commercial use section trivia?

An anonymous user does not believe the section Commercial use of this material is necessary to the article and has consistently readded the trivia tag. A few users do not agree, so I'm bring this to RFC for a wider audience to comment. I believe that the material is not actually trivia, and that the information that Pepsi used the song in its commercials, along with the fact that it's used by sporting teams is significant. - Tbsdy lives (talk) 11:43, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

A list of sports teams and/or individuals is TRIVIA. Mentioning "in general" that corporations or sports teams have used the song is NOT how the article is currently written. The article gives anectotle examples of various entities with NO citations and NO foundation. It is not verifiable nor relevant to this song. - — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.110.68.30 (talk • contribs)

You were asked politely to sign your posts. Please don't add in unnecessary sections. Now on to the issue - no citations is a reasonable objection, though this was not the one you originally made. I will try to fix this. - Tbsdy lives (talk) 12:14, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the sentence "The song has been used as theme music by a number of collegiate and professional sports teams such as the UCLA Bruins, the Des Moines Buccaneers, the Pittsburgh Pirates and the Indianapolis Colts." as this can't be verified. - Tbsdy lives (talk) 12:21, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I am in agreement with the anonymous commenter. This is clearly a list of trivia. It is a collection of miscellaneous facts that reference no sources. Additionally, it appears these claims might have come about from original research. Because of the haphazzard way these facts are assembled and the unverifiability of the claims, I suggest that this section be removed or rewritten to proper standards. This kind of information provides no real useful meaning to the subject of the article.Coberloco (talk) 12:26, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, I have done a rewrite of this article. How does this look? - Tbsdy lives (talk) 12:30, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Good, now remove the Richie Sexton and WWE information since neither lists a source nor is it relevant to the article about this song. If this was important to either Richie Sexton or the WWE, this information would be listed on their own wiki pages. (Provided a reference could be cited) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.110.68.30 (talk) 12:33, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Have removed this information as I can't verify it. If I could find a source I'd leave it in there, but as I can't I think that it's fair enough to remove the information. - Tbsdy lives (talk) 12:38, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

You have totally screwed up the article and template. This is ridiculous. Why don't you just butt out? - — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.110.68.30 (talk • contribs)

Sigh. In what way have I screwed it up? I have improved it by removing unnecessary sections, I have removed the material that is unsourced. I'm sorry, but you do not own this article, you are acting in a way that is not conducive to calm and proper editing of Misplaced Pages. I will not "butt out", you must learn to edit Misplaced Pages correctly yourself. I see that you are someone new, and don't really know the ropes. I do hope that someone steps in soon, I will not revert again, but I firmly believe you are in line to be blocked due to violation of the 3RR. - Tbsdy lives (talk) 13:00, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

P.S. haven't edited any templates. Not sure what you are on about. - Tbsdy lives (talk) 13:13, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

First of all, I am not new and you need to quit stroking your own ego. Your attempts to sound intelligent or experienced come off pretentious and silly. Whatever amount of skills that you think you have in this matter clearly do not manifest in your decision making processes. I suggest that a trained monkey could make better edits than you could. So yes, butt out. And you cannot whine and cry everytime you don't get your own way. There is NO way to block every IP address on the internet when you it suits you. You cannot take your ball and go home. It's time for you to grow up and move on to some other article where no one cares if you screw it up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.110.64.224 (talk) 06:23, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

You have now been independently blocked, and not by myself as I am not an administrator (I used to be one, but gave up this privilege some time ago). As stated above, you do not own this article, you should not make personal attacks and you should assume good faith. If you aren't new, then you have some serious issues in that you still haven't worked out even the most basic mechanics of Misplaced Pages, namely signing your posts. Perhaps after your 48 hour block you might like to contribute again, only this time work with us and not against us? - Tbsdy lives (talk) 10:26, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I can always ask for the page to be semi-protected to stop you from abusing process. - Tbsdy lives (talk) 10:27, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

You are total douche bag and I will edit it whenever it contains crappy entries. You need to get a life. I cannot be "blocked", so grow up.

• Unassessed song articles