Talk:Sam Phillips (musician)

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Pop music Low‑importance

	Pop music portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pop music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to pop music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Pop musicWikipedia:WikiProject Pop musicTemplate:WikiProject Pop musicPop music articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Biography: Musicians

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians (assessed as Low-importance).
	An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

Christian music

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christian music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christian music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Christian musicWikipedia:WikiProject Christian musicTemplate:WikiProject Christian musicChristian music articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Women

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women articles

Women in Music Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women in Music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women in music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women in MusicWikipedia:WikiProject Women in MusicTemplate:WikiProject Women in MusicWomen in music articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

everytime -> every time

@Walter Görlitz: Per WP:QUOTE: 'Exceptions are trivial spelling or typographical errors that obviously do not affect the intended meaning; these may be silently corrected or may be retained and marked with " [sic]" ...'. I feel that it is not important for Wikipedia to point out that the person who transcribed the interview doesn't spell well, so I went the "silently corrected" route. If you feel that the error should be preserved, feel free to pop a "sic" in there. Either way, happy editing! Chris the speller ^yack 03:41, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I knew that. Self-revert. Thanks. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:50, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Abandoning

I would like to continue to make edits. This entry is not fully representative of Phillips' work. There is a significant amount of press on her decades long career that would be helpful to add here in support of fleshing out Phillips' work and career. But given the amount of "correcting" by another editor, I am going to abandon editing.

I am happy to collaborate with fellow editors who will help improve the page, but this doesn't feel like collaboration (or improvement). It feels like I'm back in school again getting my knuckles rapped and being told there's only one way to do things. I work to add content and update the page, but having someone shadow every turn and make corrective edits that aren't about adding content is too stressful and unpleasant. It's a shame as I had hoped to really add a lot to this entry. MootsieOrangeville (talk) 02:25, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

When you do things wrong, like link singer-songwriter to the genre rather than to the occupation of singer/songwriter, and create paragraphs that are one sentence long yet fit with the next one-sentence-long paragraph, I'll change them. I've reverted no changes to improve the lede or other content. Sorry to see you go. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:33, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't do anything "wrong". Even the ASCAP headline calls Phillips a singer-songwriter. It is a common descriptor.

Unfortunately it is clear from these comments and the edit summary comments you made that you employ a very rigid approach to editing that is very ownership-focused. Editing Wikipedia is fluid, and flexibility can be a good thing. And letting other people add to a page without crawling over their edits is a kind approach.

As far as the one sentence long issue, did it every occur to you that I was going to add content to the page, and that I was separating out the very dense sentences so I could work on improving and adding to the page? I was saving instead of making big edits because the shadow editing you were doing was causing an edit conflict. I hadn't even really gotten started on the career section.

Maybe I should have hung a WiP tag on the page asking for collaboration but it's not clear if you would've backed off long enough for me to edit freely.

I am replying here in the hopes that you might hear the feedback and learn from this experience. There are collaborative constructive and friendly ways to approach all of this, but that's not what happened here. MootsieOrangeville (talk) 03:55, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See, let's look at MOS:INDENTGAP. When replying on talk pages, you should follow that process. It's not understanding little things like that on Wikipedia that are "wrong". The changes I made should not have affected your ability to edit. When you started editing, I noticed that this article has had a few problems so I fixed them. Those fixes should have not interfered with your editing. It's clear from your approach that want hands-off while editing and that is clearly not collaborative. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:20, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:INDENTGAP is you illustrating the issue, again - providing an example of the reason why I feel unwelcome to continue editing in this space. Instead of being friendly and providing or sharing information, the choice was made to go with another instance of telling me what to do, telling me I don't understand, etc. WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL, WP:POINTy would be good things to review here. Your editing was the editing that was not collaborative, that displayed ownership over a page you have an editing history with. Again, I encourage you to evaluate this interaction, take responsibility for actions, and consider this a potential learning experience. Maybe reconsider editing in this manner, and lecturing other editors on Talk pages like this going forward. It's not collegial, is hostile, and is driving me away. But I am pretty sure you don't care and will just continue to do this going forward. MootsieOrangeville (talk) 06:04, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So let me get this straight. You do not want to edit using the guidelines and agreed-upon standards set-out on Wikipedia, but yet somehow you think that you're editing collaboratively. Why don't you create your list of demands and we'll see how that works for you. I have improved the article just as you have. If you can't see that, I'm sorry. I modified a few changes you made that were not appropriate. If you think your edits are perfect, you're sadly mistaken. I'm pretty sure you'll find little corners of Wikipedia where you can edit the way you want and will just continue to do this going forward. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:09, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I truly believe you are missing the point here. It is not about me here. It is about you. Again, you are taking ownership over an article -- and over Wikipedia procedures -- beyond what is appropriate. I feel personally attacked. It seemed like you were attacking the contributions I was in the midst of making to the point where I had to stop, because it didn't feel like it was a safe space. If that is not clear I don't know much more what to say. MootsieOrangeville (talk) 06:19, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I truely believe you think it's not about you here even though it is. You don't know what you're doing and are refusing to be mentored. For instance this last edit where you added a parent category and a child in the same edit. I have fixed the problems, not removed anything valid. If you think you're not safe editing because someone is correcting you, that's a serious psychological problem—one with which I cannot help. The problems you make when editing—those I can help with. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:23, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So I have a serious psychological problem? And I don't know what I'm doing? And do you really believe you are mentoring here? It's pretty clear that's not what is happening here. It's the opposite of that. Boomeranging back on me when the disruptor is you, not me. I thought there might be an opportunity to have a friendly interaction. My mistake. MootsieOrangeville (talk) 06:29, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to mentor you when we were editing and in the early comments here, but now I'm just annoyed and tired of your sense of privilege. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:42, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Uninvolved editor here, except that I watch this page because I think the artist is terrific. Mootsie, I think you've made the right choice to abandon WP, as I think you're wasting people's time. Your initial complaint is unhelpful, and I didn't see anything in the follow-up to warrant attention. Good-bye. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 04:04, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So the rudeness, the rigid approaches to editing, and this other editor saying I have mental problems are okay? And I am wasting people's time? That is also quite rude, so thanks for that. And sorry but I don't buy you're uninvolved. It's pretty clear you are only here to support the other editor. This comment only makes this whole thread worse. Good bye to you! MootsieOrangeville (talk) 15:31, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am not familiar with Hobbes Goodyear. I did not request any support from any editors. If you're getting flack from multiple editors, it's either a conspiracy against you or it's just you. I just made it clear it's not a conspiracy. I did not start rude, that was earned over time. And I thought you were "Abandoning" this article. Shouldn't that include the talk page as well? Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:05, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Honors English 250HV10

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 August 2022 and 28 October 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): DreamMoonBlue (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Fursheep98, SoYouNeedAUsername.

— Assignment last updated by Fursheep98 (talk) 14:59, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]