Talk:Dave Kerzner

Rewrite Due to Bias

Due to the seemingly biased, promotional nature of this article, it is in need of a rewrite with proper sources. Certain adjectives and the phrasing of certain sentences lends to this article appearing much like promotional material. I will begin a rewrite soon. Vuzor (talk) 05:51, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I know a lot of work has been done on this article, but now it doesn't read to me an advertisement or that it's written from a fan's point of view. It's helpful to make a note on the talk page if you put up a banner covering areas such as copyright infringement. What text is in question? Span (talk) 16:51, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Ah, I began editing after I placed that message here. I've edited the introduction and added multiple sources. I have not completed anything beyond the introduction at this point, though. I'll perhaps start working on that tonight, rephrasing some of the material. Dave has expressed that he feels some of his accolades and compliments from others should be included, but at the moment I can't find any sources to back up that information. I removed some of the puffery as a result. I'll continue editing tonight. Thanks. Vuzor (talk) 00:05, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

This is exactly what I was afraid of. If Dave is directing what you are putting into the article, this is, I believe, a form of meatpuppetry and therefore wouldn't be allowed. Also, if he's telling you to put "his accolades and compliments from others should be included" then he needs to be reminded this is an encyclopedia article, not his private promotion website. My opinion is that if Dave has things he wants to see put in and taken out of the article, then he needs to be transparent and put all of that here on the talk page (that goes for the band article talk page when it comes to that article, too). That way, there's nothing hidden and violating WP:MEAT is less possible. Since he's more experienced, I'd like to see Spanglej weigh in on this and give his opinion. Winkelvi (talk) 00:24, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Dave is not directing what I am doing. I said that, in spite of what Dave wants, I removed the puffery. Rules are rules. I am committed to quality, which comes in the form of unbiased, sourced writing. As a writer, I take pride in my own writing as well, which frankly precedes anything anything Dave Kerzner wants to include in his article. My role is to clean up the article and publish reliable material, that's it. I didn't spend time telling him why things were the way they were if my intentions were to cater to his requests. You misunderstood what I wrote. He can tell me what he wants to include, but keep in mind I haven't done it nor will I. In fact, that is what I am aiming to remove from this article. I am in the process of doing so. Vuzor (talk) 01:43, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Specifically, I mentioned that if there were ever to be concrete evidence that Kerzner has received such praise, written in stone, published by several reliable third-party sources, that would be a different story. I care considerably for what I write and would not compromise quality by using unreliable sources or writing with any sort of slant. I have no interest in catering to what he wants. I have more integrity than that. Spanglej said he doesn't see it as an advertisement anymore; I told him there is still work to be done. Again, you misunderstood. The only guidelines I am following are Wikipedia's and my own expectations for my written work. Frankly, I'm a bit upset you made such an accusation. I wish to approach these articles with the utmost professionalism, and I try to uphold certain ethical standards when I write. When I told him I would "do what I can," I specifically meant within the boundaries that Wikipedia has set in its guidelines. Heck, I'm the one who posted this notice about a rewrite being needed. Vuzor (talk) 01:52, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I probably could have worded things better when I mentioned Dave directing what you're including in the article. Sorry you're upset by what I wrote. I really didn't mean it as an accusation toward you. I was trying to express that Dave being behind the scenes and asking this, that, and something else be included in the article to make him and the band and Collins look good for advertisement purposes is precisely what I thought would happen all along. I never thought you were intentionally a part of that scenario. Only that the band's members were trying to control the article's content in order to manipulate the article for their gain. That's what I was afraid of happening, and it appears that I was right all along. Again, please don't take offense -- I never thought you were doing anything unscrupulous. I did worry that you might have been swayed by Dave and the others -- not out of ignorance but innocence. Hope you understand where I'm coming from. Winkelvi (talk) 02:33, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I do understand. Thanks for the response. Rest assured, I'm not taking into consideration any of their requests and am editing for the sake of Wikipedia only. I do agree they have an interest in how their articles appear, and you are right to believe they were trying to change things to their preference. I still believe Carter336 is in some way affiliated with them, and his additions to this article and the Sound of Contact article certainly are consistent with your suspicions. I will definitely be careful about how I edit these pages, but I can guarantee they have no influence on the edits I make. In fact, I have the presence of mind to be especially weary of that, making it an objective not to include anything biased in the articles and to remove anything that does seem slanted. My interest here is definitely in building an article worthy of Wikipedia's standards, so you needn't be worried. If there's something biased in these articles, I would certainly be one of the first to remove it or to edit it to reflect objectivity. Thanks, Winkelvi. Vuzor (talk) 03:19, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I think that transparency and good faith are the keys here. From my experience of working with many novelists, painters and poets on their own pages, I have found that the work is often the first time they are trying to edit WP, so there can be a lot of misunderstanding as to what WP is and how it works. It often seems bizarrely byzantine and arcane to newcomers. The discussions are happening over many article talk pages at once, with various new editors, so it's not so easy to follow all the threads or copy them into one place. No doubt, it easiest for all concerned if discussion of articles can happen on the article talk pages rather than user talk pages. I'd also say there is no deadline. The articles don't have to all be perfected today. WP:FAQ/Article_subjects encourages article subjects to discuss content on the talk pages. I'd say it's not unreasonable to have reviews in the article, whilst going for balance and neutral encyclopedic tone. The guidelines are pretty clear on what does and doesn't fly. Errors are easily corrected and help recruited. Wikipedia is fundamentally collaborative, inclusive and discussion based. Thanks for all the time and work everyone is putting in to make the articles the best that they can be. Span (talk) 13:21, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I've been delaying the rewrite for this page over the past few days. I'll try to work on it tonight and/or tomorrow. My apologies. Vuzor (talk) 22:39, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Dude, I don't know you, I don't know Carter and I don't know anyone else on here that writes articles. I can't believe how much time you've all dedicated to talking about this. I understand you mean well Vuzor. Not as any favor to me. In fact all I want is the information to be correct which I am entitled as the subject and not to be damaging. DO YOU GUYS GET THAT????????? This conversation is public that you're having and every false accusation is insulting and unfair. So STOP that please. If you care enough to write or edit an article about me and associated musicians and music projects then just do it. Leave me out of it. Can you show some respect and do that? Assume that I am NOT involved because I'm not. Then what? Information is out there. Plenty of it. If something is worded in a way that bothers you then correct it. Do your Wiki thing. If the energy spent debating nonsense was put into researching facts you'd be a lot more productive with your time and a whole lot less offensive to the people you're writing about. My 2 cents. ALL my communication with you guys is public by the way. So take it for what it's worth. I have an opinion of which I am entitled. You are the writers not me. But I am checking up on this because I don't trust that people are being respectful or accurate in what they are saying or putting on these pages. Please take those banners down unless you have proof of the accusations. --Sonic Squids (talk) 05:35, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, Dave. For the record, I wasn't the one who placed those banners up, though there was certainly an expectation on my part as well as other Wikipedia editors to make corrections to the article. As we have repeated many, many times, editing on Wikipedia is a difficult task and many restrictive factors must be taken into consideration. I realize you care about your Wikipedia page, and it should be noted that you aren't necessarily the one making any edits to it; this page has admittedly been neglected. To some extent, I would have hoped whoever placed those tags up would have made an effort to assist in the revision of this page as well. I appreciate your understanding, and I suppose I must apologize for the Carter336 accusation. You are the only one who can say for certain whether you know Carter or not, so it was unfair of us to make such premature judgments. I would also like to have the Dimensionaut page back online, but unfortunately Wikipedia's guidelines prevent us from having that page restored for the time being. In regards to that page, the album has been released. The only other factor preventing it from being online is a lack of coverage from prominent media sources. That will, I suspect, arrive in time, so you need not be concerned.

In regards to the banners, the content initially published here is believed to have been taken from another source, though I emphasize again, I did not place those banners up. That issue seems to have been resolved, however, and I think we can begin working on editing the page and finding the sources necessary to deem this page satisfactory by Wikipedia's standards. The page didn't need to be neglected for such a fair amount of time, but I certainly feel as though I'm the only one editing these pages. It would be helpful if someone else would assist, but alas I must find time in my own schedule to make revisions. Apologies for the delay. Vuzor (talk) 12:27, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Dave, there is one way you can assist us, which is by helping us to find the sources required to support some of the statements in the article. For example, I haven't had much luck finding any textual online evidence about your relationship with Adam Gaynor, though I don't doubt it's true. You should know, after all! Wikipedia demands that there be proof in writing, though, and I'm sure those details are fairly obscure and personal. Wikipedia doesn't allow original research or personal accounts, so unless there's an account of your relationship with him anywhere in a newspaper article, a magazine, a biography or an online source, such information is going to stick out as out of place in the article. It would be great to have such detail about your early life in the article, but there needs to be proof. That particular detail and a few others will be very difficult to find any published support for. That's one obstacle we're facing right now. We'll need to find sources to support information about your early life. Is there anything published to specify which high school you went to? If you could direct us to the right sources, we would appreciate it. Otherwise, that section is left fairly questionable. Vuzor (talk) 13:10, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Edits

This article was horribly long in some places (the opening paragraph being one), way overlinked in others, had endless lists of linked names, and read like an advertisement/resume. I've edited it somewhat and will probably be back to do more tomorrow. Winkelvi (talk) 03:12, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

You guys need to take the accusation notes DOWN as they are incorrect and as a result negligent and damaging. There is no "close association" and I do not direct anyone on here. I leave my comments on the talk pages which I am entitled to do when it comes to information or misinformation about me! Although I have to admit I barely have enough time to do that so I hope you can get it right and stop messing with the page in a way that is insulting and damaging. Do you get that? Information has been correct and incorrect on here. If the sources are from marketing text on the web of which there is many then I imagine some of what you call "puffery" may just be included from the source. Whoever is writing and editing should just word it properly so it doesn't give people like Winkelvi a tizzy fit. I hope someone has the care to retain the factual information and format it so it is appropriate for Wikipedia. It's annoying and embarrassing to see these warning banners on a page about me when they are false accusations. Clean it up please. --Sonic Squids (talk) 05:20, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Response to Mr. Kerzner

Mr. Kerzner: In the first place, the last time the issue was discussed on this page was 13 days ago. That's almost two weeks. From what you've written above, it seems you think it just happened and is still happening. Next, if you're going to post on talk pages, please do so respectfully, in good faith, and in a non-combative, non-demanding manner. There are rules even for what is written in talk pages, and you've just broken a number of them. Finally, the "banners" will come down in due time and when it's determined they are no longer necessary. There is no no deadline in Wikipedia.

I'm intrigued by your words: "If you care enough to write or edit an article about me and associated musicians and music projects then just do it", and "It's annoying and embarrassing to see these warning banners on a page about me". The article isn't about you as an individual, it's about you as the subject of an article. Telling us to "just do it" is not in line with what Wikipedia is about. Articles get written, they get edited, tags are put at the top of article pages, they remain for as along as necessary, the articles get edited a little more, and so on. Stuff gets added, stuff gets removed, editors come and go. Articles get re-written and edited over and over and over again. That's the nature of Wikipedia -- not that articles are in perfect, completed form and they stay that way and are locked down forever and ever. Do you understand what I'm saying? Please show a little respect yourself. Frankly, I don't like the tone I'm reading in your words and with all the all-caps and all the question marks and I don't like the feeling you're laying out here. What I see you saying is that we have to get this done now because that's the way you want it to be. It'll get done when it gets done because that's how things go here. Winkelvi (talk) 07:39, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Winkelvi, please do not over-analyze his comments. I believe he has every right to voice his opinion. He is not editing his own page nor does he appear to be telling anyone else to. You have been particularly harsh throughout this entire process, which perhaps would be understandable in various circumstances though not necessarily this one. I do find it, to an extent, contradictory that you did little to make any corrections or contributions to this page in the past two weeks. It appears I am the only one editing this page, and if I do not make any revisions there is nobody else to contribute. The tags, as a result, aren't exactly effective as I am already well-aware that this page needs to be worked on. You felt there was a need to place those tags there, but you did nothing to correct the flaw you felt existed in this article. Although there is no editing timeline, Spanglej makes a strong point below that you are the only one who knows why that COI banner was placed at the top of the page. I would have expected you to assist in making the appropriate changes as neither myself nor he could figure out why it was there. The COI banner has been taken down because there doesn't appear to have been a reason for its placement at the top of the article.

As far as I can tell, the only two issues we must focus on at the moment are the rewording of some of the text and the addition of various sources to confirm the information described in the article. Let's get to work on that. Vuzor (talk) 12:39, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Vuzor, don't tell me what to do. I have every right to analyze how I see fit. And please stop referring to this article as Kerzner's "own page". It's NOT "his page". It's a Wikipedia article about him, but it does not belong to him. This has been brought to your attention and his previously. For some reason, you still aren't getting that. You think I've been harsh with him? Oh, well. He's not actually an editor, he has an account here, but he's not an editor as of yet. As far as what's been edited since you last edited: I made plenty of corrections to the page. I'm a volunteer, just like you. I do it as I can. For you to criticize me for not making corrections when I did make corrections is ridiculous. You may think you are the only one editing the page (as you indicated above), but the edit history tells another story. Have expectations of me for editing? Don't. You aren't the owner of this page, nor do you dictate who edits when, how, and how much. The COI banner was taken down because the other editor felt it was time. If you want to know why he did it, then ask him, but don't project your own assumptions on another editor and target another editor for the blame/reasoning behind their actions. Your comments are coming very close to personal attack, and I do not take kindly to it. If you want to edit collegially, then your attitude toward this volunteer and the manner in which I happen to edit needs to change. Otherwise, you might want to find other articles not related to Mr. Kerzner. Want to improve the article? Taking more time actually editing and less time concentrating on me and what you think I did or didn't do would be a great start. Talk about edits, not editors. Winkelvi (talk) 17:35, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Banners

Ok, so we have four banners up - COI, fan tone, advertising and copyright vio. The custom is to note on the article talk page the reasons for putting up banners. I don't see any mention of what text may copyrighted. Has this potential issue been dealt with since the banner went up? To me, as I have said, I don't read any particular fan tone or promotional puff in the article. Also, I'm not sure what point there is to having a COI banner up. It's been openly discussed at length and regular editors to this page are keeping a weather eye on things. Ideally we don't use most banners; we make the required fixes ourselves. If a banner goes up because we don't have time to make changes there and then, we come back, take the required action and take the banner down. I suggest taking all the banners down and encourage editors to make the edits they see fit. If there is copyright vio for sure, it needs removing. Sonic Squids is a newcomer. We don't bite newcomers. Span (talk) 18:33, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

No, we don't bite ACTUAL newcomers. Mr. Kerzner has made no indication that he plans to become an actual Wikipedia editor. Indeed, he has indicated just the opposite -- that he has no time to deal with Wikipedia. I recognize biting newcomers is a policy of sorts and keep this in mind when dealing with new editors. I had no plan to bite anyone, let alone Mr. Kerzner. That said, Mr. Kerzner has been way too bitey too many times for me not to bite him back and justifiably so. He has essentially demanded we fix his page and make it look good for him and his purposes as well as the purposes of Sound of Contact. He made this clear above and he made it clear on the Sound of Contact talk page when the article was nominated for deletion. He keeps saying that seeing the article on him and Sound of Contact in the state they are in "irritates" and "annoys" him. My personal feeling is: "Oh well". He says he's "embarrassed" that the banners are there. From all of these statements, it clear he's seeing the existence of the article and its maintenance to be all about him and his reputation. It's my assessment that he feels this way because he views these Wikipedia articles to be a form of advertisement and public relations -- an internet resume, if you will. My personal feeling about that is: "Are you kidding me?" We're all volunteers here and do what we can when we can. I'm perfectly fine with editing this article just as I do other articles: according to policy, responsibly, and without any bias. For Mr. Kerzner to expect, nay, demand otherwise of those who donate their time here is just out of line and missing the bigger, accurate picture,in my opinion. Winkelvi (talk) 19:35, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I think there's a point when individuals become too consumed in the philosophy they preach. While placing those banners at the top of the page is appropriate in order to mark the alterations that need to be made to the page, if no progress is made I would assume the editor responsible for those banners would take initiative to make the appropriate corrections. We are all volunteers, and unfortunately I have been busy and to some extent neglectful of my role as an editor over the past few weeks, for which I apologize. I had placed my faith in other editors to intervene and assist you. I am disappointed that nothing has been done to improve this page during my absence. I suppose we can only look forward at this point and decide how to improve this article. There's not much use dwelling now on anyone's comments or what significance the banners had. Our objective is to have this article meet Wikipedia's standards, and I suppose if there is anyone else intent on making that possible, I invite them to assist me in revising this page. Vuzor (talk) 12:51, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

I think there's a point where you need to stop with the veiled personal attacks, Vuzor. I worked on this article in your "absence" and improved it considerably, indeed, bringing it closer to Wikipedia article standards. Sorry for your disappointment, but as you said, we are all volunteers and when volunteers actually work on an article you should be thankful rather than critical and intentionally insulting. "Anyone else intent on making that possible" -- sorry, I'm here to stay. When it comes to those who volunteer, you get who you get. Don't like it? Not my -- or Wikipedia's -- problem. Keep your attitude and backhanded negative comments checked at the door and you and I will work fine together. Keep making sarcastic comments in edit summaries and the talk page, and things will not go well. Want to keep things up to Wikipedia standards? Then start by assuming good faith and comment on content not editors. One more thing: it would be helpful if you started using the "Show preview" button next to the "Save page" button when you edit or add comments. The high number of edit corrections and additions you have a habit of making to just one post or edit will become unnecessary when you preview before saving. Winkelvi (talk) 17:24, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

We're all volunteers. We do what we can when we can and ask nothing more of other editors than that. Span (talk) 11:37, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

You are 100% correct, Span. Hopefully Mr. Kerzner and Vuzor have gotten that message now. Winkelvi (talk) 21:38, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Shankar + Phil Collins + Bono Collaboration

If someone could elaborate on what exactly the collaboration was, that would be great. I have checked discogs and various other discography databases, and I have found nothing recorded about such an effort. If someone could confirm what it was, that would be helpful. Thanks. Vuzor (talk) 21:54, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

I must be needing new glasses, because I don't see anything in the article about such a collaboration. Winkelvi (talk) 13:05, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

It's at the start of the second paragraph in the "Early Years" section. :)

"In 1993, Kerzner played keyboards and programmed drum sequences for an album with L. Shankar featuring Phil Collins, Bono and The Edge."

If there ever was a collaboration, that would be really interesting! I can't seem to find any record of its existence, though. Maybe a tag would fit there. Vuzor (talk) 19:27, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

It's now removed. This is a biography of a living person and claims are being made about the article's subject and other living persons. Anything that specific really needs an ironclad reliable reference to back it up. If you've had trouble finding anything that verifies it, then it's possible there's nothing out there. That in mind, the claim shouldn't be in the article until there's something solid and meeting Wiki guidelines for references in BLPs. Having recently read more on Wiki's standards for BLPs, it's obvious to me that these types of articles are held to a bit higher standard when it comes to verification of information. I also removed the content relating to Barbra Streisand. Again, it needs to be referenced and correctly referenced. Winkelvi (talk) 20:55, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Sound of Contact Template

Template:Sound of Contact should remain at the bottom of the page. Kerzner is a member of the band. Discuss here if you feel there is an issue with that. Thanks. Vuzor (talk) 04:45, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

BLP reference issues

Per WP:BLP guidelines, all content having no references has been removed from the article as of now. The references needed tag was first applied months ago, no references were added to an entire section ("Early life"). That section has been removed. It can be replaced as soon as reliable references are provided to support the content. Date of birth has been tagged for cite needed since there is no reference to support it. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 04:23, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

There probably won't be a source to confirm the subject's date of birth, although this Facebook entry was posted on July 10, 2013 by Sound of Contact to celebrate his birthday.

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=527980857269789&set=a.527980853936456.1073741841.135080663226479&type=1

Vuzor (talk) 21:27, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Pretty certain Facebook isn't considered a reliable source. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 07:43, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't think so either, but at least we know the date of birth is accurate while it remains on the article page. I don't think the subject's birthday will be disclosed in a reliable source any time soon, so I'll leave it to you to decide what you'd like to do with it and whether you feel it appropriate to remove it entirely. In the meantime, the information given isn't incorrect so although there's a "citation needed" tag there, at least it isn't misleading anyone. Vuzor (talk) 09:14, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Request to Expand Discography

The discography section is incomplete. It would be greatly appreciated if someone could do a bit of research into the subject's discography and help to expand it. Thanks. Vuzor (talk) 07:47, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Refer to his bandcamp website: http://sonicelements.bandcamp.com/album/new-world

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dave Kerzner. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130513003014/http://www.soundofcontact.com/ to http://www.soundofcontact.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:13, 5 September 2017 (UTC)