Talk:Steve Terreberry

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

When there is no charting for a single, a table is ridiculous[edit]

Since the "singles" (which are not singles because they're not charting anywhere) are added in a table and are all "non-album single", they do not need to be in a table. It looks worse that stupid. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:19, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is there an MOS precedent or are you arguing from personal distaste? Mbdfar (talk) 22:58, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is no MoS for musicians, but Wikipedia:WikiProject Musicians/Article guidelines#Discography section is the closest. There certainly is not MoS dictating that a musician's discography, or even those in stand-alone lists, should be in tables. It is personal preference. Logic itself dictates that the simplest formatting should be used unless it makes reading the content difficult. That is why many albums and singles use tables, because they will chart on multiple charts and placing that charting—or even placing an em-dash when it does not chart—is more visually helpful. Here, the table is unhelpful. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:10, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fwiw I have no preference about the formatting, but if there are no MOS format guidelines, I see no reason to get rid of it. It doesn't make it more readable, but it doesn't make it less. Is it worth repeatedly reverting other edits just because you don't like how it looks? Mbdfar (talk) 00:27, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A table is not more readable. For instance, when a year is three cells above the work, rather than beside it, it is actually harder to read the year.
As for repeatedly reverting other edits just because you don't like how it looks, yes, I agree that you should stop doing that. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:38, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Especially when it has no edit summary. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:49, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"A table is not more readable" - I never said that it was. I stated it doesn't make it any more or any less readable. To me its the same. Actually I kinda like how the table groups the years now that I think about it. I don't understand how that is hard to read. "yes, I agree that you should stop doing that." - Come again? I haven't reverted any edits. Go be mad at somebody else. Mbdfar (talk) 03:56, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, you said the negation, but clearly a table is not more readable than the list. Regardless, the table is not better than the list. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:08, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You are 100% right. I'd just like to add that a list isn't better than a table. It's also terribly pedantic to call attention to the edit summary, who cares? You know what the edit was for. In fact, this whole thing is pedantic and a waste of time. As far as I can tell you have no MOS backing to revert the other editors work. The table was there first, so imo it should be left. You are the "aggressor" for lack of a better word. If the list was there first and was being reverted for a table then I'd be on your side. Mbdfar (talk) 04:20, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see Fishhead2100 has ignored this discussion and editwarred to add the stupid table back. I have asked the project to review the content. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:45, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Walter Görlitz: You know what they say about assuming, right? Just because I don't spend every single minute of every day on here, doesn't mean I ignored it. Good try. Oh nothing stating that a a table is just for charted singles. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 05:53, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Because you reverted to the table and dis so without following WP:BRD and have given no valid reason for doing so just means you ignored the discussion. No assumption required. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:36, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Walter Görlitz: According to BRD, if my edit was to be reverted, the best course of action would be to start a discussion. Since it wasn't, I'm in no obligation to start a discussion. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 21:59, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Your logic escapes me. If you are reverted, it is you who start the discussion. Regardless, you ignored the discussion and returned to your preferred version.
Also regardless, no, the discog style does not prescribe a table. I will restore the list unless you can provide a valid and logical reason for using it. There is no charting (which is what the table is best for) and not only are they not album-based singles, they're simply videos that have been released so they're entirely mis-labeld. However without sources, they're not even valid. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:14, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just leave the table. It makes no difference. The list and table accomplish the same exact thing. This simply isn't worth arguing over. Mbdfar (talk) 22:59, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If it makes no difference then the table is unnecessary and overkill. And if no sources are provided, the lot will be removed and we don't need to discuss whether it's an empty list or an empty table.
And for the record, after you deleted it, BRD is clear: you are bold, someone reverts you, you start the discussion. "If your bold edit was reverted, then do not re-revert to your version. If your reversion was reverted, then do not re-revert to your version. If you re-revert, then you are no longer following BRD." You are following BRRD. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:04, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware of BRD. This is just a pointless hill to die on. Mbdfar (talk) 23:20, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yet it's an appropriate hill for you to edit war over? Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:32, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Here you go again accusing me of edit warring. When was the last time I even edited this article? I haven't reverted a single time. At all. Please read my name and check the changelog. Mbdfar (talk) 23:37, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You made multiple edits without discussion (I can show you the order if you'd like) but in short, you were edit warring.
Unsourced "singles" all removed. If you add them back, add them with a source and as a list. If they're just videos, add them as such. If they were songs posted to social media, list them as such. if they were released to radio, list them as singles. Don't misrepresent this subject's output. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:19, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"I can show you the order if you'd like" - Please do. I am legitimately confused about what you are referring to. When I wrote this article I intentionally didn't even add a discography, I'm not misrepresenting anything. I did contribute information once another user created a discography section, but am I supposed to discuss every time I add a (referenced) addition to an article? I really don't appreciate your accusations about foul play on my part. Mbdfar (talk) 04:36, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Fishhead2100 Order is here. Multiple edits to the article and only after I stopped playing with your edit war did you come to talk here. Not a hill to die on, yet here you are edit warring again. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:53, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Walter my man, I cannot facepalm harder than I am right now. That edit summary is for Fishhead2100 (talk · contribs). Please read the name attached to my signature and type it back to me. I... how can you be so oblivious?? Mbdfar (talk) 04:58, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. Correct. He's the one ignoring BRD. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:21, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Walter Görlitz: Oh look, you didn't revert when KullyKeemaKa added everything back. But when I do it, you freak out. You create beefs with people. Don't revert on someone and not revert on someone else when they did the same thing. But hey, you're to quick to revert on some people and not others. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 22:21, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Fishhead2100: Actually, he has reverted some of my edits and beefed with me once, so I'm surprised that he didn't beef with me when I re-added the table. KullyKeemaKa (talk) 00:13, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You guys can do whatever you want, he'll just end up blaming me! Mbdfar (talk) 02:00, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. Don't mean to blame you. I will try to be more careful going forward. However, I have what's a called a "life" and I have not seen any edits. When I get around to it, I will revert any unsoruced or otherwise poor content. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:34, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@KullyKeemaKa: He didn't revert the specific edit I referred to. If I added the singles back, Walter Görlitz would have reverted it. Walter claims to have said "life," but has instantly reverted some recent edits. He also likes to cherry pick what to revert and what not to revert. I won't be surprised if Walter doesn't revert KullyKeemKa's re-addtion of the singles. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 09:25, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop pinging me. Please stop discussing a specific editor or assuming what that editor may or may not do. I have already explained that I will review the edits when I get around to it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:01, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As suspected. These are songs released to media, not singles. This should not be a list of songs, but a list of charting singles. Removed again. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:30, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
MOS:TABLES advises that tables should be used only when appropriate; sometimes the information in a table may be better presented as prose paragraphs or as an embedded list and MOS:NO-TABLES includes If a list is simple, it is generally better to use one of the standard Wikipedia list formats instead of a table. Lists are easier to maintain than tables, and are often easier to read. So let's be clear, if they can actually be shown to be singles, a list is enough. However, they seem to be songs released one-at-a-time rather than true singles. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:39, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Singles[edit]

Okay, well it seems there is a secondary argument now so I'll add another discussion. I don't understand why those songs aren't considered singles. They are individual songs independently released by the artist. Spotify literally labels them as singles. Is your argument that they have to be physical releases and have to have charted? I think that is just objectively wrong. Mbdfar (talk) 11:56, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Because the model of music has changed. In the heyday of singles, a song was released as 45 (or 7-inch) to radio and the public. It tried to chart. Then albums became the predominant form or release. Now, musicians only release songs, but not to radio. A single is a charting term, not a medium. However, if you have WP:SECONDARY sources that state these individually released songs are singles, you could add them, in a list (for the MoS reasons stated above) to a non-album singles section. However, Spotify itself is primary. A social media post from the subject or a re-post, is still primary. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:34, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"A single is a charting term, not a medium." Please cite your source on that. Mbdfar (talk) 15:47, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No I do not, and we're discussing that as a project. But you also need to have a source that each song was released. The Spotify source lists Terreberry's top songs, and on my feed, it did not show the songs that it was beside. Find a source that supports each was released as a single. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:57, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, If you make a claim you need a source for it. That's how Wikipedia works, I shouldn't have to explain that to you. I still don't understand your argument, can singles not be independently released? If a song is released as a promo for an album but doesn't chart, is it not a single? Where do you see information that says a single is required to be tied to an album? Additionally, Spotify is the source that proves the singles were released. If they weren't released, you know, you wouldn't be able to listen to them. I can clearly see the section labeled Singles and EPs on the subjects Spotify page. I would also appreciate the link to the discussion you're talking about. Mbdfar (talk) 17:23, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you'd like I could strike the claim, but you still don't have any reliable sources that the songs were released as singles.
For example, 16 songs were listed as singles using https://open.spotify.com/artist/752rmY08pvHpub4FyIXp0n as the "reference". Even if I "show more" on Spotify, only 10 songs are listed. Of those, 3 are from the same album, so it does not appear as those were released as singles. Compare that to https://open.spotify.com/album/0gHg1JLD8DoDgkfz7V2Ygz. That is a single song. Whether it's a single or not is a separate question. Apple music would have a similar entry if it was released as a song that could be purchased separately (which I assume is what qualifies as a single for some these days). Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:43, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, now we're getting somewhere! For the sake of this situation I would say that only those songs published on Spotify should count. If there were some listed that were cited incorrectly, they should not be included. I agree that would be an error. But to reach consensus on this I really need to know what definition of single you are arguing for. I argue for inclusion because to my understanding, a Single (music) is any track released separately from an album, regardless of whether or not it is also later included on an album. Do you totally disagree? Why does publishing a song on Spotify not count as a release? I fail to see why Apple Music is more credible. Mbdfar (talk) 19:42, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Watch (Billie Eilish song) is a single. I don't understand that point. What is the difference between "single song" and "single"? Mbdfar (talk) 19:46, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, I still think they're not singles. Charting is required. In lieu of that, a reliable source that clearly states it's a single are required. The link I provided is a clear list to a song released independently, but the one supplied by the other editor (https://open.spotify.com/artist/752rmY08pvHpub4FyIXp0n as) is not. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:58, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Charting is required"[citation needed] Mbdfar (talk) 20:31, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Let's leave the opinion of what constitutes a single as a project-level discussion. Another opinion, this discussion should focus on sourcing the individually released songs. If you can source a song individually released, we'll have a starting point. Ideally a SECONDARY source. The table is a non-starter per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Tables. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:12, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The definition of a music single is not an opinion. There is no debate UNLESS you can find a source or something in the MOS that states that a song needs to have charted to become a single. You cannot enforce your made-up definition. If the project reaches a consensus that that is how singles will be defined site wide, then it would be in your right to remove them from this page. Until then, you are going against the will of three other editors with nothing to back you up. Honestly it's not even an opinion that the songs were released. They were. Secondary sources are not necessary to show that an artist has published their works. With all of your arbitrary decisions it's getting hard to assume good faith. I agree that there should be another look at the sourcing and perhaps the references should be more specific, but your edit warring is not constructive.
I do not care about the table, that is a separate issue. Please keep that in the other discussion. Mbdfar (talk) 23:50, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, my definition of single is only germane here because I won't stand for the suggestion that any song that can be played is a single.
For me to stoop to your poor minimalist definition, the addition of a song needs a reliable source that it has been released as a single to qualify at this point. The list of popular songs is no indication that a song is a single, because of the nature of the service in question. Anyone can pick a track off an album so, yes a source that it was released separately from an album would be required, otherwise it's a list of songs.
If the project comes to a different conclusion that individually released songs are not singles, then I can revisit the addition here. If the project comes to the conclusion that a reliable source calling the song a single is all that is required, then we're covered. If the project comes to the conclusion that only songs released to radio can be singles, then we can revisit this list again. However, the key is the sources. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:59, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"won't stand for the suggestion that any song that can be played is a single." - agreed, I said it had to be released separately from an album.
"your poor minimalist definition" - not my definition. If you disagree with Single (music) you've got some editing to do.
"yes a source that it was released separately from an album would be required" - literally the Spotify link. Maybe you need to sign in, but the citations used in the article take you to the artist profile. If you click 'see discography', all the singles are there. They are all labeled as singles and released separately from any album.
I would still like a link to the project's discussion you are talking about if you don't mind. Please stop reverting until a consensus is reached there. Mbdfar (talk) 15:52, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I already clearly explained why the Spotify link does not support the claim that the song was released as a single. Please stop adding unsourced content. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:51, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"The list of popular songs is no indication that a song is a single" - this is your reasoning, correct? Because I think you are looking at the Spotify link wrong. If you expand the full discography, all the singles are there. Clearly labeled as singles. You are only looking at the top part of the page, try signing in maybe, or opening it on a different device. "It needs a reliable source that it has been released as a single to qualify" - yeah, Spotify. It's primary, the singles were self published, but reliable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbdfar (talk • contribs) 19:46, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Now you're edit warring and removing correct content?
No, my reason is sim0ple: sourcing. Each song has to be sourced individually. A list of popular songs (some of which are linked to album releases) are not singles. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:51, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Further, many of the songs that are listed in the list (it should not be a table) are not even listed on the page, even when expanded. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:52, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"A list of popular songs" - again, I believe you are having trouble navigating the link. If you click "see discography", you will see all the singles not linked to album releases under the heading "Singles". It's more than just the list of popular releases I would encourage you to try signing in or using the app. Mbdfar (talk) 19:57, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The first "reference" lists the following songs as singles: "Breakdown", "Pop Punk Kid", "Metalcore song", "Negative Commen...", "Life in Virtual", "Uku-Djent", "Mand Bun Song" and "Online Lover" as singles. That's eight of the sixteen tracks that are being referenced. That link will change over time and so a direct link is vital. If you want to reference them do it like this: https://open.spotify.com/album/0YdemwyAzhnkL8K8L1cHTx (for the first). etc. Also, read the MoS. This should not be a table.
I actually see 18 tracks (all labeled as singles) when I open the link on my phone. I'll say this one more time, you are having an issue on your side. Referencing them all individually is an unnecessary waste of time and will bloat the references section. They are in a perfectly curated list on my end. Also, please stop being pedantic about the table, that's not what this discussion is about. Mbdfar (talk) 20:07, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Bully for you. I'm opening on my desktop and they are not present. Even if 10000000000000000000000 appeared, they should be individually listed, unless it's in a WP:GOODCHART. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:28, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If, at a later date, the project changes its mind about whether these songs are or are not singles, we can fix it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:01, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also I would like to apologize for my mistake - I see you have only reverted twice today. I will abide by the 3 revert rule, but I encourage you to try and navigate the source differently. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbdfar (talk • contribs) 20:02, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be back tomorrow and I expect to see every song, in a list, with a reference to the single. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:03, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Lol? You're not my mother, don't set unreasonable expectations for me! Mbdfar (talk) 20:10, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Anything not correctly sourced and in a list by tomorrow will be removed per WP:V Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:28, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy?[edit]

The article lacks information about how controversial this person is. He was widely criticised for mocking less successful musicians in his videos and crossing lines while making fun of disabled persons, e.g. Richard Benson. After he made several videos mocking Benson's style and abilities, including a "song", the negative online backlash was intense and at this point, his account was hacked. It also should be noted, that he primarily produces content for children and/or teenagers (says his manager), but likes to deny that. KhlavKhalash (talk) 09:28, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@KhlavKhalash: This is a joke, right? A cryptocurrency business impersonator hacked Terreberry's account, not a pressed teenager. Also, if he really was criticized for mocking Richard Benson, please provide a reliable source. L33tm4n (talk) 12:52, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, those details should be included. @KhlavKhalash: do you have reliable secondary sources that make these claims or is it as as L33tm4n writes? Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:37, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I didnt say, a teenager hacked his account. The information is widely available. Die example check KDH's Video in which He interviews stevie's manager. The mocking of Richard Benson gut a Zuge backlash, just have a look on YouTube. I dont get your point. Die you think its OK and funny to mock a seriously sick person which a tragical backstory? KhlavKhalash (talk) 11:20, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@KhlavKhalash:, in order to add this information to the article, you will need to find reliable secondary sources as Walter says above. This would be in the form of news articles from acceptable organizations which mention the alleged backlash. YouTube videos and interviews do not establish that this information is notable enough to be included in the article. If the backlash is as Zuge as you say, there should be some news coverage out there. Mbdfar (talk) 16:54, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I found https://www.metalsucks.net/2019/01/08/richard-benson-worst-shred-guitarist-ever-or-brilliant-performance-artist/ but it does not really say anything. https://www.ultimate-guitar.com/articles/features/top_10_most_hated_guitar_players_of_all_time-85230 Lists them both as hated guitarists, and probably not even a RS. Walter Görlitz (talk) 08:03, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'd criticise that hey aims for young audiences with somewhat questionable content. Like promoting porn stars and not showing which content is sponsored and bullying. See those videos: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9tE7zYzxLjY and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DD6Dqy3zzc0. Saemikneu (talk) 14:04, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Associated acts[edit]

Template:Infobox musical artist#associated acts states that associations are only to be "professional relationships with other musicians or bands that are significant and notable to this artist's career". There are also exclusions: one-time associations. Clearly, if they are not mentioned in the article, that would be a good reason to exlude. Touring and one-time recordings are not associations as per the documentation. "Jared Dines streams "Shred Feast" EP featuring Stevie T, members of Trivium, Born of Osiris & more". Noizr. July 20, 2020. Retrieved December 29, 2021. shows a one-time association with Jared Dines and "The Final Jarrod Alonge x Rock Sound Artist Profile Is Here: Say Hello To $WAGCH0DE". Rock Sound. November 3, 2014. Retrieved December 29, 2021. does the same for Jarrod Alonge. The others are sourced in the article, which is correct, but they do not meet the criteria l;aid-out in the documentation. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:39, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ONUS is clear as well. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:40, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I see you're not interested in discussing. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:07, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Walter Görlitz: There are many videos on both Jared and Steve's channels showing their collaborations. That source is just one of many examples. At least I bothered to look for sources when I didn't have to. In fact, Jared and Steve have the same manager. You would know this if you did research. They have a professional working relationship or sorts. You talk about onus, but knowing you're history, you got at certain people. You didn't even bother to look through the article history and find the person who originally added the associated acts and tell them to source it. In fact, yesterday, it was GoBlackhawksGo that added Anthony Vincent. I know for a fact you didn't leave a message on their talk page telling them to source it. I did. So don't tell others to source it when you don't do some searching and talk to the correct people. But you see my name and unjustly come at me. All I did was make a minor edit after GoBlackhawksGo. Let's not take that into account. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 01:22, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
One of many examples? Do you have any secondary sources that make this claim or are we dealing solely with WP:PRIMARY sources?
Again, please stop telling me (or any other editor) to go look for sources as the onus is not on the one correctly removing incorrectly sourced content. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:32, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qp1yETyS4FI
Source of Steve doing a collaboration with Anthony Vincent GoBlackhawksGo (talk) 03:31, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. The documentation is clear that one-time associations are not enough to make the two an associated act. It would be silly to reference every time they played together, which is why a secondary source making this claim would be best. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:36, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW it's already in prose that Terreberry collaborated with Dines multiple times, and it's already in the article that he was featured on two of Alonges albums. There's already multiple sources pointing to the DragonForce association - the Terreberry cameo in a music video makes that more than a one time thing. I fail to see the issue and don't understand the need for your constant edit warring. Mbdfar (talk) 13:56, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Mbdfar: I made minor changes (not adding any associated acts) and he came at me because he has a problem with me. He does this all the time. He doesn't like it when he is told to look sources, but he threatens people if they don't. He also threatens people for edit warring when he does it too. Hypocritical. He ignores what is in the article because he'd rather stir the pot. That's his style. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 04:46, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, I did not come at you because I have a problem with you. You are a self-aggrandizing liar this and every previous time you've made a claim like this. You do not like following the rules plain and simple. That's your style.
In short, if you read the documentation for the infobox and WP:RS you would not have any problems with the watchers of this or any other article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:11, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Walter Görlitz: I don't have a problem with others as you so claim. Who reverts myself and others? You and you alone. Nobody else does. So you can drop the act of being indignant and as if you're so hard done by. You're not gaining sympathy from anybody. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 06:53, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I never claimed that you had problems with others. You clearly are not reading what I have written as I have explained why I have removed the supposed associated acts. Feel free to explain why to me, based on what I have repeatedly written. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:21, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So no comment on what I actually wrote. So I'm planning to remove the associated acts that do not meet the documentation's requirement for "relationships [that are] significant and notable" as the secondary sources just do not support the claims. I (but possibly not other editors) would accept a table here showing the associated act and all the videos that they have worked on together. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:35, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Walter Görlitz: It's all in the article. It's been explained here. Not sure why you're having trouble with this. Not sure why you need it explained yet again. Comprehension problems? That's on you. You being obsessive compulsive is also on you. You wonder why people don't respond. It's the way you conduct yourself and talk to people. You talk down to people and have this pedantic need to for things to be this way or that why when it's already in the article. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 19:40, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If it were in the article, I would not be calling the three if you on it. I do not understand what sort of problems you are having with reliably sourced. Not sure why you need me to explain what is clearly written in multiple policy pages. I'll take this issue to an RfC then shall I? Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:46, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please take this to an RfC. These talk page squabbles never get resolved. Maybe we'll all learn something. All I ask is that you share the discussion link with us. Mbdfar (talk) 20:23, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Mbdfar: There is no need to request for comment. It's all in the article regarding Dines, Alonge, and DragonForce with sources. I told GoBlackhawksGo on his talk page to source his addition of Anthony Vincent to associated acts. I was waiting to see if he'd do that. But obviously he wasn't going to. Thanks for removing that. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 08:47, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So a video on Stevie T’s official page showing Anthony Vincent in it isn’t considered proof? I am very confused. GoBlackhawksGo (talk) 14:45, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One video would not really show multiple interactions, and certainly not ""professional relationships with other musicians or bands that are significant and notable to this artist's career". Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:27, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Steve_Terreberry&oldid=1210659951"