User talk:Eric Gregson

My Response:

I am One of Many, there is no vandalism going on with the Rocket Records page. I am not a sock puppet of Professional Music Blogger, and I do not appreciate you calling me that. I submitted the old Rocket Records article to Wikipedia under the proper heading of "Rocket Record Company". Professional Music Blogger is Frank Kensig, a colleague of mine that you stirred up some issues with a few days back over false accusations of vandalism and spam, as I can see documented in the View History of the Rocket Records page. Frank was wrongly blocked because of your actions, so as an honest Wikipedia contributor, I am now getting involved as a 3rd party.

I understand your concerns of vandalism on this page, but there is simply no vandalism going on here. This old article of Rocket Records is not accurate and has not been for a very long time! I am undoing your edit one final time because the article change is accurate and factual. I will even add more sourcing to it if you would like. Now I deleted all of Frank's external links and kept only the VERIFIED Wiki links in the article, so this way there is no confusion of advertising, spamming, vandalism, or false information on your end. If you would like to contact me directly and privately with any questions and concerns, I am glad to correspond with you via email, and then even via telephone or Skype after that if you want to "verify" my existence and professional integrity.

If you Undo the proper Rocket Records re-edit again, and site vandalism, spam, advertising, or sock puppetry as your reason for doing so, or if you try to have me wrongly blocked, then I am going to start a formal dispute with other Wikipedia administrators because that would constitute an abuse of power on your end by undoing accurate work and slandering recent contributors with false and harmful claims of vandalism, spam, and sock puppetry. Wikipedia is for everybody, so please keep that in mind before you publicly site claims of vandalism and spam, which are incredibly damaging to honest contributors like Frank and myself. I suggest that you read the entire article, check out all of the inside Wiki links, and then you will see that this is a factual article update with absolutely no spam or advertising agenda. I appreciate you looking out for the Rocket Records page, but please do so in a FAIR, respectful, and professional way going forward. Thank you.

Remember, per Wikipedia's official Vandalism policy: Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any GOOD-FAITH effort to improve the encyclopedia is NOT vandalism. Edit warring over content is NOT vandalism. Careful consideration may be required to differentiate between edits that are beneficial, detrimental but well-intentioned, and vandalizing. Mislabeling good-faith edits as vandalism can be considered HARMFUL!

Regards, Eric Gregson (talk) 05:50, 2 March 2013 (UTC)Eric D. Gregson

E-mail address: ericgregson1972@gmail.com

Here's the case, as I am One of Many has noted below, to change an established article you need to start a discussion in the article's talk page and seek consensus, whether the existing article should be moved to another page or it's your new article that should be started in a new page. If the consensus is to start a new article, you could start writing the article here. Make sure you've read the rules. Note that as of right now there's an issue of the notability of your company.--Krystaleen 12:43, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Krystaleen is absolutely right eric, you must move the existing article for The Rocket Record Company before submitting a brand-new article about the new Rocket Records label. It is against procedure to overwrite an article entirely before first moving the existing article to a new page. Remember that going forward eric!

Now to be fair, eric has more than established and verified that the new Rocket Records label he is speaking of frequently as of late is not his company as he has stated many times. To publicly state otherwise in written words is incredibly irresponsible of you krystaleen!

Also, a quick google search reveals that the new Rocket Records is a legitimate record label that more than meets notability guidelines. Just look at the number of famous musicians and producers actively involved with it as of today. Need anybody say more! It should be added to wikipedia without question! Also, there are currently far less relevant record labels that have lengthy articles on wikipedia that have little or no notability, but this new Rocket Records label does not fit into that category at all!

Please do better research from now on krystaleen before deciding upon your own personal opinion(s) over easily searchable fact(s). The job of wikipedia is to document facts, not opinions krystaleen. The same goes for following procedure and not overwriting existing articles before moving them eric. Both of you have some things to learn about how wikipedia works in my honest opinion eric and krystaleen. MusicLoverShawn (talk) 09:52, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Response to Krystaleen

Krystaleen, if you have read what I have written, as well as if you read my Wiki profile, you will you see that I am a music journalist. Rocket Records is NOT my company. I have NO affiliation with the company, and could actually get into a lot of trouble as a journalist if I claimed affiliation with Rocket Records in anyway at all. If you read the accurate article update that I originally did the majority of, than you will see that it was written from a purely journalistic and factually informative angle on an entity that more than meets the proper notability standards for inclusion in Wikipedia. There is absolutely no form of promotion, advertising, opinion, or spam in the re-edited article that I contributed heavily to. I plan on seeing that this subject is correctly documented in Wikipedia, because as of right now the information listed under the "Rocket Records" page is factually incorrect on many levels. I await your response.

Eric Gregson (talk) 00:05, 3 March 2013 (UTC)Eric D. Gregson

Rocket records

What your group has been doing can be viewed as vandalism. You are repeatedly deleting an articall. It does appear that the article should be titled "The rocket record company". You should have started a discussion about a name change and sought consensus. If there was a consensus for a name change it was changed, then it is possible to create a new article "Rocket records". There would still be serious issues about notability. You really need to do some reading about how Wikipedia works. Especially about not using sock and meat puppets. Also, if you would take the time to understand how wikipedia works you would be able to determine that I am not an administrator. --I am One of Many (talk) 07:26, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

As a former wikipedia administrator, I think that both of you guys are going overboard with this! Eric, there is no need to keep writing so many words in so many areas of wikipedia. Please stop! Make your points brief! I am one of many, it seems as if you do a great deal of useless trolling on here in my honest opinion from your recent activity and interference with quality work.

Eric did not follow procedure by overwriting the existing article instead of moving it, but you (I am one of many) blatantly broke procedure with insane claims of vandalism and spamming! If anybody can be called a vandal in this situation, it is you I am one of many for publicly calling eric a vandal when what he did was not vandalism in any way, shape, or form! I strongly suggest that you do some reading about how wikipedia works I am one of many before worrying about eric or anybody else for that matter.

Remember I am one of many, trolling is a form of vandalism, so please do not do so again! For the "record" regarding the new Rocket Records that eric is writing a lot about, it is more than noteworthy on a major level. I suggest you do a simple google search I am one of many before stating your own opinion over fact.

Eric and I am one of many, please play nice and contribute to wikipedia in a productive manner! Thanks guys! MusicLoverShawn (talk) 08:27, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Response:

You are incorrect about Vandalism as it applies to Wikipedia. I was a long time contributor to Wikipedia, and I know that the purpose of this website is to properly document notable information in the correct manner. First of all, the "old version" of this page was not deleted, but is being moved under the proper title of Rocket Record Company. Secondly, there are no issues at all about notability. This link right here should suffice on that subject: www.rocketrecords.com/tim-coons

As you can easily research, the Backstreet Boys are one of the biggest acts in music history, NSYNC is one of the biggest music acts of the past 25 years, Jo Jo is the youngest female artist ever with a #1 record, and Britney Spears is one of the most famous individuals on the entire planet. The President of Rocket Records CURRENTLY works with some of these acts, and helped create the others throughout the past. If a combination of over 350 Million records sold worldwide is not notability, than I don't know what is. This applies to the modern Rocket Records, and Elton John, although noteworthy in a major way of course, has not accomplished anything near what those other artists have collectively, and that is a stone cold proven fact. Also, Elton John's label was officially named the 'Rocket Record Company', and NOT Rocket Records. The confusion this is causing with the modern Rocket Records is crystal clear. As a music journalist, I have the responsibility and right to legitimately document on Wikipedia what is factual truth, and can easily be backed up with reliable sources and a simple online search. When entities who have worked directly with artists that have sold over 350 Million albums, CONTINUE to work with many of those artists, and have multiple Grammy Award nominations on their resumes', that is incredibly noteworthy.

If you read the article, it explains itself. The old Rocket Records article must be moved under Rocket Record Company, and the new article that I did the majority of contributions on must be published under Rocket Records, otherwise there should not even be a Wikipedia. This site is about accurately documenting fact, not opinion or agendas. Numbers and professional accomplishments of note do not lie, and I'm sure you understand that. I am a music journalist, and I'm contributing a good-faith, accurate, up-to-date, and legitimate article update. There is no vandalism, because the Rocket Record Company is listed egregiously wrong, and must be corrected at once as to not be confused with the modern Rocket Records, which is beyond noteworthy given the celebrity music acts and music executives involved.

I am not an advertiser, promoter, spokesman, spammer, soap box individual, or anything else of that nature. I am a professional music journalist providing accurate, up-to-date, and factual information, which is what Wikipedia is founded on. I plan on seeing this matter through until it is properly rectified, and it would be nice to work with you in resolving this matter rather than against you. Regards.

Eric Gregson (talk) 08:06, 2 March 2013 (UTC)Eric D. Gregson

The reason why your edits at Backstreet Boys, Howie Dorough, and 'N Sync were reverted was because the info you added was not notable. I don't think it's worth mentioning who their vocal coach was at the beginning unless the person plays a big part in their career (that's why Lou Pearlman and Johnny Wright are mentioned in the articles). Right now I'm not sure Tim Coons is notable enough, as notability is not inherited. Just because a person has worked with notable people doesn't automatically make them notable.--Krystaleen 12:55, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Eric, you do not need to write a novel each time that you want to make your point(s)! You need to learn how to write in less words! Seriously eric, you must learn to be brief! Please "chill out" a bit from now on eric. Thanks!

I did a brief google search and eric is absolutely right krystaleen. Not only is coons incredibly well-known, but it seems as if he has done some work with sir paul mccartney recently. That is beyond newsworthy in the music world! I also found many recent pics on google images with coons and the backstreet boys, as well as other famous musicians such as britney spears, jojo, otown, nsync, and the like. I found many articles about coons accomplished work as well.

Coons should def be included on the backstreet boys wikipedia page without question! Eric, go ahead and make the changes to include coons, and if you have any trouble doing so I will help you. If anybody unjustly tries to Undo your changes or tries have you blocked from making edits, I will personally report them and have them blocked for abusing wikipedia, including you krystaleen (with all due respect)!

It seems as if many of your comments are opinion-based krystaleen, while eric is stating and backing up his words with hard facts. I used to be a wikipedia administrator myself before giving it up due to time contraints.

I hope this helps both of you eric and krystaleen. Remember to play nice! MusicLoverShawn (talk) 08:13, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Moving this article under the CORRECT Wikipedia URL and subject heading of: Rocket Record Company

As I recently stated on the Rocket Records talk page, I am formally proposing a factually CORRECT move of this article to a page with the Wikipedia URL and proper subject heading of Rocket Record Company. I had already tried to submit the already existing article under that proper heading, but Kinu rejected the submission due to the duplicate article policy. If we as RESPONSIBLE Wikipedia writers/editors/administrators are going to contribute to the Wikipedia record label project in a correct manner, than this MUST be done. It is completely wrong to keep factually incorrect information on Wikipedia when the up-to-date and correct information is readily available for the general public to read. Even "I am One of Many" agrees with me that this Rocket Records article about Elton John's old and now defunct Rocket Record Company should be moved under the heading and Wikipedia URL of Rocket Record Company. As for the current Rocket Records in existence that I had written about, we can submit that as a new article, although as I have now stated in great detail and documented to you all, it more than meets the proper notability standards for inclusion in Wikipedia. I will let everybody chime in on that though before I attempt to take any further action on the matter.

Krystaleen, I am One of Many, and Kinu, do you at least now all agree that this version of the Rocket Records article should me moved under the CORRECT Wikipedia URL and subject heading of Rocket Record Company?

Eric Gregson (talk) 00:28, 3 March 2013 (UTC)Eric D. Gregson

Eric, I like your passion, but there is no need to go overboard with all due respect. I simply think that good community members mistakenly took you for a spammer and vandal, which I can clearly see by your passion and honest words that you are not. I also looked up this new Rocket Records label that you are talking about, and I must say that you are spot on about it. I am one of many is gravely mistaken for saying that it barely meets notability guidelines, because from my quick google search I can see that it is very newsworthy.

Just submit a request to move the existing Rocket Records article under the heading and url address of The Rocket Record Company (remember to include all four of those words), and then you can submit a brand-new article about the new Rocket Records label. If you have any trouble doing so, I will help you with it because it is indeed very newsworthy and def meets the notability guidelines for inclusion on wikipedia. MusicLoverShawn (talk) 08:01, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Record Labels

We need qualified contributors for WikiProject Record Label. There are many record labels which must be properly updated and added. Please feel free to contribute and pass along the word to other qualified music contributors! MusicLoverShawn (talk) 11:18, 3 March 2013 (UTC)