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: [email protected]
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
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)
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
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
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)