Jump to content

Talk:John Popper

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

Untitled

[edit]

This article is tagged with a current event, presumably for his arrest on March 6, 2007. Nothing has been added to this article since then. I am removing the current event tag. When more information is forthcoming about more legal trouble, it should be added back on.Daviticus82 20:04, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It claims that he formed a band which evolved into Blues Travler but according to this article [[1]] and others i've read he left the original Spin Doctors line up to form them.--158.143.151.160 23:12, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

-I'm pretty sure that The Trucking Company was a side project for Popper (w/ Chris Barron, etc) after Blues Traveler was already formed. Blues Traveler's first album was released in 1990, and that article states that Spin Doctors was formed in '91. (I would question the accuracy of that article, though, because the Wiki entry for Spin Doctors states that they were formed in 1988. Either way, Blues Traveler came first.)—Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

Weight loss?

[edit]

Nothing on his weight loss, but the article makes reference to "...after the weight loss." It needs to be mentioned in the personal life section. The guy was huge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.81.234.82 (talk) 01:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is there. Personal life, third paragraph.TravelingCat (talk) 08:32, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Someone had that Popper "Has never been married. He used to date former NFL Pro Bowl running back Mark Van Eeghen". Popper used to date Van Eeghan's daughter Amber who is now married to New England Patriot's center Koppen. I have updated to show this correctly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.173.176.26 (talk) 20:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image

[edit]

Deliberate attempt is being made under WP:HOUNDING to prevent a better image from being added, in the defense of a non-existent policy of "self promotion." Gage (talk) 00:47, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Equipment

[edit]

I worked on a show with B.T. last weekend and their guitar tech told me that Popper has an endorsement deal with Fender now, but still uses the Hoeners b/c Fender hadn't sent Popper a set that he's satisfied yet. Fender's website confirms the endorsement deal[1]. 68.108.241.167 (talk) 00:43, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ www.fender.com/accessories/harmonicas/fender-john-popper-signature-harmonica
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on John Popper. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:44, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on John Popper. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 08:21, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on John Popper. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 00:41, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on John Popper. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 17:00, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on John Popper. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 06:21, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

untenable citation tags for biographical article

[edit]

material marked as uncited, will be removed, please add a correctly sourced citation for these certainly notable claims. thanks in advance, Saintstephen000 (talk)

@Saintstephen000 are you addressing anyone in particular and referring to specific content? Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 03:12, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

all content, uncited. Saintstephen000 (talk)

Not all uncited content has to be removed. Please be judicious and only remove uncited content that could be explicitly misleading. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 04:55, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • when biographical information is uncited, it leads to storytime creep.

i agree that uncontentious biographical information widely known to be factual tends to remain without being challenged, but this individual's life is well documented. removing summarily long-uncited anecdotal tales can give impetus to fans to find the correct source before re-adding.

noted, Saintstephen000 (talk)

@Saintstephen000 Why are you undoing the edits I've made in Popper's discography? Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 05:49, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]


i did not know i was. i was finding sources for online citations. i seem to have stumbled into a article with ongoing multiple contentions. I'm just doing grammar and sources, not correcting facts or pov. I'm vaguely familiar with his work. Saintstephen000 (talk)

It's fine, it looks like you did it by accident. I've been engaged in a pretty acrimonious edit conflict with an unregistered user with a chip on their shoulder :( Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 05:58, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

cogs in cogs. i read over their various assertions, couldn't see what they were on about. fair wind, Saintstephen000 (talk)

Contentious edits

[edit]

User:Revirvlkodlaku made about 17 edits to this page; I found issue with a few aspects and decided to improve them. Of the 17 edits, I felt 2 were best reverted, but I've substantially restored 1 of those since and won't contest that further. This user is refusing to follow WP:BRD and is instead bulk-reverting my edits while accusing me of bulk-reverting his (which I did not do!). They have also asked me to take it to this talk page where frankly most of the content is irrelevant, and removed it from their own talk page without doing so [2] while also removing several warnings about previous edit-warring from that same talk page: [3]

As far as I'm concerned, this user is engaged in an edit war. But it's fair to say that perhaps I didn't evaluate each of the individual changes fairly just within those 2 edits. I've reinstated a small subset of my changes, with full explanations for each minor change, that I feel are more correct than Revirvlkodlaku's version, while I'm just going to leave the other changes to anyone else that wants to chime in.

The largest remaining contentious issue is that of capitalization of references. I raised this on the user's talk page because I felt this was more of an issue of their copyediting style than one with this particular article. But my position is that I believe it's policy to include capitalization of titles etc. in references verbatim, if workable, just as one would include foreign-language titles verbatim. If there is some WP policy against this, I'm all ears. 76.6.214.10 (talk) 05:28, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm more than happy to discuss, I just don't think it's appropriate that you reverted my entire edit. Anyway, I'm not sure about the capitalization. You reverted it though, shouldn't the onus be on you to demonstrate that it's incorrect? Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 05:31, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, the onus is kind of on you if you're going to bulk-change things (WP:CITEVAR). But if I revert it, sure, you have a point. I should check that you're not following a known policy before doing that. I'm going to look into whether this has been addressed already, before changing it again. I did a cursory search and can't find a specific reference in WP:CITE so I'll leave it alone for now unless I find otherwise. 76.6.214.10 (talk) 05:43, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
re: "reverted my entire edit", I reverted about 2/17 of your edits, collectively. You, on the other hand, did revert my entire edit first before discussing. Just for the record. 76.6.214.10 (talk) 05:45, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My god, I'm arguing about a single comma now. "and has previously expressed support for the Republicans" is an independent clause. It is not a prepositional phrase, an adverbial clause, or referenced by a subordinating conjunction like "that". "And" is a coordinating conjunction. If you disagree then you need to state which of the categories on this page it falls into: Dependent_clause. 76.6.214.10 (talk) 05:48, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's a dependent clause, because it has no subject. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 06:00, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what a dependent clause is. Please refer to the page I just linked you here. 76.6.214.10 (talk) 06:01, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note that I could just add the word "he" before "has previously expressed...", and it would clearly be an independent clause. The type of clause does not change because a word is merely elided. 76.6.214.10 (talk) 06:03, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
re: capitalization, I'm far less sure of my position now that I was earlier. When I see your edits changing the capitalization in song titles, somehow I feel that's correct because the song titles normally don't "have" a capitalization unless stylized. Somehow I felt website/magazine article titles do have such a capitalization that their author gave them, but I can't express in a rule why I felt that for the one case but not the other. I'm going to leave that alone for now unless I find other information that it's clearly wrong or against policy. 76.6.214.10 (talk) 06:05, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for acknowledging. I'm not sure what the WP rule on transcribing publication titles verbatim is, but in general, conjunctions are not capitalized in titles. Regarding what I seem to think is a dependent clause, I'll get back to you tomorrow, gotta get some sleep now. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 06:15, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, found it! It's a simple sentence with a compound predicate, so it doesn't take a comma :) Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 15:26, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's not so clear. The final example in Sentence_clause_structure#Compound_sentences uses this structure, but has a comma. As the text notes, it could be considered a contracted compound sentence instead. Example 459 here also illustrates that point: [4]
WP:MOS seems to be silent on this issue (despite a long section on commas) except that bulk-changing it everywhere you see it is not really approved of. As you made the first change, I'd argue the onus to prove it is necessary is on you.
Arguably, both are grammatically correct, but that particular sentence without the comma reads poorly to me because it expresses two separate thoughts, involving two different political parties, instead of one continuing thought. So it's an issue of semantics more than syntax for me. 76.6.214.10 (talk) 22:38, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Some modern style guides seem to frown on adding a comma here (at least without using another subject pronoun too), but WP's own article indicates both are correct. This article by a professional editor: [5] is close to my own take on it; I think it's appropriate when needed to indicate contrast, or potential contrast. 76.6.214.10 (talk) 22:44, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Gaaah, I hate doing this, but...I'm a professional copy editor, so I can tell you that the construction is wrong with a comma in it. What you've shared is a blog, and that's one person's opinion. I'm basing this on a rule that is supported by most style guides, as far as I know. Here's an example: [6] You may wish to add the comma there if you feel like the sentence requires that kind of emphasis, as the blogger you shared seems to think, but my position remains that the comma doesn't belong. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 22:52, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Here's what the Chicago Manual of Style has to say on this type of construction: [7] You may not be able to view it without a subscription, but I can c/p the content for you if needed. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 23:02, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:John_Popper&oldid=1258023315"