Talk:Eddie Kramer
| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cleanup
editIf someone has the time, this needs some work ... it lacks a chronological order and is a bit too .... gushy. I have removed some of the worst excesses. It needs references for the Kramer quotes. It has an excess of red Wiki links. It also needs a more precise production credits section, rather like Nick Launay, which I can do in the next few days. Grimhim 02:10, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- Added production credits. His engineering credits, which are rather more numerous, can be added beneath. I may get a chance tomorrow. Grimhim 11:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oh dear. Most of the material in this article is a direct lift from Eddie Kramer's website, a breach of WP:CP and a clear explanation of the effusiveness of praise for Kramer's work. I'll have a crack at cutting this back. Grimhim 03:03, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Year of birth?
editWhat's his correct year of birth? The lead (1942) doesn't match the category (1941). GoingBatty (talk) 00:52, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Encyclopedic tone and neutral point of view
editI've just reverted the recent batch of edits as the tone and format was more like a promotional blurb than an encyclopaedia article - Wikipedia articles must adhere to a neutral point of view. Feel free to add additional content to the existing article, but please take care to maintain the tone of the current article. Cheers - Gobeirne (talk) 23:41, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
I must wholeheartedly agree, as the current 'collaborations' section reads like the author was giving eddie a blowjob while writing. 88.68.172.133 (talk) 03:44, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Feel free to point out uncivility in the above comment and voice your disapproval. Don't delete other poeple's comments, however, as that is just as much a violation of WP policy as being uncivil. And since two wrongs don't make right, take your grubby hands off my comments. 88.68.172.133 (talk) 17:47, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Instead of deleting comments you disapprove of, spend your time more productively and adress the underlying issue by bringing the 'significant collaborations' section up to wiki standards by removing blatant ass-kissing (even if it's the ass of a producer whose work I enjoy). This is not EK's PR campaign page. 88.68.172.133 (talk) 17:49, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
I did not delete your comment. I undid the change because it was an inappropriate comment left by an anonymous coward which makes it vandalism. I am tempted to undo your anonymous comments again but if you want to make an ass of yourself, be my guest. But next time have the guts to attach your name to it. Robert.Harker (talk) 19:26, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
"I did not delete your comment. I undid the change..." OOOh, semantic dodgery approaching newspeak territory. WOW! You must be sum kinda innerlectchell tryin' his mindtrickery on me! Puh-lease. Removing comments from talk pages is frowned upon. Not having a wiki account doesn't equal vandalism (much less on talk pages) as wikipedia obviously explicitly allows it (if not, why not require/force people to create an account), whether you like it or not. You're labouring under the misapprehension that your personal tastes in what constitutes vandalism carries any weight. 88.68.172.133 (talk) 22:22, 13 September 2014 (UTC)