User:Crazytonyi

Hi there. Thanks for stopping by my user page.

If you got here because I've annoyed you and you wanted to track me down, congratulations! I am generally open to criticism and am not afraid to change my mind or admit I'm wrong. I'm also not shy about arguing why I'm right. If you would like to debate, argue, vent, or in any other way disagree with me, please feel welcome to do so. You can respond directly to my edit or post, IM me on AIM @ crazytonyisez, or if you really feel inclined, e-mail me at crazytonyi@yahoo.com.

If you are here because you liked something I've done on wikipedia, wanted more information or clarification on a topic I edited, or for any other sort of positive feedback, then thank you! You are also encouraged to IM or e-mail me. Again, my AIM screenname is crazytonyisez (which should be read "crazytony I sez" not "crazytony is EZ", even though the latter has been true.)

If you are here for some other reason I didn't think about, and you want to contact me, please do. I'd love to know why anyone else would come to this page.

If you are someone looking for contact information for the purposes of sending SPAM, please don't. I will take any legal methods I can to stop someone from doing this.

Finally, if you are interested in working with me, either on or off wikipedia, or want to commission me for a project, please e-mail me with details. I'm very interested in working with other users who share my interests to create new articles and improve those that need it.

My interests are many and I will try to limit them to what I am most interested in as a wikipedia editor.

• Music
  • Rap
  • Blues
  • Rock and Roll
    • Alternative Rock
    • Indie Rock
  • Rockabilly
  • Folk
  • Most everything else
• Film (Anything I've seen and liked)
• The Internet and the technology and culture related to it
• History (the little I can contribute to, mostly music history)
• Biographies
• Good grammar, style, and spelling
• Anything else that I may have some knowledge of but not enough to claim a specialty

The list of all my edits and inputs on discussions can be seen at my contribution page

• Pages I've made:
  • Robert Petway

• Pages I've significantly updated:
  • Mike D of the Beastie Boys
  • Def Jam Recordings

• Pages I have added significant discussion to:
  • Sheryl Crow, disputing her classification as alternative rock
  • Cotinine, arguing against another user's point of view that the article was biased. I also updated the page to include the sources needed to show the lack of bias.
  • Robert Wilkins, disputing the statement that his song "Rolling Stone" was covered by Muddy Waters. I also requested peer review for the article.

• Pages I am working on:
  • List of Blues Musicians, so far, I've outlined my changes in the talk section. Please take a look and give me some feedback.

• work on page dedicated to breaks (hip-hop samples)

I feel very strongly that wikipedia is one of the best innovations of the internet. It is a smart and simple idea and it provides more than just the limited and fleeting services other pages offer. Better search engines will come along, new social sites will emerge and replace current sites like myspace and friendster, and blogs will always find new URLs, servers, and editors. Like most things in life, the internet changes with market trends and fads, and most of what it offers is geared towards instant gratification. Wikipedia, on the other hand, offers something most sites don't: access to information on any topic, at great depth, with almost everything cross-referenced for curiosity and clarity. It offers the ability not only to learn about a topic, but to explore ideas and find places on the internet to execute those ideas. Even after myspace.com becomes vacant of users, someone can go to wikipedia to find the article 'List of social networking websites' to find the newest sites to replace their need.

Many people scoff and even distrust Wikipedia, citing poor style, bad information such as dates, and vulnerability from its open source nature. I say that it is the 'because' wikipedia is easy and quick to update that makes it so powerful. While some people may add bad information to an article, sometimes with good intentions other times maliciously, any user can fix those mistakes just as easily. We no longer have to tolerate using search engines to scroll through hundreds of limited, poorly designed, sometimes offensive sites to find the information we need. We can now search on wikipedia and, should we find errors, fix them instantly. While this mission will take time and is dependant on frequent quality control checks, this system works because it has millions of editors on hand for the job, not just a small staff. Finally, to those that roll their eyes and claim that wikipedia shouldn't be used as a primary source, my response is that this is an obvious fact which denounces wikipedia for not having a quality it never was intended to have. Would any self respecting scholar use Britannica as a primary source? Or someone's blog? Or even an intro textbook? If you need to write a term paper, give a formal lecture, or impress anyone who demands citation, you should use academic or scientific journals, official articles or biographies, and any other source that can back up its facts with proof. If you want to be more informed, have a basic question, or just want to know what your friends are talking about without having to ask, wikipedia is a great source and should be encouraged rather than extinguished.