Talk:Fire (The Jimi Hendrix Experience song)

message: There is a piece of information (probably incorrect) that says Noel Redding "misse[s]" a measure. Now there is zero substantiation to this. I'm deleting it because we can assume the "lost" notes were intentionally not played by Redding. We cannot assume, however, that he somehow made a mistake.Fdssdf (talk) 23:29, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Trivia section

message: I suggest we establish some criteria for notability when adding cover versions of this song performed by other artists. We have a problem of WP:COI parties adding their own band in as an attempt to arouse exposure.
As a rule a WP:RS and WP:V source must at least reference the cover version and attest to its notability. Bluescreenofdef (talk) 00:01, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You're fucked before you start trying to rewrite the rules. Any band with their own article are already deemed to be notable. Now quit following my edits round like you did last year. We do not have a CoI as not only am I not a member of the band, any band, I'm not even a musician. Now please desist your disruptive editing before you get youself blocked again. --WebHamster 00:23, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: From the mouth of babes does come the very words that incriminate them. "non notable garbage" allied to your list of edits tells me (and anyone with any sense) that for some reason you have an axe to grind and are therefore not editing with neutral POV. Whether you like it or not The Hamsters are a notable band. Their inclusion in this article was in a sentence that demonstrated the wide variety of acts that have done cover versions, it did not state that their version was inherently more notable than anyone else's. As it happens the BBC have chosen several of their Hendrix covers for inclusion in different programmes. This is of course a double-edged sword in that it does make their version notable, whilst simultaneously not allowing any written form of RS. As for proof that "they've played this song", all I can say is that you demonstrate your ignorance of the subject you are attempting to edit. Now, back to the point in hand. Why do you feel you need to rewrite the rules to get what you want (something which is patently clear to all obviously)? There are several venues to do so, none of them are this talk page. --WebHamster 02:13, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Some cover versions are more notable than others. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a list of facts; if a band cover the song, they ought to be notable, sure, but the information also needs to be verifiable (which it clearly is in the case of RHCP) and relevant (for instance, the RHCP covering the song has a story attached to it--Hillel Slovak's story--and I don't see any such thing for Kingston Wall). I don't know if Alice Cooper covering the song is very important; perhaps he should go also. Drmies (talk) 18:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Non Notable bands doing cover versions

message: i don't think this is soul.
Its is definitely funk or funk-rock.
As it says on the funk genre page:
"Soul music with a greater emphasis on beats, influences from rhythm and blues, jazz and psychedelic rock" 
which is exactly what this song is.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theunknown901921 (talk • contribs) 13:18, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  soul?