Talk:Indiana Gregg/Archive 1

NOT a review site

This is not a review website so please don't add reviews and promotional package biographies. fadedx 15:43, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Somebody is trying to close this page down. Why? I spoke to Indiana on several occasions before I created this article and sought her permission. fadedx 02:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

CITATION FOR 22-date tour

this is a citation I was trying to add in for the 22-date tour on the page: http://famemagazinemusic.blogspot.com/2007/04/indiana-gregg-spent-her-honeymoon-with.html

Can someone add it in because wikieditor2008 seems to keep complaining and trying to block my contributionsLittleredm&m (talk) 16:37, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I do not "blog contributions" of yours! I hit the undo/revert button if you remove in bad faith well referenced facts! You can bet I would be more then happy to see constructive NPOV observing additions to the article by you! Just go ahead and work contructive. Sadly so far I got the feeling it was merely destructive work you are doing. Wikieditor2008 (talk) 18:21, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

A warning to editors

A note to editors on this page: The article is the subject of an OTRS ticket, at Ticket #08071410044846. Due to the sensitive nature of this article on a living person, I would strongly advise that all editors involved immediately stop edit warring, and conduct themselves accordingly, lest their editing privileges be removed. Consider this an open warning to all editors on the page. This is not a place for you to fight your wars either in support of or against Ms. Gregg. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 21:12, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

The page is already fully protected. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 00:20, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I know, I meant for when it unprotects. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 13:59, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey guys you use wikipedia stuff without an internal link! Not fair towards news! "Don't bite the newcommers"! :-) What is "OTRS ticket" and where can I view it? Beside that Admiral Norton is right, the page got protected with a version that is -IMO as an editor that only had editid style and spelling errors instead of content- fairly NPOV and also free of the severest absent minded like written sentences of some earlier versions. Wikieditor2008 (talk) 03:49, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

See WP:OTRS for information about the OTRS-system. --So#Why 11:26, 15 July 2008 (UTC) - Thanks:-) Of course! WP:"what ever you want to know acronym" I could have come to that idea myself. Sloppy me :-) Wikieditor2008 (talk) 13:36, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure, but it appears that the OTRS ticket is triggered when the Wikimedia Foundation receives an email complaint about an article. As you noticed it appears to be an internal Wikipedia process . The fact that this article deals with a living person and that SWATJester appears to be involved with upper level legal and communications issues for Wikipedia [1] suggests that Wikipedia may have received a legal threat which would require them to evaluate the article behind closed doors.

I would like to add some additional points to the discussion: I first tried to engage Carribeanqueen on the talk page on 7/4 regarding her edits[2]. Rather than respond to the problems I pointed out, she wiped my comments from the talk page [3] (contrary to WP:TPG) and reverted to her previous version without explanation. Since then, numerous other editors have tried, imperfectly, but I believe in good faith, to remove unsupported claims and clearly argumentative edits [4] [5]. Each time Carribeanqueen has wiped them and replaced her previous edits [6] [7] without providing coherent justification on the talk page. It now appears that Carribeanqueen has resorted to suckpuppetry[8] as Littleredm&m has taken over wiping others and restoring Carribeanqueen's improper edits using nearly identical tactics and patterns [9] [10] [11]. Additionally, the circumstantial evidence regarding the account creation date for Littleredm&m posted by Prolog here is, while not conclusive, very persuasive that both accounts belong to the same user who was indefinitely banned after repeated inappropriate edits and legal threats regarding this article, and who claimed to be Indiana's husband, IanMorrow [12] [13] [14] [15]. Mooksas (talk) 06:09, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Indiana's Given Name

I do not see any references anywhere as to Indiana Gregg having another 'given' name other than this name. Norton, could you provide some reference for this assumption? The only place I have seen this mentioned has been in a couple of comments on the web. Melissa Gregg is an Australian Phd. from what I have found. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Littleredm&m (talk • contribs) 18:33, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Admiral N. has done so now. I guess we can assume this issue now closed, can we? Wikieditor2008 (talk) 23:08, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Nationality

Do we have a reference that she is actually a US citizen? Her biography says that she is born in the USA; however, it doesn't claim that she is a US citizen. Since Gregg is a Scottish name (look up name origin, clan McGregor), also, she was living in France and was married to a German. It refers to Gregg as an american only in the wiki article as far as I can see. The Cross Rhythms article that is cited simply mentions that she is american-born. Any citations on this?Littleredm&m (talk) 14:46, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, she is american born and was facing trouble with the alien police in the UK because of her visa! Thats why she needed to hurry to marry Ian. (That visa troubles are mentioned also in the "exclusive" promo pieces her label put out for her. So what we can conclude from that sttement about visa trouble for sure is that she is/was NOT of UK citizenship. So please please refrain from any edits that question the american background. Next we know those "evidence"-onlinenewspaper reports will vanish like the report about the cancer sufferers support concert vanished. And is also nowhere to be found on their online site with corosponding search terms used there :-( (I speculate that IANMORROW threatend them like he did to wikipedia. He probably did not liked the picture of him in the article that was not so PR worthy ;-) Searches with "Indiana Gregg" will even give 0 (Zero) results). Wikieditor2008 (talk) 00:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Could you site these exclusive press releases about Gregg having some troubles about a 'visa'. Where are these "exclusive" ::::promo pieces? As far as I can see, the Cancer Support article is still in the blog archive on Indiana's page. Where do you get ::::this idea? There is no story about Gregg having a visa problem and having to get married quickly that I can see. I have only ::::read that the home office only gave the couple a one month window to get married. In the UK, one must apply to marry another ::::person if one of the couple is not a resident of the country. Once the permission is granted, the couple has a certain window :::::of time within which they can get married that the Home Office prescribes. This has nothing to do with the visa held by the ::::individual, it simply means that that person must get married within the alotted time. Here is a citation about that

http://famemagazinemusic.blogspot.com/2007/04/indiana-gregg-spent-her-honeymoon-with.html My, you seem to have issues. I ::::doubt that the Mirror would delete an article simply because someone doesn't like the photo. How ::::absurd?Littleredm&m (talk) 14:48, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Littleredm&m asked How absurd?

First of all, wasn't it you that claimed to be the journalist of us two? Wouldn't it be YOUR job to find out why this Label and its director Mr. Morrow shows such absurd behaviour patterns when it comes to the internet and modern forms of comunication?

But since you asked: Well, I would speculate it is as absurd as blanking the page and replacing it with threats and links to the pages he liked! Unless you have a better explaination why the article -that does not seemed to be negative towards her (well the wiki article back then wasn't negatve too when those vandalising started by users claiming to be the Label too)- suddenly is gone and there isn't anything to be found about that artist anymore online there, I think my allegation what might have been the reason for the vanishing of the article sounds at least somewhat plausible given the behaviour pattern of that couple Mr. and Mrs. Morrow!

Who cares if a pirated copy of that article is still hosted by the Pirate Indiana? For one has she also the pictures in it? Because of the picture I speculated that Ian got mad and allegedly threatend the paper with his swordfighting skills. Of course if the pic is not there, no need for Gregg to remove an article that is positive about herself. What matters and only matters is that the original source has been obliterated.

Of course it could be the article is still online, and the online editor just put it behind another URI (that seem to be a bit plausible too since at least last time I checked the link itself to this IMO hillarious photo of him and her directly still works). But then I must draw the conclusion that they have an absolute crappy internal search tool since it does not find anything related to their names and searches for that cancer form brings results but among them not the article in question.

You claimed to be the journalist (or was it only the alleged sockpuppeteer CQ, I lost a bit the oversight how heavily the BORG already infiltrated the 'pedian species working on the Gregg article so far) You do the investigative work!

Regarding my mentioning of the "alien police"-trouble and the visa ranning out. Why is it that you always want me to show you the refs extra? Are you lazy? All the links are already plastered all over this talkpage! Would you mind to do a bit work on your own?

OK, since it seems you are only interested in sabotaging this article and that you are indeed not very well versed as "journalist" I help you one last time: It is mentioned in the Heather Greenaway "exclusive" that Indiana gave her last year: AMERICAN singer Indiana Gregg has secretly wed her Wet Wet Wet producer partner Ian Morrow. The happy couple rushed to Gretna Green after the Home Office told them they had only a month left before Indiana's visa ran out.

Anymore questions you have? Well, I guess I could apply for a rookie job at the journalist employment place that employed you. When they would pay me for doing it I would be more then happy to help an old fox like you with basic journalistic work Wikieditor2008 (talk) 18:09, 24 July 2008 (UTC

EDIT: A, I see Admiral Norton had found a better explaination where the article has went. Thanks Admiral N. for that, So It stands their internal search tool is absolutely crap then for not finding anything "Indiana Gregg" related!

alleged 'dead-link' from the Mirror article

The dead link that wikieditor2008 referred to above was simply moved to the "lifestyle" section of the Mirror's website (therefore, was not a result of any allgeged legal threat by Mr. Morrow (as was stated above by our wikieditor2008) here is the link if someone would like to improve the citation in the article:

Dead Link (mirror cancer article) The dead link from the mirror has moved to their "Lifestyles section" and can be found here:

http://www.mirror.co.uk/life-style/real-life/2007/06/13/cancer-victims--anthem-of-hope-89520-19289017/

It's fixed now. Feel free to update the |url= parameter if you find any other such outdated link. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 17:58, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

---

Someone that claimed to be her label boss himself admitted that the artist lives in Lenzie! Just see the internal reverences I provided. And those newspapers that do more then just retype the promo material (promo material which by the way also mentions her age and even quoting the artist as to the ages and names of her 3 little german gene pool kids!) are proudly reporting that they are from lenzie. What is your problem with the date? Do you claim the couple moved recently and do not reside in Lenzie anymore? In that case we can add "from Lenzie [as of 2007], Scotland". Would that be OK for you? Wikieditor2008 (talk) 19:45, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Could you provide a link to a statement that someone who claimed to be her label boss said she lives in Lenzie?Littleredm&m (talk) 14:46, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Read the history or just glance over this talkpage here, as far as I remember I did so already! Wikieditor2008 (talk) 00:36, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Dear wikieditor2008, since you have made a lot of suggestions in this article and since it seems to be the upmost concern of the editors to be very rigid and concise, I should find it my pleasure in making sure that your investigative resources are valid and correct according to wiki standards. Let's face it, otherwise, this article was probably fine as it stood. Therefore, I shall make it my quest to make sure any and all input here is validated by credible and reliable sources from this day forward. I have some resources in my possession about the alleged artist's divorce, other details, etc. Perhaps you would be interested in those proceedings?Littleredm&m (talk) 22:02, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I have to interfere here: According to WP:WELLKNOWN, we must be careful about including these resources. We should not use them if a secondary source hasn't cited them yet. Could you please post a link to these resources or at least describe where did you get them from, so we can find out if they can be included in the article. We really need a DOB here, but we should abide by Wikipedia rules nevertheless. If your happen to have a secondary source citing these records, please post a reference here, too. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 15:15, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Indiana's DOB

I see that there has been an edit with a citation based upon a user's comment on an amazon.com page. However, I am not sure whether that would be this musician's true age. There have also been comments that she is in her 40's on other websites. There are pages that state that she is in her twenties as well. I feel that at this point in our research, we have no idea how old this musician is. Does anybody have a verifiable DOB for this musician? Littleredm&m (talk) 21:45, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we have that too (while not the exact DOB, but the age!) via another "exclusive" promotion piece given out by the artist/her label themself! See further below for the reference! Wikieditor2008 (talk) 23:12, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Removed section

I have removed a section from the article due to its lack of adequate sourcing given that it is ostensibly a section about a "controversy." Furious posts on various blogs by the people involved does not a notable controversy make. Please do not re-add this section unless it can be done by sourcing to reliable, secondary sources in accordance with WP:BLP. Thank you. Phil Sandifer (talk) 20:16, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't the external links&references, that were added in connection with the section you removed, be removed then too? (the link(s) to the .txt file itself and the TF article(s) I mean). And one aditional Question though. That one: "The internet impact of the feature catapulted the starlet into the top rankings of youtube and in the early hours of the same morning, Indiana Gregg was ranked in the top 4 musicians viewed on Youtube world-wide." First, If I rember what I have learned so far about the WP:rules when something is considered worthy to be included, it must be at least be "V" verifyable. Where is a link or something like that to some source for that claim and what is the definition of "the top rankings of youtube" since the counters on her videos ar in the lower 4 to 5 digit ranges (thousands to tens of thousands of counts that is). I don't watch many musicians on YT but I doubt that one can be in "the top4 musicians" range with such low figures when there are others like jamesatwar for example that had in ~10 month viewing counts in the upper quarter of single digit millions count. (seven millions that is). Or are there so few Artist on YT and it is all just viacom copyrightiinfringing clips that circulate on YT when one relatively unknown Artist can reach "top rankings" with archivements like those that are publicly verifiable for her?

Wikieditor2008 (talk) 23:49, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the links. I have no position on the YouTube matter. Phil Sandifer (talk) 00:02, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to ask that you reconsider TorrentFreak as a reliable source in this context.

I do not believe that TorrentFreak qualifies as a questionable source as they have neither "a poor reputation for fact-checking" (WP:V#Questionable sources) nor are they "widely acknowledged as extremist" (WP:V#Questionable sources). Their reporting centers mainly on original journalism, and frequently includes original interviews, fact gathering, and analysis, rather than "rumors and personal opinions" (WP:QS). Additionally, "their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand" (WP:RS) as evidenced by "widespread citation without comment for facts" (WP:RS) in high-quality reliable sources including the highly regarded [16] Ars_Technica [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] Zdnet [22], APC_(magazine)[23], Cnet[24], and TheRegister[25]. According to their site, "TorrentFreak aims to be a credible news source", and employs an editor who is not the author of the article in question [26]. TorrentFreak is also currently used as a source in many other Wikipedia articles [27] [28] [29]. Google currently lists 129 cites [30] (not all are to articles, but most are).

The last edit containing the section in question, contained no contentious claims (WP:SELFPUB) (save for the last sentence) as none of the editors here have disputed the veracity of the emails posted by The Pirate Bay. Neither has the article's subject in two lengthy and comprehensive responses about this issue that she published on her personal blog (one of which she allowed to be published on TorrentFreak). Additionally, The Pirate Bay is not known for publishing fabricated emails, despite having published many from very prominent and powerful corporations.

Regarding your contention below that that because this matter has not been reported in "a major newspaper" it does not warrant inclusion, I believe that the lack of said reporting is primarily because of the lack of prominent notability of the article's subject and the fact that torrent sharing falls into the class of subjects "not well covered by print sources, where experts traditionally publish online", which is a listed as an exception to the use of electronic or online sources. The three articles by large newspapers cited in this article coincided with the publicity push associated with the release of a single last year, and no articles about the artist appear in Google News besides four blog postings about The Pirate Bay complaints. Additionally, the fact that 7 of the top 20 Google search results for "Indiana Gregg" are about this issue implies that the material used is "relevant to the notability of the subject being discussed" (WP:SELFPUB). --Mooksas (talk) 05:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

What is the reliable source for the mentioning of Herbert? If herbert is worth to be mentioned isn't then the fact that the artist in subject wrote mails with questionable legal conclusions and demands mentioning worthy too? A reliable source reported about those Mails just as a reliable source reported about Herbert. Wikieditor2008 (talk) 07:47, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

A UK national newspaper The Scottish Daily Express ran a piece on this incident in the Saturday July 19, 2008 edition in their Showbiz section. The headline of the page titled "Music pirates pick on hard-working Indiana"

For references to other parts of this wiki article. The sources can be found on her facebook biography page: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Indiana-Gregg/7368257297 (ie: references to Herbert, Youtube, etc.) Scotsman2008 (talk) 13:56, 19 July 2008 (UTC)Scotsman2008Scotsman2008 (talk) 13:56, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Too bad that a) the facebook article blatently just took the bio from the wikiarticle, and b) the "more" link for more bioinfos just leds to 404. Beside that, we can discuss all the promotional entries if necessary once the full protection gets lifted and some constructive working is possible. (while me already fears that a semi-protection to "prevent drive by management vandals" is probably sooner in need then we all do not hope for) Wikieditor2008 (talk) 15:12, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for your message. I can try to help. There are references to the songwriting awards on this myspace page http://www.myspace.com/indianagreggnorthwest. I think that mentioning of Herbert is part of her official biography which is written in a "first person" format. In that case, the source is reliable (being the living person in question herself who mentiones this.) I will try to find this newspaper article from The Scottish Daily Express and perhaps post it if that would help you. I hope this helps with what you are looking to find. Wettendass2008 (talk) 17:55, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

"In that case, the source is reliable (being the living person in question herself who mentiones this.)" That is exactly what wikipedia is not about. it is not if the source is reliable, but if it is verifiable. And if only the artist herself/her management puts out those promotional pieces that hardly has any place in wikipedia.... But beside that, thanks for the link to yet another myspace page of her. Does that gives so jsut another proof that she spams herself where she just could :-( Has she also a page in myspace germany? Since she allegedly speaks german fluently! Wikieditor2008 (talk) 18:12, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that in that case, you would need to verify if she is really american, verify if she is really a songwriter, verify if she exists or is a real person? You would need to have her birth certification, a passport, and some form of letter from a union of musicians or songwriters? I think I don't understand what you look for. I think that because myspace has separate sites in each country, it is the case that a musician may have sites for the different countries. I think then you would also need proof that she speaks German. You would need proof for anything and I think in that case it would be that wikipedia wouldn't exist because one would need to make citation of everything. Isn't an official biography and webpage considered a verifiable source. I would think that fans of musicians or any kind of persons would need to rely on an official biography as a source of information, or not? I do not know? Your welcome for the myspace page link. I have found a german myspace: http://www.myspace.com/indianagregggermany The biography is there in German.Wettendass2008 (talk) 18:57, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Wettendass2008 no need to become hostile I just wanted to point out some of the policies about the wikipedia (without that i used the shortcuts like WP:selfpub WP:oneevent and so forth. You will find most of those links that define what wikipedia is, how articles should be written and what to observe thereby already mentioned by the "old foxes" that are wikipedians longer then you or me. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not just another webpage where an relatively measured insignificant artist can "spam" herself. And that she "spams", you showed it with just another link to just another artist page created for/by her where it is this time claimed that she is from Bavaria instead of Canada. I doubt that james at war for example has a seperate page for every region in the world and yet he is lightyears more successfull (in video/page views measured) then this insignificant entity Indiana Gregg. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikieditor2008 (talk • contribs) 19:25, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm very sorry. I didn't think it would mean I am hostile. I am only trying to help find information because I saw a debate about this article. I don't think that it would be spam to have more than one myspace page. I think it's just for different countries it looks like. It doesn't say she is from Bavaria. It shows that the page is from Bavaria because her biography explain where she come from. So, sorry if I don't help you. ThanksWettendass2008 (talk) 20:49, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

alleged sockpuppettry incident in connection with recent edits

An SSP report related to [recent edits] has been filed at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Carribeanqueen. Prolog (talk) 14:13, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

There is more "sockpuppet" action by Mr. Morrow and his wife Melissa aka Indiana going on! http://emptv.com/view/indiana-gregg-ian-morrow-sockpuppets Wikieditor2008 (talk) 19:48, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Daily Express Article (We Have found an online reference)

http://www.contentagenda.com/articleXml/LN824425060.html?industryid=45188

If you google the title of the article "Music pirates pick on hard-working Indiana" you now find references to the article. It has also been published on Indiana Gregg's myspace page in her blog with a photograph of the article.Littleredm&m (talk) 16:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I have received a copy of the article. The page is too big and I haven't a scanner for this size of article. I make a request for this but, I don't know how to put the file on wikipedia. If you have suggestion, tell me what you like so you can make a citation. I type the article here for you.

from Doc Showbiz section Saturday July 19, 2008(By Scotlands No1 Showbusiness Writer, Gavin Docherty)

Headline: Music pirates pick on hard-working Indiana

(article) A TOP singer-songwriter has been the target of an internet hate campaign over illegal downloads of her new album.

Glasgow-based Indiana Gregg, whose husband an dmanager is the former Wet Wet Wet supremo, Ian Morrow, has been deluged by malicious mail in a wave of "cyber-bullying" by operators of The Pirate Bay and thousands of their supporters, who have been file-sharing her music for free.

And it all started because Indiana, pictured, politely asked that they remove a link to a download of her impressive debut album Woman at Work.

She and Ian were forced to act after they discovered that more than 250,000 illegal downloaders had leeched copies of the full album which was released to strong critical acclaim last year.

By writing to sites demanding that links be removed on the grounds of copyright, they had begun to stem the haemorrhage which has threatened to bankrupt their independent record label Gr8pop.

Nearly every site around the world they wrote to either blocked the link to the album or took it down, but The Pirate Bay torrent site reacted aggressively. Not only by refusing the request but also by publishing Indiana's e-mail address all over the web. This resulted in a stream of insults too offensive to be repeated in a family newspaper.

Verbal abuse is something this straight-talking vocalist from the American mid-west can handle. But the grave financial injury caused by the illegal downloading of her album is a different matter.

"I see my livelihood being sucked away every day through fild-sharing, which is allowing copyright material to flow in and out," she said.

"All they have to do is claim it's the 'user's' responsibility to make sure the content being shared is not copyright-protected material.

"I'm the artist who put my heart and soul, time and sweat into an album and raised money to market that album and who hasn't received a dime... not one cent from illegal downloads totalling at least a quarter of a million."

Husband Ian, who has sat on cross-parliamentary commitees in Scotland, resolved to regenerating music and culture, has referred much of the correspondence to First Minister Alex Salmond.

But he knows full well the issue of resolving illegal music downloads is a global one, requiring policing of the web and the introduction of internet 'passports'.

He added: "Pirate sites are destroying the music industry, taking away any chance a developing artist has of fulfilling any aspirations whatsoever." (end of article revision as a

Hope that this helps for what you want to do. I will see if a friend have a scanner to put the full file in the internetsWettendass2008 (talk) 23:16, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Wettendass, thanks for the transcription. Another option if you have a digital camera is to take a picture and then upload it to an image hosting site like Flickr or ImageShack. Perhaps this piece from her hometown daily news will be enough for Phil Sandifer to reconsider the deletion. I'd like to suggest the last revision [31] or my earlier revision [32] as fairly neutral starting points for further edits. I think both can defintely be improved. In particular, I've noticed lately that summary of events seems preferable to direct quotes. Any objections before we petition Mr. Sandifer?--Mooksas (talk) 00:45, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

+1 for Mooksas' 223582949 revision as starting point 14:01 :-) Wikieditor2008 (talk) 02:51, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

For the record, The Scottish Daily Express is a Scottish National Newspaper and is by no means a hometown newspaper. It is considered a 'family' newspaper.Littleredm&m (talk) 11:49, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

A complaint

The bulk of Indiana Gregg's exposure to the "general public" has been through her email exchange with the Pirate Bay. To not include a section on this controversy is a blatant example of subjective reporting. I do not agree with your (Phil Sandifer) motives in deleting the entire section seeing that the majority of the sources were direct links to the email correspondence. I am new here and don't know how to "bring a section back," but if someone could I would gladly edit it to take out the sections linking to "various blogs by the people involved." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.93.80.100 (talk) 21:45, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

You can always read up earlier revisions of an article by looking at it's history. For example, this is the version which still had the section in it. You can also choose to undo edits via the history, but you need to be careful. See WP:EDIT for an introduction to editing.

In this case now, the article is protected for current sockpuppet allegations, only admins, such as Phil Sandifer, can edit it. You might not agree with it but while I agree with the reasoning, Phil is correct that such a conflict needs reliable third-party sources. If there is a huge exposure to the general public due to this exchange, then there should be tons of such sources. You can provide them here and I am sure Phil or another admin will add a section back in if the significance of the dispute can be shown by these sources. Have a nice evening :-) So#Why 22:02, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I do not see how it can be said that an artist who has a widely released album and who has been the subject of coverage on national TV networks and national newspapers can be said to be most widely known for a spat that took place on a pair of blogs. If this is so widely notable then surely there is some coverage of it in a major newspaper we could cite instead of relying entirely on primary sources. If you can produce one of those sources I will see to it that an appropriate section is re-added. Phil Sandifer (talk) 22:06, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I can't find coverage of anything related to Gregg in a major newspaper (except for the Sunday Herald), let alone this controversy. A quick Google search of the name 'Indiana Gregg' showed that 5 out of the 10 first page hits were in relation to the Pirate Bay exchange. Since half of the most visited links from Google are about Gregg and the Pirate Bay doesn't this indicate that perhaps there should be a section covering this controversy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.93.80.100 (talk) 03:36, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Really? I found a few in our article: [33] [34] [35] [36]. Perhaps you can find a similar source for the Pirate Bay controversy. Phil Sandifer (talk) 03:39, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Here are some about the controversy: [37] [38] Also the 4th, 5th, 7th and 9th results in a google search for "Indiana Gregg" are about the controversy [39] Further, you may read comments on the Digg.com page to see discussion from the internet community regarding Indiana Gregg [40] Interestingly, the most popular comment from the page is: "Who the F*** is Indiana Gregg?". It is clear that this controvery is the only reason many people know about her. It will truly be a crime if wikipedia bureaucracy and stubborn editors keep this information censored. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.242.2.248 (talk) 16:43, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with the above. This section should never have been removed. Even in the guidelines for reliable sources, we are erged to use common sense. I think it is clear that this recent contravercy has resulted in a drastic increase in attention for Indiana, and therefore is notable. A contravercy which has generated such a quantity of internet discussion about a relatively obscure artist is notable by anyone's definition. We can argue that this issue is not important because no major news source has picked it up, but at the end of the day, it is clear that if people remember her it all, it will be because of this contravercy.

Any chance that this removal was prompted by the recent OTRS? I sincerely hope not. Wikipedia is too valuable a resource to be written by legal threats. 97.115.218.179 (talk) 15:37, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

It is my understanding that this controversy has not been cited in any mainstream press or online press. The source of information came primarily from a blog called Torrent Freak and a blog posted by the artist herself. It is likewise questionable why so many editors are interested in including the section considering their claims that Indiana Gregg was relatively unknown. Considering Indiana Gregg has indeed had mainstream media coverage via television and mainstream UK national press, it seems ridiculous to consider that this controversy has reached more than perhaps 700-800 people worldwide? Likewise, considering the edits that have been made recently with only a few editors reverting entries back and forth rather than allowing expansion upon the article, the overall effect of this controversy doesn't seem noteworthy. Littleredm&m (talk) 17:19, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Sources for Award References?

Can somebody point me to sources for her Billboard award, her VH-1 "Save the Music" award, or her finalist award for the Brit Trust UK Songwriting competition? None of the linked references (including her official bio) mention any of these awards, nor do the sites of the awarders.--Mooksas (talk) 22:46, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I have something found about this. The VH-1 award is found in one place here: http://www.songoftheyear.com/winners/2005/072005.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wettendass2008 (talk • contribs) 23:14, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I was afraid that somebody was going to post that. That site is definitely not associated with VH-1 and looks very much like a scam site [41] [42]. I don't know of any reputable awards program that makes you pay to enter [43]. And as your link shows, that award was for "Song of the Year" for July of 2005. There were 13 "song of the year" winners for that year, one for each month plus a "yearly winner" (and that's just counting the Pop category).--Mooksas (talk) 00:03, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Mooksas, just wait till 14:01 on Monday when it rains on all those self serving promotional statements incorporated into the article by "greatpop"-management resp. the one fan back then ;-) and on Tuesday 14:02 the policy that says "When not to use : Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons should be removed immediately. Do not tag it; remove it. For more information, see the section on poorly sourced contentious material in the Biography of Living Persons policy." will be enforced I guess. ;-) Wikieditor2008 (talk) 08:35, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I mention the source above with regards to awards: http://www.myspace.com/indianagreggnorthwest This is a Canadian myspace site. The awards are mentioned there in the left column. It is also mentioned that she is a billboard award-winning song-writer on her official blog page which the blog appears on her homepage. When you click on the blog you see that it is a myspace blog for a user called 'save bunny'. I found it here on www.myspace.com/savebunny It would appear that this is the official blog page for the main homepage and is perhaps run by her webmaster? Again, hope this will help you. Wettendass2008 (talk) 18:08, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Wettendass, it appears those MySpace pages are using this Wikipedia article as their source for the awards. As the reference to the VH-1 award is almost certainly referring to the the bogus songoftheyear.com, I hope you can agree that it should be removed. The fact that the other two award references were added to this article in the same edit as the VH-1 award casts suspicion on them as well. It appears that the 2007 BRIT Trust Songwriting award is referring to this site which looks like an award mill very similar to songoftheyear.com and which also charges for submission entries. Their awards page for 2007 does mention that they sent out 350 finalist certificates to their customers [44]. But like songoftheyear.com, they appear to use dubious claims of association with a well known awards program to advertise their "awards". The official BRIT Awards and BRIT Trust sites have no mention of their company.

Both Billboard's main site and their industry site maintain extensive archives going back many years, including full lists of award winners back to at least 2002 [45]. And yet they have no reference to any awards granted to Indiana Gregg.

Wettendass2008\Scotsman2008, I would very much like to see the Scottish Daily article you mention. It unfortunately does not appear to be on their web site, so it would be helpful if you could post a scan somewhere. Wikieditor2008, I appreciate your interest in this article, but I think your contributions would be much more valuable if you would temper your tone towards other editors down a little (believe me, I know how frustrating it gets) and stick to exposing the facts instead.--Mooksas (talk) 21:24, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Mooksas, You could look at the songwriting competition held by Billboard. I don't see the award results from previous years; however, it is now the 16th year of the competition and awards are given for various genres: http://billboardsongcontest.com/ I would suggest looking at the http://www.songwritingcontest.co.uk/ This is a UK songwriting competition that is sponsored by the Brit Trust, BBC Radio, and several songwriting associations. The judges are a panel of elite songwriters, artists, and musicians. I don't believe that your claim for either of these competitions as being 'bogus' is validated and I am sure that the competitions would not appreciate that kind of commentary.

In the article itself, the entry states that Gregg is a "Billboard and VH-1 "Save the Music" award winning songwriter. Songs from the 2007 release of her album Woman at Work have won critical acclaim in the Brit Trust UK Songwriting competition where "Sweet Things" and "For Life" achieved finalist awards." It is referred to on various sites. I would consider that since her myspace page dates from 04/12/2005, possibly her biography was in place prior to the creation of this wiki page? Therefore, I would consider that the entries made on the wiki page have been taken from her biography and various press articles that have been referenced. Littleredm&m (talk) 16:00, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

That is not "THE" Billboard thingy, and the organisator of that one also wants participants to pay for participation. This time via a "membership" in some other thingy! Submission Price: $34.95 (US) 16th Annual Billboard Song Contest/Sonicbids Combo Package$30.00 (US) 16th Annual Billboard Song Contest in other words "it looks very much like a scam". The use of "weasel words" all over the FAQ and about and all that pages is an indicator too for everyone with a brain that those "contests" are not "serious".

But hey, at least we know now that the artist indiana gregg thinks that her music is so bad that she must pay people to hear it. Probably because of that were the originally shedules album release that is mentioned in those online promo newspaper articles canceled in aerly 2006 :-P Wikieditor2008 (talk) 17:20, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Her official myspace page (the one with the 12/4/2005 creation date) does not mention those awards at all. It appears that the Billboard World Song Contest has been mentioned on the official Billboard site in the past (although curiously all references seem to have since been removed.) I still can't find any reference to her song being on any of their winners cd's. The fact that they send out 500 honorable mention certificates to their customers (and probably a participation certificate to everybody else) makes me question the appropriateness of using the vague phrase "award winning" in connection with this contest without any actual citation reference.

The UK Songwriting Contest doesn't say they are sponsored by those companies you mention, only that they are "in association with" them. I just find it odd that those companies would have no mention of their "association" on their own sites. Regardless, the name of the competition is "The UK Songwriting Contest" not the "BRIT Trust Songwriting Contest". Here again I question the use of the term "finalist awards" as their is no mention of Indiana on their 2007 award page. It's highly probable that she did receive some certificate, but given the fact that they sent out over 350 "Finalist Certificates" and every one of their 5,000 customers got "Semi Finalist Certificates and Commended Entry or Participation Certificates" I question the value of including a mention in the article's lead.--Mooksas (talk) 18:51, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Mooksas, could you provide a link that states that they sent 350 "Finalist Certificates" and where it states that 5,000 customers got "Semi Finalist Certificates and Commended Entry or Participation Certificates". I don't think that this adds or detracts from the article in any way. I am, however, unsure about the sincerity of wikieditor2008 when he/she states: "But hey, at least we know now that the artist indiana gregg thinks that her music is so bad that she must pay people to hear it. Probably because of that were the originally shedules album release that is mentioned in those online promo newspaper articles canceled in aerly 2006 ". I question his/her motivation in the editing process of this article. It also might be added that ASCAP, a well known songwriting association in the United States, lists the Billboard Song Contest among it's list of credible songwriting competitions: http://www.ascap.com/resource/resource-10.html You can only enter the contest if you have received less than $5,000 in royalties since 1992, which may explain why Gregg may not have participated in the past few years due to royalties from radio play, television, and performing rights society payment for live performances. In other words, the contest is for composers who have not released professionally. Take note that a band will postpone a release date for any number of reasons. The band may have received a deal or become signed, received investment for promotion, decided to add or remix, therefore, wikieditor2008 must have very limited knowledge about music and music releases, it is therefore questionable as to why he/she is participating in editing a music wiki page. Littleredm&m (talk) 20:09, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

[...] it is therefore questionable as to why he/she is participating in editing a music wiki page. you might recall from your sock collegue queen that I have only edited form and spelling but not content! Beside that, are you saying only "special interest users" like the management of an artist should be allowed to edit an article? Wikieditor2008 (talk) 21:09, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Mooksas; we should strike out the 2007 UK Songwriting Contest statement, since Indiana Gregg apparently didn't receive any notable award there at all. Her name doesn't appear on the award page and neither Google, nor their internal search engine, print out anything under the queries: "Indiana Gregg", "For life" and "Sweet things". Admiral Norton ^(talk) 21:22, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I just found the 2 songs mentioned as finalists for the 2005 UK contest here. I propose the following wording to describe the 2 contests we have confirmation for:

The song "Oh Me Oh My" from her 2007 album Woman at Work was the winner of the Pop category for SongOfTheYear.com's July 2005 monthly songwriting contest. The songs "Sweet Things" and "For Life", also from Woman at Work, were finalists in the 2005 UK Songwriting Contest.

I still don't know what to do about the Billboard World Song Contest until we have more precise details about the actual award. Given what we have found out I'd like to make some suggestions about revising the article. I think that leading the article with these contests is giving them undue weight. I think the best place for mentioning them is in "Career Stages", but it will require some additional reworking of that section. Or perhaps a better place would be on the page for the album itself? Any suggestions?--Mooksas (talk) 22:05, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Regarding "Sweet Things" and "For Life": 319 songs have placed among the finalists in the 2005 UK Songwriting contest and 56 of them were in Pop category alone. Since these songs were neither winners, nor runners-up, I don't think these "awards" are notable enough to be left in the lead section. The "Oh Me Oh My" award could still be notable. I take SongOfTheYear.com with a big grain of salt, though, considering the sheer number of winners in 2005 only (I had to use Edit > Find). Admiral Norton ^(talk) 22:54, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Considering that these contests are world-wide events, placing two songs in the top 50 as a songwriter is notable. This is unlike the formula one where there are few cars and entries. The article doesn't give undue weight to the awards and since Gregg is now in the public domain having released on a Kool & the Gang album in 2005 and later a solo album in 2007, I doubt that it is interesting to discuss her previous songwriting career. Many writers write under pseudonyms at any rate.Littleredm&m (talk) 11:45, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I now see that 5 more of her songs are also semi-finalist songs for the UK songwriting competition in that year. So, she have 7 songs in the semi-finalist and finalist in that competition. I think considering the numbers of songwriters entering these competitions, it is fine to say she is award-winning. I don't see problems. I also see that in the article of the Herald which is cited, the question of Herbert is also in that article. Hope this helps. I put the article from the Daily Express in a section here above.Wettendass2008 (talk) 23:28, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

The number of finalists and semi-finalists in the UK Songwriting Contest is the thing I dislike. To build an analogy with auto racing, this is not like winning the 1st place in a Formula 1 Grand Prix race, this is more akin to getting any place in a Formula 1 Grand Prix race. I'm quite sure there is a lot of other artists who completed the 2005 UK Songwriting Contest with same or better results. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 23:37, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

This page on the UK contest site specifically states that there are only ten winners each year, one for each of the ten categories. The finalists are only the group from which the actual winner is chosen. Also, the only place they use the word "award" on their site is in reference to the Judges Special Award which is chosen from one of the ten winners.--Mooksas (talk) 01:07, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

With respect to the mentioning in the article lead of this suspicious "VH1-Save the Music"-award. Has anybody that is "pro" inclusion of that part in the article actually looked up what that VH1 thingy is about? The mission of that programm [46] is about getting musical instruments to kids in american schools for some musical education! (too bad the mission statement is only in a gif so no copy and paste it here). So now please come again why a "pay us that we listen to your song and send you a laserprinted certificate afterwards"-thingy should have any place in the article at all other then to show that those artists that participate in general (and Indiana in special since she even payed more then once for a bunch of songs!) to make those "elitist musicians"-judges hear their songs are very naive to paritcipate in such a thing that smells heavy like a scam? Cynism aside, I suggest for the sake of preventing further humiliation of the artist in question the article should not mention that stupid episode of her doings at all! Being the victim of a scam is bad enough, bragging about it afterwards by the victim itself ads insult to injury. Wikipedia shouldn't mention that episode any further don't you content editors think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikieditor2008 (talk • contribs)

The contest is organised directly in partnership with VH-1 (a music television channel)http://www.vh1.com/partners/save_the_music/

The VH-1 Save The Music Foundation is a registered charity and there are several events for raising money for this charity. One of them is the songwriting competition. The judges volunteer their time and the composer's are aware that the money for the entry goes to the charity. It is a wonderful way to provide musical instruments to children who may be gifted, yet cannot afford instruments or lessons. The Foundation supports a number of schools in the United States: http://www.vh1.com/partners/save_the_music/where_we_are/supported_schools.htmlLittleredm&m (talk) 11:45, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

The contest is organised directly in partnership with VH-1 littleredm&m, you seems to misunderstand what this guy has in his nice banners [47]where he claims "support" and/or "in association" with something. Take this example: When I organise a local "get more smartness into scottish label management editors"-contest/campaign and make for example Mr. Morrow and a few other label bosses pay me $30 for the right that they participate, I can also claim afterwards "in support of VH1"! When I donate that charity those purpose is to raise money and musical instruments -but do NOT held a serious contest for singers/songwriters under their own umbrella of the serious viacom brand VH1or control- some guitar strings for the guitar of poor tony in tinseltown, tinselstate USA then I am acting "in support of VH1 save the music". And since the participant in my contest "get more smartness into scottish label management editors" Mr Morrow is of course the grand prize winner he can happily announce on the pages that this label spams that Indiana Greggs management won the first prize in the german vh1 safe the music awards. Do you see now what the problem with that award that she won is and that it is more a humilation to mention the participation/winning then it is something someone that is smart should be proud off?
You further state: [...]there are several events for raising money for this charity. One of them is the songwriting competition. and [...] the composer's are aware that the money for the entry goes to the charity. do you want to imply that the organisator donates the round 40(30) bucks to VH1? You have any official papers from viacoms VH1 resp. that charity that the organisators of those numeerous "contests" that are accused by a few publicly to be scams indeed give the participation fee to the charities cause?
That would be interesting.
Don't you think it is more like (well over) 4000 (since those alone the semifinalists or extra mentioned participants according to the numbers figure given on the "winnerpage") times 30 which gives a nice 6 digit sum minus the cost for 500 CDs with the winners on them that are produced and send to influential music biz insiders that that money lands in the pockets of the organiser(s) of those "contests"?
Of course if you have verifiable infos (preferable from those that allegedly benefit from them: the charities) about the seriousness of those contest events I guess me is the last one that does not want to see them. Wikieditor2008 (talk) 13:56, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Alright, I think this has gone on long enough. It's clear that referring to the songoftheyear.com contest as a VH1 Save the Music Award is misleading and a disservice to the good work that Save the Music does. If you really think mentioning the contest is that important, integrate my language above into the career stages section. And I still stand by the fact that referring to the Billboard World Song Contest as a Billboard award is grossly misleading and unwarranted in the lead. Unfortunately, without knowing if what she really got was one of the 500 honorable mention certificates I don't think you can include any mention of it at all. Littleredm&am, you should keep in mind that under WP:BLP "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons — whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable — should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion, from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space." As such I have removed it.--Mooksas (talk) 01:35, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't have any opinion about whether or not music awards should or should not be mentioned in this article. It is of no interest to me. However, I don't believe that wikieditor2008 should be alledging that they are scams or making defamatory statements about the contests themselves or about the musician herself.Littleredm&m (talk) 16:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh me oh my

"my shizophrenic friend got mad" Now THAT is a quote! http://www.songoftheyear.com/songs/2005/jul/OhMeOhMy.wma Wikieditor2008 (talk) 08:50, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Issues we must talk about since the article got free again 07/21

Edits we should better talk about then getting more sockpuppets banned are discussed respectfully below:

So what about the TPB mail episode. Can we reach a consensus that the NPOV version of Sowhy can be put back in? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikieditor2008 (talk • contribs) 14:59, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Quote:
For the record, The Scottish Daily Express is a Scottish National Newspaper and is by no means a hometown newspaper. It is considered a 'family' newspaper.Littleredm&m (talk) 11:49, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Unquote

Good then I guess we have one more reason givem by Littleredm&m why the NPOV version of SoWhy should indeed be in the article! Wikieditor2008 (talk) 15:38, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I absolutely support your position. We must have at least some version of the section in the article. The dispute is the exact thing that made her popularity surge. If it weren't for the dispute, most people that listen to her music would not have heard about her at all and, for one thing, I'd have found some other article patrolling recent changes. I mean, look at these digg comments or compare this normal hit count and affected hit count. SoWhy's version seems the least biased to me, so I'm for it. BTW, the section shouldn't be at the end like some miscellany section. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 18:06, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Not important

I think that it is not important about an argument between the Pirate Bay and Indiana Gregg. I don't know what use it has about a musician. It just means The Pirate Bay would not take a link to her music down and all the other sites would. So, this point has nothing to do with releases or tours or music made by Indiana Gregg. I think we can only make citations of what was written in the Daily Express article. That article is about bullying and a hate campaign led by the Pirate Bay. Wettendass2008 (talk) 17:16, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, with exeption to her and her labels threads towards TPB there were hardly any mentioning about her beside those typical "exclusive" promotional pieces that were spammed out by her management back then and those "journasists" that got those "exclusives" were happy to report that promotion stuff as if it werre serious reporting.

Threatening ("u crossed swords with the wrong guy, I know email addresses of scottish politicos", "arguing with me the copyrighholder is hazardeous") TPB in mails is the only significant thingy that This artist had doen lately that sparked attention towards her I would say Wikieditor2008 (talk) 17:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

@Wettendass2008 you claim that one incident is not important but I guess the pageviews show otherwise. Where it not for her TPB mails, only the label and the 2 hardcorefans would show up as visitors:
has been viewed 2910 times in 200806 has been viewed 115 times in 200805 has been viewed 93 times in 200804
I will stop here to not reveal more embarressing statistics about her insignificance. Wikieditor2008 (talk) 19:19, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that perhaps this would be more appropriately mentioned on a TPB wiki page rather than on a music biography wiki page.

With regard to the viewing of her page, since it was only viewed 2910 times in June, it doesn't seem to reflect much impact. The circulation of major media and publications would have a much higher readership than simply 2910 visits within a months time. The most commonly viewed pages for bands and artists are generally pages with content from the artist (ie: audio and video content). It is my opinion that when searching about a band or artist, one would more often search their homepage, myspace, youtube, iTunes, etc. Whether or not an artist is 'insignificant' or not in your opinion, wikieditor2008, isn't of much concern here. The very idea that you seem to be spending such a good deal of your time on this wiki page discussion would lend otherwise. I believe we all know that Gregg is an independent artist and has made one debut released last year. Most bands will have a year or more between albums, therefore, I'm surprised that anyone has visited her wiki page since wiki is not a community website with the same kinds of dynamics as facebook or myspace, etc. It stands to reason that it would not be as highly frequented especially for bands/musicians since wiki doesn't tend to contain audio or video content.Littleredm&m (talk) 20:55, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

You have exactly pointed out here why this section has to be included here. 2800 visits in three days is something the Indiana Gregg page would usually get in three years. We both agree this can't be due to the release of a song or an album and the other, and the only other viable and, by the way, extremely likely reason is the Pirate Bay dispute. Leaving it out would be totally unreasonable. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 21:10, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Norton, I think I mentioned before that I don't see how the episode would either add or detract from the article. It is my view that bands do not rely on wikipedia entries for traffic. I am not aware of the traffic statistics other than what has been stated here. However, 2800 views seems to be a low number for the amount of exposure that has been claimed; however, having said that, I can see that the stats on her myspace are relatively high. That may be do to some media coverage over the past days. Because the topic of file-sharing has had a lot of media exposure recently, the spill over into mainstream press could be more significant as well. I still haven't seen any documentation of the Daily Express article.Littleredm&m (talk) 21:19, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying bands do rely on Wikipedia hit counts, but I do think that something that produced such a spike in the article is indeed notable. 2800 views may seem low to you, but this article usually gets low to none. Taking this into account, this spike is in excess of hundreds of standard deviations, way more than any event in the page hit count history from the time the hit counter started operating. We hold the same view stating this is due to media coverage and media coverage does indeed have a reason. The dispute is that reason. As for the Daily Express, could you clarify what article you mean? I haven't found any. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 22:06, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

P.S. A week ago, you were doing everything for the inclusion of the section into the article. Would you care to explain why did you change your mind? Admiral Norton ^(talk) 22:08, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I was not trying to include the section. I was making new references to a section that had already been added to the article. Now, it has been removed and probably because there was no

proper point of reference. Now, there is apparently a piece of mainstream press which primarily talks about the 'bullying' of the pirate bay. I am interested in seeing what the site stats would be for July because it seems to me that the main source of interest was Indiana's response via her blog which was republished.Littleredm&m (talk) 16:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

It seems http://stats.grok.se doesn't offer statistics for the current month, so we'll have to wait until August. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 17:10, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The stats are there you just have to navigate to them manually. And yes there is a spike on the 4th which obviously corresponds to the Digg/TorrentFreak postings on her "Internet Police are Coming" letter (which was mentioned by quite a few other blogs as well).--Mooksas (talk) 02:00, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

As an additional statement, I have only now noticed that it has been inferred that I am a sockpuppet to another ID. I can assure you that this is not the case and I would greatly appreciate the removal of that accusation admiralNorton.Littleredm&m (talk) 21:34, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

So you say you were just a bit absend minded when you deleted the header of the section that accused you big and fat of being a sockpuppet?[48] Good for you that I'm a bit more tolerant, otherwise I guess I had to ask now the question why someone so absend minded is editing wikipedia articles at all :-| Wikieditor2008 (talk) 23:40, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but currently it is your word against your editing pattern. It is now up to editors with administrator or higher privileges to determine this. You can stand up for yourself on your sockpuppet case at any time, though. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 22:06, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can see in the history of the page, it was an editor called SoWhy that kept reverting the page rather than letting the section expand. I didn't know what a sockpuppet was as I've never heard this expression in my life up until this article. In my opinion, a sockpuppet is a puppet made from a sock. I also don't know why wikieditor2008 is continually making accusations.Littleredm&m (talk) 16:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

admiral norton, I have made an entry at the bottom of the sockpuppet page you refer too; however, it didn't look like it took my signature with the four (~). I don't understand why this

claim was made; however, this situation has been of topic in our offices over the past month because a lot of our work is in music and public relations. Nonetheless, I felt as though my edits were being ignored and I felt as though I was genuinely expanding upon the article and didn't understand why there were constant reversions being made. So, I reselected from a starting point in the history and tried to expand upon the article about the incident involving the Pirate bay. I don't understand why this would imply that I would be acting as a sockpuppet to another ID.Littleredm&m (talk) 22:40, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

@littleredm&m enter your defense again but above the "conclusion" line. delete your defense that you entered below that line, please try not to delete the stuff that is mentioned as should not be deleted, and please see that you have a line between your defense and my additional evidence posted. Thank you use the link that is mentioned above in Number 8. Wikieditor2008 (talk) 00:13, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Carribeanqueen made the same edits to the Indiana Gregg page as you did, establishing an edit pattern of reverting. Both of the accounts were way over the WP:3RR, so it is possible that Carribeanqueen logged on as Littleredm&m to avoid 3RR and continue making edits pushing her point of view. Such large additions to the article should be proposed on the talk page first to see if other editors agree on the changes, instead of bringing them up and fighting an edit war. Multiple accounts are generally allowed if the accounts are legitimate and don't cooperate to break Wikipedia rules, but using two accounts simultaneously in a dispute is usually frowned upon. For more about this, see WP:SOCK#SCRUTINY and WP:SOCK#LEGIT. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 22:53, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I only reverted back to the place where I had last edited from and tried to make changes to go forward. It was the other editors who kept making drastic changes (from what i remember). I felt as though the article wasn't being allowed to be expanded upon. Littleredm&m (talk) 23:19, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Whether you reverted vandalism or kept vandalizing the same way doesn't matter. It even doesn't matter whether you added or removed content from the article. The important thing here is the number of such reverts of others' edits. WP:3RR is essentially a catch-all rule, at least in edit disputes. If you revert more than 3 times in 24 hours on the same page, you can be blocked. If you dislike the edits of others involved, take the matter to the talk page. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 13:01, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

AGE; PLACE OF BIRTH; WHERE SHE LIVES. She is born in Terre Haute not just "the united states" the promotional newspaper articles say she is 35 and Ian is 50 in an article dated to 2007 so derivated her age from that. If someone knows the correct birth year 1972/1973 he is welcome to add the DOB instead of the age. The place of living was incorrect as you can see from [49] and verified by Label Vandal a bit later [50]. Wikieditor2008 (talk) 08:27, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

@littleredm&m you claimed in your edit: "[...]we have no confirmation of her age [...]". Depending how narrow we set the rules for "confirmation" we might have no confirmation as in we have a copy of her passport, but the article by that female reporter mentioned the ages in brackets! So unless you start now claiming that the promotional stuff that her label offers a few journalsits "exclusively" is not true at all, we do have "confirmation" about her age. [we even know the ages and names of her children "I'M PROBABLY a non-traditional musician in the respect that I'm a little bit older and I have three children. I get up at 7.30, the kids, Julia 12, Christian 10 and Sophia eight, go to school, then I start my working day because we have a purpose-built studio." thanks to Kirsty Rearty of the Sunday Herald. She turns(ed) 36 in 2008. you staart to doubt the newspaper articles everybody can read? Not good when newspapers report about "your" artist stuff "you" give them exclusively but then don't like it a bit later anymore. Well, this here is an encyclopedia not some promo-tool for label spam. And the AGE of a subject (not the age of subject's relatives though, contrary to some sensationalist tabloid!) is INDEED a date that is encyclopidia worthy/typical and important. And once such data is public knowledge it has its place in an encyclopedia. Stop your deconstructive, primary on deletion based, editing. How about you add constructive stuff to the article then work destructive on the article deleting stuff you don't like? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikieditor2008 (talk • contribs) 18:03, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I found DOB 12/8/1971 here, but it's far from a reliable source, so I'll need to back it up with some other website. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 17:07, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Admiral norton, does allegedly "labelowned sockpuppet" album reviewers [51] that copy and paste one of those typical promo spam stuff count as relaible when they mention the age 35 too?

Or that [52] review by a professional CD reviewer that tells the age too? Or that one [53] from a videoviewing side that has her video too (that noone seems to watch). Me can't find without doing some backsearch that this artist isn't worth for me the original newspaper article that my inclusion of her age was based on. You can find the link somewhere in the history mentioned. That's how I stumbled over the age of her and Ian in the first place Wikieditor2008 (talk) 18:41, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

found the age reference again the place where i got the info that she is 35 and he is 50 in the frist place is the serious reliable sunday mail [54] Quote: Ian, 50, and Indiana, 35, used their only day off during the tour to travel across country for the whirlwind wedding. -- Apr 8 2007 Exclusive by Heather Greenaway Unquote Wikieditor2008 (talk) 22:35, 22 July 2008 (UTC)