User talk:Supra92

August 2013

Please stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial, to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Bryan Adams. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 18:02, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My comments included absolutely factual statements, and were substantiated by proof. Bryan Adams' content has been completely removed from the largest internet music/artist database, and my references to their search functionality and his former artist page proved that. For you to remove the entire section, rather than putting in a "Citation Needed" or asking me to remove only the AllRovi comments and references to legal requests, has quite the chilling effect. That was a good-faith section that was added, neutral in tone, and with specific references/links proving the content had been removed. Threatening to ban me for this....... *shakes head*. Supra92Supra92 (talk) 18:27, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is clear that you do not understand what a reliable source is or how important it is for a biography of a living person. You absolutely did not provide support that meets the requirements. Requirements for citing sources when it relates to BLP are not negotiable. You can't just throw it up with a citation needed tag and hope a source magically appears. You're dealing with a living person with lawyers. Good faith or not, it cannot be left without sources. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 18:37, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How exactly would you prove that his page has been removed from AllMusic? Showing the 404 on his page and showing the AllMusic search engine omitting his result.... is far more factual than a media outlet reporting on it. In my estimation, if your issue was with the inclusion of comments about legal requests and AllRovi's comments, then you should have limited the concerns to that, rather than deleting the entire section. It's hard to see how one could claim that simply stating "Adams's entry/biography/discography has been removed from AllMusic - and here is substantiation to that claim" is 'defamatory'. Supra92Supra92 (talk) 18:48, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Find a third party source that reports it. The whole section was "Dispute with AllMusic". There were no reliable sources provided supporting that there was a dispute. Where is your support that the entry ever existed? Where is your support that there was a dispute. Absence of something does not support the claim that it ever existed or that there was a reason for it now to be missing. That's just not how it works. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 18:52, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to try again, retitling the section "Removal Of Entry From AllMusic", sticking to the facts of how he cannot be found on AllMusic's search functionality, and how his old page no longer exists (404 Error). Proof his page's prior existence would be from an active link from the Internet Archives (formerly Wayback Machine). References to legal requests and AllRovi's official reply to the matter would be omitted until such time that a 3rd party source, as you define it, can be found... Would this be "acceptable" to you? Supra92Supra92 (talk) 18:58, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then the question of relevance comes up. Why would it be relevant to the article? You'd still need more of a source than the 404 page. Take it to the article talk page to see what others think. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 19:01, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For the record: http://web.archive.org/web/20120604232836/http://www.allmusic.com/artist/bryan-adams-mn0000627670. You can see his picture, biography, discography, the whole thing. When the internet's biggest music/artist database flatout removes a major artist like that -- do you not consider that newsworthy? Again, my main issue here is that I'm working hard to show substantiation to my section, and yet the statement seems to be "your post isn't allowed until everyone else agrees it's relevant." This is relevant information to Bryan Adams -- if I were reading his article, I would find this most interesting.... **especially** if I came to his Wikipedia page after searching for him on AllMusic and finding absolutely nothing at all. The onus should be on others to prove that it does *not* belong, rather than on me to prove that it does. Supra92Supra92 (talk) 19:06, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter if I think it's newsworthy. It matters if other news outlets or reliable sources report it. In response to your last sentence above, I'll assume you haven't read WP:BURDEN. One of your sources is a forum thread that you started. If it was so important to the overall industry, it would be reported elsewhere. I still think you'll get better input on this if you start a discussion on the article's talk page. More interested editors may have a different view. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 19:16, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will be rewriting this section and adding it again later today, via the changes I mentioned above. No reference to AllMusic forums, but instead a verifiable link to the 3rd-party site "archive.org", which is the primary site on the internet for preserving websites in a snapshot in time. Verifiable, 3rd-party proof that the link used to exist, and now does not. All references to legal disputes and AllRovi's forums/comments will be removed. I shouldn't have to state that I'm trying to take your comments seriously, and into account, but feel the need to do so in case you were thinking of banning my username if I tried to change Adams's entry again. Since this will be 3rd-party verifiable at archive.org, let's have those users who don't want the content allowed take up their objections on the Talk page. Sound reasonable? Supra92Supra92 (talk) 19:26, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[EDIT] Will be rewriting the section as stated, but will also begin a Talk discussion on the subject as well, to reach out to those who may have questions about the source references. Thank you for the suggestion. Supra92Supra92 (talk) 19:57, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit conflict I don't recommend adding anything today. If you want any new addition related to this to stick, you must bring it to the talk page. It is clearly in dispute and adding it will likely result in a block or full protection of the page. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 20:00, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is my last comment for now on my talk page, due to your threat to block me again despite my repeated good faith efforts. I will add the entry to the Talk page today, and follow up with the rewritten section in a few days, giving due time to the Talk discussion. You should think long and hard, however, about banning someone for factual entries if it winds up being that a few Adams apologists dominate the Talk discussion trying to shoot holes in my sources in attempt to keep any "negative" items from being posted. You should be fully acquainted with Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View stance, and that would include the censorship of factual content, even if it might cast the subject matter in a different light than his apologists would desire. Bans/blocks should be kept only for egregious offenders who show no intent at being civil, impartial, or a willingness to discuss things. Supra92Supra92 (talk) 20:23, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can add all the negative content you want, but if it's about a living person, you absolutely must cite (multiple) reliable sources. You need to understand the BLP guidelines, which clearly you don't. Judging by your comments, it seems to me that you haven't even read WP:BLP. No further response is required. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 20:48, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, as the section will be rewritten to be pure fact about the removal of information -- nothing about legal dispute or AllRovi's comments, which should alleviate the prior stated objections. And yes, I have read the WP:BLP section. Supra92Supra92 (talk) 20:59, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 18:18, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]