User talk:Andyaction

Hi, I don't mean to be rude, but it's frowned upon on Wikipedia to remove referenced content and replace it with unreferenced content. If you're going to rewrite this article, please cite your sources. See WP:CITE for how if you don't know. --Chiliad22 (talk) 23:35, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Chiliad22, I don't know how to leave a message for you on Wikipedia. With regards to your message, I'm a founding & current band member of 2 Skinnee J's. The band has asked me to be in charge of updating the wiki page and keeping all the details accurate and up to date. I assure you that all the details/events/discography/personnel, etc are all verified and true. If I'm somehow committing a breach of etiquette in the wiki community with the manner of my posting, forgive me and please instruct via email, [email protected]. Many apologies for anything I've done to offend. -=AA, 2SJAndyaction (talk) 16:45, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted your un-sourced edits as you are removing sourced information and replacing it with unverified information. If you are acting on behalf of the band then you have a WP:Conflict of interest and really shouldn't be adding anything. This is an encyclopeadia, all information must be backed by reliable third part sources. PLease read the guidelines at the top of this page and learn how Wikipedia works. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:06, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that Wikipedia articles need to be written based on third party (or published first party) sources, so we can verify them even if we aren't members of your band. I think you'll find that removing sourced content to replace it with unsourced content isn't going to fly. If you want to add missing content to the sourced version, that's welcome, but you should really try to cite where you're getting the information from (other than personal experience, which we can't verify). --Chiliad22 (talk) 15:14, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your notes regarding the 2SJ wiki page. The trouble is that half the info on the page is nonsense, not to mention that many edits that others have deigned "acceptable" contain things that I personally changed/added! Honestly, all I care about is that anyone out there who wants to learn about the band gets the real info. I don't know the first thing about wiki etiquette (although I'm learning a lot today!), but I do know that the info up there is incorrect and there's MUCH more info that needs posting, much of it in the pre-internet era (ie. impossible to reference a source via a link). Can you help me out here? I've added info to the pre-exisiting page - can you please take a look and let me know your thoughts? At the very least, can we communicate via email ([email protected]) so I don't have to keep coming back here? -=AA, 2SJ --Andyaction (talk) 16:45, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As we've been trying to explain, Wikipedia articles need to summarize published sources. Wikipedia probably isn't the place if you are wanting to get the "real info" about your band out for the first time, we aren't a publisher of original content. If the source is an offline newspaper article or book, that's fine, there's {{cite news}} and {{cite book}}. --Chiliad22 (talk) 16:51, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to take a moment to apologize for my outbursts & incorrect wiki-etiquette - I was just frustrated & embarrassed... Everything up there is now indeed true. Thanks for putting up with me and many thanks to Jezhotwells for taking the time to update the page. -=AA, 2SJ Andyaction (talk) 17:52, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article 2 Skinnee J's, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

1. editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
2. participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors; and
3. linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. For more details about what, exactly, constitutes a conflict of interest, please see our conflict of interest guidelines. Thank you. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:37, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your comment on my talk page. When discussing articles on Wikipedia talk pages are used, not email, so that editing decisions are seen to be arrived at by consensus. You say "I don't know the first thing about wiki etiquette, but I do know that the info up there is incorrect and there's MUCH more info that needs posting, much of it in the pre-internet era (ie. impossible to reference a source via a link)" You have a banner at the top of this page that you have already been pointed out which links to explanations of how Wikipedia works. Please read and understand this information, especially that on sourcing before you go any further. You have added a large amount of un-sourced information again and thus broken the WP:3RR rule. You clearly have a conflict of interest as per above. Please stop editing this article as you may well find yourself blocked. Sources don't have to be on the internet, they can be in newspapers or magazines. What matters in Wikipedia is not whether something is true, but whether it can be verified from reliable sources. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:59, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Might I suggest that you read the guidelines to which you have already been pointed. You may edit when conflict of interest is disclosed but only within certain very narrow guidelines to which you have been referred. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:14, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that's an amazing point of view. So, are you telling me that if I can't reference the sources I can't add info or that since I have a conflict of interest, I can't post? I suppose in hindsight I should have just posed as a fan and made up a bunch of published sources. So much for honestly - it caused you to flag me! Although I completely understand your point of view, I have to be honest and say that you're breaking the band's balls for your your own sake of purity. I guarantee you that the edits I've made are true, even if presented in a humorous manner. Can I ask this, then - instead of taking the time to get me blocked, can you take the time to help the 2SJ fans, via wikipedia, get the info they deserve about the past, present & future of the band? There's a ton of really cool stuff (including a full-length documentary on the band premiering in Sept!) coming up. -=AA, 2SJ --Andyaction (talk) 17:16, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh, I think you really don't get what Wikipedia is all about. It is not for promotion, it is not a fansite. You may be better off to use Myspace or similar. If you have interesting encyclopaediac information, then discuss it and the sourcing at the article talk page. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:23, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add unsourced or original content, as you did to 2 Skinnee J's. Doing so violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:25, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I find it amusing and laughable that you're completely comfortable with the previous version of the page, the vast majority of which is completely unsourced and erroneous (some completely misleading!). You have made me very sad and have done a great disservice to the band and anyone who cares about the band. -=AA, 2SJ Andyaction (talk) 17:35, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With that in mind, why are you not flagging the previous (current, by your decree) entry as unsourced? Most of the info up there was contributed be me anyway. All of it is unverified by Wikipedia's standards, now that I read them. -=AA, 2SJ Andyaction (talk) 17:38, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

YOU WIN! the 2SJ wiki entry is now pure, complete with errors, misinformation, incomplete discography & no new info for anyone! I lose because I took the time to set it right and have now wasted my time and have a headache! Victory is yours, Jezhotwells! Much love and respect, -=AA, 2SJ Andyaction (talk) 17:43, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Look, Wikipedia is a work in progress. But for everyone to be able to work fairly, we need to cite sources... we can't really verify any of the article if it's not referenced to published sources but to your own experiences. You just claiming what is right and what is wrong is a poor way to write an article, we're all basically anonymous here until proven otherwise, and at any rate, like I said, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and we just summarize what published sources already say about a topic. Everything referenced in the current article are things that newspapers reported about the band. If there are errors, find better sources. I realize it's frustrating... but bear in mind the principles that govern how the article on your band is edited also have to govern articles like Barrack Obama and World War II - this is why we look to published sources, not the opinions of random editors, to decide what can be in a Wikipedia article. --Chiliad22 (talk) 18:05, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Believe me, I get it. I'm just astonished that you're comfortable with entry as it stands and that you took the time to punish me (or anyone!) for augmenting and/or improving it. Nothing there currently is truly verified, except by a few interview excerpts (one cited twice!) and, in fact, most of the "facts" that are actually true there were added by me and have somehow been approved (and sometimes simply incorporated into previous text!) by you & Jezhotwell, despite not knowing which are true/untrue, verified/unverified, sourced/unsourced! I just find it strange that you (or anyone, quite frankly) can just decide to be the arbiter of what's "sourced" or "verified" when you were no more or less anonymous than I before I began discussing this with you. Most the band's history and popularity took place before the internet age (not many easily found links to "verify") and I don't possess the time or gumption to go digging through microfiche/newspaper archives to prove the details of my career, so like I said - you're argument is right! You win. I took a lot of time and heart to make the wiki entry fun, factual and informative (heaven forbid!), so I'm just bummed out about it. At the very least, give us the respect of leaving the statement from the band posted on the page if you won't let us repair the incomplete discography... -=AA, 2SJ Andyaction (talk) 18:37, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, I am not all comfortable with the state of the article. That is why I tagged it. Please stop throwing insults about. If you can't be bothered to find references, why should anyone else? Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:21, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Andyaction, every Wikipedia article can't have info added to it by people "because they know it's right" without a reference to a reliable source. If you think certain comments are wrong, the article's talk page is the right place for someone with a conflict of interest to raise issues. Directly editing articles by people associated with the article subject is very much discouraged because it can be abused. If you know about newspaper articles that talk about the band, discuss it on the talk page. If you don't, well, please don't expect others to. Also, the band's own webpage is the place for band statements. Not Wikipedia. ~Pesco^{So say•we all} 20:27, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Andyaction. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:01, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for you apology. If you have further information with sources, please post it on my talk page and I will check it out and add it if I can. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:36, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]