Talk:The Time (Bros album)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AlbumsWikipedia:WikiProject AlbumsTemplate:WikiProject AlbumsAlbum articles

Pop music Low‑importance

	Pop music portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pop music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to pop music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Pop musicWikipedia:WikiProject Pop musicTemplate:WikiProject Pop musicPop music articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Certification

The BPI database states the album was certified Gold with sales over 100,000 in the UK, the BPI don't say the a band that has been certified Gold has just only sold 100,000 what this means the band not met the next threshold. how ever Sony Music is at present having talks with BPI over the certification due to platinum disc that was presented to CBS by the BPI in relation to bros the time in 1989 being found.

Secondly the BPI certification are also sometimes unreliable due to the organisation moving from paper records to the online service with organisation having backlog on updating albums and singles

Protected edit request on 2 September 2017

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Nqr9 (talk) 08:49, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not done empty request. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:47, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bros - The Time - Art music publication Sept 1990 Issue 15

IP 2A02:C7D:3136:4500:ED89:CF30:324A:32D has asked for help on their talk page. It appears they may have the source for the information they are trying to add, so am working with them to source it. NZFC^(talk)^(cont) 11:04, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kia ora Langotangocoo I am working with IP to get the information added. When I reverted it was up for deletion but besides that a picture isn't a source, the actual magazine would be a source. IP would be the one in breach as well however I am working with them, and am happy to work with you to get this sorted. After that, I'm happy to look at the other information/sources that have been used in the article. NZFC^(talk)^(cont) 11:08, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Now looking more, I see the sock investigation that also is saying the magazine is fancruft and maybe not reliable. Which is also why it should have been brought here instead of all the edit warring. Will invite @Sjö: as well as they might want to add their thoughts as well. NZFC^(talk)^(cont) 11:13, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly that's great your asking SJO to join the discussion, so they can provide factual evidence to show weather the content is from a fanclub say or independent magazine publisher, but I would also like to point out NEWSPAPER articles are not reliable source as we seen with Daily Mail and Sun tabloids with broadcaster like BBC, CNN, SKY and even media news publication in your own country have all been sued in courts for wrong reporting.

Secondly we need address do we allow POP magazines from around the world to be used and their blog sites for example NNME, as the NNME has itself be proven to report articles which are not factual and now the magazine is no more and they use a blog site to make reports and use freelance journalist which is not a reliable source these days are we gonna stop using their articles on wiki.

The question is simply Wiki does allow publication that have be physically printed and sold the question is can sjo disprove the content, if they can that great if they can't he should be upheld and allowed on to wiki

Wiki is for anyone to use, therefore articles which right about band albums sales should be deemed as fact until disproven. editors on wiki are not judges, we here to uploaded published content. so I look forward to the discussion but unless editor SJO can provided factual argument not pushing their own agenda on anyone it see no restriction in uploading the content i submitted, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:3136:4500:ED89:CF30:324A:32D (talk) 12:01, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So you have a few things wrong here, you again are using because other happens your edits should be allowed. It doesn't work that way. Yes some newspapers have been turned out to be unreliable but that is after years and many discussions. If you feel your source should be considered reliable, take it to the noticeboard to get others thoughts. Also information can't just be added while it is being decided, we would never take fan written information as fact just because it was published, it isn't how Wikipedia works. Pop magazines are allowed because like newspapers, they have an editorial oversight that users have already discussed and agreed that makes them reliable. You also need to drop the stick when it comes to SJO, you never brought your discussion here, it isn't for them to bring it for you. NZFC^(talk)^(cont) 12:10, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

With respect your clearly not trying to help so I will give you 48 hours for you and and the other editor to disprove my source if not I will upload the content and if its reverted by you or sjo i will raise concerns as yes I am grateful for your assistance you have not disproved the content in the article.

I have read the 5 pillars of wiki and editors must disprove the content or allow the edit to be uploaded. s — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:3136:4500:ED89:CF30:324A:32D (talk) 12:31, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have to disprove, you have to prove that the source is reliable but instead of doing that, like how I have told you how to twice, you want to continue to argue. This article is pending protected, something both myself and sjo have rights to because we have proved ourselves as reliable editors here. Your edits are unlikely to be approved until such time as you can prove the source is a reliable one and not fancruft, original research. NZFC^(talk)^(cont) 12:41, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The "Artmusic" publication claimed as a source is the Bros Link fanzine. Previous editors, including a shocking history of socks, have tried to use this fansite before as a source. As a fanzine with no credited author and no editorial team, and being an unofficial publication, this fails WP:SPS. You then also have point 11 of WP:ELNO. Looking at the editing history and the sock history, I'm not expecting much to change that user can't appear to let go of stick.NZFC^(talk)^(cont) 12:45, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

the bros link is not fan zine had nothing to do the band or them management if you like you can always contact massive management and speak to them. this argument I believe already been disproved , if you like to contact Anthony GEORGEFOUNDER ART MUSIC THEY WILL STIPULATE THIS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:3136:4500:ED89:CF30:324A:32D (talk) 12:56, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can I point OUT Smash Hits had not credible editors, the editors were not qualified journalist and the magazine was started in a garage so their for lets remove Smash hits from wiki

Editor/ co founder Anthony George
Editor Stephen Miller
Editor Katie Watkins ( now writes for another music website)
Editor Marvin Jackson

just some of the editorial team — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:3136:4500:ED89:CF30:324A:32D (talk) 12:59, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen some arguments before but are you really trying to say a magazine that even has its own article so must have meet notability guidelines should be removed because you think it isn't notable.. That is a new one for me.

Great, so if you are so sure of your source take it to the reliable sources noticeboard and prove it is. NZFC^(talk)^(cont) 13:12, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have clearly tried to pull a fast one , and I'm quiet shocked publication have to be disproved by the editor disproving the source not by the editor editing the source. so like i said i wont be breaching wiki rules by editing the page or using the content as its independent publication , like Smash Hits, hello, OK magazine, Bella, woman's weekly, just 17, fast forward, i have provided editorial names of the mag, and you failed to disprove the content. you also failed to to supply link to show I am responsible to prove the source which is unfounded claim. So thank you for help and the misleading truth have nice day oh and by the way i found 6 more articles all stating bros sold over 4 million copies of the time, their from JAPAN, USA, etc.

So please provide evidence to prove they didnt if you can't kindly leave me alone and concentrate on your football oh by the way you also used blogs to obtain information about football — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:3136:4500:ED89:CF30:324A:32D (talk) 13:23, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@NZFC: you are wasting your time trying to reason with this editor... as you can see, they ignore all efforts to show them the Wikipedia guidelines that they have to adhere to. The "it's up to you to disprove the source I added" argument displayed above, in complete contradiction of WP:BURDEN, is absolutely typical of the many socks of this editor. And sadly, no, they won't drop the stick, as they already have around 150 blocked accounts on Wikipedia and Commons, and that's not even including the IP addresses they've used. All that will happen is that this sock will be blocked, and in a few weeks another "new editor" will be along to try and add the same information.

We've also seen the "newspapers, magazines and news TV networks aren't reliable sources, but my fanzine is" argument before. I'm not really sure why this editor hates Smash Hits so much – it was by far the most sympathetic magazine to the group at the time. It was also selling over one million copies per issue at this point, and had many notable journalists pass through its ranks (several of them are notable enough for their own Wikipedia articles), so I don't know where the argument that they weren't real journalists came from. Founded in a garage? The magazine's founder, Nick Logan, was a former NME editor, and it started at IPC Magazines offices in Carnaby Street in the centre of London.

It's irrelevant whether the Bros Link fanzine was independently produced from the band and their management – it's still a fanzine, produced by an anonymous author, and clearly heavily biased towards painting the group in glowing colours. Here's the editorial from the same issue, no. 15: "we've seen the British press keep writing inaccurate stories about the Goss brothers and continually slating their success... But it's clear that BROS have a loyal fanbase and the word Brosette (note: this was the title given to their female fans) means loyal and true and a phenomenon around the world. A true Brosette will always support BROS FOREVER through the good times and the bad." Does that sound impartial, or that it was written by qualified journalist? Richard3120 (talk) 14:14, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Richard3120, I did realise once I saw the sock investigation that it was going to be pointless but thought it would be good to get something on the article talk page as well for other users now, that may come across the edits in future, to then be able to get a fuller picture easier. NZFC^(talk)^(cont) 14:26, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have the comments from SJO, Richard3120, and NZFC NOT ONE YOU EDITORS HAVE PROVIDED ANY EVIDENCE TO DISPROVE YOUR CLAIMS WHY DONT YOU EDITORS DO THIS IS NOT HARD SO AFTER READING THE WR,PS and and the 5 pillars of wiki my edit does not breach any rules. but thanks for being super guys for showing why wiki cannot be used for reference in any country in the world. this matter will not go away and im going through my collection and another 20 articles showing bros sold 4 million copies of the album — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.199.199.97 (talk)

It's clearly much to hard for you to read and understand numerous explanations that we don't have to disprove anything, you are the person that has to prove that the sources are reliable. And you refuse to do so. It's completely irrelevant if you have one or twenty or 100 sources that say "4 million copies" – if all of them are unreliable sources. As NZFC said, you have to prove to the reliable sources noticeboard that these sources are allowed on Wikipedia – we don't have to disprove anything. And you are correct – Wikipedia should NOT be used as a reference anywhere in the world... it's not supposed to be used as a reference for anything. See WP:NOTSOURCE. Richard3120 (talk) 20:08, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

THE MAGAZINE WAS SOLD MAINSTREAM AND CAN BE USED, THE ARTICLE WAS CITED, WITH ISSUE NUMBER, PAGE NUMBER UNDER WPS. BURNDEN is states Editors may also use material from reliable non-academic sources, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications. Other reliable sources include:

University-level textbooks

Books published by respected publishing houses

Magazines

Mainstream newspapers — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.199.199.97 (talk)

You would think with all the editing you have done, you would know how to format a talk page and sign your posts by now. Also, cheers for providing us another IP, I have added that to the sockpuppet investigation. Commenting on anything else to you appears to be a waste of time, as you don't listen. You went to the notice board but can't even seem to wait for confirmation their before you decide to come back here and attack established editors. NZFC^(talk)^(cont) 20:30, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, not every magazine can be used, just as not every newspaper and not every book can be used if they are considered unreliable. In this case it's produced by one person, has no editorial oversight and is deliberately biased towards the group, it's a fanzine and fails WP:SPS, and you haven't proved it's a reliable source. You just claim it is, and you think your word is enough, but I've shown you why it isn't reliable. Richard3120 (talk) 20:34, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

richard 3120 you clearly not from the UK and you lack knowledge of the band you yourself have used blogs I have check your contribution on many of articles and most these sources are unreliable, now firstly the magazine was produced by company not one person, but here you making un factual comments, its disgraceful. the article and publication is valid and you can say what you like, plus i will going through all your contribution and checking that edit adhere to wiki if not i will be report you forbreaking rules — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.199.199.97 (talk)

Harrassment

A formal complaint has been issued to the wiki foundation on some members, this email address was provided by senior editor who now assisting me as they believe I am being targeted and bullied — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.196.210.89 (talk) 07:20, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Users that were Socks have been banned

Just to record it here for anyone else that comes across this page and the edits, you can now see following users have been banned as socks

The following IPs have also been banned but only for three months since they are IP accounts

I expect this user or users will be back again under another created account or IP though, going by this history NZFC^(talk)^(cont) 08:36, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]