User talk:Bumblebeee

September 2008

Hello. I've reverted most of your edits. Please don't spam Wikipedia. Dismas|^(talk) 21:55, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

October 2008

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you. Smashville^talk 23:34, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. It is considered spamming and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, additions of links to Wikipedia will not alter search engine rankings. If you continue spamming, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Smashville^talk 23:44, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. The next time you insert a spam link, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Persistent spammers may have their websites blacklisted preventing anyone from linking to them from all Wikimedia sites as well as potentially being penalized by search engines. Smashville^talk 23:53, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your response, Smashville, and I appreciate your efforts to keep wiki free of spammers and those who are out to promote their own agendas.

I just want to let you know.... I'm not selling anything.

I've spent many years compiling information on various performing artists and sharing that info with others - at no gain to myself, other than feeling good that I've brought that info into the public arena for some artists who would have otherwise not been given as much credit for the wonderful work they've done.

It might be hard to believe in this day and age that some people aren't out to promote themselves, but I'm not.

If you'd looked at any of the pages I've added links to, you'd see that there's nothing for sale there. I'm not trying to up anyone's status in search engines either. If I find a performer's page that doesn't include one of their accomplishments I've added it, and if it doesn't include the tracks and credits for one of their albums, I've added a link to a page that does.

If this is inappropriate for wiki, then I'm sorry. I'm also sorry for the performers who can't have that info and credits be attributed to them on the wiki pages.

If you still threaten me with being banned from wiki for what I've done, then I feel sorry for you too. I'll abandon wiki in that case, and look for other sites where people are more open to giving credit to those wonderful performers.

Thanks Bumblebeee (talk) 00:13, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

We have policies against spamming external links. The fact that your website does not sell anything and you worked hard on it is beside the point. If you feel sorry for me because I am enforcing the rules, then you of course you have that right. All I am doing is keeping Wikipedia free of spam. However, if you add another spam link, you will be blocked.--Smashville^talk 00:19, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I've checked through all the warnings about what's inappropriate spamming at wiki, and the only one I seem to have breached is adding too many links in a short period of time.

I don't want to argue with you, and I think you really do feel you're trying to enforce the wiki guidelines, but...... I think maybe your previous experiences with spamming have made you a bit too judgmental towards those who aren't spammers?

My last shot at trying to give credit to performers on the wiki pages (even if I do add many links at one time - my way of doing things) would be to ask you if we can get other opinions about this?

I have absolutely nothing to gain by pursuing this. But the performers and their fans do.

Is there anywhere else we can take this discussion?

Bumblebeee (talk) 00:38, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

There are a few points I'd like to address as to your recent edits to various articles. If I'm not clear or you'd like me to expand on anything, just let me know.

1. I first saw your edit to the Barbi Benton article. You put your web address next to the album name. An album doesn't need a reference. It is its own reference. It's out there for anyone to look up. In the same way that we don't have to provide a reference for Orson Welles starring in Citizen Kane. It's not controversial, it's available on the market and in libraries for anyone to purchase or borrow. It's not an item that needs a reference.
2. If you were providing the link for people to see more info about that album, then it should go on the album's article. Not Benton's.
3. Your site, as comprehensive as it may be, is not a reliable source. You are not, as far as I can see, a noted music critic. Your site is not for a published music magazine. Your site is just, from what I can see, a fan site and therefore isn't held to the same standards as a news outlet or official artist site.
4. This edit is just not the way we do things. A link in the discography of an artist should go to the Wikipedia article about that album and not an external site. You may say that you've seen external links in filmographies, like what you did with the discography, that go to the Internet Movie Database. Those are bad as well and should be taken out on sight. Wikipedia is not affiliated with the IMDb and creating links like that gives the impression that it is affiliated. The same applies to your site. There isn't an official affiliation.
5. If you would like to add back the info about Jackson Browne performing a No Nukes concert, that would be fine. Although, as I stated in my last point, your site can't be used as a reference for that appearance. Again, nothing against you or your site but look at it this way: A fan site, or if you prefer, an informational site put together by a well meaning person has the birth date of a celebrity listed incorrectly. That information is read by other people and copied to other sites. So on and so forth. Yes, many sites will confirm the date but none of them are correct. That's why we rely on reliable sources (WP:RS) such as newspapers, magazines, interviews with the celeb, etc. They have a reputation to uphold and are professional journalists. If they publish a birth date, it's likely that they didn't just do a Google search and look it up on a fan site. They got the date from the person's manager or, in the case of an interview, got it from the celeb themselves.

So, do you see now why the links don't belong? I have no problem with you adding well sourced and accurate information. But your site cannot be used as a source for that information. Dismas|^(talk) 06:31, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the lengthy response, Dismas.

I'd just like to point out a couple of things......

-- I've done much research on the internet about various performers, and have found errors not only on the Wiki pages but on some of the "reliable" sources you mentioned. Just because a web site claims to have inside information or is a news source doesn't mean what's written on it is correct.

-- Many references on Wiki are to fan sites. Most performers don't have the time or inclination to put the work into them that their fans do.

-- I'd say that 99% of the wiki pages on performers were created by fans, and not all the information contained on them came directly from the performer or a news source. Names, dates and places are wrong on many pages.

-- All the information on my "fan site" has been checked and double checked with multiple other sources, even with the artists mentioned on the pages when there was a question.

-- If wikipedia chooses to accept certain sources as being factual simply because they claim to have credentials, then the information on wiki will often be erroneous. How many news articles were later found to be incorrect?

-- In the cases you mentioned about Barbi Benton and Maria Muldaur - there were no wiki pages about those albums. Sure, people could take the time to look them up and possibly come up with incorrect or incomplete information about them. I thought wiki would be happy to have references to those performer's albums. Isn't wiki about disseminating accurate information?

I've been severely reprimanded here, and I have no desire to contribute to a site that treats their contributors so harshly without asking for more information about what their resources are. Lots of assumptions being made.

All I can do at this point is drop out of wiki. But I do feel sorry for the wonderful performers who are either deleted for not being "noteworthy" enough, or have incomplete or incorrect information posted about them here. I'll continue to support them and give them the recognition they deserve - but not at wiki. As I said before, I have nothing to gain by posting anything here.

Bumblebeee (talk) 07:39, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

In reply to your first point: I've done much research on the internet about various performers, and have found errors not only on the Wiki pages but on some of the "reliable" sources you mentioned. Just because a web site claims to have inside information or is a news source doesn't mean what's written on it is correct.

Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Therefore errors are going to get in. Is every article perfect? No. I can't stress that enough. That's why anyone can edit it, to fix those errors. And when doing so, cite better sources.

Your second point: Many references on Wiki are to fan sites.

Those references should be removed. This is an Other stuff exists argument. You seem to be saying that because other articles cite fan sites, your site should be used as a reference as well. Those articles should not cite fan sites. They should cite reliable sources.

Third: Names, dates and places are wrong on many pages.

{{sofixit}}

Fourth: All the information on my "fan site" has been checked and double checked with multiple other sources...

First, how are we supposed to know that? Second, if you got your information from a reliable source, then cite that source! We're not asking that much. Just cite where you got your info to begin with.

Fifth: If wikipedia chooses to accept certain sources as being factual simply because they claim to have credentials,...

See the first sentence of WP:V.

And finally: In the cases you mentioned about Barbi Benton and Maria Muldaur - there were no wiki pages about those albums.

So, create articles for those albums! Again, Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. That includes creating articles for albums from notable musicians.

Your only option is not to drop out. You have spent so little time trying to learn your way around and so much of it trying to make the system fit your ideas of how it should work. Wikipedia could benefit from what you have learned and the sources that you have studied. If you choose to be an isolationist, so be it. Dismas|^(talk) 09:43, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Dismas, for taking the time to answer my concerns and update me as to what Wikipedia is all about.

A statement in the "by-laws" of this place says something like: We don't care if what you contribute here is the truth or not - as long as you cite your source. That kind of attitude would work if you're discussing a theory like Darwinism vs. Creationism, but if you're dealing with facts about someone's life all you're doing without verifying truth is propagating mis-information in many cases.

That's why I choose not to contribute or be affiliated with wikipedia at all. Why would I add correct information to a place where they don't care if they disseminate mis-information? I wouldn't. I also don't read the National Enquirer.

You call me an isolationist simply because i refuse to be associated with Wikipedia? Fortunately, I have lots of friends on and off the internet / in the music biz and fans ...... who really value the truth of facts. Those are the people I'll continue to share all this delightful information with.

Again.. you're making very many assumptions about me that are incorrect. Do you have verifiable sources for them?  :-)

Thank you for the apology for the heavy handed way you and your colleague treated me. Oh....... That's right - you didn't apologize. Never mind.

Bumblebeee (talk) 04:05, 2 October 2008 (UTC)