User talk:Crushingskullsrec

Welcome!

Hello, Crushingskullsrec, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, like Peredy, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for page creation, and may soon be deleted.

You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles. See the Article Wizard.

Thank you.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! MuffledThud (talk) 19:40, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Peredy

A tag has been placed on Peredy requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a clear copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. MuffledThud (talk) 19:40, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

January 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you removed a speedy deletion tag from Peredy, a page you have created yourself. If you do not believe the page should be deleted, you can place a {{hangon}} tag on the page, under the existing speedy deletion tag (please do not remove the speedy deletion tag), and make your case on the page's talk page. Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. Thank you. MuffledThud (talk) 20:04, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Peredy

A tag has been placed on Peredy requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a clear copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. ttonyb (talk) 01:31, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from introducing inappropriate pages, such as Peredy, to Wikipedia. Doing so is not in accordance with our policies. For more information about creating articles, you may want to read Wikipedia:Your first article; you might also consider using the Article Wizard. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. ttonyb (talk) 01:34, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop removing speedy deletion notices from pages that you have created yourself, as you did with Peredy. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. ttonyb (talk) 01:43, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you remove a speedy deletion notice from a page you have created yourself, as you did with Peredy, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. ttonyb (talk) 01:44, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia cannot use text copied wholesale from the artist's MySpace page. Accordingly, the article has been deleted. If he warrants an article, you must write the text in your own words; you may not copy it from any other site. —C.Fred (talk) 02:00, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Crushingskullsrec. You have new messages at Ttonyb1's talk page.
Message added 01:48, 11 January 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

ttonyb (talk) 01:48, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for persistent recreation of inappropriate pages; please familiarize yourself with WP:MUSIC and WP:COI as well as the copyright policy before your block expires. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 02:05, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Crushingskullsrec (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

My reason is because I removed the link that was said to be a violation. Then when I went to place the edited version in, it reverted back to the one that was deleted first. Before the page was originally deleted, I removed the link from Myspace that the page stated was a violation. It was an accident that I overlooked it, and if you can look, I made the correction well before the page was deleted. This shows I was not deliberately trying to get away with having it. I put it again in the EXTERNAL LINKS as the page stated I was allowed to. The page was pasted from NOTEPAD on my computer. I am the one that wrote the information on all of this artists sites as I am the record label that handels this artist. There are other bands on your website that have foul content in what they do. Peredy does not even have any foul language in his music and helps out people in need with it. Please allow the revised version. I would hate to think you would block out an artist that has helped children and poverty with his music, and is a rising recording artist.

Decline reason:

Per long discussion below, it does not appear you have any reason to edit Wikipedia except to promote your own band. Jayron32 20:53, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Have you reviewed WP:MUSIC and WP:COI yet, as I suggested? It will be necessary for you to understand those rules before your block expires, or you'll find it difficult to edit appropriately, and your request doesn't show an understanding of those rules yet. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 02:54, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What to I need to do to get the Peredy page up? I have read the two pages that you asked me to. There is nothing there that I see that this artist doesn't apply to. Even more so, Scapegoat at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scapegoat_%28band%29 which is on your site, is as the same, and yet that page is in good standing. Please tell me what to do from here. Each time I try to add a new page for Peredy that follow your guidelines, it automatically reverts to the original that was deleted. I am TRYING to get the new page up that DOES meet your guidelines. I have it saved on NOTEPAD on my computer. If I can send this copy to someone, please give me an email address so it can be verified. I promise I am not trying to violate anything, but I am going under the exact same restrictions now as other artists that have pages up. I even deleted the same link that got it deleted the first time, before it was deleted. I wonder if there is an error in the editing that makes it revert back to the deleted version each time.

Are you sure there's nothing on those pages that applies to you? WP:COI asks us all to avoid writing about ourselves and our professional associates, but you said that you are this artist's record label. WP:MUSIC says that we only need articles about musicians who have achieved certain levels of notability, which the deleted version of the article doesn't demonstrate. And, yes, the deleted article was written in a promotional tone that wouldn't be appropriate for a neutral encyclopedia article. If you are interested in volunteering with Wikipedia, because you are excited about the idea of helping to create a free encyclopedia, the best thing you can do is to refrain from writing about your own clients, but instead write about subjects that you don't have a personal connection to. If your primary interest is promoting bands that you represent, then Wikipedia isn't the right place to do that- you were correct in looking to MySpace, which is exactly the right place for that. Are you interested in participating at Wikipedia now that you know that you won't be writing about bands you represent? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 03:22, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scapegoat_%28band%29 was able to do it. So I am afraid I don't understand. Peredy has been noted in several magazines, VH1 Save The Music, a benefit to help a family that lost a drowning 2 year old child, and several newspaper articles, including an upcoming release in the video game "ROCK BAND" and 2 movie soundtracks. What more can be notable than that? If you don't want users to visit your site to find general information, that many on a cell phone cannot use his Myspace page for, then that is fine. But please be fair and do the same for the others, as many other bands on this website are entered by one of the members themselves. Also note that there are a couple links in the revised version that I tried to include that show newspaper articles that can verify some of this, and to list all of the reviews would be an endless task to copy all of them just on here.

Thanks. I understand that you aren't interested in volunteering to help write the encyclopedia, and that's fine- it isn't for everyone. Since your only interest in Wikipedia is promoting your own business interests, I'll go ahead and extend this to an indefinite block; you won't need an active account on Wikipedia. If you ever change your mind, feel free to let us know. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 03:29, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- I didn't say I'm not interested, and I didn't say that all I am interested in Wikipedia is to promote. You seem to be ignoring what I am saying. Please read this again. I am trying to supply a place for the several hundreds of people looking to find information on the artist, like they do with many other artists that you allow on your site. I am only asking to be treated fairly as the other bands are permitted to be listed here as well. I don't want to think that Wikipedia allows listing for information on bands and artists that are full of vulgarity and pornography, and not one that helps people in need and has accomplished much more.

No, it's fine- if your band is truly notable, then it's inevitable that its many fans will create an article about it eventually, in accordance with the conflict of interest guidelines. Yes, Wikipedia has no rule against people writing articles about bands and other subjects that some would find morally objectionable, as long as those subjects are notable and written by people who can write from a neutral point of view. Don't worry about those other articles; Wikipedia has millions of articles, and we haven't yet finished reviewing all of them for appropriateness. If you ever decide to volunteer to help with the project, you could tackle the big job of going through all the rock band articles and nominating the ones that don't meet the notability criteria for deletion. It's useful work, and we can always use more people on it. You wouldn't believe how many people try to use Wikipedia to promote their own bands; we probably have hundreds or even thousands of articles that have slipped through the cracks and still need to be deleted. Work, work, work... -03:37, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

- Hows this for neutral article? This is one of many. The only one I will give for an example. http://www.salisburypost.com/Entertainment/102209-peredyarticle If that isnt enough, than that is fine. I will be happy to put it out that this site is quick to delete an artist like this, and not offensive ones. - Thanks.

Is it that you don't understand what I'm saying about your conflict of interest? I don't think there's a better way for me to explain it, so I'm just going to go to bed. Good night; sleep well. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 03:46, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Only conflict of interest is that I am putting verifiable facts on an artist that so many look for information on. I will be making the note about this to anyone that asks about Wikipedia, along with the names giving a barrier for the listing, that is completely unjust. This entire conversation is also copied and pasted. If you like, you may email the label and ask for a copy of the transcript that will be made public. We will take the request under consideration, and MAY allow a copy. Or, you can just search for it. Take care.

The problem is, at least in the version of the article I deleted, there was no verification. There was only the text copied from the MySpace page. Even if you were willing to release that text under a CC license, it would have needed to be rewritten from a neutral point of view. The question of whether Peredy can have an article is still open; the issue is that Peredy can't have that article; it should have one of original prose, written from neutral point-of-view, and drawing on secondary reliable sources, not the band, band's MySpace page, or other primary sources. —C.Fred (talk) 04:25, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Then please tell me where one is supposed to get the facts from other than the artist for the story and history on the artist. The information on his myspace page was not written by him, as he does not control his page, except for the bottom side note he asked to have included about answering messages. Someone, weather it be Crushing Skulls Records, or someone else, would have had to ask him and get this information from him for his history. It cant just be guessed. Other detailed information that was gathered, and ALSO added to his Myspace, was provided in links from newspapers and other sources. There are many. This is why a label is handy. We collect all of this, and manage and place it all together so people can find out vast info in one lump area... just like any other you have here "IE: Mommas and the pappas".

Someone, somewhere, had to talk to Peredy to find out his history. It cant be assumed. People want to know how it started, not just what current events are. This is not added to promote shows or album sales, just simply the information. We at Crushing Skulls Records did not interview each detail, but instead verified the facts with Peredy, and collected it together.

Search the Salisbury Post (Newspaper) which is neutral at www.salisburypost.com for his name and see one source for yourself.

Unless your telling me that the other information on the other bands on here and everywhere else, the information is just magically zapped into someones head and they wrote their story.

Now being that this is in fact, the facts and summery of the story of Peredy, one of which the facts are already written, if you still don't want it on your site because it is written somewhere else, that is fine. We will simply just tell people that ask if they can find the info on here, that they in fact cannot because it is also written somewhere else. I'm not sure people will understand that logic, because facts are facts, but that is fine. It is your website to do with as you wish. I suppose the other information you have on here must be fiction since you do not want the same things written somewhere else.

Just because we are submitting this, doesn't mean that it's our opinion. As you can see, there is nothing written about him that is opinion. It is just simply the facts that were gathered from SEVERAL sources, verified with Peredy, and written.

Let's back up a sec - who's We? UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:59, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We = The people here at Crushing Skulls Records.... I = Jon Alexander, the PR director for the label. This is an indie label, and not a large one by any means, but a label all the same.

That's kind of what I figured. I've had a look at the article, the website, and the above discussion, and there are a few issues. First, even if material from a Myspace page is licensed properly, such that it could be used on Wikipedia, the problem remains that it is not independent of the subject - it's the artist's record label writing about the artist. Even if it is entirely factually accurate (which, I note, no one has questioned), it's impossible to remove the perception of bias. See our policy on conflict of interest. I appreciate that you're making a good faith effort to post correct information about the subject, but you're not in a position to do so, since you profit financially from the increased exposure of the subject. As noted, above, if there are news articles that talk about the subject, anyone not associated with the subject can use that to write a neutral, verifiable article. It's possible that, as Peredy gains in popularity and exposure, sources will become available, and an article will write itself. But those sources do not exist yet, and so we have nothing upon which to base an article. The second concern, and one which you just confirmed, is that this account (Crushingskullsrec) appears to be a group account, used to edit on behalf of the label as opposed to on behalf of a single individual. Group accounts are prohibited under our username policy. Best, UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 16:21, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

update

Okay, two things that are incorrect about that. But it is my fault that I did not explain. Yes it is on behalf of the label, but it is not a group effort. It is my job to do this completely on my own. All the information submitted from what I gain is entered by me alone. But I get it from many sources.
The second one is that no one is making money on Peredy. (This I did not explain either). Crushing Skulls is a completely non profit label. Anything that comes in over what we spend is used to fund different areas. For example: Peredy has held concerts to benefit keeping music in schools (independently, and a couple times for VH1 save the music), and wrote and recorded music to help a family that lost a 2 year old boy in a flood. I did try to provide other sources such as newspapers and places to look for some of this information, but the corrections I tried to make to this page was reverted back to the original each time, and would not save. I do not know why.
Finally, if you want to not allow this, and wait for others to write articles about Peredy, then so be it. But the information will be the same as what I have. Facts are facts regardless of who they come from. And if there is something to add or edit, then doesnt this site allow the ability for users to do so?

Okay so now I just read the addition that was placed while I was typing this. I see and understand what you are trying to get across. Unfortunately I do not have the time to break down every source where all of this information on his story is collected. I will include here a few links from the same news paper, but it took a great deal of time to gather the information to verify with Peredy, then add to the other sites. As for the billboard charts, no, there is not a #1 hit. If that was included in the page I was creating, I do not know why. I used the source code from another artist so that I could have something to work with to create the page, and may have accidentally included that. But as I stated before, there are many other bands and artists on this site that are at the same level as Peredy or even lower, and have less credentials. So I figured his, among those, would be okay to list.

If it is truly a matter of having to list the several links (and by several I mean over 100) to collect the little pieces that were placed together to rid of useless reading, then we will forget this. I will understand that it is allowed for some and not others. I see it with my own eyes. Like I said before, it is your site and you can choose to have on it as you like. I will keep it noted.

For starters, here are some other articles from that same newspaper on Peredy...

http://www.salisburypost.com/Entertainment/102209-peredyarticle

http://archive.salisburypost.com/archive_detail.php?archiveFile=2007/September/06/TimeOut/88137.xml&start=0&numPer=20&keyword=Blyster&sectionSearch=&begindate=1%2F1%2F1983&enddate=1%2F11%2F2010&authorSearch=&IncludeStories=1&pubsection=&page=&IncludePages=1&IncludeImages=1&mode=allwords&publicationSearch[]=Salisbury+Post&archive_pubname=Salisbury+Post%0A%09%09%09

I believe those verify allot to see how we gathered details and lumped them together.

PS if someone would like to see the correction of what I made after the Myspace link warning, I still have it in Notepad. But I think it's unfair to still have it public that Peredy was deleted for copyright violation and with the Myspace link, when the link was removed from the place where it stated it wasnt allowed before it was deleted, as the best effort to correct the mistake. This makes it appear as if Peredy has violated copyrights owned by Myspace as the red box is vague and the public is likely to not understand this entire reasoning or what is behind it. Crushingskullsrec (talk) 16:55, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The link was not what got the article deleted. The text was what got the article deleted. You would have had to remove practically all the text of the article to have not committed (apparent) copyright infringement. (Even if the link were deleted, there are bots that check article text that could have found the duplication and tagged it.) Believe me, this isn't the first article that's had a first draft deleted for infringement. —C.Fred (talk) 16:58, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, then why wouldn't the second draft save? That is not my fault. I tried to revise it. The original kept getting reverted back. And by your definition, it is still leaving it unjust and unfair to put on a public page that suggests Peredy or someone associated with him violated copyright issues with Myspace. That is how it is listed. Take a look for yourself. If you click the red link for Peredy, that comes up. It is making it appear he did something illegal. I am about done with this. Please remove the section in red that insinuates that someone violated a copyright issue with Myspace, as the content does not belong to Myspace to begin with. As you can see on his player, there is 3rd party ownership and rights to his Myspace account. Please remove that from your website and I will leave you all alone and just make it aware to those that ask what is going on.

Thank you Crushingskullsrec (talk) 17:05, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First, yes, the revert was a little heavy-handed, because you did add a fair bit of text to the article. The problem was, the offending text, taken from the MySpace page, was still present. Accordingly, it met criterion G12, where there are no earlier versions without infringement. (Administrators can look at deleted text, so I was able to pull up your changes. The text from the MySpace page was still present after you revised the article.)

Second, I have restored and re-deleted the article. The reason for deletion is now "G12 - Heavy use of text from artist's MySpace page, which is not licensed CC-BY-SA and cannot be used on Wikipedia." Hopefully, this makes it clearer why this text was removed. Please note that even if the text were under a sufficiently free license, the text might still have been subject to deletion under criterion G11 as overly promotional. —C.Fred (talk) 17:22, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Still does not change the fact that the link and the construction was under accordance with the guidelines I was stated to follow. And is still allowed even on the example bands that I provided. This sites favoritism is noted and will be viewed by the public. I asked that you removed the red box with his name for the red link, which is what will be seen when a fan or anyone else tries to submit information, which you refuse to do. Also, the note I made on the last edit on the bottom of this page. That information will be available to the public this week as well. Feel free to delete my entire account. This page in it's entirety is time stamped, saved and documented for our records. That is all. Thank you Crushingskullsrec (talk) 17:34, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The construction was not user accordance with guidelines: there is no evidence of a sufficient free license, so the page did fall under criterion G12, invalid use of non-free material (i.e., copyright infringement). The red box cannot be removed—well, there is a mechanism that could remove it, but I don't think that a request to remove it will be granted. Finally, the account cannot be deleted, because it has an edit history. That history will remain, though if you really want, I'll pare this page down to just the indefinite block notice. —C.Fred (talk) 18:14, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On secondary sources, reliable sources, and notability

I'm breaking the section for ease of following the threads here.

Several times it's been stated that secondary sources are the preferred sourcing for articles and the barometer of notability. Yes, the secondary sources probably interviewed the subject to write the story. However, there's another layer in play. For example, when Caitlin Crawford wrote her story on "Peredy song tribute to flood victim,"[1] she interviewed Peredy for the story. She probably also consulted the Crawford family, FNB Georgia, and a few other people. What sets the Salisbury Post aside from blogs and fan pages is that Crawford then submitted her story to an editor at the Salisbury Post, who reviewed the story, had fact-checkers look over it, and the like before it was printed in the paper. That layer of editorial review is one of the hallmarks of a reliable source. So, the Salisbury Post article is a reliable source about Peredy performing the benefit song.

Again, because a Crawford, a journalist from a paper with no connection to Peredy, wrote about him, that makes it a secondary source. Peredy's blog statement, Twitter post about the event, MySpace update, or web page posting would be a primary source, because it came directly from the subject or a party related to him. Likewise, a press release from his agent or label would be a primary source, even if the release ran in a newspaper or on a major website.

Primary sources can be used for limited information. If, for example, Peredy's website listed his birth name, date of birth, or what high school he attended, the information would likely be accepted as valid and used on the web page. If his website claimed he won three gold records, had a #1 hit on the Billboard chart, or was nominated for a People's Choice Award, those claims would be checked against sources unrelated to Peredy to verify the information. (However, the RIAA, Billboard, and People's Choice Award websites, respectively, could be used to verify the claims.)

Now, it's been mentioned several times that there's a question of whether Peredy is notable enough for an article. There are specific criteria of notability for musicians; for instance, if it can be proven that an artist put a song to #1, the artist clearly warrants an article, and it becomes a matter of filling out the article with information from reliable sources. However, there are also general notability guidelines that boil down to this: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article."

In an earlier comment, you said "Peredy has been noted in several magazines, VH1 Save The Music, a benefit to help a family that lost a drowning 2 year old child, and several newspaper articles." If the magazines provided the depth of coverage that the Salisbury Post article did, and particularly if they expanded on his career rather than focusing on particular benefits or concerts, then that might clear the hurdle of coverage in (multiple) reliable sources. If those magazine stories are reprinted online, then it will be very easy other editors to assess whether Peredy is notable—and to start an article about him with those independent sources.

Hopefully this explains why we're pushing so hard to find secondary sources about Peredy. If you have any questions, feel free to reply here.

One last thing, a procedural note: please indent your comment (start each paragraph with one or more colons), so we can see at a glance where each person's comment begins/end. Also, sign your comment by placing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of it, which will automatically insert your name and the date/time you posted the comment. —C.Fred (talk) 16:29, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On conflicts of interest

Yes, Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. However, we want it to be an encyclopedia and not a compendium of press releases. That's why, in addition to the requirement for reliable sources, we also have the conflict of interest guideline. Quoting that guideline, "COI editing involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote your own interests or those of other individuals, companies, or groups. Where advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest." As the PR manager for the artist's label, you meet the definition of a person with a conflict of interest with the subject. Having a conflict of interest does not forbid you from editing the article you have a conflict with, but it requires you to "exercise great caution" when editing that article and to "always...[a]void breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially neutral point of view, verifiability, and autobiography."

A tangent here about my off-Wiki life. A Certified Public Accountant must, when performing an audit of a client, remain independent in fact as well as in appearance with said client. Even if the CPA has the most honorable intentions and ability to perform the audit neutrally, the appearance of a lack of independence (or conflict of interest) will taint third parties' perception of the audit.

How does this apply here? Being the PR manager of the artist is, to many editors on Wikipedia, a conflict of interest which cannot be overcome, regardless of how neutrally you write the text and how many secondary sources you cite.

(Tangent: It was pointed out above that your username violates the username policy, because it is the name of a record label. Simply changing your username would not eliminate the conflict of interest.)

So, how to work around the conflict of interest? As noted above, the most passive way is to just wait quietly for a fan with no employment or family relationship to the artist to write an article about the artist.

Alternately, you could draft up an article and post it via Wikipedia:Articles for creation. I would suggest putting at the top a disclaimer like "I have a conflict of interest with the band, but have cited these outside sources, and would like review of the text to make sure it's written neutrally uses sufficient secondary sources." You could also create the draft on a subpage of your user page and invite other editors to help with the article.

Cautionary tale: Countless bands, websites, MMORPG guilds, and other groups have posted rallying cries on their websites and forums for their articles. That sort of solicitation for creation (or to forestall deletion) of an article is strongly discouraged.

One more tangent about me: There is a subject I think would be a worthy candidate for a Wikipedia article. However, he's the (deceased) founder of an organization I'm a member of. I'm not going to create an article until I can gather enough secondary sources to prove the claims of notability that I want to make about him. I know he's had a biography written about him, and I'm sure there are newspaper articles about him. It's just a matter of doing the research, to make sure that my candidate article isn't tainted by any possible perception of conflict of interest.

One last thought. Wikipedia is collaborative. IMO, a big problem here is that there are couple of layers of rules you ran afoul of early and have tried to push through alone. I think the problem can be overcome. However, I don't think you can create an article on Peredy by yourself. You'll have to (re)build bridges, accept and understand the guidelines of Wikipedia, and find ways to work with your fellow editors to build, as a group, an article. —C.Fred (talk) 16:55, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You want to avoid a conflict of interest, but you want me to put the information up and title it with, that I have a conflict of interest. And if you want a fan to post his story, where do you think he/she is going to get the information from? I'll bet you it will be from Myspace since it has the least research involved because it was done for them. So the difference of them posting it, or me posting it... none. It's the same information. And who will argue the facts? They are verified by Peredy himself. Allowing something else to be changed is saying that you welcome false information rather than the facts. This site is beginning to look to be an unreliable source for information, biased, and shows favoritism, as it is proven by allowing certain pages, and your own testimonies. Please remove what suggests that Peredy or myself violated on anything for Myspace, as you cannot speak for them (regardless of your meaning behind it, that is how it appears the the naked eye) and we will not pursue listing Peredy on here any further. And more so, if someone does place information on this artist, and it is anything BUT the facts, we will correct it and have it corrected, and place a note on there and on the other several websites that you are falsely accusing Peredy and his affiliates of copyright violation and would not accept the facts that are verified by the artist for the information ON the artist for your website. Further more, if you do not remove what I have requested, this entire conversation, that includes your contradictions, and the other factors I mentioned in this paragraph, will be placed publicly. This is not a threat. It is a warning. Remove it or we will take our own action. Peredy nor any involved with Peredy violated any copyrights or terms against Myspace. Crushingskullsrec (talk) 17:28, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, C. Fred seems to have taken the time to write a detailed description of what needs to happen for there to be an article about Peredy, including examples and detailed instructions. You have been provided with a process to follow - Articles for creation - that would permit you, even with your conflict of interest, to have a neutral and well-sourced article reviewed and posted. We're happy to help you with that process, if you can provide the required sources. But threatening to make public an already-public discussion about Wikipedia's policies and simple ways to comply with them is not a great way to get administrators to work with you. I understand you're upset, but - as C. Fred notes - this website is a collaborative project. We'll work with you if you work with us, but our time seems to have been rewarded with threats. Troubling. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 18:18, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At no time before the article was deleted did you claim to be the rightsholder to the text on the MySpace page. Accordingly, the page was deleted as violating the copyrights of Peredy and/or the author of the MySpace page (not MySpace directly). Now, in retrospect, and if we accept as valid your claim of having written the page, that means that you were infringing your own copyrights. Yes, that sounds ridiculous; however, the fix would be to send an email verifying the information to the Volunteer Response Team. However, at the time the deletion was made, you did not represent that you had written the MySpace page. Accordingly, to all appearances, it appeared that you violated copyright by copying the text, and "Content that violates any copyrights will be deleted."

Yes, there are flaws with Wikipedia's guidelines for sourcing. (If you don't believe me, read the Talk:Lady Gaga archives: one reliable source printed that she was from Yonkers, and in the absence of reliable sources printing anything to the contrary, that information stayed in the article a long time, even through a couple of denials from the artist herself.) Yes, it can keep good information out of articles. However, it makes it easier to get a lot of bad information out of articles, and sometimes babies get lost with the bathwater. This might be a case of that. However, I've spent so much time going in circles about the deletion history that I haven't been able to consider whether Peredy does warrant an article. The two Salisbury Post stories don't show me enough yet. —C.Fred (talk) 18:32, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to be blunt. A lot of administrators would have just written you off as a problem child and cut off even the ability to comment on this page after some of your comments. I've gone above and beyond the call of duty to try to explain what happened with your article and how to get around it.

I'm also going to make the offer one more time and be very direct about it. Give me some secondary sources to work with, and I'll write an article about Peredy. I've got two already from the Salisbury Post. I'd like two more at minimum, with at least one from a publication other than the Post—preferably a nationwide publication, but I'd settle for regional and could deal with the News and Observer or an equivalent paper from the Triad or Charlotte. If you don't give me secondary sources, I don't have anything to work with to help you. —C.Fred (talk) 18:42, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks anyways. We will just let the fans write it and let it get edited, then end up exactly where we had it set to begin with... then you will probably think they are affiliated and deleted it. Etc. etc. Sooner or later the facts will all be the same. If a rich man gave a dime, and a poor man gave a dime.... they both still gave a dime.