Jump to content

User talk:Peshgil

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

[edit]
Hello, Peshgil!

Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Getting Started

Tutorial
Learn everything you need to know to get started.

Introduction to contributing

The Teahouse
Ask questions and get help from experienced editors.

The Task Center
Learn what Wikipedians do and discover how to help.

Tips
  • Don't be afraid to edit! Just find something that can be improved and make it better. Other editors will help fix any mistakes you make.
  • It's normal to feel a little overwhelmed, but don't worry if you don't understand everything at first—it's fine to edit using common sense.
  • If an edit you make is reverted, you can discuss the issue at the article's talk page. Be civil, and don't restore the edit unless there is consensus.
  • Always use edit summaries to explain your changes.
  • When adding new content to an article, always include a citation to a reliable source.
  • If you wish to edit about a subject with which you are affiliated, read our conflict of interest guide and disclose your connection.
  • Have fun! Your presence in the Wikipedia community is welcome.
Hello, Peshgil, and Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking if shown; this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field with your edits. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Ronz (talk) 16:22, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Getting started
Getting help
Policies and guidelines
The community
Writing articles
Miscellaneous

An extended welcome

[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. I've added a welcome message to the top of this page that gives a great deal of information about Wikipedia. I hope you find it useful.

Additionally, I hope you don't mind if I share some of my thoughts on starting out as a new editor on Wikipedia: If I could get editors in your situation to follow just one piece of advice, it would be this: Learn Wikipedia by working only on non-contentious topics until you have a feel for the normal editing process and the policies that usually come up when editing casually. You'll find editing to be fun, easy, and rewarding. The rare disputes are resolved quickly and easily.

Working on biographical information about living persons is far more difficult. Wikipedia's Biographies of living persons policy requires strict adherence to multiple content policies, and applies to all information about living persons including talk pages.

If you have a relationship with the topics you want to edit, then you will need to review Wikipedia's Conflict of interest policy, which may require you to disclose your relationship and restrict your editing depending upon how you are affiliated with the subject matter.

Some topic areas within Wikipedia have special editing restrictions that apply to all editors. It's best to avoid these topics until you are extremely familiar with all relevant policies and guidelines.

I hope you find some useful information in all this, and welcome again. --Ronz (talk) 16:43, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

January 2023

[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm Sundayclose. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Twist and Shout, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Sundayclose (talk) 01:13, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stop icon

When adding links to material on external sites, as you did to What a Fool Believes, please ensure that the external site is not violating the creator's copyright. Linking to websites that display copyrighted works is acceptable as long as the website's operator has created or licensed the work. Knowingly directing others to a site that violates copyright may be considered contributory infringement. This is particularly relevant when linking to sites such as YouTube or Sci-Hub, where due care should be taken to avoid linking to material that violates its creator's copyright. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If you believe the linked site is not violating copyright with respect to the material, then you should do one of the following:

  • If the linked site is the copyright holder, leave a message explaining the details on the article Talk page;
  • If a note on the linked site credibly claims permission to host the material, or a note on the copyright holder's site grants such permission, leave a note on the article Talk page with a link to where we can find that note;
  • If you are the copyright holder or the external site administrator, adjust the linked site to indicate permission as above and leave a note on the article Talk page;

If the material is available on a different site that satisfies one of the above conditions, link to that site instead. Sundayclose (talk) 01:14, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what source you consider to be unreliable.
Spizer's page shows a copy of the actual sales sheet that he dug up personally from Vee-Jay's records, and which he provided to Apple and Universal in making their formal request to the RIAA for award certification.
As for the chart information, since you rejected the internal link, I provided information from the Cash Box issue itself and from Mark Wallgren's The Beatles on Record. However, the internal link gave three books as sources.
I have no idea what you're talking about regarding copyrighted sites. Please provide more information, rather than vague generalities. Peshgil (talk) 13:25, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read my edit summary? You cited Wikipedia as a source. Wikipedia cannot source itself. Regarding your most recent edit, Beatle.net is a spammy fansite that is not a reliable source. You also stated your own synthesized conclusion that was not specifically stated in the RIAA source. Regarding copyright, at What a Fool Believes, you added a link to a YouTube video that violates copyright. Read my messages above, particularly the link to WP:Copyrights#Linking_to_copyrighted_works. And finally, most YouTube videos are not reliable sources, and you cannot state your own conclusions from watching a video. Sundayclose (talk) 15:07, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
1. Beatle.net is not a "spammy fansite." It is the publisher's website for Bruce Spizer's books. That particular page contains an interview with Spizer himself and shows photographs of PRIMARY source documents. Do I need to testify in court that I spoke regularly with Mr. Spizer during that whole process? What is wrong with you? Do you hate Mr. Spizer?
2. I have no idea what link I provided to YouTube. Please do attempt to be precise.
Example: In this place on Wikipedia (cite), you linked to this source on YouTube (cite). That video was pulled due to its violation of copyright. (OR, YouTube considers that video to be in compliance with copyright laws and has received no complaints about it, but I don't like it.) The video contains these words (cite), and from those words, you concluded this (cite). I have concluded that your inference is improper because (explain reasoning).
3. As I indicated, I removed the reference to another Wikipedia page. You should be aware that print encyclopedias refer to internal articles all the time -- rather than repeat the same information over and over.
4. The RIAA is a primary source. A conclusion from a PRIMARY source is SECONDARY.
There are no books stating such a conclusion. However, if such a book did exist, the book itself would be a SECONDARY source, drawing the identical inference from the PRIMARY source. Citing such a source would make Wikipedia's citation TERTIARY instead of SECONDARY. Wherever possible, SECONDARY sources are to be preferred over TERTIARY ones. 2600:1700:AB31:8550:C0AB:642D:AA40:4B09 (talk) 15:57, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, don't edit while you are signed out. You are not supposed to edit with both a registered account and an IP. You are missing most of my points. The YouTube video that you linked here violates copyright. You cannot link to a video that violates copyright. Again, read WP:Copyrights#Linking_to_copyrighted_works. This is not a print encyclopedia. This is Wikipedia, which has policies and guidelines that must be followed because there is no professional editorial oversight. And one of those policies, which I am now explaining to you a third time, is that Wikipedia cannot source itself. Please read WP:CIRCULAR, which I have now linked for you three times. Additionally, Wikipedia is not a reliable source. What you said about RIAA, primary, and secondary sources makes no sense in the context of what I am trying to get you to understand. AGAIN, click and read the links I have provided. The RIAA source does not state that "only "Twist and Shout" was a cover song". That is your synthesized conclusion. READ WP:SYN, which I have now linked for you a third time. Yes Beatle.net is a spammy website. Just because someone writes a book and tries to sell it on his website does not make it a reliable source. I could write book claiming that the Moon is made of cheese and try to sell the book on my website; that doesn't mean that I know what I'm talking about or that the website is a reliable source. If you wish to discuss this further, take it up at WP:RSN. Now, instead of wasting your time and my time making irrelevant arguments, please read everything I have written on your talk page and click the links to read the policies before continuing to argue. You should have clicked all of the links in the standard welcome message above five years ago. I'm also going to post a second standard welcome message at the top of this page. Please click the links and read the policies and guidelines before continuing to edit. Thank you. Sundayclose (talk) 18:07, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, don't issue commands. ;-)
The information in my edit is correct, but you are convinced that the source violates copyright. You are not the copyright holder, and the page has no complaints. Since YouTube has not taken the video down in 13 years, it makes just as much sense to assume that someone from ET saw the video and consented to its inclusion there, but I get it...you don't like YouTube. They're a rival site. You're much smarter than they are, you're so much wiser, and your policy is much better than their policy. Fine, but the original article referenced the rumor that Jackson sang on the song. All I did was provide authentic documentation of what was already in the article -- indicating that indeed he was likely joking. I didn't add that information; I clarified it with a source. But if the source is out, then the whole anecdote about Jackson singing on the Doobie Brothers' records should be out. Without the source, it's just a rumor generated by a Jackson fansite. Why on earth would you report a rumor without the one link which explains it? There is no proof without the video or a transcript of it. Of course, unless the transcript came from ET, it too would be excluded.
You wrote, "The RIAA source does not state that only "Twist and Shout" was a cover song." Correct. It lists all of the Beatles singles to which it granted awards, and the only song on that list that is a cover song is "Twist and Shout." The RIAA site is PRIMARY; the conclusion is SECONDARY. If someone else drew that same conclusion and put it into a book or on a website, it would be further from the source information. It would be TERTIARY. Do you have any idea what this means? If not, I am qualified to teach it to you.
Your comments about one of the top researchers in the field of record collecting and music reporting subject you to ridicule. Every item in his thirteen books has stood up to the scrutiny of industry executives, reporters, dealers, collectors, and other book publishers. His widespread reputation is as a top expert. Research enthusiasts (including myself) speak of his work in the same breath as that of Mark Lewisohn. Spizer provides more original documentation in his books than surfaced in the many years before his first book. Furthermore, that particular information is not merely about his books -- it is about something that Bruce Spizer did himself. I'm sure you haven't bothered to read his books, or to examine any of his research -- being too busy as a WikiJerk, but if you took the time to do so, you would find reproductions of quite a few important relics. You would find personal interviews with record company executives and employees.
Spizer himself looked over the documentation from Vee-Jay, and published it in his books. He spoke personally with Apple. He personally suggested the RIAA certification. Apple and Universal followed through on it. I myself had quite a few conversations with him as the process was unfolding in 2013-2014. The Royalty Analyst in New York (who worked with the RIAA) congratulated Spizer on his work in providing documentation for the certifications.
People such as yourself make it patently obvious why Wikipedia has such a poor reputation for providing reliable and reputable material. The vast majority of my colleagues in Academia (90%) do not allow their students to quote from Wikipedia in research projects, reports, or projects. Until now, I disagreed. I made a video eight years ago for the college that employed me detailing the usefulness of different kinds of sources and explaining the site's usefulness. You personally have caused me to retract the positive things that I said there. I join my colleagues in banning Wikipedia in college papers. Over the years, I have assisted several researchers in correcting errors on Wikipedia. I am coming to the belief that fixing Wikipedia seems to be a lost cause. My pal, Neal Umphred, would want me to say hi. Peshgil (talk) 19:58, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll stop "issuing commands" when you actually read the policies. You clearly haven't done so, or you don't understand what you have read. You're repeating the same meaningless arguments again and again, and there's no need for me to continue encouraging you to beat a dead horse. So if you wish to make your edits again you need to go the the article's talk page, present your case there, and wait to see if you have enough support for a consensus to make your edits. I would suggest that you read WP:BRD, but since I seriously doubt that you will, you'll have to settle for my summary of that policy: When two editors disagree and cannot come to an agreement, discussion on the article talk page for the entire community to see is the next step. Articles related to the Beatles and their songs have a lot of eyes on them, so if anyone agrees with you they will let you know there. Unless you take this to the article talk page, I'm finished discussing this with you here. I'll only say this once: Don't make the edits again without a consensus. And finally, regarding your "WikiJerk" comment, stop making personal attacks. Doing so will get you a block much faster and for longer than any of the other problems we have discussed here. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Thank you. Sundayclose (talk) 22:15, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I read them when I joined. I fell asleep.
I understood them.
I realized then how most of the so-called policies were designed to make it look like Wikipedia was more academic than it actually is.
I realized quickly that in certain areas (such as graduate-level Physics and Mathematics), Wikipedia is quite good. In other areas (notably the humanities and social sciences), Wikipedia is a disaster masquerading as an encyclopedia.
Don't comment on people? Really? How are your attacks on Bruce Spizer not personal? As I said, I relayed to you things that he did personally. After your unwarranted bias against him, I emailed the context of our discussion to him. He phoned me, and we spoke for over an hour about it. I advised him not to be as annoyed by your attacks on him as I was.
I'll leave things as they are, because there's no sense trying to interject truth into a world of information control. Peshgil (talk) 22:27, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

September 2023

[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Unfinished Music No. 1: Two Virgins have been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 13:30, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Peshgil&oldid=1175500590"