User talk:School monitor

There seems to be some confusion

Hi,

Conventionally, messages are put at the bottom of talk pages.

The only reason I'm putting this at the top of your talk page is because I don't think you have understood what is going on.

There is a response to your messages about Antony Price at the bottom of Beyond My Ken's talk page, here.

Again, to clarify my role in this: I know nothing at all about the article one way or another. I am only trying to help you communicate with Beyond My Ken, who is a very experienced Wikipedian. I have no doubt that if you engage him within Wikipedia norms you will both come to a satisfactory solution. However, you currently seem to be having trouble with the very basics. I hope this has been of assistance to you anyway. Egg Centri c 20:56, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@School monitor: Please look at the bottom of this talk page for a comment from me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:22, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

ANTONY PRICE: Look without getting into an argument your statements are not accurate though. The silk tonic suits designed by Price were not pastel coloured and they were not in a new romantic style. The band shrugged off the New Romantic tag after the first album, Price helping to dismantle it.

To understand what a New Romantic or Futurist was look at Steve Strange for the Anvil cover and sleeve. Definetly not the silk tonic suit look invented for the Rio publicity! - That was also to do with embracing the narcistic lyfestyle of Tory Thatcherite values - Rio epitomised it - and it was departure from New Romanticism that the suits designed by Price were about. Your statement reads that they were New Romantics suits.

Also:

The Camden Palace Extravaganza show was in March 1983. The Hippodrome Fashion Spectacular was in March 1984.

I have as much right to edit an article as you and expecially as my information is more accurate as I lived through the period and have been read up on Antony Price for 30 years - you obviously did not live through it so leave it to the experts. No worries.

Hello, School monitor, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Egg Centri c 17:56, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Please read above to see how to leave messages for other users. I have refactored your message to BYK. I can't comment on your editing dispute one way or t'other, I know nowt about it.

Cheers,

Egg Centri c 17:56, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Antony Price

Hi. I agree there's no need for us to get into an argument, but there are some things I need to point out to you about editing on Wikipedia. Please bear with me.

Any information added to an article should be backed up by a citation from a reliable source (if you click on the link, it will bring you to the relevant Wikipedia policy page). That doesn't always happen, but for any information which is disputed or contentious, it must happen. Any information in an article which is unsourced is subject to be removed at any time by any editor, especially when the article is about a living person. This is because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that is not written by experts, it's written by ordinary people, so everything in it must be verifiable -- that is one of the core requirements here.

Information in an article which is supported by a citation from a reliable source, such as the information I added to Antony Price about Duran Duran, sourced to Rolling Stone, should not be removed from the article without discussion on the article's talk page.

If you believe that the information is incorrect, then you must find a better citation from a reliable soure to show that the old info is bad. You cannot insert information into article based on your own personal knowledge, because we have no way of verifying that knowledge, and no way of knowing the degree of your expertise in the subject. Information based on your own knowledge we call original research, and it is flat-out not allowed.

I am not in a position to know if your statements about Duran Duran and the New Romantics are correct or not (contrary to your assumptions, I did live through that period of time, but I was a bit older than that crowd and did not pay a lot of attention to it), so I am not necessarily disputing that what you are saying about Price's involvement with the band is true. What I am saying is that you cannot add it to the article, and remove other sourced information, unless you have a citation from a very reliable source to support it ("very" because you're attempting to replace information that is already supported by a reliable source).

So, what you need to do is a little research - look online, go to the library, go through your own collection if you have one, and find a source (or two or three) that supports the statements you want to add to the article. If you do that, there will be no problem from me or any other editor, and I'd be happy to help you with formatting the references properly, but as long as you add unsourced information to the article, any editor can remove it on sight.

Also, simply reverting changes over and over again is called edit warring and it is strictly forbidden. Doing it can get you blocked from editing. Please do not restore the information to the article unless you have a citation, and do not edit war.

It can be hard to get used to how things work on Wikipedia, but (for the most part) our policies have good solid reasons behind them, and following the policies makes editing a more pleasant experience for everyone. If you have any questions about anything I've said here, I'll be happy to answer them. I'll put your talk page on my watch list, so you can comment either here, or on ly talk page.

Best, Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:37, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking for a citation for your information, however there were numerous problems with your edit:

Wikipedia is not considered to be a reliable source for Wikipedia articles (really!), so you cannot cite a Wikipedia article as a source
In your re-write, you moved information away from the citation it was connected to, changed the information to say something that the source did not say (this is the Rolling Stone cite)
You removed a "citation needed" tag without providing a citation. Please do not do this.
You added duplicate information that was already mentioned earlier in the article (the Rolling Stones tour), and the phrasing was ambiguous -- did Price go out on the tour?

For these reasons, I've reverted your edit. However, I am about to go look at the new citation you added, and I'll restore as much of what you added to the article as possible without these problems. Please do not re-insert the information until I have a chance to do that. Thanks, Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:50, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but the statement you added to the article was:

In 1982 Price collabrated with the British band Duran Duran and their style guru Nick Rhodes for the Rio video and album sleeve which saw them depart from their New Romantic roots of the 1st album into more a glamorous commercial style - appearing in silk tonic suits designed by Price.

And the source you added (other than the Duran Duran article, which, as I said, cannot be cited, is http://www.8notes.com/biographies/duran_duran.asp. However, that citation says nothing about Price at all, so it cannot be used as a source for the statement. Again, we cannot accept information that you just "know" without a citation from a reliable source. Also, much of the statement is not relevant to Price. Thanks, Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:25, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've rewritten the section to be closer to your wording without going outside what the source says. If you want to make more substantial changes, you're going to need a different source. Best, Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:36, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation

I have filed a sockpuppetr investigation report, asking that adminstrators look into the editing of you, User:Gaslett and User:Clone tone, since I believe that it's likely you are all the same person. You will find that report here, and you can respond in the section marked "Comments by other users". In the meantime, please do not edit the Antony Price article, as your edits will be reverted. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:20, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Antony Price

Your addition to Antony Price has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text, or images borrowed from other websites, or printed material without a verifiable license; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of article content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. The material in question appears to have been copied in part from http://showstudio.com/contributor/antony_price. —Psychonaut (talk) 18:04, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]