Talk:David L. Cook/Archives 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 Please use talk page before edit 2 Enough already 3 bold face 4 Juilliard School? 5 Photos 6 Fair use rationale for Image:David10.jpg 7 Fair use rationale for Image:David10.jpg 8 Fair use rationale for Image:Davidlcook cgma.jpg 9 Fair use rationale for Image:Davidlcook5.jpg 10 Fair use rationale for Image:David10.jpg 11 Fair use rationale for Image:Davidlcook cgma.jpg 12 Fair use rationale for Image:Davidlcook5.jpg

Please use talk page before edit

Wikipediatrix, thank you again for your attention to this article. Please place a discussion upon this page before making any changes to this article. I feel this will keep us from getting back into one of those clashes like we did before. The edit you made, made no sence for you to make and you did not give a reason for the edit. If you feel it needs to be changed, please state your reasons here and we will talk about it first. Before you try to remove my reversal please see Andy Griffith and several other articles that have the exact same info included on their pages. You would have to spend your whole day editing those articles as well. Thank you for your time. Junebug52 16:09, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

The information is unsourced and we can't have unsourced information about living persons. Period. That other articles also contain unsourced information is immaterial. wikipediatrix 22:21, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• Junebug52, if you have a published source for this information, please provide a hyperlink to it here or in the article and the problem will be solved. If the source is not online, such as CD liner notes, those can also be cited. Please see Wikipedia:Citation templates and Wikipedia:Citing sources/example style for the proper formats. --Satori Son 02:13, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
• Wikipediatrix, I am sorry but your claim that another article being improperly sourced is immaterial makes absolutley no sense at all! How can you even make that statement? If that be the case, why in the world would you be caring about this article out of the thousands that are on here with unsourced material? I am still believing that you are making this personal as you have moved for each article that I have contributed on to be moved for deletion? I think it's personal and you can't make me feel any other way. I feel I should refer this to an administrator so you can explain to them why this article is material and other articles on Wikipedia are immaterial yet containing the same alledged unsourced materials. I also feel we need to remove these conversations from this discussion page becasue it is hurting the image of this artist to have us arguing about these issues. Wikipedia is clear about not doing anything to harm a living person's reputation. Junebug52 22:39, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

You're talking in circles. It is precisely because the article is about a living person that I am removing your unsourced claims. I won't bother responding to your other insults and accusations. wikipediatrix 03:02, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Junebug, pointing to other articles where policies and/or guidelines have not yet been fully implemented is never an excuse for failing to do so in a particular article. We are all limited by time available in how many articles we can watch and work with. Please assume good faith. Also, please do not remove relevant comments from article talk pages. Per Wikipedia:Vandalism, Deleting the comments of other users from Talk pages other than your own, aside from removing internal spam, vandalism, etc. is generally considered vandalism. -- Donald Albury 10:05, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

• Dalbury, thank you for your note. I did not remove anything from a talk page. I do not know what you are talking about. The only way that that could have happened was when I archived everything. If that be when it happened then it was not done on purpose. I am still learning. I however do not think I did that because according to Wikipediatrix it was from an IP address and I am always signed in under my account. AOL sometimes uses the same IP address for multiple users and I think someone else blanked the page. Now that I know about the other articles, I myself will go and edit those articles that are unsourced. I also reverted Wikipediatrix' last edit as I found the information to support the facts. Thank you for your information. Junebug52 8:38, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

But you did say, I also feel we need to remove these conversations from this discussion page becasue it is hurting the image of this artist to have us arguing about these issues. I was pointing out that it would not be acceptable to do so. I have edited the material to better fit Wikipedia style. -- Donald Albury 13:01, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Dlabury, thank you sooo much. I did say that the page needs to be edited but that was later on. Anyway, could you please help me with something else? Wikipediatrix removed the Discography and Filmography from this page becasue she said she could not find reference. I have found several references [1][2][3]. Could you please revert her edit and add the information back to his site so that I do not have to get into a confrontation with this editor. I don't know why she cannot come to the talk page before she does her edits. This would give one a chance to defend their edits. Thank you again for your kindness Junebug52 9:12, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Wow, that's interesting. The information you seek to put on David L. Cook's article without a source just magically appeared on David L. Cook's CD Baby pages when it wasn't there just the other day! Since you've already admitted to be working for Mr.Cook, you are clearly playing games here. wikipediatrix 13:24, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

• What are you talking about? Wikipediatrix, that information was there for a while now. I found it the other day on several of the pages. I am friends with David L Cook, I do not work with him. I wish you would keep your personal opinions to yourself. I do work for a company that works with many artist, however that does not mean any "Games" are being played. For further information for you, please do not refer to my account as a role account because that is just not true! That is your personal opinion just as it is your personal opinion about "GAMES" You have no proof of what you are saying and you should refrain. I also did not blank a page! Again, your personal opinion. Do you have any proof that AOL did not have the same IP address for another user knowing that is one of their known practices? I wish you would just be a nicer person and we could make this a great article. I have no problem with any other editors except you? That is amazing! If you cannot be nice then please refrain from adding any comments that are not Wikipedia approved. I am trying very hard to get along with you! Junebug52 9:35, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

The information on the CDBaby page was NOT "there for a while now". It was not there just two days ago. It's not even in Google's current cache of the page. wikipediatrix 13:47, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

• The information has been there. I found it last Wed. So again, I am not going to argue with you any longer over this article. FYI, you rely so much on Google Wikipediatrix. For someone who is so firm on POV and sourcing, I am sure you are aware that Google has no filters in place to stop POV and much of the information on said site has not been nor ever will be verified. So in the future you might want to do a little more research in places that can give you a wider scope of factual information. The cache you talk about for cd baby, funny I found it right here [4] Please Wikipediatrix, I asked you to refrain from putting negative comments on this talk page. Please help, I ask you yet again! Junebug52 10:08, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

This is the page I was referring to, which had the discography added in the last 48 hours. In any event, since you have admitted to be working for Mr.Cook as his management ("IAMAS Corporation"), you are clearly citing self-created sources for the unverified information you seek to add. CDBaby pages are personal pages for individual artists to sell their own products. They are not independent third-party sources as per WP:V and WP:RS. wikipediatrix 14:21, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

• Wikipediatrix, I did not edit any pages! Stop saying that until you have 100% proof of your allegations. I do not work for David L Cook (POV) of your own. I never said I worked for him. I did say I know him. I also said I worked for a company that handled many artists. You took that to mean that I work for David? WRONG AGAIN! You are full of personal opinions. I sent you a link that said the information was in the cache and you said nothing about that one? It was there. Are you refuting that fact too? Here is is again [5] What do you have to say about that search? I have no access to David's Cd Baby pages or any other pages that holds information about him. Until you can prove your statements I ask you to again, "Please refrain from using your POV" Also, for you to go on and try to state that it is becoming apparent that I am David L Cook? I will not even respond to such absurdity. I am at the point of leaving Wikipedia and I have to say that it is because of you. I have had it with being beat up. I may not be the best editor, nor may I be the most Wiki savy person, but I am trying and you are so aggressive that people like me will loose heart becasue of your antics. I hope your satisfied! Junebug52 10:46, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

• I am only going to comment on one specific issue: the use of CDBaby.com as a reference. I believe that wikipediatrix's assessment of CDBaby.com is correct. Since it is not a "credible, third-party source[s] with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", it clearly does not meet the requirements of WP:V and should not be used to assert notability or cite significant facts. In this case, however, I think we can compromise and allow it to be a source for minor, uncontroversial biographical information that is unlikely to be fabricated, such as the subject's town of residence and the name of his son. --Satori Son 14:55, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

• Satori Son, I can certainly agree with that assesment of the situation. I just found the information and thats why I asked you to look at it. Note: I did not add it to the page before hearing back from you. Wikipediatrix took it upon herself to think I was going to make edits to the article and to add this information without having feedback from a civil editor. Again, I thank you and appreciate your input! Junebug52 11:05, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

The above edit, signed by Junebug52, was made by 24.225.33.42, the IP which he claimed [6] was not him, but David L. Cook himself when these edits were made. You can see the diff of the above edit showing Junebug52 and 24.225.33.42 to be one and the same here. wikipediatrix 15:18, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipediatrix, again, we are on AOL and they have an issue of using same IP addresses within certain areas. If someone within our area edits that article and they are on AOL it could and most probably will show the same or similar IP address. Why don't you Google AOL and see why they do that or what they can do to fix it please? I cannot control what they do or how they do it. All I know is that I did not make any edits that you are claiming. This is a mute point as this matter has been settled. I never said David Cook ever used that IP address either. I said he either used an account or an IP address, I have no idea as to what or where he was when he did what he did. All I know is that I did not, I state again for you, "I did not make that edit!" Again, this is a moot point. Have a nice day and I hope you all the best. Junebug52 12:50, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Enough already

Setting aside all the lovely personal accusations and arguments on all sides which have nothing to do with content (and thus are violating our civility policies and ought to be stopped immediately)... Wikipediatrix, you seem to be applying some exceedingly strict and sometimes questionable interpretations of WP:BLP and WP:V. For instance, our standards on biographies of living persons say that "controversial" materials must be sourced or they should be removed on sight. This is to protect Wikimedia from potential libel. Is the name of the town where the man lives "controversial"? Is the Wikimedia foundation likely to get sued over it? I'd think that would seem exceedingly unlikely. But let's suppose for the moment that 'controversial' was meant to refer to any fact which any user chooses to dispute for any reason... rather than things which could actually cause real world angst and lawsuits. In that case there must be verification... and a source was cited, but you reject it because you believe that the text on the cited page came directly from the subject of the article, their manager(s), or someone else working for/with them. Assuming that you are absolutely right... does that not then fall squarely into the types of text allowed by WP:V#Self-published_and_dubious_sources_in_articles_about_themselves? Generally if an article subject puts something on their own website or some other page which is under their control that's considered verifiable public info which can be included in Wikipedia. Yes, there are any number of odd things with Junebug and anons and the corporate account and this new reference which give every appearance of coordinated efforts to get this material added in to the article... but why exactly are you fighting so hard to keep it out? Is David Cook going to sue Wikimedia if we include basic biographical information that David Cook and/or his representatives have been trying to add to the page? Is the location where he lives and brief info on his family 'overly self-serving' or just general facts? What exactly is the 'problem' you are trying to prevent here? --CBD 11:43, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

David Cook is hardly a superstar, so consider that it's just possible that he might not want his personal info, divorce status, name of his child, etc. on Wikipedia if it's not public information. Since the info was not originally sourced, I removed it. Junebug52 replaced it with a source that seemed freshly-created, which raised my suspicion - rightfully so, considering his previous contradictory statements. Since the article hasn't been touched in days, why are you raising the matter now and taking this tone with me? Your attitude here seems to be "does it really matter?" and my attitude is that when unsourced information about living people is added to articles, yes, it matters. When disruptive editors claim to have no connection to Cook one day and then claim to be friends with him another day, yes, it matters. wikipediatrix 13:24, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

It is entirely possible that he might not want that info, particularly the divorce status, on the page... but aren't you the one saying that the person adding it is acting as a representative of David Cook? So... if he doesn't want it on the page why is someone from his management company adding it? Why was a source for that info "freshly-created"? When it wasn't sourced I could have seen removing the divorce status as 'potentially controversial'... but it IS sourced now. So what's the problem? That the source is connected with the subject? Great... removes any concerns whatsoever about them not wanting it publicized. --CBD 14:22, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

"So what's the problem?" Um... there is no problem at the moment. As I said already, I haven't touched the article in three days, so why are you bringing it up now? As for your other queries, it should go without saying that even if the person adding the info claims to be a representative of David Cook himself, that doesn't matter. We don't just take anyone's word on anything. It's all about the sources. And I'm not the only editor here who maintains that CDBaby.com is not a valid source. I'm not going to argue any further about the matter. If you think I am in error, feel free to take the matter to a higher power. wikipediatrix 14:31, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I have a quick question. How are articles and information gathered. They are all POV's. They all must come from somewhere, somehow. If I was to do an interview with John Rutter, an english composer which I need to finish a project on for my B.A. Music I would source this information in my bibliography. My essay would be called John Rutter something. Then I would publish it somewhere hopefully reputable like the Oxford University Press or I could do it on Proquest. I could of course have published the essay on my own personal web-page. (That probably wouldn't make the requirements for inclusion in wikipedia though). Essentially there are many publishers and some are more reputable than others. If you are questioning the source of information please remember the famous quote from Harold greneen which I incorperate here at WP:POV. Futhermore please remember to keep things friendly. After all, we're all helping each other out and it doesn't help to live a stressfull life. Actually wikipediatrix, thanks to your pragmatic, perhaps even scientology, physchological break down of the issue, you have probably helped and encourage Mr. Cook's publisher to put out more information. I'm sure they are grateful of the hard work you have done. Nevertheless, ironically, these are only assumptions and that which we probably will never find in published material asside for perhaps here and only within an assumption. So, is it ironic that the information change. Yes! Is the information trust worthy source. I must only assume yes! Let's stop the bickering everyone and try to get along. Now perhaps we can concentrate the next few days on setting up a Harvard Reference system accordign to WP:Cite or Easybib.com so others can help improve the article with their research. --CyclePat 17:43, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• CBD and CyclePat, thank you for your input. It will not matter to her what you say as she has her own POV. I guess she does not realize that you yourself are an Administrator CBD. I have looked over the Wikipedia rules and I have found in many instances where the information that was added, was added rightfully and under Wiki guidelines. I do not have a problem with her being an editor. What I do have a problem with is the ussumptions she jumps to like my relationship with Mr. Cook or how my company runs and who is editing under an account that belongs soley to me. She has no proof of these things. The comments she gives like in her last entry where she states,"David Cook is hardly a superstar" or in another entry she said Junebug52 "was making yet again Grand claims" Those statements are her own POV and that is the same thing she is fighting to keep off of Wikipedia. We cannot run hot and cold. You cannot and must not disallow something that someone else has done and then go and do it yourself! I have found that with this editor, it is fine when someone is admonishing me for something I did, but if you admonish her she will get very aggressive and that is when the conflicts come in. I am just not going to deal with her any longer.What is happening here is those statements are being posted to public web discussions like this and she is hurting the reputation of this artist by making wild assupmtions. I never blanked a page and no one has ever used my account to edit this article! Now as far as things being strange with Junebug52, well I can accept that. I am a new editor and I do not know all the ins and outs about editing on here. I do not know all the tricks she knows. But I can read, and I have read what the rules are in this matter. I do not feel she is right and should not be allowed to remove edits without first taking it to these talk pages in the furture so we can avoid this kind of confrontations. I am a contributing editor and this article is a work in progress. It should not be torn apart or reverted without consulting the other editors involved. In the future should she make unwaranted edits to this page, I will go to another editor or an Admin. I feel this is the only way I am going to live in peace over this issue. Again, thank you wikipediatrix for your concerns and contributions. I hope that we will be able to get over this and start working together. You have a lot of Moxy and I like that. But we cannot continue on like this! CBD and CyclePat, I want to personally thank you for your help. Junebug52 16:07, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

bold face

MOS:BOLD clearly spells out how to use - and how not to use - boldface, for those who don't know. wikipediatrix 03:55, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• Thank you so much for you input. I will be sure to read it. Junebug52 11:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Juilliard School?

I removed Category:Juilliard School people earlier as there was no mention of Juilliard in the article - see WP:CAT#Some_general_guidelines number 9 - but was reverted for doing so. Rather than start an edit war, can I ask that someone adds the relevant information to the article if he did attend Juilliard. Incidentally, if he did, the category should be changed to Category:Juilliard School of Music alumni (assuming he attended as a musician). Bencherlite 13:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Your edit should not have been reverted without the provision of a reliable, third-party published source to verify the subject's alumni status or other affiliation with the school. And since the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores the material in question,[7] and Junebug52 has been very open to discussion in the past, hopefully they will add a proper source relatively soon. -- Satori Son 14:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry for the delay in responding as I have been traveling. I fully intend to put Juilliard into this article. I just have been so busy I have not had a chance to do so. I was not going to add it to the article, but another editor added it because they knew of David's attendance as a student. I will take care of it soon. Satori Son it's great to see you around again! Thank you Junebug52 03:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and reverted my undo edit and I removed the cat. I will add info to the article when I get a chance and I will recat it at that time. Sorry that it has taken me so long. Junebug52 03:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Bencherlite 07:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Photos

Fair use rationale for Image:David10.jpg

Image:David10.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 10:53, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:David10.jpg

Image:David10.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 19:45, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Davidlcook cgma.jpg

Image:Davidlcook cgma.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 19:56, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Davidlcook5.jpg

Image:Davidlcook5.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 19:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:David10.jpg

Image:David10.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 04:52, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Davidlcook cgma.jpg

Image:Davidlcook cgma.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 04:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Davidlcook5.jpg

Image:Davidlcook5.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:00, 5 November 2007 (UTC)