User talk:Executor53

Hello, Executor53, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your recent edits to the page Danny Peyronel did not conform to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may have been removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations verified in reliable, reputable print or online sources or in other reliable media. Always provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to The Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Again, welcome!  Tacyarg (talk) 16:13, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Thank you for the helpful message. The problem is that there were items on the page that were simply wrong! For instance, the birth date on the summary window was different to the real, actual date on the main body of the text. I have now corrected things AND added the proper citations that prove beyond any doubt the simple corrections and any minor changes or additions I have made.

Best regards,

Executor53 Executor53 (talk) 17:43, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Executor53. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on the page Danny Peyronel, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for article subjects for more information. We ask that you:

• avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization, clients, or competitors;
• propose changes on the
  reliable sources
  supporting your suggestions;
• disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest § How to disclose a COI);
• avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam § External link spamming);
• do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. Isaidnoway (talk) 17:30, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again,

I honestly do not feel there's any conflict of interest here, since the facts we are referring to are amply documented and can be easily referenced.

Yesterday I spent hours providing the requested citations/references, after fixing once again a few obvious errors, such as dates of birth which do not match each other on the page!

I managed, I thought, to provide ALL the citations that were 'needed', as they were clearly laid out on the page.

And, yet, today I find that all my work seems to have been erased and the page has returned to its original, and factually erroneous on several levels, state?

Without even a message or comment from anybody, it has simply reverted to its misleading state, which I took so much time trying to put right.

Please help?

Best wishes,

Executor53 Executor53 (talk) 16:45, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Without even a message or comment from anybody

1. 1st revert [1] summary: "Unsourced, including mention of unpublished book"
2. "Welcome!" (above) with detailed guidance on sourcing
3. 2nd revert [2] summary: "Reverting edits by 'subject of this page', you can't use Wikipedia as a source, nor can you use blogs, if you are the subject of this page, make your edit requests on the talk page"
4. "Managing a conflict of interest" (above) with detailed advice and instruction on handling COIs
5. 3rd revert [3] summary: "Rollback" (not particularly informative, admittedly)

Whether you feel it or not, you have an obvious

conflict of interest (I am the subject of this page). Having a conflict doesn't mean your edits will be disimprovements or inappropriate; but editors with a conflict are treated differently. So, first thing you need to do is declare the conflict of interest as instructed above. Then you can start using the article's talk page to suggest improvements to the article. This way editors without a vested interest in the topic can review them. It seems you've got all the feedback you need to procede; it's just not the feedback you wanted. _signed, Willondon (talk) 17:15, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Dear Willondon,

First of, thank you for pointing out I can't use Wikipedia as a source, and how to proceed being the subject of the page.

One thing, however: I am sure you will sympathize when I say I find the following comment a little offensive: 1. 1st revert [1] summary: "Unsourced, including mention of unpublished book". I say this as I sit in front of my screen with my copy of the book that I am assuming you refer to, the ASCAP Biographical Dictionary, fourth edition, a book that is in the Library of Congress of the United States, and has all the appropriate numbers, which I included. Is it possible for me to submit photos of the book as proof of its existence and published status, or is this the final and unappealable word on the subject, regardless?

In point 3: I was not aware that the album reviews I submitted as citations/refs were in what is technically considered 'blogs'. I was under the impression that, for instance, "Made in Metal", was an actual website that regularly publishes reviews of albums, concerts, etc. Could you please advise on how to tell the difference between a legitimate media website and a "blog", if any?

I will now deal with the COI issue as you suggest, many thanks.

Best regards,

Executor53 Executor53 (talk) 09:49, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]