User talk:Art4artssakeent
May 2014[edit]
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Bruce Carroll, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Meters (talk) 23:51, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Making threats and being uncivil towards editors or a subject is not permitted on Wikipedia per WP:THREAT and WP:UNCIVIL. I am not the editor who initially warned you about your edits to the Bruce Carroll article and reverted them.[1] However, I became involved because that is an article that I frequently edit. Now your actions and comments have exceeded that of the article in question and now have become personal attacks towards another subject on Wikipedia.[2] For that reason I have reported this incident over to the proper Administrators for them to deal with.
Re: Your question on my talk page[edit]
Message added 00:20, 22 May 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
May 2014[edit]
Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living persons. Thank you. —DoRD (talk) 14:42, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Art4artssakeent, you are invited to the Teahouse[edit]
|
Hi Art4artssakeent! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. |
Thank you[edit]
Art4artssakeent: Thank you for your recent help on the David L Cook page. However, might I suggest that in the future should you like to make changes such as you did, you may want to go first to one of the contributing editors of the page to discuss some of the changes you would like to make. This assures all of the editors monitoring the page that you are working to assume good faith WP:AGF. This also aides in helping all the contributing editors to remain neutral and to help you to enhance the article. This in turn helps to reduce WP:CONFLICT and WP:EW. In some instances editors put material on pages in an effort that others editors may help them find cites and sources which of course is what Wikipedia is all about. This is why editors most likely pick the pages they continually edit and continually work on them more than others. In the case of a discography dating back before internet or online charting, it is almost impossible to find proper sourcing for those items unless you physically go to local libraries or newspaper morgues. Hence the reason I did not revert your edit to that section. We should however try to restore that section by trying to find sources when they become available and then citing them properly. This does not mean the items do not exists, they just simply have no sources at this time. The edits to the awards section regarding the Telly Awards I did revert because they are properly sourced. Many awards organizations post only the awards "category" and do not list the "presented" title. (i.e. Category=Music/Presented Title=Best Use of Music in a Video, television series, online etc.) This however is no cause to remove it from a page especially when there are sources to confirm it's existence. This is a prime example of where a proper discussion would be in order. Failure to talk about these things will only lead to an edit war and in those cases usually no one leaves the table happy. Again, thank you for your help and if I may be of any help to you as an editor here on Wikipedia please do not hesitate to contact me on my talk page.--Canyouhearmenow 12:34, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
- Canyouhearmenow
- I am always willing to be man enough to admit when I am wrong & I was wrong to omit the Telly Award. I have since found that Mr. Cook did in fact win A Telly. I'm still in the process of looking for multiples & categories, but I will find them if they exist. As far as the "secular" discography section, I have been doing my research. Billboard has an online archive dating back to 1940 & there is not even a slight mention of David L Cooke. And I have been in touch with a buddy in the a&r department at Sony which is who owns the Bang Records catalog & again, no David L. Cook. There are many places on Wikipedia where he has been inserted, but they are false & most of them laughable. So yes, I do need your help as the main contributing editor of David L. Cook. I need to understand why his career is painted as something it wasn't. Although I have found the record from 1985, everything his bio said that happened before 1997 is a flat out lie. I've gone back & done my research on The Cook Family Singers as well. They were not discovered by Maybelle Carter at The World's Fair, they never played The Opry, they never released an album. They were never famous. David was not a child star either. He was never on a USO tour with Bob Hope & Lucille Ball, he never had a #1 album, he was never a part of a major television show, he was never signed with Bang records, he never signed with AMAAS, AMAAS is not & never was a legitimate company, the IAMAS Corporation is also fake, the list is endless. And the more I find out about this fraud, I can't understand what could possess anyone to write fake things about him online. So how do we go about removing this information from Wikipedia. Thanks. Art4artssakeent (talk) 04
- 54, 30 May 2014 (UTC)Art4artssakeentArt4artssakeent (talk) 04:54, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Per Wikipedia's rules of editing you are to not make libelous and defaming WP:LBL remarks about an editor or subject on their page, an editors page or other talk pages including your own. It seems to me and to other editors that I have collaborated with regarding this matter that your objective here is to aim your attentions at one article per your contribution history. You started off telling another editor a mistruth about who you were and your intentions which involved another subject and their article as well. FYI-You are to always act civil WP:CIVIL when speaking about subjects here on this forum. Using proper names while speaking of them in a contentious way is also not permitted. The remarks you have made regarding mine and other editors contributions now constitutes wikipedia bullying WP:BULLY and will not be permitted. Several of the items you mentioned I am personally aware of and I can assure you that your research is incorrect. I have been an entertainment historian for a great number of years and I have also worked with Sony. A very common policy at Sony or any other major entertainment corporation is to never deny anything beyond your ownership because in the industry a lot of things happen that do not make it to your attention. So there is no way for them to make such blanket statements such as your assertion. To say someone did or did not play the Grand Ole Opry is also false because the Opry rules are clear. They never deny anyone has played or not played the Opry because they never kept records of who did or did not play the Opry before Gaylord Entertainment took them over. I would not hang my hat neither on Billboard charts because there was nowhere in the subject's article that ever mentioned Billboard. There are many charts for many genre's of music and Billboard although is the main parent chart there are many others. I did not revert your edits to that page because I too agree that if it doesn't have a current source it needs to be removed. In conclusion, I would suggest that you understand that in the entertainment industry there are many things that are not public knowledge or have happened in fashions where documentation is very limited at best. But that in no way means it did not happen! I too do my research when editing a page and I can assure you that anything I put in there has to have a reason for it! I have created a great number of articles on this forum and will continue to do so. But you have no right to call someone a fraud or liar as you have done. I have reported this issue once again to the administrators and will allow them to deal with this.--Canyouhearmenow 11:45, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
- canyouhearmenow- So, how do you explain the past edits you've made like inserting David L. Cook into Country Gospel Song of the Year at the 1999 Dove Awards, or making home "tie" with Larnell Harris at the 1986 Grammy Awards, or putting him as a writer on one of Fergie's songs...etc. this is not libelous, but just the truth. It's not being done mean spiritedly & I'm definitely not bullying. I am just taking the small steps to put the truth out there. Isn't that what Wikipedia is about? Art4artssakeent (talk) 14
- 46, 30 May 2014 (UTC)Art4artssakeentArt4artssakeent (talk) 14:46, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
canyouhearmenow: I'm so sorry, but truth is truth. I've looked at your contributions in regards to David L. Cook & The Cook Family Singers & there have been many edits that have been properly reverted, but many of them are still on here & I have done research on every single one that I've made. Many of the contributions you've made regarding these two articles are filled with untruths. However in saying that, I am not calling you a liar. That doesn't mean that YOU are lying, it just means that maybe you are misinformed. I'm not on some personal against you. But almost every single source is not credible in relation to David L Cook & The Cook Family singers. So in turn, & correct me if I am wrong, Wikipedia is a website that promotes truth & properly sourced information. Correct? If people could just get on here & write whatever they wanted, then it would have no credibility. But it does. And there are many editors on here who take particular interest in one subject. So, I don't understand the logic behind calling me a bully. There is nothing mean spirited about anything I said. Only facts. Maybe you can help me better understand this. I do not mean that in a sarcastic way. I'm just trying to comprehend how this system works. Art4artssakeent (talk) 15:00, 30 May 2014 (UTC)Art4artssakeArt4artssakeent (talk) 15:00, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
- Art4artssakeent, Wikipedia is about writing articles and trying to source them the best way you can. The Larnelle Harris Grammy entry was done in error because he was on the original grammy "submissions" sheet but it didn't make it to the final ballot. So it was fixed after a conversation with another editor. The removal of the Country Song of the Year I did not object to because it was on one of my press sources announcing the that the song was on the ballot. These sources are sometimes incorrect as anyone could be. They later when onto correct it to the proper category which is that of Country Album of the Year and I simply did not remember to go back and fix the original edit before you found it. But for you to say that a company is not in existence is untrue. That particular company does a great deal of its work through DBAs. The subjects involvement with Bang Records was not that of a writer but as that of a voiceover artist and background vocalist. So Sony telling you things of this nature would be certainly false because they have no way of knowing about contracts and artists participation's before their purchase of the label. They would be correct in saying that the subject never wrote songs under that label because from all evidence he did not. Nor has he ever claimed to have. As an entertainment historian I can assure you that things are not always black and white. You have only been involved in this one article but I can assure you that should you go to other artists pages you will find these issues on every single one of them. It is not that these people are being dishonest or things are being put out there that is false. But in the entertainment industry things are there one day and gone the next which makes it very hard to keep a grasp on. Cleaning up things is a good thing but coming onto a public forum such as this calling someone a fraud or liar is libelous and should never be done per Wikipedia's rules. Note that with everything I have written here I have used the term "subject?" It is because Wikipedia tells us to be careful to stay away from anything that could lead into a legal debate or issue. So in the future I would suggest you exercise the same restraint. This would let us understand that you are truly trying to help and not hurt. Again, thank you for your help. Thank you--Canyouhearmenow 15:36, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Canyouhearmenow: There was a previous edit I corrected on the Bang Records article that listed David L Cook as having many hits for them. In the Discography section many of the #1 albums you listed were under Bang records. They were listed as David L Cook's secular albums. That's not what would be listed if they were background or VoiceOver. And Sony has a back catalog with every single record that was ever released under Bang. It is extensive & leaves no stone unturned. They do not however own the publishing to these records, but do own distribution & licensing. Not one of those albums listed was ever recorded with that label. There's no reason to get personal. It's not a knock to you. Art4artssakeent (talk) 17:37, 30 May 2014 (UTC)Art4artssakeArt4artssakeent (talk) 17:37, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
- The subject seems to have always maintained his intellectual property rights for every label he has been under per my own personal research as an historian. Many artists do that so if they leave a label or need to be lent to another label they can take their material with them and use it as a bargaining tool for a new deal. Bruce Carroll was developed, recorded and wrote under Five Star Music through the guidance of Mickey Hiter. Carroll took two albums that were written and recorded during his time with Five Star to Benson and Benson released them as their own. Does that mean he recorded them for the label? No. So if Mickey Hiter or Five Star Music made the statement that they wrote, produced and recorded Carroll's albums would they be wrong? No, because that's in fact what happened. However, Carroll picked up his product and moved it with him. The subject in question never recorded anything that belonged to Bang Records but the stuff he brought with him and dropped it on their label. Same was true when he was on Mountainview Records. His management company released several songs under Mountainview yet it was his own intellectual property and is now under DLC Records. The subject has also recorded under at least sixteen pseudonyms and written under various ghost names so unless you know those names it would be impossible to ascertain the level of his involvement or the projects he has been involved with. I also spoke with Sony today to make sure my information was correct and as I suspected..No one could or would give anyone a definitive response such as this because Sony only keeps information on their relevant and current artists in their databases. They would have to go to another one of their companies to look for something as far back as what we are speaking of and would only be able to speak on things that occurred after their acquisition. They also are not permitted to release private information about an artists, their holding or contractual information without the expressed permission of that artist. So I am unsure as to who is giving you this information or why they would be giving you this information but it seems that whomever is supplying it certainly doesn't know the history of the label before their purchase of it. I will not be responding to anymore of this at this point because it seems to be going in circles and sometimes its better to take a step back before it becomes too personal. I am simply an editor not a judge and jury. Again, I appreciate your attention to this and I would suggest that you also look at some other artists pages and articles throughout Wikipedia and help enhance some of those as well. I find that getting tunnel visioned on one article is not a good thing and I lose my objective. Be well--Canyouhearmenow 18:52, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Canyouhearmenow: Sony owns the masters & has an extensive ledger that has since been digitized for every single track ever recorded under the Bang label. A label does not simply give an artist their work, no matter what. In rare cases the artist can buy the masters, but most cannot afford to pay the price in which it cost to cut the album. So, again, that's not correct. Not calling you a liar, Just saying you've gotten misinformed. However even if the artist bought their masters, their would still be a record of it in the ledger. As far as Bruce Carroll & Mickey Hiter, I'm not really sure what you're trying to say. I don't remember much about Carroll's career and I didn't know that he signed with Benson. I remember Bruce from the old Canaan days, but I've known Mickey for years & am putting together a portfolio of sorts to present to him about this situation actually, so I'll find out. I still don't understand how that pertains to this situation, though. I do know that you are correct in saying that we are going around in circles. So, that's fine. No need to go round & round about this. I am learning how to use admin to help greatly reduce the article anyways. Thanks though for your help. I appreciate it. Art4artssakeent (talk) 05:07, 31 May 2014 (UTC)Art4artssakeArt4artssakeent (talk) 05:07, 31 May 2014 (UTC)