Talk:Bad Boys Blue - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 92.112.200.196 (talk) at 22:51, 17 June 2010 (→Page protection should be implemented to this article to prevent it from daily vandalism.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 22:51, 17 June 2010 by 92.112.200.196 (talk) (→Page protection should be implemented to this article to prevent it from daily vandalism.)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Biography: Musicians Start‑class

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians.
	This article has been marked as needing immediate attention.
	An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

/Archive 1

The pending edit war

I can understand why some editors want to revert some of the changes made by the now-blocked COI user BAD BOYS BLUE. But you can't just revert to the version of the article from before those changes were made, because other changes have been made since then. Also, the edits made by user BAD BOYS BLUE were not entirely vandalism. Some of the changes removed some blatant promotional spam, and fixed some other problems like inline external links, and to put that back in now would be a mistake.

I'm afraid at this point the best you can do is go through the article section by section. A bulk revert to some point in the past isn't going to work. Rees11 (talk) 20:50, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

You are correct, the banned user's edits were not entirely vandalism, and I did already incorporate a few of his inputs in the article. If he placed a valid point in it - there' s no reason why it shouldn't stay. All of my most recent edits show a transition of the article to the form that it will assume eventually, edit by edit, including incorporation BADBOYSBLUE's edits, as well as yours, and other contributors - all valid inputs will be incorporated, I only ask that the October 6 version is not used as a template for revisions. Please rest assured, the article will not stay in its present form, just allow some time for the process to take place. Esoteriqa (talk) 01:28, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

You may want to read Misplaced Pages:Ownership of articles. Rees11 (talk) 15:11, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Locked

I have locked the article after receiving a complaint, reviewing the article, and deciding that Esoteriqa's version is not well sourced enough to comple with WP:BLP. It won't be unlocked until that version is better sourced. The new version can be drafted at /New. There are also problems with the new version linking to copyrighted works on Youtube - ensure this doesn't happen, please. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 16:20, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Member of the band can make up anything he/she wants to and accuse a neutral version as a made up one instead. Whose word do you take? Looks like his/her self-promotion got paid off. Esoteriqa (talk) 21:50, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Most of the attention this article has received recently, including the attention from the editors you are reverting, has been because the "BADBOYS BLUE" editor was making inappropriate edits to the article, so I doubt that anyone here wants that self-promotion to stay. Esoteriqa, you are well within your rights to undo the edits made by an editor who was blocked for making such edits. No fault to you for your desire to do so, it's pretty routine in fact. But if another editor objects to the removal, or at least wants to use some of the material that was added, you are no longer in dispute with that blocked editor but you are in dispute with the new editors. Insisting on reverting everything back to an old version, undoing both the edits of the blocked editor and the contributions of editors in good standing is not a good thing for you to do. You've only succeeded in halting some badly-needed improvement in this article.

You seem to have the same goal as everyone else currently working on the article, to remove bad information and clean it up. So it shouldn't be difficult to work with others. But you're attempting to ensure that the article is only edited your way and Misplaced Pages doesn't work that way. You have to collaborate with other editors. I'm actually dismayed by this because looking at your history on this article you don't seem to have had a problem working with other people in the past, so why now? -- Atama頭 22:31, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

As I said on my talk page, I was not insisting on reverting the article back to the old form, only to the old template, from which I made more than a dozen of changes already - before the process came to a screeching halt. The reason why I wanted to edit the page a certain way, as you pointed out, because the new editors are clueless as to the content of the article, yet it is the version that obliterated the core paragraph of the article addressing the transition as well as deletion of all trivia among other things - is what the new editors were working off, and this is what I was dismayed by. Esoteriqa (talk) 00:41, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

And that's the problem. Statements like "new editors are clueless as to the content of the article" show how you are unwilling to collaborate. Misplaced Pages works on consensus. Everyone can view the article history and can also read what's in the article now, so it's unnecessary for you to assume that other editors are blind in some way that you are not. You're assumption that other editors are "clueless" is going to stand in the way of developing this article. You also need to familiarize yourself with Misplaced Pages policies such as WP:BLP which your personal "template" is in violation of. -- Atama頭 01:16, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I see your point. However, I wanted to continue altering template as well as incorporating new edits from new editors - I've said that time and again. Right now technicalities stand in the way of improving the article. I am just not sure if my further input in it will be worthwhile. Esoteriqa (talk) 02:39, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Esoteriqa, that template - if I know what template you mean - is simply not acceptable from a BLP point of view - it can't form the basis of any new article. Sorry. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 23:01, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

File:Bad Boys Blue - Heartbeat album cover 1986.jpg

File:Bad Boys Blue - Heartbeat album cover 1986.jpg needs to be removed from the artist infobox as a non-fair use of an album cover per Misplaced Pages:Non-free content. Aspects (talk) 23:24, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

NFC doesn't allow for album covers as part of discographies; however, individually, they're OK as long as they've got fair-use criteria. It would be safe to shrink that image a little bit, though... m.o.p 01:31, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Unlisted Remixalbum

I bought a remix album at amazon.com entitled "Rarities Remixed", which is not in the list. But why? --77.118.139.242 (talk) 13:30, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Deleted Picture

{{editprotected}}

File:Bad Boys Blue - Heartbeat album cover 1986.jpg needs to be removed from the artist infobox because the image was deleted per a File for deletion discussion. Aspects (talk) 21:29, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Done Ronhjones 23:36, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Categories: