Talk:Olivia Bonilla

Content dispute

Another editor and myself have been reverting each other over an edit of mine so I thought it best to take it here to avoid the possibility of an edit war. The edit is [1]. I would argue that my version has several advantages. Firstly, it is more compliant with the manual of style, as song names would now be formatted correctly, external links would be removed from the article body and so forth. Secondly it removes some of the overly-promotional language and "fluffy" trivia prevalent in the previous version, for example "Like most artists in the entertainment business, she was very intrigued by music at a young age." Thirdly, it removes some unsourced claims, such as her being a "record producer" and being "award winning". I would welcome any further input. Cheers, doomgaze (talk) 20:41, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

My apologies, but I would like to argue that my version of the Olivia Bonilla biography has by far more advantages. First off, how is removing information making my fellow editor's, doomgaze, version better? I have investigated this subject and I have clearly verified the information placed on the Wikipedia page. Second, if you wanted to change the format, of what you believe is correct, of the song title names, then why not simply fix that instead of removing information? Thirdly, as a writer, "overly-promotional language and "fluffy" trivia prevalent" makes a piece flow and sound better, as opposed to cut short and bland information. Fourthly, in reference to the "unsourced claims, such as her being a "record producer" and being "award winning" ", like I previously stated, I have investigated and followed this subject and know that in the subject's interviews she has stated she produces her own songs and material. She has also stated by which music industry organizations her songs has be recognised. I clearly cited the references and proof where I am getting the information. Lastly, why remove the photos I post about the subject? I have gained permission to use those photos and they should not interfere with the Wikipedia's copyright policy. I ask that we please stop this back-and-forth disputing. Thank you, --Isongwrite (talk) 23:32, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

• • • Wow, sorry for the very slow reply, rather careless on my part. I will take your reply point by point.
    • Firstly, a key Wikipedia policy is that all material in an article must verifiable, usually though linking to reliable sources. I quote, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." Some of the information I removed may well have been true, but without proper sourcing it does not belong in the article.
    • Secondly, the formatting changes were not what I "believe" to be correct but were in line with what the Wikipedia manual of style states, see MOS:MUSIC and WP:MOS (though these are rather long, they're still useful to read).
    • Thirdly, as a writer you should know that writing has to be adjusted based on where it will be published. In this case, the material is for wikipedia. While some of the original version would have been appropriate for a press release or web bio, it was not appropriate for an encyclopedia. Of course the language and flow could be improved but this is too of every article on here. The promotional language has to go; Wikipedia is not your web host and is not a means of promotion.
    • Fourthly, well this is basically the first point isn't it, such claims need to be verifiable. I found the fact that she has been 'recognised' by a few non-notable organisations quite trivial, especially that (from having looked briefly at their websites) this only means that she has paid a membership fee.
    • Lastly, I haven't removed any of the images. If you look at the history it looks like there are some problems with the copyright status of the images; my knowledge of images on here isn't too extensive so I think your best course of action is contacting the Commons help desk. doomgaze (talk) 17:25, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Hmmaborc.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Hmmaborc.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 00:44, 26 November 2011 (UTC)