User talk:Lktmgmt

Welcome[edit]

Welcome!

Hello, Lktmgmt, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Martin451 (talk) 16:27, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Devendra Banhart‎[edit]

I have noticed that you have removed the statement Banhart has referred to his music as "naturalismo". Could I ask what your reasoning is for this? Martin451 (talk) 16:30, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, this is Devendra's management. Together with his record label Warner Brothers (likely a man named Josh Creter there) we are going to be making a number of edits and additions at the expressed wishes of Devendra. Thank you for looking after this page and please note that all edits and additions made by me and his label are approved by Devendra himself. Thanks, Lookout Management

Could I please make you aware of wikipedia policies on conflicts of interest and biographies of living people. At the moment this article is very well written, very well sourced and neutral. I would request that any edits you make follow these policies. I would also ask you to remember that anyone is able to edit this article. Finally could you please sign any comments on talk pages with ~~~~. Martin451 (talk) 17:25, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the policy. We are merely updating the facts here. Updates with new facts will continue to be very well sourced as best as possible and we are looking to just get the truth and facts across. It will remain neutral, and this is not to self promote as much to avoid any misinformation and let people know more about Devendra than is currently up there. Thanks you for your support and concern. Lktmgmt (talk) 18:25, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

August 2009[edit]

If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors; and
linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. For more details about what, exactly, constitutes a conflict of interest, please see our conflict of interest guidelines. Thank you. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:01, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Moonriddengirl. Thank you and I appreciate the information. I am fully aware of the policy of Wikipedia. Unfortunately we have had many problems with both misinformation being put up about Devendra and people taking down facts about him that are true that should be up there. We will not stand idly by and let this happen and all we are trying to do is insure that more truthful information and facts get out there. Thank you again for your concern. Lktmgmt (talk) 20:35, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So long as your edits remain within that guideline, there should be no problem. Please understand though that your connection to this individual does not give you additional authority over the development of the article, although the Wikimedia Foundation is certainly sensitive to issues of misinformation in articles regarding human beings. (See the biographies of living persons policy.) So long as information is reliable and neutral, however, development of the article is a matter of consensus. You will want to be careful to avoid seeming to exert ownership issues over the article, but should instead seek dispute resolution if other editors do not agree with your proposed direction for the text. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:42, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. We understand that this page is supported by a community of people and fans and are not claiming any type of ownership of it. We have total respect for Wikipedia and the process. We are just trying to get alot more accurate and neutral facts up there which will be coming soon. We just want his fans to be able to find out more interesting things about him that are not up there and help watch out for misinformation. Best and thanks. Lktmgmt (talk) 20:48, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Devendra Banhart, 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. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:50, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is reason to remove the "naturalismo" comment. That interview contained a number of misquotes in it including that comment. Thank you. Lktmgmt (talk) 20:54, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The quote meets Wikipedia's verifiability policy. Do you have reliable sources to substantiate that it is wrong? Otherwise, this would constitute original research, I'm afraid, which is a violation of policy. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:56, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I respect your ability to add/delete comments now please respect mine. Please stop this back and forth and I ask that you understand that I am merely helping make this page more accurate. It is you now who are acting as if you have ownership of this page when all I am doing is making it more fact based. This is not right or fair what you are doing. I am telling you he was misquoted and never said such a thing and ask that you please understand this and respect my edits. Thank you. Lktmgmt (talk) 21:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We can't take your word for this. You must produce reliable sources just like any other editor. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:02, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've listed this matter for additional review at the conflict of interest noticeboard. You'll find the listing here. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:08, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If that is you who put the conflict note at the top of the page, please take that down. I am merely trying to help clean this page up and do not know why you are doing this to us. \\It is not right or fair. I don't want any conflict with you. I would like to work together and do not who you are or where you are but will be happy to discuss this more on this page to get this resolved.Lktmgmt (talk) 21:09, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was not the last person to restore the text you have been removing; another editor did that in response to your blanking material without explanation. I explained to you above the problem with your removing that text. It meets verifiability policy, and you are not bringing up reliable sources to substantiate that it is wrong. This constitutes a conflict with Wikipedia's practices and policies, which forbid unpublished information. See the business FAQ for a bit more. I appreciate that you have a desire to help create a factual, informative article, and I hope you will, but I am concerned that you may not be going about it the right way. No matter your connection to this individual, you are bound to operate within Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the material you were removing were libelous, that would be one thing. But there is no compelling reason for you to sidestep dispute resolution in removing this text (not to mention that you are also removing the source for Allmusic for no apparent reason). It is this concern that has led me to tag the article and request additional feedback from other contributors at the conflict of interest noticeboard, since conflict of interest issues are not an area where I typically work. I have never, to my knowledge, edited this article before, and I am unfamiliar with this gentleman's work. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:32, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response. I am new to this and just learning the Wikipedia system. I will do my best to follow the guidelines as they are. May I ask how to remove the conflict banner at the top of his site now? That is just terrible that that is up there. Thank you for your time and help here. Lktmgmt (talk) 21:42, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will remove the tag if you are content to allow me to restore the material while you work within process by talking about your problem with it with other editors at the article's talk page. If other editors do not object to your removal of that sentence, then you can remove it without issue (though you would best want to wait until after 24 hours to avoid potential misunderstanding with the edit warring situation). If they do, you would need to convince them of your position, again, within policies and guidelines. I don't have any opinion ultimately on whether the sentence to which you object ultimately should or should not remain in the article; that would be up to you and its regular contributors (although further feedback is available if you cannot agree, as per WP:DR). (I will note that removing this, however, may be complicated by the fact that there is a long quote from this gentleman at Freak folk, which suggests that he coined the term himself in describing "what we do."[1]) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:51, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please remove the tag. Who though are these other editors? All I am trying to do is get everyone to understand that I am in a unique position to help this page be as factually accurate as possible. I respect everyone's ability and desire to help build this page. I do not mean to say I have any more domain over this page than anyone else and will go back and forth with everyone as much as needed. I ask though that people please respect the truth and not keep putting things up simply because they are cited. As I'm sure you know many things that appear in articles are wrong. I know that people out there will not just take my word for it but ask they do out of understanding and respect for the artist involved. In any case I know you are just trying to preserve the integrity of the site and process and will work within the guidelines to make this page as best as it can. It means alot to me. Thanks. Lktmgmt (talk) 23:03, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will remove the tag and restore the material pending your discussion. The place to hold the discussion is at the talk page of the article, Talk:Devendra Banhart. You should make notes there and give interested editors an opportunity to respond. However, I'm afraid that respect for the artist has nothing to do with it. Regardless of your connection, you must support your contributions to the article with reliable sources. Wikipedia will not take your word for it. It is against two of project's three core content policies (verifiability and no original research) to do so. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:19, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Devendra Banhart. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:01, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talk pages[edit]

When you post a message on someone's talk page, like you did here, do not delete other messages on the page. -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 21:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies. I did not mean to.Lktmgmt (talk) 21:31, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some advice[edit]

Hello Lktmgmt, I was brought over to your talk page because of a notice on the conflict of interest noticeboard. I saw the dispute you were having with Moonriddengirl and thought that maybe I could help out and possibly explain things in plain talk rather than "Wikipedia speech". :) I know that you are new here and you are trying to follow the guidelines and policies of Wikipedia and very much appreciate that. (Just a disclosure, I'm not an admin or anyone given any authority, just an editor like you, but I've been around for awhile.)

One of the core principles of Wikipedia can be seen at WP:V, the verifiability policy of Wikipedia. I'm not sure if you've read that policy or not, it's not important that you know it inside-and-out but it will be helpful to understand the basics of it. Essentially, Wikipedia is based on "verifiability, not truth" which can be a foreign concept to anyone who hasn't been involved in this project before. This means that even if you know that something is true, that doesn't mean that you can claim it in an article.

Let's take a hypothetical example, let's say that you live next door to the Mayor of Cleveland. Let's say that you see the Mayor mow his lawn wearing a dress. Let's say you actually visit his house and have lunch with him, and he talks at length about his love of wearing women's clothing. Could you edit his article and state that you know that he is a practicing transvestite? You wouldn't be able to, because you don't have any way to back up that information. Perhaps if you took a picture of him mowing his lawn in a dress, you could upload that picture, but even then someone might say it was a joke or something done for Halloween. In order to contribute information to an article you need to verify your information with a reliable source (some published evidence). A newspaper article, or a book, or something else along those lines is needed to prove your case.

I hope that helps clarify matters a bit, if you have any questions please feel free to leave me a message at my talk page. Thank you! -- Atama ^chat 00:33, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]