Talk:Glamour and Damage
 | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. |
Content Copied From Kittybrucknell.com edit
I am the webmaster of http://www.kittybrucknell.com/ and wrote the article at http://www.kittybrucknell.com/music_glamour_and_damage_lp.html I am an employee of Brucknell and online representative and give permission for this WIKI article to use this content from the above URL Antmarkhemingway (talk) 13:33, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 | An email has been received at VRTS concerning some or all of the text on this page, and can be read by users with a VRTS account.
However, the message was not sufficient to confirm permission for the text. This may, among other reasons, be because there was no explicit release under a free license, or the email address that the permission came from is not associated with the location where the content was originally published. For an update on the issue, please contact the user who added this template to the page, someone else with a VRTS account, or the VRT noticeboard. If a valid permission is not provided within 30 days of the first response by a VRT volunteer, the text will be deleted. |
Contested deletion edit
This page should not be speedy deleted as an unambiguous copyright infringement, because... An email has been sent regarding the search bot issue, and permision has been granted to use the content in this article.) --Antmarkhemingway (talk) 13:41, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
COI edit
This article was created by someone closely connected to the subject. See [1]. It needs checking to ensure it complies with our core content policies. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:51, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry but the issues with this article are getting very tedious. I have only linked sourced information, see reference points and there is no personal opinion. If you take time to actually read the article you can see that. It's not like I have written my own views on the LP such as "the album is the best in the world"... I am writer and appreciate the ethics of personal opinion, so to rise this matter is just bizarre as the article I have written is true to fact. I also find it an insult and discrimination to question this writing just because I have a "close relationship" to the subject. This does not mean I can not write an article just as any other user can. I consider my knowledge to be useful to Wikipedia users and nothing more. My connection to Kitty Brucknell plays no role in this article. 86.129.179.196 (talk) 17:30, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
- Please read Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest. Your relationship to the subject does play a role in your work here. If you work for the subject, you are in fact required to disclose that by our Terms of Use. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:34, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
I will repeat again, I have only stated factual information located at external sources. My own personal relationship and opinion has not been disclosed anywhere in this article. I am not promoting anything or working on behalf of anyone. I am simply listing facts of an officially released music album and you are discriminating against my right to contribute here because you believe I am closely linked to the artist, which by the way you have not actually stated why you believe this nor presented any evidence to such claim. You need to back up your reasons just as much as us regular users. 86.129.179.196 (talk) 22:05, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
- You've just indicated above that you have a close relationship to the subject. And since you responded to the note defensively, I'm assuming you're the same person who added the content here. And in the link I already gave above. There is no source given for content such as this:
Tracks such as "Glitter In The Sky", "Yearning", "Hitch Another Ride" and "Remix" were written to demonstrate the less serious and more fun side to Brucknell's persona. While "Naked Truth" and "The Damage Is Done" were coloured by her true life events during her time on The X Factor, such as former friends selling stories about her to the press.
- And some of the sources included in the article are not permitted under our policies - "received generally positive reviews" refers to professional reviews, not to three random users on iTunes. At a closer glance, the article seems to be living up to my concerns. :/ You have the option not to read WP:COI, or any of our policies and guidelines, but I'm afraid that they still apply. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:40, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Nope, sorry but not once did I say I had a a close relationship with Brucknell. I quoted you. Pay more attention. You are not demonstrating any evidence here there fore i feel your issue is void and i have no more to say on the matter. If you are going to try and play miss administrator you need to have all you evidence first. Otherwise someone like me cab rip your claim to shreds. Sorry but i am not i no way affiliated with the artist, i am a simple user.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.179.196 (talk) 02:16, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
- Fine, then. The COI tag doesn't apply to you. It applies to the users referenced above. Not your issue; it's here due to their edits. It's a bit odd that you chose to take it personally, but you needn't. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 02:29, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
But it does apply to me as I wrote the article as a fan of the artist using reliable sourced information from Brucknell's own website, interviews and reference information from the album itself. Again, my personal opinions of the record as a fan have not been mentioned anywhere in the article. And I am not being difficult on this, I appreciate you are trying to keep the website tidy which is great, people like you should be applauded for your efforts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.179.196 (talk) 15:51, 31 December 2014 (UTC)