User talk:U-Mos/Archives/2009/October

Revert issues

per Raymond Salvatore Harmon wiki entry

As you have been warned multiple times here on your talk page please consider the content of what you are doing before you undo an existing edit. The original post cites no references and was thus deleted. If you continue to undo my deletion of it without adding a verifiable reference to it I will have to report you.

Instead of adding text to the wiki you need to be discussing questionable edits on the articles talk page. Simply undoing an edit without changing the exiting problem isn't helping anyone. Please discuss any issues on a articles talk page before simply undoing someone else change to a previous edit.

Again, the reference in question lacks any non biased references. The existing entry does not imply that the video is "official" and does not say so in any way.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Creatcher (talk • contribs) 19:32, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I have just read your changes to the pages entry and your comments in regards to my previous comment. While you take issue with the term used in the article "released" and have changed it to "uploaded to youtube." the fact remains that the video was released into the public on that date. "uploading to youtube" is releasing a film for public consumption.

If you read the article on the talk page of any bio of a living person it clearly states:

"Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous."

Without a source of reference the statement that "Eventually it was discovered that the video was made without the permission of Banksy or Yorke. Yorke requested that the video be removed from YouTube, as Harmon had been claiming that it was an official video. " without reference is potentially libel.

I have also noticed your having marked the article for deletion out of spite.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Creatcher (talk • contribs) 20:32, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

In the guidelines for the biography of a living person one does not need references for material that is not potentially libel. If the matter is a matter of contention then references need to be made in order to make them verifiable. So far no reference has been provided that states that the video was not "released" or for that matter that proves the video was unofficial.

So far you have only shown your own opinion on the subject of the video without referencing any sources. Make edits based on personal opinion is counter to Wikipedia policy.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Creatcher (talk • contribs) 20:49, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Curious why you are continuing to update a wiki article that you have nominated for deletion? It doesn't make much sense to say it isn't notable enough to be there or is in such bad shape it isn't worthy of a wiki article but to still make edits to it so it justifies your viewpoint. Odd. Creatcher (talk) 15:49, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

+++

Hello, in regards to your last change to Raymond Salvatore Harmon. Actually, anyone can claim to youtube that they are the copyright holder and youtube does not ask for any form of identification - it just pulls the clip right away. The only time youtube does ask for identification is if the person who posted the clip claims they are not violating copyright. Then youtube sends a request to the person who made the claim for legal arbitration. They are given a timeframe to provide youtube with proof of a legal injunction barring the poster from use of the offending material. If they claimant does not meet the required time frame the clip will be reinstated.

As an aside - it has been suggested (in various radiohead forums and a few blogs and smaller UK press) that Thom Yorke is not actually the person who made the copyright claim to youtube. Possibly an offended fan or potentially even Harmon himself in order to make it look like Yorke made the claim. Who knows?Creatcher (talk) 12:40, 13 October 2009 (UTC)