Talk:Legal issues surrounding music sampling
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Legal issues surrounding music sampling redirect. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): NinjaAlleyCat.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:01, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 15 October 2018 and 12 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Finesstro.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:01, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
External links modified[edit]
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Legal issues surrounding music sampling. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120124205211/http://benedict.com/Audio/Crew/Crew.aspx to http://www.benedict.com/Audio/Crew/Crew.aspx
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:14, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
Blanking with spurious comment[edit]
Hello, I'm Liftarn. I noticed that you recently removed content from Legal issues surrounding music sampling without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. // Liftarn (talk) 11:24, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
- @Liftarn: I did in fact leave an edit summary explaining why I removed the content you added, which was "poorly formatted and/or unreliable sources". You added several poorly formatted citations, and the sources you cited were unreliable. You might find WP:ALBUM/SOURCE a useful resource for finding reliable sources you can use instead. You also added way too many citations (see WP:CITEOVERKILL). Popcornduff (talk) 16:33, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
- Deleting an entire section because some minor error in formatting, spelling or grammar is borderline vandalism. If you find errors you fix them, you just don't delete the entire section. You claim about unreliable sources is why I called your deletion comment spurious as they are indeed reliable. Interesting quote from the essay you linked to "Similar circumstances can also lead to overkill with legitimate sources, when existing sources have been repeatedly removed or disputed on spurious grounds or against consensus.". // Liftarn (talk) 11:51, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
- @Liftarn: Almost none of the citations you added look reliable. At least one is a 404. c64.sk appears to be a hobbyist site. Other citations aren't in English; this isn't necessarily a problem but it makes verifying their reliability much harder, and they don't look reliable. For more information about what I mean by a reliable source, see WP:RS. This, combined with excessive sourcing (WP:OVERKILL), bad formatting, and poor writing, is why I removed the paragraph you added.
- However, your Engadget source is reliable, though it did not directly support the text you added. I've found another reliable source (Music Radar) covering the case, so I have rewritten the information using sources. But understand that the burden is on you to demonstrate verifiability with good sources, not the person who removes the material. See WP:BURDEN:
The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution.]
Popcornduff (talk) 12:36, 19 December 2018 (UTC)- It's very hard to prove reliability to someone who don't like the graphic design of the source. FYI the design does not determine the reliability of the source. Also the text you wrote is incorrect in several ways. "The song may have been sampled from a piece composed in 2000 for the Commodore 64" contains multiple errors. It was taken from the track, that is not in dispute. It wasn't composed for the Commodore 64. It was originally made for the Amiga and later made into a C64 track. You also remove that Timbaland admitted to using Sunni's track as a base for his own (or sampled as he called it). // Liftarn (talk) 12:47, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
- The text I added reflects what the sources say. Find reliable sources to support your claims. Popcornduff (talk) 12:49, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
- It's very hard to prove reliability to someone who don't like the graphic design of the source. FYI the design does not determine the reliability of the source. Also the text you wrote is incorrect in several ways. "The song may have been sampled from a piece composed in 2000 for the Commodore 64" contains multiple errors. It was taken from the track, that is not in dispute. It wasn't composed for the Commodore 64. It was originally made for the Amiga and later made into a C64 track. You also remove that Timbaland admitted to using Sunni's track as a base for his own (or sampled as he called it). // Liftarn (talk) 12:47, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
- Deleting an entire section because some minor error in formatting, spelling or grammar is borderline vandalism. If you find errors you fix them, you just don't delete the entire section. You claim about unreliable sources is why I called your deletion comment spurious as they are indeed reliable. Interesting quote from the essay you linked to "Similar circumstances can also lead to overkill with legitimate sources, when existing sources have been repeatedly removed or disputed on spurious grounds or against consensus.". // Liftarn (talk) 11:51, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
- Pinged from the WikiProject. As someone who sometimes feels Popcornduff is occasionally a little heavyhanded with his cuts...this was not one of those times. Those sources do not look reliable in the Wikipedia sense. I’m not opposed to building it back up, but only with sources more comparable to the MusicRadar one still currently being used. Sergecross73 msg me 13:15, 19 December 2018 (UTC)