Talk:I'm Awesome

Plagarism
My recent edit was reverted because it was "original research". Well I'm sorry, but isn't the purpose of Wikipedia supposed to inform it's readers? God forbid if a user discovers something worthwhile he should be allowed to add it to an article. You talk about being biased, what's so biased about finding actual information that supports the fact that Spose ripped this song off of a lesser known band? Is it any more biased than saying that he wrote the lyrics and came up with the song by himself? Being biased would mean excluding information for one owns benefit, which if you look at the reference I provided, you'd see that I didn't leave out anything. And from you excluding my research, that'd make you the biased party in this situation. I simply made an observation, and reported. Do we really have to wait for Perez Hilton or some "credible" blog to blab about this before we can include it in the article? The most credible evidence here is the upload time of the video in question, which was long before Spose even released his song. Its simple fact, and I don't want to fisticuffs over this, but really, that information has every right to be in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.92.45.10 (talk) 13:05, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Dude's got a point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.120.170.5 (talk) 16:08, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * YouTube videos are not considered reliable secondary sources. They can sometimes be used as primary sources, but primary sources should only be used in conjunction with secondary sources (e.g., a newspaper article). If you really believe this is plagiarism, you should be calling up newspapers and asking them to investigate it. And if they do investigate it and end up writing an article about it, then you could use the article as a reference.
 * You might also wish to read No original research. (Example: watching the Spose video and then watching that other video, and coming to the conclusion that the Spose song is plagiarism — that's original research.) –BMRR (talk) 17:15, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You might also wish to read No original research. (Example: watching the Spose video and then watching that other video, and coming to the conclusion that the Spose song is plagiarism — that's original research.) –BMRR (talk) 17:15, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * And give all my credit to some fat ass journalist at a newspaper company? No, I didn't just go on Youtube and came to the conclusion (an obvious one at that) I did work, and contacted Ninjaz With Attitude, and they said they wrote the song in 2005 and explained that Spose stole the song after inviting him to one of their shows. And you're saying that I can't expose Spose for the fraud he is because I don't have a famous name? That's bollocks, and you know it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.120.170.5 (talk) 17:33, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I never said you can't expose him; I said that Wikipedia isn't the place for you to publish your original research. Those are the rules. If you don't like that, there are plenty of other places on the web for you to air your grievances against Spose. –BMRR (talk) 18:00, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * And Perez Hilton? He's so special that he can post his original research? Fine, I'll go post this somewhere else. I don't need Wikipedia's bureaucratic bs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.92.45.10 (talk) 08:13, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I wasn't aware that Perez Hilton is a Wikipedia contributor, but if he's posting original research in Wikipedia articles, that goes against Wikipedia policy. His fame doesn't give him more rights than you or me. While you're exposing Spose, maybe you should also expose Perez for being a Wikipedia scofflaw...? –BMRR (talk) 15:37, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

VEVO
Isn't this video on VEVO? http://www.vevo.com/watch/spose/im-awesome/USUV71000402 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamcool234 (talk • contribs) 01:15, 17 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, it certainly is. –BMRR (talk) 01:31, 17 April 2010 (UTC)