Talk:Jon Knox

Editing Jon Knox (section)
Hi Walter,

We do not understand your persistance of removing edits pertaining to the Jon Knox Wiki and your need for constant proving of all facts and persecution. We are in direct contact with the artist and have made it a goal to ensure all information is correct. After many reviews of the Jon Knox Wiki, the history of the artist is valid and can be verified online. If you were to search personal websites and links provided you would find these facts accurate. Give the artist credit for their career work. Just because you are not aware of what the artist has done don't dismiss the validity.

In your reference here you state: failed verification|reason=Knox is not mentioned here|date=June 2015

He reunited with White Heart in 2006 for the Soul2Soul Awards show and again in 2014 for the Easterfest concert in Australia.

Knox is clearly a part of the group playing this specific concert and can be seen in the videos on YouTube of the concert. Why does it need further verification?

Also, here you are questioning the artists work that is stated on the personal website which is widely known that the artist is a multi-instrumentalist and songwriter. Why does this item need further verification?

Working alongside these artists making music allowed him to expand into a very versatile musician, teaching himself to play guitar, bass and to compose and produce music.

As a Christian, we would appreciate you working with us and not against us to provide the correct information and not try to ban or restrict the edit process.

Thanks for your understanding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikikin (talk • contribs) 21:03, 1 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I moved this discussion from my talk page because I'm tired of explaining this. Knox has contacted me through social media asking how he can update "his" wiki page (it's actually a wiki page about him, but that's just a rabbit trail that we don't have to go down) so that it is more current. He indicating that everything on the page is legitimate and how can he remove the maintenance templates. I responded by stating that to resolve not in citation given by either changing the text supported by the reference with something that matches the reference, or by supplying a new reference. citation needed would be resolved by either removing the text or by supplying a source to support the statement. I stated that he should supply sources based on the advice at Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources and to leave the reference by adding like this: and since I watch the page and have access to tools that can fill them out, I would do that. I also pointed the subject to my talk page to ask any questions. Instead, I saw this. failed verification removed next to http://www.abc.net.au/local/stories/2013/11/25/3898377.htm with the reason of "Knox is not mentioned here". The band is mentioned, but it does not support that Knox was in the line-up at the festival. You may say that Knows was clearly part of the group at that time, but the source does not support that, and no addition source was supplied to support it.
 * citation needed removed from several statements without supplying references that were questions. Knox's word is not good enough for Wikipedia, sorry.
 * Primary source inline removed along with the reference. I suppose that would have been OK, but it's just asking for the statement to get a citation needed template.
 * Now that I have explained the reasons for the templates and why they should not be removed, let me comment that Wikipedia considers the type of editing that Nikikin is doing as a conflict of interest. Please read that carefully. My take on associated individuals editing articles is that it's good for Wikipedia since they often have good sources that other Wikipedians may find difficult to uncover. However, other editors, and particularly many administrators, do not take that view and will report or outright block CoI editors. I have seen cases of CoI editors who get blocked, create a new Wikipedia account, continue to edit (what Wikipedians call block evasion) and get blocked again. It's usually after the third account is blocked that the article is permanently locked to new editors. I have also seen cases where CoI editors raise the awareness of a poorly referenced article only to find the article nominated for deletion.
 * In short, maintenance templates drawing attention to missing information are there for a reason. If the reason is resolved, the template can be removed. If it's not, the content can be removed under the venerability policy and the questionable sources removed, resulting in the entire article being deleted. Prove the information is correct, don't just vouch for it. I trust you, but I don't represent all of Wikipedia. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:17, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * And I almost forgot, discogs.com is not considered a reliable source. There have been discussions about it at both the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums and other locations. Because it's user-generated data, it cannot be trusted. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:51, 2 September 2016 (UTC)