Talk:Paul Draper (musician)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Paul Draper (musician). 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for //mansun.net/history/profiles/paul.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://forum.pauldraper.net/viewtopic.php?t=251

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 15:56, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Concerns over editing content
This article is being constantly vandalised by one individual. I understand that Wikipedia is free for anybody to edit, but to remove huge chunks of cited information seems unfair because a user thinks it’s ‘rubbish’ and ‘irrelevant’. The user does not contribute anything useful to the article and seems to have joined recently only to destroy hours of researched fact. Smelly.Spaniel (talk) 18:50, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Vandalism…again
Hoping a bot or someone will pick up this talk. User : Popscenealrightt contributes nothing to this page except editing out large chunks of text for no reason. This user has already had a warning for doing the same thing to another page. —- Smelly.Spaniel (talk) 03:23, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * It doesn't look like vandalism, but the removal of a lot of unencyclopedic, poorly sourced fancruft., given your edit history, WP:COI is an obvious concern. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:11, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * This administrator agrees that it is not vandalism. You have a content dispute. You need to reach consensus through discussion here; you cannot continue to edit war. —C.Fred (talk) 04:13, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

COI
I do not wish to be involved in an edit war and certainly do not want to violate any Wikipedia rules. I do try to write a balanced article but if my views seem bias and ‘fandom’ styled, I will endeavour to correct this. I would appreciate another previously named User who has a COI to edit objectively and/or contribute to the article instead of seemingly destructive mass deletion. Smelly.Spaniel (talk)
 * I'd worry less about others' actions here. You have not yet answered the question of your conflict of interest. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:42, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Sorry I have not seen the question ? Smelly.Spaniel (talk) 04:51, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * At your talk page, the guideline is described. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:53, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

The article is not meant to advertise. I have an interest in the subject, that why I write about them. Who doesn’t do an article on someone/ something that interests them? Smelly.Spaniel (talk) 05:16, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Conflict Of Interest Issue
Editor "Robskarin" has removed a large section of the article that is fully referenced - they also regularly edit other artists that they manage in a professional capacity. The user is Rob Skarin, who currently manages Paul Draper (see https://crystalspotlight.com/about/) and is obviously wanting to remove anything that could be considered negative, despite the detail being perfectly relevant.

Sosogrey (talk) 12:16, 13 March 2022 (UTC)


 * The username certainly makes it easy to draw that conclusion. I've asked on their user talk page what their relationship is with Draper. —C.Fred (talk) 13:50, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Removed controversies text
I just removed the following: "In 2016, an online interview with Paul Draper was removed from the Backseat Mafia website, after he made numerous unsubstantiated allegations against former bandmate Dominic Chad. The website issues an apology to Chad, stating that 'on February 1st we published an article which contained several unsubstantiated assertions about former Mansun guitarist Dominic Chad. We would like to unreservedly apologise for the upset which the article may have caused Mr Chad and his family for the short period it was online. We are all embarrassed and upset by the whole affair, and we must offer our heartfelt thanks to Dominic Chad for his understanding, reason and his kind acceptance of our apologies'." The Backseat Mafia source does not mention Draper by name. Accordingly, I don't see any way to connect him to the incident. In the absence of further sourcing, I've removed this text from the article. —C.Fred (talk) 14:44, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Also removed: "Journalist Dom Gourlay, who writes for several publications including Drowned in Sound but was covering the show for Gigwise, was branded a 'Natzi' (sic) by Draper." The offending tweet came from an unverified account showing the name Mansun Official. It's one thing if the tweet chain started with Draper's official account, but this falls outside of that. —C.Fred (talk) 17:24, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

"In 2017, the main support band Estrons pulled out of Draper's first solo tour after the first night at the Brudenell Social Club in Leeds, with their frontwoman Tali Källström stating that she 'woke up yesterday to a public tweet from Paul and inappropriate messages to my band's Facebook page which made me feel incredibly uncomfortable. Me and him have never even had a conversation. In reading these messages, his intentions became very clear. Knowing this I felt it was impossible to continue the tour dates with him comfortably'."

I reread WP:ABOUTSELF. "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves…so long as…it does not involve claims about third parties…" And here's the rub: Källström's statement about Draper is a claim about a third party. Now, if an independent source had written a news story about the incident, we could cite that. However, a Google search turned up nothing, so I'm going to err on the side of caution and remove it. —C.Fred (talk) 17:30, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Metadiscussion

 * Why have I put the deleted text on the talk page? Well, it was longstanding in the article, and I feel it's more transparent to explain why it was removed than have it vanish without discussion. There have also been enough COI edits that I want transparency about the reasons for the deletion and an opportunity for rebuttal and presentation of reliable sources for the material in question. —C.Fred (talk) 17:32, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Removed controversies text
Wikipedia considers the Daily Mail to be an inappropriate reference source. The referenced article is based on a Daily Mail article and quoting from an unreliable article is highly problematic in terms of the article's impartiality and neutrality. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daily_Mail UK alfa (talk) 15:52, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I believe you meant to link to the Wikipedia assessment of the Daily Mail as an unreliable source, summarized at WP:RSPDM. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 16:39, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I would like to thank for your supplementary information. As you say, the Daily Mail is also listed as an inappropriate resource.
 * Also, if I am correct, Twitter and Facebook posts are also inappropriate resources for Wikipedia.
 * Made by : I believe that both of the current updates are inappropriate and hope that they will be corrected as soon as possible. UK alfa (talk) 14:33, 5 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Made by : ∙- Reference29 - The cited article has already disappeared. In addition, there is no mention of Backseat Mafia on their about/contact page. This is not an appropriate citation for a living person. - Reference 30 - The reference is to a Facebook post, which is not an appropriate source for a Wikipedia citation. - References 31-35 - All articles are based on Twitter posts and are inappropriate as a Wikipedia citation. -References 36-39 - All articles are based on Daily Mail articles and are inappropriate as sources of quotations in Wikipedia. - References 40-41 - The Twitter postings are inappropriate as a source of quotations from Wikipedia. UK alfa (talk) 00:01, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * UK alfa, you are now blocked from article space because of your obvious conflict of interest. Drmies (talk) 16:27, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Can you please tell us what exactly is the problem?Daily Mail is clearly problematic as a resource. I was also aware that Social Media is not recognized as a resource, am I mistaken? UK alfa (talk) 16:33, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * And what exactly is a 'conflict of interest'? UK alfa (talk) 16:40, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * UK alfa, when you say "us" you are only strengthening the case for your block. I don't know why you're talking about the Daily Mail; that paper isn't cited in the article and at any rate it has nothing to do with the block. And surely if you're writing here you know what a conflict of interest is. Drmies (talk) 01:16, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comment.
 * I see, I understand part of the reason for your doubts about me. I am not a native English speaker, so I use translation sites for such complicated conversations. Our language often doesn't need a subject or plural singular, so sometimes the words us or we are included. I am sorry for any misunderstanding I may have caused you. I am ashamed of it.
 * The Guardian article you cite in your article clearly states early on that it is a Daily Mail report. That is why I considered that article unsuitable as a wikipedia resource.
 * As for the conflict of interest, I will read the regulations again carefully and think about it. UK alfa (talk) 11:33, 8 May 2023 (UTC)