Talk:The Misunderstood

Untitled

 * All I have done is give relevant info based on published 3rd party quotes with references listed. Don't remove useful quotes and verifiable important information. Yes, this band is still receiving honors even now, so they are added by me with references. I was singer in this band that was to be huge but got ruined by the Nam war draft just on London mega-launch. Bummer. What conflict of interest? I was in a band 45 years ago and there is conflict of interest today? I have done a number of pages for Wikipedia over the years, so why pick on us?--Rickbrown9 (talk) 21:39, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I was under the impression that I couldn't say anything about myself, only 3rd party published quotes were acceptable in my own case, or case of my 45 year old band. So if anything came up new that added to the value of the article I just put it in.


 * If I put in all the 3rd party quotes it would fill 500 pages. So I've only used a few important references in our article. NOTHING by me.


 * When something is to be done, am I supposed to ask my wife or son to do it? What the difference, as long as it verifiable 3rd party published info

"So now what "3rd party quotes" do you want deleted? There are no bad quotes because you can search the web and you won't find even one bad rap. What should I do now, vandalize my article? I understand about original research, and that's why every single word is 3rd party published referenced information. Same is true with "The Misunderstood" - real published 3rd party info.


 * I love rules and laws as much as the next guy. Please advise "what to do" about this. I actually believe I'm helping Wikipedia.--Rickbrown9 (talk) 20:36, 9 October 2009 (UTC)