Talk:There's Got to Be a Way

Article protection
I've fully protected the article for three days in order to prevent further edit warring and as an alternative to handing out blocks. Please hammer out some consensus for the appropriate version here using the available tools in the content dispute toolbox.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 21:37, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for injecting. I think it is actually resolved now, although it took using the country lanes to get there instead of the motorway. Page protection is probably the best course for the time being. Shame, it could have been avoided.  — Calvin999  21:39, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I think we've finally resolved the issue at hand, that I will leave Calvin to do as he pleases with the rest of the article as it is now in a good state for once to my satisfaction and a desired result. Article protection should've been implemented much sooner, for better mediation prior to the earlier editing dispute concluding on ANI. It is actually a little too late for that now, as there will be little to no editing activity outside of the above "user" now that some critical information has been properly restored as I saw fit. User: Calvin999 did not understand that Carey signed her contract in December 1988 and thus the period temporarily given by him of 1989-1990 without a verifiable source could not be considered accurate going on his incorrect conviction of just how,"She worked with Ric Wake after she signed, so it was between 1989-1990", when 1988 also could've applied and rendered that insufficient. Having done better research on this matter, I originally discovered February 1990 as a specific recording date and then confirmed it once again ending this issue altogether. I am not sure why he believes (as said at ANI) that anyone said Carey was signed in December 1989, when so much evidence is contrary to that. I do hope none of the other articles are changed to reflect that she was instead signed in 1989, as it would be glaringly incorrect of course. I mention this so as to be certain, so I do not come back months later and find the cited information omitted on his sole discretion. There is very much a case of WP:OWN at hand here, which I want to make sure other editors do not go through the same issue with User: Calvin999 nor anyone that wants to micromanage an article by swatting other users away (only to be proven wrong).--Carmaker1 (talk) 00:09, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Your insolence is beyond belief. "I will leave Calvin to do as he pleases with the rest of the article as it is now in a good state for once to my satisfaction and a desired result" - The article was a mess prior to October 2015, when I completely re-wrote it, nominated for GAN and it was approved; it was in a "good state" prior to your messing about the other day. Article protection isn't really necessary for something as simply as what month and year a song was recorded in, but you made it necessary by your behaviour. You can't argue against it, it's there by your hand in the revision history: your first two reverts changed the time of recording without a source, and then the following two reverts you added a unreliable one. If you had changed it originally to the American Radio History source citing Billboard, or wrote it on this talk page, or come t mine, this would have all been avoided, but you took another route of 'Who on earth changed this from 7 seven years, he's an idiot' BS. There was "little to no editing" for the previous 18 months because it's a GA and it's a minor article, what are you on about? It simply requires maintaining from the odd IP here and there. She signed a contract in Dec 1988, I never said Dec 1989 so I don't see why you keep fabricating that, I said the album was recorded between 1989 and right up until it's release in 1990, so it wasn't wrong to include as such. Now, you have finally provided a source that backs up February 1990, though why you sat on it for so long and deliberately caused problems I do not know. Recording dates in the future will be changed or amended as and when it is appropriate to do so, when there is not a source or the source cannot be verified. If you can, of course, provide a reliable quicker than you did so on this occasion and without malice and actually be helpful, then there shouldn't be any issues. You say about OWN, but you're the one telling me not to edit this article or change other dates. You also removed my warnings on your user talk, as you are entitled to do so, saying it's spam and you will report me for harassment, so what do you call your misuse of a warning template on my user talk? Warning me for replying to the ANI thread that you reported me on is misuse of warning templates, as I have the right of reply. Talk about do as I say, not as I do. I don't see how I was proved wrong when you constantly added unsourced info and unreliable source, I said if you could provide a reliable source then that's fine, but you didn't want to comply. Feel free to reply here but don't bank on curiosity killing the cat, it wouldn't be worth me wasting a life on such a small issue.  — Calvin999  08:37, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Cool it and mind the personal attacks and hostile language in your slang. Calling others insolent, asking "what are you on about?" does not show an ability to maintain civility. No one called you an idiot, so I suggest you retract such a volatile accusation, before I construe that as incivility. Perhaps you should stick to the content of article at hand, instead of finding ways to insult users? You are not the only individual that has rewritten and successfully submitted good article nominations, so colour me not mesmerized by that if I have to be correcting anything at all. The article protection comes from the fact a past citation link went dead and you taking it upon yourself to add inaccurate information in place of it that mislead readers for 18 months (as against keeping the section blank until a new citation can be provided), then creating an edit war as another user tried to restore such correct information. Link rot does not 100% negate the verifiability of a source, in which you just decide to omit it without full investigation or attempting to confirm the validity of said information by research. When encountering deadlinks, I attempt to confirm it on my own and then when unable to do so, I ask for assistance on the matter to know whether or not to retain said information. It was disingenuous to give the information of 1989-1990 upon an extrapolation of yours, when Carey worked on this record with Sony starting in 1988, plus doing demos before that. Next time provide a source for everything you submit, as I easily would have campaigned against that GA nomination 1.5 years ago on that note alone, as clearly the admin might've missed a few gaffes within the article and overlooked any inconsistencies you left behind. You cannot seem to comprehend that 1989 is not the correct starting point of initial work for the related album, it is 1988, therefore your point is invalidated. Until I reconfirmed my information, you were NOT able to concretely prove she started working with Wake on this record in 1989. My point stands in the regard, that there might be holes in the 100% GA validity of Carey-related contributions that aren't as obvious to the naked eye. If you missed something so simple as a start to finish period 1988-1990 vs 1989-1990, it does not aid full credibility of your 2015 GAN(s). You were already guessing in that respect, also contradicting other cited information that points to 1988. Please point out where she stated, "I only signed in December 1988, but didn't record anything until 1989." You cannot prove that, hence why I will be further investigating every article of interest in this respect, to ensure that GA still stands.
 * The content of your later edit summaries and text on the ANI page justified a warning template, so pretending otherwise will not obscure that. You are deliberately edit warring, when trying to directly alter or remove cited submissions by other users, when your replacement information wasn't even 100% correct nor even cited with concrete proof. You are not the person that solely decides what can and cannot be added to an article, as when that occurs, WP: OWN can become a factor. We are not gatekeepers for who can/cannot edit an article. I can and will definitely suggest that if I provide valid cited information, anything that tampers with my valid submission and doesn't help to expand on it (correcting formatting), can and will be reported as vandalism or justify a warning. Good on you though for putting it in proper citation prose, without attempting to erase it, as that would be disruptive editing or spiteful vandalism.--Carmaker1 (talk) 17:10, 26 April 2017 (UTC) Carmaker1 (talk) 17:10, 26 April 2017 (UTC)