User talk:BasicB

Basic Black
Hi. Finally, please also read FAQ/Business. Sorry that I'm throwing so many guideline links at you, but that's the best way to avoid all those pitfalls in the future :) Cheers, Amalthea (talk) 00:18, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) I'm napierk and since I am an intern at Basic Black I also have access to the account Basic B. The rule on wikipedia is: One person, one account. If you for some reason have two accounts, you should mark them as belonging to the same person. Sharing one account between several people is also not allowed. Read USERNAME, USERNAME and SOCKPUPPET.
 * 2) why did you put back the conflict of interest on the Basic Black page. [...] The producers of the show Basic Black were already hesitant to have me set up this page. Now I fixed it and that COI is drawing attention. Those producers were correct to be hesitant. Do you understand what conflict of interest means? Please read Conflict of interest. It's ok for you to correct false information, but everything you add (especially you, due to your conflict of interest) must be verifiable. Add links to reliable, secondary sources. The tags are supposed to be drawing attention, so that people who know the show can fix it and remove the tags.
 * 3) People are going to want to tamper with it. That's the basic principle of wikipedia. The neutrality tag was placed there due to this sentence, I guess: [...] has served as a vehicle for African-American community engagement and for the sharing and celebration of its rich history and culture. That might be true, it might also be a promo line. Verify that with secondary sources and we can remove the issue tags, I think. A reference for the Emmy award would also be nice, preferably not from the show's website.
 * Hi
 * Apparently you do not know what conflict of interest is. You have a conflict of interest, in that you try to promote the interests of the show you work for. The interests of Wikipedia come second to you. That any producer gave you "permission" do edit the page is irrelevant, if anything it amplifies COI.
 * Yes, I clicked on the facebook link and know that it agrees with the article - which is a perfect example of an NPOV violation. If the producer says so on their *promotional* *facebook* *page*, it's just that: A promotion, not written from a neutral point of view.
 * The NPOV and COI tags were added after you changed the content to: [...] is an Emmy Award-winning weekly television series airing on WGBH in Boston. Since 1968, Basic Black (formerly Say Brother) has served as a vehicle for African-American community engagement and for the sharing and celebration of its rich history and culture. Yes, it was because of the content you added, and because you mentioned that "the producers asked" you to put it there. What's there to misunderstand? You didn't prove it, you just said it. You can prove it by citing some reliable, independant web source agreeing with you. Also, add a reliable, independant source saying that the show won an Emmy Award.
 * I have not watched the show, and I can't, since I'm not living in the US. And I believe that what you say is true. But it has to be proven, *escpecially* if it comes from an editor with a conflict of interest. If you look at articles, eg. Fringe (TV series), you can see that any information that is likely to be challenged (Read: WP:PROVEIT) or was challanged in the past has been enhanced by a reliable, independant web reference where the fact came from. By definition, almost *anything* an editor with a conflict of interest adds is likely to be challenged and needs to be verifiable.
 * Just add reliable references to those to facts and we are fine and can remove the tags, too. If you can't do that, then we remove the unproven statements along with the tags and are also fine.
 * Oh, and please add comments to my talk page in the future, not to my user page - that's what it's for.
 * Cheers, Amalthea (talk) 12:12, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi
 * Really, please add comments on my talkpage, *not* on my user page. Every comment I leave you has a link called "Talk". There is a section called Basic Black with all your previous comments. That's what it's there for. Please?
 * > Amalthea, You have not answered the question I asked you. Why are you only asking for sources for Basic Black and requiring a tag, but you don't require it for other shows. There's no reference cited for the description of American Idol, 90210, etc.
 * I thought I had answered your question by pointing you towards Fringe (TV series), which is the only TV series I edited recently. Incidently, what I did was adding references to challanged facts.
 * If I look at 90210 (TV series), almost every sentence is followed by a link to the reference there too.
 * American Idol less so, but I only see two controversial facts in the intro section. The first is already followed by a ' marker, the second one, calling Ryan Seacrest a "television personality", is vague, but verifiable on the article about him. And if you scroll further down to American Idol, you'll see that there are 59''' references given to support the article.
 * > You need to put up a COI tag with those shows to be fair, right.
 * No, not unless I know that someone editing the page has a conflict of interest. If all I see are facts which I don't believe or think they need to be checked, I do so: look for references myself, mark them with , or delete the statement. When conflict of interest is apparent though, such as in, and , I place a tag.
 * > I'm not trying to start a problem, but I think you are being bias because you are only requiring a tag for a show called BASIC BLACK.
 * You are completely wrong. Feel free to request a third opinion though - there's a policy for a great many things on wikipedia, and a very sophisticated one about dispute resolution.
 * As I keep saying though: Just add the references. If your statements aren't verifiable then they have no place in an encyclopaedia, it's as simple as that.
 * Cheers, Amalthea (talk) 16:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * > I'm not trying to start a problem, but I think you are being bias because you are only requiring a tag for a show called BASIC BLACK.
 * You are completely wrong. Feel free to request a third opinion though - there's a policy for a great many things on wikipedia, and a very sophisticated one about dispute resolution.
 * As I keep saying though: Just add the references. If your statements aren't verifiable then they have no place in an encyclopaedia, it's as simple as that.
 * Cheers, Amalthea (talk) 16:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * As I keep saying though: Just add the references. If your statements aren't verifiable then they have no place in an encyclopaedia, it's as simple as that.
 * Cheers, Amalthea (talk) 16:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Cheers, Amalthea (talk) 16:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Cheers, Amalthea (talk) 16:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I explained it at length above, provided you with the links to the guidelines, I'm not going to attempt another explanation. I suggest you don't edit the article anymore yourself. If you want to suggest an edit, please open a new section on the articles talk page and add it there, and tag it using the template Request_edit, as outlined on Conflict of interest. Please make sure the material is sufficiently sourced and written from a neutral point of view. --Amalthea (talk) 18:22, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to keep explaining it either. I'm tired of this conversation. Thanx for the citation, I kept it but put back the info about the show promoting African-American. Let's compromise for the good of wiki. Let's keep the citation, but I will put back the other info. I think people need to know that the show promotes African-Aamerican culture. That's why it's called Basic Black. I will also put needs citation. That way if someone can find a citation, they'll know to put it in. But removing all the info so that no one has absolutely no idea what the shows about does not help the wiki cause. Let's both stop being stubborn and come together for the good of wiki. Life's short, so let's enjoy it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BasicB (talk • contribs) 06:50, July 4, 2008

Okay, so now both of our info is there. In all this back and forth I think we make a good team in the end. Are you going to find references for shows like 90210 and american idol and others. They could use some help too :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by BasicB (talk • contribs) 06:58, July 4, 2008


 * No way.
 * [[Image:Nuvola apps important.svg|25px]] Please stop. If you continue to add promotional material to Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing.
 * Your information is unsourced, non neutral, and you have a conflict of interest. Feel free to suggest a neutral way of describing the purpose of the show on the talk page and request an edit, I told you above how. The "citation needed" marker is used to give experts on the topic a chance to add a source to challanged facts. If you, a self declared intern at the show, can't provide a reliable secondary source for it, it has to be removed as of WP:Verifiability.
 * --Amalthea (talk) 10:20, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Have a look at Talk:Basic Black, please. --Amalthea (talk) 13:40, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case
You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Suspected sock puppets/Napierk for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. Amalthea (talk) 12:01, 7 July 2008 (UTC)