User talk:DS86

December 2011
Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to Pint Shot Riot appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe this. Thank you.  Nik the  stoned  14:18, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi there. I can see you are indeed trying to improve this article but I've once again reverted your changes for the above reason. Here are some further pointers:
 * You need to support controversial / positive-sounding statements with references from reliable, third party sources. E.g., "the first British band to sign a publishing deal with the EA Games / Nettwerk Music Group" - this needs a third party source, one from the Nettwerk group is not good enough. (This is only the first I came accross - there are many more...)
 * Statements like "the band landed numerous supports slots on the UK circuit" are unacceptable as per the above guidelines. Instead state it simply - E.g., "the band played in a supporting role for a number of UK artists". (Which then also requires a third-party source to back it up for more than just one of the gigs).
 * "March 2009 saw the release of their first EP, “Round One”. Described as being ‘made of pure, Union Jack energy’" is overtly promotional and statements like this should not be included. For one thing, this post is from a blog and as such does not meet the reliable source guidelines. For another, this is only one review - you need to present all sides of a particular piece of information; and I'll bet I cant find a negative review or two also. (Additionally, after reading all of the cited review - it's not all positive so this statement is even more contentious.)
 * You cannot use *any* wiki as a source. Wiki's are inherently not reliable as anyone can add the information. (That's why sources are so important here on Wikipedia!) Same goes for Youtube.
 * And I'm going to stop there as that's already plenty to work on! Sorry you're having such trouble with this but verifiability and neutrality are key in maintaining a good encyclopedia.  Nik  the  stoned  17:11, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Pint Shot Riot. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you.  Nik the  stoned  10:20, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * As your additions this time were *less* promotional, I've left them in and just rewritten those parts I found to be in breach of WP:NPOV. I also removed some improper references, please read IRS.  Nik the  stoned  11:27, 15 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Please explain how you feel you can add "a year of US touring ensued" - without citations - instead of the far more accurate description "sporadic"? This would appear to render you in violation of everything you've flagged up in my own entries. DS86 (talk) 12:26, 15 December 2011 (UTC)


 * That change was made due to the conversational tone of the previous wording - your new edit is much better though, thanks. I really don't see how it was in contravention of the above, however; it was hardly promotional. I removed the iTunes ref as this is again not a reliable source, sorry.  Nik the  stoned  15:22, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

My point was that for example, in an earlier edit, you removed a reference I'd written to Pint Shot Riot playing numerous UK gigs including We Are Scientists (not verbatim), giving the reason that it couldn't be included as there wasn't a source to back it up. You've then today written something very similar - "a year of US touring ensued" - without adding anything of your own to back that up with. After spending a few days trying to tidy up the article due to your edits, I found this a very unfair re-write and a contradiction of most of what you've said on the article this week. If I'd have written "a year of US touring ensued" without adding numerous sources to back it up, you would have removed it. Correct?

Could you also explain why you have flagged the article as having "self-published sources" despite the numerous different sources added this week, of which none are "self-published" by me?

DS86 (talk) 16:01, 15 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, I apologise for adding unsourced content to the article - it was obviously not my attention and I'm glad you spotted it! The self-published tag is there as many claims are supported by first-party sources, not third-party sources as desired. So, to back up the basic band facts (like members, formation dates etc) the official site is acceptable (although not encouraged, this information *will* exist elsewhere also). However, the info re: the band signing with Nettwork = backed up with Nettworks official site. The info re: the "homeless world cup" = backed up with their official site. The info re: the Live4ever concert - Live4ever ref. It's pretty much like this for most of the article - if these events are notable they should also be mentioned in third-party sources. Let me know if you've any other questions... For what it's worth I'm sorry I annoyed you in my reverting of your changes, but I do feel they were valid reverts and in-line with policy. The article is looking better now, however!  Nik  the  stoned  16:36, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, I very much appreciate your response and the extra information provided. I'll look to add more third-party sources as and when these become available.

Thanks,

DS86 (talk) 16:42, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Pint Shot Riot at The Red Lion, New York.jpeg
Thanks for uploading File:Pint Shot Riot at The Red Lion, New York.jpeg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to , stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add OTRS pending to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to .

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at File copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log]. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Peripitus (Talk) 11:09, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

An email was sent by the owner of this photograph to the address given above as requested, stating his allowance for its use on this page - why has the picture now been removed anyway?

DS86 (talk) 11:08, 24 August 2012 (UTC)