User talk:DanielRigal/2014

Why was my addition of the death of Bruce Stephens removed? along with the source provided?
Under Blue Cheer I had added about Bruce Stephens (guitar) dying in Hawaii. This was done in 2013. Next thing I know it was removed (along with the reference)and I was not notified. I confess not knowing I was supposed to put my name under a Watchlist. What can you tell me and why can't his year of death at least be added at the bottom where he is listed as a former member? Bobquack (talk) 04:27, 21 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Here's a comment by a friendly talk page stalker: CD Baby is a music sales website, so isn't a reliable source for the date of death of a musician. Also, Blue Cheer is a band that had many members over the years in its various incarnations. I am not sure that Stephens was a notable enough member to include his biographical details. But it is certain that the word "unfortunately" is not appropriate to describe his death. Every single human death is unfortunate, and that word is not encyclopedic in this context, since it says nothing about this specific death. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  04:54, 21 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Sorry. I'm not sure what this is about. I have not edited Blue Cheer, as far as I can see from the history, and I don't remember removing this content. Anyway, I agree about CD Baby being non-RS. Sites like that are not likely to deliberately lie about something like a performer dying but they can make mistakes or repeat mistakes made by others. If a notable performer dies it should be possible to reference it to a newspaper or something similarly reliable. DanielRigal (talk) 21:31, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Independent Financial Adviser
Hi Daniel, hope you are well, I am a bit confused as to why the update to the Independent Financial Adviser page was not allowed?! It is merely a link to a website and it is next to 4 other websites who are promoting themselves. Would you be so kind as to tell me how I can go about putting something that would pass the censorship? Many thanks. James — Preceding unsigned comment added by James.Vinicombe (talk • contribs)


 * Wikipedia is not for advertising your website. If that is what you are here for then the best thing is to just give up. That is not going to be allowed. There is already a message on your own talk page explaining conflicts of interests. That has links to the Wikipedia policies on the subject. My view is that the only thing you can do when you have a conflict of interests is to recognise it and withdraw from any editing that might be influenced by it. That doesn't mean you need to withdraw from Wikipedia, just that you need to regard your own website as a topic it is best not to try to write about. If it really is, or becomes, notable then somebody else will write about it one day.
 * Anyway, I think you are mistaken to believe that many of the other links are here to advertise. I have not checked them but they certainly should not be. They should be links to independent sources of relevant information chosen to provide more information on the subject of the article. If they were added by people associated with the sites in question in the hope of getting more traffic, or simply are not appropriate as external links, then that is not allowed and I am sure that they will be removed too.
 * The important thing is to remember is that we are writing an encyclopaedia here. We are here to provide encyclopaedic information to the readers not to further our own goals. Removing inappropriate content is not censorship. It is just keeping the encyclopaedia free of unencyclopaedic content. You already have a website where you can and do publish what you want. That is the very opposite of censorship. Maybe think about all the poor sods in this world who really are being censored from expressing themselves and communicating with other people before using the term in future? --DanielRigal (talk) 23:04, 26 November 2014 (UTC)