User talk:DigitalMindProductions

Managing a conflict of interest
Hello, DigitalMindProductions. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on the page The Boobé Sisters, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:


 * avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization or competitors;
 * propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the request edit template);
 * disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Conflict of interest);
 * avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Spam);
 * do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. Longhair\talk 22:27, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

August 2021
 Your account has been blocked indefinitely from editing because of the following problems: the account has been used for advertising or promotion, which is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia, and your username indicates that the account represents a business, organisation, group, or web site, which is against the username policy.

You may request a change of name and unblock if you intend to make useful contributions other than promoting your business or organization. To do this, first search Special:CentralAuth for available usernames that comply with the username policy. Once you have found an acceptable username, post the text at the bottom of your talk page. Replace the text "Your proposed new username" with your new username and replace the text "Your reason here" with your reasons to be unblocked. In your reasons, you must:
 * Disclose any compensation you may receive for your contributions in accordance with the Paid-contribution disclosure requirement.
 * Convince us that you understand the reason for your block and that you will not repeat the kind of edits for which you were blocked.
 * Describe in general terms the contributions that you intend to make if you are unblocked.

Appeals: If, after reviewing the guide to appealing blocks, you believe this block was made in error, you may appeal it by adding the text at the bottom of your talk page. Replace the text "Your reason here" with the reasons you believe the block was an error, and publish the page. Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  02:08, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Note that the recent request for unblocking was added by. -- Longhair\talk 04:38, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Please log in to confirm that you made the above request. You are not a paid editor if the group is dissolved, as a nonexistent group cannot pay you, but it is still a conflict of interest. Asking someone else to edit for you would simply transfer the COI to them. 331dot (talk) 08:07, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

rename not successful
The chosen username is too similar to an existing username or it used to be username of someone else that got renamed: Ppreston. Please choose again. -- Deep fried okra ( talk ) 10:41, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

I can see two and only two problems before you were blocked from editing, which are that you were editing contrary to the conflict of interest guideline, and that your username is not compliant with the username policy. You were evidently acting in good faith, without being aware of the guideline and policy concerned. That on its own would justify giving you a friendly message informing you of the situation, as did, and also asking you to change your username. However,  saw your editing as promotional too, and therefore decided to block you from editing, giving promotional editing as part of the reason. I am at a loss to see what aspect of your editing can be seen as promotional, but it is possible that Orangemike has noticed something that I have missed, so I shall be grateful if he will explain where he sees promotion as coming into your editing.

Editors who come under Wikipedia's "conflict of interest" guideline are discouraged (though not forbidden) to directly edit relevant articles. They are, however, encouraged by that guideline to propose changes so that other editors may review them and make an impartial decision as to whether to make the changes. I can see how 's comments above could possibly give the impression that doing so is not permitted. I shall therefore look at the changes you wish to have made, with a view to making them if it seems appropriate. JBW (talk) 22:39, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I did not mean to suggest that you could not make the contribution, I was looking for you to review the relevant policy and explain how to do it. 331dot (talk) 22:44, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm also sorry you are aggravated and I don't want to contribute to that, and hope that you will consider contributing in other areas. But these processes and policies are meant to protect the integrity of this encyclopedia and ensure a neutral point of view. I hope that in time you can understand that. 331dot (talk) 22:48, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I've got no objection to unblocking this guy to do a name change. -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  20:01, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

I have added a mention of Karen's death to the article. I would be happy to do the same with the fact of the ending of the group, but that information might be removed by some editor if there is no reliable source cited as a reference for the fact. Unfortunately, I can see that it's very likely that there is no such reliable source, if they just stopped performing, without making an announcement about it. However, if you can provide any kind of published source confirming that they are no longer performing, that will be helpful. If the group's web site said so that would help, but at present it doesn't, as far as I can see.

One other thing. If you post any more messages here, please just make them plain messages, rather than putting them in more unblock request templates. Once you have one unblock request open, posting more of them isn't necessary, and it gives whatever administrator eventually deals with them a little extra trouble, as they have to close all of them, instead of just one. JBW (talk) 23:07, 16 August 2021 (UTC) JBW (talk) 23:07, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, can you add Karen's death to the end of the "History" section of the page? Leading the page with that information just doesn't seem right. A little blunt, actually. It's what I would have done (and, in fact, did) if I could edit. Her death seems more like a final line to their history. Also, Karen died in December, 2019. The article you cited in the sources you cherish said as much. So, maybe, "Founding member Karen Volpe passed away in December, 2019" as the final line? Also, I was trying to include the release of their final album in their history, too, in the same sentence as the baseball game singing gig - some of their final endeavors. Possible? There's a source? I know you like those, it was me editing you didn't like: https://www.facebook.com/commerce/products/2390248930988684/ And I hear you about no source for the group's breakup. I know they didn't announce their dissolution, but wouldn't their manager saying as much be enough? Should I create a two-and-a-half-years-after-the-fact press release and post it to their Facebook page so there's a source? Karen died. They won't be reuniting. They broke up and Karen pursued her own comedy show in 2019: https://www.facebook.com/karenvolpecomedyandmusichour ...and passed at the end of that year. Seeing "Years active: 2013-present" is just not true. It's frustrating that I can't get facts on Wikipedia.
 * We need reliable third-party sources for information, and Facebook is not a reliable source. Was there nothing in the trade press? -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  20:01, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * You are perfectly right about the mention of Karen's death being in the wrong place. That was a mistake, and I've corrected it. As for your frustration at not being able to get information posted because of lack of published sources, I have some thoughts on that which I hope to share with you some time, but I don't have time now. JBW (talk) 22:21, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Rename and unblock
I am willing to unblock your account and rename it to "PPrestonLA", assuming there are no problems with that username. However, when the account is renamed, if you try to log in you will see a message telling you that you have used the wrong username or password. That's no problem, as you can log in with the new username and the same password, but I prefer to warn editors before renaming, so they don't think they've lost access to their account. When you've read this, if you're ready for me to go ahead, post a message telling me so. If you start the message with and finish it with ~ I should get an automatic notification of your message, and I will deal with it as soon as it's convenient to do so. JBW (talk) 22:11, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Guys - I don't even care about having a username with Wikipedia. I created this one just to update The Boobé Sisters' page. You say you've corrected the mistake of putting the news of Karen's death at the top of the page and moved it to the end of the history section, but you didn't correct the date of her death. It's not January, 2020, it was December, 2019. Was there something wrong with my submission of "Founding member Karen Volpe passed away in December, 2019"? And no, there was nothing in the trade papers about the dissolution of the group. They're not Van Halen. This is why I thought I might be a decent source for you as I managed the group and one of their main performers is dead. And if you don't like Facebook for sources, would these work for supporting the fact that they released one more album before they broke up?: https://www.discogs.com/Boobe-Sisters-Taint-Christmas/release/14687435 https://www.amazon.com/Taint-Christmas/dp/B07M65ZVJQ https://music.apple.com/us/album/taint-christmas-single/1447996596


 * I've fixed the date of death to now read December 2019. -- Longhair\talk 19:52, 20 August 2021 (UTC)


 * If the issue has been resolved to your satisfaction, and you do not wish to participate here further, this request can be closed. 331dot (talk) 17:03, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Nope. Not satisfied at all. The support team here has just frustrated me into a catatonic state. When I write you, you seem to have subjective reading as to the things you care to respond to, and leave much of what I'm asking or writing about un-addressed. For example: - Still wondering if the wording of Karen's death could be changed to not be so blunt. - Still curious how to get the information about the release of the group's final album up on the page when you won't let me do it and I've given you sources to back my info. - Still waiting for JBW to share his thoughts about my frustration at not being able to get information posted because of lack of published sources. - Still hoping to hear something about how to update the group's present state - they've disbanded. Seeing "Years Active - 2013-Present" is just flat-out wrong and I continue to be surprised that you don't care about spreading misinformation. If I got the other members of the group to tell you they've broken up, would that work? I know you want a news source, but hearing it from the subjects themselves has to mean something, no? So, no. Not satisfied. I took a half hour to update this page and it's been TWO WEEKS of back-and-forth with you all since. Will anyone take a stab at addressing these concerns? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DigitalMindProductions (talk • contribs)

I received a message that Longhair left a response. Is this it?: " — Preceding unsigned comment added by DigitalMindProductions (talk • contribs) " What does that mean?


 * Sorry, we're not trying to annoy you. There is no "support team". We are all volunteers. Each of us picks and chooses what we do. Getting annoyed at those trying to help you for not doing exactly what you would like, or as quickly as you would like, is not going to help. It's likely to be counterproductive, if anything.
 * We're not trying to spread misinformation. We go by what reliable sources say. We don't report personal knowledge and, no insult intended, we don't know that you are who you claim to be. We have no reason not to believe you, but it is not uncommon for editors to claim personal knowledge or connections in attempts to influence article content.
 * As for your wish to use "passed away" rather than "died", see MOS:EUPHEMISM. Meters (talk) 19:56, 30 August 2021 (UTC)


 * So, if I express my disappointment in the actions taken to address my concerns, your response is counterproduction and/or threat of it. I'm not sure that's customer service as I know it, but let's get to your points.
 * Your euphemism response - understood. Thank you.
 * While I appreciate your thoughts on reliable sources, you haven't given me a path to be taken seriously. Do you need "press" or published accounts of my relationship to the subject(s)?
 * Still not sure what "talk" means.
 * Still no word on including the final album info.
 * Still no word on changing "Years Active - 2013-Present". It seems that the opening paragraph has changed over time to refer to the group in the past tense. Clearly, the page itself would like to report that the group has disbanded, is a thing of the past, and yet the active years are in conflict with that and you refuse to update the History section to be in alignment with the opening paragraph of the page. Can that be changed?
 * Still waiting for JBW to share his thoughts about my frustration at not being able to get information posted because of lack of published sources.
 * I would love to hear thoughts about my frustration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DigitalMindProductions (talk • contribs)
 * "Talk" refers to talk pages, like this one, as well as article talk pages. We do take you seriously, that is not the issue, we need something that can be independently verified. I'm sure  is busy but they said they would offer their thoughts when convenient, maybe it hasn't been yet.  As noted, we are all volunteers here. That is indeed frustrating for people not used to Wikipedia, but that's how things work here. 331dot (talk) 07:46, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I see that you have commented on my failure to come back and make comments on the problem of not being able to add the information you would like to because of a lack of published sources. I was expecting you to follow up my invitation to ping me, so that I would be called back to this page, but you never did, with the result that I forgot about it. No doubt to you the matter is quite a prominent one, but to me it is just one of many things that are going on. (In the last 30 days I have made over 1100 edits, and I don't know how many hundred administrative actions.) Luckily, 331dot has called my attention back to this page.


 * Many new editors with personal knowledge of a subject find, as you apparently have, that they are prevented from posting material which they know for certain is true into an article because they can't point to a published source which supports the information. In some cases, they can then go and find a suitable source, but in others that is difficult, or even impossible if the information never has been published. I can fully understand why that must be frustrating, and it must often seem that it is a matter of following arbitrary and pointless policies. I know how that feels, because when I first started contributing to Wikipedia, many years ago, I too found policies and guidelines which seemed to me to be pointless, and which seemed to serve no purpose other than arbitrarily restricting content of articles to no purpose. As time went on, I gradually learnt more about how and why those policies had come about. I never came to fully agree with every detail of every policy (I doubt that anyone does) but I did come to see that all of the policies were there for good reasons, and even when I disagree with particular details, there is always a reasonable case in favour of them. I shall try to outline why it has come about that you are faced with policies which constrict you in the way you have found, and after that I shall give you some of my own thoughts on the matter. I don't for one moment imagine that will make you totally happy with the situation (I am not totally happy with it myself) but I hope it may help you to see that the situation isn't as grossly unreasonable as it apparently seems at present.


 * The problem with allowing article content purely on the basis that an editor says so is that the mere fact that someone who has chosen to create a Wikipedia account says something is a very unreliable source, for at least four reasons. (1) There are people who have some degree of personal knowledge of a matter, but who nonetheless are seriously mistaken about significant aspects of it. (2) There are people who have a personal involvement in a subject, which gives them an axe to grind: that is to say that the very fact of their personal involvement makes them unreliable as a source, because they have no intention of being impartial. (3) People who have a personal involvement in a subject may find it difficult to stand back and see how things look from the detached point of view of an uninvolved outsider; that is to say their personal involvement makes them unreliable as a source, because they re unable to see things impartially, even if they sincerely intend to do so. (4) It is a very unfortunate fact of life that in an encyclopaedia that almost anyone is allowed to edit, we get very large numbers of people who simply lie about who the are, and pretend to have inside knowledge that in fact they don't. ''To be absolutely clear, I am not suggesting that any of those applies to you. I am simply trying to make it clear that the policy of requiring citations to reliable sources is there for good reasons. It is not because editors "don't care about spreading misinformation", as you put it, it is because they do care about spreading misinformation, and overall the present policy far more often prevents than causes misinformation.


 * Unfortunately, as you have discovered, even policies which are there for very good reasons can sometimes cause collateral damage. In a case such as this one, where there is no good reason to doubt that you really do have the knowledge that you say you have, and no reason to doubt your motives, it makes sense to choose not to rigorously enforce the policy, and allow content without a source. The principle that policies are not absolute, and should be applied with discretion in cases where they are likely to do more harm than good, is itself enshrined in Wikipedia policy, and even in the five pillars of Wikipedia, described as "The fundamental principles of Wikipedia". I would therefore personally be perfectly happy to allow the information you posted about the demise of the group to stand. However, Wikipedia policy is that information removed from an article because of a lack of citation to a reliable source must not be restored without providing such a source. To be absolutely literal, nobody has said that the information was removed because of a lack of a source, and the reasons given for your block were supposed promotional editing (though I can't see that) and a violation of the user name policy. I am therefore willing to restore the date of the end of the group, even though I can't cite a reliable source for it. If, however, anyone challenges that information, I will not fight to keep it there.


 * I take your statement that you "don't even care about having a username with Wikipedia", together with you failure to take up my invitation to let me know you are ready for your user name to be changed, as meaning that you are no longer interested in the rename-and-unblock request, so I shall close the request, to prevent it from taking up time of administrators who come to review it. However, you are welcome to let me know if you do still wish to be renamed and unblocked. JBW (talk) 21:07, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
 * And the user still seems to be misunderstding things. The user is not our (or Wikipedia's) customer, and other editors are the user's customer service agents. Meters (talk) 21:44, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

JBW, your explanation of things was very thorough and very accurate, from the facts to my feelings about them. Sorry, I don't know how to "ping" you (I wouldn't say this is a user-friendly protocol), so you may never see this, but I appreciate your date change to one that is accurate. And yes, I never was doing anything promotional here. I think you'd agree announcing the END of a group certainly isn't a way to promote it. Correct, I don't need this username to continue. As you can imagine, this has been frustrating. Powers that be, for the love of all that is holy, Close. This. Thread.