User talk:Djmehow

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
 * Introduction and Getting started
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome!--Biografer (talk) 19:36, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

WP:COI
Are you, or do you have a connection to, Tony Defries? You seem to have turned the article into a hiagiography with much WP:PEACOCKing. Spike &#39;em (talk) 18:03, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Spike &#39;em, no not all. Just been reading several Bowie books and figured I'd update this wiki because it seemed very negative, almost deliberate as if someone had written it in a scathing way, the original article had almost nothing positive to say and was therefore not neutral, is there a word for that?. Please explain why you feel it is a hiagography and list specific sections and lines that you feel support this? I have taken a pain staking amount of time to research this and be factual with it as it's my first time contributing and I want to contribute to further areas of wiki. I see you have reinstated two references which I removed as per wiki guidelines in my opinion are not credible sources? Do you have more information on these references other than the originals. i.e. [59] and [62]. I researched these and could not find more then one source pertaining what seems more like scathing and biase than actual facts. It seems to be sourced from a wikileak and if it is in fact true than should remain on the wikileaks site as the guidelines for contributors suggest. The Komisar Scoop does not seem to be a reliable source, it's structured as a site but is updated more like a blog. From the guidelines I understand that this is not reliable and is an opinion piece with no thorough fact checking. This seems to be an an originating source as many other sites quote the Komisar Scoop for this detail. In this link they reiterate this detail with the following text: "Another story, which followed up an Elmer document about a company, partly owned by Julius Baer and registered in the Cayman Islands and Liechtenstein, that sold tax evading “annuities,” was published only on this website, as the media was uninterested." https://www.thekomisarscoop.com/2011/01/a-preview-of-what-rudolf-elmer-gave-wikileaks/- Ex-Rock Impresario Tony Defries lost $22 million in offshore tax evasion scheme. I find that very weird that such a material claim was not covered by any other major news agency especially owing to how popular David Bowie was and still is. How do we resolve this now as I feel they don't belong there? I am new to this so please correct me if you feel I have done something incorrectly. I'm confused as to why ref 62 has been added to his IOTA section, how does it link to it, I see there are blog comments on some sites that suggest something there but there is nothing factual so why do you think it should be here? I would appreciate it if you would remove the COI claim as this is not the case. Thank you Djmehow (talk) 14:37, 12 January 2019 (UTC)


 * If you have no connection, then fair enough, but the article is not neutral. It is/was full of flowery and preening language and completely fails to mention the fall out between Defries and Bowie. Spike &#39;em (talk) 13:56, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Spike &#39;em I think this paragraph deals with the fall out in a neutral way. use of "resentment" and "separately" explains that there was a fallout. "As Bowie and Defries co-owned the rights to everything they published and recorded together, Bowie would later require a large cash injection to buy Defries out. As a manageable way forward, David Pullman came up with the idea of securitising the intellectual property against future earnings.[56] Resentment by Bowie against his former friend lingered, so Pullman dealt with Bowie and Defries separately. In an interview later Pullman said "It’s like a marriage. The flipside is Tony is very savvy. I didn’t realize he’s an attorney, not just a manager. Tony didn’t have anything to say about David. They helped each other early on. Tony taught him some of the things he learned along the way about owning things." [57][58] In 1997 the Bowie Bonds began as a stock of $55 million and appeared on the cover of the Wall Street Journal."

Please suggest a way forward with my questions, references and points? Djmehow (talk) 14:37, 12 January 2019 (UTC)


 * That paragraph requires supposition on the part of the reader, far better to state what happened clearly. You inserted a whole section saying how vital Defries was to Bowie and how they were best friends; a falling out between them requires equal weight and explanation of why it happened. I think the law360 ref looks reliable to me, it is reporting on a civil law case, and I found other mentions of the case on the web. Ref 62 was originally inserted into what was section headed as a timeframe, I renamed this and the next section later based on the company names, as it seems the earlier one is still going. Spike &#39;em (talk) 14:17, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

"That paragraph requires supposition on the part of the reader?" I don't understand what you mean by supposition, it's very clearly written about that Bowie bought Defries out, the reference you have given is a review on the book and an opinion. I cannot find this sentence or sacking in the reference. Isn't sacking to negative?

"I found other mentions of the case on the web. Great! please link them as a 2nd source than.

"Ref 62 was originally inserted into what was section headed as a timeframe, I renamed this and the next section later based on the company names, as it seems the earlier one is still going." I'm questioning the source here not the placement, do you really think this is a credible source and if so why do you come to that conclusion as I'm trying to learn from contributors.

"You inserted a whole section saying how vital Defries was to Bowie and how they were best friends; a falling out between them requires equal weight and explanation of why it happened." Have you read my citations and actually read the quotes I have provided to substantiate what I have written here? Djmehow (talk) 14:37, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * You never even mentioned that they split let alone any reasons, or explanation of why Bowie wanted or needed to buy him out. The article does not conform to WP:NPOV, equal weight needs to be given to all aspects of his career, not just the good parts. What word would you prefer to "sacked" Spike &#39;em (talk) 14:49, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * What mention do the books you are using as sources make of the split? Spike &#39;em (talk) 17:05, 12 January 2019 (UTC)