User talk:Kaitb1103

Welcome!
Hello, Kaitb1103, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using 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 ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome!
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Manual of Style

Personal attacks
Hi! I saw an insulting message at User talk:MattMadoni, and then I noticed another at User talk:71.158.175.188. It seems that they are related to this edit, which is only sourced to a blog and not to a source that would meet Wikipedia's standards for reliability. It looks like you are a new user who is unfamiliar with Wikipedia's rules, and you're using writing methods that are more appropriate on a different web site. At Wikipedia, we are civil to each other, using the good manners we would use in person- we don't call each other 'asshole,' even when we disagree. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:51, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi FisherQueen,

I apologize. I did not realize. However, regarding Alter Bridge, I posted below.

Alter Bridge
Regarding your desired edit, it's an easy mistake for a new person to make, based on a misunderstanding of Wikipedia's rules. At Wikipedia, we only need the verified facts- not our own opinions or analysis, not rumors, and not, in general, the kinds of events that cause a momentary stir on the internet but aren't essential to a clear understanding of the subject. Remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and ask yourself before adding, "Is this verified to be true in a reliable source? Have I phrased it in a totally neutral way, without including my own opinions?  Is it likely to still be important ten years from now?" -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:55, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Regarding my edit: it's verified to be true; there are posts on alter bridge's own facebook page, as well as this photographers blog.

If you'd like, feel free to edit my post in a way that you deem to be unbiased, however, it should be posted to their page, as it is something that involves them as I do not think it is biased in any way.

Here is my post; feel free to edit, however I will continue to post it and edit their page with it as it does involve them.

Alter Bridge was the subject of controversy in the beginning of June 2012; when concert photographer, Dan DeSlover found his work at the center of a debate. Alter Bridge was using one of his photographs to advertise their new itunes release. Credit was given, but no link to the photographers website. It was also brought to DeSlover's attention that the photo was being utilized for a commericial purpose (Itunes; Tremonti's new solo effort). DeSlover contacted Alter Bridge's management, asking for a small sum of $75 for compensation. Management declined (as they are within a right to do), and removed the photo from the band's page.

Their was nothing wrong with DeSlover asking for payment, there was also nothing wrong with Alter Bridge declining and remvoing the photo. The issue should have ended there. Instead, the admin's of Alter Bridge's page posted a status update that came off very condescending toward the photographer. It read, "Sorry we had to take down the picture of Mark. Got an email from the photographer wanting to charge us $75.00 to display it. Needless to say, we declined. Post a cool picture of Mark on our page and we will use it tomorrow."

The internet universe blew up over this remark. And in an effort to feign good PR, the Facebook admins of Alter Bridge's page took it upon themselves to delete all comments that made Alter Bridge look bad, posed a number of contradictory arguements, and then ultimately deleted the whole thread without every apologizing to the photographer. They are still deleting any comments that support the photographer, and not Alter Bridge on this issue. According to the photographer, DeSlover, Alter Bridge is now working with him toward a resolution by way of a $75 donation to a charity, and hopefully, eventually, an apology towards him via facebook and email.

Update: On June 2nd, Alter Bridge bassist Brian Marshall commented about the incident on Twitter: "Funny how a 'photographer' can make a stink over the likeness of anything. Who did you a favor dooshbag? Click a button." Marshall later deleted his tweets, but they can be viewed at: http://uncountedcircles.blogspot.com/2012/06/altercation-at-alter-bridge.html All opinions aside; Alter Bridge expects people to pay for their music. A photographer (professionals at least), expects to be paid for their work.
 * If it's only on the photographer's blog and the band's own Facebook page, then it isn't yet notable -it is important to the people involved, but so far, hasn't been the subject of writing by people who aren't involved. If this becomes an incident that is the subject of writing in a music magazine, for example, or a newspaper, then it might be useful to go to the article's talk page and discuss whether it's a significant event which should be added to the article. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:02, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Regarding your claim that this addition is unbiased, may I draw your attention to the sentence, "Their was nothing wrong with DeSlover asking for payment, there was also nothing wrong with Alter Bridge declining and remvoing the photo. The issue should have ended there." That is nothing other than your personal opinion, your judgement on who is right, who is wrong, and what people 'should' have done.  That's one of many examples of bias in what you wrote.  -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:08, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

That's fine, then delete it. However, for the record, that's unbiased and supports both Alter Bridge, and the photographer. You need to look up the definition of Bias it seems.

June 2012
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Alter Bridge. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:05, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

Look- there is plenty of work on Wikipedia that is only based on blogs, or the bands page. If you actually went and looked at the source, you can see all of the posts Alter Bridge removed to show bi-partisanship. You're doing the same thing, editing something you believe is right, when it should be posted. How do I give YOU a warning? Editing warring IS wrong, but the bottom line, is that you aren't working toward a suitable answer. Like I said- if you'd like to edit my post to read in a way that is not biased, feel free. Otherwise I WILL send you a warning as well. This is just ridiculous.
 * I'm sorry that you don't understand the rules; I must have explained them badly. Have you read them for yourself?  That might help, if the way I'm explaining them isn't clear.  I can't rewrite your post to read in a way that isn't biased, because there aren't any reliable sources I can use as the basis for a rewrite, I'm afraid.  'Warnings' aren't a punishment in themselves.  They are warnings. To let you know what the rule is, if you didn't know it, so you can read it and follow it in the future.  Which rule do you think I've broken, that you'd like to warn me to follow?  Can you link to it for me? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:15, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I understand the rules. Completely. You can't use blogs as sources. Regardless- it doesn't mean it didn't happen. That's fine. As soon as an article is published in Rolling Stone about it (which I've heard will come out next issue), I'll be editing and posting it with a source. I'll submit a warning that you are in an edit war. Like you did too me. It goes both ways.
 * Actually, when there's an article about this in Rolling Stone, as long as your addition is of an appropriate length and phrased neutrally, I'll agree with you that it should be there. An event of this kind might be worth a sentence or two in the article about the band, if it's so important that Rolling Stone is going to write a feature article about it.  I have to admit that would surprise me, but I've been surprised before.   I'd suggest discussing it on the talk page first, to get others to help you get the best wording, since you're having trouble with keeping your biases out and since your grammar isn't the best.  I'll be glad to help you myself, when the article comes out. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:22, 5 June 2012 (UTC)