User talk:Keith Newman

Gene Pierson
I have moved your article to User:Keith Newman/Gene Pierson. It needs extensive rewriting to comply with our manual of style, at present it reads like a promotional profile. Guy (Help!) 09:22, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

JamesBWatson
I am concerned as to why this page has been targeted for removal. It is accurate, has a significiant number of references and links and has no factual errors as far as i am aware. If there were any you had found i wqould appreciate you pointing them out and they would be corrected. I watch over this site carefully making changes as necessary to update it and have on at least one ocassion completely rewritten it. As you know for a volunteer service this takes time and effort. To have the page rfemoved is very frustrating. it breaks numerous external links for a start. The assumption that I am too close to my subject is simply that. I have met Mr Pierson in person once in the past 35 years. I knew him in Australia in 1974 and believed his story needed to be told. My interest was furthered when I interview him for a Radio New Zealand Musical Chairs programme. So where is the conflict of interest or bias you talk about?

My interest is journalistic and to set the record straight. This article is more accurate and maintained better than many others on Wikipedia and i continue to manage the page and welcome any legitimate changes or corrections. This article is written in the same style as many articles on Wikipedia on bands or artists, detailing his career development, acvhievements, albums and songs. The extreme move undertaken by yourself I believe is an over reaction. (talk)

JamesBWatson deletion of Ministry of Words
PS: JamesBWatson (behind an alias)I see you also removed the Ministry of Words page I created for my profile and books written. Yes I did it myself but it was carefully and factually worded. I thought, as journalist with some decades of experience, I could make a contribution to Wikipedia. However a deletion of this site after several people had made improvements, links and valuable suggestions is just frustrating and in my case has made me reconsider any future contributions and time spent reworking content. Again it leaves dead links where there is a cross reference and undermines my confidence in referencing Wikipedia in current books and projects. I suggest you reconsider how you approach your role as Wiki policeman - your heavy handedness in this case, (with no suggestions for improvement, simply deleting content entirely) has proven counter productive. (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keith Newman (talk • contribs) 23:46, 27 July 2012‎


 * 1) Evidently you disagree with the deletion of Ministry of Words: Keith Newman, so I have restored it. You were lucky that I looked back at this page, as I might not have done so, and would never have seen your message. For future reference, I suggest in such cases dropping a note on the talk page of the user you wish to contact to let them know that there is a message here for them. (Some editors always watch talk pages they have recently posted to, but not everybody.) As for what you call my "heavy handedness", Wikipedia policy on proposed deletions is that if nobody contests the proposal in a week, an administrator can assume the deletion is uncontroversial and delete it. In this case, however, you have indicated that the deletion is not uncontroversial, so I have restored the article. Please note that I am simply administering Wikipedia policy, not expressing a personal view on the article. The deletion was proposed by Biruitorul, not by me. Biruitorul should have notified you of the deletion proposal, to give you a chance to contest it before the deletion. I will drop him/her a note pointing that out.
 * 2) You say "I am concerned as to why this page has been targeted for removal". I have no idea what page you are referring to. Since you later said "I see you also removed the Ministry of Words page" (my emphasis) you can't have been referring to that page, but I can find no record of my having ever done anything else relating to any page you have ever created or edited. You refer to "Mr Pierson", which suggests that you are referring to Gene Pierson, but I have never edited that article, nor, as far as I know, suggested deleting it, nor done anything else in any way related to it. If I have missed something, perhaps you can let me know what page you have in mind.
 * 3) You ask "where is the conflict of interest?" The fact that you wrote an article with "Keith Newman" included in its title, and the fact that you use that as your user name, suggested that you might have been writing about your own work, which you have now confirmed is the case. Wikipedia guidelines discourage us from writing about ourselves or other subjects in which we have a close involvement, and to exercise great caution if we do so, as explained below. Since you might have been unaware of that fact, I dropped you a note letting you know. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:12, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

July 2012
Hello, Keith Newman. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:


 * Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
 * Be cautious about deletion discussions. Everyone is welcome to provide information about independent sources in deletion discussions, but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors.
 * Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Spam).
 * Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:33, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Keith Newman (writer) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Keith Newman (writer) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Keith Newman (writer) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Mattlore (talk) 11:47, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of A Swag of Aussie Poetry for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article A Swag of Aussie Poetry is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/A Swag of Aussie Poetry until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. ''' Flat Out   let's discuss it   01:51, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I see this article has already been stripped back to its bare bones so I am presuming it is not longer cited for deletion? Keith Newman 03:05, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Keith A number of editors worked hard to improve this article and I withdrew my nomination, you can see the closed discussion A Swag of Aussie Poetry here. If you look at the edit history you will see summaries of all the edits made. ''' Flat Out   let's discuss it   04:23, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

June 2013
Hello, Keith Newman. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Keith Newman, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:


 * Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
 * Be cautious about deletion discussions. Everyone is welcome to provide information about independent sources in deletion discussions, but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors.
 * Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Spam).
 * Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. ''' Flat Out   let's discuss it   00:28, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes I probably am too close to the subject which is myself but not pushing any barrows just stating the facts here to place the CV on record. Subsequent editors have done a great job of linking and adding references and tidying. Citations however are asked for some things that are just not verifiable but still remain factual, like the demise of the Auckland Sun newspaper. its gone there is no reference to this, it was pre-web days. It is however an historical fact. To prove I worked there? You want me to send you some news clippings or something? A reference about myself being the second biographer of T.W Ratana...there was only one other biographer and I was the second. How else can I verify this? I'm sure it can be done but it seems a pointless and time consuming exercise. It's stated in preface to my first book but surely you don't want me scanning that and sending it to you? Keith Newman
 * Keith you don't have to do anything if you don't want to; there are other editors who can do the work. If something happened and it is notable, there will almost certainly be a reference to it - we just have to find it. Published biographies are a good place to start. If there is no source you can't include it. ''' Flat Out   let's discuss it   02:33, 3 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Keith. It took a bit of digging but here is a reliable source on the fact the newspaper existed . Now I just need to find one that shows you worked there (i.e a byline). ''' Flat Out    let's discuss it   02:55, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Also

Auckland Sun
Prompted by your recent edit, I created a small article on Auckland Sun. I found it harder than I expected to find information about this newspaper online. You are most welcome to expand this article.- gadfium 05:25, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Much appreciated. Well done - Keith Newman

July 2013
I noticed that among your recent edits at Gene Pierson you removed the 'BLP sources' tag without addressing the problem. This article is a biography of a living person and most of what is written is unsourced. Please do not remove tags without addressing the issues those tags highlight. ''' Flat Out   let's discuss it   04:40, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * When I reviewed the article I found it in such a mess with spelling mistakes introduced, continuity eroded, sources and links removed and some of the most interesting parts of the story removed. Again I seriously wonder why I bother when well researched work is undermined by this kind of editing. Your efforts are more pin-pricking than any hard copy publisher I have worked with. To me after a couple of years of polishing, updating, correcting and maintaining this page, the changes feel like vandalism, and certainly undermine my confidence in wanting to take any ownership of this content or add any further content to Wikipedia. The editing caused more problems that it solved. Keith Newman Keith Newman 05:04, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if you never to bother read any of the wikipedia polices on editing, or if you just don't care. The article had only 1 reliable source and remains almost entirely un-referenced. If you can't abide by editing guidelines and polices, including conflict of interest, then you shouldn't be editing here. You say your edits are "well-researched" yet you have not provided one independent, verifiable source for this article. As it stands 99% of the article is open to challenge and deletion under the biography of a living person policy. Lastly, you don't own the content. All editing at wikipedia is achieved by consensus and no-one owns articles. ''' Flat Out   let's discuss it   05:30, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Ownership is used in the sense of wanting to take responsibility for the content to ensure it remains accurate and reads well.
 * You can only take ownership of your edits, not the content
 * An interview with the subject is surely a source
 * Only if that interview is published, independent and verifiable, which was not the case
 * links and references to websites where the content is verified or used in another form are sources and the links to other band sites and pages which verify data used are surely sources.
 * None of those links met wikipedia standards for appropriate sources.
 * I see many of those were removed. Removal might be fine but there was some carelessness in your approach to this.
 * That's why the article had a 'copy edit' tag attached, but you removed it.
 * Perhaps if you had asked for specific verifications I could have worked on that but instead the article has had its guts ripped out IMHO. Keith Newman 05:44, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I have asked you several times to provide reliable and verifiable sources and you have ignored every request. Look at the messages on this talk page, the article's Talk page and the edit summaries I made with every edit. ''' Flat Out    let's discuss it   05:55, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I haven't looked at the site during the past month and only noticed the carnage today. There have been no emails or notifications during this period requesting verifications or anything else.
 * You might try using your watchlist to see edits that are being made, or the article's Talk page.''' Flat Out   let's discuss it   07:33, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Unless you plan to read through content to check issues like spelling and continuity errors in your wake I suggest you take a far more lenient approach in damaging the work others put in because they are interested in ensuring a subject receives the coverage it deserves. There appears to be no room for breaking a story here or mentioning something for the first time that you know is a fact. Otherwise the internet continues to feed on itself and not everything is on the internet, particularly from pre-internet times. Keith Newman 06:45, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * We don't "break stories" wikipedia is not a newspaper, it's an encyclopedia. If you had bothered to read any of the links I have provided, or the edit summaries on the article, you would know that a reliable source doesn't have to be online. There are hundreds of thousands of articles here and they all have been created by using the wikipedia approach. This article is no different to any other and must comply. ''' Flat Out   let's discuss it   07:33, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

In light of the above I have created an article in your sandbox, User:Keith Newman/sandbox/Gene Pierson, based on an earlier un-edited version of the original article. I agree that many of the references you cite are notable but they are just bare URLs and will need to be expanded. The article itself needs to be more encyclopedic before re-entering the mai9nspace - unlike others I would be happy to help/assist you in getting the article into shape. Have already worked on the discography for you and will look at other changes as well. Dan arndt (talk) 02:01, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Dan arndt, good luck with your attempts to help I hope you get a good outcome. If you believe there are reliable references feel free to re-instate them in the live article. ''' Flat Out   let's discuss it   02:17, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Keith I have re-read a few of my comments above and they were not necessary. I allowed your removal of the BLP sources tag at Gene Pierson to get under my skin, and I apologise. I encourage you to learn from Dan arndt who is an experienced editor and will help you with the common problems that arise in biographies of a living person including appropriate sources. Good luck and happy editing. ''' Flat Out    let's discuss it   02:59, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks Flat Out, I too responded our of frustration. Thanks also to Dan...I appreciate you stepping in. I have found some further sources that are independent including http://www.audioculture.co.nz/people/gene-pierson which features material written by respected New Zealand music historian Grant Gillanders and published on the credible Audioculture site Keith Newman 03:03, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Keith, have started work on the article in the sandbox - have shown how to cite the Audioculture reference. The other references need to relate to the sentences in the article (eg not just that Harrigan was the owner of Surf City but that he approached the Inturns & managed the band or that the Inturns actually supported Billy Thorpe & the Aztecs not simply that Thorpe played at Surf City). The intention is to get the sandbox article up to scratch and then replace the main space article with it but I need your input as I have other articles I'm working on. Dan arndt (talk) 14:52, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Dan, Sandbox appears to be empty to me..Keith Newman 21:35, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Click on the following link which should get you there. Dan arndt (talk) 04:35, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Dan...did do a tidy up of the sandbox version...removed some strange things that had snuck in there as well as removing doubled up information and some unnecessary stuff. Made a start but I see someone's also editing the live version, also having restored some earlier material. I'm not fussed...I'll tidy up their spacing etc and let's keep on it when we can Keith Newman 03:59, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The sandbox version still needs significant work to bring it up to an 'encyclopedic standard'. I noticed that an anonomyous user has made substantial reverts to the mainspace article - which I have now placed numerous notices on the large amount of unsubstantiated & highly subjective statements contained within the article. It is highly likely that most of the information will need to be removed unless it is properly referenced (hence the reason to keep on working on the sandbox version).Dan arndt (talk) 06:46, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * So Dan, been working on reducing the content and limiting it to what can be substantiated and tightening and tidying...in your view are we making any progress? Keith Newman 05:19, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Its improving however there is still a long way too go. There are numerous unverified statements that need to be fully referenced. It would be a real assistance if we could get some newspaper or magazine article that substantiate the statements in the article.Dan arndt (talk) 13:49, 28 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Keith have moved the article from your sandbox to the mainspace to ensure that any more recent edits are captured. I'm still not 100% happy with the article but it is better living and breathing in the revised form than letting the current article remain in such a bad state. Dan arndt (talk) 07:50, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:51, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

November 2015
Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Keith Newman (writer), without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you. Dl2000 (talk) 22:33, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Keith Newman. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Keith Newman (writer), you may have a conflict of interest. People with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, see the conflict of interest guideline and frequently asked questions for organizations. In particular, please:


 * avoid editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, its competitors, or projects and products you or they are involved with;
 * instead, propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (see the template);
 * avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
 * exercise great caution so that you do not violate Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use require disclosure of your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, sourcing, and autobiographies. Thank you. Dl2000 (talk) 22:33, 25 November 2015 (UTC)