User talk:Music Row Pro

I have no idea what this is about. I did not know that I was blocked until I tried to update an existing entry on the TV show "The Doctors" to reflect that the show has been canceled. .

I received messages that make no sense. One was either a message I hadn't seen in the past or from someone obsessed with Carlene Carter. An entry I properly sourced (two reputable sources) as was confirmed later by another contributor via video in Carlene's own words.

Wikipedia appears to be more user-friendly of late for those of us who want to correct and update but it will continue to suffer for its well-earned reputation for inaccuracy if it continues to alienate those of us who just want to make it a useful resource.

I now see at the bottom of this page what this appears to be about (if not Carlene Carter). Advertising? Promotion? Failure to disclose compensation? Exactly what is being advertising, promoted and who is paying me>

I should request another user name? Why, when if I so chose, I could easily circumvent the process by contributing under another name?

I should go through an appeal process? Why would I want to subject myself to further empowering bullies?

If there was any validity to the blocking process, a simple email address would be provided where an exchange between the parties could clear the air and result in amicable resolution. As is, with dead links and going around in circle looking for "help" pages that are unhelpful because they only offer descriptions of what is available without making it available, Wikipedia is going to have to redouble it fundraising efforts as I can't believe driving away knowledgeable contributors is Jimmy's intent.

```Music Row Pro

Citing sources in biographies of living persons
Hello, I'm GA-RT-22. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Carlene Carter, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Also see WP:RS for information on selecting sources. GA-RT-22 (talk) 00:01, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Help me!
Please help me with... Re: my Carlene Carter revision I appreciate that those who have a lot of time to devote are sticklers for the process, but my interest is in providing facts such as I did re: Carlene Carter's marital status. Three sources were provided: The Davidson County (Nashville) Circuit Court Clerk's office, The Nashville Ledger and Stacy's Music Row Report. I don't subscribe to The court's pricey database (Case Link) so cannot link to its documentation. The Nashville Ledger website was provided as was the URL for Stacy's Music Row Report which an editor decided was not notable (https://muckrack.com/stacyharrisnashville ) This opinion of a "verified" source was used as a basis to delete a verifiable fact.

I saw some other "talk" question suggesting confusion about Carlene Carter's daughter's middle name. If this is of interest, is a public records search too difficult? And didn't Tiffany's grandmother settle the question with her recording of Tiffany Anastasia Lowe ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kOhxUFBjzLc )? (If a "non-notable" source provided this information would be dismissed, even though, if followed up upon it could be independently verified? Sheesh!

Wouldn't it make more sense to invalidate a contribution only when the source cited proves to be less reputable than the source provided rendering the statement(s) made not factual?

If Wikipedia rules were designed to make the editing process less intimidating and time intensive, perhaps sticklers for the facts would contribute more often. As is, my Wikipedia-editing track record, sparse as it is, has been right on the mark, factually speaking (except for an edit of my own I had to retract- and did before any other Wikipedia editors challenged me- due to further information that became available to me with the sourcing more reputable than the sourcing upon which I relied originally) because I only contribute what I am able to document.

In short, I hope I will be encouraged to contribute, rather than be discouraged from contributing because another editor stands in judgment without doing the necessary research. In short, re: Carlene Carter. As the entry stands, she is still married. This, as I spent time and trouble to document, is not factually true. That it is allowed to stand reflects on Wikipedia's credibility.

Wikipedia requests readers' financial support. I think that is easiest attained by a reputation for excellence be it appreciation for those editors who are sticklers for the process (as we all should be if the learning curve were not so tedious, frustrating and off-putting), sticklers for facts and sticklers for sourcing that is not deemed less than reputable simply because a particular editor, who claims no expertise, is unfamiliar or chooses to not familiarize himself/herself with it.

Music Row Pro (talk)Music Row Pro Music Row Pro (talk) 04:10, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * There's a fair amount of editorializing going on here, but what you are essentially asking for help resolving a content dispute - something the help me template is unable to do. The first steps toward resolving a content dispute are to begin on the relevant article's talk page, in this case that is Talk:Carlene Carter. References for changes are expected to be placed in the body of the article; mentioning them in the edit summary is not sufficient. If you have additional published sources, bringing them up on the talk page is the best way to get other editors to agree with your changes.
 * Most experienced editors will say protecting Wikipedia's policies with respect to sourcing is more important than 'truth'. Wikipedia does not hold itself out as a reliable source; editors do depend on what published reliable sources say and thus are not required to have first-hand knowledge of the truth of the subject. I can see this is a concept that seems rather strange to you but if you hang in there and continue to work with other editors, you should find that everything works better than it at first appears.
 * The only other question raised here is whether you "Music Row Pro" are also the Stacy Harris of http://stacyharris.com/musicrowreport.html?
 * If that's the case, then it would probably be wise to avoid editing yourself or your publications into Wikipedia articles. You may declare your conflict of interest on your user page and make suggestions to use your publications as references, but you should do the insertion yourself. Please.  — jmcgnh (talk) (contribs) 05:01, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I am the one who reverted you. I have this article watchlisted and will be happy to discuss these changes on the article talk page, Talk:Carlene Carter. GA-RT-22 (talk) 16:34, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

April 2022
 Your account has been indefinitely blocked 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 username and unblock if you intend to make useful contributions instead of 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: 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 23:06, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
 * 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.


 * I just figured out how to reply to you. (I guess this is the proper place.)  I stand by what I have written above.   All of my contributions have been useful.  I have added factual information that has not been challenged except in two instances by me.  Those two instances followed good faith contributions- but better sources convinced me my original sources were wrong.  The three accusations/reasons for the block suggest a vivid imagination.  Why don't you appeal on my behalf?   It is ironic that the accusations lack the very sourcing that an acceptable Wikipedia entry should demand. Music Row Pro (talk) 04:50, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Had I not been blocked, my most recent sourced, factual information and updates would be re: Wikipedia's "The Doctors" (TV series) and Paula Faris entries. Looking at my previously published Wikipedia entries, it is easy to see that I have a wide variety of interests and accompanying areas of knowledge.

Assuming good faith on Ad Orientem's part would have to mean there has been a misunderstanding. That misunderstanding would be resolved if Ad Orientem would point to the evidence suggesting I am being paid to contribute to Wikipedia and by whom (I would assume the "reason" would be obvious, but I'd be curious to know that, too, as there would have to be a reason, right?)

Music Row Pro (talk)Stacy Harris