User talk:NightCastle-Megafan

I have explained on Talk:Trans-Siberian Orchestra why I have been reverted your edits. Please clean up the many errors in your edits, and provide reliable, complete references per WP:V. Ground Zero | t 14:48, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

With regard to your comment (I assume it was yours): "PollStar is the bible for the rock touring world. A pro would know it an amateur could google", we're writing Wikipedia for the benefit of the average reader, not industry professionals. Providing the average reader information about the source helps them to understand where the information is coming from. Providing a date, page number, etc., allows others to verify that the information is correct. Without that information, it cannot be verified, so it could just be something that someone has made up. For example, "Adolf Hitler is alive and living in Fresno" ref: New York Times -- there would be no way of verifying whether the NY Times actually wrote this. I appreciate your commitment to taking a bit more time in making your edits, and thank you for your contributions. Regards, Ground Zero | t 23:19, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Feedback dashboard response
(View the feedback)

Hello NightCastle-Megafan, thank you for your interest in Wikipedia. Unfortunately, people take advantage of Wikipedia by vandalizing articles. Vandal fighters, like myself, have to constantly look for vandals and revert them as soon as possible. If you want to help, the first step is to identify what is and what is not vandalism. If you think the edit is vandalism, you can "undo" the edit by clicking "Undo" next to the edit summary. Undoing the edit will revert the article to the previous revision. After getting used to undoing edits, you can activate tools, such as Twinkle, in Your Preferences to revert vandalism more quickly. After getting to used to Twinkle, you can request the rollback tool, which makes reverting edits even more fast. Hope this helps you, if you have any more questions, you can ask on my talk page. --   Luke      (Talk)   05:38, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Response to post
No problem. The most important thing for you to learn is to use the "Show preview" button before accepting changes to ensure that nothing is broken. Lhynard (talk) 16:22, 25 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Lhynard,


 * I am confused. This page (among others) is so filled with misinformation that it sometimes borders on fiction. For example the band has explained in countless interviews the 1990s onward the bands connection with Siberia but someone kept putting up the exact opposite and when taken down would put it back up asking that someone else fill in a citation. How can you fill in a legitimate citation that does not exist? Worse, while looking for legitimate citations I found numerous articles quoting Wikipedia word for word with completely wrong erroneous facts. Use any search engine and type in Wikipedia Accuracy and you will see the depth the of the problem. I have corrected numerous mistakes to have them immediately replaced for no or minor reasons. Just sticking to TSO, in a world where musicianship is dying and more kids are opting out of music, TSO is showing them it is still a viable career choice. The article over the years has been vandalized to the point of nearly being useless to any music student trying to understand how the band was formed, grew and thrived. Too many people, both students and professionals, use this as the first place they go to. I really believe that Wikipedia can be a world changing tool for the better but I am really starting to get frustrated. I know you are trying to help but there must be a better way before Wikipedia becomes so undependable as to be irrelevant.


 * Would really appreciate any advice as my I only have tonight off and really wanted to try to make a dent in this.


 * Thanks


 * NightCastle-Megafan (talk) 17:19, 25 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I trust that you are trying to make improvements, but you need to learn how things are done on Wikipedia. Wikipedia has a list of policies that can be found here. While you are trying to correct what you consider to be factual errors, you are violating numerous policies yourself.


 * It is good that you wish to correct factual errors. So do all of us here. But things have to have trustworthy and 'specific' sources for everyone to believe that they are true. Let's take your example about the name being said incorrectly to have no connection to Siberia. The fact that it was labeled with a  inline template tag is proof that others have doubted that statement as well. The tag says, "Hey, whoever put this statement here, prove that it is true." In this case, you have convinced me that it is not true. However, initially, your replacement statements did not seem true either at first, because they were not sourced well. I have now allowed your deletion of the infactual material, since your new material seems more trustworthy. But this was a 'process'; that's how Wikipedia works &mdash; it's a refinement, and your changes as is required multiple modifications before they were of quality high enough to be included. Wikipedia strives for quality as well as facts.


 * However, it is not just about facts or even quality; you should at least try to follow the proper procedures and policies. When you posted one revision, for example, in addition to spelling, layout, and gramamr issues, you violated all of the following policies:
 * WP:NPOV
 * WP:VERIFY
 * WP:WWIN
 * WP:ENC
 * WP:WEASEL
 * WP:LEAD
 * WP:DASH
 * WP:NAMES
 * WP:DISCUSS


 * In short, although I trust you have good intentions, your edits could be considered disruptive.


 * My best advice to you is to post the problems you see on the page with your suggested corrections, so that the community can discuss it before making changes yourself.


 * (One final note, the problems on the Trans-Siberian_Orchestra page &mdash; and I agree there are many &mdash; are not what vandalism is; vandalism is always intentional. See WP:Vandalism for more information.)


 * Good luck.


 * Lhynard (talk) 18:39, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

TSO edits
Firstly, the place for reviews is NOT in the article of a band. If a review is to be posted in Wikipedia, the appropriate place for it is in the article of the album which the review refers to, in this case, Night Castle. Secondly, the publication is not one that I have heard about before. (I frequently see spamming by editors whose accounts are used only for spamming articles with reviews from a particular site, see WP:Conflict for more info. Having looked at your edit history though, you do not appear to be a spammer.) That isn't to say that this source is necessarily unreliable, but it sure isn't Allmusic, Rolling stone, Metal Hammer, or Brave Words and Bloody Knuckles. Before using this source anywhere(else), you should try to establish that it is in fact a notable, reliable and relevant source. There is a page where you can have the source evaluated by other editors, but unfortunately, I cannot remember the exact title, so I cannot give you a link to it at this time.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 20:20, 3 October 2013 (UTC)


 * This link isn't the one I can remember, but it will work: Reliable sources/Noticeboard
 * You can post the source there and have another editor/editors determine whether it is reliable or not.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 20:33, 3 October 2013 (UTC)