User talk:RCStarter

November 2022
Hello, I'm Mako001. I noticed that in this edit to The Monotones, you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Mako001 (C) (T)  🇺🇦 05:37, 4 November 2022 (UTC)


 * I removed it because it wasn't true, Warren Davis died 4 years prior To Charles Patrick. It even shows Warren Davis' death right under Charles's death date. RCStarter (talk) 06:31, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Your editing
Hello, RCStarter. I came across your edits at The Nutmegs, which added copyrighted images (which I have tagged for deletion on Commons) and possibly copyrighted text to the article. I would recommend you read the copyright violation policy. Something a random person said on YouTube is not a reliable source. Then I noticed that pretty much all of your edits are adding non-grammatical death notices to band articles. I would like you to read the reliable sources guideline and the policy that states Wikipedia is not an obituary. Many, if not all, of the sources that you use are unreliable. A lot of the time, when each person died and how isn't relevant to the larger article. Happy editing! —asparagusus  (interaction)  sprouts!  13:42, 27 October 2023 (UTC)


 * I understand that youtube isn't always a reliable source. But getting rid of all my info doesn't do anything, It just makes the article worse. My sources was from Todd Baptista(One of, If not the best Doo-wop historians) He has been around groups/singers his whole life, he's also has a couple of books about it. He also has a youtube channel dedicated to showing/perserving old media of vocal groups. When the each person died IS relevant, because they were members of the group. Death records, obituaries, other records support the things I put. Not every single source Is gonna be from a encyclopedia, I also understand that good reliable sources are important. But when you just get rid of something that someone else put, without even trying to fact-check it yourself or research it makes your action unneeded. It's clear that you don't try to research it yourself, I also can't site ancestry.com so I have to use other citations. But records literally support what I added. Also a lot of the time, info about groups is pretty much limited to the members names & and some of their songs. RCStarter (talk) 16:14, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I have just reverted your edits on The Dubs. You added unsourced information, and the only source you did provide (thedeadrockstarsclub.com) is clearly unreliable. When you add information, the ONUS is on you to provide sources. Asking other editors to do your work for you by researching the stuff you add is not acceptable. If, as you say, there are reliable sources to support your changes, presumably you have seen those sources and therefore YOU should add them to the article. Please do not continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content to articles; you will not be allowed to continue doing this much longer. CodeTalker (talk) 01:41, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Tell me how I'm supposed to have a link to social security or ancestry.com so everyone can look at :/. I also wasn't asking the other editor to do my work, they simply said that It wasn't a reliable source. If you go around critiquing other people's research/work at think It's not right, why not do it yourself? It's a question, I didn't flatout ask him to do it. You also got rid of a picture of the current group, I literally talk to people involved with these groups & you don't know anything about them but critique my research? I also didn't know It was "Vandalism: to be correct on information, I can't add "(According to social secuirty)" to every single death edit I put. When you try to cite ancestry.com and then go to the site, if you don't have a subscription it shows The options to subscribe and not the thing I showed. BECAUSE IT'S BEHIND A PAYWALL for people who don't have it. I also can't added source citations for phone calls I've had with people cuz that's literally not possible(They're not on a website or In a book) RCStarter (talk) 05:12, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is exactly correct. You cannot cite phone calls or personal conversations you've had. Such information cannot be verified by other people, so it does not belong in Wikipedia. (You should also not cite social security records -- these are primary sources and Wikipedia much prefers secondary sources.) What I think you're missing is this: if you cannot find an appropriate source you should NOT add the information to Wikipedia. Wikipedia's purpose is to summarize information that was previously published in reliable sources. This is a point that can be hard for newcomers to understand; I certainly had trouble grappling with it at first. Again: information added to Wikipedia must be previously published in a reliable source. Even if you know that something is true, if you don't have a source for it, it does not belong in Wikipedia. (You could of course publish it elsewhere, on sites that don't have the same policies that Wikipedia does.)If you have not done so, you should read WP:V and WP:RS to help you understand these policies. BTW, paywalled content is fine (see WP:PAYWALL), but ancestry.com in particular is not (see WP:ANCESTRY), because content on that site is created by the general public and has no editorial oversight (see WP:UGC). You may also want to look at WP:PRIMARY and WP:SECONDARY. I hope this information is helpful. CodeTalker (talk) 07:04, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:37, 28 November 2023 (UTC)