User talk:Mr Brand

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Welcome[edit]

Hello, Mr Brand, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page – I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.


Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:

Need help?

How you can help:

Additional tips...

Mr Brand, good luck, and have fun. Aboutmovies (talk) 23:32, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Spring Hill Fair[edit]

The information is taken directly from the book, The Go-Betweens by David Nichols, which states "She [Morrison] and Brand were in conflict from the outset, she claims, because he tried unsuccessfully to seduce her the day she got to Mirival." Please do not removal referenced material. Dan arndt (talk) 23:51, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Mr Ardnt. My name is Mr. Brand. The John Brand that you are referring to here is my father. I have spoken with him about this and it is a lie. I do not care where it is referenced from, it is incorrect and slanderous information. I will continue to delete this every time you put it back up.

You clearly have a Conflict of Interest in relation to this article. Wikipedia clearly states "You should not create or edit articles about yourself, your family, friends, or foes. If you have a personal connection to a topic or person, you are advised to refrain from editing those articles directly and to provide full disclosure of the connection if you comment about the article on talk pages or in other discussions." If you continue to remove properly referenced material based on your personal views you could be blocked from editing. Dan arndt (talk) 00:26, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps you missed the next paragraph, "An exception to editing an article about yourself or someone you know is made if the article contains defamation or a serious error that needs to be corrected quickly. If you do make such an edit, follow it up with an email to WP:OTRS, Wikipedia's volunteer response team, or ask for help on WP:BLPN, our noticeboard for articles about living persons, or the talk page of the article in question."

In case you missed it, "An exception to editing an article... is made if the article contains defamation or a serious error that needs to be corrected quickly". The author of the original reference says in his book, "[Morrison] and Brand were in conflict from the outset, she claims because he tried unsuccessfully to seduce her the day she got to Miraval". Note the author says "claims". Clearly he had no evidence to base this on and it shouldn't have been published in the first place. My father was also not given an opportunity to respond to this claim and therefore, it is slanderous and clearly a case of defamation.

Thank you for pointing me in the right direction for whom to contact about this, I shall email the WP:OTRS now.

This is an issue that you should follow up with the author of the book. If your father refutes the claim then that can be included but needs to be referenced using an independent verifiable source.Dan arndt (talk) 04:16, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

I have emailed the relevant places as advised. The reference to the book may be valid, however the original content is a lie and is slanderous. As I have already pointed out, on the Conflicts of Interest page that you pointed me to, it also clearly says "An exception to editing an article about yourself or someone you know is made if the article contains defamation or a serious error that needs to be corrected quickly."

To make it even more clear for you, it says right there, "An EXCEPTION to editing is made if the article contains defamation or a serious error that needs to be corrected quickly", which is clearly what is happening here.

A couple of issues, firstly the 'exception' is where a defamation needs to be corrected quickly. In order to establish that claim is slanderous a person must prove that 1) the statement was false, 2) caused harm, and 3) was made without adequate research into the truthfulness of the statement. In this case all we have is your statements that you are the son of Jon Brand and that he [your father] feels his character has been defamed - however there is no evidence to verify either claim. On the opposite side we have a published book from a recognised author, which is based on research and detailed interviews with band members & people associated with the band. Finally when the book was published, and in deed since that time Jon Brand has never taken any action against the author or the publisher in relation to this matter. In summary there is no verifiable evidence to counter the claim provided by Morrison - which until supplied means to the the information is relevant to the state of the band at the time of the recording and should be retained, for the time being. In this case the book, from which the information came, was first published in 1997 and subsequently re-published in 2003 (14 years ago) and the information included in the article for almost 18 months so what is this sudden sense of urgency. Dan arndt (talk) 00:34, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Stop icon You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did at Spring Hill Fair. BlackCab (TALK)

Thank you for your little bits of advise in how to go about getting this nonsense removed. My father has been in contact with the Go Betweens manager about this and will be in touch with you all regarding the matter in due course. I have to say that I am absolutely appalled at the sheer ignorance and the arrogance of Wikipedia editors, if this is an example of how you behave. I certainly hope that none of you are professional researchers, as this would be an extreme case of incompetence on your behalf if that is what you would claim yourselves to be. That you would rather the website keep questionable at best, an inaccurate lie at worst, information for the sake of posterity, simply because it was printed in a single book by it's author and not even given as a direct quote from anyone involved, proves why Wikipedia cannot be trusted by anyone in the academic research field. This is exactly why students are told not to use Wikipedia for referencing in their studies. You should be ashamed of yourselves that you insist on keeping a piece of information live that has been accused of being slanderous and libellous, without giving an opportunity to investigate the truth of the matter. I can accept that simply because someone says that it's a lie, also can't be taken as proof. However, if the truth of an allegation is brought into question, then surely it would be appropriate for the allegation to be removed to establish the reliability and truth of said allegation for the duration of an investigation. This is a great misgiving of Wikipedia and it's editors, as is only using one source as proof of a serious allegation. As I have said, someone that has further authority to speak on this matter will be in touch soon to have this ridiculous statement removed permanently.

Conflict of Interest[edit]

Information icon Hello, Mr Brand. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places, or things you have written about in the article Spring Hill Fair, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic, and it is important when editing Wikipedia articles that such connections be completely transparent. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. In particular, we ask that you please:

  • avoid editing or creating articles related to you and your family, friends, school, company, club, or organization, as well as any competing companies' projects or products;
  • instead, you are encouraged to propose changes on the Talk pages of affected article(s) (see the {{request edit}} template);
  • when discussing affected articles, disclose your COI (see WP:DISCLOSE);
  • avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or to the 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, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Please take a few moments to read and review Wikipedia's policies regarding conflicts of interest, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, sourcing and autobiographies. Thank you.

Mr Brand, you are invited to the Teahouse![edit]

Teahouse logo

Hi Mr Brand! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Missvain (talk).

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

20:03, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Mr Brand reported by User:BlackCab (Result: ). Thank you. BlackCab (TALK) 04:59, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your little bits of advise in how to go about getting this nonsense removed. My father has been in contact with the Go Betweens manager about this and will be in touch with you all regarding the matter in due course. I have to say that I am absolutely appalled at the sheer ignorance and the arrogance of Wikipedia editors, if this is an example of how you behave. I certainly hope that none of you are professional researchers, as this would be an extreme case of incompetence on your behalf if that is what you would claim yourselves to be. That you would rather the website keep questionable at best, an inaccurate lie at worst, information for the sake of posterity, simply because it was printed in a single book by it's author and not even given as a direct quote from anyone involved, proves why Wikipedia cannot be trusted by anyone in the academic research field. This is exactly why students are told not to use Wikipedia for referencing in their studies. You should be ashamed of yourselves that you insist on keeping a piece of information live that has been accused of being slanderous and libellous, without giving an opportunity to investigate the truth of the matter. I can accept that simply because someone says that it's a lie, also can't be taken as proof. However, if the truth of an allegation is brought into question, then surely it would be appropriate for the allegation to be removed to establish the reliability and truth of said allegation for the duration of an investigation. This is a great misgiving of Wikipedia and it's editors, as is only using one source as proof of a serious allegation. As I have said, someone that has further authority to speak on this matter will be in touch soon to have this ridiculous statement removed permanently