User talk:Deathdealer101

Nick Perri

After researching and going through every source and piece of info I could find on this guy, I actually don't think this page is too far off. I removed a couple of statements that didn't have credible sources, and cleaned up some other factoids. I also agree with you all that "georgesummer" shouldn't monitor / edit this page anymore. Even if he is no longer working for the artist, he's still too close to be objective. Lastly, in response to the question proposed as to whether this guy should even have a page, I feel as though he should. There are many people on here with wiki pages that have done far less.

So, I only saw this because, based on your edits to Nick Perri, I wanted to see what else you've edited, and it lead me to this. Anyways, discussions like usually should go on the respective article's talk page, (in this case, here: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:Nick_Perri ), otherwise no one who visits the page would typically see any of what you've written. So, you'll want to comment there if you want anyone to see what you're saying, FYI. Sergecross73 msg me 22:17, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted your changed because you keep on removing templates without addressing the issues. For instance, you removed the "BLP unsourced section" tag, after you removed a sentence. That doesn't make any sense; no sources were added, so it's still an unsourced section. The tag needs to stay. Secondly, just because you removed some sentences, doesn't change the conflict of interest situation; the article is still largely written by that George Summer guy who clearly has a conflict of interest. Don't remove that tag.

Here's another example.

In the article, it says Later that year he started releasing instrumental singles under the moniker "Nick Perri Music",^{[citation needed]}.

You then changed it to: Later that year he started releasing instrumental singles.

Again, that's not handling things the right away. The correct thing to do would be to add a source, not remove half the information, and then remove the CN tag. It's still unsourced.

Ultimately, I'm not against all of your changes, but so many of them are done the wrong way, like the ones above, that it makes more sense to change it all back. I'd suggest, until you learn more of the policies of Wikipedia, that you make smaller, multiple edits, so all of your work doesn't get changed back due to just some mistakes. Sergecross73 msg me 10:26, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]