User talk:Ozrocka

Clinton Walker

The material was removed because it was not independently sourced. If you have independent sourcing (i.e. not the subject's own website) to indicate that the statements in the removed material are true and verifiable (as per WP:RS and WP:V) then please add them. Otherwise the material is inadmissible so I will remove it again from the article shortly. Axad12 (talk) 21:04, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to note that certain information can be sourced directly to the article subject per WP:BLPSELFPUB, as long as it meets the requirements there, such as not being unduly self-serving. Some of the information that was added, such as the information in the "early life" section, should be fine to cite to the article subject without independent sourcing (I restored that small section in the article). Other information, such as detailed information about his career or which publications he has been published in, probably does need independent sourcing. – notwally (talk) 21:58, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, agreed. Axad12 (talk) 21:59, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So, still can't understand why the Career section picks up out of nowhere on his SIXTH book (what happened to the earlier, just as significant five?) and why the again equally important Other Work section has completely disappeared Ozrocka (talk) 22:09, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing issues. Axad12 (talk) 22:12, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest adding the content in smaller pieces with edit summaries and making sure that everything added is directly supported by the cited source, with only basic facts sourced to the article subject. So, for example, while "Moving on to Sydney in 1980, he commenced a career as a freelance journalist." would probably be appropriate to cite to his website, something such as "Over the next 15 years he wrote for a wide variety of magazines and newspapers, including longstanding associations with..." probably should have some independent sourcing (and that would not be just cites to the actual published articles, but secondary sourcing making that claim, to avoid WP:SYNTH). Similarly, for the books he has written, I would assume it shouldn't be hard to find reviews of them, although individual reviews likely will only be able to support statements about the book and what the review says about the book, attributed to the review's author, rather than a more general statement about how acclaimed it is, which would need a secondary source saying that (e.g., citing an individual review is sufficient to say "Joe the Review Author said this and that about the book" but not to say "the book was well-reviewed"). – notwally (talk) 22:34, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think I would be interested to know whether there is any degree of association or conflict of interest at play here between Ozrocka and the subject of the article. Also whether there is any association between Ozrocka and the 2 sockpuppet accounts (Evadeluge/Redabyss1) who were site banned last week. Axad12 (talk) 23:05, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have no connection whatsoever to any sockpuppet accounts or any other accounts or the subject or anything. and I still can't see what's wrong with the accounts of the subject's first five books, including one Stranded that has its own wiki page which is such an abortion I wouldn't know where to begin fixing it. But how can one electronically cite one's own personal knowledge? how can you cite articles in ancient rock magazines that are not online? and what's wrong with citing articles that are admittedly on the subject's own website but are clearly legit clips from ancient newspapers and magazines? - which is how those five books are accounted for. these standards are confused and confusing Ozrocka (talk) 01:00, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you that Wikipedia standards are not kind on material which pre-dates the internet age.

However, I'm somewhat surprised that this specific issue on this specific article is the only matter on the entirety of Wikipedia which is of any interest to you.

The whole situation here appears to be one where conflict of interest is at play, especially when you clearly conflate citing material on the subject's own website with citing one's own personal knowledge. Axad12 (talk) 05:52, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"But how can one electronically cite one's own personal knowledge" You can't on Wikipedia. That's not a reliable, published source. See WP:RS for what that means. Regarding published sources, they do not need to be published online. WP:CITE explains how to cite sources. – notwally (talk) 16:38, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

really don't understand how much more can be done. if a publisher's website has a page on a book it has released, isn't that evidence enough that the book actually exists? or would it be necessary to cite the book's entry at the Nat Lib of Australia? would appreciate if you could answer these questions. the retention or removal of other refs just seems random, a video is acceptable in one instance and not another. and why for example would phrase 'longstanding associations' with RAM and Aust Rolling Stone be removed when the wiki entries on those two magazines make plain the subject's longstanding associations. doesn't make sense. anyway I'm almost about to give up. I will add in the best I can do on 'Other Work' and that's it Ozrocka (talk) 01:06, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Descriptions of a book or other details such as multiple editions are not the same as merely stating that the book exists. This is an encyclopedia article, not a CV, and so information has to have independent secondary sources to show both that is it accurate as well as important enough for inclusion (see WP:DUE). As for unsourced content on other Wikipedia pages, that is not adequate for any sourcing purposes and could be removed from those pages as well. – notwally (talk) 04:55, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

if being a fan of the subject in question amounts to a conflict of interest then I suppose, okay, I have to plead guilty. I have gotten involved with wiki over the years in various guises where I've felt subjects I cared passionately about were being done a disservice, and some of the things I see still up there are an absolute travesty. So I give it a shot when I can. To edit an entry by simply removing slabs of text leaves it full of holes. I would like to try and make up for that in this case and will do so according to the standards I've just gotten a crash course in, and I just ask that any subsequent edit or editor gives the same amount of background research into references etc that I will Ozrocka (talk) 20:03, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

edit

I intend to try and fill the gaps that have been created in this entry now. The starting point will be the text as it was before it was ‘edited’ a couple of weeks ago because I thought it was pretty accurate, but if I can’t substantiate anything by citing references or making links to other wiki pages, I will remove the content. And I will do it as notwally suggests in increments and add descriptions Ozrocka (talk) 04:24, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]