User talk:Lovegrove

Image copyright problem with Image:Brendan Perry.jpg

Thank you for uploading Image:Brendan Perry.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Polly (Parrot) 17:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

May 2026

Hi Lovegrove! I noticed that you've made several edits in order to restore a version of Dead Can Dance. The impulse to repeatedly undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure that you're aware of Wikipedia's edit warring policy. Repeatedly undoing the changes made by other users in a back-and-forth fashion like this is disallowed, even if you feel what you're doing is justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages in order to try to reach a consensus with the other editors involved. If you are unable to come to an agreement at Talk:Dead Can Dance, please use one of the dispute resolution options that are available in order to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of repeatedly reverting other editors' changes can help you avoid getting drawn into edit wars. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 16:21, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello This is Brendan Perry of Dead Can Dance. How do I verify that I am the official source of future edits to prevent them being removed? Lovegrove (talk) 18:02, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello, Lovegrove. I noticed your recent work on the page Dead Can Dance. Can you please tell me if you are connected to anyone or anything you have written about there, either personally or professionally? If so, there are some special rules that I need to inform you about. Please let me know. Thanks, J.P.W. Santana (talk) 17:11, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello, yes this is Brendan Perry of Dead Can Dance. I can vouch for the veracity of my edits. Lovegrove (talk) 17:58, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Because of your connection to the article topic, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for article subjects for more information. We ask that you:

J.P.W. Santana (talk) 20:37, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi, Brendan, I greatly enjoy your music.

Wikipedia doesn't work like a personal webpage or blog—people can't just add information that they want to include, that they know to be true. Rather, Wikipedia is intended to be a summary of published thought. The facts that you want to add must have been published somewhere else before they appear here. The publishing platform must be judged to be reliable, ideally with editorial oversight: See WP:Reliable sources. Binksternet (talk) 22:13, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice regarding COI and I understand the need for a degree of neutrality when presenting 'the facts'. Can you tell me if sources can be quoted from any OFFICIAL DEAD CAN DANCE page or is this still considered a conflict of interest? Lovegrove (talk) 12:01, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

official DCD pages can be cited per WP:BLPSELFPUB, COI is moreso for the editing process/disclosure that affected editors must go through J.P.W. Santana (talk) 15:35, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Well, yes and no. Official pages can be cited for basic, WP:ABOUTSELF sort of information; roster, date founded, location, birthdates if you want, basically any kind of information that is descriptive of basic facts, and could not possibly be seen as putting you in a better light than a meticulous reporter might do. For anything else, and for anything that you're not sure which side of the line it falls on, err on the side of caution and seek an WP:INDEPENDENT, secondary, reliable source.

Another thing to watch out for is the difference between fact and expert opinion. The reviews by a respected critic might fall in the latter category, but is still just opinion. They can be used, but fall under WP:RSOPINION, which mostly means you have to provide intext attribution, i.e., 'Critic Joe Blow says their album is the best album of the year', so it doesn't sound like Wikipedia is making that assertion, but reporting on (or quoting, if placing it within double-quotes) some reliable source who opined about it. If you have particular questions about interpretation of COI rules, the best place to ask is the Conflict of interest/Noticeboard, and the Neutral point of view/Noticeboard might be helpful as well. Hope this helps! Mathglot (talk) 22:12, 30 May 2026 (UTC)