Talk:Lee Aaron

message: Why has Lee's birth name and birthdate info been removed from this article? Is it not "the Truth"? BrianFG (talk) 00:52, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Information provided by the subject of a scholarly article or their handlers presents a natural conflict of interest, and in any serious body of work would be excluded without independent sources.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.13.41.29 (talk) 23:42, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello SaladGoat and thank you for your contributions, which are by no means bad. The helpme template isn't really supposed to be used to request general help with an article, but I can offer some advice as to whom you should ask, and on other matters.  On the references front, reliable sourcing is important. Go grab (an) independent biography/ies and see what you can reference from that/those. If you're still stuck about how best to improve the article, try WikiProject Music, as they'll have written many a similar article. If you have more specific concerns about how to do things, feel free to use the helpme template (or ask me). Oh, and for god's sake: keep editing! Thanks, - Jarry1250 [ humourous – discuss ] 13:09, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, and [if] you want to use a new image of her, the current one is about to be nominated for deletion as a possible copyright violation., Donating copyrighted materials should help you through the process. - Jarry1250 [ humourous – discuss ] 13:10, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

text: She asked me to make changes to the existing article, to eliminate erroneous statements. I have no delusions that I am the only one who can or will edit this article. I simply want to ensure that the edits I have made will not be deleted because of something I have done wrong. If it is written in a way that is not acceptable to the Wikipedia rules, then I want a chance to change it instead of it being reverted. If there is no danger of it being reverted to the previous text, then I have no interest in changing anything further. These are the reasons I am asking questions and trying to learn the ins and outs of this community. - SaladGoat (talk) 07:12, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Assuming (in good faith) that the magazine source-material is indeed accurate and true to form, leaves me somewhat in doubt whether the entire second paragraph of the background section is even necessary.  A broken nose and bruised face is really not that uncommon, nor does this information add much more than random trivia to an article about a musician.  Because Wikipedia focuses on hard pertinent facts rather than rumours, bloopers, and miscellaneous media cruft that has not notably impacted the lives and careers of the subject, we must ask ourselves if it's really worth mentioning at all.  Assuming that we have confirmed the surgery information is indeed false, I believe the entire article would be a much smoother and much more encyclopedic read with a COMPLETE omission.  -  WikHead (talk) 17:01, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree 100%. The only reason that is there at all is because it was referenced in the "original" Wikipedia article. I assumed that if I deleted the incident entirely, it would simply be restored, because I had not refuted it. If it's all the same to everyone else, I would love to see that entire paragraph tossed to the wind. I'll leave that in the hands of others who can properly make the decision. Thanks! - SaladGoat (talk) 18:28, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Drastic Changes