Talk:Muzz Skillings

message: It's definitely not 1970.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.225.143.253 (talk) 18:44, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date of Birth 

message: Dear Walor, would you kindly refrain from posting the incorrect bio data. That is not his birth name or date, regardless of how the copyright forms were filled out at that time. Thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by  69.117.229.217  (talk • contribs)  17:40, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Great -- all you need to do is cite a reliable source for this information and you'll have improved the article. Uncited personal knowledge of an anonymous editor isn't going to beat out the Copyright Office for reliability. --Walor (talk) 22:47, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello, Walor. We are family members of Muzz. None of us mean to use unapproved practices on this website. His biological information was never correctly reported or published by Rolling Stone Magazine. They didn't get it right back then and no one bothered to correct them. It was thought of a a one time error that would go away.— Preceding unsigned comment added by  69.117.229.217  (talk • contribs)  16:42, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Nobody wants incorrect information on Wikipedia, but Muzz's name is shown as Manuel by both the U.S. Copyright Office and also by ASCAP. Those would both be considered reliable sources by Wikipedia standards, so it's not just a one-time error that you're up against. Reliable doesn't mean infallible, but it's the best information available and that's all that Wikipedia editors can go by. One of the core tenets of Wikipedia is "no original research". As the guide says, "Wikipedia's content is determined by previously published information rather than by the personal beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it." So, you may be sure about certain facts, but your personal certainty doesn't outweigh two reliable sources, even if you're right and they're wrong. Ideally, you'd have a published source to point to for Muzz's real birthname and birthdate. Without that, it gets complicated. Wikipedia does allow the use of "questionable sources" when it's non-contentious information that someone provides about themselves and there is "no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity." There may be "reasonable doubt" if the information is contradicted by reliable sources, but if it seems credible enough it might be accepted. So, if you were to write a paragraph on here saying that you know for a fact that his birth name is XXXX and his birthdate is YYY, then—even though that's still original research—it might be credible enough that other editors won't be motivated to revert it. It's definitely a better way to go than just deleting cited information.--Walor (talk) 04:34, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

text: Should also mention again that deleting other people's discussions on this page is NOT acceptable. Even if they're wrong. They're contributions to discussions and not yours to edit.--Walor (talk) 04:36, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

text: Misuse of primary sources
 
Further information: WP:PRIMARY
 
Shortcut: WP:BLPPRIMARY
 
Exercise caution in using primary sources. Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.117.229.217 (talk) 07:35, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Name