Talk:Paul Hardcastle

message: "...never saw much of the royalties as the song was sampled without permission and were sued."
Can someone please make sense of this sentence and alter it accordingly? Did the song USE samples without permission and therefore THEY (Hardcastle & Fuller) were sued?
Yes,
As you put it, Hardcastle was sued for using the sample commentary without permission from ABC, therefore, Hardcastle and Fuller lost royalty money.   69.210.39.69 01:52, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Royalties 

message: Some months ago I removed the following from the article:
:Trivia: Paul is often compared to snooker player Steve Davis due to his similar mannerisms, speech and to some extent appearance.
A few days ago, an anonymous editor undid this revision specifically. Given the amount of time that had passed between my removal of the line and anon's revert, I suspect he is the original author. Anon, let me explain why I removed your blurb. First, generally speaking, Wikipedia discourages the use of trivia sections (see WP:TRIVIA for a discussion of why). The gist of it is that we want relevant information incorporated into the article, not separately listed.
Of course, that is not the only reason I reverted this line. WP is an encyclopedia, not a fan site. Thus, verifiability, undue weight, and no original research all apply. In turn, these mean, respectively:
# Verifiability means that the information must be verifiable, which in the context of WP means that it must come from a reliable source. For contested content like this, you should provide said source. (See WP:V.)
# Even if information is verifiable, would including it assign it undue weight? A widely discussed subject may have many sources by absolute number discussing each and every little detail, but taken as a whole, would a survey of all reliable sources have a majority of them discussing the information, or only a small minority? And beyond that, in such a short article, should this information be included, or does it make it seem more important than it actually is? (See WP:UNDUE.)
# No original research means that you can't skip out on verifiability by saying: "Just look at pictures of them and you'll see the resemblance for yourself!" We don't include information that is obviously true, strange as that may sound. See WP:TRUTH for an explanation, but briefly, we only report what other, reliable sources are saying about a subject. WP is an encyclopedia, which means we are essentially a distillation of information you might find in other reference-quality texts. If some reliable source hasn't said it, we can't either. (See WP:OR.)
Please understand that I am not reverting your edits because I don't appreciate your contributions or because I think you are acting in bad faith. If you can satisfy the bullet points above -- and as you are the one adding the information, the onus is on you to satisfy them -- then you can absolutely keep this information in the article, although it will have to be incorporated into the article text and not presented separately in a trivia section, as discussed. I have no particular emotional attachment to this subject and will not revert it "just because". If you have any questions please do let me know.Eniagrom (talk) 18:02, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of trivia section 

message: Please see: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links/Perennial_websites
Ancestry.com is not a RS. With this in mind, I’ll remove the links and the assertions based upon it. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 15:56, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm acting in good faith according to the caution urged in WP:BLP guidelines. These state: "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. ... Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy."  Posting birthdates and personal details certainly involves privacy issues, especially regarding children or young people. No offence dear friend, but we have no way of establishing whether you are actually a genealogist, and I’m unsure why you see that as strengthening your case anyway. The evidence should stand or fall on its own demerits. I propose that we wait for a reasonable time — two weeks? — for other editors to express their views on ancestry.com’s use in this article (especially given that it’s a subscription-only source that very few Wikipedia readers and even editors could ever check). Let’s see what they say before we let this through. Does that seem fair? Regards, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 04:42, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Of course I realise you are acting in good faith. As am I. Perhaps the fairer thing would have been to leave my additions on the article and then let other editors decide... they cant read them now, can they? Jack1956 (talk) 11:27, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

text: That sounds like a good idea. I didn't think of that. Thanks for your input.Jack1956 (talk) 12:57, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, please put the refs back in, citing the indices themselves. Ancestry.com is useful for finding the sources, but you can then cite the sources directly. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:20, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the suggestion. That's what I will do. Jack1956 (talk) 17:43, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ancestry.com