![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on July 8, 2007. The result of the discussion was keep. |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please remove following references at the bottom of the page that contain inaccurate information about Brian Camelio.
They all contain incorrect factual information about Brian Camelio. Please replace these references with a link to the actual verified source - the lawsuit claim document.
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/97950783/Kickstarter-patent
This is the only verifiable factual source regarding this lawsuit and is the only unbiased source for this reference.
98.14.149.118 (
talk)
01:56, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
The sources are not reliable so they should be replaced with the source from which these articles were written. Can you point me to the wikipedia policy regarding this? Who ultimately gets to decide what stays and goes with this article? Why has Wikipedia and it's editors taken over this article? Thanks in advance. 98.14.149.118 ( talk) 03:29, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
From Wikipedia - Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous.. Please adhere to these rules or provide an explanation as to why the public is not able to contribute to this article. 98.14.149.118 ( talk) 03:31, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your question on my talk page. I will not unprotect the article for now, notably because the above discussion shows that you haven't understood Wikipedia policies: in particular Wikipedia:Verifiability. Furthermore, you alleges that the four last references in the article "all contain incorrect factual information about Brian Camelio", without however proposing any additional reliable sources that would explain why the four specific references would contain incorrect information. -- Edcolins ( talk) 16:06, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please remove all references to patent as the sources have been deemed unsatisfactory. See view history records KickStarter where the same entry was deemed innapropriate.
remove: On February 8, 2011, U.S. patent US 7885887 , entitled "Methods and apparatuses for financing and marketing a creative work", was granted. Brian Camelio is named as inventor in the patent. The patent has since been assigned to Fan Funded, LLC.[7] On September 30, 2011, the crowdfunding site Kickstarter filed a request for declaratory judgment against this patent. They are asserting that the patent is invalid because the inventions it covers were either already known or were obvious at the time the patent application was effectively filed (July 9, 2002). They say that Fan Funded and ArtistShare are demanding license fees from them and threatening to sue them. [8][9][10][11]
as well as references
If you do not choose to remove this content please give your argument on the validity of the sources. Thank you.
Jamesrand ( talk) 17:02, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Already done -- Unprotected --
Mohamed Aden Ighe (
talk)
15:18, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
OK Ed. Please make the following edit to balance the entry for now if you insist on keeping this information in there and keeping other users locked out.
On February 8, 2011, U.S. patent US 7885887 , entitled "Methods and apparatuses for financing and marketing a creative work", was granted. Brian Camelio is named as inventor in the patent. The patent has since been assigned to Fan Funded, LLC. On September 30, 2011, the crowdfunding site Kickstarter filed a request for declaratory judgment against this patent. They are asserting that the patent is invalid because the inventions it covers were either already known or were obvious at the time the patent application was effectively filed (July 9, 2002). They say that Fan Funded and ArtistShare are demanding license fees from them and threatening to sue them. According to PatentExaminer.org, Camelio denies threatening to sue KickStarter or accusing them of infringement. Camelio says he initiated contact with Kickstarter to license the company his software.
reference below: http://patentexaminer.org/2011/10/man-threatening-kickstarter-over-patents-says-he-is-stunned-and-disappointed-by-lawsuit/
Please keep in mind that "Special care should be used in regard to material about living people. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living people should be removed immediately and not tagged or moved to the talk page." I am pointing out that this is the case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesrand ( talk • contribs) 20:06, 8 October 2011 (UTC) Jamesrand ( talk) 17:42, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
remove the orphan tag please. guidelines state that tag should be place only if there are no links to it Wikipedia:Orphan
Jamesrand ( talk) 19:26, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
I am removing all of this patent suit stuff about Kickstarter. It has very little to do with the actual purpose of this page which is background information on Brian Camelio. It was clearly placed here to attempt to promote a cause and is simply not relevant. 72.52.203.143 ( talk) 18:59, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
I agree. I am putting it back in for now for discussion though so the sysop does not lock the page again. After discussion I will remove it if deemed appropriate.. Jamesrand ( talk) 19:10, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
I am going to rebuild this page to include more information and correct anything that was not properly referenced. Jamesrand ( talk) 19:12, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
I am removing the content regarding the lawsuit that KickStarter has filed against Fan Funded and ArtistShare for two reasons. It is not relevant to Brian Camelio and it is contentious material. For anyone who needs a refresher on the definition - "Causing or likely to cause an argument; controversial". Wiki guidelines specify that contentious material should be deleted immediately without discussion - see Wikipedia:BLP Jamesrand ( talk) 19:57, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Ed, the material you are referring to is contentious and clearly poorly sourced. You yourself admitted that there are mistakes in the references (musician for Journey - which was disproved). Regarding neutrality please do not forget that even if contentious material is "Just questionable" it should be removed immediately. This information is clearly questionable. As far as being clearly relevant, I disagree. It is tabloid material at best at this point. Let's see how it develops and then discuss. In addition, your title to the section "Patent dispute" is inflammatory and factually incorrect. I am removing it once again as according to the wiki guidelines it is not appropriate material for a living person's biography page. Please do not post again unless we come to a mutually agreeable arrangement on the talk page. Thank you. Jamesrand ( talk) 21:26, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
I've moved the "patent dispute" material to the talk page so that we can sort this out. We can do additional editing here, reach consensus and, if appropriate, move it to the article.-- Nowa ( talk) 22:33, 16 October 2011 (UTC) -
References
I think the first thing we need to reach agreement on is whether or not the fact that a person is listed as an inventor on an issued patent is appropriate material for his/her biography. I think the answer is yes.
The next issue is whether or not the fact a person is involved in legal dispute related to their patent is also appropriate material for his/her biography. I say that it is, especially if that person's business career is important to his/her biography and that person has made public comments related to the dispute that are covered by reliable sources.
I'm not sure why you keep insisting that it's Wikipedia policy to stay out of the litigious zone when when it comes to BLP. It's been my experience that whenever a BLP person is involved in litigation, it's always added to said person's article. See for example the archived versions of Dominique Strauss-Kahn from shortly after his arrest on May 16, 2011. Can you point to counter examples where mention of ongoing litigation is being left out of an article pending the outcome of the litigation?-- Nowa ( talk) 16:13, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
The final issue is whether or not the sources presented so far in this draft section are reliable. At this point, give the flub on Journey, I think we can discount the BBC reference. Unless anyone disagrees, I'll delete it from the draft. That leaves PCWorld, Hollywood Reporter, TechCrunch, and the PatentExaminer blog. Blogs aren't normally considered reliable sources, so I think it would be worthwhile to find an alternative source for the Camelio quote.-- Nowa ( talk) 22:49, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Counterpoints?
Nowa, James, thanks for the good work in trying to
reach a consensus on this matter. As far as I can see, the issue now is whether the PCWorld, Hollywood Reporter , TechCrunch references are sufficient to insert information about the patent dispute. If it is not sufficient, then the matter would be poorly sourced and could not be inserted in the article. It seems to me that these three two sources are reliable. Do you agree? --
Edcolins (
talk)
19:36, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
What about this additional reliable source (in Dutch): [3]? A machine translation can be obtained here: "Crowd Funding sites involved in patent fight". NU.nl is apparently "since 2007 the most visited news site in the Netherlands" [4] (the Dutch wikipedia provides some references to support that claim). -- Edcolins ( talk) 20:50, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Is paidcontent.org a reliable source? Here is how they cover the patent dispute [5]
Here's how Time magazine covers it [6]
There is no need to mark every source in this article as "non-primary source needed". It was previously requested that these facts be verified, which they all were with links to prove they were correct and true. To tag them as in need of non-primary sourcing doesn't make any sense. For example if it says he was a speaker at Judge Business School it is OK to put a link to the Judge Business School website to verify it. Common sense dictates this. Please see Wiki guidelines for sourcing.
Deciding whether primary, secondary or tertiary sources are appropriate on any given occasion is a matter of good editorial judgment and common sense, and should be discussed on article talk pages.
I am removing these tags for now as this article is just getting completely cluttered with nonsensical and excessive requests for sourcing. It is overkill and counterproductive. If there is a specific source anyone would like to discuss let's do it here first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesrand ( talk • contribs) 23:53, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
I send a note to the author of the paidcontent article to see if he could confirm his source for Brian Camelio having played with Journey. He said he’s not quite sure where he got if from but he thought it might have been from…….……………………………………….(wait for it)…………………….………………….…..Wikipedia.
So I checked the Brian Camelio page as of October 4, 2011, when the paidcontent article was posted, and sure enough, it listed Brian as having “worked as a studio musician for Journey”. There was no reference.
So I took a look to see who added it when and why. It turns out it was added at the conclusion of an AfD. See this edit, which occurred on July 13, 2007.
So I looked at the AfD, and one of the editors mentioned it at the time.
So I sent a note to the editor to ask where he got it from, and he’s not quite sure but suspected it was listed on Brian’s allmusic credits page. This editor added allmusic as a reference. The listing is not there now.
So I now would like to apologize to Jamesrand. I agree that any reference related to the current patent dispute that states that Brian Camelio played with Journey is prima facie unreliable and should not be used as a reference in this article.-- Nowa ( talk) 13:12, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
GD: I appreciate your support on Brian Camelio, but I actually disagree with a number of your edits and choices of references. Yes, a certain editor is being overly picky, but there is actually some merit to his points. The articles with circular references to wikipedia, for example, really shouldn't be used, especially if they are not needed. I also think that it's important to include the fact that Brian Camelio is leading the negotiation on behalf of Fan Funded. That's the key tie in to having the material in his biography and not simply on the kickstarter page. We'll get there, but I think it would be more productive to work everything out on the talk page first. So, no offense, but I am going to have to support the position that the patent material is not yet ready for inclusion on the article page.-- Nowa ( talk) 23:37, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Notwithstanding GD’s methods, I think he has a good point that it’s probably time to wrap this up and reach a decision on whether or not to include the patent material in the article. I’d like to propose an essentially AfD approach where interested editors express a “Keep” or “Delete” and then a decision is made. I’ll reproduce the draft as it stands now and get the ball rolling with my opinion.
References
Keep: It describes a notable event in the person’s life. It is well referenced. The references are secondary and reliable with respect to the cited material. It has a neutral tone. It is consistent with the references (No original research, no synthesis). It is current.-- Nowa ( talk) 12:57, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Delete: We are at the same spot we were yesterday. In disagree that it is a notable event. If they were suing him then maybe it would be, even then the sources are not there. I say we see how it plays out, wait for some credible journalism and then see if it is relevant enough to post. Frankly I am not sure why everyone is so eager to get this in here. Jamesrand ( talk) 14:40, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Keep. I fully agree with Nowa. There are no remaining issues with the references. The paragraph must be reinserted and kept under WP:NPOV. The third reference could also be added. Nowa, any objection against the third reference (as explained here)? -- Edcolins ( talk) 18:57, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Keep. I fully agree with Nowa. There are no remaining issues with the references. The paragraph must be reinserted and kept under WP:NPOV. The third reference could also be added. Nowa, any objection against the third reference (as explained here)? -- Edcolins ( talk) 18:57, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
It's right here Ed as referenced in the article - a full chapter on him. Please discuss things on the talk page before removing as you may be overlooking valid references as you did here and in the title of the book. Thank you. Jamesrand ( talk) 21:08, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
RE: Celebrity Access - your answer still does not explain how you came to the conclusion that it is not a valid reliable source. You said you read something in the user agreement. You need to explain as in my view it is a perfectly valid reference. Thanks Jamesrand ( talk) 21:11, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
The consensus is keep [two explicit keep (Nowa, Edcolins), one implicit keep (GDallimore - implicit in view of the recent edits), one delete (Jamesrand)]. --
Edcolins (
talk)
20:23, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
At this point I would say we have consensus by majority. I will go ahead and make the changes.-- Nowa ( talk) 17:13, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Reworded the Canadian Cpyright reference. EdColins was right it does not specifically state that he advised but he clearly was interviewed. Jamesrand ( talk) 22:04, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Could we make clearer that the two first awards appear to have been given to recordings, so not to Brian Camelio or at least only indirectly to Brian Camelio? This reference [12] even seems to say that the recipient was Jim Hall: "This is the second Choc de L'ane'e Award in a row for Jim", rather than Brian Camelio. Any comment? -- Edcolins ( talk) 17:18, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
A couple of editors (maybe more) have traded what they consider to be accusations about agendas and conflict of interest. Initially, I reverted a deletion thinking that the concerns raised about an editor's COI were valid. In the end, however, I figured that the discussion page was for discussing the article and NOT editor's motives or agendas. If the editors involved have concerns, there are more appropriate places for them to make their cases. Wikipelli Talk 22:30, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
May I remind 69.86.129.52 that using COI allegations to harass an editor or to gain the upper hand in a content dispute is prohibited, and can result in a block or ban (from WP:COI). I won't hesitate to block any editor making any further allegations of this type. -- Edcolins ( talk) 19:50, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
The history here shows that this section has been pretty contentious, therefore I tread trepidly. For such a short component of the article it was a confusing mess, so I've been bold and corrected and tweaked and added refs. I also removed the amazingly trivial mention of Camelio unsuccessfully attempting to discuss the issue with Kickstarter. So what? What's notable or abnormal about that? It happens zillions of times where there are disputes. Such piddling minutiae has no justification here . Moriori ( talk) 00:18, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
The following paragraph was added as it is relevant to the section. The main reference is from the Hollywood reporter that has been deemed a credible source. It also references a document from DocStoc that was uploaded by the author of the Hollywood reporter article. Admin EdColins removed it on the basis that it referenced a blog and was "original research". I respectfully disagree as the main facts stated below are from a credible source and its reference.
"In 2006, founder Perry Chen filed two patent applications that focused on Kickstarter's own method for fundraising. [1] [2] [3] But both of these patent applications were later abandoned after being rejected. [2] During the prosecution of these patent applications, Kickstarter cited the ArtistShare patent as known prior art. [4]" Jamesrand ( talk) 02:23, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
References
Hi guys, a couple of points.
Hi Ed, I have to disagree. You and Nowa fought hard and made a good argument to have the information about Kickstarter filing the suit and their accusations included here (see above). It is only fitting to balance it out with ArtistShare/Fan Funded response. To not do so would demonstrate bias and we need to keep NPOV on all of this. Jamesrand ( talk) 04:21, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Ed, I'm sorry but I disagree and we will leave it in. Jamesrand ( talk) 20:00, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi Ed, I have every right to include this information as I feel that it is just as relevant as anything you or Nowa have added. It is only your opinion that it goes into too much detail. I do not think it does. It completes a neutral view of the situation based on the other information added. Are you threatening to block me using your Admin privileges for editing this article? Please advise. Jamesrand ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:54, 31 March 2012 (UTC).
Upon further exmination I have concluded that the information refers directly to the request to invalidate the patent made by Kickstarter and is therefore not excessive language at all. I did not undo an edit but once again added to it. I feel like I am getting ganged up on here for putting in valid and relevant information. Jamesrand ( talk) 21:08, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Ed, lastly why are you threatening to block me when Nowa has been undoing my work as well. Come to think of it, you have been too. I'm not sure if that is fair. Jamesrand ( talk) 21:15, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
I corrected the reference to study by Cathy Allison. The document clearly states the purpose of the study. The original reference was incorrect. Please do not undo this again as it is destructive editing. Thanks! Jamesrand ( talk) 18:52, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
......and on that basis I have been bold and edited the contentious patent section, by removing information that adds nothing to the article. I can't for the life of me see how adding verbiage which ex post facto is irrelevant can improve the encyclopedia.
The section now states the facts -- Camelio owned a patent, Kickstarter asked a court to invalidate his patent, the court ruled for Camello.
Why Kickstarer's arguments are being given so much mileage is beyond me, especially considering the court clearly stated "Kickstarter has since used this suit as an attempt to extort from ArtistShare an unreasonable settlement".
Enough!. Moriori ( talk) 02:31, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Nowa, the reference you cited clearly states "Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person". It is being used to refer to a company and a patent dispute. It is a valid use and it is not being interpreted. Please do not delete it again without discussion here. thank you. Jamesrand ( talk) 01:42, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
In view of the recent edit warring in these articles, let's discuss and modify these sections here on the talk page before making changes to the article(s) (following the guideline " Consensus-building in talk pages"). -- Edcolins ( talk) 10:03, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
I suggest keeping or including a section regarding the ongoing patent dispute in each of the three articles to which this dispute relates, namely in the articles Brian Camelio, ArtistShare, and Kickstarter. I don't see why a section should be included in two of them and not in the third one. The wording can be different and, in my opinion, should be different. Regarding the content, we should not burden the articles with the ongoing play by play of the lawsuit, and we should not include information about the detailed arguments put forward by the parties. No analysis or interpretation of primary sources (such as court documents) should be made, as this would constitute original research. -- Edcolins ( talk) 10:03, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Please insert any general comments here.
Ed, thanks for setting this up. I agree with your above comments. I would add that updates, if any, should be limited to summarizing the coverage provided by reliable secondary sources. It should be up to them to deterimine which developments are notable. The challenge is going to be (and has been) the POV of the secondary sources themselves. What I've done in other difficult situations is look more thoroughly for additional secondary sources that balance out the POV. That has worked well.--
Nowa (
talk)
15:34, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Please insert specific comments on the section proposed for the article
Brian Camelio here.
I would take out the "Memorandum of Law" references. These are inherently POV since their sole purpose is to advocate the positions of the parties that submitted them. Hence their statements about the alleged activities and character of Brian Camelio cannot be relied upon for a BLP. I would also remove the references from the other versions for ArtistShare and KickStarter since the same considerations regarding the reputation of a living person apply.--
Nowa (
talk)
15:47, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
(from the above comment by Jamesrand) "It is to maintain an neutral point of view." How is the ArtistShare observation that Kickstarter abandoned two patent applications related the neutral point of view of this article?-- Nowa ( talk) 00:35, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Edcolins asked on my talk page if I thought the various drafts were ready to go in their respective articles. I've made proposed edits to the Camelio draft to simplify for those not familiar with patents, "declaratory judgement" etc. I know from reading the court documents online that the judge has recently ruled that the case should go forward. I thought I would capture that with "the case is ongoing", but I'm not wedded to it. Ed also asked if we should submit a formal request for comment. I have no objection to that.-- Nowa ( talk) 20:18, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
I added an update. Anything to add or change?-- Nowa ( talk) 22:49, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Debate closed. See closing comment above.-- Edcolins ( talk) 09:12, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
Please insert specific comments on the section proposed for the article
ArtistShare here.
Debate closed. See closing comment above.-- Edcolins ( talk) 09:12, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
Please insert specific comments on the section proposed for the article
Kickstarter here.
Debate closed. See closing comment above.-- Edcolins ( talk) 09:12, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
Three sections, each entitled "Patent dispute", are proposed above for inclusion in the articles Brian Camelio, ArtistShare, and Kickstarter respectively, either as a new section or to replace an existing section. Is the content of these sections relevant to the articles? If so, does the content meet our core Wikipedia policies? -- Edcolins ( talk) 17:22, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
The recent deletion of the entire further reading section was restored. There is nothing in violation of the wiki policy and everything is well referenced. Please discuss such drastic measures before deleting entire sections. 64.131.184.113 ( talk) 23:10, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Removed advert claim: read guidelines:
Advertising, marketing or public relations. Information about companies and products must be written in an objective and unbiased style, free of puffery. All article topics must be verifiable with independent, third-party sources, so articles about very small "garage" or local companies are typically unacceptable. External links to commercial organizations are acceptable if they identify notable organizations which are the topic of the article. Wikipedia neither endorses organizations nor runs affiliate programs. See also Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) for guidelines on corporate notability. Those promoting causes or events, or issuing public service announcements, even if noncommercial, should use a forum other than Wikipedia to do so
The article is comprised almost exclusively of references from verifiable, independent, third-party sources. 64.131.184.113 ( talk) 23:27, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on Brian Camelio. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.allaboutjazz.com/php/news_print.php?id=13398{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/Phish/Phish/p/9780793572373When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:47, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Brian Camelio. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:43, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Brian Camelio. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:54, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on July 8, 2007. The result of the discussion was keep. |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please remove following references at the bottom of the page that contain inaccurate information about Brian Camelio.
They all contain incorrect factual information about Brian Camelio. Please replace these references with a link to the actual verified source - the lawsuit claim document.
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/97950783/Kickstarter-patent
This is the only verifiable factual source regarding this lawsuit and is the only unbiased source for this reference.
98.14.149.118 (
talk)
01:56, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
The sources are not reliable so they should be replaced with the source from which these articles were written. Can you point me to the wikipedia policy regarding this? Who ultimately gets to decide what stays and goes with this article? Why has Wikipedia and it's editors taken over this article? Thanks in advance. 98.14.149.118 ( talk) 03:29, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
From Wikipedia - Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous.. Please adhere to these rules or provide an explanation as to why the public is not able to contribute to this article. 98.14.149.118 ( talk) 03:31, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your question on my talk page. I will not unprotect the article for now, notably because the above discussion shows that you haven't understood Wikipedia policies: in particular Wikipedia:Verifiability. Furthermore, you alleges that the four last references in the article "all contain incorrect factual information about Brian Camelio", without however proposing any additional reliable sources that would explain why the four specific references would contain incorrect information. -- Edcolins ( talk) 16:06, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please remove all references to patent as the sources have been deemed unsatisfactory. See view history records KickStarter where the same entry was deemed innapropriate.
remove: On February 8, 2011, U.S. patent US 7885887 , entitled "Methods and apparatuses for financing and marketing a creative work", was granted. Brian Camelio is named as inventor in the patent. The patent has since been assigned to Fan Funded, LLC.[7] On September 30, 2011, the crowdfunding site Kickstarter filed a request for declaratory judgment against this patent. They are asserting that the patent is invalid because the inventions it covers were either already known or were obvious at the time the patent application was effectively filed (July 9, 2002). They say that Fan Funded and ArtistShare are demanding license fees from them and threatening to sue them. [8][9][10][11]
as well as references
If you do not choose to remove this content please give your argument on the validity of the sources. Thank you.
Jamesrand ( talk) 17:02, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Already done -- Unprotected --
Mohamed Aden Ighe (
talk)
15:18, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
OK Ed. Please make the following edit to balance the entry for now if you insist on keeping this information in there and keeping other users locked out.
On February 8, 2011, U.S. patent US 7885887 , entitled "Methods and apparatuses for financing and marketing a creative work", was granted. Brian Camelio is named as inventor in the patent. The patent has since been assigned to Fan Funded, LLC. On September 30, 2011, the crowdfunding site Kickstarter filed a request for declaratory judgment against this patent. They are asserting that the patent is invalid because the inventions it covers were either already known or were obvious at the time the patent application was effectively filed (July 9, 2002). They say that Fan Funded and ArtistShare are demanding license fees from them and threatening to sue them. According to PatentExaminer.org, Camelio denies threatening to sue KickStarter or accusing them of infringement. Camelio says he initiated contact with Kickstarter to license the company his software.
reference below: http://patentexaminer.org/2011/10/man-threatening-kickstarter-over-patents-says-he-is-stunned-and-disappointed-by-lawsuit/
Please keep in mind that "Special care should be used in regard to material about living people. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living people should be removed immediately and not tagged or moved to the talk page." I am pointing out that this is the case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesrand ( talk • contribs) 20:06, 8 October 2011 (UTC) Jamesrand ( talk) 17:42, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
remove the orphan tag please. guidelines state that tag should be place only if there are no links to it Wikipedia:Orphan
Jamesrand ( talk) 19:26, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
I am removing all of this patent suit stuff about Kickstarter. It has very little to do with the actual purpose of this page which is background information on Brian Camelio. It was clearly placed here to attempt to promote a cause and is simply not relevant. 72.52.203.143 ( talk) 18:59, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
I agree. I am putting it back in for now for discussion though so the sysop does not lock the page again. After discussion I will remove it if deemed appropriate.. Jamesrand ( talk) 19:10, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
I am going to rebuild this page to include more information and correct anything that was not properly referenced. Jamesrand ( talk) 19:12, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
I am removing the content regarding the lawsuit that KickStarter has filed against Fan Funded and ArtistShare for two reasons. It is not relevant to Brian Camelio and it is contentious material. For anyone who needs a refresher on the definition - "Causing or likely to cause an argument; controversial". Wiki guidelines specify that contentious material should be deleted immediately without discussion - see Wikipedia:BLP Jamesrand ( talk) 19:57, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Ed, the material you are referring to is contentious and clearly poorly sourced. You yourself admitted that there are mistakes in the references (musician for Journey - which was disproved). Regarding neutrality please do not forget that even if contentious material is "Just questionable" it should be removed immediately. This information is clearly questionable. As far as being clearly relevant, I disagree. It is tabloid material at best at this point. Let's see how it develops and then discuss. In addition, your title to the section "Patent dispute" is inflammatory and factually incorrect. I am removing it once again as according to the wiki guidelines it is not appropriate material for a living person's biography page. Please do not post again unless we come to a mutually agreeable arrangement on the talk page. Thank you. Jamesrand ( talk) 21:26, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
I've moved the "patent dispute" material to the talk page so that we can sort this out. We can do additional editing here, reach consensus and, if appropriate, move it to the article.-- Nowa ( talk) 22:33, 16 October 2011 (UTC) -
References
I think the first thing we need to reach agreement on is whether or not the fact that a person is listed as an inventor on an issued patent is appropriate material for his/her biography. I think the answer is yes.
The next issue is whether or not the fact a person is involved in legal dispute related to their patent is also appropriate material for his/her biography. I say that it is, especially if that person's business career is important to his/her biography and that person has made public comments related to the dispute that are covered by reliable sources.
I'm not sure why you keep insisting that it's Wikipedia policy to stay out of the litigious zone when when it comes to BLP. It's been my experience that whenever a BLP person is involved in litigation, it's always added to said person's article. See for example the archived versions of Dominique Strauss-Kahn from shortly after his arrest on May 16, 2011. Can you point to counter examples where mention of ongoing litigation is being left out of an article pending the outcome of the litigation?-- Nowa ( talk) 16:13, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
The final issue is whether or not the sources presented so far in this draft section are reliable. At this point, give the flub on Journey, I think we can discount the BBC reference. Unless anyone disagrees, I'll delete it from the draft. That leaves PCWorld, Hollywood Reporter, TechCrunch, and the PatentExaminer blog. Blogs aren't normally considered reliable sources, so I think it would be worthwhile to find an alternative source for the Camelio quote.-- Nowa ( talk) 22:49, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Counterpoints?
Nowa, James, thanks for the good work in trying to
reach a consensus on this matter. As far as I can see, the issue now is whether the PCWorld, Hollywood Reporter , TechCrunch references are sufficient to insert information about the patent dispute. If it is not sufficient, then the matter would be poorly sourced and could not be inserted in the article. It seems to me that these three two sources are reliable. Do you agree? --
Edcolins (
talk)
19:36, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
What about this additional reliable source (in Dutch): [3]? A machine translation can be obtained here: "Crowd Funding sites involved in patent fight". NU.nl is apparently "since 2007 the most visited news site in the Netherlands" [4] (the Dutch wikipedia provides some references to support that claim). -- Edcolins ( talk) 20:50, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Is paidcontent.org a reliable source? Here is how they cover the patent dispute [5]
Here's how Time magazine covers it [6]
There is no need to mark every source in this article as "non-primary source needed". It was previously requested that these facts be verified, which they all were with links to prove they were correct and true. To tag them as in need of non-primary sourcing doesn't make any sense. For example if it says he was a speaker at Judge Business School it is OK to put a link to the Judge Business School website to verify it. Common sense dictates this. Please see Wiki guidelines for sourcing.
Deciding whether primary, secondary or tertiary sources are appropriate on any given occasion is a matter of good editorial judgment and common sense, and should be discussed on article talk pages.
I am removing these tags for now as this article is just getting completely cluttered with nonsensical and excessive requests for sourcing. It is overkill and counterproductive. If there is a specific source anyone would like to discuss let's do it here first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesrand ( talk • contribs) 23:53, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
I send a note to the author of the paidcontent article to see if he could confirm his source for Brian Camelio having played with Journey. He said he’s not quite sure where he got if from but he thought it might have been from…….……………………………………….(wait for it)…………………….………………….…..Wikipedia.
So I checked the Brian Camelio page as of October 4, 2011, when the paidcontent article was posted, and sure enough, it listed Brian as having “worked as a studio musician for Journey”. There was no reference.
So I took a look to see who added it when and why. It turns out it was added at the conclusion of an AfD. See this edit, which occurred on July 13, 2007.
So I looked at the AfD, and one of the editors mentioned it at the time.
So I sent a note to the editor to ask where he got it from, and he’s not quite sure but suspected it was listed on Brian’s allmusic credits page. This editor added allmusic as a reference. The listing is not there now.
So I now would like to apologize to Jamesrand. I agree that any reference related to the current patent dispute that states that Brian Camelio played with Journey is prima facie unreliable and should not be used as a reference in this article.-- Nowa ( talk) 13:12, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
GD: I appreciate your support on Brian Camelio, but I actually disagree with a number of your edits and choices of references. Yes, a certain editor is being overly picky, but there is actually some merit to his points. The articles with circular references to wikipedia, for example, really shouldn't be used, especially if they are not needed. I also think that it's important to include the fact that Brian Camelio is leading the negotiation on behalf of Fan Funded. That's the key tie in to having the material in his biography and not simply on the kickstarter page. We'll get there, but I think it would be more productive to work everything out on the talk page first. So, no offense, but I am going to have to support the position that the patent material is not yet ready for inclusion on the article page.-- Nowa ( talk) 23:37, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Notwithstanding GD’s methods, I think he has a good point that it’s probably time to wrap this up and reach a decision on whether or not to include the patent material in the article. I’d like to propose an essentially AfD approach where interested editors express a “Keep” or “Delete” and then a decision is made. I’ll reproduce the draft as it stands now and get the ball rolling with my opinion.
References
Keep: It describes a notable event in the person’s life. It is well referenced. The references are secondary and reliable with respect to the cited material. It has a neutral tone. It is consistent with the references (No original research, no synthesis). It is current.-- Nowa ( talk) 12:57, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Delete: We are at the same spot we were yesterday. In disagree that it is a notable event. If they were suing him then maybe it would be, even then the sources are not there. I say we see how it plays out, wait for some credible journalism and then see if it is relevant enough to post. Frankly I am not sure why everyone is so eager to get this in here. Jamesrand ( talk) 14:40, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Keep. I fully agree with Nowa. There are no remaining issues with the references. The paragraph must be reinserted and kept under WP:NPOV. The third reference could also be added. Nowa, any objection against the third reference (as explained here)? -- Edcolins ( talk) 18:57, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Keep. I fully agree with Nowa. There are no remaining issues with the references. The paragraph must be reinserted and kept under WP:NPOV. The third reference could also be added. Nowa, any objection against the third reference (as explained here)? -- Edcolins ( talk) 18:57, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
It's right here Ed as referenced in the article - a full chapter on him. Please discuss things on the talk page before removing as you may be overlooking valid references as you did here and in the title of the book. Thank you. Jamesrand ( talk) 21:08, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
RE: Celebrity Access - your answer still does not explain how you came to the conclusion that it is not a valid reliable source. You said you read something in the user agreement. You need to explain as in my view it is a perfectly valid reference. Thanks Jamesrand ( talk) 21:11, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
The consensus is keep [two explicit keep (Nowa, Edcolins), one implicit keep (GDallimore - implicit in view of the recent edits), one delete (Jamesrand)]. --
Edcolins (
talk)
20:23, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
At this point I would say we have consensus by majority. I will go ahead and make the changes.-- Nowa ( talk) 17:13, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Reworded the Canadian Cpyright reference. EdColins was right it does not specifically state that he advised but he clearly was interviewed. Jamesrand ( talk) 22:04, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Could we make clearer that the two first awards appear to have been given to recordings, so not to Brian Camelio or at least only indirectly to Brian Camelio? This reference [12] even seems to say that the recipient was Jim Hall: "This is the second Choc de L'ane'e Award in a row for Jim", rather than Brian Camelio. Any comment? -- Edcolins ( talk) 17:18, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
A couple of editors (maybe more) have traded what they consider to be accusations about agendas and conflict of interest. Initially, I reverted a deletion thinking that the concerns raised about an editor's COI were valid. In the end, however, I figured that the discussion page was for discussing the article and NOT editor's motives or agendas. If the editors involved have concerns, there are more appropriate places for them to make their cases. Wikipelli Talk 22:30, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
May I remind 69.86.129.52 that using COI allegations to harass an editor or to gain the upper hand in a content dispute is prohibited, and can result in a block or ban (from WP:COI). I won't hesitate to block any editor making any further allegations of this type. -- Edcolins ( talk) 19:50, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
The history here shows that this section has been pretty contentious, therefore I tread trepidly. For such a short component of the article it was a confusing mess, so I've been bold and corrected and tweaked and added refs. I also removed the amazingly trivial mention of Camelio unsuccessfully attempting to discuss the issue with Kickstarter. So what? What's notable or abnormal about that? It happens zillions of times where there are disputes. Such piddling minutiae has no justification here . Moriori ( talk) 00:18, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
The following paragraph was added as it is relevant to the section. The main reference is from the Hollywood reporter that has been deemed a credible source. It also references a document from DocStoc that was uploaded by the author of the Hollywood reporter article. Admin EdColins removed it on the basis that it referenced a blog and was "original research". I respectfully disagree as the main facts stated below are from a credible source and its reference.
"In 2006, founder Perry Chen filed two patent applications that focused on Kickstarter's own method for fundraising. [1] [2] [3] But both of these patent applications were later abandoned after being rejected. [2] During the prosecution of these patent applications, Kickstarter cited the ArtistShare patent as known prior art. [4]" Jamesrand ( talk) 02:23, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
References
Hi guys, a couple of points.
Hi Ed, I have to disagree. You and Nowa fought hard and made a good argument to have the information about Kickstarter filing the suit and their accusations included here (see above). It is only fitting to balance it out with ArtistShare/Fan Funded response. To not do so would demonstrate bias and we need to keep NPOV on all of this. Jamesrand ( talk) 04:21, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Ed, I'm sorry but I disagree and we will leave it in. Jamesrand ( talk) 20:00, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi Ed, I have every right to include this information as I feel that it is just as relevant as anything you or Nowa have added. It is only your opinion that it goes into too much detail. I do not think it does. It completes a neutral view of the situation based on the other information added. Are you threatening to block me using your Admin privileges for editing this article? Please advise. Jamesrand ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:54, 31 March 2012 (UTC).
Upon further exmination I have concluded that the information refers directly to the request to invalidate the patent made by Kickstarter and is therefore not excessive language at all. I did not undo an edit but once again added to it. I feel like I am getting ganged up on here for putting in valid and relevant information. Jamesrand ( talk) 21:08, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Ed, lastly why are you threatening to block me when Nowa has been undoing my work as well. Come to think of it, you have been too. I'm not sure if that is fair. Jamesrand ( talk) 21:15, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
I corrected the reference to study by Cathy Allison. The document clearly states the purpose of the study. The original reference was incorrect. Please do not undo this again as it is destructive editing. Thanks! Jamesrand ( talk) 18:52, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
......and on that basis I have been bold and edited the contentious patent section, by removing information that adds nothing to the article. I can't for the life of me see how adding verbiage which ex post facto is irrelevant can improve the encyclopedia.
The section now states the facts -- Camelio owned a patent, Kickstarter asked a court to invalidate his patent, the court ruled for Camello.
Why Kickstarer's arguments are being given so much mileage is beyond me, especially considering the court clearly stated "Kickstarter has since used this suit as an attempt to extort from ArtistShare an unreasonable settlement".
Enough!. Moriori ( talk) 02:31, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Nowa, the reference you cited clearly states "Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person". It is being used to refer to a company and a patent dispute. It is a valid use and it is not being interpreted. Please do not delete it again without discussion here. thank you. Jamesrand ( talk) 01:42, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
In view of the recent edit warring in these articles, let's discuss and modify these sections here on the talk page before making changes to the article(s) (following the guideline " Consensus-building in talk pages"). -- Edcolins ( talk) 10:03, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
I suggest keeping or including a section regarding the ongoing patent dispute in each of the three articles to which this dispute relates, namely in the articles Brian Camelio, ArtistShare, and Kickstarter. I don't see why a section should be included in two of them and not in the third one. The wording can be different and, in my opinion, should be different. Regarding the content, we should not burden the articles with the ongoing play by play of the lawsuit, and we should not include information about the detailed arguments put forward by the parties. No analysis or interpretation of primary sources (such as court documents) should be made, as this would constitute original research. -- Edcolins ( talk) 10:03, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Please insert any general comments here.
Ed, thanks for setting this up. I agree with your above comments. I would add that updates, if any, should be limited to summarizing the coverage provided by reliable secondary sources. It should be up to them to deterimine which developments are notable. The challenge is going to be (and has been) the POV of the secondary sources themselves. What I've done in other difficult situations is look more thoroughly for additional secondary sources that balance out the POV. That has worked well.--
Nowa (
talk)
15:34, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Please insert specific comments on the section proposed for the article
Brian Camelio here.
I would take out the "Memorandum of Law" references. These are inherently POV since their sole purpose is to advocate the positions of the parties that submitted them. Hence their statements about the alleged activities and character of Brian Camelio cannot be relied upon for a BLP. I would also remove the references from the other versions for ArtistShare and KickStarter since the same considerations regarding the reputation of a living person apply.--
Nowa (
talk)
15:47, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
(from the above comment by Jamesrand) "It is to maintain an neutral point of view." How is the ArtistShare observation that Kickstarter abandoned two patent applications related the neutral point of view of this article?-- Nowa ( talk) 00:35, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Edcolins asked on my talk page if I thought the various drafts were ready to go in their respective articles. I've made proposed edits to the Camelio draft to simplify for those not familiar with patents, "declaratory judgement" etc. I know from reading the court documents online that the judge has recently ruled that the case should go forward. I thought I would capture that with "the case is ongoing", but I'm not wedded to it. Ed also asked if we should submit a formal request for comment. I have no objection to that.-- Nowa ( talk) 20:18, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
I added an update. Anything to add or change?-- Nowa ( talk) 22:49, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Debate closed. See closing comment above.-- Edcolins ( talk) 09:12, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
Please insert specific comments on the section proposed for the article
ArtistShare here.
Debate closed. See closing comment above.-- Edcolins ( talk) 09:12, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
Please insert specific comments on the section proposed for the article
Kickstarter here.
Debate closed. See closing comment above.-- Edcolins ( talk) 09:12, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
Three sections, each entitled "Patent dispute", are proposed above for inclusion in the articles Brian Camelio, ArtistShare, and Kickstarter respectively, either as a new section or to replace an existing section. Is the content of these sections relevant to the articles? If so, does the content meet our core Wikipedia policies? -- Edcolins ( talk) 17:22, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
The recent deletion of the entire further reading section was restored. There is nothing in violation of the wiki policy and everything is well referenced. Please discuss such drastic measures before deleting entire sections. 64.131.184.113 ( talk) 23:10, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Removed advert claim: read guidelines:
Advertising, marketing or public relations. Information about companies and products must be written in an objective and unbiased style, free of puffery. All article topics must be verifiable with independent, third-party sources, so articles about very small "garage" or local companies are typically unacceptable. External links to commercial organizations are acceptable if they identify notable organizations which are the topic of the article. Wikipedia neither endorses organizations nor runs affiliate programs. See also Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) for guidelines on corporate notability. Those promoting causes or events, or issuing public service announcements, even if noncommercial, should use a forum other than Wikipedia to do so
The article is comprised almost exclusively of references from verifiable, independent, third-party sources. 64.131.184.113 ( talk) 23:27, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on Brian Camelio. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.allaboutjazz.com/php/news_print.php?id=13398{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/Phish/Phish/p/9780793572373When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:47, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Brian Camelio. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:43, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Brian Camelio. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:54, 25 July 2017 (UTC)