Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Yoninah ( talk) 19:05, 26 March 2020 (UTC) reply

(
)

Created by The C of E ( talk). Self-nominated at 18:56, 3 February 2020 (UTC). reply

  • At first glance, there's a lot of issues with the quality of the article. I went ahead and fixed the infobox, however a lot of information is mixed together under one subsection. I would suggest splitting the article into three – "Release and promotion", "Commercial performance", and "Live performances" – based on what's already present. Also try adding the single's cover art and check for dead links. Nice4What ( talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 19:38, 3 February 2020 (UTC) reply
  • @ Nice4What: I disagree. I think that with the content that there is there isn't really enough to justify splitting into 3 separate sections. There isn't enough on the promotion side (at least for the first release) to justify a separate section and the live performances would only cover the Brexit Day performance as I can't find anything about him performing it live elsewhere. That's why I thought it better to split it simply into the original release and background and the more covered re-release. The C of E God Save the Queen! ( talk) 22:43, 3 February 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Requesting an actual review, as I was just leaving a comment on the article's quality. Nice4What ( talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 14:59, 6 February 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Crikey! Do you really think that "fuck" is suitable for homepage exposure? The article gives the obvious alternative as "f**k"; that's much more appropriate IMHO. Schwede 66 18:35, 15 February 2020 (UTC) reply
  • ALT1:... that the British told the European Union to f**k off 17 million times?
    • WP:NOTCENSORED and that is the proper name of the article. Plus we have already featured hooks with "fuck" in them several times in the past. So no thank you, we'll stick with the original. The C of E God Save the Queen! ( talk) 20:27, 15 February 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Regardless on what hook wording is to be used, Nice4What's concerns about the article's formatting still needs to be addressed. The nomination may not be approved if there are still several issues that remain outstanding. Narutolovehinata5 t c csd new 00:08, 4 March 2020 (UTC) reply
  • The hook is semantically incorrect or at worst blatantly untrue. 17 million British people may have told the EU to fuck off (debatable), but the British did NOT tell the EU to fuck off 17 million times. For the hook to be true, either the British government or every person in the country has literally told the EU to fuck off, 17 million times. Furthermore, the hook is only vaguely related to the actual contents of the article which is about a song. If facts are to go out of the window and the hook is to be considered simply as a joke: I don't find it very funny. -- kingboyk ( talk) 06:16, 7 March 2020 (UTC) reply
    • OK, we can reword it so it's more like the song (referencing the chorus @ Kingboyk: and in keeping with the special April Fools day rules):
      • ALT1: ... that some British people sang to the European Union to fuck off, 17 million fuck offs? The C of E God Save the Queen! ( talk) 09:12, 7 March 2020 (UTC) reply
      • Just throwing out another idea: Perhaps my concerns could be addressed, without a major refactoring and without losing the attempt at humour, by changing to something like "that 17 million British people told the European Union to fuck off?" -- kingboyk ( talk) 19:56, 7 March 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Though it's quite hard to write a reasonable hook for this one, how about Kingsif ( talk) 18:20, 14 March 2020 (UTC) reply
  • ALT2:... that one Briton gave the EU 17 million fuck offs nine months early?
  • However, Nice4What, you must do a complete review of all the DYK criteria, not just an approval of the hook. A full review on that basis still needs to be done for this nomination. As this is an April Fools' hook, "newness" is a nomination made any time since April 1, 2019, not the typical seven days after creation/expansion; the rest of the criteria must be followed (sourcing, neutrality, close paraphrasing, copyvio, etc.), with some leeway on the wording of the hook per April Fools' rules. BlueMoonset ( talk) 22:23, 21 March 2020 (UTC) reply


General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
QPQ: Done.

Overall: The copyvio detector is timing out today (and previous days) for me, so I'm taking that in good faith. I think ALT0 is fine for 1 April - it hooked me, anyway (though see accuracy point below). Issues: I think the article might be improved by making some of the language more formal, e.g. The entire sentence beginning "He came up with it" is casual and clumsy. "Amazon" is singular in this context, so it should be "on its album charts", "its singles charts". "Where he had been due to stand" should be "In which ...". "in 2020 Frisby then started" doesn't need the word, "then". Song titles should be in italics where I come from - is there a house-style reason for using quote marks throughout, yet omitting quote marks from Ode to Joy? The last sentence is clumsy: "At it, he performed". The general point here is that vulgar humour works best in a context of formal language - the more formal the better, sometimes - because the formality acts as a good foil to the vulgarity, especially in British humour, which is what we have here. I also think that the ALTs may be more accurate than the initial hook, but they spoil the joke. If you just substitute "one Briton" for "the British" in ALT0, then that would be both accurate and funny (to Brits at least), in my opinion. Storye book ( talk) 19:26, 24 March 2020 (UTC) reply

  • Thank you for the amendments, C of E. It's good to go. Meanwhile, just a couple of points. The second mention of Ode to Joy still doesn't have its quote marks, which is an inconsistency. Also, please could you state which hook(s) you prefer, and/or suggest another one, then we can strike out the ones which are definitely not wanted. Storye book ( talk) 08:42, 25 March 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Storye book, The C of E, since ALT0 was deemed unacceptable as written by prior reviewers, it cannot now be accepted unchanged since the underlying issue hasn't changed. If you want to go with the "one Briton" variant, then let's list (and approve) that separately for clarity:
  • Blue, no such rule exists in either WP:DYKRULES or WP:DYKSG. I think there is nothing wrong with the original and @ Storye book: didn't either and that is my preference. Up to the reviewer for it, alt1a is ok but the original is closer to the song's actual chorus ("The British told them to fuck off/17 million fuck offs"). The C of E God Save the Queen! ( talk) 21:29, 25 March 2020 (UTC) reply
  • If as C of E says, ALT0 can be proved true, then I certainly think it's the best hook, because it's the most preposterous and therefore (in British humour) the funniest. It also has an elegant simplicity that gives it punch. Storye book ( talk) 22:36, 25 March 2020 (UTC) reply
  • The C of E, you've been around long enough to know that this is DYK practice: if a hook is deemed unacceptable by one or more reviewers and the article facts and sourcing don't change with regard to the matter, the hook shouldn't suddenly be approved if the issues still remain, even if another reviewer may view things differently. Indeed, prior reviewers typically return and point out that the hook still has problems, whereupon it is struck once more. But I'll make it simpler: I'm objecting to ALT0, I'm striking it again, and this nomination is not moving forward with that hook unless you can satisfy me that ALT0 is accurate and not misleading. As it says in the AFD Rules, Keep all hooks and articles completely truthful, but outrageous. As best I understand your argument, you're equating a song lyric with a statement of fact and intent by 17 million people, and I fail to see how that can be established as true. As always, you're welcome to take this to WT:DYK and try to gain consensus there, since time is running out. (As for ALT0a, it might read better with "a" rather than "one", but I don't have strong feelings either way.) BlueMoonset ( talk) 02:35, 26 March 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Re ALT0a: for what it's worth, "a Briton" sounds awkward and a bit weird. I can't quite put my finger on it, but maybe the weirdness is because that phrase just never gets used. If you really want to use "a" instead of "one", then "a Brit" sounds fine - although I'm not sure whether it's permissible to say "Brit" on WP? "One Briton" sounds right because historical texts tend to use that sort of phrase, although usually with a higher number. To sum up: if you choose ALT0a, that's fine by me, but please don't use "a Briton." Storye book ( talk) 10:54, 26 March 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Blue, you know that unless its in the official rules, it is not a rule. But I really do not want to keep arguing this. @ Storye book: I don't like the word "Brit" either but I can't see any other way around it beyond saying "a British man". I'll have to accept it. The C of E God Save the Queen! ( talk) 15:46, 26 March 2020 (UTC) reply

@ The C of E: Thank you for your comment. It looks as if we may be able to agree here, and get this thing finalised? Both Blue and I will accept ALT0a. But I'm not quite sure what it is that you are now resigned to accepting. If you are able to say that you will accept ALT0a as it is (with "one Briton" or "a Briton" or "a Brit"), then I can green tick it and it can go forward - I hope. Storye book ( talk) 16:25, 26 March 2020 (UTC) reply

@ Storye book: I think I'll have to stick with "a Brit" because it will probably get the most views. The C of E God Save the Queen! ( talk) 16:50, 26 March 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Green tick, with respect to the review template above, and the hook ALT0b: "... that a Brit told the European Union to fuck off 17 million times?" which I understand has been accepted by BlueMoonset and The C of E. Thank you, everybody, for your patience with this one. I hope all will go smoothly now. Storye book ( talk) 17:02, 26 March 2020 (UTC) reply

request edit

Hi

My name is Dominic Frisby and I wrote the song 17 Million Fuck-Offs which is the subject of this page.

There are just a couple of inaccuracies in the entry which I thought I should point out

It says on the Amazon charts "it got to number number 1 on their album charts and number 8 on their singles charts". This is not true - it was number one on both between March 25 and April 4. Guido (the cited source) got it wrong. See the screenshots at - <ref> https://dominicfrisby.com/news/just-for-the-record<ref>

Also I don't think the Ode To Joy campaign was in response to me. EU activists already had their own campaign to get Ode to Joy to number 1. The reality is both songs came quite a long way short. But Ode To Joy did get to #1 in the official downloads charts, and 17 Million to The song got to #2 in the official downloads charts - <ref> https://www.officialcharts.com/charts/singles-downloads-chart/20200131/7000/<ref>

Also I did not so much encourage the crowd to sing the bad language in Parliament Square, my words were "I have replaced the keyword with "fudge". However, if you want to sing the keyword, that is your decision and not mine, and I doubt they'll arrest 50,000 of you" See here at around 4.33 - https://www.kansascity-comiccon.com/brexit-celebrations-dominic-frisby-sings-17-million-f-off-39-s-vid0BxiUdjV07gHd — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frizzers ( talk • contribs) 15:47, 9 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Thanks

DF Frizzers ( talk) 15:39, 9 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Reply 9-FEB-2020

  Unable to implement  

  1. With regards to the Amazon claim, the provided source is a screenshot posted on a blog, neither of which can be taken to be reliable sources.
  2. With regards to the latter two requests, the claims made speak to the personal thoughts (on the Ode To Joy campaign) and the personal motivations (whether there was encouragement or not made to the crowd) of the artist who created the single. No proof has been offered that the requesting editor is indeed the person who created the single. [a] Thus, their word cannot be taken that the personal motivations and thoughts claimed by the requesting editor constitute the actual thoughts and motivations of the artist who created the single. [b]

Regards,  Spintendo  21:11, 9 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Spintendo, I wish it had not been suggested that the editor attempt to verify their identity. While OTRS is the right place to do it, verification is not easy (for example, we do not accept documents such as passports or licences). I've worked on several verification requests and they are often very challenging. As you added in the second footnote, what's the point? Even if they verify their identity, Wikipedia isn't going to edit based upon their word, we need published, reliable sources. S Philbrick (Talk) 12:55, 10 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Notes

  1. ^ If the requesting COI editor has proof that they are the artist who created the single, they may — if they so wish — provide this proof to Wikipedia directly by contacting them via email at info-en-q@wikimedia.org. However, please note that verification of identity alone will not get the requesting editor what they want. Other sources must be provided (see note B below).
  2. ^ Even if verification is provided, Wikipedia does not operate on an artist's personal word. Verification should ideally be provided from reliable, WP:SECONDARY sources. If the claims already made and referenced within the article are found to be dubious, the best that could be done without providing additional secondary sources is that the claims would be either removed or marked with the {{ dubious}} inline template.


Thank you for your response, and your points are noted.

Regarding the position the song reached in the Amazon charts. If you read to the bottom of the source which you reference ( "17 Million F**k O**s". Guido Fawkes. 2019-03-21. Retrieved 2020-02-03) it says at the very bottom "UPDATE III: The song has made it to #1 in the Amazon singles charts!".    https://order-order.com/2019/03/21/17-million-fk-os-2/ The wiki article has not properly cited the source.

Regarding the point of the encouragement of the crowds, there is a link to here to a video of the song the song being performed at Parliament Square. The point in question is around 4.30 and you can see what was actually said, as as opposed to what a journalist said was said.   https://www.kansascity-comiccon.com/brexit-celebrations-dominic-frisby-sings-17-million-f-off-39-s-vid0BxiUdjV07gHd The stated words were, "I have replaced the keyword with "fudge". However, if you want to sing the keyword, that is your decision and not mine, and I doubt they'll arrest 50,000 of you"

Thank you for your time with this. I apologize for being pushy. I am only trying to get the correct version of events recorded.

Yours,

Frizzers

Frizzers ( talk) 16:08, 11 February 2020 (UTC) reply

@ Frizzers:: If it would help, I have amended the Parliament Square article to clarify it (For the record, I did watch it on the livestream!), the problem is that we can't really use Youtube sources where they're hosted as they could easily get deleted. And for the Amazon charts, I apologise for the omission and have amended it. The C of E God Save the Queen! ( talk) 09:09, 18 February 2020 (UTC) reply
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:17_Million_Fuck_Offs&oldid=1195729692"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Yoninah ( talk) 19:05, 26 March 2020 (UTC) reply

(
)

Created by The C of E ( talk). Self-nominated at 18:56, 3 February 2020 (UTC). reply

  • At first glance, there's a lot of issues with the quality of the article. I went ahead and fixed the infobox, however a lot of information is mixed together under one subsection. I would suggest splitting the article into three – "Release and promotion", "Commercial performance", and "Live performances" – based on what's already present. Also try adding the single's cover art and check for dead links. Nice4What ( talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 19:38, 3 February 2020 (UTC) reply
  • @ Nice4What: I disagree. I think that with the content that there is there isn't really enough to justify splitting into 3 separate sections. There isn't enough on the promotion side (at least for the first release) to justify a separate section and the live performances would only cover the Brexit Day performance as I can't find anything about him performing it live elsewhere. That's why I thought it better to split it simply into the original release and background and the more covered re-release. The C of E God Save the Queen! ( talk) 22:43, 3 February 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Requesting an actual review, as I was just leaving a comment on the article's quality. Nice4What ( talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 14:59, 6 February 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Crikey! Do you really think that "fuck" is suitable for homepage exposure? The article gives the obvious alternative as "f**k"; that's much more appropriate IMHO. Schwede 66 18:35, 15 February 2020 (UTC) reply
  • ALT1:... that the British told the European Union to f**k off 17 million times?
    • WP:NOTCENSORED and that is the proper name of the article. Plus we have already featured hooks with "fuck" in them several times in the past. So no thank you, we'll stick with the original. The C of E God Save the Queen! ( talk) 20:27, 15 February 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Regardless on what hook wording is to be used, Nice4What's concerns about the article's formatting still needs to be addressed. The nomination may not be approved if there are still several issues that remain outstanding. Narutolovehinata5 t c csd new 00:08, 4 March 2020 (UTC) reply
  • The hook is semantically incorrect or at worst blatantly untrue. 17 million British people may have told the EU to fuck off (debatable), but the British did NOT tell the EU to fuck off 17 million times. For the hook to be true, either the British government or every person in the country has literally told the EU to fuck off, 17 million times. Furthermore, the hook is only vaguely related to the actual contents of the article which is about a song. If facts are to go out of the window and the hook is to be considered simply as a joke: I don't find it very funny. -- kingboyk ( talk) 06:16, 7 March 2020 (UTC) reply
    • OK, we can reword it so it's more like the song (referencing the chorus @ Kingboyk: and in keeping with the special April Fools day rules):
      • ALT1: ... that some British people sang to the European Union to fuck off, 17 million fuck offs? The C of E God Save the Queen! ( talk) 09:12, 7 March 2020 (UTC) reply
      • Just throwing out another idea: Perhaps my concerns could be addressed, without a major refactoring and without losing the attempt at humour, by changing to something like "that 17 million British people told the European Union to fuck off?" -- kingboyk ( talk) 19:56, 7 March 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Though it's quite hard to write a reasonable hook for this one, how about Kingsif ( talk) 18:20, 14 March 2020 (UTC) reply
  • ALT2:... that one Briton gave the EU 17 million fuck offs nine months early?
  • However, Nice4What, you must do a complete review of all the DYK criteria, not just an approval of the hook. A full review on that basis still needs to be done for this nomination. As this is an April Fools' hook, "newness" is a nomination made any time since April 1, 2019, not the typical seven days after creation/expansion; the rest of the criteria must be followed (sourcing, neutrality, close paraphrasing, copyvio, etc.), with some leeway on the wording of the hook per April Fools' rules. BlueMoonset ( talk) 22:23, 21 March 2020 (UTC) reply


General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
QPQ: Done.

Overall: The copyvio detector is timing out today (and previous days) for me, so I'm taking that in good faith. I think ALT0 is fine for 1 April - it hooked me, anyway (though see accuracy point below). Issues: I think the article might be improved by making some of the language more formal, e.g. The entire sentence beginning "He came up with it" is casual and clumsy. "Amazon" is singular in this context, so it should be "on its album charts", "its singles charts". "Where he had been due to stand" should be "In which ...". "in 2020 Frisby then started" doesn't need the word, "then". Song titles should be in italics where I come from - is there a house-style reason for using quote marks throughout, yet omitting quote marks from Ode to Joy? The last sentence is clumsy: "At it, he performed". The general point here is that vulgar humour works best in a context of formal language - the more formal the better, sometimes - because the formality acts as a good foil to the vulgarity, especially in British humour, which is what we have here. I also think that the ALTs may be more accurate than the initial hook, but they spoil the joke. If you just substitute "one Briton" for "the British" in ALT0, then that would be both accurate and funny (to Brits at least), in my opinion. Storye book ( talk) 19:26, 24 March 2020 (UTC) reply

  • Thank you for the amendments, C of E. It's good to go. Meanwhile, just a couple of points. The second mention of Ode to Joy still doesn't have its quote marks, which is an inconsistency. Also, please could you state which hook(s) you prefer, and/or suggest another one, then we can strike out the ones which are definitely not wanted. Storye book ( talk) 08:42, 25 March 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Storye book, The C of E, since ALT0 was deemed unacceptable as written by prior reviewers, it cannot now be accepted unchanged since the underlying issue hasn't changed. If you want to go with the "one Briton" variant, then let's list (and approve) that separately for clarity:
  • Blue, no such rule exists in either WP:DYKRULES or WP:DYKSG. I think there is nothing wrong with the original and @ Storye book: didn't either and that is my preference. Up to the reviewer for it, alt1a is ok but the original is closer to the song's actual chorus ("The British told them to fuck off/17 million fuck offs"). The C of E God Save the Queen! ( talk) 21:29, 25 March 2020 (UTC) reply
  • If as C of E says, ALT0 can be proved true, then I certainly think it's the best hook, because it's the most preposterous and therefore (in British humour) the funniest. It also has an elegant simplicity that gives it punch. Storye book ( talk) 22:36, 25 March 2020 (UTC) reply
  • The C of E, you've been around long enough to know that this is DYK practice: if a hook is deemed unacceptable by one or more reviewers and the article facts and sourcing don't change with regard to the matter, the hook shouldn't suddenly be approved if the issues still remain, even if another reviewer may view things differently. Indeed, prior reviewers typically return and point out that the hook still has problems, whereupon it is struck once more. But I'll make it simpler: I'm objecting to ALT0, I'm striking it again, and this nomination is not moving forward with that hook unless you can satisfy me that ALT0 is accurate and not misleading. As it says in the AFD Rules, Keep all hooks and articles completely truthful, but outrageous. As best I understand your argument, you're equating a song lyric with a statement of fact and intent by 17 million people, and I fail to see how that can be established as true. As always, you're welcome to take this to WT:DYK and try to gain consensus there, since time is running out. (As for ALT0a, it might read better with "a" rather than "one", but I don't have strong feelings either way.) BlueMoonset ( talk) 02:35, 26 March 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Re ALT0a: for what it's worth, "a Briton" sounds awkward and a bit weird. I can't quite put my finger on it, but maybe the weirdness is because that phrase just never gets used. If you really want to use "a" instead of "one", then "a Brit" sounds fine - although I'm not sure whether it's permissible to say "Brit" on WP? "One Briton" sounds right because historical texts tend to use that sort of phrase, although usually with a higher number. To sum up: if you choose ALT0a, that's fine by me, but please don't use "a Briton." Storye book ( talk) 10:54, 26 March 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Blue, you know that unless its in the official rules, it is not a rule. But I really do not want to keep arguing this. @ Storye book: I don't like the word "Brit" either but I can't see any other way around it beyond saying "a British man". I'll have to accept it. The C of E God Save the Queen! ( talk) 15:46, 26 March 2020 (UTC) reply

@ The C of E: Thank you for your comment. It looks as if we may be able to agree here, and get this thing finalised? Both Blue and I will accept ALT0a. But I'm not quite sure what it is that you are now resigned to accepting. If you are able to say that you will accept ALT0a as it is (with "one Briton" or "a Briton" or "a Brit"), then I can green tick it and it can go forward - I hope. Storye book ( talk) 16:25, 26 March 2020 (UTC) reply

@ Storye book: I think I'll have to stick with "a Brit" because it will probably get the most views. The C of E God Save the Queen! ( talk) 16:50, 26 March 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Green tick, with respect to the review template above, and the hook ALT0b: "... that a Brit told the European Union to fuck off 17 million times?" which I understand has been accepted by BlueMoonset and The C of E. Thank you, everybody, for your patience with this one. I hope all will go smoothly now. Storye book ( talk) 17:02, 26 March 2020 (UTC) reply

request edit

Hi

My name is Dominic Frisby and I wrote the song 17 Million Fuck-Offs which is the subject of this page.

There are just a couple of inaccuracies in the entry which I thought I should point out

It says on the Amazon charts "it got to number number 1 on their album charts and number 8 on their singles charts". This is not true - it was number one on both between March 25 and April 4. Guido (the cited source) got it wrong. See the screenshots at - <ref> https://dominicfrisby.com/news/just-for-the-record<ref>

Also I don't think the Ode To Joy campaign was in response to me. EU activists already had their own campaign to get Ode to Joy to number 1. The reality is both songs came quite a long way short. But Ode To Joy did get to #1 in the official downloads charts, and 17 Million to The song got to #2 in the official downloads charts - <ref> https://www.officialcharts.com/charts/singles-downloads-chart/20200131/7000/<ref>

Also I did not so much encourage the crowd to sing the bad language in Parliament Square, my words were "I have replaced the keyword with "fudge". However, if you want to sing the keyword, that is your decision and not mine, and I doubt they'll arrest 50,000 of you" See here at around 4.33 - https://www.kansascity-comiccon.com/brexit-celebrations-dominic-frisby-sings-17-million-f-off-39-s-vid0BxiUdjV07gHd — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frizzers ( talk • contribs) 15:47, 9 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Thanks

DF Frizzers ( talk) 15:39, 9 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Reply 9-FEB-2020

  Unable to implement  

  1. With regards to the Amazon claim, the provided source is a screenshot posted on a blog, neither of which can be taken to be reliable sources.
  2. With regards to the latter two requests, the claims made speak to the personal thoughts (on the Ode To Joy campaign) and the personal motivations (whether there was encouragement or not made to the crowd) of the artist who created the single. No proof has been offered that the requesting editor is indeed the person who created the single. [a] Thus, their word cannot be taken that the personal motivations and thoughts claimed by the requesting editor constitute the actual thoughts and motivations of the artist who created the single. [b]

Regards,  Spintendo  21:11, 9 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Spintendo, I wish it had not been suggested that the editor attempt to verify their identity. While OTRS is the right place to do it, verification is not easy (for example, we do not accept documents such as passports or licences). I've worked on several verification requests and they are often very challenging. As you added in the second footnote, what's the point? Even if they verify their identity, Wikipedia isn't going to edit based upon their word, we need published, reliable sources. S Philbrick (Talk) 12:55, 10 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Notes

  1. ^ If the requesting COI editor has proof that they are the artist who created the single, they may — if they so wish — provide this proof to Wikipedia directly by contacting them via email at info-en-q@wikimedia.org. However, please note that verification of identity alone will not get the requesting editor what they want. Other sources must be provided (see note B below).
  2. ^ Even if verification is provided, Wikipedia does not operate on an artist's personal word. Verification should ideally be provided from reliable, WP:SECONDARY sources. If the claims already made and referenced within the article are found to be dubious, the best that could be done without providing additional secondary sources is that the claims would be either removed or marked with the {{ dubious}} inline template.


Thank you for your response, and your points are noted.

Regarding the position the song reached in the Amazon charts. If you read to the bottom of the source which you reference ( "17 Million F**k O**s". Guido Fawkes. 2019-03-21. Retrieved 2020-02-03) it says at the very bottom "UPDATE III: The song has made it to #1 in the Amazon singles charts!".    https://order-order.com/2019/03/21/17-million-fk-os-2/ The wiki article has not properly cited the source.

Regarding the point of the encouragement of the crowds, there is a link to here to a video of the song the song being performed at Parliament Square. The point in question is around 4.30 and you can see what was actually said, as as opposed to what a journalist said was said.   https://www.kansascity-comiccon.com/brexit-celebrations-dominic-frisby-sings-17-million-f-off-39-s-vid0BxiUdjV07gHd The stated words were, "I have replaced the keyword with "fudge". However, if you want to sing the keyword, that is your decision and not mine, and I doubt they'll arrest 50,000 of you"

Thank you for your time with this. I apologize for being pushy. I am only trying to get the correct version of events recorded.

Yours,

Frizzers

Frizzers ( talk) 16:08, 11 February 2020 (UTC) reply

@ Frizzers:: If it would help, I have amended the Parliament Square article to clarify it (For the record, I did watch it on the livestream!), the problem is that we can't really use Youtube sources where they're hosted as they could easily get deleted. And for the Amazon charts, I apologise for the omission and have amended it. The C of E God Save the Queen! ( talk) 09:09, 18 February 2020 (UTC) reply
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:17_Million_Fuck_Offs&oldid=1195729692"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE