Talk:Joe Bevilacqua

This guy is editing his own article

He's using it as an ad, and he seems to be FAR below the noteworthy threshhold. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.126.150.31 (talk) 01:58, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

This article was created by a third party. I did go in and title and categorize the sections so they made sense. This is not an ad and every thing listed is documented. I am insulted at the suggestion that the work and awards listed here are below the threshold of interest. I would appreciate all the disclaimers at the top be taking off. And that the insulting comments posted here by others be removed.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Joebev (talk • contribs)

Please don't remove other people's comments from the talk page. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. They are not 'disclaimers' but notices that the article needs improving. They will remain there until the article is edited so that the content is based primarily on what has been written in newspapers and books. SmartSE (talk) 11:55, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

---

This is untrue. I am not connected to the subject. Only a fan.

These notes at the top only serve to confuse readers and discredit the facts that are there. Can you please remove this comment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.15.230.116 (talk) 20:34, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

• Hello, the tags at the top are not meant to be a Scarlet Letter, but rather explain that there are some issues that need to be addressed. There are actually tags specifically meant for use when the article is suspected to be untrue, none of which are used here. For example, the layout of the article right now doesn't meet up with the normal layouts for articles of this type. That's not a slam on the article, it is an invitation for those who know these things to fix it. Likewise, there are problems with external links (Amazon ones and other commercial sites are not usually appropriate to add), and the use of primary sources, as Wikipedia really wants to use sources that are unconnected with the subject. The NPR sources, for example, are good. Using Joe's site and links to the various shows are considered Primary, as they are all essentially his. Once these concerns are addressed/fixed, the tag comes off. Like I said, the tags are meant as quick notices of issues, and not badges of shame. Electric Wombat (talk) 20:44, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Removed links to commercial sites

I removed some references which were basically links to Amazon and other sites where you could then buy the work in question. Those don't really serve as references beyond confirming the mere existence of the work, and their inclusion to me crosses over into promotion. I left the text that states that his work is available at these outlets; an interested party can search for themselves should they wish to buy. Electric Wombat (talk) 17:07, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Reply: Thanks for doing it. I put any such links as references instead. Is it possible to remove these qualifying comments from the top? One of the reasons I thought the page should be updated is to get these comments about mistakes cleared off the page now that they have been corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.15.230.116 (talk) 20:36, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

• The Amazon links really don't belong at all. References are intended to provide a way for the average reader to verify the statements made. Using an Amazon page really doesn't fit that bill, apart from verifying the mere existence of the show in question. Since Amazon is a commercial site, and the page contains an obvious "click here to buy" link, using them as a reference gets too promotional in tone. Ideally references would point to third-party sources, such as NPR, newspapers, magazines, etc. More complete info on that can be found here. The guidelines on using external links can be found here. Thanks for your contributions! Electric Wombat (talk) 20:50, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Joe Bevilacqua hearing "voices" in his head, in his studio in Napanoch, NY.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:13, 26 October 2018 (UTC)