Talk:Yesterday Was a Lie

Conflict of interest / sockpuppet discussions

Resolved The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Conflict of interest

Resolved

 – I'm boldly archiving this and have removed the COI tag which remains a clean-up tag. That article doesn't read as overly POV, at all. If there is indeed need for COI tagging please start a new thread and clearly spell out what article clean-up needs to take place instead of simply alleging that problems may exist because of potential connections to the subject of the article by one, some or many of those editing the article. -- Banjeboi 02:39, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I have tagged this article with a COI tag, since an examination of contributions indicates that at least four of the accounts used to edit the article: Helicon Arts Cooperative, Sorrywrongnumber, Boxcarwillie and Filmsnoir are all single purpose accounts used (basically) only to edit this and related articles, such as those of the actors and creative staff involved in the film. In addition, several dozen IPs, all from the same area (69.23x.xxx.xxx), are likely to be COI editors as well.

Because of this I have extensively reworked the article, removing promotional language and formatting and generally wikifying it. I have also left COI messages on the talk pages of the above accounts, and on some (but not all) of the IPs. Sach (talk) 07:47, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I also note that in the AfD discussion which took place a year or so ago, Sorrywrongnumber voted to keep, as did one 69.23x.xx.xx IP and one other editor User:2Misters who had only 2 previous edits and has not edited since. This strongly suggests that the AfD vote was socked to a Keep.

I'm not suggesting that the article should be deleted, it seems to me to be notable enough, but it does appear quite possible that the producers of the film are manipulating the encyclopedia for their own commercial purposes. Sach (talk) 08:00, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

You are in violation of WP:3RR and WP:AGF. Although I corrected the spelling of an actor's name and corrected the credit order, you accused me of "introducing promotional material." You also left abusive accusations on editors' talk pages accusing them of COI, when it is on fact rapidly becoming clear that you have the COI.166.205.130.225 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:37, 12 November 2009 (UTC).

I always strive for accuracy: what actors name did I mispell? If you're refrring to John Haymes Newton, that is the title of his article here on Wikipedia, so the proper way for him to be referenced in a Wikipedia article. There's no need for a piped alias. Sach (talk) 08:50, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

So, a bunch of the 69.23x.xxx.xxx IP editors have come out of the woodwork to improperly delete this discussion without participating in it, and remove the COI tag from the article. Unfortunately, by doing so they (or rather, he or she) has rather proved my point. Sach (talk) 09:08, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Just to get back to basics, the state of the article before I worked it is here. I think a comparison to the current state will show that my edits were an improvement, but that's not really the issue here. I've raised what appears to me to be a legitimate COI concern, which is only being confirmed by the actions of the IP editor who is now vandalizing the article to remove the COI tag, and this talk page to remove this discussion. Clearly, there are deep feelings here, which, again, points to a serious COI concern. Sach (talk) 09:23, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and note the user talk page discussions here and here. Sach (talk) 09:27, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps it points to a COI concern, or perhaps it doesn't. If it does, then that logic cuts both ways, and we can reasonably conclude that you have a COI as well. A one-day old account pops up out of the blue and suddenly starts reverting credits on a film article, so that they are different from those on the film's official site? Who would do that, other than an individual with a COI? Either way, it is not your place to make sock allagations against other editors on Talk pages. Such accusations are taken very seriously and should be directed at admins on the appropriate forums, not like this. If you are wrong - and there is currently no hard evidence that you are right - then you are needlessly slandering editors and pointlessly watering down an article's information. That is why there are rules about how to handle such concerns, and you are violating all if them. But obviously, you do appear to care about Wiki policy - you only appear, in fact, to care about reordering a film's credits, which is just too suspicious.166.205.130.225 (talk) 09:37, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I've filed a COI complaint here. Sach (talk) 09:45, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I'm responding from the post at WT:FILM. There seems to be a lot of back and forth here. Some of the edits done I support, some I do not. I don't know what particular evidence you have regarding COI, but be sure you've posted your concerns at the article talk page regarding that. I'm not clear why you removed the producer credit, Chase Masterson is in fact credited as a producer on IMDB and on the official web page. The credits order is what is given both on IMDB and on the official webpage and I've verified that the article John Haymes Newton is the James Newton listed on IMDB and the webpage. That there is a disambiguation regarding the actor's name is an internal Wikipedia issue, he doesn't appear to be credited that way all the time and in fact, the "Haymes" is included as an "appeared as" name. The issue there is the actor's article needs to be disambiguated differently. I reinserted the citations you added, but a more specific page is needed for one of them besides the general webpage for the events. The Park City Film Music Festival link does confirm the film ran there and the Director's Choice Award, but not the dates. I found a more supportive cite for WonderCon. Mostly, this needs to be discussed and issues settled. There is nothing productive in edit-warring or the verbal bickering in either direction. File the COI report, let it be investigated and please stop slinging mud both ways. Wildhartlivie (talk) 10:05, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

For the benefit of those reading this comment here, I responded to it on my talk page, to the effect that I have no problem whatsoever with Wildhartlivie's edits, and that, specifically, the removal of Chase Masterson as producer was basically an error on my part. I do want to add, however, that I don't believe I have slung any mud at any time in this discussion -- it certainly never was my intention to do so, and I think a re-reading of the various threads will confirm that I didn't. I raised what I believe is a legitimate issue and, lo and behold, chaos ensued. I leave it to the reader to draw their own conclusions about why, exactly, that would be the case.

In any event, I extend my thanks to both Piano non troppo and Wildhartlivie for stepping in and helping to restore some calmth. Sach (talk) 10:14, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Note: When you violate WP:AGF by accusing editors of beings socks or aliases without an admin having verified it in advance, you are always going to cause chaos. Those accusations had (and have) no place on an article's talk page.166.205.130.225 (talk) 10:25, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I believe you would benefit from taking a closer look at WP:AGF, since you seem to fundamentally misunderstand it and the process by which Wikipedia functions.

As for my COI comments, they are, in fact, required to be here, to justify the COI tag I placed. Sach (talk) 10:30, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sockpuppet-induced consensus

Resolved

 – I'm archiving the discussion below, as they involved SPA/COI sockpuppets discussing amongst themselves to establish a bogus "consensus" in order to edit the article in non-neutral manner. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:11, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Reviews

Respectfully I think that a bit of bias was introduced into the article re: the Variety review which I am trying to correct. I welcome discussion. Specifically, stating that Variety was critical of the film's plot does not ring true with the review itself, which praises the script as "ambitious" and "refreshingly high-minded." The Lynch quote that you used, and the statement that the film leads to grand yet underwhelming revelations, does not read like a criticism to me (I saw the film two days ago, and indeed, that is kind of the whole point of the movie). Also, while the review criticizes the film's acting style, it then goes on to say it is forgivable. Not presenting both points, I believe, biases this article. Finally, stating that the film received positive reviews "earlier in its festival run" discounts the fact that many, if not most, of the reviews cited occurred after the festival run ended. 2Misters (talk) 07:36, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with two things in the article as it stands, and am editing boldly to change them. 1, I don't see why the Variety review should be on top because it is "the most important"? Whether Variety is any more or less important than the Times, Weekly, or Film Threat is very subjective. The standard order is good reviews on top, then mixed, then bad. I see no reason to change that. (Also, I don't understand the significance of singling out that the fact that Variety's review came out after the film's release, as if that somehow makes it important.. reviews always come out before a film's theatrical release, as it seems most of these reviews have.. the fact that Variety came out afterward kinda makes Variety less credible.) 2, I think if you're going to single out certain quotes from the Variety review attacking the acting, you need to balance that with the fact that almost all the other reviews praised the acting. 166.205.136.251 (talk) 08:09, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, agreed, will change accordingly. Also, forgot to mention before that I am uncertain why the other editor changed the runtime from 89 to 88 minutes... IMDb and the theatre chain exhibiting the film (http://www.laemmle.com/viewmovie.php?mid=5458) both list it as 89. 2Misters (talk) 08:20, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

The citation link about the Allmovie Blog was broken; can find no citable references to a review there which was subsequently retracted, so I have struck that. Also included some specific critcisms from the negative reviews to provide balance. I do think it's significant to reintroduce the fact that the Weekly blurb was posted by a college student and not a staff critic from the paper, so I have done so (a previous editor erased this line w/o explanation, and I think that biases the article). Finally, I wanna say that I agree with the IP above that Variety isn't necessarily 'more important' than the others. A quick check shows that Epoch Times, for example, has a circulation of 1.4 million, while Variety's is 31,000. Somaterc (talk) 10:08, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Reception

Hey I'm new to this, so please forgive me if I'm not going about this correctly. I believe some bias is present in the reception section of this article, particularly in use of the name of the LA Weekly critic, John Wheeler. Mentioning that he is a college student is irrelevant to quoting a review he wrote for the LA Weekly, and citing an article he wrote for a college paper only serves to verify that irrelevant admission. That information seems like an attempt to discredit the critic, which would indicate bias. It is irrelevant in any case. Rollins12 (talk) 05:14, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Hm, that's a tough one. On one hand I see your point, but on the other, L.A. Weekly is a pretty major paper, so its unusual to have a film reviewed by someone who isn't a staff critic, and that alone might make it notable. Does it discredit the critic? To an extent, it does make the review weigh less than if it was written by a professional critic. So does that mean it should be omitted? Well, we don't omit facts from Wikipedia just because they are "uncomfortable." An argument could be made, like the earlier editor did, that omitting this fact would bias the article. But, since overall the film appears to have gotten positive reviews, and these appear to be the only negative ones, I'm not certain that facts which slightly undermine one of the negative reviews are necessary to provide balance, in this particular case. So I guess I agree with you; let's strike that part. 76.176.7.158 (talk) 00:19, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

An observation

It's amazing the incredible attraction of this article to first-time editors! Apparently, people must have seen the movie and been overcome with an irresistible desire to edit the talk page of the Wikipedia article about the film!! Let's see how many brand-new accounts and first-time IP editors we can accumulate, and how many corners of the same mouth they can speak out of. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:46, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's an interesting observation. You, for example, set up an account a week before the film's release and have been busy editing not only this page, but the pages of virtually everyone associated with the film. I notice that the other new editors have been arguing with each other about notability, etc., and reverting each others' edits, so I doubt they are the "same" mouth. Although, if you know something that we don't, then you are strongly encouraged to take it to the admins. If not, your observation would be what we politely call "assuming bad faith," or at the very least "a waste of time." 76.176.7.158 (talk) 23:05, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Good point!! Right now, your four edits to Yesterday Was a Lie-related articles constitute 57% of your seven edits, while my contributions to articles related to that film constitue 2% of my 903 edits, and only 5 of the 256 unique articles I've edited – so, clearly, I must be the one with an agenda, and all that editing is just a gigantic smokescreen!!!

As for taking it to the admins – eveything in the fullness of time. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:55, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

76.176.7.158, please do not contribute to bickering. Ken, if you have something productive to contribute to this or any article, please do so. If you feel there is biased or non-neutral material being inserted into an article by a party or parties with a COI, please report it (not "in the fullness of time"; there is no purpose in waiting). As of now, you appear to be making the same blanket allegations that H Debussy-Jones ("Sach") did earlier (in fact, your account was opened exactly at the point when Sach disappeared and stopped editing; like him, you appear to be at least somewhat focused on this film and filmmakers). Anyway, as the admins told "Sach" before, if you feel there is a problem with this (or any) article's content, then fix it now, or forever hold your peace. The talk page is no place for bad faith allegations and finger-pointing that do not further an article's accuracy. Thanks guys, and have a good Christmas! 2Misters (talk) 03:31, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppet complaint

A sockpuppet complaint has been filed here, in which the editing of this and related articles is central. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:44, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The result of this complaint was:

Confirmed the following appear to be matches:

1. Helicon Arts Cooperative (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki · SI)
2. Cubert (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki · SI)
3. Smokefree (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki · SI)
4. 2Misters (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki · SI)
5. Somaterc (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki · SI)
6. Filmsnoir (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki · SI)

Therefore the supposed "consensus" reached above to downplay the positioning of the Variety review in the article is, in fact, bogus, since it was the result of discussions which took place between sockpuppets. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:08, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I have returned the article to the state it was in before the editing done by the now-blocked sockpuppets. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:03, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Changes to this article

This article was under the control of a sockfarm, which has now been blocked. One of the things they did was to attempt to bury an semi-uncomplimentary Variety review deeper into the article, and to substitue higher up less authoritative source. This film is due for home video release soon, and the sockfarm started up again just recently, probably in an attempt to "fix" the article to their liking in time for that release. Now, an IP editor is making similar changes, so I believe that any edits this IP wishes to make should be discussed here first. This article will not be helped by another attempt to re-shape in a non-POV way. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:05, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

The artile does not appear to be under the control of any sock farm for months; it appears to be under the control of you. You admitted here that you accidentally introduced contradictory information in the review section of the article during an edit war. The article needs improvement for accuracy and contradictory information; it is C-class and the deletion nom resulted in a consensus that third parties should visit the page (that means not you - you are too close to it). I recommend you step back. Violating 3RR as you just did, forbiding others from editing your article, etc. unless they talk about it with you, etc. is a violation of WP:OWN. 208.88.120.86 (talk) 03:11, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Rather than an ownership dispute, please be specific as to what content I introduced that feel is inaccurate. Your refering to an uncomplimentary Variety review; but i didn't move that review at all. Also it wasnt uncomplimentary; its a positive review and if anything it looks like you tried to phrase it as if it were a negative review and then got mad whenevr anyone tried to correct you. It looks like theres maybe some bias here so again, please step back. 208.88.120.86 (talk) 03:14, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

The article's been semi-protected by an admin, so if you have any suggestions, you should make them here and they can be discussed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:01, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I have made the following changes to the article for the reasons listed below. Please point out any inaccuracies: WikiProject Films says the article needs improvement. I read the deletion nom and I agree it's got inconsistencies. In the nom discussion this was said by the nominater: "Accuracy is in question because there are inconsistencies. Variety review is the most notable review, but the remainder of "Reception" section is wierd: "During the film's earlier festival run it received generally positive reviews." But then the reviews listed as having occurred during the "earlier festival run" include 3 reviews that it looks like were written during the theatrical run according to the cites. Then it says the film got "generally positive reviews" during its festival run "with certain notable exceptions." However, no exceptions are provided. So on second thought maybe there is some COI going on here? I think it needs fresh editors if we're keeping." To this, User:Beyond My Ken answered: "That's a fair point -- the reception section was subject to a good amount of back-and-forth editing as the sockpuppets tried to put the film in the best possible light, and other editors, including myself, tried to keep the section as accurate and neutral as possible. This is almost certainly the cause of the discontinuities that you point out. I agree that fresh editors with fresh eyes would be a good idea." So Beyond agreed that there were what he called "inconsistencies" in the article's data due to "back-and-forth" editing that he was involved in. He agreed that a fresh editor (not him) should fix. I point out that when a fresh editor (me) goes in and corrected these contradictions, Beyond 3RRed me by saying that he will not "allow" the article to be edited that way. "Allow" was the word he used. I feel I accurately and honestly in good faith tried to fix the following contradictions: The Varirety review of the movie was positive. (DeBruge is a Top Critic with RT that means he controls how his reviews are posted.) Before I edited it, this article read like the Variety review was (in Beyond My Ken's words) a semi-uncomplimentary review. Phrses from the review were cherry picked to make it sound bad. (For exmaple, Nothing in the review criticized the movies plot at all, yet Beyond My Ken wrote that it did. That was just bad information. I corrected this and wrote, in good faith, what RT and Metacritic said. Second, Beyond had written it so it said that the film only received positive reviews during it's festival run. But like was pointed out in the deletion nom, the examples given weren't during the fest run. Beyond also said there were notable exceptions, but there aren't. So I fixed this. The result was that Beyond swooped in and 3RRed. Again if my facts are wrong please clarify how. Thank you. DivaOfDan (talk) 04:13, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

All the comments made in the second AfD were made before I cleaned up the article, so are not relevant now. Please discuss what improvements the article needs based on the state it is in now. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:19, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Please, man, I just did. Please address what I am saying. Please read it, and address it. Whatever you "cleaned up" (I thought an uninvolved third party was supposed to do that - at least that's what you said in the deletion nom - what happened to that?) you still did not fix the following errors in the article:

1. The Variety review of the movie was positive. (Please see Rotten Tomatoes.) This article reads like the Variety review was (in your words) a semi-uncomplimentary review. Phrases from the review are cherry picked to make it sound bad. (For exmaple, nothing in the review criticized the movies plot at all, yet the article says that it did.)

2. The article says that the film only received positive reviews during it's festival run. But like was pointed out in the deletion nom, the examples that are currently given weren't during the fest run - at leats, three out of six of them weren't. What say you to that?

3. The article says there are "notable exceptions" to the positive reviews the film got during it's festival run. But there aren't any listed, and I can't find any.

Again, please just tell us the honest truth as to why you won't let simple fixes like that through. It's really looking like you hve something personal at stake here. DivaOfDan (talk) 04:33, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Nope, nothing personal at all. I have no connection to film, and never heard of it before the sockfarm that was controlling it came to my attention. To be fair, I will take another look at the article right now, with your suggestions in mind. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:36, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

You crossed the line, jerk. You spray a sock tag on my uder page with no evidence? I dare you to checkuser me. And this coming from somebody who it looks like is himself a sock? Piss off. DivaOfDan (talk) 04:37, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, with this and the message on my talk page telling me to "fuck off", I guess the romance is out of our relationship, huh?

If any established editor -- not an IP and not a brand new account -- is interested in taking up these arguments, I'll be glad to discuss anything with them, but as far as this person is concerned, I'm blind. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:42, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Of course your blind, because I called you on your bullshit. So much for editing to make WIkipedia a more accurate place, eh? All you fucking care about is your ownership of your article, douchbag. And no, I don't believe for two seconds you don't have something to do with this film. It's written all over your face. DivaOfDan (talk) 04:45, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

This user has now been blocked indefinitely as a sock of Sorrywrongnumber, so I'm going to include this thread in the archive above. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:47, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Not a sock, and checkuser will confirm. My issues are valid. Address them or get off the pot. 208.88.120.88 (talk) 05:52, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

A note to editors about this article

It's been claimed that I want to "own" this article. I don't. I don't really care much about the film it's about, but I also don't want the article to be edited by people intent on skewing it in a way that distorts the available factual information about the film. Given the long history of a sockfarm that controlled this article, and many other articles connected to the film, it's only natural that I would be suspicious of brand new editors or IP editors who attempt to move the article back to the state it was in when they sockfarm essentially ran it -- so please understand that if I seem less than open and lacking in AGF a bit, it's that checkered history that explains it.

I'm more than happy to discuss any changes with those editors at any time here on the talk page, and, of course, I don't interfere with edits made by established editors who are interested in improving it. Again, I don't "own" this article, but I do try to look out for it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:56, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

If you'r eso interested in "factual information" then why the insistence on inserting propaganda? Man you know you worke don this film - your gig is up, just drop it already and step back. Your cover is blown Ed Fitzgerald. 208.88.120.88 (talk) 05:59, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Broken links

Citation 18 is a dead link. Citation 19 goes to a totally random website. Article is locked so it can't be edited. Shouldn't someone with edit privileges remove these links? 208.88.120.85 (talk) 05:01, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Citation 18 is indeed a dead link, and is labelled as one. Since the Allmovie Blog review of the film that it originally supported seems no longer to be available, I have deleted the mention of it. That citation 19 was originally added by one of Sorrywrongnumber's sockpuppets to show that the reviewer for the LA Weekly was only an intern, in an attempt to downplay that reviewer's opinion. Since that contention is no longer in the article, I have deleted the ref.

However, since you mention it, I've run down the links for the reviews in the LA Times and LA Weekly, which were categorized in the article as negative capsule reviews, and have seen that they are, in fact, somewhat more than that, so I've included them in the article, with pull quotes from the reviews -- since the LA Times and LA Weekly are important media outlets and should be included.

Thanks for the heads up. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:37, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, Sorrywrongnumber, the blocked sockfarmer I mentioned above, has in the past used IP addresses in the range 208.88.120.0/21 for his sockpuppetry, which I believe includes the IP you've just posted from. However, if you have other suggestions about the article, I'll be glad to consider them. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:45, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Glad to know I'm living rent-free in that head of yours. And for the record, it's hilarious how you refer to LA Weekly, an alt-culture paper with a circulation of 193,714, as "mainstream," in order to justify it as an "important" media outlet ("important" meaning "it gave the film a bad review so therefore it should be quoted in full." Of course, had it given the film a good review, you would consider it a "minor" outlet and try to bury it.) Just like it's hilarious how you go to great efforts to quote everything negative about your film in the body of the article, while erasing everything positive - including the part of the Variety quote which praises the film's plot. Including the part about how Rotten Tomatoes actually counts that review you keep calling "negative" as "positive" (you certainly wouldn't want readers to know that, would you). And how you keep inserting the sentence "During the film's earlier festival run it received generally positive reviews, with certain notable exceptions" back into the article, with no explanation for the fact that there are no exceptions listed, not to mention the fact that the positive reviews given as examples didn't occur during the festival run. But what do we expect. We all know you'd never allow the facts to get in the way of your agenda. 208.88.120.86 (talk) 05:51, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, Sorrywrongnumber. Please remember that posting using an IP while you're blocked is block evasion -- so I'm afraid I can't enourage you to post here again. However, if you can get over your ridiculous idee fixe that I'm biased against the film, and would like to post suggestions about the article on your talk page at User talk:Sorrywrongnumber, I'll be glad to consider them for the article. Please be civil, though, since I'll simply ignore harangues and such. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:55, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

OK Ed, discussion moved to here. 208.88.120.84 (talk) 06:16, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Fine, I've looked at your comments and responded there. Incidentally, although I'm happy if we can come to some accomodation that brings a little peace around here, I do not know you, we are not friends, and I have not given you permission to refer to me by my actual first name. Please be kind enough to address me as "Beyond My Ken" or "BMK". Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:33, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I've moved the discussion to User talk:Sorrywrongnumber as the most appropriate place. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:01, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Song

Yesterday was a Lie is a song on the album Genetic World by the band Telepopmusik. The band and album are somewhat innovative and important. Both band and album already have their own Wikipedia aritcles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.65.2.67 (talk) 00:46, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

And? Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:08, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

There is a conceptual resonance here. The song is inventive and strange even by the standards of Telepopmusik, and the film is inventive and strange even by the standards of a somewhat low budget indie film. I am curious whether the title has an earlier source, or if the band and the film makers came up with the title independently. I placed the info in the talk page because I was not willing to advocate that it was important enough to add to the article.

If you want even a scintilla of this stuff to get into the article, you're going to have to find a reliable source that says it. We're not allowed to add opinions, interpretations or analyses to any Wikipedia article unless it's supported by a citation from a reliable source; otherwise, it's considered to be original research, which is absolutely not allowed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:17, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree with that conclusion. I will note that some articles contain disambiguation information without a separate disambiguation page, or something like the "In Popular Culture" section of the page for a song I like (Lux Aeterna (Mansell)). I do not advocate for moving any of this information into this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.65.2.67 (talk) 23:25, 16 January 2019 (UTC)