We won?

The scum administrators at Wiki finally relented and admitted her real birth year is 1952.  Too bad, they can't erase their tracks, as exposed here.  The brass so far hasn't seemed to punish them for any of their misconduct, so we didn't win, the public lost.Until I see major punishment for the perps, I'll never try to improve that article again, it's blacklisted for life.

Wikipedia Is Scamming Laura Branigan - They Suck! Read Why

Are you a Laura Branigan fan? Then Wikipedia is out to scam you about her biography.

Why?

When Branigan went into the music biz, her agents and publisher made her change her birth year from 1952 to 1957 to make her seem younger. They also mickeyed with her birthplace and other information about her early years. Her fan club began pushing the false information, not just during her life, but long after when there was no need, and corrupted the Wiki article bigtime. A cadre of editors then formed a conspiracy to revert and suspend anybody trying to correct the false information, with the result that the false birth year et al. spread throughout the Internet onto other bio sites like a virus.

This racket reached a head in 2014 when Swedish superfan Stig-Åke Persson began doing his own research, going back to newspaper articles and official records to reconstruct her life, especially the first years. In late 2015 he finally collected all his research on a Pinterest page, as follows:
Persson Pinterest Page

Backing up, when he tried to edit the Wiki page starting in 2014, the conspirators reverted his edits and blocked him from editing in violation of all of Wiki's own policies, by accusing him of vandalism, allowing them to take summary action without vetting by a disinterested group of judges. Read Wiki's Vandalism article for yourself and see what ASSHOLES this cadre of editors are.

Wikipedia Vandalism Article

To save you the trouble, here's the relevant portion:
"Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism. Edit warring over content is not vandalism. Careful consideration may be required to differentiate between edits that are beneficial, detrimental but well-intentioned, and vandalizing. Mislabelling good-faith edits as vandalism can be considered harmful."

Mislabelling good-faith edits as vandalism can be considered harmful? When, and by whom, and what will be done about it? So far, Wiki SUCKS. It's been spreading outright lies about Branigan knowingly for years, and is systematically blocking updates when new information is found by serious researchers. 

Pee-yuuu!

This cabal of editors are the true vandals, and the rest is b.s. Who are they anyway? A bunch of unemployed losers living with their mothers? Some students working off their smart phones on the library steps? Between them there isn't enough IQ to light a tiny LED. They're total trolls, contributing nothing except crimes against truth in the name of Wiki. The ringleader seems to be "User:Thomas.W", but others are involved, see the appendix.

To be fair with these unfair assholes, in 2015 after a national magazine published an article commending Persson and backing the 1952 birth year, they finally allowed the change. In the meantime because of their editing wars the article was a total mess, so I went in and completely rewrote and revamped it, getting a bunch of flak from these trolls, although they ended up accepting most of it. At one point their snotty reversion comment was that since the true date is 1957, despite citing sources, they doubt all the other edits. Too bad for them, they ended up having to accept virtually all of them before long. But that didn't stop the jokers.

At one point Persson uploaded an image file showing Laura's wedding photo and marriage certificate, and when I tried to cite it in the article, the trolls reverted my edit, peppered me with threats, and deleted the image file too. At that time I threatened to report them, but it didn't stop them.

Then on Dec. 31, 2015 I Persson informed me of his great new Pinterest site, and instead of trying to go through the article and insert information from it for lack of time, I satisfied myself with a mere link in the External Links sections to it so that I or others can do it later. They jumped in within minutes and reverted me, with nasty warnings, then when I posted to the loser "User:Thomas.W." that he was an asshole because the link was not only legit it was essential, and undid the reversion, another cabal member reverted it again within minutes, with yet more warnings, and finally threepeated, blocking me from editing as I were a vandal and they were the sacred guardians of truth. Note: They act as a cabal, as one, so any action taken against one must be taken against all.

The shotgun men move fast to cause trouble. On the morning of Jan. 1, 2016 I finally carried out my threats to go over their heads and pushed the link to report an edit war, only to see one of the editors I complained about ban me from editing within minutes, revealing that he was put in charge of his own trial by the Wiki administration! The plot thickens. That's when I resorted to publishing the blog to the general public, who can blame me?

To summarize. It's now Jan. 1, 2016 and not only has Piersson been blocked, but moi, although I never set up an account and only log on anonymously and can switch IP addresses at will, making it a laugh. The real issue is why the higher ups at Wiki don't move in and delete editing privileges of this cabal and free the article up for editors like us who play by the rules.

The bottom line is that Persson and I have all the knowledge about the subject of Laura Branigan, all the expertise, and all the brains, while the Wiki loons have cut uus both off and enjoy all the privileges, game nights, pizza nights, and piece o'cakes.

So I'm publishing this site to go over Wiki's heads to the public and get action. This is just day one so check back from time to time. In the meantime the article, most of which I wrote before they banned me, is in limbo, with all of Persson's great new research blocked, including her real birthplace and her doings in her early years 1952-7, before her fan club claims she was born :)

How high does this go? Jimbo Wales? We shall find out. The ball is in Wiki's court. In the meantime please help spread the message that Wiki sucks and its editors are total assholes.
- T.L. Winslow (TLW), Jan. 1, 2016

PS. On Dec. 16, 2016 AP finally published a correction to their original obituary, changing the birth year to 1952 like it should have been. This really shows Wiki up as a failed organization, because this blog blowing the whistle on them had been up almost a year and they did NOTHING. How long will it take until they take away the administrator privileges of the Branigan article cabal and give them to hero Pearsson, and publish a sincere apology, signed by the top dogs? History will record.  In the meantime, we have proved that WIKI SUCKS.

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/4ce78d41c83540e2b9b6b6b34a592158/correction-laura-branigan-obituary

Here is her bio on its own Wiki, telling the truth while the real Wiki continues to tell lies:

https://www.everipedia.com/Laura_Branigan/

ADDENDUM: THE B.S. PRODUCED BY THE CABAL EDITORS LEADING TO THEIR DELETING A MERE LINK TO PIERSSON'S ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL PAGE IN THE EXTERNAL LINKS SECTIONS, FOLLOWED BY BANNING ME FROM FURTHER EDITS. NOTICE THEIR MISUSE OF LABELS LIKE INAPPROPRIATE, HARM, DISRUPTIVE EDITING, ETC. ALL THESE LABELS APPLY TO THEIR ACTIONS ALONE.
User talk:75.171.140.151 From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia December 2015[edit]
Information icon Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Laura Branigan. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include, but are not limited to, links to personal websites, links to websites with which you are affiliated (whether as a link in article text, or a citation in an article), and links that attract visitors to a website or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Because Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the page, please discuss it on the associated talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you. Thomas.W talk 21:38, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
Please stop attacking other contributors, as you did on this edit to User:Thomas.W. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 22:09, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.
January 2016[edit] Stop icon This is your last warning; the next time you harm Wikipedia, as you did at Laura Branigan with this edit, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Persistent spammers may have their websites blacklisted, preventing anyone from linking to them from all Wikimedia sites as well as potentially being penalized by search engines. Jim1138 (talk) 05:53, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
Stop icon with clock Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked temporarily from editing for persistent disruptive editing. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Acroterion (talk) 17:01, 1 January 2016 (UTC) If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.
MY REPLY: I see that you're the real vandal behind the damage done to the Laura Branigan page, so what's there to appeal? I warned you that I will go public and reach a higher judge, so now I will. Your only possible justification is that my edits are vandalism, when it's clear that they can't be. I quote: "Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism. Edit warring over content is not vandalism." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vandalism) All along it's been totally improper to revert edits that are not vandalism but merely new content instead of submitting them to debate first so that others who are disinterested can discuss and vote. As a 1-man judge, jury, and executioner, you are the real vandal, and must be exposed. Either the higher-ups back you up and go down with you, or cut you loose and let you fall, it's their only choice in the end, but you must go for Wiki's rep to be saved.
APPENDIX: ROGUES GALLERY
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Thomas.W&oldid=697648102
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Oshwah
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jim1138
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Acalamari