User talk:Bruinsects

Welcome

Hello, Bruinsects, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask at the help desk, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Seraphim System (talk) 09:23, 16 December 2017 (UTC) Getting started Introduction Contributing to Wikipedia The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Intuitive guide to Wikipedia Finding your way around Table of contents Department directory Help directory Editing articles How to develop an article Simplified Manual of Style Getting help Frequently asked questions Cheatsheet Our new user help forum, the Teahouse The Help Desk, for more advanced questions Help pages New contributors' help page Article Wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles How you can help Community Portal Join a WikiProject Follow Wikipedia etiquette Practice civility Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community

Recent edit to Russell Simmons

Hello. I noticed that you made an edit to a biography of a living person (Russell Simmons), but that you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source. Wikipedia has a strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! Seraphim System ^(talk) 09:26, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Your draft composition Draft:Ian Erix

I thank you for your faith and respect in me and towards Wikipedia community. You suggested me to review the draft page that you created about a popular musician due to the high backlog in the AFC submissions. I should say you that I am not supposed to review draft pages which are kept for AFC submissions as I am not a member of the AFC group but I am just a new page patroller. AFC draft reviewing is completely different from new page patrolling (article mainspaces). As I am not a part of AFC team, it would be risky if I try to review your article by approving it. I hope you got it. Abishe (talk) 12:12, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

@Abishe: Thank you so much for your reply. I am only just starting to learn some of this as a new Wikpedian and I am grateful for your guidance and apologize for misunderstanding as I thought New Page Reviewers could assist on something like this. Is there someone else you can recommend that I can contact who is part of the AFC team that I might be able to ask for help because I understand there is an extremely severe backlog and it could be many months of waiting if I don't reach out? Thank you very much. Stefan Bruinsects (talk) 10:31, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

• Hi, I thank you for understanding the differences between a NPR and AFC reviewer. But, I apologise to you as I couldn't help you out in this situation. You can also ask questions in the AFC help desk, which I used to clarify my doubts at past. If you want to contact any member of the AFC group see AFC participants list, it would be grateful to you as they are well experienced than me in English Wikipedia. By the way, I thank you for your contributions and good luck for the future. Thanks Abishe (talk) 12:02, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello! Bruinsects, you are invited to join other new editors and friendly hosts in the Teahouse. The Teahouse is an awesome place to meet people, ask questions and learn more about Wikipedia. Please join us!

Abishe (talk) 12:02, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Ian Erix (January 21)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by MadeYourReadThis was:  The comment the reviewer left was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Ian Erix and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Ian Erix, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and save.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

MadeYourReadThis (talk) 14:28, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Ian Erix (January 23)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Chetsford was:  The comment the reviewer left was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Ian Erix and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Ian Erix, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and save.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Chetsford (talk) 06:40, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

• I concur with Chetsford in his entirety.
• If you have any queries as to my removal of non-reliable sources, feel free to ask for individual assesments.
• Please note that blogs, PR pieces, fansites and websites with dubious editorial practices are not RS.
• And, please see the edit summaries of my edits.Winged Blades^Godric 11:49, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
• On more definitive notes, w.r.t to your comments, I will try to provide a rebuttal as to why the subject fails NMUSIC:--

• You wrote He has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable and independent of the musician himself. and 4-Has received non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country. and Has performed music for a work of media that is notable.

• • Nah...Basically, the trio reflects how meeting our our gen notab. guidelines could lead to WP articles.After my cleanup of sources that were either plainly un-reliable (Wordpress blogs etc.) or covered the subject too non-trivially (Dubai Red-Diamond-Award paragraph, being a prime example), there's nothing but two/three pieces covering him/his work.And, I can assure you that those alone won't save the article from being deleted at an AFD.
• You wrote Has had a single on a country's national music chart.
  • Spotify/itune records don't matter (except as ornamental non-promotional additions to a subject, who is notable, even excluding those peaks).Also, AFAIK, the song shall be in the top 10-20 at national charts.And, please source music chart record(s) per the general advice at WP:CHART.
• You wrote 3-Has had a record certified gold or higher in at least one country.
  • See the edit-summary at this edit.Some clarification would be helpful:)
• You wrote Has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network. and Has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or TV network.
  • As to the former, this doesn't mean that appearing in a MTV show will automatically lead to a WP article. I don't find how he satisfies the latter.

Regards:) And happy editing! Winged Blades^Godric 14:06, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

• On an entirely different note, pings don't work unless you sign on the very edit you are successfully transcluding the ping template.If you are correcting a botched ping template, you have to resign on a new line. Winged Blades^Godric 11:14, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi ::@Winged Blades of Godric:! Oh gosh, I can hardly see straight after all the time I spent on this. I've tried so very hard to fix this properly to the very best of my ability using your recommendations and criticisms as well as those from previous editors. I have added a few new sources that I was able to find and I did also put back a few others that I feel are still relevant and believe should be able to stand up more closely to scrutiny since the draft is shortened and much more concise. I hope you will agree and I'd like to thank you for all the time you must have spent on your last edit. After reading through the WP:MUSICBIO very closely again, I submit that the subject of this draft should meet the notability guidelines on the following merits:

1- Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart.

2- Has had a record certified gold or higher in at least one country.

3- Has received coverage of international tour in at least one sovereign country.

4- Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels.

5- Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g., a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film

6- Has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network.

7- Has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or TV network.

Kindest Regards and thanks for all your help, Stefan Bruinsects (talk) 11:01, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Ian Erix has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Ian Erix. Thanks! Robert McClenon (talk) 04:02, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Ian Erix (January 27)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Robert McClenon was:  The comment the reviewer left was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Ian Erix and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Ian Erix, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and save.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Robert McClenon (talk) 04:04, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Ian Erix, Conflict of Interest, and Just Being Tedious

After reading your latest lengthy complaint about failure to accept an article on Ian Erix, I have a question, and a comment.

Are you being paid by Erix, or are you in any way associated with Erix? If so, you are required to declare your conflict of interest. If not, then your persistence in pushing and pushing and pushing to get his article accepted is just tedious.

I am sure that you have read the messages that the Articles for Creation process is backlogged, and that sometimes articles may be in the queue waiting for review for as long as one month to two months. Of the 1677 articles waiting for review, 239 have been waiting for more than 20 days. It really does take a long time in many cases. Just continuing to complain at length isn't likely to get an article accepted quickly. However, in the case of Draft:Ian Erix, it has been reviewed three times in the past two weeks. You have no right to complain that the review is taking a long time. On 21 January 2018, User:MadeYourReadThis declined it, and offered you specific comments on some of the references. Then on 23 January 2018, User:Chetsford declined it, and said that, while they thought that a good case could be made for notability, it wasn't established. Then on 27 January 2018, I declined it, and said that you had provided a mixture of reliable and unreliable sources, and I noted that the article had previously been deleted as per a deletion discussion. You then argued at considerable length that Erix satisfies the criteria for musical notability. I began discussion at the Teahouse, and Chetsford explained in more detail why they had declined your draft. You then resumed a discussion with User:Primefac in which you said that the review was taking an unusually long time. That is just silly. Your draft has been reviewed several times in two weeks. You simply haven't gotten the answer that you want, and you are continuing to be tendentious. Sometimes in Wikipedia you just have to accept that you are in a minority, and that continuing to argue will only annoy other editors.

Are you being paid by Erix, or in any way associated with Erix, or are you just being tedious? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:21, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

@User:Robert McClenon LOL. Paid by him? No, definitely not. Although at this point, I feel like I probably should be paid a large amount so if you know of a way for me to get in touch with him please let me know ;) Kidding aside though, I am a fan of his music but I assume that is no big secret to anyone here because I have spent so much time writing this draft. I have never made any attempt to hide that! And my persistence is mainly because I don't believe my efforts have been treated fairly so far. It is not because I disagree with other editors opinions. It is simply because other editors have not been judging this fairly according to Wikipedia guidelines as far as I can tell. In all 3 cases of the draft being declined, there was an outstanding reason for the decline that seems to go against the Wikipedia guidelines. As you correctly stated, the first draft was declined on January 21st by User:MadeYourReadThis. This editors comments indicated that they only looked at 5 of 42 sources. This seemed incredibly unfair. Next up was User:Chetsford on January 23rd and that decline was also problematic, not because of anything User:Chetsford did wrong, but another editor was helping to adjust the draft and was still in the middle of editing and most of the sources had been removed when another random editor came along and put the draft under review. The draft was pulled apart at that time and not ready for review. It was clearly marked that it was a work-in-progress and NOT ready for submission but despite this another Wikipedian put it up for review anyway and then User:Chetsford came in and declined it. What he declined was not my draft, it was someone else's uncompleted work! After that decline, I restored part of my original draft, and made a good faith effort to take in some of the constructive criticism I had been picking up along this journey into the do's and don'ts of Wikipedia and I bettered my initial writings as best I could. Then you came along User talk:Robert McClenon and declined my draft based on the fact that there was a previous article on the subject deleted 7 years ago and you asked to have the previous article compared to this one. I also didn't believe that was a proper decline because it seemed unfair to hold a bias against my draft due to the fact that something totally different was deleted years before. As per User:Chetsford who left a comment regarding your decision, it seems to be an established fact that Wikipedia guidelines state "the AfC criteria specifically excludes reviewers from acting on information other than that which is contained in the draft" so therefore I do believe your decline has been proven to be un-merited. I don't believe you did this with malice and I appreciated the fact that you set up a tea house discussion for other editors to weigh in on this. I just don't understand why you seem to be attacking me now and accusing me of things like being paid for this or being tedious or bludgeoning the process as you have said on Primefacs talk page. We are all humans and we can all make mistakes and if I have done something wrong I will apologize and try my best to rectify. I don't see how I have done anything improper here though. About not being patient, I submitted my draft in November and it has been over 2 months since then so when I say the process is taking longer than it should, that is what I am referring to. Despite the fact that there have been 3 reviews in the past 10 days, as noted above none of these reviews have been conducted in a manner that seems compliant with Wikipedia guidelines. So therefore it has been over 2 months since I submitted my draft without getting a single review of it that adheres to the review guidelines established by Wikipedia. All I was and all I am looking for is fair and due process. Bruinsects (talk) 07:10, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

User:Bruinsects - I suggest that you go back to the Teahouse, or maybe to the AFC Help Desk, or Village pump (miscellaneous), or to the Help Desk, and have a discussion about review criteria. I think that you have been treated fairly, but that, by insisting that you are not being treated fairly, you are treating the reviewers and the Wikipedia community unfairly. It really does seem to be that you disagree with the other editors' opinions, which is your right, but you also appear to think that you (a new editor with a draft to submit) know what the criteria of the reviewers should be. You have been treated fairly, and you are being unfair to the reviewers, but maybe you should go to another forum and ask for a review of the reviews. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:24, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

User:Bruinsects - You got what you wanted. You might think about the price that you have paid. Your article was accepted. However, you have gotten yourself off to an unfortunate start as a contributor to Wikipedia, because you have become one of a group of editors who criticize the Wikipedia community and its processes, which is their right, but it comes with the cost of alienating the other editors. You are not off to a good start. You got what you wanted, like a child throwing a tantrum who is appeased by an easy caregiver, but you insulted the community and its processes. You might want to think about that (but you probably won't, because you "won", although "winning" isn't the only thing). Robert McClenon (talk) 01:12, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

User:Bruinsects - The article was accepted not because it was argued into existence but because it had been sufficient improved to the point that making the article visible in the main space added to the encyclopedia instead of detracting. The article suffered from citation overkill. Notability is not measured by putting the references section on a scale and seeing what it weighs. Experienced editors see a new article with a references section that is out of proportion to the rest of the article as a red flag of an attempt to hide the fact that the subject might not meet notable guidelines by bombarding the article with references. Low-quality references raise this flag even higher. Early versions of this article suffered from that mightly.

Sentences followed by more than a single citation, especially 4 citations, are going to get some attention from reviewers. While not against policy, overciting can be indicative of synthesis of these sources into original thought, original research, something that is against policy.

You are welcome here and encouraged to continue editing, but as others have indicated, you didn't get off to a great start. Take that interaction with reviewers in the spirit it was intended, to help you create an article which will add to the encyclopedia. --MadeYourReadThis (talk) 15:15, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Notes....

Please gain t/p consensus for any edits that you may wish to pursue at Ian Erix.I am hardly satisfied at yours' distinguishing between reliable and non-reliable sources and of your ability to write in a neutral cum non-promotional tone without delving upon fandom-oriented styles and bloating on trivial details.Thank you!~ Winged Blades^Godric 15:04, 3 February 2018 (UTC)