User talk:Jackguitarfan

Your submission at Articles for creation: Jack Pearson (musician) (August 12)

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:Jack Pearson (musician) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• 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) 19:35, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello! Jack Pearson (Musician), I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Robert McClenon (talk) 19:35, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

August 2016

Please do not write or add to an article about yourself. Creating an autobiography is strongly discouraged – see our guideline on writing autobiographies. If you create such an article, it may be deleted. If what you have done in life is genuinely notable and can be verified according to our policy for articles about living people, someone else will probably create an article about you sooner or later (see Wikipedians with articles). If you wish to add to an existing article about yourself, please propose the changes on its talk page. Please understand that this is an encyclopedia and not a personal web space or social networking site. If your article has already been deleted, please see: Why was my page deleted?, and if you feel the deletion was an error, please discuss it with the deleting administrator. Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:35, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Your username

Welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that your username, "Jack Pearson (Musician)", may not meet Wikipedia's username policy because based upon this post at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions#page and name declined, it appears that you are not really the musician Jack Pearson. Please understand editing under the name of another specifically identifiable person is not allowed for the reasons given in WP:IMPERSONATE. If you believe that your username does not violate our policy, please leave a note here explaining why. As an alternative, you may ask for a change of username by completing this form, or you may simply create a new account for editing. Thank you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:00, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia and copyright

Hello Jackguitarfan, and welcome to Wikipedia. All or some of your addition(s) to Draft:Jack Pearson (musician) has had to be removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material without permission from the copyright holder. While we appreciate your contributing to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from your sources to avoid copyright or plagiarism issues here.

• You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
• Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
• Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Wikipedia:Copyrights. You may also want to review Wikipedia:Copy-paste.
• If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. However, there are steps that must be taken to verify that license before you do. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
• In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are public domain or compatibly licensed), it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at the help desk before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Wikipedia:Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
• Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you can, but please follow the steps in Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 23:41, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Diannaa, I received your message and I have permission to use everything I wrote or copied as I emailed the artist. The only thing I copied were the lists of songs, engagements, etc - how do I change the formatting on that or add copyright permission that I have so you stop deleting my updates? Yesterday someone took down a bunch of my information that was correct and replaced it with direct paragraphs from the subjects website and I had to try and fix that today. It took a long time to correct. Please help. I did not copy anything from another wiki page other than show where there was a connection - linked. What are you referring to? thank you.musicfan (talk) 00:56, 18 August 2016 (UTC) musicfan (talk) 00:53, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

No. You say that you have permission to use everything. No. Even if the copyright owner has given you permission to use the copyrighted information, that permission, and the copyrighted information, are problematic for several reasons. First, it isn't sufficient for the copyright owner to give permission to use the copyrighted information in Wikipedia. It is necessary for the copyright owner to release the copyright under a CC-BY-SA copyleft for use by anyone. Most copyright owners don't want to do that. Second, even if the use of the copyrighted material is legally allowed by its owner, it may not be satisfactory for use in Wikipedia, because copyrighted material about companies, musicians, et cetera, is usually written non-neutrally and promotionally, and may still have to be edited heavily to make it neutral. Third, if you have been dealing with the artist, you have a conflict of interest. Read the conflict of interest policy. Are you being paid by the artist? If so, even more stringent rules apply; read the paid editing policy. Even if you have what you think is permission, there are still problems. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:52, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Instead of attacking me verbablly NO and NO and accusing me of getting paid for this, why not just help me fix the issue? Your air of superiority and accusations are not professional or helpful @ Robert (and earlier @ Diannaa). I couldn't get paid enough to do what I've done - for the past 3 full days of trying to figure this site out - jeez - and it's still not up. I created a draft - then I went on the community to get help and instead of getting help I woke up this morning to 2 users who went on the "draft" and totally redid it - making it into something far removed from where I started and undoing an entire days worth of work. It's only a draft - please don't overreact and ban me or deny the page. Let's fix it. There are many thousands of fans of this particular artist who search for him on Wiki and other places and couldn't find him here. So can you instead just provide some positive help? I am doing my best as a newbie wiki user. I emailed for permission does not mean he hired me to put this page up. It just means I am trying to be polite and do things correctly. Are you aware you can email anyone on Facebook or through their websites? Again I just say HELP musicfan (talk) 02:21, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Robert I have asked 4 times (2x here and 2x on your page) to have the block lifted from my draft that says I am impersonating the subject- I am not. I have explained exactly how it happened that the user name and the page name was the same (error on my part thinking this was where you got the name of the "page" to be uploaded as it's my first time posting a page on wiki or having an account so when I got the notice from you I realized the error and had the user name changed to jackguitarfan - complying with the rules. Would you please remove that from the page now that I have complied? musicfan (talk) 02:37, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Please unblock me so I may finish what has taken me so long to complete this far. musicfan (talk) 02:43, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Jackguitarfan, my advice to you is to disclose honestly and completely what your relationship is with Pearson. Transparency is the best disinfectant. Please also be aware that copyright violations will not be tolerated here, and that even if promotional content is released under an acceptable free license, it is not appropriate for Wikipedia since it is not neutral, and does not summarize what independent sources have written about Pearson. This is a neutral encyclopedia and experienced editors will insist on high standards for new articles. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:20, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Culen328 I have explained myself and who I am over and over - I made a mistake in creating my user name at the beginning causing Robert McClenon to mark the page as "impersonating" - which I am not. I am a fan of the person. I want to see him have a page on wiki that lists his accomplishments. The Allman Brothers are one of my favorite bands. And you have no need to question me any more from what I have read since I have explained myself so many times in the past few days. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith

I remain skeptical that you have no connection to Pearson stronger than being an ordinary fan, but if what you say is true, then edit scrupulously in complete compliance with our policies and guidelines, and all will be well. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:25, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm curious where to go if I continue to feel harrassed and accused? Are there options? Or does one just start over? cullen328 I am trying my best to be patient and learn the ropes here - are you citing a fact or making a guess about my connection to the subject of this page? Thank you for when you were providing actual help. Meanwhile I will continue to wade through the process of getting a public page up. https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Privacy_policy musicfan 05:55, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

You are asking to "unblock me". You have not been blocked. Having a draft declined is not the same as being blocked. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:36, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

I am asking you to remove this: A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject. It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view. Please discuss further on the talk page. (Learn how and when to remove this template message) that you put on the page I am drafting since I explained and complied. Thank you musicfan 03:56, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers musicfan 03:50, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: Hi Robert. I can understand your reason for adding the COI tag and I may have done so myself if this was an article; it is, however, an AFC draft so there's still time for those issues to be cleaned up based upon the suggestions of AFC reviewers. There is also the fact that musicfan has stated that he is not Jack Pearson and is just only one of his fans. I understand there are some doubts about this as Cullen328 has pointed out, but the COI tag can always be re-added if the draft is someday approved and these doubts still exist. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:14, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

I have reinstated a portion of the page in hopes that all the issues or at least the major ones have been taken care of. I have searched out references and changed the photo to a "wiki suggested one" which was approved by INeverCry, an editor on WikiCommons. I have agreed to comply with the rules and I wonder if Marchjuly, Cullen328 and Robert McClenon would give the page a look over to make sure it's as it should be so it can be posted? Your time and attention is most appreciated. Jackguitarfan (talk) 21:21, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikimedia Commons uploads

Hi Jackguitarfan. I noticed you uploaded File:Jack Pearson.jpg and File:Jack Pearson playing his Fender Squier.jpg to Wikipedia Commons and claimed there as your "own work" even though the author of each file is listed as "Jack Pearson (Musician)". You should only really do that if you are Jack Pearson himself, which is something you previously said was not the case in this edit. So, I have tagged the files with c:Template:No permission and you should follow the instructions listed at on the templates so that the files are not deleted. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:39, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

it's only because I had changed my user name (it was Jack Pearson (Musician) as I thought that was how you "named" a page to go up - I was simply confused by the directions. It still mine and me and I am not Jack. Please untag it musicfan (talk) 02:24, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying thigs Jackguitarfan. Unfortunately, you cannot freely license images that you did not take yourself or that you do not hold the copyright on. What is needed in such cases is explained in c:COM:OTRS#If you are NOT the copyright holder. Commons only allows files which are unequivocally in the public domain or freely licensed to be uploaded and anything with questionable licensing is going to be deleted. File:Jack Pearson playing his Fender Squier.jpg shows a copyright mark for someone named Butch Worell, so this person's explicit permission is needed for a free license to stick. The permission needs to be a written (not verbal) declaration of consent and needs to be sent to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org for verification purposes. The same also goes for the other photo. Sorry if this is a bit of a pain, but simply finding an image online and downloading it for "free" does not mean there's been a transfer of copyright for a free license to be allowed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:15, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Oh I did not realize all that about Butch's photo since he said I could use it - Ok I will take that one down and use a public domain one instead - will that work - thank you. musicfan 03:44, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

First, you said you were Pearson and now say you aren't. Then, you represented that you took these photos when you didn't. That looks very bad so I must advise you to be scrupulously truthful going forward. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:29, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

I have never said I was Pearson - you are incorrect. What I said for the 6th time is that when I opened my account I thought I was supposed to use the topic of the page as the user name and that is how that page would be named. It was a mistake. As soon as it was pointed out to me I understood and requested a user name change which was approved. Will you finally accept that as the truth (which it is) and leave me alone? Cullen328 musicfan 05:38, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

@Jackguitarfan: You should be able to upload any image to Commons which is clearly in the public domain or which is clearly under a free license, but it is expected that you properly check the licensing of the image first and make sure it is correct. So, I suggest you ask for assistance at WP:MCQ before uploading anything. The editors who typically work off that page are pretty knowledgeable about this type of thing and they will help you figure it out. Be advised that pretty much anything you find on the Internet is assumed to be copyrighted (even if it does not explicitly say so), unless it clearly says that it is freely licensed or in the public domain.

As for the permission you got from Butch Worell, lots of images are mistakenly uploaded to Commons and Wikipedia based upon similar reasoning. The problem with that, however, is that a verbal OK cannot be verified by Commons OTRS volunteers, it could've been misinterpreted by the uploader, or the copyright holder could later deny ever giving it. That is why an explicit written declaration of consent is needed in Common's chosen format. Uploading an image under a free license to Commons means that the copyright holder agrees to allow anyone anywhere in the world to download and use the image for any purpose (including commercially), and they cannot take this permission away once they give it. That is why most professional photographers are unwilling to freely license their work. They may say or even write down "Sure, you can use it on your webpage." or "Sure, you can use it in your Wikipedia article.", but none of that is good enough for the type of free license that Commons requires.

If you go to a concert and take a picture of a band while they are performing in a public place like an arena, then, assuming there were no other extenuating circumstances, you would hold the copyright on that photo. You could then upload that photo to Commons under a free license of your choosing (but one compatible with Commons licensing requirements) if you like right after you got home from the show. If you took the photo but then posted it online somewhere, you still would hold the copyright on the image (depending upon the licensing agreement of the website where you posted it, but you would probably need send a permissions email to OTRS just for verification purposes because the image can now be found online. Similarly, if you pay/ask someone to take a photo of you for you, then you would need to get their permission to freely license the photo unless part of your agreement with them was that the image's copyright was transferred to you. So, if you can find any images which satisfy all of what I posted above, then you should be able to upload them to Commons. If this any doubt at all about the licensing, then you shouldn't upload it to Commons. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:29, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Marchjuly - this is very clear and helpful. I appreciate the time and effort you took to make it clear to me. musicfan 05:38, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:59, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Marchjuly just to clarify regarding the photo, another user actually created the original page and had uploaded that photo (I had given them the account info to access since they had a bulk of information. We were starting on it together. So then when i started on it - that is the photo they had uploaded. I assumed (wrong) it was their property and did not realize it had a watermark on it - someone else deleted it and I did not understand why and put it back on. It was all new user errors. Nothing intentional. Thank you for your help. I appreciate it very much. Your edits were all in line as well and appreciated. But I have to delete the draft... I don't know what else to do at this point. I've spent way too much time on this as it is. musicfan 06:38, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Lots of new editors make errors. I still make errors. Making errors is expected and you may get "warned" when you do by others, but just remember to take the warnings in stride and learn from them. Making mistakes only becomes a serious problem when you keep repeating them over and over again and ignore any input you're receiving from the community about them. As for sharing accounts, simply don't do that for the reasons explained in WP:ROLE. This kind of thing can quickly lead to some serious problems. Perhaps you're not old enough to remember checkbooks, but think of your account as your Wikipedia checkbook. Every edit you make is like signing your name on a check. So, if you give your checkbook to someone else and they use it for something inappropriate, the record is still going to show that your checkbook was used and you will be the one who ends up paying for whatever mess they made. Best thing to do is to encourage the other person to create their own account. Commons and Wikipedia are both part of the Wikimedia Foundation, but they serve different roles. They each have their own specific policies and guidelines, but they both strongly frown upon editors using multiple accounts for inappropriate reasons or multiple editors using the same account. If this is why you were blocked on Commons, then you simply need to come clean to the Commons administrator (c:User:INeverCry) who blocked you and explain that such thing will never happen again. Indefinitely blocked does not mean forever; it just means that the block will not expire after a certain period of time, so you have to convince the blocking administrator that you understand why you were blocked, why it violated Commons policy and how you are never going to repeat the same mistake. If you do that, most administrators will be willing to give you a second chance.

Finally, I saw that you blanked the draft. Generally, blanking something such as you did is not the right way to go about this kind of thing, especially if others have made a significant contribution to the draft's content. Blanking is sort of a de facto request for deletion, but you probably should use Template:db-g7 instead . Another option is to restore the content and leave it to work on some other time. Drafts do not really have deadline for approval per se. You could also ask someone else at WP:RA to see if they would be willing to take it on. If no one edits the draft for 6 months it will be tagged for speedy deletion per WP:G13 and eventually deleted. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:14, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

It is arguable whether WP:G7 would apply in this case, as a large number of edits had been made to the draft by other editors. --David Biddulph (talk) 07:27, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I thought so. I guess then musicfan if you really want this deleted that you might need to nominate it for such at WP:MfD. If no one objects, the draft will be deleted. If someone does object, then that would mean they feel the draft has the potential to become an article or at least a WP:STUB and might be willing to work on it. Deletion discussions, ironically, can sometimes end up with whatever's being discussed for deletion being improved and in better shape coming out, then it was going in. The other option is to simply leave the draft alone. It will eventually be deleted as abandoned or someone else will step in and try and guide in to article status. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:44, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Signature

Please mote that your signature is required to include a link in accordance with WP:SIGLINK. Please correct it. --David Biddulph (talk) 05:51, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Please mote? where is the signature missing that you are writing about? thank you musicfan 05:53, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

If you want to change from "Jackguitarfan" to "musicfan" then you should formally do so by making another username change request. The problem is that there is already User:MusicFan, so you may have to pick something else to avoid confusion. What you're doing now is problematic because the software has you registered as "Jackguitarfan" so every time you sign your posts, it going show up as "Jackguitarfan" unless you tweak your preferences as explained in WP:SIG#CustomSig. Your userpage and talk page will still remain as "Jackguitarfan" as long as that's your official username. Simply typing in "musicfan" or "whatevernameyouwant" and adding the time like you did here is also not allowed because signatures are supposed to at least one direct link to your userpage per WP:SIGLINK. If you look at the edit history of this page, you'll see all your posts are being recorded as "Jackguitarfan". That is how they will be recorded across Wikipedia for each edit you make, unless your officially change your username. If you continue doing what you're doing, then software is going to treat your post as WP:UNSIGNED and another editor of User:SineBot is going to come along and add a signature for you using Template:Unsigned. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:55, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

You are still using a signature without links. I wonder whether you may have tried to customise your signature and erroneously ticked the "Treat the above as wiki markup" box at Special:Preferences? --David Biddulph (talk) 16:06, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

I have no idea David Biddulph - to be totally honest. I created the name "musicfan" in the "talk or commons" area when I went on the community wall for help. as soon as I got there it asked me to "create" one so I did. I thought it was just to be able to ask general questions. I don't know what wiki markup box is. musicfan 16:11, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Click on the Special:Preferences link that I provided, or on the "Preferences" tab at the top of any page. On the resulting page you should see a section marked "Signature". There is a box marked "Treat the above as wiki markup"; if that box is ticked, then untick it and see what happens to your signature when you next sign. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:25, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you David. Indeed it was checked! I unchecked it and changed the nick name to be the same as the user name. Is that correct so there is no confusion? Jackguitarfan (talk) 20:16, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that is now working correctly. --David Biddulph (talk) 20:21, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Follow-Up Statement

I was willing to remove the COI template if you would declare that you have no connection to the subject of the article other than being a fan. I had to ask since you said that you had permission from the artist, and that often implies a work relationship of some sort. I now see that you have blanked the draft. Several experienced editors went to considerable lengths to help you with the draft. It does appear that the latest version of the draft does establish his notability. The only remaining issues about the draft were copyright and whether there was a conflict of interest. At this point, by blanking the draft and saying that you have to request its deletion, the other experienced editors who helped you are likely to feel that you are blowing off their efforts rudely. I see that you are frustrated and angry, but you came into Wikipedia trying to do something, to get an article approved, that you have almost done. Please don't just figuratively spit at multiple editors by deciding that you have to take your draft and go home. It appears that you have established notability. You just can't use copyrighted images or copyrighted text (and you usually can't use them even with permission). You can use your own text. If you restore the draft and state that you don't work for the artist, I will remove the COI template, and it appears that another reviewer at some point will approve the draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:36, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Robert McClenon I am not angry but I AM frustrated. I spent a lot of hours (3 days morning till night) trying to get this right and I asked you repeatedly for help in removing the statement of denial re: impersonation - each time explaining why it appeared I was the artist - without any response until Marchjuly mentioned the issue. The block on commons happened from someone who didn't even read all the comments and saw the user name / page name and assumed that I was the subject of the page and blocked me in the middle. My second big mistake was putting a question out on "talk" where other users saw the page draft was going up and went in and took out the information I was putting in and reformatted it - and put in incorrect information. At that point I was working to comply with your request to provide footnotes and references and learn the ropes. I understand the issues around copyright that Diannaa and Marchjuly brought up and will not repeat them. But the truth is - as a newbie - I feel not only was I run over by other users who apparently are aware of the subject but didn't do their research in their zeal - but I was and still am either being ignored or harassed and accused by admins such as yourself who feel you have a right to ignore the privacy rules of Wiki. I am not willing to be drilled - and I do not have to say anything more than I am a long time fan of the subject and the band this artist was in. I noticed there was nothing on Wiki and wanted to fill that gap. The errors I made were simply that I tried to get permission to use a photo and some material off the website via contacting them through their site and two allowed someone else who said they understood Wiki and could get the site up. (I was overwhelmed by the process almost immediately upon opening my account - which I did wrong but using the subject as my user name thinking that was how one created a page name.)

I erased the draft last night because basically by the time the Wiki editors were through deleting big pieces of it (Diannaa) and the corrections I tried to make to comply to your requests - it had reverted to the draft of the 2 users who had posted incorrect information after I tried to put it up. Very tired, frustrated, sad - yes - and then I was blocked on commons - I felt like I would never get it right and it started off all on the wrong foot with the wrong user name mistake - so gave up last night.

My request then this morning after reading your statement and Marchjuly (who has been the only one extremely helpful in this process) is that I will restore a small portion of the draft - and work on it slowly and hopefully Marchjuly will be willing to continue to help me get it right. That is all I can do at this point and only if the editors stick to the facts of what they know, do their job by reading through the issue and responses to the issue instead of reacting and making changes too quickly and to respect my rights here on Wiki. If anyone has been rude... it has been both your lack of response and disrespect and Cullen's. Diannaa and a few others just acted too quickly without reading the comments and making changes and deletions and then did not make any effort to respond to my questions about what they were doing and why as I was learning the ropes here.

This page should be included on Wiki as it fills in a missing link to other pages and the subject is notable for many many reasons. musicfan 15:56, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Request to Wiki Editor Marchjuly

Marchjuly would you be willing to assist me while I learn to format this page correctly? If so, would you please ask Inevercry to remove the block on commons since he/she would not respond to my requests? Thank you so much! musicfan 16:03, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't mind helping and answering any questions you have, but my experience as an editor is not nearly extensive as the others who have been commenting on your talk page and they could probably offer you much better advice. Editors like Robert McClenon, David Biddulph and Cullen328 have been here much longer than I have. I don't think they weren't trying to bite you, but rather are simply interested in preserving the quality of the encyclopedia. There are over 5,000,000 articles on Wikipedia and people are trying to add more and more each day. All editors are WP:VOLUNTEERS and those which have been around a long time are often the ones who end up doing all of the reviewing of drafts and weeding out of the stuff which really doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Creating an article is a pretty hard thing to do, especially for a new editor, and it's unfortunate that your experience so far as been more than a little bumpy. My suggestion is to just let the past be the past, take a step back to reassess the comments/suggestions that these other editors have made, and let them help you guide the draft to article status. Certain words like "harassment" have a special meaning on Wikipedia and need to be used with care; Also, editors get WP:BUSY, so sometimes it may take time for questions to be answered. Editing can be a frustrating experience at times, so when it is sometimes the best thing to do is to go and take the dog for a walk and try not to let editing make you angry.

As for your Commons block, you can try posting a message on INeverCry's Wikipedia use talk page at User talk:INeverCry, or you can post a message right below your block notification at c:User talk:Jackguitarfan#File tagging File:Jack Pearson playing his Fender Squier.jpg. Please try and understand that administrators like Diannaa and INeverCry have been entrusted by their respective communities to step in and resolve issues before they cause harm to the project. This means that they sometimes are required to "shoot first and ask questions later". Copyright violations are a serious problem and administrators, therefore, almost always err on the side of caution in such cases. They will fix what they can, but in some cases the only solution is to completely remove the violation. Your Commons account was unfortunately inappropriately used to upload a number of copyrighted images and add copyrighted text to the c:Commons:Sandbox, so INeverCry stepped in and blocked the account. What you now need to do is simply explain that you understand the mistakes that were made and why the account was blocked, and that you will be more careful when it comes to uploading images in the future. Just ask INeverCry what you need to do to be unblocked and follow the advice you get. Being indefinitely blocked is not a life sentence, and administrators are willing to give second chances when appropriate. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:37, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

I am willing to help as long as the editor pledges to comply with our policies and guidelines going forward. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:53, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you to Marchjuly and Cullen! There is a lot of great information here MJ - please know I have an easy time understanding your communication style and appreciate all the time and effort your put into it - making it so. I will put up a little bit today and work it more slowly this time and appreciate any time or help you can give. Meanwhile I have two photos - one on the free domain (wiki recommended) and one that is mine. I will try and upload them also. I have every intention of doing this correctly. Thank you again. Jackguitarfan (talk) 14:01, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

unblock|your reason for requesting an unblock here

I am requesting a removal of a block on the commons area instated by "Inevercry" or another editor due to unintentional suspected copyright and user name errors made by me as a new user. I have dialogued and received help from 3 or 4 Wiki editors who have assisted me in understanding the Wiki process more clearly and are working with me to help moving forward as I am committed to understanding the process and learning how format the page correctly. Thank you for your help, patience and understanding. Jackguitarfan (talk) 14:43, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Jackguitarfan (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

your reason for requesting an unblock here

Decline reason:

Procedural decline; this account is not currently blocked. If unable to edit, please request again, posting the exact message you get when you try to edit. Yamla (talk) 14:50, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Thank you INeverCry for unblocking me on Commons and assisting me in uploading the photo with the proper copyright requirements!Jackguitarfan (talk) 21:22, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Blocked on Commons

Thank you --David Biddulph (talk) for contacting inevercry in my behalf. I have tried every where I can to reach him/her to request removal without success. I hope that they are forgiving of my mistakes. I really am trying and I appreciate your efforts. Jackguitarfan (talk) 16:25, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

If you want to contact or refer to another editor you need to remember that case is significant in file names, including user names. There is no User:inevercry. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:40, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes thank you David Biddulph, I tried to let them know that it was done in new user error, not intentional. I hope that it is recognized as such. This is the user page of Inevercry https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:INeverCry Any assistance is appreciated on this matter. Jackguitarfan (talk) 17:03, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

I've given you back talkpage access on Commons, and I've left you a note on how you can get yourself unblocked there. INeverCry 18:16, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you so much INeverCry! I will go there now. Jackguitarfan (talk) 18:40, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Jack Pearson (musician) (August 22)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by SwisterTwister 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:Jack Pearson (musician) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• 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.

SwisterTwister talk 05:25, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Try something new perhaps?

Hello there! I see that you very much enjoy editing a specific topic and that your editing history have been subject to discussion. This happens sometimes and can draw negative attention to yourself. I experienced something along the same lines myself not so long ago, and it was very refreshing to switch editing topic for a while. You meet some new editors and learn a lot. Just some friendly advice. :) Best, Doctor Papa Jones • (Click here to collect your prize!) 22:16, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Email

Hi Jackguitarfan. I got your email, but I will respond here since I think its best to try and keep any discussions of Wikipedia content matters as public as possible for transparency reasons. It also gives other editors the chance to participate in the process and perhaps make appropriate suggestions.

The main reason drafts are accepted has to do with Wikipedia notability; in other words, the draft establishes that its subject has received the significant coverage in reliable sources needed for a stand-alone article. Wikipedia notability cannot be established through primary sources and it cannot be established through trivial/brief mentions (even lots of them). It's the quality not quantity of the sources which matter. What is needed are a couple of good sources which have a strong reputation for editorial control which discuss the subject in some depth and which are independent of the subject. A subject cannot be made to be Wikipedia notable through editing, unless the edits involved are ones which add sources strong enough to establish notability.

Pearson may not be "famous" enough to receive non-stop press coverage 24/7, but it does seem like he's done enough to be fairly established within a certain genre. He has been part of a Wikipedia notable band and has collaborated with or nfluenced by a number of Wikipedia notable musicians. It's obvious he exists and is a pro at what he does. All of these things might mean that mentioning him within another article would be a perfectly acceptable thing to do if in the proper context and supported by a reliable source. Wikipedia notability, however, does not transfer from one subject to another. Sources such as social media accounts and personal websites self published or controlled by Pearson himself may be used to cite certain factual information about himself, but they don't help establish his Wikipedia notability. Sources which say Pearson playing backup guitar for Gregg Allman may be useful to verify content which says "Pearson played back up guitar for Gregg Allman", but they do not establish his Wikipedia notability. A tour date announcement may be fine for verifying the dates of a tour or the members of the band, but it is trivial coverage and not helpful in establishing Wikipedia notability. Interviews can be tricky because they can be considered primary sources by some AfC reviewers since the interviewee is basically answering questions thrown their way and interviewers sometimes turn out to be more fan than unbiased journalist. Also, people tend to say nice things about those they like and perhaps not so nice things or nothing at all about those they may not like so much. Interviews, in other words, can be too controlled where neutrality, objectivity and reliablity are not the primary concerns. The Nashville Arts piece seems fine, but that might be considered too local coverage for establishing Wikipedia notability by some AfC reviewers in and of itself, but a few more sources like that would be helpful. Read through WP:BAND and see if there's anything in there that particulary pertains to Pearson.

My suggestion to you is to go through the draft and look at each source you've cited. If it doesn't mention Pearson or doesn't support what is written in the article, then it has little value. This may be OK as a reliable source for content about the participation of any of the musicians in that particular TV special specifically mentioned by the source, but it makes no mention of Pearson by name and expecting people to watch the video, realize that's Pearson playing and then accept that's a notable perfromance is not really going to work. After you've re-assessed the draft, start to trim out anything which is not properly sourced or which seems interpretative/subjective. If you get down the basic facts of things that can be supported by independent reliable sources and there's really nothing left in the article and additional independent reliable sources cannot be found, then its going to really hard to get the draft approved by an AfC reviewer regardless of who submits the draft for review.

Just for reference, you're not required to use the AfC process. You could move the article to the mainspace yourself as some editors do, but this can be risky for subjects with questionable Wikipedia notability. Articles with notability issues often find themselves quickly tagged with maintainence templates such as Template:Notability or even nominated for deletion. AfC is designed to be a weeding out process; it may not be perfect, but AfC drafts which are approved tend to have a better chance of surving as an article than those directly added to the mainspace by their creators. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:43, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

If I might add an extra bit of advice, another way of improving the chance of success at review is to make the references clearer. At present many of them are bare urls, and it would be better if they were expanded, preferably with templates such as {{cite web}} with the relevant parameters completed. --David Biddulph (talk) 21:53, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Marchjuly and David Biddulph for your time and attention to this page. I feel I am unable to fix the many issues you point out. I have tried my best and at this point I no longer know how to go about getting it approved. This person is clearly notable - of that I am sure as I have shown here. I have a lot more material that further proves his notability but another editor felt like it was too much and removed it all. It included many of the songs he wrote - and some for well known musicians who made them popular. Where to go from here - I am at a loss and I hate to see this person continually left out as he was a member of a very prominent band and is currently in two bands that are on tour - including one that many of the original Allman Brothers Band members are in. I've gone over your suggestions carefully a few times and unfortunately I am lacking the understanding of the clarity you want. I am clearly not cut out to be a wiki editor. :( Jackguitarfan (talk) 00:36, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Jack Pearson (musician) (October 12)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Chris troutman 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:Jack Pearson (musician) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• 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.

Chris Troutman (talk) 13:58, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Jack Pearson (musician)

Hello, Jackguitarfan. It has been over six months since you last edited your Articles for Creation draft article submission, "Jack Pearson".

In accordance with our policy that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. 1989 15:59, 22 May 2017 (UTC)