Jump to content

User talk:Missbellanash/Archives/2021/August

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Missbellanash, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Teahouse logo

Hi Missbellanash! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Worm That Turned (talk).

Visit the Teahouse
We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:03, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Valerie Broussard (August 5)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by GoingBatty was:
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of music-related topics). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
Please provide more independent reliable sources, and resolve your issue with the last paragraph before resubmitting
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.
GoingBatty (talk) 13:58, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! This is really appreciated we're all going through a 'tough time'. I am constantly working on the references, I can't be positive at this time, but it appears there may be enough secondary sources for it to qualify. I just received additional information that I didn't expect, it just showed up! I would also like to build a 'list of recordings' for her, in whatever form they're in, in addition to her bio - background. Again, thank you very much! Missbellanash (talk) 15:06, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Help me! Hey is it okay if I delete some of this stuff?

Why have Wikipedia made this so complicated!!? ?

I just want to create a page on Valerie Broussard. I already have a career and certainly don't have time for a 1000 deep pile of basic tut's or time to read all of these weirdly formatted, overly linked "learning Wiki" pages, this looks like monospaced garbage and I hate it. Can't even navigate in a fashion common to every website! Missbellanash (talk) 01:00, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! I see that you have already created a draft article for Ms. Broussard – this is definitely the best way to go about creating an article as it gives you feedback from the community on how to improve the article. Is there anything specific in which you would like some help with? The shortest summary of Wikipedia that I have seen is located at WP:BRIEF. But, if you want real, practical advice: copy what works. Look at similar articles if you are looking for style tips and formatting examples. The source code of any Wikipedia article is located in the edit screen of the page and the code is always open to be copied to other pages (just not the actual text, of course – unless it is needed for the article, in which case attribution would be required). Hopefully this answers your question – if not, reply to this comment and I would be happy to help you out! TGHL ↗ 🍁 02:00, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Hey!, thank you so much for the response. I'm apparently in the source, wiki source I suppose, so I do see how syntax for this page is written, just this much will be helpful & I'll be sure to turn it on when I continue with Valerie's page. I have written a format and flow document-design to serve as a style guide, partly from other musical pages so I'm not stepping into the dark. That will be helpful and should help keep it congruent. Valerie's bio has some history to it, I think the length could be long-ish - in a couple of sections, if I list her album with some pertinent details, adding some projects she's worked on. I'm not motivated to attempt customizations and really don't know what form that would take here. 😂

If my note seemed frantic, that's because it was. I was frustrated when fed a 'help' response page with 40 sections each with about 40 links, most to {helpful-pages} that linked even deeper.

Whatever they've done with the software has not made it user-friendly, no one I know of would step into this. Well, that difficulty aside, I committed to the project so I'll see it through. I think the best way to help me would be for you to be as critical as you would with anyone else! I know how to accept criticism and work my errors and mistakes off. Okay, signing off, and again thank you very much, you write well!

Missbellanash (talk) 03:36, 6 July 2021 (UTC)


You should not be trying to create a new page on Wikipedia as your very first effort. There are other sites where you can contribute biographies, such as Everipedia or EverybodyWiki, and not have to worry about pesky rules and policies. Or you could help Wikipedia by making small improvements to existing articles for some considerable time so you eventually get to the point where creating a new article, while still difficult, will be a lot more tractible. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 02:02, 6 July 2021 (UTC)


I'm pretty much of a policy wonk, rules and conditions for this site are not a problem (finding things you need to read, often are!) Thank you for the response and advice. Take care!

Missbellanash (talk) 03:36, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Living persons

Hey, Missbellahnash! We're very careful about how we talk about living people here on Wikipedia, because what we say can cause real harm. I removed some things you said at the Teahouse because they were unsupported negative assertions about a living person. —valereee (talk) 18:36, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi User:Valereee - if you remember could you advise me, in a general way, what the content was? I understand there is a possibility, but I have nothing to go by. Thanks, either way I appreciate it!! Missbellanash (talk) 10:40, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Missbellanash! You can see what I removed by clicking on the bluelinked word "said" above. It takes you to what we call a "diff" -- the difference between revisions. Usually when we leave messages to one another about something we've done, we leave a diff to let them know what we're talking about, in case (as with this) it's a while before the editor sees the message. I probably should have linked more words so it would be easily spotted by a new editor. Here it is again. —valereee (talk) 11:14, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

User:Valereee Thanks for the info, I read it and I concur, that read like too much twitter. Thanks! Missbellanash (talk) 11:32, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

No worries, thanks for understanding! :) —valereee (talk) 11:47, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

August 2021

Information icon Hi Missbellanash! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia – it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. TJRC (talk) 20:15, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Yeah my edit added to the article. I'll make sure to not select that by default. Thanks! Missbellanash (talk) 21:52, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. 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 the submission 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 the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
  • If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
  • If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.
Missbellanash (talk) 07:46, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi! Can we hide or remove the long color banner on the draft? Thanks Missbellanash (talk) 07:46, 11 August 2021 (UTC) Whoo, this looks as if it did something different than I expected. If I have made a mess I am so sorry. I just wanted to ask a question. Missbellanash (talk) 07:49, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (August 25)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Dan arndt was:
Need to place the article for review request on the draft article, Draft:Valerie Broussard.
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.
Dan arndt (talk) 07:27, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi Batty! I can't see how to get it there? Missbellanash (talk) 07:31, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Valerie Broussard has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Valerie Broussard. Thanks! Worldbruce (talk) 13:02, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Valerie Broussard (August 27)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Bonadea were:
This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.
This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
There is some indication that Broussard might meet WP:NMUSIC, but the draft needs to be thoroughly rewritten and almost all the current sources should be removed. Of the current 16 sources, the HITC one and the PRO MOTION Music News one might be useful, and the Billboard source is fine to use to confirm the charting claim, but none of the others seems to meet the sourcing requirements (see the links in the decline notice above and the one from 5 August).

I'm in the source code and I don't see which name goes with this - anyway. I suspected that might be an outcome, I was not able to determine 'which' should be disposed of, and which to keep. I do agree the three you've pointed out may qualify it, there is also that live interview in play. I know Wiki is plain-text (only) and does not host large media files, but couldn't a short snip from that be included, if it were useful? If that could only serve to show "this is a Zoom" conference it's probably not useful in a BLP.

In addition, as pointed out by Worldbruce, all external links in the body of the text have to be removed. A few of them might be useful as sources, others (such as all links to YouTube and IMDb) should simply be deleted.

For Ms. Broussard, sure. This brand new version on Charlie Watts. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Watts DOES NOT SHOW EQUAL TREATMENT or application of that rule.

I know, I know. There's a spiffy WP:HEHOTSTUFFANDYOUNOT link with the why's and wherefores that Charlie Watts is WP:EXEMPT from standards Ms. Broussard is subject to.


Also check the comments in this Teahouse thread, which partly address the promotional tone in the draft. At present, almost every single sentence in the draft has a promotional tone. Note also that Wikipedia articles should not contain "meta" comments such as "Her interview is available at the site here and on YouTube." The way to let the reader know where and what a source is, is by placing a reference to that source as explained here and here.
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.

Ok, got this. If you're seeing something that seems promotional it is 100% from shooting for a conversational tone. Missbellanash (talk) 00:32, 28 August 2021 (UTC)


bonadea contributions talk 09:20, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Where to comment

In this edit, you replied to ColinFine and me within a page that was already prefaced with This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. I imagine that ColinFine would respond, and I certainly would respond, if you asked at WP:Teahouse. In future, please don't edit archive pages.

In this edit to your own talk page (this page), you inserted your comments within Bonadea's comments. (I notice that you also wrote on Bonadea's talk page. Good.) I suggest that you rearrange your changes to Bonadea's comments here. In future, please don't insert comments (even if signed) within others' comments. -- Hoary (talk) 22:30, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

This type of contribution is quite likely to be seen as useless -- in this process. When someone is so bothered by something another has written a better option is to simply remove it and stay quite instead of bringing it to the other persons attention. There is never a point for anyone to make pedantic complaints they are simple excuses intended to inflame.
When a silent bureaucrat repeatedly produces text that insults the work another has done, the injured person is probably going to dislike them. Quite likely the best course to take when that occurs is for the instigator to stay out of the others sight as continued interaction will likely to earn contempt, particularly when the bureaucrat's input has only been a first-in denial over "notability". Stating they've written something in the wrong place compound the non-productive acts and are likely to be seen as overtly hostile.
Personally I would find it to be a strange credit to have been the progenitor of a generational war over a Wikipedia article, but as they say, "different strokes" &.& "I really don't care do U" - whatevs. Missbellanash (talk) 14:59, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
You're really comparing a more-experienced editor trying to help you learn how to use talk pages correctly to starting a nuclear war? —valereee (talk) 15:40, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
Well @Valereee that's an inference I never expected anyone to make from a few lines of sarcasm and humor. Perhaps a second reading will clear your suspicion, there is no comparison in my comment, and I really don't know how you arrived at that conclusion.
A bit more background (FYI), I was reading the page he referenced close to THIS bookmark when I opened a link from the notification bell (up top^^) at that time speeding around opening pages all over wiki, distracted momentarily I somehow forgot the notice of archival that my violation upset @Hoary . This is important to understand this event - the section I was at when I submitted my comment looked like any discussion page, it had a reply link then, and it has that same reply link today. I simply use tools that are offered, though I did edit raw source at some point.
The input box looked exactly like the one I have captured in this image.
File:Reply box link on wki.jpg - Wikipedia
It's really tiring and puzzling when experienced wikipedians lash out at editors about the same thing (notability) and won't ever bother to read comments, choosing instead to bombard newer editors with more-and-more links to massive pages to instruct them how to go about becoming a better editor. If all I'm going to get from interaction here is slapped and lashed at, I'll quit.
That's enough. I'll say no more this all easily re-constructed. I did nothing to draw a whole section on "where to comment" replete with shiny red text. The experience here is dull and boring, feedback is marginally helpful, the wiki process requires much time investment, and unwarranted accusations are hastily made.
And I just found out I have NO obligation to reply to anyone, the same as they have no duty to reply to me. caio Missbellanash (talk) 20:06, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Missbellanash/Archives/2021/August&oldid=1057695584"