User talk:Parallelograms

Welcome!

Hello Parallelograms! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! XLinkBot (talk) 16:14, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Getting Started
Wikipedia Tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia How to: edit a page • upload an image
Getting Help
Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention
Policies and Guidelines
Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Fair use • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The Community
Build consensus • Resolving disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists
Things to do
Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Pages needing attention • Peer review Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism
Miscellaneous
Useful templates • Categories • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Tools • User scripts

February 2019

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Ariel Pink has been reverted.
Your edit here to Ariel Pink was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jeOJotFpMUY) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. If the external link you inserted or changed was to a media file (e.g. music or video) on an external server, then note that linking to such files may be subject to Wikipedia's copyright policy, as well as other parts of our external links guideline. If the information you linked to is indeed in violation of copyright, then such information should not be linked to. Please consider using our upload facility to upload a suitable media file, or consider linking to the original.
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 16:14, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Dan Horne (July 8)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Bearcat 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 people). 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:

Six of these sources glancingly namecheck his existence in coverage of other things or people; one verifies a completely tangential fact about somebody else named in the article without even mentioning Dan Horne's name at all; four are primary sources that are not support for notability; one is just a photograph; and one is just a list of all his album credits which features no written prose content at all.
This is not the kind of referencing we need to establish that he is notable: we require reliable source coverage which has him as its subject, not just sources that happen to have his name in them.

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:Dan Horne 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:Dan Horne, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" 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, 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.

Bearcat (talk) 02:55, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Parallelograms! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation 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! Bearcat (talk) 02:55, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Dan Horne concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Dan Horne, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:24, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Dan Horne

Hello, Parallelograms. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Dan Horne".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia 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 edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, 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.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! Bkissin (talk) 17:23, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edit to The Growlers

Hello! I'm reaching out in regards to this edit. In the changelog for that edit, you mention that the band "were never signed to the label" [Burger Records]. I'm wondering if you had a citation for this claim.

That's contrary to reporting by the Los Angeles Times, shown here where they state that the band has released music on Burger. In fact, on Burger's official site (archived copy on 13 April 2020) - you'll find that The Growlers are clearly listed as one of Burger's artists... on the label's own site. I fail to recognize why they would be listed there if they weren't actually signed.

Now, pedantism aside, it's clear they had association to Burger regardless if they were actually "signed to the label" - your edit completely removes that association, especially when looking at the larger picture. There's little doubt that the claims against the Growlers played a part in the controversy with Burger and their subsequent closing. If they weren't actually signed, then the phrasing should be adjusted to accurately reflect the relationship to Burger - not completely remove it.

Needless to say, I don't have any issue with the phrasing of your edit, I just take issue with the reasoning behind some of the removal of some of the original text.

Thanks. JCBird1012 (talk) 19:46, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JCBird1012! Hope I'm responding the right way here, as I haven't used the Talk feature before. Thanks for your note on my edit. My rationale for removing the Burger Records references from the page was that since The Growlers had a very limited association with Burger, it seemed logical to remove it. But from a historical sense, I actually agree with you and added back in a Burger reference to the opening line of the paragraph. I think it provides a helpful context for understanding the scenario in which the allegations arose. Technically, yes, the Growlers were never "signed" to Burger. Burger printed a cassette for the band [1] in 2012. The Growlers are fiercely independent and generally resist being associated with any scene other than their own. For most bands that would probably sound pretentious or flat-out wrong, but the band pioneered their own sound ("Beach Goth"), started a 9-year festival called "Beach Goth", and released their music on their own "Beach Goth Records and Tapes." They had a loose and adjacent association with Burger at best, but yes, it makes sense to name Burger in the section.

Thank you! Parallelograms (talk) 22:16, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, that's the right way to respond! Otherwise, you make very solid points. Nonetheless, thanks for adding a mention of Burger back to the section - I think it'll be helpful context and information for anyone stumbling upon The Growlers to establish the connection with Burger Records (considering all the news coverage seems to assume that the band was actually signed to the label). Thanks for your edits! JCBird1012 (talk) 00:25, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]