User talk:Panerunsdry

Your submission at Articles for creation: The Pineapples (September 20)

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

Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) -  10:29, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello! The wicked ape, 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! Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) -  10:29, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:The Pineapples has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:The Pineapples. Thanks! Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) -  10:30, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of The Pineapples

The article The Pineapples has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:43, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Blocked

There have been two problems with this account: the account has been used for advertising or promotion, which is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia, and your username indicates that the account represents a business or other organisation or group, which is also against policy, as an account must be for just one person. Because of those problems, the account has been blocked indefinitely from editing.

If you intend to make useful contributions about some topic other than your business or organisation, you may request an unblock. To do so, post the text {{unblock-spamun|Your proposed new username|Your reason here}} at the bottom of your talk page. Replace the text "Your proposed new username" with a new username you are willing to use. See Special:CentralAuth to search for available usernames. Your new username will need to meet our username policy. Replace the text "Your reason here" with your reason to be unblocked. In that reason, you must:

• Convince us that you understand the reason for your block and that you will not repeat the kind of edits for which you were blocked.
• Describe in general terms the contributions that you intend to make if you are unblocked.

If you believe this block was made in error, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} at the bottom of your talk page, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:03, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Please don't circumvent best practices

I have merged your main-space article with your older draft article at Draft:The Pineapples. Because you have a conflict of interest with the subject, you should not be creating or making substantial edits to the article in main space. After you make a successful unblock request, work on the article in draft space and submit it for review, as before. Please also read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest for guidance. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:11, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Anachronist,

There is no conflict of interest. The page was not meant as advertisement. I'm not a member of the band in the topic. I opted to do it as I'm a fan. My username was random (Christ I never used Wikipedia before. Who knew?) The deletions seem almost prejudicial at this point (as though word went out to block). As a music fan, I have viewed so many pages for bands and musicians with no references, no external links and sometimes no text! There is so much press for this band. Ample documentation of notability. Is Wikipedia in the business of suppressing independent music? It seems so. There is a world of meaningful well-known music that hit its peak before the internet. Does that make it not notable?

Again, my page was not meant as an advertisement. I am not in the band, nor am I in business with the band. Obviously I know them, and honestly I went to school with them. But the assertion that its advertisement is patently false. Apparently I can't object to the deletion because my entire account is blocked. Maybe I'll make a Coldplay page.

The article in draft space at Draft:The Pineapples is currently in no danger of being deleted. That draft contains all of your edits including the ones you made in main space.

"Wicked Ape Records" is the band's label according to discogs. Your username and your editing activity give the appearance of a record label trying to promote a band on Wikipedia, which has happened so often in the past that it's easy to recognize.

You were blocked for two reasons: companies and other organizations are prohibited from having Wikipedia accounts, and Wikipedia mustn't ever be used for publicity purposes. There is a venue for an editor with a conflict of interest (which you have by virtue of your personal acquaintance), and that venue is Wikipedia:Articles for creation.

You had submitted the draft article for review before, and it was declined. It is very bad form to subsequently create the same article in main space after a more experienced editor has already deemed it unsuitable. Therefore I merged your main space article back into draft space so that you could improve it submit it for review again. But you will need to get yourself unblocked first, per the instructions in your block message above (hint: don't try to evade your block by creating a new account; it will be blocked and make it much harder for you to be unblocked at all). ~Anachronist (talk) 20:06, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Anachronist

I am not the record label. I just used that because I was writing about the band. As for "bad form," I followed Wikipedia's own instructions. I didn't simply repost it. I made all the changes recommended. I think you simply ignored that. If you look at the draft and the one posted, I added external links. The editor who rejected the draft said specifically that there weren't enough external links. So I added them. Only then did I repost. I don't like the implication that anything was done in "bad form." I researched online how to post and there is no rule that it has to go through the draft process. I made the changes, didn't ignore the draft process, and then reposted it. I don't believe you read the page or bothered to see if the changes were made. You simply corresponded with the other editor and decided to take it down and block my account. You didn't cite the page at all in your above post, nor did you cite anything in it in your original deletion. That strongly implies that the decision to delete was made in spite of the merits of the page. Again, do some research there are many pages, specifically relating to music, with little or no references.

And "easy to recognize"? I don't think so. Because that was not the case here. I only hope I didn't hurt the band in all of this by causing them to be blacklisted from Wikipedia. I can't imagine Wikipedia editors actually believing that editors who create pages have no interest in the subject, or those who delete are in any way objective. In the case of music, is it a requirement that the person creating the page has no interest in the music? Of course I wanted more people to know about the subject. But stop stating that the creator of this article is "the label," because there are no independent labels anymore. Bands like this, who release on vinyl and come from this era, regularly create their own label monikers to release under. In this case, wicked ape is the original name of the band when they were at Purchase College where I first saw them. I'm a third party as per Wikipedia requirements. I'm an independent vinyl distributor and trader basically. I made sure not to in any way promote my business or dealings in this article. And ironically, the page was deleted because I'm suspected of being the subject of the article I chose to write. I don't care that its rejected at this point. But I do care that you wrote on this page that I was essentially being dishonest and secretly promoting my own personal and financial interests.

This user's request to be unblocked to request a change in username has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

---

Requested username:

panerunsdry (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Request reason:

The reason I'm suggesting that I'm unblocked is because I didn't realize such scrutiny would be applied to my username, which I chose at random. It seems related to the subject, because I really wasn't planning on doing pages on anything other than music, and that was the music I was writing about at the time. I'm not officially associated with the subject, and yes I would like to re-submit it as I put a lot of work in, and I strongly believe there are ample references and external links

Accept reason:

Your account has been renamed. You state above that you know the band and went to school with them. Regardless of whether or not you have an "official" association, you still do have an association, therefore you have a conflict of interest. As such, your work on the article should be restricted to draft space, and in the event it is accepted and published in main space, any further substantial changes should be proposed on the talk page, although it's probably a gray area in your case. Please go to work improving the sources in the draft — the citations appear unverifiable and messed up, mixed with bare URLs in the article prose, and this will need cleaning up before you resubmit. See WP:CITE for guidance. Also see Wikipedia:Golden rule for a brief overview of what's expected in an article. Good luck. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:23, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

• Globally renamed 'The wicked ape' to 'Panerunsdry'. Just Chilling (talk) 19:23, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Editing help

Anachronist

To be clear, I didn't say I know them. I said I saw them. I appreciate my account being unblocked. But I'm really not sure what to do with this page at this point. How are the citations unverifiable. There are links and many of the references are still online. Not all of course. I'm trying to be as compliant as possible. And are you saying to make corrections and re-submit, or don't re-submit?

Above you say "Obviously I know them, and honestly I went to school with them." The words you use are important, we can go only by your actions and what you write, not by what you're actually thinking.

When I look at the References list in the draft article, I see no links. I see some bare URLs in the article prose. It isn't clear that these links are associated with the references.

Try formatting your references like this:

<ref>{{cite web | author=AuthorName | title=PageTitle | url=http://example.com/ArticlePage | date=2017-10-18 | journal=PublicationName | publisher=PublisherName}}</ref>

Not all those fields need have values. You can refer to Wikipedia:Citation templates to find the template best suited for each citation you have. Using those templates will put all the information in the right order (regardless of how you order the fields), with the right formatting, and properly linked. Once you do that, submit your draft for review using the button in the box at the top. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:08, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Anachronism

Well, don't get me wrong. I appreciate the time you're taking. That formatting advice I'll need to figure out, because it looks like Greek right now. I want to do pages for bands who are noteworthy but under the radar. I know that's a balancing act. But thanks.

I actually find it easier to use the standard Wiki source editor rather than the default visual editor, so you can see the codes. In the example above, the citation would appear like this:

References

It may seem Greek but you'll get it eventually. You can also ask Wikipedia:Help desk for help. 05:19, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

I've taken it up again after giving it a rest. I'll submit it through Draft Review. The nineties reviews I have are not all online. But I found them on the band website. Can I link to that? Or does it have to have an online link? NME doesn't archive everything. And those are important references. The format you gave me is fine. It's not Greek after all.

References don't have to be online, they just need to be published and verifiable, like anyone should be able to go to a library or news archive and look it up. References shouldn't be things with self-published or user-generated content such as blogs or forums (this is why we don't use Wikipedia in citations; it's all user-generated content). For organizations like bands, we also need more than just local-interest references. The publications should be national or at least regional in scope. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:59, 25 November 2017 (UTC)