User:78.26/sandbox/SMH

Hopefully I did this right. Please send me any suggestions. I don't know if I made a mistake by moving it or even what that really means. Sowhatchawant (talk) 06:37, 23 August 2014 (UTC) Im going to work on the reference list as it should be like that. Is there a shortcut? Sowhatchawant (talk) 06:54, 23 August 2014 (UTC) aha. just found it using reflinks to generate. hopefully no issues.Sowhatchawant (talk) 07:01, 23 August 2014 (UTC) so nevermind. need help. where do the references go and why aren't listed when you edit?Sowhatchawant (talk) 07:05, 23 August 2014 (UTC) how do i make this a stub? what is the usual timeframe for a wiki user to answer in the talk sections? Sowhatchawant (talk) 07:08, 23 August 2014 (UTC) So I figured out the proper reference template. If anybody is reading, how many references should be in the article? It seems like every sentence needs a citation or it will get marked as "citation needed". Sowhatchawant (talk) 23:23, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Contested deletion
Google SMH Records in both gnews (link - https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=smh+records&tbm=nws) and regular search. It qualifies for an encyclopedic entry.Sowhatchawant (talk) 20:59, 18 October 2014 (UTC) This page should not be speedily deleted because it was only put there because of user Hell In The Bucket personally attacked me and the page for no reason. He edited it weeks ago, but had up incorrect information that I just got around to fixing. He was also warned for these type of things a few days ago for another page. --Sowhatchawant (talk) 20:30, 18 October 2014 (UTC) The user Hell In The Bucket has been incredibly offensive and is wrong with his edits. This isn't the same article. It's backed up with credible sources. I've been extremely professional and ignored his personal attacks. He has a very disruptive history and has deleted a lot of the sources. Frustrating. Sowhatchawant (talk) 20:30, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * You may hear loud quacking if you look here [] you might get to do some duck shooting if you are the hunting type. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 21:05, 18 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Duck hunting? WHAT THE HECK? I won't go back and forth with your personal attacks. Google SMH Records in both gnews and regular search. It qualifies for an encyclopedic entry whether you like it or not. Sowhatchawant (talk) 21:16, 18 October 2014 (UTC)


 * This user attacking this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hell_in_a_Bucket Hell has been warned to refrain from edit warring and needlessly inflammatory rhetoric in the future. Further instances of similar misconduct may result in serious sanctions. Hopefully Wikipedia takes notice.Sowhatchawant (talk) 21:21, 18 October 2014 (UTC)


 * You don't have a clue about what you are blathering about, duck hunting in this contest is much like whack a mole, you whack one sockpuppet or mole and they come back again. Unless you are saying that somehow in a few hundred edits you know more about the policies then someone with almost 23000 and successfully written over 90 articles. I guess it's just me but I'd listen to the person that's been here longer rather then whine about how much I'm right. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 21:28, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion Not Warranted
This article doesn't fall under the criteria for speedy deletion because it is NOT a repost of material. The majority of this article has references from the last few months. In my opinion the older article was WP:TOOSOON. Sowhatchawant (talk) 03:41, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

SMH Records Founders
I could be wrong with this as I've seen it done different ways on wikipedia pages for businesses. I think some brief information on the founders of the business is important to the history of SMH Records. I included the sources of Billboard Magazine and E! News. This SMH Records article now has two different and separate Billboard Magazine refs. If I'm wrong about this please let me know.Sowhatchawant (talk) 10:36, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I did, you didn't actually read the links I put in the message. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 10:54, 19 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I'd prefer to hear it from someone else and something more informative. I'm sorry but our personal interactions for whatever reason don't seem to be constructive.Sowhatchawant (talk) 11:14, 19 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Well you can lead the horse to water but if they won't drink there is nothing a person can do. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 11:18, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

References & References
It seems like I have way too many references for this article. I don't really know what is appropriate for references and citations. I see it done so many different ways but this could seem like overkill. Or maybe it's not. Any examples or help is welcomed. Reflinks is no longer working any other suggestions?Sowhatchawant (talk) 10:50, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Logo or Picture
Wanted to add but was a little confused about the know how. Do I have to get permission from SMH to add a image?Sowhatchawant (talk) 10:50, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

State of the article
I've been looking this over, and I'm not quite sure what to make of it. I have no special standing or authority, and please take it for what it is: my opinions only. There's been a lot of chatter over this label on the net, and in sources better than the usual blogs, but not a lot of what I would call ironclad reliable sources, either. Worth something is the New York post article about Bim Fernandez, which has some independent, verifiable information about the label's workings. The best source is, ironically "The Source" which has a fairly in-depth profile of the lable and its history (reference 4). The self-references should stay as reliable information (for facts, not opinions), but of course do not establish notability. The Billboard source is the epitome of a trivial mention. The Digital Music News article also provides in-depth coverage, and appears to be written by a staff writer. This gives the article "multiple independent, reliable sources" so the article shouldn't be deleted based on notability. If I haven't mentioned a given source in the article as of 02:42, 20 October 2014 (UTC), it is because I have come to the conclusion it is either not reliable, or more likely based on a press release, or is about an artist or executive associated with the label, and not about the label itself. I'm also not including things like "SMH made an offer to artist/person X" That is very trivial information, and violates WP:NOTNEWS. As of today, the label has not released any notable records. They have signed some notable artists. I wish this article were written in about a year, and not now. As it is written the article tries too hard to inherit notability by its executives, PR releases, and artists it wants to sign (wishful thinking?) There is a lot of promotional cruft here. It needs to be seriously cut. Unfortunately, while trying to remove the promotional material and make the article NPOV compliant, another editor got tired of edit-warring tried to WP:TNT the whole thing. By and large, I think the edits user:Hell in a Bucket made before this action was taken were correct, and should be restored. Paragraph-by-paragraph: *additionally, there should be a "Signed artists" section, but only as cited by reliable, independent sources. By the way, there was a completely unrelated SMH Records in the early 1970s  I hope that is useful. 78.26  (spin me / revolutions) 03:42, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The last three sentences in the lede should be significantly pared down (per the inherit problems listed above.)
 * the "History" sections should be completely re-written to remove more inherit problems and the Non-news. More should be taken from "The Source" article in a balanced, dispassionate manner.
 * the "One Shot" section should be removed per WP:CRYSTAL
 * all pending releases should be removed per WP:CRYSTAL
 * Thank you I appreciate the efforts, hopefully my ensuing block won't be too long. ;) cheers due to the crap going on now I won't be touching the article for a while. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 04:00, 20 October 2014 (UTC)


 * That makes some sense and I'm starting to understand. I have some questions. How can you tell a difference between a "press release" on a website verses a non press release and it being a article? For example, if any company releases a press release and a credible news source picks it up, it wouldn't be notable because that's what the company is saying and it's biased? But if that reliable media publication picked up the story wouldn't it be checked out before they published it? How can you see a press release and tell that is happening? I don't think any person out there could issue a press release and have a reliable publication pick it up so there has to be some kind of notability for it to be published? I don't even know if I'm explaining my questions or thoughts right but hope you can see what I am trying to get at.


 * As far as Hell in a Bucket goes I think his approach wasn't fair and was disrespectful. Within a few hours I was called a duck, a mole, dishonest, a sockpuppet / meatpuppet by this user. I've never communicated with this user in my life and I felt it was unprofessional. When I clicked on his profile I saw he was engaged in other types of conflicts so I just tried my best to ignore him.


 * As far as WP:CRYSTAL goes I see a lot of releases (books, movies, music) with that information of a pending release. If Eminem or Stephen King has an upcoming release it has a wikipedia page as they should. Is that because they have already established their own notability and are considered credible and reliable sources? In no way shape or form do I think SMH Records pending releases are on the same level or even close to either of those two I'm just trying to wrap my brain around it.


 * Personally I would love for you to edit the page when you have time so I can get a scope of how it works. If you look at my original notes on the talk page I was wanting to make it a stub. As you previously said labels don't get mentions on places like MTV News and Billboard unless they have some kind of notability. Last question. Would you consider HipHopDX a reliable source?


 * Thank you for all your help and insight! Sowhatchawant (talk) 05:16, 20 October 2014 (UTC)


 * If you really aren't connected to this company and you actually are here to work on the encyclopedia then read WP:RS it is what we consider Reliable Sources. If you read the WP:MOS Manual of Style, WP:GNG and WP:RS you'd be suprised how much different your experience will be. Crystal works in different ways, as of right now it's honestly debateable that this company should even have an article right now. 78.26 quite astutely tells you why I made the changes. I have very little patience for paid editing and that arb case you were incorrectly citing was related to a banned editor partly for paid editing issues and they left extremely ambiguous wording in trhe decision, you touched off a sore nerve with that one. I don't have an issue with SMH Records at all, there is a reason I was trying to remove the unacceptable parts of it and not just go straight to deletion which because of the previous discussion was well within the guidelines of CSD. I'm curious though about a few things, you suggested I "go after" another page for a person claiming to be part of SMH records but who is not. That means you have a detailed knowledge of SMH Records employees, all of your edits are related to SMH, you say you like Crooked I because he's associated with Eminem but your edits on that page were again about SMH Records? Your statements are inconsistent with the behaviors you are exhibiting. Now there is a difference between paid editing and a WP:COI but I'd like to see if you can answer those because those are all reasons why I feel you aren't being honest. We all have conflicts of interests, that doesn't bar our participation there it just means you have to be more careful. This is a stub I made about a personal aquaintance Dax Charles, I tagged my own page with a COI tag [], you will find that being open like that will earn you a lot of respect. The other question is your references about being "professional" quite a few times is another indicating factor of you being a paid editor or conflict of interest editor. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 08:13, 20 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I would say that I do have a detailed knowledge of SMH Records as I created the entry. I think anyone who is creating an article should have a greater knowledge of what they are documenting. I feel it's an absolute responsibility to know as much as possible. One of my early edits I made on August 23rd was to Crooked I's page adding SMH Records. I heard about the company through DJ Whoo Kid (one of my first edits) that he had a mixtape coming out with songs that featured Crooked I on SMH Records. DJ Whoo Kid works with Eminem through Shade 45. Shade 45 is a radio station owned by Eminem. Crooked I is part of Slaughterhouse who is signed to Eminem's record label Shady Records. Sway Calloway who is part of the One Shot show with SMH Records also works with Eminem on Shade 45. Horseshoe Gang are the blood brothers of Crooked I who are on SMH Records too. It's all connected. There is no conspiracy. I am not a paid editor. I think "professionalism" should be used at all times with everything. Maybe a better word would be "courteous" to use instead of "professional" but I don't think that matters. Thanks for the information as it's much appreciated. Sowhatchawant (talk) 09:39, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Regarding HipHopDX, I am truly delving into an unfamiliar world, as this just isn't my type of music. Looking through it, I would say it is a reliable source insofar as their editor-written articles are concerned.  Other content should probably be taken with a large grain of salt (rumors, interviews, etc.)    78.26   (spin me / revolutions) 17:18, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, I'm changing my mind on this one. Given they reported on the label's offer to JayZ, (I could make an offer too, sheesh), I seriously doubt the journalistic integrity of this publication.  In fact, I'm removing it.    78.26   (spin me / revolutions) 21:18, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I am done for now. I may pare it down a little more as I think about it, it somehow still seems a bit promotional to me, but it is light-years better than it was when nominated for deletion.  Feel free to ping me to discuss, if you want.   78.26   (spin me / revolutions) 21:39, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

SMH Records & Crooked I (Eminem)
Somebody might want to add this news from the last few days in RE: SMH Records. Crooked I announced on MTV News that he has a mixtape experience album being released on SMH Records on December 16. http://www.mtv.com/news/1995870/kxng-crooked-dont-censor-eminem/