User talk:BlueBlueNeonGlow

Speedy deletion nomination of Jazz Near You
Hello BlueBlueNeonGlow,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Jazz Near You for deletion, because it seems to be inappropriate for a variety of reasons. For more details please see the notice on the article.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.

DarjeelingTea (talk) 11:14, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Managing a conflict of interest
Hello, BlueBlueNeonGlow. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places, or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic, and it is important when editing Wikipedia articles that such connections be completely transparent. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. In particular, we ask that you please:


 * avoid editing or creating articles related to you and your family, friends, school, company, club, or organization, as well as any competing companies' projects or products;
 * instead, you are encouraged to propose changes on the Talk pages of affected article(s) (see the request edit template);
 * when discussing affected articles, disclose your COI (see WP:DISCLOSE);
 * avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or to the website of your organization in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
 * exercise great caution so that you do not violate Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Please take a few moments to read and review Wikipedia's policies regarding conflicts of interest, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, sourcing and autobiographies. Thank you. 331dot (talk) 01:08, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

I answered this question yesterday afternoon on the 'Jazz Near You' page. So once again:

I have contributed occasional unpaid reviews for All About Jazz. I have no affiliation with Jazz Near You, other than it is spun off from the All About Jazz site. Jazz Near You is based in the USA and I am in the UK. I have not been paid in any way for writing the wikipedia piece and I have not contributed to Jazz Near You at any stage of its life.

I have to say that I have found the wikipedia process bewildering and appalling. I spent yesterday with 3 editors taking shots at me - not giving me time to respond to one before the next would ask the same and sometimes additional questions. In the final and worst case the article was deleted by a third editor 20 minutes after I had agreed with the 2nd editor to move it to a sandbox. This crossfire approach felt intimidating, unnecessary and vindictive - I would have been happy to work through whatever you needed, but now haven't got a good word to say for wikipedia. I had thought that the guideline https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers should have meant something but this was not observed in any shape or form in my experience.

Simple natural justice should have prevented editors making assumptions on my contributions without discussing them with me. I have been condemned for something which is untrue and I am sick of being treated this way.BlueBlueNeonGlow (talk) 09:34, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I regret that you have had a difficult time here. However, not biting the newcomers doesn't mean that newcomers get a total pass as to policies and guidelines.  As this is a volunteer, collaborative effort, sometimes several people often will do things in different ways at the same time.  People try their best not to but with tens of thousands of people editing at any one time, it is bound to happen.  There is no intention of being intimidating.  My experience and observation is that most editors are more successful when they start with small edits and work their way up to creating articles.  Very few people successfully create or make major contributions to articles on their first try.


 * I posted the above notice because the publisher of All About Jazz posted on this page that you(identified by name) are a staff writer for him; that is enough to have the conflict of interest policy be relevant to you. No one has 'condemned' you for this, but neutral point of view is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and is taken seriously. This does not prevent you from offering information you have, but it must be done in the proper manner.


 * Regarding the page itself, if you visit this page you can request that the page be undeleted for purposes of moving it to your sandbox. 331dot (talk) 10:27, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

As I said I was happy to work with you and was actually looking forward to the experience. I have at no time asked for a pass on policies and believe that the article was factual in the eyes of any reasonable person. If it failed the guidelines in some way that I did not appreciate I was happy to discuss changes that might make it so (and said so in the talk section with at least 2 editors - the third just deleted without reading any of the discussion)

I have now seen that Michael Ricci did incorrectly identify me as a staff writer - I think that he meant 'part of the contributor team' rather than the employee you are interpreting it as (assumptions again). As I have said I am not employed in any way by All About Jazz and have never received payment for any record review or article that I have contributed to it. My additions to the All About Jazz page were intended to be minor updates of what had been on wikipedia for some time (I think since 2010?). They were only factual but augmented with what I thought were the notability citations required (Alexa rating, Jazz Journalists Association). These were wilfully misinterpreted, and no opportunity given to respond to the numerous questions and bombardment of policy documents - I tried to extend the courtesy of reading what the editors sent to me in the hope of learning from it, but by the time I had negotiated the barrage of links more questions and more links had arrived. Of course no-one was prepared to extend the same simple manners to me and the article was deleted after I had asked for it to be sandboxed as a way of trying to take stock of the crossfire.

It is too late to undelete and move 'Jazz Near You' now as I have already wasted another 2 hours rebuilding the links yesterday. The subsequent vindictive targeting of the All About Jazz page has convinced me not to bother with submitting this and wasting any more of my time on what I am shocked to have exposed as a cowboy organisation. If I had any confidence in wikipedia left I would make a complaint, but frankly yesterday has made it perfectly clear to me that it would be pre-judged and a further waste of my time - I doubt that you even have a complaints procedure worthy of the name.

BlueBlueNeonGlow (talk) 11:07, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * How Ricci identifies you is certainly a matter for you two to work out- but whatever you call your relationship it seems to me that the conflict of interest policy still applies.(though not paid editing since you are not paid) I would also state that it is not enough for an article to be factual, but it must have independent reliable sources that indicate how it is notable per the relevant notability guidelines, in this case those for web content(You don't need to read those links right now, just for future reference). If you don't have a lot of such sources and have any association with the subject, it could be seen as promotional in nature despite that not being your intent.


 * I'm sorry about the experience you describe. I didn't observe it so I don't know what went on, but I wish that they had moved the page for you and/or at least given you some time to digest things and defend what you were attempting to do.  While I didn't observe what went on, I doubt there was a deliberate effort to be vindictive or otherwise treat you badly, but it does seem to have been the result, even if unintended.  If you like, I would be willing to request undeletion on your behalf so it can be sandboxed.


 * If you wish, you can post a complaint about this experience on the administrator's noticeboard.331dot (talk) 11:21, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

I see little point in opening up the floodgates for more editors to take shots at me, given that no-one has shown the slightest interest in anything that does not conform to their assumptions.

I would be grateful if you/wikipedia could revert any of my edits and delete this account with immediate effect. If I have inadvertently breached any of your policies (which, having read them, I don't believe I have in either spirit or letter)then I apologise.

However, the whole experience has been an utter disgrace characterised by the willful and continued attempts to mis-represent and personally attack my integrity. I want nothing to do with an organisation that treats people like this and am disgusted that wikipedia sees fit to operate in this way.

BlueBlueNeonGlow (talk) 11:35, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I truly regret that, and urge you to not let one bad experience cloud everything here, but it is ultimately your decision whether or not to come here. Due to the structure of Wikipedia(all edits must be attributed to someone for legal reasons) accounts cannot be deleted.  If you don't wish to come here, simply stop coming.  You could attempt to request a courtesy vanishing where your edits are assigned to a random username, but I'm not sure if it would be granted in this case. 331dot (talk) 11:42, 27 February 2017 (UTC)