User talk:Girlsounds

June 2011
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, but at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Jerry Goldstein (record producer, musician), did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted (undone) by ClueBot NG.
 * Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Note that human editors do monitor recent changes to Wikipedia articles, and administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism.
 * ClueBot NG produces very few false positives, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made should not have been detected as unconstructive, please read about it, [ report it here], remove this warning from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
 * The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Jerry Goldstein (record producer, musician) was changed by Girlsounds (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.971164 on 2011-06-27T04:16:03+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 04:16, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of About Nancy Baron Girlsound singer


A tag has been placed on About Nancy Baron Girlsound singer requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article, which appears to be about a real person, individual animal(s), an organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, does not indicate how or why the subject of the article is important or significant: that is, why an article about it should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you can assert the notability of the subject,. Clicking that button will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the |the article's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. You may freely add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

See the guidelines for specific types of articles: biographies, websites, bands, or companies. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 22:13, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Status and Advice
As reviewing administrator, I decided the article made a claim of importance, and did not delete it. However, it was clearly copied from an outside source, which is not permitted. I partially rewrote it, but I lack expertise in that field, and it really needs to be rewritten from scratch, in your own words, instead of the superficial excerpt and paraphrase I did. You also need to more clearly indicate the references so others can find them. Please see WP:MUSIC to check what is necessary for the bio of a musical artist to be considered suitable for an encyclopedia article--the present article does not clearly show it. I advise you to fix the problem, and do this very quickly, before the article gets nominated for deletion by a regular deletion process.

However, I do not want to discourage you, but to urge you to write a proper article if it is possible; if it is not yet possible, please help us by improving our other articles on related topics.  DGG ( talk ) 22:38, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I think you know by now that it was not copied from any outside source. I created a short bio of Nancy Baron on my Youtube channel(annalisa1262). How do you actually step forward and state it was CLEARLY copied from an outside source. That is an assertion you had no right to make since I should know my own history and can prove my identity(provide documents). As I've said before this-YOU ARE WRONG! I have provided 15 references and the article is still in suspended animation. I would like to be advised of its status and really feel it should be changed to a more positive category. That's up to you since you're the "experts".

Talkback
... disco spinster   talk  17:40, 27 July 2011 (UTC) Thank you for not deleting my article and noting the subject matters merit. I have already identified myself, I do not want to risk harassment so I won't do this again. I would like to know the article's status at this point.Girlsounds (talk) 00:14, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

August 2011
I came across another push for deletion of my article by "mark of the Beast" dated 8/4/11. This is someone who is simply biased against the topic and I believe dislikes this writer for standing up for my rights and criticizing truly abusive editors. I also find his user name offensive. It is a link to the satanic which is denoted by the number"666". I advised him that his name is inappropriate for this publication but perfect for his behavior. I also found out that Wikpedia has a disciplinary committee.If I can find out how to report those who were and still are horrible I will do so. I cannot find any articles written by him. Do as you will with the article since I'll never get the beast off of my back.

Status and Advice
This is the best I can do towards helping you, and more work than I 've ever done before in this area, so far from my own interests.  DGG ( talk ) 05:47, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) The way to prove you are the author of something and to donate it to Wikipedia according to our licenses is given in WP:DCM, which must be followed in detail.
 * 2) People at Wikipedia often adopt fanciful names, and it is usually misleading to rely upon the implication of the names
 * 3) Articles are kept or not according to the decision of the community, either at WP:AFD or WP:Deletion review.
 * 4) At this point, no administrator has deleted anything you have written. The only way to delete the article is with WP:AFD. In its present form, my experience here tells me that it would need to be substantially rewritten for the community to find it acceptable. Perhaps one of the people who write regularly on related subjects here will do it.
 * 5) It is extremely difficult to write an article about oneself or one's work. It can be done, but in my experience here, few people have the objectivity to do it properly.
 * 6) This subject is not my specialty. However, using common sense, and my general experience here, I can give you some advice about the article.
 * 7) There are some serious technical problems with the article that make it hard to evaluate: please doublecheck the exact form of all internet references, and copypaste the references from the browser page. I fixed a few errors, because I could not find them as written and could not evaluate anything without them, but I know I have not fixed them all.
 * 8) There are three subjects: Girlsounds as a genre, Nancy Baron as an musician, and Chelsea as a label. I do not think it will work to combine them into one article.
 * 9) If Chelsea as a label has produced notable recordings which have charted, and the company has been written about in some of the many publications devoted to popular music, it should be possible to write an article about it. This might be the simplest way of proceeding, if only because you have the least conflict of interest here. In general, we are very glad to have information on even relatively minor labels--we try to build an historical record.
 * 10) Establishing an article on a genre is quite difficult. I would advise attempting it unless there are good articles in well-known sources discussing it as a genre, not just mentioning it. Genres overlap, and it has in the past been difficult to show that a particular less-known genre is distinct.But if there are really good sources, especially those that discuss it in relation to other genres, it can be done. From what I can make of the references, the term "girlsounds" is not a standard name for any genre, and it would be necessary to have an exact reference to where the term is defined, What I find instead is " Girl Group Sound", which seems more of a description than an exact name. Perhaps it would be a better idea to expand the section on the 60s in the article on girl groups. (with exact references)
 * 11) An artist whose works are known only on the internet is almost impossible to write an article about here, unless there are publications about the artist, or the person has won recognized awards. Whether or not we should accept internet popularity as a criterion for an article is irrelevant--perhaps we should, but at present we do not, unless the popularity is proven by references from conventional sources. Artists who had no significant impact at the time and whose work is recognized later are in general difficult topics, because the usual criteria for popular music, charting, does not apply--so it takes excellent sources. I do not find the name in allmusic.

Thanks to DGG taking the time to explain some of the problems with this article. I'm trying to decide how to straighten it out ie:wrap my head around this new medium;this is my first article and only wanted to write a stub. I guess it just grew into a bit of confusion. I'm trying to become familiar with Wikipedia's protocol as well as the editors which I've found daunting. I'm not very experienced at referencing using links. Technology isnot my strongest forte. I will use your advice as a guide when a have a chance to practice links, obtain better references and decide how to change the article. I probably over reached without realizing it. Thanks againGirlsounds (talk) 04:49, 7 August 2011 (UTC)