User talk:GoldXLion

Welcome!
Hello, GoldXLion, and welcome to Wikipedia!&#32;Thank you for your contributions.

I noticed that one of the first articles you edited was Draft:Laura Stevens, which appears to be dealing with a topic with which you may have a conflict of interest. In other words, you may find it difficult to write about that topic in a neutral and objective way, because you are, work for, or represent, the subject of that article.&#32;Your recent contributions may have already been undone for this very reason.

To reduce the chances of your contributions being undone, you might like to draft your revised article before submission, and then ask me or another editor to proofread it. See our help page on userspace drafts for more details. If the page you created has already been deleted from Wikipedia, but you want to save the content from it to use for that draft, don't hesitate to ask anyone from this list and they will copy it to your user page.

One rule we do have in connection with conflicts of interest is that accounts used by more than one person will unfortunately be blocked from editing. Wikipedia generally does not allow editors to have usernames which imply that the account belongs to a company or corporation. If you have a username like this, you should request a change of username or create a new account. (A name that identifies the user as an individual within a given organization may be OK.)

In addition, if you receive, or expect to receive, compensation for any contribution you make, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation to comply with our terms of use and our policy on paid editing.

Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
 * Best practices for editors with close associations
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! Drmies (talk) 15:37, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

OK--your COI is so obvious, and after I dropped my note here, and made a few edits to make that draft less promotional, you went right back and reinserted a whole bunch of material that will prevent your draft from ever being accepted. In addition, you must disclose your COI, lest you be blocked. Please don't let it get that far. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 16:21, 12 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi there.
 * Sorry I did not see your edit. I was trying to revise based on your previous notes and must have overlapped with yours.
 * please could you clarify COI acronym ? How should I disclose this - to whom?
 * I am a scholar of South African Music trying to update the presence of South African composers on Wikipedia after interviewing them and collating information on their body of works. GoldXLion (talk) 16:37, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * COI means conflict of interest. Please follow the links above. You can start with "Best practices for editors with close associations", in bold print, linked above. This is a collaborative project: it is appreciated if you pay attention to what other editors are telling you, via this talk page and via edit summaries. Drmies (talk) 16:44, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I will review your notes in the relevant sections. I think I was beset by some kind of lag between the edit interface and the notifications section.
 * apologies for that. GoldXLion (talk) 16:46, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Is there any way to be unblocked. I have no conflict of interest or payment relationship with the article I was writing.
 * I am here to learn, and there was a lag on registering your most recent edits while I was still trying to make initial adjustments on your earlier suggestions.
 * My only crime is being too hasty, but how else must I learn.
 * I understand your standards but it’s highly encouraging to new users for this level of intolerance to be meted out so abruptly. GoldXLion (talk) 16:58, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Is there any way to be unblocked. I have no conflict of interest or payment relationship with the party in the article I was writing.
 * I noticed there was a lack of articles on South African composers, particularly female ones on Wikipedia and I’m trying to improve that.
 * I am here to learn, and there was a lag on registering your most recent edits while I was still trying to make initial adjustments on your earlier suggestions.
 * My only crime is being too hasty, but I am willing to improve on that.
 * I understand your standards are stringent but it’s highly discouraging to new users for this level of intolerance to be meted out so abruptly.
 * Your advice and experience is appreciated. There are some comments you made which I wasn’t sure were relevant to field of musical and film composition.
 * Tone does tend to lean promotional by default when it’s a living composer (I referred to other articles on living composers, e.g. Dani Howard, Lorne Balfe etc )
 * so your suggestions on how to limit that are welcome. GoldXLion (talk) 17:10, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

May 2023
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Draft:Laura Stevens, you may be blocked from editing. ''You keep restoring promotional content that does not conform to our editing practices. Please stop.'' Drmies (talk) 16:31, 12 May 2023 (UTC)  You have been blocked indefinitely from editing certain pages (Draft:Laura Stevens) for undeclared COI editing. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text at the bottom of your talk page:. Drmies (talk) 16:37, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Reply to declination by 331dot
If you did not see my edit summaries, and the notes I placed here on the talk page, and if you do not understand how your edits were unproductive and links like to that podcast (and the many inline URLs, for instance) were promotional, then editing other articles is a good idea if only to practice how editing on Wikipedia works. Drmies (talk) 22:48, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

I saw them after the fact. There were many in real time and I was trying to edit according to your initial suggestions, and while in the editor interface , missed your further edits, which you interpreted as me overruling them. That was not my intention. I’m happy to take direction.

The podcast I linked to is an archive of interviews with notable South African composers, which I am not connected to in any way. The interviews are carried out by a party other than the composer with a journalistic and scholarly archival aim. My intention was to provide citation for the sentence stating the nationality of the composer I was writing about. She is South African, it’s the South African Composer’s Archive. Seemed logical. There were other sources attesting to the same data but this was just for variation on type of source.

I’m trying to understand how that’s promotional.

The rest of the citations were clear secondary sources (news articles, music society profiles validated by that society etc) in which I attempted to cite the composer’s connection to the projects mentioned either through those newspaper/media reviews, or by way of credits / crew listings. There were also mentions of the collaboration between the composer and other creative persons on, for example, publisher websites of that person (Pan MacMillan publishing house for Katharine Towers). There was no link to any of the composer’s own published material or website. All of the links sought to verify the legitimacy statements they were attached to through a third party (read: secondary ) source.

From reading your style and format guides it was my understanding that the more cross-linking to other Wikipedia pages and indeed other sites the better. You know, the subtleties may take time to learn but I’m not a complete idiot and I really feel condescended to by this interaction. It’s really off putting and doesn’t encourage people to learn and put in the effort you clearly have.
 * Maybe promotional is a strong word for the podcast--but after all, it is an interview, so whatever comes up there is information provided by the subject themselves, and was there no better source? Inline URLs linking to people's website--that's pretty clearly promotional, it's almost product placements. I don't know how you can refer to this as a secondary source, but that sentence is somewhat unclear: either way, it's a publisher's page and therefore by definition not an independent source. Credit/crew listings are typically primary, as with this link. The only truly secondary sources I see here are the Guardian articles.No, articles on living people are not by definition not-neutral, in tone or content. If information is properly ascribed to reliable secondary sources, it's fine. As for the interface, this edit of yours came after six edits of mine; surely you noticed that a bunch of material you had originally written had disappeared. But that was the second time you did it--you already restored everything I had edited for the sake of neutrality in this edit, in which you also restored two instances of unwarranted "award-winning"--and you also reinstated inline URLs, like here: " and choreographed by Stina Quagebeur., and you removed the "citation needed" tag. It seems clear to me that this was just a copy and paste operation, with no regard for the reasons why some of your phrasing and linking was removed. I mean, all the stylistic corrections I made (correcting the placement of the infobox, bolding the subject, etc.) were undone too.I don't want to fight over this. I have no involvement here. If a subject is notable, we should have an article on it. If you can write it, please do so (because I can't, and no one else has seen fit to do it), but it will have to follow the rules. The draft you were working on, there was no way it was going to be accepted by any reviewer here. If you can tell me that you will follow WP:RS and Neutral point of view, and base the article on secondary more than on primary sources, I will be happy to remove this partial block--that would be a lot easier than you submitting edit requests on the talk page, which is the normal procedure for COI editors. Speaking of which, I'll accept that you have no personal COI with the subject--but you will have to take note that when an administrator requests that you address the issue, it is a good idea to follow that guidance. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 23:21, 12 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Thank you, yes I will agree to the stipulations in those articles.
 * I have outstanding questions about why the inline URL you mentioned above for Stina Quagebeur was considered invalid. Or was it just that there was an excessive use of inline URLs? The URL linked through to an interview with her published in a notable UK Dance Magazine . Citing a published interview is typically considered a secondary source, as far as I'm aware.
 * Would be grateful for this clarity so I don't make the same mistake again.
 * Thanks again for your considerable time in reviewing my unblock requests. GoldXLion (talk) 01:41, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
 * OK. Inline URLs are not OK in the first place; we really only use them in External links sections and on talk/project pages, not in articles. It's best to use citation templates, and a big part of that, besides clarity (no Easter eggs) is that a citation practically forces one to provide complete citations--as a scholar of music you probably know what I mean. The link I removed, and there are a ton left, is a link to a resume/personal website/etc., and that is really just a fancy hyperlinked version of namedropping that looks like it's beefing up the name of the person. The best way to write an article: collect all the newspaper articles and books, and write the article from there--not the other way around. Good luck. Drmies (talk) 02:27, 13 May 2023 (UTC)