User talk:Journalist12578

Welcome!

Hello, Journalist12578, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay.

I reverted the recent changes you made to Green Corn Revival because they were in a promotional style, were not directly related to the topic, or conflicted with cited sources. We always encourage all editors, even newcomers, to be bold, so don't feel bad. Wikipedia is an environment where it's okay to learn by doing, and to some extent by trial and error. However, if you would like to read about how to make better edits before you try again, check out the Manual of Style.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type helpme on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! - Brother Bulldog (talk) 18:43, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Starting an article
 * Your first article
 * Biographies of living persons
 * How to write a great article
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial

Green Corn Revival
I understand that the information in your edits to Green Corn Revival may be accurate; however, if you cannot provide cited sources that reflect this information, and it conflicts with already cited sources, simply knowing it to be correct isn't enough. Additionally, the portions of your edits that are either promotional in tone or contain irrelevant information are not appropriate to restore, regardless of whether it is factually correct. Please review the links above about appropriate content and formatting. - Brother Bulldog (talk) 00:33, 27 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The information is entirely inaccurate as it is. I'm just trying to set the record straight. That information there isn't even cited to anything that's not directly . Its a promotional paragraph ripped from the bands "current" press packs. The history needs to be told accurately along with any associated acts and mentions of former members. I guess the only way to protect the integrity of the personalities of all those listed in the history is remove all of them, since their history and credits are inaccurate or exaggerated. - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Journalist12578 (talk • contribs)


 * I can understand your frustrations; however, the citations are not only from "press packs", but also from multiple news outlets, including ancillary coverage, and there would need to be equally reliable sources contradicting them to dispute their content. The former members listings are based on those reported by news agencies and yes, press releases over the period of the band's existence. In keeping with Wikipedia's standards, the best way to "protect the integrity of the personalities" is to reflect already reported and publicly available information. If all of those other reports are incorrect or inaccurate, why are the band members not taking to the press, or their own web outlets, to correct the record themselves? - Brother Bulldog (talk) 23:49, 27 October 2013 (UTC)


 * So in order to write the detailed history of the band I just need the various sources to cite the authenticity of my claims that refute several of the inaccuracies? I'm new to Wikipedia, and frankly didn't care to contribute any of my own articles till I saw this one of the band I just happen to be overly familiar with it. So I guess I need to scan various press releases, and have all my digital press releases ready, then treat it like a history paper and give the detailed history with frequent citations to my primary sources. Then submit it again, to see if it meets the criteria. This is the appropriate next step right? To read a whole lot more in how to contribute properly to wikipedia articles, then contribute my detailed history on that band. Also, I feel like posting under associated acts, why wouldn't the current musical projects of some of the founding members qualify as "Associated Acts"? To let you in on something cool, this band is the subject of a short story-biography I'm almost done with about all the random drama and ups and downs all the way from the beginning. Its been a pretty cool project, I've been around the band since the beginning. And its this cool sort of Spinal Tap thing but all real. I'll start getting my sources and citations together so I can provide you a more accurate and cited wiki for this particular band. So I feel like i can make a better cited biography that I can resubmit to you. I cant wait to give it the ultimate justice of honest history! The Wikipedia way! - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Journalist12578 (talk • contribs)


 * It's a bit of an overdramatization, but yes, all information in a Wikipedia article needs to be sourced from reliable sources. Regarding the associated acts, if they had their own articles then yes, they would absolutely be appropriate to list. However, as the other acts are not considered notable by Wikipedia standards, they are not appropriate to list; otherwise, Jared's participation in the one-off Escape The Goat would be listed as well. The key is notability. (Also, on an unrelated note, don't forget to sign your comments! - Brother Bulldog (talk) 03:53, 29 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Associated acts should include, Walrus, The Voice Of, Honeylark, and Loomis Road as they were all associated to the act of "Green Corn Revival", whether by means of prior playing that led to formation or acts that were made as a direct result of said act and includes former members. Journalist12578 (talk) 22:21, 30 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree those are all acts that were closely associated with GCR; however, none of them are acts that currently warrant inclusion in Wikipedia. The case for Honeylark especially grows by the day, but they have yet to quite break that threshold. When they do, I am certain they will have their own Wikipedia entry and be listed as an associated act. Loomis Road is in a similar place. I'll be happy to write those articles myself when the time is right. I had wanted GCR to have an article years ago, but it wasn't the right time. With up-and-coming artists, often the best approach is patience. All good things. - Brother Bulldog (talk) 03:57, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I wanted to commend you on your last revision to the GCR page. It was well-sourced and reflected meaningful content, and when I recently divided the band's history into sections I was able to retain the majority of your work. The only criticism I had was regarding the promotional tone of some of your phrases, but if you continue to spend time on Wikipedia I am certain you will adopt a more encyclopedic tone over time. You have really made a lot of improvements since you first joined, and I am glad that you have continued to learn and continued to make edits. Wikipedia needs more people like you! - Brother Bulldog (talk) 18:35, 31 October 2013 (UTC)