User talk:Minimalistscholar

Your submission at Articles for creation: Aontacht (January 31)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by CaptainEek were:

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.


 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Aontacht and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Aontacht, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "Db-g7" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
 * If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Aontacht Articles for creation help desk], on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:CaptainEek&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Aontacht reviewer's talk page] or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 04:51, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Reply
Hi, thanks for message. Your editing pattern suggests that you may have a conflict of interest, please don't write about yourself, your friends or relatives and read the guidance below:


 * You need to provide independent verifiable sources to enable us to verify the facts and show that it meets the notability guidelines. Sources that are not acceptable include those linked to the subject, press releases, YouTube, IMDB, social media and other sites that can be self-edited, blogs, websites of unknown or non-reliable provenance, and sites that are just reporting what the claims or interviewing him. Most of your refs were in fact to decent sources, although I notice his own page and YouTube figured, so an issue is whether an unrecorded piece meets the notability criteria I've linked above, which is what you should have concentrated on. I'm not saying it doesn't, but it's not obvious that it does.
 * it was written in a promotional tone. Articles must be neutral and encyclopaedic.
 * It's basically a string of cherry-picked highly positive reviews, with no hint that that anyone could possibly have found this less than wonderful
 * Although the rest of the text is relatively neutral, you have used words like "renowned" which are opinions, not objective facts.


 * the article was a copyright violation. Although you can use samples of copyright material as examples if you attribute them, you can't use them to make up about half the article, as you have done here. We tend to take 10% of the text as a rule of thumb maximum. Attribution doesn't change that, since copyrighted text is not allowed in Wikipedia, as outlined in this policy. That applies even to pages created by you or your organisation, unless they state clearly and explicitly that the text is public domain. None of the copied sources were PD. We require that text posted here can be used, modified and distributed for any purpose, including commercial but there is no indication that the copied sites allow free use. Text is considered to be copyright unless explicitly stated otherwise. But in any case the copyrighted text is far too promotional to be useful for Wikipedia's purposes, so there would not be any point in your jumping through all the hoops that are required.

Since the draft was otherwise salvageable, and the piece might meet our notability criteria, I'm prepared to restore it without the wall of quotes. If you look at the notability criteria, they don't involve the piece being well received, but list objective criteria like concert tours, performances by national orchestras and the like, so overkill on quotes just makes it look like spam. However before I do that, you need to clarify any COI. Note that editing with a COI is discouraged, but permitted as long as it is declared. Concealing a COI can lead to a block. Please do not edit further until you respond to this message.

I note that you also accused me of vandalism, so perhaps you should read Civility and Assume good faith before you post again Jimfbleak -| talk to me? ]] 13:50, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I forgot to say that if you really wish to report me for vandalism, the appropriate page is Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, Jimfbleak - talk to me?  13:55, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Reply
Hello Jim User talk:Jimfbleak

Thank you for your response and for clarifying your reasons.

There is no conflict of interest here. I am an independent scholar from New Zealand who is interested in the music of modern composers. I was planning to write several articles about various composers, however this experience has been rather off-putting.

I understand your reasoning around using too lengthy quotations so I am happy to change that.

Regarding the idea that there is "no hint that that anyone could possibly have found this less than wonderful", I have sincerely researched available reviews of the work and there are literally no dissenting reviews. If you can find something to contradict this I would be glad to include it.

I will not report you for vandalism, I would suggest however that you think again before completely deleting an article without first consulting the author and warning them that you plan to delete the article. This would have been the civil thing to do.

Please restore the article so I can address the changes you suggest.

{[User talk:Minimalistscholar]]


 * It's only by chance that I returned to this page. If you want me to know there is a message here, please start it with my user name, User:Jimfbleak (or ) and sign it with four tildes ~ in the same edit when you post it. That will send me an alert.


 * I don't know if you saw the speedy deletion nominator's tag, but the point of speedy deletion is that there no requirement to discuss with the editor because the breach of our rules is deemed serious enough for immediate action. That's almost always the case with copyright issues. In any case, if you disagree with a deletion, you can always ask the deleting admin, as you have done. Full or partial restoration is often possible except for the worst violations.


 * Thank you for clarifying that you have no COI


 * I'll shortly restore the text without the quotes, if you put any back concentrate on descriptive stuff that helps illustrate notability rather than rave reviews that make it look like a fan page rather than an encyclopaedia


 * Jimfbleak - talk to me?  16:21, 13 February 2020 (UTC)


 * You can retrieve any deleted refs from the history, but note that YouTube isn't suitable for a reference or an external link Jimfbleak - talk to me?  16:31, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Aontacht


Hello, Minimalistscholar. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Aontacht".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz Read! Talk! 18:24, 14 December 2020 (UTC)