User talk:Turner.john60

Your submission at Articles for creation: Front Row Insurance (July 18)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Cabrils was:

The comment the reviewer left was:

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 after they have been resolved.


 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Front Row Insurance and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
 * If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/New_question&withJS=MediaWiki:AFCHD-wizard.js&page=Draft:Front_Row_Insurance Articles for creation help desk], on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cabrils&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Front_Row_Insurance reviewer's talk page] or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Cabrils (talk) 03:25, 18 July 2023 (UTC)


 * I don't have any connection to the subject, so it is not necessary to declare anything.
 * Regarding: "have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable"... well, I thought there was significant enough coverage, especially after the Rust shooting incident and seeing Front Row Insurance mentioned in the TMZ article (https://www.tmz.com/2021/10/26/rust-insurance-policy-6-million-hutchins-souza/) and other sources referenced in the draft. Do you have any specific suggestions as to what else can be done? Front Row is a company that is significant in the US/Canada film industry. Turner.john60 (talk) 17:52, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

October 2023
Hello, I'm Cassiopeia. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, UFC 294, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you.  Cassiopeia  talk  02:44, 11 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Congrats on removing accurate information. Why don't you do a Google search and add a reliable source instead of reverting accurate information? Ever think of that? Turner.john60 (talk) 03:00, 11 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Infomation added or changed needs to be supported by independent, reliable source for verification which is the policy of Wikipedia and the editor who added/changed the info need to provide the source. Next time pls use the horizontal format of Template:cite web for citation if the source is from the web. Cassiopeia  talk  03:44, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Front Row Insurance has a new comment
 I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Front Row Insurance. Thanks! Cabrils (talk) 00:54, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Managing a conflict of interest
Hello, Turner.john60. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on the page Draft:Front Row Insurance, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:


 * avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization, clients, or competitors;
 * propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the edit COI template);
 * disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see );
 * avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see );
 * do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 17:22, 13 December 2023 (UTC)


 * I have no relationship with this company. There is no conflict of interest. Turner.john60 (talk) 17:24, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Remarkable. Drmies (talk) 18:16, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * No, there is nothing "remarkable" about it, and I think it's interesting that you immediately assume that I have a connection to this company, even though you do not have a shred of evidence that I have a connection to the company. So, immediately you are approaching this draft in a negative way with suspicion, which I think is unfair. Is there a way to request a more neutral Wikipedia reviewer to review this draft, please? Someone who isn't going to immediately approach the draft with suspicion and negativity. Turner.john60 (talk) 18:34, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Not to mention, if you read above, you would see that the "conflict of interest" question was raised previously, by user "Cabrils", where I clearly stated: "I don't have any connection to the subject, so it is not necessary to declare anything."
 * So, by raising this again, you are making me repeat myself unnecessarily, which leads me to believe that you didn't thoroughly review the draft that I had submitted. Therefore, I would like to request a different Wikipedia reviewer to look at this draft. Is there a process to request this? Please advise. Turner.john60 (talk) 18:52, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * It's the draft that makes me question the editor, not the other way around. The next time, someone else will review this--but you are not in a position to request this. We're all volunteers here. Drmies (talk) 21:05, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Front Row Insurance (December 13)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Drmies was:

The comment the reviewer left was:

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 after they have been resolved.


 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Front Row Insurance and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
 * If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/New_question&withJS=MediaWiki:AFCHD-wizard.js&page=Draft:Front_Row_Insurance Articles for creation help desk], on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Drmies&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Front_Row_Insurance reviewer's talk page] or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Drmies (talk) 18:14, 13 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Yes, there are various secondary sources that I referenced in the draft that provide more than just a "passing reference", including:
 * https://www.documentary.org/blog/front-row-announces-special-insurance-program-ida-members
 * https://www.insurancebusinessmag.com/ca/news/mergers-acquisitions/canadian-broker-makes-us-entry-with-acquisition-419668.aspx
 * https://wiftus.org/sponsors/front-row-insurance/ Turner.john60 (talk) 18:32, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Insurance Business is a trade magazine at best, and an advertising platform at worse--judging from the number of ads I had to click through to get to a page about the publication. Nothing on that page suggests "independent editorial board", for instance. This is an announcement on an organization's website, for members--not independent, not news, not coverage. This is similar: insurance for members. None of it is secondary coverage on the topic by an independent source with clear editorial oversight. Drmies (talk) 21:11, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * It's a trade magazine, correct. Not an advertising platform. Just because it has monetization on the site doesn't make it an "advertising platform". Look at practically any journalism outlet these days--MANY have ads on their site for extra revenue. Does that automatically make the outlet unreliable? No. Turner.john60 (talk) 21:14, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * No, but it doesn't have any clear editorial statement either, and surely you noticed that their "About Us" starts with a list of "marketing solutions". And what else does that article say besides that the company exists and has offices in a few places? That's not a significant or in-depth discussion or exposition. I assume you agree that the other two are not, in fact, secondary sources. Anyway, feel free to resubmit to see if you get a different result; that's more useful than picking a fight with a reviewer. Goodbye, Drmies (talk) 21:40, 13 December 2023 (UTC)