User talk:Wbakeriii

Bart Baker
Nice that you try to promote yourself, but YouTube-clips are not considered valid sources (see Reliable sources). So effectively everything you have sourced with YouTube-clips is still unsourced. You have to replace those clips with independent, prior published, reliable sources. The Banner talk 10:30, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I've done some editing of other pages before, but this is the first time I've added a lot of content to a page. I'm learning the rules. Many of the citations you removed were to statistics that are found on the pages that run the YouTube clips. For example, the page with a clip shows the date the clip was posted and how many views it has, and also contains the user's own description of the clip (e.g., cast and crew). A YouTube user's main page contains general information including how many uploads the user has made, what the oldest uploads were, and when the user joined; note that this page doesn't run any clips, though it is a launching pad to all of the user's clips. The data are compiled by YouTube, so this would seem to be a valid source of such data. Indeed, YouTube is the primary source, though there are other websites that serve as secondary sources. Are these secondary sources preferred? I believe I used one or two references to SocialBlade.com and you removed them. Is that because it's a data site and the data are dynamic? Is a static publication the preferred source, even though it might be tertiary?Wbakeriii (talk) 03:45, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I think I left SocialBlade in. But selfpromo is frowned upon. And this article is promo all over. Please read reliable spurces for more info about the sources we want: independent, prior published, reliable sources. YouTube is not considered a reliable source. The same with Facebook. Related websites as your personal website or company website (like your YouTube-channel), to mention some examples, are also not suitable. The Banner talk 08:52, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I suppose it's not much better, but I'm Bart's father, not Bart himself. I didn't start this page, but was alerted that someone had done so by my clipping service.  While I've added quite a bit of content, I think that my copy is less biased than the previous author's. I think I'm being very factual, but am open to whatever criticism/suggestions/guidance you may have.  Before even starting, I reviewed the pages for several other YouTube personalities for an idea of organization and content (the primary criticism that was posted in the banner above the original copy) and thought I was consistent with those.  I read the guidelines about sources that you pointed me to and recognize that YouTube is a primary source of some the data; I think it meets the guidelines for an acceptable primary source of the data I was including, but have changed the citations to secondary sources.  The only remaining citations to YouTube are to a pair of videos where Bart gives a factual recounting of some events I've described, but I've added citations to other articles that relate the events as well.  I assume that sources like The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, Billboard, and Variety are considered reliable.  Perhaps the Huffington Post, IMDb, and industry publications like Tubefilter and New Media Rockstars are considered a step down, but they are certainly independent.  Someone else put in several citations to iTunes and I added one myself, though, again, as a data source.  Actually, I have a question about how to improve that citation: What I was describing is the appearance of Bart's  songs on the iTunes Comedy Chart Top 200 Singles.  Charts of the top songs are only available within the iTunes app itself, not on the iTunes website.  Is there a better way to state this citation? Wbakeriii (talk) 05:15, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:26, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:43, 28 November 2023 (UTC)