User talk:Reggie.clever

A belated welcome![edit]

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Reggie.clever. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! — MusikAnimal ^talk 21:56, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Big House Publishing[edit]

You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles. See the Article Wizard.

Thank you.

A tag has been placed on Big House Publishing, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising that only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an acceptable page. Please read the general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item G11, as well as the guidelines on spam.

If you can indicate why the subject of this page is not blatant advertising, . Clicking that button will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. You are welcome to edit the page to fix this problem, but please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. As well as removing promotional phrasing, it helps to add factual encyclopaedic information to the page, and add citations from independent reliable sources to ensure that the page will be verifiable. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Dmol (talk) 09:37, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

September 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to AM Aesthetic may have broken the syntax by modifying 3 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:08, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

October 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Jon and the Jones may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

*Thursday, October 9, 2014 – Saratoga Springs, NY -- Gaffney’s (SIRSY))

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 07:16, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Big House Publishing[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Big House Publishing, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Flat Out talk to me 02:19, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Promotional tone[edit]

Hi - I thought I'd come over and give some explanation on stuff. The article was promotional per Wikipedia's guidelines, but I'll e-mail you a copy of the article so you can work on it. You'll need to enable your email before I can send it out. Give me a shout when you've done this, either by posting on my user talk page or by pinging me like this: {{ping|Tokyogirl79}}.

What set this off were sentences like "Big House Publishing's catalog is composed of contemporary songtitles from songwriters and producers alongside cherry-picked titles from emerging and known performing artists and writers in thriving scenes throughout the globe." The sentence is pretty full of marketing buzzwords like "thriving" and "cherry-picked". These types of words are considered to be WP:PEACOCK terms since they can sometimes come across as opinions and/or selective wording to make something sound more exclusive and intriguing. This sort of thing is fine for press releases and official websites, but not really on Wikipedia. For example, the word "cherry-picked" is promotional and not really acceptable for Wikipedia because it's naturally assumed that any given publishing company will be discerning in who they sign.

The "in the news" section was sort of promotional as well. It's not that you can't write about the company's accomplishments, but there's really no true need to cite press releases and this sort of thing should be summarized. For example, the Warner Bros deal can essentially be boiled down to something like "In 2013 Big House Publishing signed a deal with Warner Brothers TV that would allow the production company to use Big House's music in their programming." There's no need to go into the long history of what shows WB has made or to have long quotes. That's what made that sound promotional. The same thing can be said for the other sections as well.

The article also had a lot of issues with sourcing. From what I can see, the sourcing was almost entirely WP:PRIMARY and the issue with that is that primary sources cannot establish notability. Even press releases cannot show notability regardless of where they are posted because essentially it's just the site posting something that the company wrote. The issue with sources like this one is that while Billboard wrote the article and the company is mentioned, it's only briefly mentioned in relation to BHi and as such, is a WP:TRIVIAL source that also cannot show notability. You need things in reliable sources like Billboard that go into a lot of depth about the company.

This leads me to another point: I'm guessing that you missed the promotional language and phrasing in the article because you are part of a marketing crew that was hired to write about the company. It's a pretty common issue with marketing people- you're so used to writing in a promotional format that you're used to writing this way and you just don't see it unless it's directly pointed out to you. Now being a paid editor doesn't mean that you can't edit, but it does mean that you have a strong conflict of interest (WP:COI) and that there are some guidelines you need to follow. The first is that you need to be extremely transparent about all of this. You need to post on your userpage that you are being paid and list the articles you're here to edit. You don't have to give your business name (although it doesn't hurt), but you do need to disclose the paid editing and the pages you're going to edit. Now when it comes to creating new articles, it's highly recommended that you create them through WP:AfC rather than post them to the mainspace. The reason for this is that AfC articles are reviewed by another editor, who will either accept or decline the article. If it's declined you'll have the chance to improve the article and resubmit it unless the article violates one of Wikipedia's guidelines like the copyright policy. Sometimes promotional articles get deleted, but they'd have to be incredibly promotional to the point where it leaves no doubt that it was created for promotion. In other words, you'll have more slack at AfC when it comes to time and opportunities to improve things.

I do have to be honest- paid editors get a lot of guff on Wikipedia because we've had so many come here to promote and not to learn to edit within policy. That's why I'm also highly recommending that you go over the basic guidelines on editing like WP:RS, WP:NPOV and WP:GNG. I'd also recommend that you go through the training program at Wikipedia:Training/Newcomers/Welcome. Going through this will give you the basics and it'll also be a sign of WP:GOODFAITH on your part. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:04, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Big House Publishing for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Big House Publishing is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Big House Publishing until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:01, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 22[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

JKEY (Record Producer)

added links pointing to Dominican, Bachata, American and Sia

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:56, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Teenage Love (band) for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Teenage Love (band) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Teenage Love (band) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. JTtheOG (talk) 03:26, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]