User talk:SoozeCat711

Richard Finch[edit]

I know that you only log on to Wikipedia very occassionally, but I wanted to leave you some info about Richard Finch (musician), since your edits were just reverted. The problem with your edits is that you're replacing claims sourced to newspaper accounts with your own personal claims. Unfortunately, Wikipedia doesn't work that way. We rely upon what reliable sources say, and can't simply assert that a newspaper embellished the story without any evidence of that. If the newspaper printed a retraction, we of course should modify what we said (we'll need the source of the retraction). If a different reliable source has an alternate view, then we should include both accounts. But, absent that, we can't just remove the newspaper account because you personally disagree with it. Similarly, you can't add information to articles about living people that is in any way contentious without backing that up with a reliable source. So, the info you added about a legal agreement can't be included unless its verified by a reliable source.

I hope this better explains how Wikipedia works. If you have questions, feel free to ask me on User Talk:Qwyrxian. Wikipedia takes our coverage of living people seriously; we aren't perfect, but we do our best to keep our comments neutral and based on reliable sources. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:28, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

January 2014[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Breaking Benjamin, but we cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. STATic message me! 03:01, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll clarify, since I see you've asked Static for clarification, and he is in fact correct in this case. The problem is how you're presenting the information. Yes, you do have pictures that prove that Ben Burnley is working with certain musicians. However, it's speculative to make statements about them being band members. It's original research to jump to this unverified conclusion. (There are other possible scenarios - they could just be recording as session musicians, guest musicians, or working on other music not related to Breaking Benjamin at all.)
The only real verifiably true information you've provided is that Burnley has been doing acoustic performances, and that information has been retained in the article. (In the body, not the intro. It wouldn't belong in the intro, as its not a defining aspect of their overall career really.) Please do not re-add any more of your information unless you have clear cut source directly verifying all of the statements being made. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 03:29, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Shaun Foist (September 25)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. 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:Shaun Foist and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also get real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:18, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! SoozeCat711, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering or curious about why your article submission was declined please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:18, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, WikiTruthTime. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Draft:Shaun Foist, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:

Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
Be cautious about deletion discussions. Everyone is welcome to provide information about independent sources in deletion discussions, but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors.
Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:42, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits[edit]

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 17:10, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

September 2014[edit]

Hi there. I've seen mentioned in several of your edits that you state you are "management for Shaun Foist". Is this correct? Sergecross73 msg me 01:57, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I had initially started talking to you to make sure you were aware of Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines, since, well, its usually pretty difficult for a manager, someone who's paid for a living to promote someone, to stay neutral on that topic, but it seems you've been notified a few times about this, so I won't go any further on it. I will say that, the more you declare yourself an authority on him (his manager) the more push back you're probably going to receive, because there are so many people who try to abuse Wikipedia as a means of promotion. Its good to openly declare your relation to him, yes, but I wouldn't use it as an arguing point.
In regards to this edit summary, I did not delete your file. It looks like this person did. I merely put the old image back after yours was deleted by that other person, because I figured the old one was better than nothing. I'm not an image expert, so I'd go talk to the person who deleted it, but in general, it seems like "official promo materials with the band's official logo" usually fall into Wikipedia's rather strict "copyright violation".
While I'm sure Shaun Foist is good and known drummer, this is not "Drummer-pedia". Wikipedia requires third party sources to cover a person in significant detail in order for it to meet the Wikipedia notability guidelines. almost everything in the article is either "first party" (social media, band websites, interviews) or passing mentions that are about the band's he's in, not him himself. (aka just about every article about Breaking Benjamin reforming so far). I think the only good example of a source that would go towards notability would be this one - its centrally about him, detailed, and third party. The rest so far, not so much.
Don't take it personally. There are a lot of individual band members that don't have their own articles. For example, look at comparable band Trapt - zero individual band member pages. Looking around for examples, there are a lot that probably rightfully should be deleted, but aren't because no one's noticing them. And unfortunately, that's what it comes down to sometimes. I don't personally plan on trying to delete it...but if someone started up a formal discussion on it, according to policy, I'd support deletion.
Same goes with the endorsements. It's not that it's "okay for others to list them, but not SF", but rather, no one's "caught" the other people doing it, and deleted it. Because again, Wikipedia is not the place for promotion, and that's pretty much the only thing an endorsement is. You can mention what types of gear he uses, just don't write it like an ad or something.
Wikipedia follows standard English practice, so, even if the band stylizes it as "breaking benjamin", the article's name, and mentioning of it, should be "Breaking Benjamin". (You'll notice that on Wikipedia, it's "Fun", not "fun." or "Kesha", not "Ke$sha", for example. That's just how the website works. Sergecross73 msg me 22:54, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, the reason I'm not pushing harder for a deletion or redirect on his article is because I believe being in such a big name band like Breaking Benjamin will probably make it so he meets the requirements. But you should still take what I say seriously, because different people have different opinions on how aggressively to pursue deletions, and as I was saying, I do believe a case could be made against Shaun Foist, if someone really pushed.
As far as changing your name goes, I do agree that it is a good idea to change it. As someone mentioned on your talk page, a lot of the time the people who choose to include allusions to "truth" or "righting great wrongs" in their usernames, are the ones who are here to cause a ruckus. So it'd be good to distance yourself from that, as that does not seem to be what you're about. Anyways, I've never gone through the process myself, but I believe if you look through Wikipedia:Changing username, you should be able to do it. You need someone even higher than an Admin to do it, so I can't personally do it for you, but you have a pretty good case, so I don't foresee any problems. Sergecross73 msg me 18:28, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:Shaun Foist Breaking Benjamin.tif[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Shaun Foist Breaking Benjamin.tif, which you've attributed to Nicole Brennn. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 00:05, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings Diannaa - thank you for your post. The email permission from the photographer to use this photo was emailed to the above address today. If there are any additional issues or concerns, please let me know. Have a great rest of the week! SoozeCat711 (talk) 22:12, 12 February 2015 (UTC) SoozeCat711[reply]

Draft:Shaun Foist concern[edit]

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Shaun Foist, a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:34, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Shaun Foist[edit]

Hello, SoozeCat711. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled "Shaun Foist".

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by one of two methods (don't do both): 1) follow the instructions at WP:REFUND/G13, or 2) copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|Draft:Shaun Foist}}, paste it in the edit box at this link, and click "Save page". An administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. JMHamo (talk) 23:36, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings... for whatever reason, 'Wikipedia' has deemed Mr. Foist irrelevant and deleted the page that was created for him, and redirected a search of his name to the Breaking Benjamin band page. 'WIKI Editors' deemed his singular achievements prior to joining the band, fully documented with independent press, to be irrelevant. In addition to existing content, MORE independent media coverage (not blogs!) was going to be included when the deletion of his page was noted (most times, people working in the know of artists do not have the leisure time to be on Wikipedia 24/7 - while many make being on Wikipedia a career). Additionally, a photo, approved by Wikipedia for use on his page, was deleted by a 'bot' which stated approvals were never obtained. The page that was up had been hacked by random individuals, who are fans of the band's prior musicians and not supportive of the new lineup. It has been less than pleasant for anyone wanting to deal with this page in a positive manner. And aside from humans, it's clear that even the 'bots' don't know what's going on on Wikipedia - deleting a Wiki approved photo???. I believe the record label is looking into all of these matters and will probably research out the individuals who are taking creative license with omissions and slander against their client(s). SoozeCat711 (talk) 17:39, 27 April 2015 (UTC) SoozeCat711[reply]

Hey, Sooze. I get the feeling you're getting frustrated with Wikipedia, so I'd like to help you out. First, Wikipedia has due process. This means that all articles follow the same rules and the same procedures. There are countless times when new users create articles or upload images and then they're almost instantly deleted without really getting a chance. But don't worry, this is normal, and you're not alone. It's nothing against you or Shaun Foist or Breaking Benjamin. It's just that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. If it were, it would get very cluttered very fast and we'd be in the likes of Yahoo Answers. Second, it's not that we deem Foist irrelevant, it's just that when he did have an article he didn't have the appropriate sources proving that he's notable. Honestly I do think Foist is notable and I do think he should have his own page, but only once these notability sources can be provided. Unfortunately, Foist's original article didn't provide those sources. If you'd like we can move the original article (before it was redirected) to a sandbox of yours (such as here), and you can work on it until it's completed and then you can see if it can't be reinstated. In fact, I'd even help you out with that, if that's what you'd like. Just tell me if you'd like it copy-pasted over, and then you (or you and I) can get to work.

As for your "Wiki Approved Photo" -- I've never heard of such a thing. Wikipedia doesn't keep photos based off of the ones they "approve" of -- either permissions are granted by the original owner and proved so through the OTRS system, or those photos are in the public domain or have a free license to begin with, or those photos fall under justifiable fair use. I'm not an admin or an OTRS volunteer so I can't investigate to see what happened with your photo, though I'm guessing it's very likely that something along the way didn't quite meet up with Wikipedia's policies. If it was a simple bot mistake like you're claiming then you shouldn't hesitate to contact the bot's operator (every bot account has a human operator).

And lastly, Hollywood Records doesn't have any jurisdiction over what happens with Wikipedia. Corporate and special interest groups are especially discouraged from editing Wikipedia, and even their employees are discouraged (see conflict of interest, neutral point-of-view, and no original research). Wikipedia is purely volunteer-run and all content added to it is through legal means or it's just not kept at all (i.e. your photo). As long as you understand all of what's above, I look forward to working with you and hope you don't get frustrated anymore. Obviously I would like to see Breaking Benjamin-related topics grow on Wikipedia, otherwise I wouldn't have taken the time to rewrite all the articles, revamp the articles' organization, and take care of photos, music samples, and other media. If you have any more questions I'd be happy to answer them. Kind regards, Jacedc (talk) 19:46, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have gone ahead and taken the liberty of creating User:SoozeCat711/sandbox and pasting the old Shaun Foist article in there for you to work on. If you don't want it then it can just be deleted, but I assumed you might want it. If/when we do work on it, we can just use that article's talk page to coordinate, if you'd like. Jacedc (talk) 20:09, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Shaun Foist[edit]

Someone under the name of JenLadell has opened up another draft article for Shaun Foist at AfD. I thought I'd let you know. That one's in better shape but it still has a long way to go in terms of length and proper prose. I've made some comments concerning it at the draft's talk page. I don't know if the user who created the draft is you under a different account or not, so I thought I'd let you know in the event that that's not the case. Kind regards, Jacedc (talk) 16:27, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

JenLadell is not me - I don't know who this person is. I'll check out the sandbox when I have time. Thanks for your input, guidance and advice. In response to the photo permissions matter... the email that sent me the notification that the uploaded photo had been approved was permissions@wikimedia.org - it will all done via the Wikipedia site, which dealt with the approvals of providing verifications as to the legalities of using uploaded photos/etc., so once again, so many cooks in the kitchen it's impossible to know who does what and when and why. 50.174.201.9 (talk) 19:38, 29 May 2015 (UTC)SoozeCat711[reply]

The more cooks the better on Wikipedia! :) And yes, I looked into your photo and it would be perfectly acceptable to use except that it has the photographer's logo in the top right corner. There's a difference between due attribution and outright promotion, so that will have to be edited out before it can be put in an article. I can edit it, though I'm not sure if the license agreement required that the logo remain in-tact. I've left a message at the OTRS noticeboard to inquire about this, but I'm still waiting on a response. Jacedc (talk) 22:40, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]