Bryanrock71
November 2019 edit
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. MER-C 17:17, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
Bryanrock71 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Your reason here Bryanrock71 (talk) 21:12, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Based on off-wiki information I have found(which I am not allowed to disclose publicly but will tell other admins privately upon request if they don't wish to look themselves) I believe you are not being entirely forthcoming in your unblock request about your relationship to the musician you attempted to write about. You will need to agree to fully comply with the conflict of interest and paid editing policies before an unblock can be considered; and it's unlikely you will be unblocked to directly edit about things related to your conflict of interest, so you will need to tell what other subjects you want to edit about as an individual, general contributor. I am declining your request 331dot (talk) 21:41, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
@MER-C:
Advertising and promotion was NOT the intention of what I am guessing the block is for: excessive external links being used in the article and in the citations. The original communication about the submission was that it "lacked credibility" to establish the person as listed. I did not know how else to provide said credibility other than pointing to proof that she is a musician, that she has been published in articles, that she does have music available in the marketplace, that she does have successful releases, that she does have history and credits working with well-known artists and producers, etc. That was the point. I then went in to add the links as "proof" that she is who she is with the credentials she has as presented in the article trying to satisfy that push back.
I suppose doing that to satisfy one "discrepancy" is now a problem globally from the perspective as defined in the block. The article is for an American musician, her achievements, her story, and her life to which she or others can add or edit in the future. The content of the article is literally her biography from her website and as published in other places and articles on the web. The links in the article are simply to provide ready access to facts as listed and collaborators and people in the article as listed, and other entities and/or stories / publications as stated in the article. It is not an advertisement nor a promotional piece whatsoever or for any other reason but to list her just as any other established artist, performer, musician, talent, creator, etc. is listed on Wikipedia. I am happy to remove the citation links if the push back that the biography was not enough to prove her worthy of being "an American musician, singer, songwriter...." is abated. I don't know how you write facts that aren't considered facts without "proof of said facts" when you can't otherwise prove the facts with other facts by link especially, and clearly, if the reviewer isn't going to fact check themselves to note the information as worthy and factual. Consider this a request to remove the block, restore editing, and approve the article about the American musician, Antoinique (Parker). Thank you.
Bryanrock71 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
So the rule of Wikipedia is that I just need to be a "nobody" with an interest in, or knowledge about, something for which I want to write? There can be no connection whatsoever even if it is just/simply/only information? The original article was a biography. Information only. That wasn't good enough for a reviewer as being credible or worthy of having an article written about her for expansion in the future by her fans or interested "nobodies" who would want to contribute. I didn't realize that there is an entire internet of rules to create an article that was not intended to be advertising or marketing or whatever label you've given it. For transparency and full disclosure, I am the manager of the artist and my intent was to create an article using her biography with links to relevant information in said biography that includes simple information about the artist as that is my job to create a legacy for the artist who is established having worked on notable projects with notable people ergo the links versus a marketing and advertising effort - beside the fact that she is a longtime friend of 30 years about whom I have personal information - not marketing, not sales, not promotion, not advertising, not conflict, not anything that needs to be policed. I am not getting paid for information that is generally available elsewhere on the internet including published articles on blogs and industry publications. It is literally a short version biography written for, and approved by, the artist with simple and historical information about the artist - an American musician - an established performer - an accomplished entertainment creator. There was no - "go here and buy this" , "for sale..." , "available now..." - rather background on the artist, her accomplishments, and other information JUST like every other musician on Wikipedia. If there is a difference of opinion about what is contained in the original article - be specific - and it can likely be removed without affecting the rest of the content. This vague "you broke and violated 16 obscure Wikipedia rules..." without anything specific makes no sense, is offensive that you are basically calling me a liar when I didn't know there was a "required disclosure" if I knew the person even though it was just information being posted and my intent was not to advertise or create a promotion with basic information found on in many other places on the internet. I am forced to assume this means that Wikipedia is a bunch of hearsay, conjecture and speculation if people close to the information can't write about it. If it works, it works and it gets published. If not, it's not worth arguing about - Wikipedia does not ever make or break anyone as that is not its' purpose nor mine for her in creating an article of her biography for presence and nothing more. @MER-C: @331dot: Bryanrock71 (talk) 14:20, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
Decline reason:
At this time, it's very clear you haven't the slightest understanding of WP:COI, WP:PAID, and WP:PROMO. Your claim that you were including only "simple and historical information about the artist" and "my intent was not to advertise or create a promotion" beggers belief. Your article included such blatantly promotional content such as "Antoinique is moving forward with excellency, strategy and the purpose to inspire people to have a worship experience or encounter with God wherever they go" and "Antoinique stepped to the forefront in 2003" and "lyrical mastery" and "the soulful songbird honed her pipes". If this is what you think is neutral, you are too close to your subject matter and fundamentally don't understand neutrality. You won't be unblocked to write about subject areas for which you have a conflict of interest and need to show substantially greater understanding to be considered for an unblock to write about other subject areas. Yamla (talk) 14:30, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.