User talk:Edward Myer

Edward Myer, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Edward Myer! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Keelan (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:02, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

September 2020

Hello. I wanted to let you know that in your recent contributions to Draft:Bruse Wane ( Rapper), you seemed to act as if you were the owner of the page. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to Wikipedia. This means that editors do not own articles, including ones they create, and should respect the work of their fellow contributors. If you create or edit an article, remember that others are free to change its content. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. --Worldbruce (talk) 04:03, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello thank you for reaching out. No I do not own the page I'm just a fan of the musician, and was passionate about the submission. Thank you for putting things back into prospective. EdwardMyer 18:00 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Bruse Wane (January 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 Chicdat 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 when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Bruse Wane and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Bruse Wane, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 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 Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 11:33, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Bruse Wane (January 15)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Theroadislong 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 when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Bruse Wane and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Bruse Wane, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 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 Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Theroadislong (talk) 16:40, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Bruse Wane has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Bruse Wane. Thanks! Theroadislong (talk) 16:41, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Bruse Wane ( Rapper)

Hello, Edward Myer. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Bruse Wane ( Rapper), a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. 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 here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 13:04, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Bruse Wane

Hello, Edward Myer. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Bruse Wane, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. 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 here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 19:04, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Bruse Wane

Hello, Edward Myer. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Bruse Wane".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! Celestina007 (talk) 19:23, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Bruse Wane for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Bruse Wane 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/Bruse Wane until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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 until the discussion has finished.

Ibjaja055 (talk) 09:06, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, Edward Myer. 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:Bruse Wane, 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 article subjects 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), including links or details of reliable sources that support your suggestions;
• disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest § How to disclose a COI);
• avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam § External link spamming);
• 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 Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicizing, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. DoubleGrazing (talk) 21:12, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

I have no relationship with the subject. Please save your unfounded accusations, and don't make this a matter of harassment. You left a real snide comment towards me on LiZ's talk page. Edward Myer (talk) 08:42, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Really, did I now? What comment was that? Just FYI, the last time I posted anything on Liz's talk page was about six weeks ago, and it had nothing whatsoever to do with you. You might want to check your facts before starting with the insults.

As for "harassment", my advice would be to steer well clear of accusations like that, unless you have clear evidence to back them up.

Regarding the above COI query, it is perfectly founded of me to ask about this, and there is no need for you to get shirty about it. The image used in one of your many drafts appears to be taken at fairly close quarters with Wane posing for you. You uploaded that image as your own work. This (and your evident eagerness to get the article published) suggests you might have a connection of some sort. If you don't, great, but it's still an appropriate question to ask. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:50, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

DoubleGrazing is correct. It was somebody else who made a snide comment. Lash out at your peril. BusterD (talk) 08:57, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Stop stalking me. Edward Myer (talk) 22:45, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

I got those pictures by googling the subject. Take the time out to that and you will see many pictures of the subject. Edward Myer (talk) 21:28, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Then they're not your own work, are they? In other words, you've quite possibly taken someone else's intellectual property and released it from copyright and into the public domain. I shouldn't think the (ex-)owner of the copyright is best pleased. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:21, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

My peril... Edward Myer (talk) 22:44, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

All that is being added is Historical facts. Acknowledge by the entire Hip Hop Community as a whole, Including Dj Primere and the genres top news source HipHOPDX. Independent third party source were also in the passage. Why are you not focused on the part about ill bill. Edward Myer (talk) 22:39, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

All that is being added is Historical facts. Acknowledge by the entire Hip Hop community as a whole, Including Dj Primere and the genres top news source HipHOPDX. Independent third party cited source were also in the passage. Why are you not focused on the part about ill bill Edward Myer (talk) 22:42, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Bruse Wane has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Bruse Wane. Thanks! Theroadislong (talk) 08:52, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

December 2024

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Mantronix. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include, but are not limited to, links to personal websites, links to websites with which you are affiliated (whether as a link in article text, or a citation in an article), and links that attract visitors to a website or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Because Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the page, please discuss it on the associated talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you. -- D'n'B-📞 -- 15:08, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

What I added was factual historic events. I also added portions that were properly cited from independent third party sources not connected to the subject. All links removed. Edward Myer (talk) 22:34, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to remove maintenance templates without resolving the problem that the template refers to, as you did at Draft:Bruse Wane, you may be blocked from editing. Theroadislong (talk) 23:28, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to make edits with misleading or inaccurate edit summaries, even if unintentional, you may be blocked from editing. Theroadislong (talk) 23:29, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Bruse Wane (December 29)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Theroadislong 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:Bruse Wane 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 Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Theroadislong (talk) 22:42, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

There is over 30 independent third party references and citations in the article for top Hip Hop media sites, and you pull out disco dogs and YouTube. Your option is not valid, and Bias. I guess your pals sent you since I been ruffling some feathers I was told lash out at my Peril by you buddy, is this my Peri. Here's is cold hard fact 99.9% of you guys are taking money under the table. I'm not one of them. Edward Myer (talk) 23:01, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

The next time you cast totally unfounded aspersions on an experienced reviewer in good standing, or pretty much anyone else for that matter, you better have solid evidence to back them up. You're already attracting too much of the wrong sort of attention, I suggest you don't add further personal attacks to your résumé. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:14, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Scam. Edward Myer (talk) 23:45, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Bruse Wane ineligible for speedy deletion under criterion G7

I have declined your request to delete Draft:Bruse Wane as you are not the only substantive contributor to the page, so it is ineligible for deletion under WP:CSD#G7. Further, since you copy-and-pasted the material to your own user sandbox, deleting the draft would create an attribution issue with your sandbox. —C.Fred (talk) 23:47, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

would like all Bruse Wane Drafts Deleted. Edward Myer (talk) 00:00, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

On what grounds? —C.Fred (talk) 01:15, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

So I can start a fresh article for the subject that is written without any copy or pasting. Edward Myer (talk) 00:08, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

December 2024

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for abusing multiple accounts. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Bishonen | tålk 09:22, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

• Specifics: The "new" user Lenardholding's only contributions are PRODding of articles created by negative reviewers of your articles, plus some vandalism, caught by the edit filter, of an article also created by one of those reviewers. Bishonen | tålk 09:28, 30 December 2024 (UTC).

  I believe I should be unblocked. Edward Myer (talk) 00:11, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

I believe is should be unblocked. I have been found guilty without any concrete evidence that I did this. Edward Myer (talk) 08:30, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

About Draft:Bruse Wane

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give Draft:Bruse Wane a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into User:Edward Myer/sandbox. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases for registered users, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Thank you. UtherSRG (talk) 14:34, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the information. Edward Myer (talk) 23:46, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello, I believe I should be unblocked from editing

I believe the action is a bit severe. I have multi people in my house hold. And Crazy teenagers.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Edward Myer (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Your reason here Edward Myer (talk) 00:16, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Assuming that your unblock request is what you wrote below, and not "your reason here", this is basically the "my little brother did it" excuse. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:18, 31 December 2024 (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.

I believe the action is a bit severe. I have multi people in my house hold. And Crazy teenagers. Edward Myer (talk) 00:16, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Not an admin here, but I would advise you to read this as advice on how to respond to claims of abusing multiple accounts and write an unblock request accordingly. Regardless of what you were blocked for, "Your reason here" is never sufficient. If you reply here, please ping me. Thanks, TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 00:31, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

I should be unblocked

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Edward Myer (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I believe I should be unblocked. I have been found guilty without any concrete evidence that I did this. Meanwhile no one is intervening with the editor that have been stalking me since I have become active again on wikipedia. @Bishonen Edward Myer (talk) 08:35, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

• the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
• the block is no longer necessary because you:
  1. understand what you have been blocked for,
  2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
  3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. UtherSRG (talk) 03:06, 1 January 2025 (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.

I've placed your statment in place of the words "your reason here" as intended. 331dot (talk) 08:59, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

So is it your claim that the other account is operated by someone else in your household? 331dot (talk) 09:01, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Please, read the guide to appealing blocks before you make another unblock request. Even with this block, the admins have been generous and have given you only a short block for socking. If you don't have a good case to make, I recommend you wait it out. TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 19:33, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Happy New Year. Edward Myer (talk) 21:13, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

We are getting close to WP:NOTHERE. BusterD (talk) 23:55, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Indeed... UtherSRG (talk) 03:06, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

The pattern here has been to attack any critique or critic. The "I don't have total control of my own account" excuse is unlikely to impress many admins either. And there's consistent focus to one goal: get the Bruse Wane article published, no matter the unresolved problem. The user has few other interests or edits here. SPAs are one thing, but disruptive SPAs are quite another. BusterD (talk) 03:30, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Your assessment is of no consequence. You hold me in intrigue, go do something else. Edward Myer (talk) 06:54, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Your assessment is of no consequence. You hold me in intrigue, go do something else. Edward Myer (talk) 06:53, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Edward Myer, BusterD is an admin taking stock of what should be done with this account. What makes you think their assessment is of no consequence? And you should answer the question above from 331dot (also an admin). If you post another unblock request without telling us, clearly and explicitly, whether or not you yourself created the sock, you will be indefinitely blocked for playing games. Bishonen | tålk 09:31, 1 January 2025 (UTC).

Edward Myer, there's quite a difference between stalking somebody and merely noticing one editor is acting badly (as admins User:Bishonen, User:331dot), User:UtherSRG, User:NinjaRobotPirate, User:C.Fred, User:DoubleGrazing, and myself have done with you in the past week). That you have attracted so much attention from so many different admins is not to your credit. I suspect that someone is about to remove your talk page privileges for your failure to act like a normal editor and unwillingness to accept your own responsibilities here. Unfortunately, your bad behavior will also likely translate into never seeing Draft:Bruse Wane published again. This is entirely on you, Edward Myer. Your bad behavior. Not theirs. BusterD (talk) 09:57, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

January 2025

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 12 days for abusing multiple accounts. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. In addition, your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked.

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then submit a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make personal attacks on other people, as you did at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. Theroadislong (talk) 17:46, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Bruse Wane (January 19)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Timtrent were:  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:Bruse Wane 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 Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 09:32, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your input and advice. Edward Myer (talk) 13:54, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

ANI discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:25, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Draft:Bruse Wane

You are currently WP:FORUMSHOPPING and will only make things worse for yourself, instead of better. While I can sympathize with what you're attempting to accomplish, how you are going about it is not correct. You are lodging accusations about very well respected editors -- that doesn't mean that they are always right, but rather that you have quite the burden to prove your claims by referencing policy, and specific edits. Right now, it seems like you simply dislike what many editors are telling you. It also is not helpful that you are now attempting to create essentially the same article again over at User:Edward Myer/sandbox. Instead of attempting to discuss the merits of your concerns, please stop trying to discuss this in multiple places [1] [2][3][4]. Please choose ONE place to work through the reasons why this is not being added, and continue to edit the main draft, instead of also creating a sandbox or any other extra drafts. If you continue with this behaviors you will found disruptive and blocked accordingly. This reply is not an endorsement of the other editors, nor the merits of your draft article, but rather the method in which you are trying to get it added, and handling conflict. TiggerJay (talk) 19:17, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

AfC notification: User:Edward Myer/sandbox has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at User:Edward Myer/sandbox. Thanks! Theroadislong (talk) 21:50, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello I would like the AFC comment you left  in my sandbox while I was editing  my draft deleted. I rather utilize the draft I'm creating. Edward Myer (talk) 22:27, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of User:Edward Myer/sandbox

A tag has been placed on User:Edward Myer/sandbox requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

Partial G4 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bruse Wane closed as delete, refunded to draft space at Draft:Bruse Wane after multiple problems identified (and two failed draft submissions) tried forums shopping and recreating here as well.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.

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 "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 deleted 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. TiggerJay (talk) 22:28, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

I reported I'm being cyber bullied. by certain admin, and now my sandbox Is being targeted for deletion. Guess my point is proven. Edward Myer (talk) 22:50, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Actually to have a broad diversity of people who are reviewing your contributions on Wikipedia with a critical eye. There is no targeting per-se but rather through your own action you've drawn significant attention to yourself, and what has been discovered is very concerning behavior, and you might feel like your fighting a war on all fronts, and everyone is against you -- as I mentioned elsewhere, please have a look at ONE AGAINST MANY, as you may find helpful advice there. Unfortunately your response to much of the feedback you've received appears to either ignore it until its too late, or to just flight against it in ad hominin attacks such as some nonsense about a "right to free speech". Anyone can contribute, but that does not mean you can contribute on your own terms -- and right now, you're learning the hard way about the terms that are required here. The more you fight, the more problems you're going to encounter. Instead SLOW DOWN, read and understand the policies and guidelines people are referring you to. TiggerJay (talk) 01:33, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Found This on the internet.

The "right to free speech" has been cited on Wikipedia in response to sanctions against editors such as blocks and bans, as well as speedy deletions and editing restrictions imposed by administrators or the Arbitration Committee. Edward Myer (talk) 23:45, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

If you are interested in this concept, you should actually read Wikipedia:Free speech. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:56, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Advice

Hello, Edward Myer,

I don't know if you checked back but you should really read over the response you received at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk#12:49, 19 January 2025 review of submission by Edward Myer. In one response to your query, an editor went through every single one of your references, evaluating its appropriateness as a reliable source and, if it's not, why not. I have never seen an editor do this when reviewing a draft article and I'm sure it took hours of their time to do this. We are all volunteers here and they took time out to give your draft sources a thorough evaluation. You should really thank them for this investment of time. Few drafts get this kind of attention.

I'm sure it will be disappointing to see that most of the citations you used are not suitable for a Wikipedia main space article but at least you will know why they are inappropriate and you can remove the ones that are inadequate and look for stronger, independent sources. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:56, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Edward, would you like some help as well as the advice you are getting? I am happy to guide you, and, if Bruse Wane is notable, to help you to get the draft accepted. I will work quietly with you to show you how to edit the draft, though I will not edit it for you. We are in very different timezones, but that does not mean we cannot work together.

To get my help, all you have to do is to ask me for it. Please either do this here, in this thread, or on my user talk page. I would have made this offer to you last night, but I felt I would use the wrong words if I wrote it at just past midnight my time. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 07:44, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. Edward Myer (talk) 14:06, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes I would appreciate you help and input. Edward Myer (talk) 14:07, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello Liz, thank you for your time and input. Is it appropriate for an admin to leave a message on a draft I'm working on in real time in my sandbox, and then delete the draft without knowing my intent. I was building the draft from scratch no copy and pasting involed. I took in all the reasons why the article was declined and was working on improving it, before transferring it over to the original draft. The Subject ticks numerous criteria for notability as per WP:MUSICBIO standards. Is it because the subject is a rapper, and not a rock, opera, or country musician that this article is being severely scrutinized and held to another standard, other than the outlined WP:MUSICBIO guidelines.

1. The subject has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself.
2. Has received non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country.
3. The subject is also apart of an ensemble. As he is apart of the example Mantronix he is the main emcee in Mantronix and Kurtis Mantronik

As stated in line 6 of the WP:MUSIC Is in an ensemble that contains two or more independently notable musicians, or is a musician who has been a reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles

4. inclusion on a notable compilation album.

5 The subject Is notable per criteria 11.Has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network, & 12. Has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or television network.

I was in the midst of added more the necessary citations to demonstrate this whe. I received a message in my sandbox and the draft was deleted.

Liz I really don't think it's about the subject but more about me. I think I got off on the wrong foot here on wikipedia. In the offline world when someone abruptly enters your conversations it's considered rude and intrusive. In wiki world I have learned that is just the standard mode of operation. People chiming in out of no where, messages being left on talk pages. I was not aware this is the norm on wikipedia. Folks leaving mildly aggressive comments and when you reply with the same energy.. it's like ha.. surprise I'm an admin and you have offended me. I do believe the subject is notable. Can someone not versed in a specific field or genre determine that objectively. Each genre has publication that are considered top tier in that field, so if I'm giving citations on the subject that is coming from the top tier independent reliable news sources in Hip-Hop why is that not good enough ?

I left the draft Bruse Wane alone for almost 9 years and recently decided to try and complete it again. While working on the draft Bruse Wane. I was contacted and told I was working on draft for an article that was already deleted, and if I would like it undeleted the draft article( Bruse Wane Rapper) un wittingly I said yes not knowing that I would now have two live Bruse Wane drafts on my hands. I don't know how to merge drafts so I asked for one to be deleted, but it did not happen. I was simply working on a draft built from scratch no copy and paste in my and box before it was deleted without warning. I also did not realize admins could watch what I was doing in my sand box and leave AFC messages above the work.. Thank you for your time and any assistance would be greatly appreciated. It's to the point that I believe no matter how well sourced or writing this article is, or how much the subjects notability is proven it will be infinitely declined; because the admins are not to fond of me. Not on the merit of the article. Edward Myer (talk) 10:58, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello I am the user that added a note to your sandbox, I am NOT an admin, I'm just an editor like you albeit with more experience of editing and reviewing drafts. The note was just to inform that there was already a draft that you could edit. Theroadislong (talk) 11:28, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello. I did not want to work from that draft. I thought you were referring to the Bruse Wane Rapper Draft. I wanted that deleted. I was just trying to improve the article in the sandbox from scratch without cutting and pasting at all. My intentions was then to blank the Bruse Wane draft and input the new information. For whatever reason what I was working on is no longer there. Which was a more concise and better sourced draft. I get what you said about interviews but when I see other articles in the main space interviews are cited as references frequently. Edward Myer (talk) 11:52, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Interviews can be used as references but they don't contribute to any notability I'm afraid. Your draft is here Draft:Bruse Wane where you last edited yesterday. Theroadislong (talk) 12:29, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

This is not it the drat you left the message on in my sandbox was Talk:Edward Myer. I had not named it after the subject. I'am following the guides on notability as outlined in WP:MUSICBIO Edward Myer (talk) 13:52, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm sorry I don't understand what you are saying here. Theroadislong (talk) 14:04, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

No worries. Edward Myer (talk) 15:23, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes I did appreciate the input and will strip the article done to the bare essentials as suggested. Edward Myer (talk) 13:58, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Every act of any editor on and Wikimedia Foundation website is open to view by any editor, though there are exceptions where certain areas require advanced rights, or where certain editors have been disallowed access. So sandboxes are 100% visible. I can see why that might be surprising to a new editor. I've been here too long to remember what being new was like, except that I made some basic errors, too.

I think a good policy is to eat a large slice or, perhaps the whole of, humble pie. I would like to suggest that you pop back to the Administrators' Noticeboard discussion, and make a simple, but all embracing apology for past transgressions, witting or unwitting, commit to not using more than one account unless in keeping with all the rules, and move on past the prior difficult experiences to a solid set of fun creating and enhancing Hip Hop articles.

We are all subject to scrutiny. Editors are scrutinising me, you, and each other, yet we do it as colleagues, not as combatants, which seems weird, certainly un real life. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 23:22, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Than you, Edward Meyer, we will work together

I have taken the briefest glance at Draft:Bruse Wane after your message on my user talk page. I can say categorically that it is improved. In an hour or so I will have some time to look in detail and will give you very specific feedback. If success is possible with an article on Wane I want you to achieve that success. If I view it as impossible I will tell you clearly, with as much rationale as I am able.

Let us consider, you and I, that the past is the past. We will work from this point on. I will advise, you will research and edit. Working here, together, in the full sight of everyone will also show that you are determined to understand Wikipedia, which is a difficult place to write for. The second most difficult task here is to wrote a biography. The most difficult is an autobiography. So we will not rush. There is truly no deadline. We will simply make pleasant and good progress. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 21:17, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

I would like to start by looking at cutting any words that do not add value, and also by cutting any current references that do not add value. You may find cutting the words harder, because you wrote them and so may have an emotional connection to them.

Example sentence:

• Warren Rose (born October 19,1982) Known professionally by his stage name Bruse Wane, is a Jamaican American rapper and songwriter that was born on the Island of Jamaica.

Try, instead:

• Warren Rose (b October 19,1982), stage name Bruse Wane, is a Jamaican American rapper and songwriter, born in Jamaica.

The difference is small, but it is more compact. This is Wikipedia writing style. We aim for brevity but with good prose.

Its worth looking at 100% of the ecisotinfg prose to see how it can be précised without losing any of the meaning. This is a heavyweight task, but do not start it before looking at the references, orn you may waste effort

Example reference that does not add value:

• https://edition.cnn.com/2015/08/09/entertainment/rapper-sean-price-dies-feat/index.html

This does not mention Wane at all, so it needs to go, as should “’’The Hip-Hop icons death shocked the Hip-Hop world. His death was covered by major news networks throughout the United States and the world,’’” which it is used to cite. This sentence adds no value, and, while it might feel important, is nt in a wikipedia sense. It belongs in any article on Price, not on Wane.

• http://web.archive.org/web/20201130032651/https://musicexistence.com/blog/2014/07/28/bruse-wane-f-sean-price-beast-inside/

This is a blog. Blogs are user generated content without management oversight. You weren’t to know this, which is fine, but blogs make unreliabke references and are deprecated. This one needs to go. The great thing is that it is part of a pair of references citing the same fact, so it can just go!

Wny?

Because a fact, once cited in a reliabke source, is cited. We don’t ‘’need’’ more than one reference.

But we have a problem:

• https://undergroundhiphopblog.com/singles/bruse-wane-manhattan-ny-home-of-the-spitters-ft-keith-murray-fam-illy/

This is the second reference for that fact and it is a blog as well. It needs to go. So now we ask “Can we replace both of these with a singoe reference which oasses WP:42 or must the fact go as well as those two references?

Looking at the sentence:

• His 2014 appearance on the songs "Home Of The Spitters "with Keith Murray, and "Beast Inside" with Sean Price started to put him on the radar of Hip-Hop fans.

It actually adds no value to us. Wkipe3dia is nit a magazine and this sentence suits a magazine, just not wikipedia

The task I hope you will accept is to look at every word in every sentence with a brutal editor’s red pencil, to make sure that the extra words are cut out. As you do this, look at every reference and start to ‘get yoiur eye in’ on what makes a good reference and what makes a useless relerence. Duno the useless ones, Itf you can;t replace them then dump the facts as well.

This is a lot of work, and I suggest it is all the advice I give you tonight 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 22:03, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Note, by the way, that other editors may have opinions which differ from mine. That is a good thing. I ask them to join us constructively. I'm happy to have my advice critiqued because I get better by listening to others. I just ask them not to confuse either of us 😇! 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 22:06, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Your advice is good and an adequate start. However, you may want to check your spelling.... ecisotinfg? précised? ... - UtherSRG (talk) 00:06, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

@UtherSRG My typos are legendary, my friend. You have no idea how many I corrected before I posted this!

With the advice I am striving to keep to bite sized chunks. Too many 'tasks' in one go make the overall job hard. Thank you for appreciating what we are attempting. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 00:10, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Timtrent I hope all is well. I know we have a large time zone difference. I just got in from my day job. I will begin implementing the changes you have suggested now. Thank you. Edward Myer (talk) 21:52, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Simply work slowly and methodically. Wise not to submit for review until you pass this finished stage by me, because there will be other things to attend to. What we are aiming for is the very best chance of success at the next review. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 22:23, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Ok wil do. Please check the latest version when you get a chance. Thanks Edward Myer (talk) 02:45, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

It will likely be this evening, UK time. I have seen fromthe history tab that you have been working diligently. I will have a solid look as soon as I am able. It needs a quantity of quiet time to look at. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 07:28, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

I’m looking, as promised, at the current version.

Before I start in detail, people forget one remarkably simple thing, and no-one tells them when they start creating articles here:

All you have to do is the minimum work to show that the subject passes our notability criteria.

That means almost always the less text and fewer references are better than a long screed and loads of references. With less text we can be very precise. With fewer references we are selective in the extreme about what we choose. Less text also needs fewer references than more text.

Now, to the draft:

I’m going to look at a handful of references:

• https://goldstandardbookings.bandzoogle.com/bruse-wane is used to verify simple facts. It adds no value to verifying notability, it is not classed as mainstream media, nor as reliable. However, it is not classed as unreliable. – Valid
• https://www.spitfirehiphop.com/interviews/2024/09/bruse-wane-talks-who-invented-hip-hop-sean-p-papoose-more/seems to want me to watch a video. Generally this fails as a reference, and WP:YOUTUBE will tell you why. Without watching the video I cannot see that it verifies the Early Life section. - Not valid
• https://www.solovibesmusic.com/2015/08/bruse-wane-sends-condolenes-confirms.html I am having problems with. I can’t see the relevance of Wane’s actions to Wane’s notability. You need to consider whether this narrative, even with a reference, adds genuine value to the draft. Remember that all you need to do is to show that Wane is notable. – Doubtful validity
• https://hiphopdx.com/videos/id.24951/title.bruse-wane-chris-rivers-perform-venom-live-in-brooklyn feels like gold dust. A major review in a relaible source of Venom, Wane’s release. Compare that with the needfs of WP:NMUSICIAN and you will see it is right on the money. – Valid

Ok, I think I have set a direction for you. I’m not going to examine every source, I’m here to teach you to fish, not to give you a fish supper!

The work you have done since we started talking has been good work. What is needed, now, is to repeat the exercise. Ask yourself two key questions:

• Can I write this tighter, using fewer words, and losing absolutely anything that does not add vaue to Wane’s notability?
• Are my references truly as exc ellent as they can be?

Then work on the answers. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 19:57, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the input and further direction. I thought everything had to be referenced even minor instances that may not prove notability, but show the subjects other accomplishments time line in their field.

This was very eye opening "

Before I start in detail, people forget one remarkably simple thing, and no-one tells them when they start creating articles here:

All you have to do is the minimum work to show that the subject passes our notability criteria.

That means almost always the less text and fewer references are better than a long screed and loads of references. With less text we can be very precise. With fewer references we are selective in the extreme about what we choose. Less text also needs fewer references than more text."

I will read over everything you stated again, and again and get back to work.

Edward Myer (talk) 00:18, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

@Timtrent Hello please take a look a the latest version thanks. Edward Myer (talk) 03:41, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

I have asked another editor whose advice and opinions I respect to look at our work together, your work and my advice, and asked them to validate our joint work and help us with next steps.

You have achieved a great deal. A substantial quantity of unnecessary words have gone, and references are much tighter.

I've asked for outside help because I feel as if I am standing too close to the draft to see clearly right now. I only want to ask you to do necessary work, not work for work's sake.

I want us to get to a point where we can reach a clear conclusion. Either:

• Wane has sufficient notability to be included, and can be accepted
• Wane has not yet sufficient notability, and we should wait until he does

If the other editor responds to my request for help I have asked them to continue in this thread. I hope very much that they do. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 08:05, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

OK thank you for all you have done. I appreciate your insight and time. Edward Myer (talk) 08:35, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi Edward Myer and Timtrent. Am I correct in that there are two separate issues with the draft at this stage? WP:N notability (likely larger of the two, as a result of the previous AfD discussion) and then the WP:V/prose/WP:NPOV issues that are surmised above? There's been good work done above with regard to the later work and I want to commend you both for addressing it thus far, but there is likely still more to do. However, in my mind, demonstrating notability (as it is is a threshold issue, and a rather binary one at that) should be the first task as it doesn't make sense to continue to tweak the prose if the ultimate article cannot exist if the subject is determined to be not-notable (yet, see WP:DEGRADE).

To this end, a lot has been pointed out to you Edward about the quality of different sources and the criteria that we grade sources against. If I may suggest but another essay page, consider WP:THREE. Some sources have been pointed out to me to review, there is one in particular that I really like. Please let me know if the notability issue has been addressed elsewhere, so as to not duplicate efforts, but otherwise I will collect them below. Consider:

Source assessment table

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Juon, Steve 'Flash' (2025-01-13). "Bruse Wane :: The Earl Manigault of Rap – RapReviews". Retrieved 2025-01-20.	As far as I can tell, this is an independent review.	I'm not familiar with the subject area but I see no glaring reason to doubt this publication. I can also find no indication in the WP:RSPS or the relevant noticeboards and archives to doubt it.	The focus of the article is the subject.	✔ Yes
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Please suggest more that we might find a total of three good sources. They don't even need to be in the article presently, in fact it might be easier to just supply either the link below or a numerical reference. I'm not sure I fall as hard against video sources, but I would appreciate if you don't make me sift through a bunch of sub-par ones. I'll also note the guidance in WP:INTERVIEW, such that interview pieces may be considered, only if there is a portion of the whole piece that conducts independent analysis of the subject. My recommendation would be to start there and see where we get. I'll add to the above table as we go. Otherwise, we could meet WP:NMUSICIAN as another way to demonstrate notability; this doesn't require three GNG-suitable sources but rather a verified fact as another threshold matter. Thanks, Bobby Cohn (talk) 17:10, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

@Bobby Cohn, thank you. If I may I will propose:

• https://www.rapreviews.com/2015/10/bruse-wane-earl-manigault-of-rap/
• https://staging.hiphopdx.com/videos/id.24028/title.bruse-wane-chris-rivers-behind-the-scenes-of-venom
• https://hiphopdx.com/videos/id.24951/title.bruse-wane-chris-rivers-perform-venom-live-in-brooklyn
• https://hiphopdx.com/news/id.52128/title.dxclusive-bruse-wane-connects-with-papoose-for-killa-soundboy-video

as references worth looking at with a view to having a role in verifying notability. However, I have some concerns that three of these come from https://hiphopdx.com. My own feelings are that verification is best spread between media outlets. These are currently numbered 4, 7, 8, 14. The first on my list is one which you have analysed already. I concur with your analysis.

I do believe that we are approaching the threshold of verifiable notability. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 19:34, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Unfortunately, as I see the hiphopdx sources, I don't see them adding much weight to the notability argument. These are shorter sources, and while length is not always a direct indicator of SIGCOV, it does tend to correlate. But these do little more than describe a video. The videos, of course not being independent (as either a music video or a behind the scenes video), doesn't need to be examined to contribute to N.

• https://staging.hiphopdx.com/videos/id.24028/title.bruse-wane-chris-rivers-behind-the-scenes-of-venom Two sentences, both of which present the video (both start with "Here is ... " and "Watch as ... "). This doesn't add much independent analysis of the source material and doesn't get to our subject of the article.
• https://hiphopdx.com/videos/id.24951/title.bruse-wane-chris-rivers-perform-venom-live-in-brooklyn Again short, but does conduct some independent and critical analysis. I'll quote the relevant part here in full: "With its booming base accompanied by three seriously skilled MCs spitting propane bars. It was unquestionably one of the hottest singles released for 2016." However this is about the song/music video attached and does not represent significant coverage of our subject here. Might be used to demonstrate notability for the song "Venom" but not of the artist.
• https://hiphopdx.com/news/id.52128/title.dxclusive-bruse-wane-connects-with-papoose-for-killa-soundboy-video We're getting into WP:INTERVIEW territory here, so we have to be careful. Anything said by our subject can't be used in our tally to get to three, but we are allowed to look for independent critical analysis that might support it. Unfortunately again, I see that it would be about the song "Killa Soundboy" and not about the artist, our subject in question.

That's my read of it. I don't see these three sources helping with our WP:N analysis. Again, I'm not opposed to independent coverage in videos, or analysis outside of interviews.

To give an example and take this out of the realm of hip hop: If CBS News did an expose on a organization and Walter Cronkite interviewed the CEO, everything CBS News said about the organization would count towards the organization's notability but nothing more (not the CEO's notability, and nothing said by the CEO). Then, anything said by our theoretical CEO may be used in an article if it weren't promotional, but that would be it. That's kind of how I view the boundaries as they intersect with RS/IS/SIGCOV. Bobby Cohn (talk) 21:34, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

I can accept that rationale. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 21:37, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello @Bobby Cohn nice to make you acquaintance and thank you for your time., and input. Hello @Timtrent The subject has recieved coverage on that topic on other hip hop media site besides HipHopDX. Also in my attempt to make the article less length last night I got rid of some references, Tim I should have ask you if they helped notability for Wane before I did. I listed the three I eliminated below.

1, The article on the Hip Hip Media site Ambrosia For Heads that stated. Venom helped Bruse Wane get his name up in Hip Hop .https://ambrosiaforheads.com/2016/08/sean-price-chris-rivers-venom-video/

2. The music video for "Venom" demonstrating it went viral,  When it was featured on the entertainment and Hip Hop outlet World Star Hip-Hop, where  it surpassed well over one million views. https://worldstar.com/videos/wshhAp8590SzkvcTlYc1/bruse-wane-feat-sean-price-and-chris-rivers-venom-wane-enterprises-submitted

3. Mentioned the song was featured on a prominent DJ's website because of its impact in Hip Hop.3. Mention the song was featured on a prominent DJ's website because of its impact in Hip Hop

http://premierwuzhere.com/videos/bruse-wayne-feat-sean-price-whispers-venom/

Edward Myer (talk) 21:53, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

I am the definitely the novice here so please forgive me if I over step my bounds. I gave the additional reasons for notability of the subject also during another conversation, as listed below.

outlined WP:MUSICBIO guidelines

.

1. The subject has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself.
2. Has received non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country. ( I removed what I had of that in the article as-well) for reasons of length,

As stated in line 6 of the WP:MUSIC Is in an ensemble that contains two or more independently notable musicians, or is a musician who has been a reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles

3, The subject is also apart of a notable ensemble. As he is apart of the ensemble/group Mantronix. he is the main emcee in Mantronix and Kurtis Mantronik. That was covered in the article as-well.

4. inclusion on a notable compilation album ( this was covered in article as-well ( The Subject was on the Hip Hop Museums compilation album that was distributed by a major distributor.

12. Has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or television network. The draft article covered this also. The subject had two instances of this when, wane was featured on Sirisxm radio. which a national radio network.

Edward Myer (talk) 22:13, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

I think we are all seeing how challenging this is. For the moment I am going to defer to @Bobby Cohn. I have proved to myself that I am no longer as objective on this draft as I hoped I was. I am beset by real life at the moment and that may be the reason. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 22:20, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

@Timtrent I am disappointed but I really appreciated you giving me a sharper eye for the wikipedia approach on editing, I will utilize it on all articles moving forward. @Bobby Cohn Thanks for the input, and any future direction or input. Anyone who see ways I can improving this draft article please feel free to let me know. Thank you. Edward Myer (talk) 22:48, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

It would be more disappointing were I to lead you astray. My desire to help further is overruled by my discovery that, at the moment, that help might be counterproductive. If I can become productive for you again I will jump in again

If this were to be a last piece of advice (it will not be) I would say to you "Please never take anything on Wikipedia personally with the possible exception of praise." 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 22:57, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. Not being familiar with wikipedia's open format communication policy led me to jump to alot of misguided conclusions. I can't start over but moving forward I will be more mindful to add to wikipedia, and it's community of editors in a positive way. Apologies to anyone I may have offended. Edward Myer (talk) 00:22, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Hey @Edward Myer, thanks for the additional sources; I'm happy to review them for you. If I may echo @Timtrent, my analysis isn't the be-all-end-all of it either. We try and work on consensus so it's possible others may view these differently, but it's best to get a good idea of how they're evaluated which often helps making a good argument for or against them.

• https://ambrosiaforheads.com/2016/08/sean-price-chris-rivers-venom-video/ I'll be honest that hip hop is outside my regular editing interest so I'm not sure what the statement "Getting his name up (care of a lead-off verse), Bruse gives way ... " means. Unfortunately, however, this appears to just be a trivial mention in an article about Sean Price and doesn't get to the way of establishing notability for our subject here (the Bill Clinton example at WP:SIGCOV is analogous here). In this article, there are also two embedded videos: the first is appears to be news coverage of an A$AP Rocky incident so there's nothing here about our subject for notability (unless there are some autoplay/browser cookie issues on my end, in which case if there is a video about Bruse Wayne would you mind sending the direct link, I'll watch it as well); and the second is again the embedded music video which is primary and not useful for establishing notability.
• https://worldstar.com/videos/wshhAp8590SzkvcTlYc1/bruse-wane-feat-sean-price-and-chris-rivers-venom-wane-enterprises-submitted Again, this is a primary source that doesn't help for notability. Anything meaning we would read into it would be original research. Contrast this with the good citation from the table above and we'll see that for it to count to notability, it needs to come from an independent and reliable source that significantly covers the topic, typically in the form of a review or critical analysis of the subject.
• http://premierwuzhere.com/videos/bruse-wayne-feat-sean-price-whispers-venom/ I'm going to echo above what I generally said about the hiphopdx sources, in that the embedded video isn't independent and therefore doesn't do much for us in the way of notability, and the content of the article isn't much in the way of significant coverage of our subject. It's a line that states a fact about our subject, but I will say more about this later.

So if we put together the aforementioned hiphopdx links and these, we would likely get the following source assessment table:

Source assessment table

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
staging.hiphopdx.com/videos/id.24028/title.bruse-wane-chris-rivers-behind-the-scenes-of-venom	Not related to the subject.	No reason to doubt.	Doesn't talk about the subject, conducts no independent critical analysis or significant coverage.	✘ No
hiphopdx.com/videos/id.24951/title.bruse-wane-chris-rivers-perform-venom-live-in-brooklyn	Not related to the subject.	No reason to doubt.	The independent critical analysis present in the article is about "Venom" and not about the subject.	✘ No
hiphopdx.com/news/id.52128/title.dxclusive-bruse-wane-connects-with-papoose-for-killa-soundboy-video	May be partially used, see WP:INTERVIEW.	No reason to doubt.	The analysis is about the song "Killa Soundboy" and not about the artist, our subject in question.	✘ No
ambrosiaforheads.com/2016/08/sean-price-chris-rivers-venom-video/	Not related to the subject.	No reason to doubt.	Just a trivial mention of the subject.	✘ No
worldstar.com/videos/wshhAp8590SzkvcTlYc1/bruse-wane-feat-sean-price-and-chris-rivers-venom-wane-enterprises-submitted	Work created by the subject.	May be used to verify certain facts. See below.	Is the work of the subject, there's no critical analysis done by someone else (or anyone for that matter).	✘ No
premierwuzhere.com/videos/bruse-wayne-feat-sean-price-whispers-venom/	Not related to the subject.	No reason to doubt.	No analysis of the subject.	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

There's a reason that Timtrent and I are talking about two things here separately, is that there are really two independent issues at play:

1. Is the subject WP:Notable? This determines if an article can exist about the subject on Wikipedia at all.
2. If notable, what content is allowed to be in an article on the subject? It can't be blatantly promotional lest it be speedy-deleted, or otherwise precluded by WP:NOT (you and Timtrent have done a good job on this point thus far as I am to believe). And, everything said by the article must be properly verified to reliable sources (sometimes non-independent sources are okay, depending on the facts and the context).

But the significant coverage aspect of notability is where this subject is getting tripped up, and why we've suggested "let's establish this first, so we don't end up wasting a bunch of time and feel like we've made you feel like you've completed a fool's errand in doing the work to properly write an article and verify appropriate statements with facts, only for an article to not be allowed in the first place."

I've told you I would expand more on using the citations in an appropriate way, because I think that (1) this will help you get an understanding of the principles at play so that you may apply them in editing other articles and (2) in the event that the subject does later demonstrate notability, you can begin to apply the cleanup in a way that will properly phrase and cite material.

We could actually use the Premier Wuz Here source in the article as it is independent and reliable. We're allowed to say something along the lines of

Before his death, Sean Prince's last collaboration was with Bruce Wayne and Chris Rivers in "Venom".

References

It's a statement of fact that is backed up by the reference. But what we couldn't say is anything about being "featured on a prominent DJ's website because of its impact in hip hop", because that would be your reading of the situation and therefore original research, see WP:No original research.

In addition, there are scenarios where it may be appropriate to use primary sources, such as the music video you proposed. Consider these two and the slight difference in phrasing of each:

Bruce Wayne's music video "Venom" garnered 1.196 million views by January 2025 on World Star Hip Hop.

As of January 2025, Bruce Wayne's music video "Venom" has 1.196 million views on World Star Hip Hop.

References

Notice my phrasing of the past tense in the first versus the use of "As of" in the second example, and how I've used an archived version of the link to demonstrate these facts. That's the extent of the information you can verify with primary sources. Now, some editors may disagree with the encyclopedic nature or appropriateness of those facts in an article, but at least here they would be cited correctly. But again, we can't go beyond this and say that it "went viral" as that is your analysis of the citation and original research (and we begin to approach WP:Wikipuffery territory again).

You also mentioned the NMUSICIAN criteria so I'll touch on those briefly as well. Of one and two that you quoted:

1. The subject has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself.
2. Has received non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country. ( I removed what I had of that in the article as-well) for reasons of length ...

Number one is the analysis that we are doing above. Number two would be the exact same analysis but conducted on a international concert tour as the subject. For example, see all the coverage about The Eras Tour, this would be another way that Taylor Swift would demonstrate notability (for lack of a better immediate example).

For the subject specific notability criteria, number 3 is most interesting at first glance, but I don't immediately see reference to Bruse Wayne. The Mantronix coverage since 2023 would have to be used to demonstrate notability, so we could begin to explore this further. For 4 and 12, again, we'll need to see citations demonstrating as such, but we aren't precluded by these yet. I'd be happy to expand on this more, but we need to see a citation for these to begin it's analysis.

I hope this makes sense and gives you an idea of how we can use sources to identify facts and demonstrate notability. Happy to help further, Bobby Cohn (talk) 18:01, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Bobby Cohn thank you for the input and your time. In answer to your statement "I'll be honest that hip hop is outside my regular editing interest so I'm not sure what the statement "Getting his name up (care of a lead-off verse), Bruse gives way . it means making his name known/notable care of being the lead artist to start off the song featuring more notable artist that come on after him." This is common practice in Hip Hop ( I have reworked the draft to also focus more on his notability based on the larger body of work"(His Album) instead of just the song "venom" which appears on the subjects "Earl Manigualt Of Rap" Album", as longer independent reviews appear on that as opposed to just the song venom.

Yes the subject was made a member of Mantronix by Kurtis Mantronik in 2023, and that should be considered as the two have released music together. That has also been referenced and sourced in the draft article. In the section " Joining Forces with MantroniK"

Other factors notabiity I mentioned.

4. inclusion on a notable compilation album ( this was covered in article as-well ( The Subject was on the Hip Hop Museums "16 Bars 4 HipHop compilation album" that was distributed by a major distributor. (This is demonstrated in the portions of the draft entitled "Working with the Hip Hop Museum". and it has citations and references that attest to this.

12. Subject has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or television network. The draft article covered this also. The subject had two instances of this when, wane was featured on Sirisxm radio. which a national radio network.

(Earl Manigult Of Rap Portion) In 2016 Dj Eclipse had Bruse Wane appear as the featured guest for a full segment on the American national radio network SiriusXM, to discuss his "Earl Manigault Of Rap Album

(Killa Sounboy Portion) Dj Kay Slay premiered the song on SiriusXM Radio while Bruse Wane was the featured guest for a full segment of the show

I have also sourced a new reference that reviewed the subject & his Earl Manigult Of Rap Album in detail instead of a trivial mention https://monolithcocktail.com/tickling-our-fancy-archive/tof-028-the-untied-knot-bruse-wane-fiction-aisle/

Their is a statement in the "album review" article you deemed made the subject eligible under wikipedia GNG that is similar to the clarity you wanted on the meaning (getting his name up).

"it may be chilling to hear and see Price’s cameo on the track given he’s no longer around to celebrate Wane making his name on the rap scene." (Meaning making his name notable) similar to (Getting His name up)https://www.rapreviews.com/2015/10/bruse-wane-earl-manigault-of-rap/

Please checked the reworked "Bruse Wane Draft" when you can. Thank you Bobby. Edward Myer (talk) 19:56, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Okay, let's dive in now that we have some links to work off of. I want to preface this by saying that sometimes, while WP:SNG and their criteria may look easier to meet on their surface, sometimes conversations get pulled into the weeds on what actually counts, so the results might not be as satisfying as saying "here are three references that clearly meet the WP:GNG" and the answers here aren't always as clean cut.

I'll quote directly and in full from Wikipedia:Notability (music) § Criteria for musicians and ensembles for the following analyses.

10. Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, such as a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a notable compilation album. (But if this is the only claim, it is probably more appropriate to have a mention in the main article and redirect to that article. Read the policy and notability guideline on subjects notable only for one event, for further clarifications).

Okay, so to tackle this one, this makes us jump through a couple hoops to get back to Bruse Wayne. It is also caveated with "But if this is the only claim, it is probably more appropriate to have a mention in the main article and redirect to that article but I'm not as worried about that; we've already found one source that is applicable to the GNG so that works in our favour. Note that it says a notable compilation album. First we need to see that 16 Bars 4 Hip Hop album is notable. I'm not seeing any article for this album yet though, so we might have to do the heavy lifting ourselves. Rule of thumb: three independent reviews or the WP:NALBUM criteria. We can begin to take a look down this avenue. We might even be able to knock out another article on the way. But I don't see this one quite yet, so I'll continue.

6. Is an ensemble that contains two or more independently notable musicians, or is a musician who has been a reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles. This should be adapted appropriately for musical genre; for example, having performed two lead roles at major opera houses. Note that this criterion needs to be interpreted with caution, as there have been instances where this criterion was cited in a circular manner to create a self-fulfilling notability loop (e.g., musicians who were "notable" only for having been in two bands, of which one or both were "notable" only because those musicians had been in them.)

Notes

From what I gather, Bruse Wayne has only been in Mantronix, so we can't clear this threshold on the back of "has been a reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles". If Bruse Wayne were in another, then'd we'd have it, but we have to stick to just Mantronix for now. Therefore, the first test of this is "Is an ensemble that contains two or more independently notable musicians". Again, we're beyond my knowledge, so I will quote in full the relevant section (Mantronix § 2023–present) where Bruse Wayne is:

In 2023 Kurtis Mantronik reformed his group Mantronix. He produced and jointly released three hip-hop songs that featured New York hip hop rapper Bruse Wane. The songs "Money Talks", "Era of the AI", and "When the Doves Fly" were jointly released by Mantronik under his Mantronix Classics Label; and Bruse Wane's Wane Enterprises Label. Mantronik produced directed and edited three music videos for all three songs. They appeared on his Mantronix official YouTube channel. He also began doing production work for Bronx rapper Just-Ice.

So at the time of Bruse Wayne's membership in Mantronix, there was only one other notable musician, Kurtis Mantronik. The way I read the Mantronix article, it appears to be two distinct groups sharing a name and one member, given the timeline that one ends in 1993 and the other begins in 2023. But see my earlier caveat, this is my opinion, someone else might disagree. you can see how arguments get weighed down on the technicalities of WP:SNG.

12. Has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or television network.

This is a pretty strong claim at first glance. I assume that satellite radio would count as national radio. So as always, let's double check with references.

The statement about the show Rap is Outta Control uses a citation to their own website, so easily meets WP:RS for that fact. They say about the appearance: "New York emcees Bruse Wane, Syll Muzik, and Pearl Gates stopped by RIOC to talk about new music and their adventures as active artists in 2016. Would it be nice if the show used our term exactly "featured guest" on their website so that we know this isn't just an interview where the "stopped by", of course—that would make things much easier for us. The second, for the show Street Sweeper radio on their website specifically lists it in their Interviews section, making the argument harder that this was a featured guest. Again, you can see how it isn't as clear cut to meet these all the time.

References

I see your references but I am short for time, I need to step away from my computer for a moment. Would you care to try analyzing them yourself? Consider their independence, reliability (hint, blogs may be little more than WP:UCG), and the significance and subject of their coverage.

Thanks, Bobby Cohn (talk) 22:05, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

No need to get fancy with tables/templates/formatting, you can just say “yes reliable, sorta independent” etc. Remember the advice at WP:THREE be honest with yourself about any shortcomings of the references, it lends more credence to your argument.

@Timtrent, I'd love your thoughts on my MUSICBIO analysis, it's not exactly a set of criteria I frequently review. It’s fair to say that I'm taking the more critical argument in any potential discussion against them. Bobby Cohn (talk) 22:21, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

@Bobby Cohn I need to do this in the morning. I've just spent a day helping my son and his wife unpack a whole house move! Thinking is not possible tonight 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 22:44, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

@Bobby Cohn Overnight, the narrative has moved ahead, but that does nor diminish the points you make.

I think that we are now at the point where the draft (not the artist, but the draft about the artist) has now left the 'decline' area and moved to the 'bordlerline' area. As you know, but Edward Myer may not, is that the AFC reviewer's standing instructions are to 'accept any draft which, in our personal view, has a better than 50% chance of surviving an immediate deletion process'.

This makes me consider what the next step should be. The article was previously deleted, 28 days ago, at AfD. This says to me that it is at extra risk on acceptance. It moves my personal acceptance criterion to needing to have a better than 75% chance, precisely because opinions will already be set against it (human nature). That pushes it firmly to the wrong side of the border, and suggests that now is not yet the time to ask for a formal review.

Two things will work in its favour:

• Elapsed time, allowing Wane more scope for media coverage
• Stronger referencing

That is all I have this morning. I see substantial work done and substantial understanding increases, all of which are good. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 09:20, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

I will be trimming the article down to it's bare minimum today and adding some more references. I will let you know when it's done. I also need to know about the second appearance validity on Sirius Radio with DJ Kaly Slay.

As for the feature on the second time on SirisXM. Once clicked on the video the host DJ KaySlay audibly says our "special guest". Intern meaning our "featured guest". The video contained in this other reference source shows this

https://www.solovibesmusic.com/2019/08/dj-kay-slay-interviews-bruse-wane.html

Edward Myer (talk) 12:36, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Bruse Wane

Hi Edward, I know you're actively working with another editor but wanted to just give you some feedback and impressions on the Draft:Bruse Wane as it sits right now and hope that it is helpful. A lot of the removals below are to help with a realization you posted above which is very true: that a short article that focuses narrowly on establishing notability (WP:NMUSIC) is far more important than a larger article with lots of references.

1. The lead does not typically need citations as it should be a summary of other information that is listed in the article and citations belong down there
2. There is generally no need to simply use discography websites (such as musicbrainz) as a citation for something otherwise uncontroversial, those should be removed.
3. As it relates to notability and the lead where you say He gained notability [...] with the release of his "Earl Manigault Of Rap" Album - the problem I currently have is that I simply cannot find multiple Reliable Sources to support that claim. I see a single article that covers it that doesn't otherwise appear to simply be a blog. Infact, it generally would be best to simply remove any blog or blog-style references all together for now. To be clear its not just an article that "talks about" the artist or album, but rather provides significant coverage into either the degree in which he gained notability or greater coverage about why that album was significant to the genre. Otherwise when minor moderate and/or minor websites make such claims it appears to simply be WP:PUFFERY and platitudes.
4. I think there is something to be said about notability when Spotify is showing only 18 monthly listeners [5] and Chartmetric shows is only on 52 playlists [6]. YouTube views are a bit better at 1k views for each video on average. So there is some concern. Also looking at industry leading charts, this artist appears nowhere on their sites but rather only on minor news websites.
5. On the other hand, the current collaboration with the formerly disbanded Mantronix might end up being something but for the moment it would seem that WP:NINI would apply here. But remember being a part of a notable band/group does not grant notability to each individual person.
6. As a remember some of the indicators are having releases by a major labor, album being certified gold, national music charts, nominated for a major award like a Grammy, on rotation with a national major radio network. A certified Gold just for example is in sales (which is far smaller than streaming numbers) where Gold is 500,000 sales, and from all indications there isn't even that many free views/listens/streams, so it seems like they might be quite far away from notability.

If after reading WP:NMUSIC of you still believe that this artist qualifies, I would stick with reducing the number of trivial links and focus exclusively on providing references to the articles which satisfy WP:NMUSIC. You are going to be far better off with 4 articles which very strongly support notability, compared to the current 16 references where maybe one or two might satisfy NMUSIC. I hope this helps you in your endeavors. TiggerJay (talk) 21:54, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you I appreciate your time and sincere effort to aid me @Tiggerjay Edward Myer (talk) 02:30, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

If the gauge was simply about numbers he would have be cited as notable already. What about the one million plus views he got on the music video for venom on worldstarhiphop. As well as the over 200,000 thousand plus views on the video for venom on YouTube. In addition the other hundreds of thousands of views, he has on other videos, Including the over one million plus views he has had on the music videos he has done on projects with Mantronix. You have to examine the artist accomplishments as a whole. The subject has also headlined numerous tours, nationally and international, and has been featured on top publications in Hip-Hop. So is notability just about the numbers or the artist entire profile of notable accomplishments. Edward Myer (talk) 02:52, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

This is genuinely an attempt to be helpful and help you parse the policies as they apply to is this draft

Numbers are a one way to measure things, but only certain numbers count, for example, album sales matter but YouTube views do not. While I would agree that there are a few videos that do break the trend, from a cursory view far more have what would be considered insignificant views. When we look at undisputed notable musicians, one trend we see is that once they become discovered and know, there is a rising of the tide effect on all of their works, not just their new stuff, and that doesn’t seem to be the case here. Also I would suggest that there was some cleverly applied marketing approached to make certain videos unnaturally popular. All that to say, when I see most videos are around 1k and services like Spotify have listen counts under 20 monthly listeners and on so few playlists, it just gives a huge amount of pause. And it just throws further weight at the requirements of notability.

On the other hand, if most most if the videos, songs, playlists, and ofher stats were in the 100’s of thousands that would decrease the scrutiny of other notability indexes. If when searching for the album that made them popular, I should see hundreds of google news results, not a dozen.

So given that, it just puts an higher requirement on ensuring the article includes evidence that the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician. This approach of significant converge extends to everything from tours, albums, events, etc. An advertisement of a national tour (or other announcement or trivial mentions) do not count, but if must be non-trivial from reliable source. Statements about how impactful the music/artist/album also need to be supported by such.

While a national or international tour itself has often been debated as a reason for notability, one of the biggest reasons I suggest is because someone can headline a national tour of 250 person venues, as well as 1800 seat or 20,000. There is a huge difference between those. There is also a big difference between touring at events where the vast majority of people late paying for see the artist by name, versus those who are seeing the artist in some other way (ie outdoor festivals, being featured by another notable name, etc). If Bruce is selling out indoor professional arenas (20k+ seats) where they are headlining and putting up the production costs in 20 major markets (San Francisco, LA, New York, Chicago, etc) and that is supported by multiple reliable sources then that would be a solid case. If on the other hand, we’re talking nightclubs in the hundreds of people that is an entirely different scale and there are a million of bands who have met that insignificant threshold.

Again, I’d suggest throwing out the trivial mentions and blog, and minor news publications. Focus on finding just 4 high quality, reliable sources, providing significant coverage of Bruse. Just share them here or on the article talk page and we can show you how to work those into the article itself. But failing to find multiple quality, reliable sources of significant coverage will cause this article to fail regardless of how many unverifiable qualifiers the artist suggests makes them notable. This might just be WP:TOOSOON. TiggerJay (talk) 04:58, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

I did heed your advice and I will take it as you made so valid points. Thanks Edward Myer (talk) 05:43, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Excellent. Good luck! TiggerJay (talk) 06:20, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. Edward Myer (talk) 08:54, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Working Together Continued.

As the The Subject Already passes Wikipedia:GNG

@Bobby Cohn @Timtrent

Musicians or ensembles (this category includes bands, singers, rappers, orchestras, DJs, musical theatre groups, instrumentalists, etc.) may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria. Just one,

Back to the subject being Notable for being on a notable compilation album. The Hip Hop Museum is already notable, and it's also an organization that cultivates Hip Hop culture and history. Would that not in itself make the compilation album Notable..

Has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or television network.

This is a pretty strong claim at first glance. I assume that satellite radio would count as national radio. So as always, let's double check with references.

Yes SIRIUS XM satellite radio is considered radio"

Sirius XM is a national radio broadcast company who's channels broadcast nationally in America, and some portions of Canada. The subject has been on Eminem's radio channel Shade45 (The most listened channel on the radio network) which broadcasts nationally on Sirius XM. Appearing on this channel is a major accomplishment in Hip-Hop. You have to really be someone of importance, notability or a hell of a buzz to get on these shows. And most shows are hosted by Major DJ's in Hip-Hop.

The statement about the show Rap is Outta Control uses a citation to their own website, so easily meets WP:RS for that fact. They say about the appearance: "New York emcees Bruse Wane, Syll Muzik, and Pearl Gates stopped by RIOC to talk about new music and their adventures as active artists in 2016. Would it be nice if the show used our term exactly "featured guest" on their website so that we know this isn't just an interview where the "stopped by", of course—that would make things much easier for us. The second, for the show Street Sweeper radio on their website specifically lists it in their Interviews section, making the argument harder that this was a featured guest. Again, you can see how it isn't as clear cut to meet these all the time.

"The Criteria" says "has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or television segment".

The mere fact the subject "was physical there audibly heard, and visually seen indicates he was featured", I don't think it being stated audibly or in printed words that he is being featured is apart of the criteria". If he was not meant to be featured he would not have been seen or heard for the duration of the broadcast. Also it does not detail what should and should not be taking place during the segment." The mere fact he is being heard and seen on a nationally broadcasted radio segment should be sufficient. The term "substantial" has no clear parameters making it a non factor in the determination of the criteria has been met.

As for the feature on the second SirisXM. Once clicked on the video the host DJ KaySlay audibly says our "special guest". Intern meaning our "featured guest". The video contained in this other reference source shows this

https://blackouthiphop.com/blog/bruse-wane-interview-with-dj-kay-slay/

Before I continue I'm very wet behind the ears in wikipedia, so thank you guys again and anyone who has taking the time out to chime in. Get seasoned won't happen over night but I will continue to refer to the advice and examples contained in these tasks, A few things for discussion things listed below:

Question: What is the minimum amount of significant coverage from multiple reliable sources that are independent of a musician/subject, that is need to be notable ? Is there a stated amount on wikipedia ?, The word source is in plural suggesting any amount over one should be sufficient, and not left to a reviewers subjection.

According to Mrriam -Webster The meaning of MULTIPLE is consisting of, including, or involving more than one..Multiple is defined as more than one. Not a subjective amount decided by an individual.

• Let's discuss "Substantial coverage": According to Wikipedia The coverage should be substantial and go beyond basic information like release dates or performance listings; it should provide in-depth analysis or critical commentary. Nowhere does it outline what the length of the coverage should be to be considered substantial. Or the length of the in depth analysis or critical commentary.
• Some of my references cited did go beyond basic information like release dates or Performance listing, Some did contain analysis or critical commentary, but were considered not in-depth enough. Is length really the bar for reference citaion when term in-depth is subjective ?

Edward Myer (talk) 05:41, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

With regard to significant coverage, there is no word-count threshold per-se, largely because you can use a lot of words to say little as well as the opposite. The general rule I apply here is after reading or listening, when you delete trivia and direct quotations, what conversation or narrative was provide by someone else who depend your understanding of the topic (eg the artist or their music). Not just WP:PEACOCK terms like saying something was transformative or groundbreaking, but did they actually say how it was so. As you said above depth analysis or critical commentary.. Did you feel the interview or article provided depth or critical commentary? Which is different than say hanging out talking shop over a can of beer, or typical banter in between songs like radio personalities do, while interesting provides little depth or critical review. The middle of the road which also fails this is think of any late night TV show where a guest shows up to effectively plug their new movie, there is some banter and promo, those sorts of new coverage doesn’t count for sigcov. They are a reliable source about person X doing something Y. But not the type of source to support sigcov. I hope that helps clarify. Also, related is WP:SECONDARY versus primary sources. TiggerJay (talk) 06:20, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes it does, thanks again. Just waiting to hear back from the other editors on a few things before trimming down the article as you advised. Your advice was very enlighting. Edward Myer (talk) 06:34, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

The apparently trite mantra that "less is more" is useful. Setting Wane aside for the moment, when I review a draft it doesn't help me if every last goshdarned fact is present and referenced minutely. I need notability to speak for itself, be referenced with high quality references that don't cause me to wonder, and to be written tightly, without even a hint of praise words.

Signficant coverage is harder to define than is "passing mention" which self defines. I look for three paragraphs or more of fair, continuous, well written, substantial prose, about the subject. Tiggerjay uses different words to describe this, and we mean the same thing. Their guide to you seems better than my guide to me!

You might wish to examine WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:46, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the input. I know you time is precious. Edward Myer (talk) 17:32, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm in midst of editing and before I'm able to save my changes I'm told there is an editing conflict @Timtrent @Bobby Cohn how do I solve this ? Edward Myer (talk) 18:58, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

@Theroadislong My history shows you made some changes to my draft, and you please expand on it. Thanks Edward Myer (talk) 19:04, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Is it still considered puffery even if your quoting from the reference source @Timtrent @Theroadislong @Bobby Cohn Edward Myer (talk) 19:17, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

If you word it as "Foo has been described as the hunkiest man in the world" with a citation to the media outlet that says so, it is "reported puffery" and thus valid, unless you go overboard about it 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 19:22, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Just to add to this, while it is "valid" that does not mean that it adds anything to notability, and in general when an article is trying to establish itself as notable, actually often counts negatively against the article because often it is viewed as puffery and trying to distract away from the actual lack of notability. Even if it is otherwise acceptable and policy compliant to do so (ie there was a wise saying a long time ago that just because something is permissible does not mean that it is beneficial.) And just because you see that sort of thing commonly doesn't actually mean that it is beneficial. Those are things which are often valuable to fans or followers, but when it comes to being encyclopedic, those do not add any aura of notability because they're most often empty platitudes.

OTOH, if someone was to say that "Foo transformed the southern hip hop scene by combining southern-gospel themes with hop rhythms" and went on further to describe that in detail, and how other artists are now copying that style now known as "Foo hop", that would be an example of SIGCOV and notability; all while transcending peacockery/puffery by explaining why their work was actually, legitimately, transformative. TiggerJay (talk) 05:01, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Got it. Thank you for the further expansion and additional example. Edward Myer (talk) 08:52, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

The draft has been shortened so much reajusting did not take long @Theroadislong thanks for stopping me in my tracks. Edward Myer (talk) 20:08, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Edit conflicts are an annoying fact of Wikipedia. They happen for technical reasons based on the Mediawiki software, and are a pain in the fundament. I copy and paste my edited version into a word processing document, abandon the editing session, look at what has changed, and then reapply my edits, selectively, from my copied and pasted version. Others do it differently 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 19:26, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

I lost a lot of changes I was pretty much done. A message on my talk page about the puffery would have probably been better. Edward Myer (talk) 19:30, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

will do thanks Edward Myer (talk) 19:34, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Hindsight

I would like to sincerely apologize  to @Theroadislong for my missguided accusations that you declined my draft article with malicious intent. Your reasons for decline were 100% correct, and I was wrong for thinking otherwise. I apologize if your name was tarnished or your integrity was called into question because of my actions. Thank you to everyone that has been educating me on the correct way to edit and construct a draft for possible inclusion on wikipedia. It made me see how off base my claims of being denied out of malice was, and how foolish I made myself look.  

I would also like to thank @Timtrent for your empathy, enlightenment and intervention, as I was about to be casted into the abyss. You did not have to do that. Your act of kindness has influenced me to have more empathy when dealing with people in real life situations. Hopefully I become a seasoned and well versed editor on wikipedia. And If another Edward Myer shows up like I did fumbling around in the dark oblivious to Wikipedia's rules, guidelines and code of conduct I will extend to him what you extended to me intervention and knowledge first before discipline. Edward Myer (talk) 05:19, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Whatever happens to the article on Bruse Wane, Edward, an article I hope can be accepted and remain unchallenged, you have done excellent work. Thank you simply for listening in your time of pain. And thank you for the sentiment that you will pay it forward. And yes, I felt I had to do it. I could see that you were in pain, and not acting out of any misplaced motive. Your good will was evident; you just showed that you felt thwarted at every turn.

I know nothing at all about you, nor do I need to. If you are a younger person then you will change the attitudes of a great many people as you go through life, just by the way you interact; if you are an old fart like me then you will still change many, but will encounter fewer.

Wikipedia is a simple place but not an easy place. It provides an absorbing hobby. It also provides an interesting place to learn to write for, with a writing style that is unusual in commercial work.

I'm glad I was able to introduce you to other editors who are patient when I ran out of steam. The odd loose teamwork here is to be highly commended. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 08:14, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

No worries, apology accepted and all kudos to @Timtrent for his kind patience, I too will try to empathise more in future instead of being a grumpy old curmudgeon. Good luck with the draft. Theroadislong (talk) 08:34, 27 January 2025 (UTC)