Twlebrocq

Your submission at Articles for creation: Peter Mark (conductor) (April 12)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Majash2020 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:Peter Mark (conductor) 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.

Majash2020 (talk) 06:24, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Twlebrocq! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Majash2020 (talk) 06:24, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, Twlebrocq. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on the page Thea Musgrave, 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 organizations 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 {{request edit}} template);
• 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, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. Bbb23 (talk) 17:39, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for raising this. I don't believe I am in this position and the purpose of the changes are only to update the list of contributions the artist has made in recent years. I am not being paid for this work but have simply studied her music for some time. In my full-time employment, I am employed music royalties organisation.

How would you recommend I proceed? Twlebrocq (talk) 17:55, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

It's not just that you added so much material to the Musgrave article, but you also created a draft on her husband. Are you saying you don't know either of them or anything even related to them?--Bbb23 (talk) 17:57, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

The link between the two was based on the fact that whilst I was working on The Musgrave article I noticed that her husband (himself a musician of note and significant influence on her career) didn't have a page. I used that shorter article as a practice for editing before tackling the longer article. Twlebrocq (talk) 18:10, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Whilst researching her music at a music publisher, I conducted one written interview and one in person interview which was then written up. Twlebrocq (talk) 18:13, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Let's assume your interviews do not constitute a conflict of interest. Even so, your edits to the Musgrave article were awful (sorry). They don't comply with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Wikipedia is not an easy place to learn how to edit, and you kind of dove in and made significant changes to the article. I suggest you make smaller changes and not to the article itself, but instead propose them on the article Talk page so more experienced users can evaluate your edits. You can also ask questions at the WP:Teahouse.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:16, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

I did think it was because of the size of the edit. I did try to maintain the content of the original expand, but the biography was significantly condensed. As with the Peter Mark submission, I am perplexed because many of the asserts were matters of record, sourced from the Grove Dictionary. But I will try with the talk page as you suggest for the main content there.

What of the top line intro and the list of works and awards? These can surely remain? Twlebrocq (talk) 18:27, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Your edits of the Mark draft are not of much concern to me because that's in draft space, and you have more leeway with it. I'm speaking only to the Musgrave article, and as long as you're willing to take it more slowly and use only the article Talk page, you should be fine, although you may have to be patient because a lot of it depends on whether other editors respond to your proposed changes. Not too many editors "watch" the Musgrave article.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:34, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate that, you may notice I drip-fed my edits beginning with the lists and awards as I was keen to see what feed back would come from those only tackling the core of article last and yesterday.

Given this is very niche area of research (Contemporary Classical Music), I expected as much ie. that the talk page would not have as many active participants. Twlebrocq (talk) 18:39, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

I feel we need to continue our conversation. On the latest edit, your comment "you were told not to do this", can we make that a bit more specific? For future reference, and so neither waste any more of our time can you answer each of these:

1) you still consider me to have a COI and will not allow me to edit the page at all?

2) the edit (a factual list of works) was 'unecyclopedic'

3) the edit was too large (you suggested smaller edits)

In addition, if it must be another user through the Thea Musgrave talk page, can you please suggest a way of moving this forward (ie attracting other users to the issue) or how that can be practical, there has been only one comment on there. All other edits have been made direct into the page and not using the talk page. Not sure if this is a consistent rule. Twlebrocq (talk) 06:58, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Peter Mark (conductor) has been accepted

Peter Mark (conductor), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 20% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

AntientNestor (talk) 14:21, 18 June 2023 (UTC)