User talk:MaxWestfalen

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

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

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

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 11:41, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request

I can't see any immediate reasons not to accept the proposed user name. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:44, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Future Edits

Hi Kudpung! hank you very much for assisting me in the matter of username changes, etc. (This was also posted on Alex's page): My question now, considering that the blocking said "Your username is the only reason for this block. You are welcome to choose a new username (see below)", can I continue adding information as I did before? Other than the name (a matter with which I disagree, but I'll comply regardless) I don't think any of my edits can be considered "promotional" (only links to reviews and occasional information gathered from interviews or press releases -e.g. new albums, tours, history of bands, etc.-); as such, I would like to know if everything is OK in that aspect. MetalBlastZine (talk) 11:46, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Change of Username and edits

Hi Alex, thank you very much for assisting me in the matter of username changes, etc. My question now, considering that the blocking said "Your username is the only reason for this block. You are welcome to choose a new username (see below)", can I continue adding information as I did before? Other than the name (a matter with which I disagree, but I'll comply regardless) I don't think any of my edits can be considered "promotional"; as such, I would like to know if everything is OK in that aspect. MetalBlastZine (talk) 11:42, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK now that we are agreed. Go to WP:CHU/Simple and request a new user name. Please read about conflict of interest issues. Once that is granted I would suggest you declare your COI in your user page so editors know where you are coming from.Do not do any other article edits until the new name is issued (usually within a day or two depending on work load).-- Alexf^(talk) 11:50, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) We have a strict user name policy. When you have created a new, neutrally named account, we will block this one. PLease be very careful however that your contribs to an article to which you have a clear WP:Conflict of interest are perfectly neutral, that the claims are referenced to reliable,, independent, 3rd party sources (see WP:RS), and that the article meets our criteria for notability for bands at WP:BAND. happy editing! Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:58, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Thanks for the information. I read the pages on COI, particularly the parts related to posting content that was authored by myself. I think that it is clear that if I add some new information on a band there is no conflict (v.gr. on the Gamma Ray article I added information from an interview conducted in the magazine that referenced their upcoming album and tour, clearly a relevant edit; same thing with Eluveitie and Kaledon); however, I do not know how to proceed regarding reviews. This magazine is reliable and objective, as can be proven by the record labels that regularly submit their releases (as they trust in the objectivity) and, also, not a minor publication, as it conducts interviews with very important bands. Since I'm not saying anything like "this GREAT publication" or deleting other reviews, can I trust that these will be considered legitimate edits? (in principle at least) I really appreciate your help and guidance; I only want to improve Wikipedia (if it was for promotion, I honestly doubt that this is the best way to get it! :P ) MetalBlastZine (talk) 12:04, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In case you have not read it yet, please read "plain and simple conflict of interest guide" and remember that whatever you post, must be compliant with The Golden Rule -- Alexf^(talk) 12:48, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have read it and, again, I think my contributions do comply with the requirements. However, since you are the admin, I would like you to settle this. What do you think? MetalBlastZine (talk) 12:52, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not criticizing. It is for other editors to follow and comment or decide. I do not have the time nor the knowledge on the music scene to comment. Just thought I'd mention some pages that might be of help explaining what we are looking for. Editors with experience on the subject are always welcome. Good luck. -- Alexf^(talk) 13:52, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Linking to your site

Please do not add links to your site. That site pretty much does not meet WP:EL for any purpose; the site is not notable enough for a Wikipedia article, and so reviews printed there certainly do not rise to enough weight to meet WP:DUE. Any further additions of that link will be considered spam, and will result in your account being blocked. If you would like to use your expertise to contribute to Wikipedia, that's fine--just base your submissions on independent, reliable sources. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:06, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have repeatedly provided plenty of evidence of the reliability of the site. TO put an end to end, simply say WHY it isn't good enough. I went over every single requirement and place them in the album projects site. There can be no question about the site's accuracy, reliability or importance. MaxWestfalen (talk) 00:13, 30 May 2013 (UTC) You can see this info here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albums/Review_sites#Add_Metal_Blast_as_a_reliable_source[reply]

Ah, I see, you're trying to use it as a reliable source. In that case, my point is even stronger. While interpretations can vary, for me, no site will ever meet WP:RS if it isn't notable enough for it's own article. Once you can establish notability, then we can consider taking the matter further. But we need clear, rock solid evidence that this source is considered reputable and has a history of fact-checking. If you want to pursue it further, probably the best place is the reliable sources noticeboard. My gut tells me, however, that you shouldn't be the one to do it. In a sense, one piece of evidence that the site doesn't meet WP:RS is that the only person attempting to do so works for the company. If your source really were reliable, we should expect others to be attempting to use it as such. Now, I do admit that I could be wrong. But in this case, because of your COI, until you can get a good consensus that the site is reliable and that the opinions expressed there meet WP:DUE, you shouldn't be adding them to articles. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:10, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]