User talk:Bodrad

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Bodrad, you are invited to the Teahouse[edit]

Teahouse logo

Hi Bodrad! 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 peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Benzband (I'm a Teahouse host)

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 20:40, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

... for removing the shameless self-promotion in the Michael Lang and Artie Kornfeld articles. It's amazing this content lasted as long as it did. Cheers. --Seduisant (talk) 16:20, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

February 2014[edit]

Hello Bodrad, and welcome to Wikipedia. Your addition to Abbey Rader has had to be removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material without permission from the copyright holder. While we appreciate your contributing to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from your sources to avoid copyright or plagiarism issues here.

  • You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and a cited source. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
  • Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
  • Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Wikipedia:Copyrights. You may also want to review Wikipedia:Copy-paste.
  • If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. However, there are steps that must be taken to verify that license before you do. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
  • In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are public domain or compatibly licensed), it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at the help desk before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Wikipedia:Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
  • Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied without attribution. If you want to copy from another Wikipedia project or article, you can, but please follow the steps in Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Gyrofrog (talk) 16:43, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

The text in question appears to have been copied from and Additionally, the text (as written) wouldn't comply with WP:NPOV ("pioneering," "relentless searcher" etc.). -- Gyrofrog (talk) 16:46, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Draft:Abbey Rader (August 1)[edit]

AFC-Logo Decline.svg
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.

Anastasia (talk) 20:38, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Response to Missionedit|Anastasia[edit]

Below is a copy of a message I just sent you - reproduced here to provide additional review/response options.

Thank you kindly for the very quick review and response to my draft submission. I think I understand your concerns and the changes required. I have attempted to address each of your suggestions, and also have a clarifying question. Again, I appreciate your assistance with this process and I hope that these changes are along the lines of what is necessary to publish this article.

Clarifying Question[edit]

You stated that I need to "improve the submission's referencing, so that the information is verifiable...". I am a bit unclear as to the best way to address this concern. Shall I include more references and citations? Or do I simply need to place the ones I already have more frequently throughout the article's sentences rather than at the end of paragraphs as I have done?

Addressing Notability[edit]

It seems to me the biggest issue with the article in its current form (and I do plan to flesh out the other sections more fully in the next weeks), is its notability. I have reviewed the Golden Rule and musician notability guidelines that you were very helpful in passing along.

Golden Rule[edit]

Significant Coverage I've included over 15 unrelated and independent references from sources including newspapers, magazine articles, well-known music corporations (e.g., ProMark and Zildjian), other musicians' websites, and online music stores. Nearly all of these discuss the topic directly and in detail. I understand these may not be enough, and I actually have other print sources that I have not yet had a chance to include as I was saving them for additions to the topic. I've listed these below to hopefully bolster the significant coverage requirement:

  • Modern Drummer is the premier magazine/news source for professional drummers of all musical styles. One of my currently referenced articles is available online[1] - the others I only have in print form at the moment.
    • Modern Drummer - March 2000
    • Modern Drummer - September 1999
    • Modern Drummer - January 1984
  • German Jazz Magazines
    • Jazzpodium [2]- June 1999
    • Jazzpodium - July 1982
    • Jazzthetik [3]- June 1999
    • Jazzthing [4]- April-May 1999
    • Drums and Percussion Magazine [5]- June 1982
  • German National Newspapers
  • US Radio Stations and Newspapers
    • WPRK/FM, Orlando - November 23, 1997
    • Orlando Sentinel, Orlando [8] - November, 1997
    • WLRN Radio, Miami - October, 1997
    • KDSU/FM, North Dakota State University, Fargo, North Dakota - September, 1997
    • WUSB/FM, SUNY Stonybrook, New York - September 11, 1997
    • Sun Sentinel, Fort Lauderdale [9]- February, 1993

Reliable Sources As mentioned on the Golden Rule page, these sources are newspapers, periodicals, and media stations, which fall under example categories of reliable sources. Please let me know if those listed above and those referenced in the current article are not up to standards.

Independent Sources All of the articles referenced and those listed above were generated by independent authors or interviewers. None were paid advertisements or otherwise arranged by the topic.

Verifiability I am a bit confused by the statement listed: "Non-independent reliable sources can be used for verifiability". Either way, I hope the sources I've already used and those listed above are considered verifiable. The answer to my question above will help me understand more clearly how often sources should be included/referenced.


  • Multiple, non-trivial, published works in all forms

It is my contention that the listing above and those already referenced fall under this category.

  • Non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country

The interviews and articles listed above cover this topic regarding several major festivals Abbey performed at in Europe

  • Two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels

Two of Abbey's albums were released by Cadence Jazz Records, which contains notable musicians and is a leading label for independent jazz music.

  • Musician who has been a reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles

Abbey played for John Handy and Mal Waldron in several ensembles during the 70s and 80s, both independently highly notable jazz musicians.

  • Prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city

Abbey Rader is the one of the only, perhaps the only, musician playing this style of music in South Florida. There are several newspaper articles and online mentions of his work in Miami that allude to this, many of which I have already referenced. However, I have found another:

Thank you for taking the time to type such a thorough response! As an answer to your clarifying question, the number of the sources cited were fine. What the article needs is not necessarily more sources, but more reliable sources.
The,, and articles are connected with the subject, making them invalid to establish notability.,,, and most of the other sources are either just a passing mention of Rater or are connected to her in some way (or both). The only sources that might help establish notability are The Sun Sentinel article, The Forum article, Modern Drummer , and the AMN interview. However, just these 4 sources, considering their length and verifability, are not quite enough to make Rater notable. Another reliable source or two would do it for "significant coverage", though, so keep working.
An important thing to keep in mind is that even if someone meets one of the notability guidelines you listed above, if no sources can be shown to prove it, then the person is not notable. Did I cover everything you mentioned? ~ Anastasia (talk) 19:55, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
It is so great that you are able to respond this quickly, I really appreciate that. I understand your recommendations and just want to run a few ideas by you to make sure they are on track with your suggestions.
To clarify, Zildjian and ProMark are both major corporations that sponsor Rader. He does not pay them, rather, he is a professional musician that they deemed notable enough to create a sponsorship deal. So while I agree they are connected in a professional manner, it is not Rader that is influencing their choice to be associated with him. Rather, it is his musicianship that they sought out and wanted to sponsor. Does this make them valid to establish notability?
Regardless, I understand the need for at least one to two additional reliable independent sources, which would make it more fitting for publishing. I have several additional articles/interviews/concert reviews from historical sources, but only in print edition. I can cite them properly, but I have not yet found a copy online. It is my understanding that they don't necessarily need to be online sources since they are available in print form. That's where I'm asking for your expertise, would citing several additional independent sources, even if they are not online, be acceptable to allow this article to be published? If not, and they must be available online, can they simply be scanned and uploaded to a web server? Since they are scans this would prove their authenticity, but they may not necessarily be on the website of the source that originally published the print form. (talk) 01:28, 3 August 2014 (UTC)User:Bodrad
Your're welcome :) All the editors on Wikipedia are important, so I try to respond as quickly as possible.
I understand your reasoning, but because Zildjian and ProMark sponsor Rader, that makes them non-independent sources. Only sources independent of the subject can be used to show notability. As for the need of reliable sources, you are correct in asserting that sources do not have to be available online. It's helpful, but not required. If you cited additional independent sources even if they're are only in print, this would definitely help prove Rader's notability. Of course, I can never guarantee that an article will pass review, because each different reviewer has a slightly different way of looking at things.
Would you like me to fix up the reference formatting a little? This always makes a good impression on reviewers :) ~ Anastasia (talk) 16:34, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Well I feel quite lucky to have had you edit and provide suggestions for the article! I'll be sure to include the other print sources and hopefully that'll do the trick. I'll plan on adding more to the article's biography section too.
I'd love it if you could assist in the referencing formatting! Anything to make a good impression. I'd really appreciate that, I know there are so many different styles of formatting in writing a paper, so to get some insight into what Wikipedia prefers would be amazing! Thank you for offering!!
I'll get started then! Thank you for being so kind and encouraging as a newer editor--we need more people like yourself on Wikipedia :) ~ Anastasia (talk) 14:45, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 Done - I added a "citation template", such as Cite web, Cite news, and Cite journal to each source to organize the citation information the same way with each citation. I also used the "named references" system for the sources that were cited more than once. The idea of citations is to put as much info about each source down that you can, so that they can be verified for trustworthiness if needed. The whole thing is pretty much laid out at WP:Citing Sources. ~ Anastasia (talk) 15:44, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
I saw the new templates and love how well it is organized now. I'll keep working on the content and submit it for review by the end of the week. Thank you again, this has been a great learning process! ~User:bodrad

Your submission at Articles for creation: Abbey Rader (October 10)[edit]

AFC-Logo Decline.svg
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! The submission has not been accepted because it included copyrighted information, which is not permitted on Wikipedia. You are welcome to write an article on the subject, but please do not use copyrighted work.

The existing submission may be deleted at any time. Copyrighted work cannot be allowed to remain on Wikipedia.

CutestPenguinHangout 15:23, 10 October 2014 (UTC)


Thanks for message. I've looked again at the alleged copyright infringement, and I'm clear that some of your text (excluding attributed quotes) is too close to that source. A close paraphrase is still an infringement. Copyrighted text is not allowed in Wikipedia, as outlined in this policy. That applies even to pages created by you or your organisation, unless they state clearly and explicitly that the text is public domain. There are ways to donate copyrighted text to Wikipedia, as described here; please note that simply asserting on the talk page that you are the owner of the copyright, or you have permission to use the text, isn't sufficient. The published source is not explicitly public domain.

There are other issues too. Some of the text is unreferenced, and while Rader may be an acceptable source for the facts of his life, that isn't the case with his opinions as expressed in interviews. There are other examples where opinions, either unsourced or sourced only to him, are presented as unqualified facts. A few examples: Rader's musical journey changed to one of spirituality and improvisation... transformed Rader's music into a search for the union between mind, spirit, and body... to play powerfully by truly opening up... put life's tribulations in perspective and encouraged him to play freely, to transform the energy he might be feeling by channeling it into his drumming... — it reads like sleeve notes rather than an encyclopaedia.

Also take note of Tokyogirl's response

Although I have some misgivings, I'll restore the text here shortly. Please remove contentious text as soon as possible, or it might be deleted again. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:20, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Abbey Rader has been accepted[edit]

Abbey Rader, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Darylgolden(talk) 06:03, 22 October 2014 (UTC)