Talk:KB Brookins

Why does this page keep getting declined

There are comparable wikipedia pages with less sources that are currently published on wikipedia, and the sources listed on this page are all independent from the author. I have spoken to someone on live chat who says that the sources don't establish notability, but I am quite confused as to what sources do since I've looked at other published wikipedia pages that have less sources that establish notability than this one.

It is quite frustrating to have nowhere to go; just declines on this page that multiple people have worked on. Please explain. Fuzzyrocket (talk) 03:38, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Fuzzyrocket first, do you have any affiliation with KB Brookins (read WP:COI) and do you know who you were speaking with at IRC? I reviewed this months ago and since then the draft has been updated. To help me, I need you point to the three (and only three) sources that meet all four criteria noted in the declines: reliable (has editorial oversight, substantial history of fact-checking, etc.), independent (not affiliated with Brookins and does not rely on what Brookins or anyone affiliated with Brookins says or has written, this includes interviews), secondary and provides in-depth coverage about Brookins. See also WP:42. You can just give the footnote numbers. S0091 (talk) 20:27, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

No, I am not affiliated. 3 sources that I feel meet the criteria: source 1, source 11, source 27. Brookins is also mentioned on the Stonewall Book Awards' wikipedia page here: Stonewall Book Award. Fuzzyrocket (talk) 21:42, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

1 and 11 are primary sources which are fine to use for verifiability but do not establish notability, and 27 is student media so weak for establishing notability. The last reviewer noted they could not tell the wheat from the chaff and I agree. In a few places there is CITATIONOVERKILL (read that) with many being poor sources, such as blogs. student newspapers and/or other websites that have no evidence of editorial oversight and journalistic standards. Also, you want to use sources that has a by-line with a named author and that author generally should be staff rather than a contributor (if the publication does not have listed staff, that is clue it is not a good source). The content within the source needs to contain the authors own research, analysis, opinion, etc. not only relying on what the subject says or has written. Also the best sources have a wide audience and are outside of the subject's local area. For the awards, you only want to list the most notable which generally means the award is covered in a Wikipedia article. S0091 (talk) 16:02, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

okay I am trying to work on it but someone else is editing at the same time as me/just wiped an hour worth of edits I did. Fuzzyrocket (talk) 17:01, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Also, why am I not allowed to delete submission declines? I want to eventually move this to article and can't do that with all these decline banners and comments. Fuzzyrocket (talk) 17:02, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

I have now cleaned up citation overkill issues and revised both the works and awards sections to only be reflective of works/awards that are most notable. I've also deleted many of the sources that are too local, student media, or primary.

Can you please let me know what else this page needs to move past the continuous declines? Fuzzyrocket (talk) 17:26, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

The overall style and layout is much better! I am still not sure they meet notability but you are welcome to move it to mainspace (Article space) and see what happens. Worst case scenario is someone (like an WP:NPP reviewer) nominates it for deletion. I think all the AfC stuff is automatically removed when a draft is moved leaving a different tag stating it is an AfC submission moved to mainspace but you can just remove that (or anything else leftover) after the move. S0091 (talk) 17:38, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

ok. thank you for your help! Fuzzyrocket (talk) 17:48, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Pop-up appeared after I edited

Hey; I made some necessary edits to the wikipedia page, and then wikipedia added a banner saying that there are multiple issues with this page -- namely that I have a close connection with the subject and that it has too much detail (it has the same amount of detail as when I added stuff; I just added a source for one of the sentence). I am wondering why that is. 136.49.183.56 (talk) 20:02, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

I added a tags because it is clear those with a conflict of interest have been editing it from the beginning. I mean, you have been editing it since 2023 and every time they do anything the article is updated. No offense to KB Brookins, they aren't well-known. S0091 (talk) 20:13, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Your response seems... tense WP:UNCIVIL for reasons that I'm not sure I understand. What you've said is, by all accounts, speculation from you specifically, and you seem to have been deleting and adding banners to this page since 2023.

Fuzzyrocket, the one other contributor to this talk page, was asked by you "do you have any affiliation with KB Brookins" above, and you are now saying that "those with a clear conflict of interest have been editing it from the beginning" when there's no proof of that that I see.

Last, I can't currently find a Wikipedia article or rule that says that updating the page when something is updated is a bad thing, nor do I think it's appropriate to say that this person isn't well-known as a justification for adding a banner.

I will report this response to Wikipedia and ask that you not respond further, as I don't think this will create a productive conversation. 136.49.183.56 (talk) 21:13, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

update: I'm going to request a third party to handle this conversation. 136.49.183.56 (talk) 21:17, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

You already have a third opinion - you've been edit warring against two other people. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 05:32, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

I don't have a response to my post on Wikipedia:Third opinion. I also don't have a response to my {{rfc}} below, so I'm not sure what third opinion you're referencing. If there's one that I haven't seen, can you link it here?

Re: edit warring, both of y'all have reverted multiple of my edits; the only revert I've done is the banner because I haven't gotten a 3rd opinion that I can see. Sigh. I haven't had any issues like this on a page that I've edited before, and I'm trying to Wikipedia:Assume good faith, but I don't know if this is being adhered to.

I'm not trying to edit war with anybody, at all. I am just trying to figure out why my edits to this page are, after editing it for months, getting bannered when I can't find justification for it in any Wiki rules. Please, just offer a solution or send me a response that has a solution. I'm not trying to waste my free time fighting; just updating Black queer authors' wikipedia pages. 136.49.183.56 (talk) 17:03, 14 August 2025 (UTC)136.49.183.56 (talk) 16:57, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

Yes, removing the banners (aka tags) is a revert. You removed them several times and each time is a revert so you were WP:edit-warring, even if you did not understand that is what you were doing though I did leave you notice on your talk page which explains edit-warring. Note at least 4 different editors restored the tags. Pppery is an WP:administrator who somehow came to notice the edit-warring so they restored the tags and protected the article so only WP:auto-confirmed accounts can now edit it.

As far as getting a third-opinion, I think that will likely be declined because you have not engaged in discussion and are actively prohibiting it by stating things like I will report this response to Wikipedia and ask that you not respond further, as I don't think this will create a productive conversation. and are exhibiting WP:ownership behavior. Also, the RfC is malformed and does not meet WP:RFCBEFORE so even if it were launched, it would be closed for procedural reasons and RfCs are for very specific questions, not general input (see WP:Requests for comment/All for examples).

With all that said, I am willing to engage with you but the accusations of me being uncivil, etc. need to stop and some of what you say here and at WP:3O is patently false. I have not been adding and removing tags since 2023. I added a clean-up tag in July 2023 and made some improvements (here are all my edits) Articles are tagged with issues on a regular basis and is part of the normal editing process. I am also the person who in the above discussion told FuzzyRocket they could move the draft to mainspace which certainly is not a disagreement as you describe it in your 3O request. S0091 (talk) 17:50, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

Made an account since the article is now protected. I am the one that suggested the protection, so it's odd that * Pppery * _{it has begun...} would attempt to protect the page from me.

Anyway, I am a less-than-regular wikipedia user (so much so that I didn't feel the need to make an account till now). The rfc being "malformed" (I'm not sure how it is) is due to that. re: the edit warring, I edited my above talk post to make clear that I know that I reverted the banner. That being considered edit warring is new info to me for the same reason; I'm not on wikipedia all the time.

I put on WP:3O "Disagreement about how to improve the page....Note, this disagreement with S0091 has happened another time with another user on the same talk page." I truly don't know how this is "patently false." We do disagree on how to improve the page, on account of you saying that I have a conflict of interest when I do not, and you putting a banner saying as much with no proof. You also put another banner that this page has "an excessive amount of intricate detail," which I don't understand/just want a solution for that isn't just accusing me of being a conflict of interest. There's nothing I can do about your assumption and it doesn't improve the page.

Sure, you haven't been adding and removing tags on this page; I misused the Wiki lingo. More accurately, this is what I meant: you've been contributing to this talk page since 2023, and based on your history have declined this page on account of not being notable (which echoes "they aren't well-known").

re: "you have not engaged in discussion" your first response to me was, in my opinion, presumptuous and WP:UNCIVIL. We are supposed to Wikipedia:Assume good faith, and I'm not sure how a productive conversation can be had if you are accusing me and other users that have edited this page of something, then adding banners about it. So I made an rfc, asked for a 3rd opinion, and asked you to not comment further so the talk page wouldn't divulge into people arguing. I did not say "let's stop this discussion"; I asked you to wait so we could get another opinion. "ask that you not respond further..." is right there in the sentence. I can't find a Wiki rule that says this is wrong in any way, and I did not see in the rfc page that I couldn't ask about stuff like this.

Once again, I'm not trying to argue with you or * Pppery * _{it has begun...}, yet this talk page has gotten argumentative. I would love it if someone just responded with a solution for the alleged-issues that this page has so we can move on/this banner can be taken off. I would especially like to know what about this article doesn't have a neutral point of view.

Iguessihaveanaccount (talk) 19:34, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

I saw the request at WP:RFPP, determined that (as I saw it) you were the one behaving disruptively rather than S0091, and protected the page accordingly. Obviously you would disagree with that.

(Sidenote: it's technically impossible to protect a page in a way that would allow you but not S0091 to edit; the tool for that, in the extremely unlikely event it were justified, would be a partial block, which is not something one would request at WP:RFPP).

The problem, as I see it, is that too much of this article is against WP:NOTDIR, or in other words that this is not an encyclopedia article about him but instead something closer to his resume: a list of everything he's ever done, every award he's ever won, etc. And the reason that it ended up this way is repeated edits by IPs, single-purpose accounts, etc., which is suggestive of ulterior motives.

Please don't ping me again to this discussion. I don't have anything more to say and any further pings will be ignored. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:51, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Despite you saying you would ignore this, I want to bring a few parts of the Wikipedia:Protection policy#semi to your attention: "Semi-protection should not be used as a preemptive measure against vandalism that has not yet occurred or to privilege registered users over unregistered users in (valid) content disputes" and "...Subject to edit warring if all parties involved are unregistered or new editors. This does not apply when autoconfirmed users are involved."

Going to edit this page according to the specks of feedback that I've gotten in the replies here and below. Hoping that you use more discernment and patience in the future. Iguessihaveanaccount (talk) 21:45, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

RFC on improving the page

{{rfc}} My and the editor above seem to not be on the same page. I would like to improve this page, and they have concerns about conflict of interest, which have led to multiple conversations on the talk page. They have added a banner to the top of the page. How can this page be improved? 136.49.183.56 (talk) 21:24, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Help with making this page un-like a resume

I'm making a new topic, as my topic post that I made on August 13th isn't getting anywhere productive, is misgendering the author, and is not providing me with any solutions. I'd like an admin's support with helping me make this page less like a resume so that the unnecessary banners may be removed since I cannot remove them without it being considered edit warring. Iguessihaveanaccount (talk) 14:14, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

To explain admins (see WP:ADMIN), they are who editors who have extra tools to generally deal with disruption so they can block editors, delete pages, protect pages among other things. They do not get involved in content disputes in their capacity as an admin but may be involved as an editor. If they are involved, they cannot make any admin actions. In short, you do not need an admin.

For improvements, the list of works and awards need to be trimmed. One of the ways to determine what to include is using secondary WP:reliable WP:independent (not affiliated with Brookins, the institution, or press releases) sources. At the end of the day, the article should mostly summarize what those sources say about Brookins or their work. For the works, this will be likely be critical reviews. For the awards, if they won the award and the award has an article that is indicator for inclusion (ex. Stonewall Book Award) or if the award is in Category:Writers by award. Similar for fellowships; include only major/notable fellowships.

The protection expires 05:32, 21 August 2025 UTC. In the interim, plan out some improvements. The overall prose needs work as well. You are welcome to ask questions here. S0091 (talk) 17:27, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Also take a look at Lists of LGBTQ people as Brookins likely should be included in couple or so of those lists and that's something you can do while this article is protected. S0091 (talk) 17:35, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

I addressed all of these suggestions and compared it to similar pages (Danez Smith, George M. Johnson (writer)) to make sure that the edits are sufficient.

I am moving on to other pages that I've had a better time editing. I hope that this page can be less scrutinized in comparison to others and veteran editors like yourself can have more patience and Wikipedia:Assume good faith when interacting with newer ones like me in the future, if for nothing else, for the long-term sustainability of a volunteer-run platform. Iguessihaveanaccount (talk) 22:27, 19 August 2025 (UTC)