User talk:Dflaw4

Nomination of Garrett Coffey for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Garrett Coffey 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/Garrett Coffey 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. Celestina007 (talk) 17:16, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your message, Celestina 007.

Welcome!

Hello, Dflaw4, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 13:54, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message! Already had a go at creating an article, didn't go too well, so I have it at Draft:Garrett Coffey until it is ready. Will certainly get in touch if I have any queries. – Dflaw4 (talk) 14:00, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Garrett Coffey (January 28)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Praxidicae were:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

The comment the reviewer left was:

I fail to see how anything has changed in the last month

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:Garrett Coffey 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:Garrett Coffey, 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, 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.

Praxidicae (talk) 16:53, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Dflaw4! Having an article 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! Praxidicae (talk) 16:53, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please Review your Discussion for Deletion

Hi Dflaw4,

You recently participated in a discussion for deletion regarding the article/page: Lesa Wilson. Your comment for reference: "Weak Delete: She may soon become notable as an actress, but, at the moment, she just hasn't done enough work to pass the actress notability standards. I don't think that reaching the semi-finals of American Idol is, in and of itself, particularly notable either. If others can find more information about her music career, or if others deem her modelling career to be notable (I don't have any opinion about this), I'll be happy to reconsider my vote. Dflaw4 (talk) 14:56, 30 January 2020 (UTC)"

My client: Lesa Wilson is an actress and model based in the Atlanta-area. Her credits span from DC's Doom Patrol, Bluff City Law, STAR, Necessary Roughness to her most recent, DC's StarGirl debuting on the CW Network Spring 2020. So I went to Wiki editing to ensure she was categorized as an actress instead and updated a filmography chart for reference plus updated photo instead of the 2006 pageant headshot. When logging in today, the page is now up for deletion and the user started a discussion BASHING my client and my edits seemingly out of spite and this spread of slander and hate speech towards my client's past on American Idol and as Miss GA USA are NOT to be a topic of discussion considering they date back to 2006 and are not relevant to my edit of her category to actress and updated filmography section.

I was VERY thorough and tried to ensure I abided every guideline when editing her page and happy to have direct tips/notes from an official admin on what I can revise, etc. BUT allowing such disdain and public abuse of "discussions for deletion" to take place simply because I requested an edit to her category is absurd.

Please reconsider your activity and contribution to condoning this behavior and nomination for deletion. For further information on my client's relevancy please refer to: https://demoreel.com/lesawilson

Thank you!

2018PR

19:23, 30 January 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2018PR (talk • contribs)

I will review the article again, 2018PR. Thanks for your message. Dflaw4 (talk) 00:12, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Raegan Revord AfD

Hi. You said But I don't see any bad faith here on the part of the nominator and that is correct. You would have to look through the nom's history regarding the page for that. CapnZapp (talk) 15:02, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message. Dflaw4 (talk) 03:46, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ref bombing

Two sources are enough to support a simple thing, for example "XYZ subject has acted in XYZ film". Kindly visit Wikipedia:Citation overkill. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 11:51, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message, Fylindfotberserk. The only reason I added more was because lack of citations was a point of contention in the recent AfD. Please amend the article as you see fit. Thanks, Dflaw4 (talk) 11:56, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome. It seemed all of those refs were supporting a single line "...and he played the main antagonist in the Chiranjeevi starrer, Khaidi No. 150 (2017". If you think you can get other information from these sources, feel free to re-add them in relevant places. I wonder why that article was AfD'ed. That subject seems notable to me. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 12:00, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To me too, Fylindfotberserk. Anyhow, the extra sources are saved under the History tab and can be used should the page be nominated again. Thanks again, Dflaw4 (talk) 12:07, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

explanation

I took a look at Draft:Garrett Coffey. Award winning actors are easier to defend.

I wikilinked the names of the films he has been in. Slightly less than half have articles of their own. Personally, I prefer to leave redlinks for topics that could credibly be standalone articles. Some people hate redlinks, even though policy is on my side with this one. This article is your baby, unlink the redlinks if you want, I'll defer to you.

I did some work on the references. {{ping}} me here if you don't find these changes self-explanatory.

Do you ever use google news alerts? This link should help you start one on Coffey, so you get an email when he comes up in the news. He may not be notable now, but a new reference may put him over the hump.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 04:59, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Geo Swan, thank you so much for your assistance! This article was how I got started editing on Wikipedia—I had no idea about notability standards at the time. I think that with a few more significant credits, the article will stand a chance—although I think the article is better than many that I have come across (even though that isn't a sound policy-based argument). Thanks again for your help! Dflaw4 (talk) 08:49, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Newspapers.com

Hello. I noticed you've asked for many articles on Newspapers.com. If you haven't already, you can apply for an account at The Wikipedia Library. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 02:42, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, MrLinkinPark333, I was unaware of that. I'll look into it. Thank you! Dflaw4 (talk) 02:44, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions to improve the Article

hello Sir, could you please review the article Ashwin Kumar Lakshmikanthan which is currently in draft code and provide suggestions, thank you Adapongaiya (talk) 20:44, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'll check it out. Thanks, Dflaw4 (talk) 12:57, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for letting me know about the deletion reviews for Robyn Gibbes and Josh Hammond. I definitely made a mistake in the first one because I didn't properly check the relist date of the discussion, and it had not yet been removed from WP:AFD/Old while I was still working on the backlog. No comment on the second one; I gave my piece in closing, but the community will decide what's right. Thankful we have multiple levels of checks and balances here! bibliomaniac 1 5 19:40, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, bibliomaniac, I'm sorry I didn't come straight to you in lieu of applying for a review. I wasn't aware that I could do that (I'm relatively new to Wikipedia), but will do so in future should the need arise. Thanks for your message, Dflaw4 (talk) 03:06, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actor AfDs

Can I give you some feedback about your arguments at a lot of AfDs for actors? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:24, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, sure! I presume you're going to say I'm too lenient, which is probably true. Dflaw4 (talk) 00:26, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about being "lenient" - it's not necessarily a bad thing to argue for keeping things at AfD (and I say this as a fairly cynical deletionist). The thing is, I've noticed you frequently argue for keeping an article on the basis of very trivial coverage, often no more than a name-drop. It winds up undermining your position rather than strengthening it. I'm not sure if you're just not clear on what constitutes significant coverage? Figuring out what kind of sourcing is sufficient to support a claim of notability is one of the more nuanced things on Wikipedia. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:41, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am familiar with the WP:SIGCOV policy. But again, I do take a more lenient view, although I will try to tighten things up. One of the issues with many of the sources is that I can't view them in full until they have been clipped, but I feel that I might as well still provide them for others to comment on. There are a few such AfDs where I am planning to downgrade my vote based on the fact that I've now been able to read the sources in full. I appreciate your feedback and will take it on board. Thanks for your message,

Cheers, happy editing. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:52, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have the exact same question as PMC. In a lot of AfDs abt actors I came across recently I find your contribution to be a generic Weak Keep without any basis of substance, i.e. without offering specific, multiple sources that support notability. Please note that this is not about being "lenient" or "hard headed" at all! This is about working on an encyclopaedia, a project that offers billions of people the world over a precious source of information (see here). An editor's work is thus rather important. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 22:29, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, The Gnome, thanks for your comment. If I believe that a subject meets WP:NACTOR, I vote "Weak Keep", even if WP:GNG is not readily made out; then, if no progress is made with references, I generally revise my vote and downgrade it. Dflaw4 (talk) 04:08, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

sources

@Dflaw4:, how were you able to find sources for the Jeffrey D. Sams article? I googled but didn't find anything. I have no clue how you found old newspapers. Ikjbagl (talk) 01:51, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I found the sources at a site called newspapers.com. If you don't have a subscription (I don't), you can see previews of articles that match your search query. If the article looks like it might have significant coverage, I take the link to WP:RX and apply there for the article to be "clipped" by someone who has full access to the site. Hope that helps! Dflaw4 (talk) 03:40, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chelsea Ricketts

Hi, my view would be to leave it in draft for a month while adding refs for everything in the filmography and tv list. Will help later, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 00:01, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks! Dflaw4 (talk) 00:35, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

cite journal

I found Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request/Archive 87 listed in Category:Pages with empty citations, and that led me to find your contributions including

== Daw Maxey (currently in AfD) ==

<!-- Brief citation of the requested materials. -->
{{refbegin}}
* {{cite journal |last= |first= |year=1995 |title= |work= |publisher=Chicago Tribune |publication-place= |page= |url=https://www.newspapers.com/image/167308179/?terms=%22dawn%2Bmaxey%22 |accessdate= |isbn= |issn= |oclc= }}
* {{cite journal |last= |first= |year=1995 |title=Magonlias... |work= |publisher=Southtown Star|publication-place= |page= |url=https://www.newspapers.com/image/538149530/?terms=%22dawn%2Bmaxey%22|accessdate= |isbn= |issn= |oclc= }}
{{refend}}
<!-- Wikipedia articles being improved. -->
For [[Dawn Maxey]]

Thanks, [[User:Dflaw4|Dflaw4]] ([[User talk:Dflaw4|talk]]) 04:49, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Please note that {{cite journal}} is only for peer-reviewed academic journals. What you want here is {{cite news}}, with the publisher items moving to the newspaper parameter. Also, for any {{cite}} template, there must be a title. Cheers! —Anomalocaris (talk) 18:00, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Garrett Coffey

Hello, Dflaw4. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Garrett Coffey".

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 deleted. If you plan on working on it further 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.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:57, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Raegan Revord

Raegan Revord of Young Sheldon's article is currently at User:Alden_Loveshade/Raegan_Revord. I hope to see it return to main space. Responsible edits are welcomed there. Alden Loveshade (talk) 01:44, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:02, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Garrett Coffey

Hello, Dflaw4. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Garrett Coffey".

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 deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:26, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:58, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Myndy Crist for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Myndy Crist, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Myndy Crist (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 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.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:01, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Robert Curtis Brown for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Robert Curtis Brown, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Curtis Brown (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 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.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:02, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wendy Benson

Thank for your insightful commentary here. I'm currently unconvinced per my reply but do please ping me if possible once you get more Newspaper.com clippings. Many thanks again! VickKiang (talk) 05:44, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Garrett Coffey (November 23)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Thatguy1987 was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

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:Garrett Coffey 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.

Thatguy1987 (talk) 21:09, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:44, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:58, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]