@ShanexRoss: Wikipedia is selective about the content it includes. The notability criteria determine whether a topic is deserving of a standalone encyclopedia article. In the specific case of a person, they must meet the notability criteria for people. And, if they are currently alive, an article must meet the strict policy for biographies of living persons.
Thank you for the feedback, I was hired as a publicist for shaneross through a mutual connection.
I will relay this information back, I'm saddened to read that you feel this was 'promotional in tone'.
When these are stated facts which can be found online surrounding Shane himself, through many accreditation platforms where all the information was provided, collated and fact checked before writing the page.
I'd like to apologise for the inconvenience and will pass this forth to the right department to have this looked at in further detail, and help this professional as best we can.
@ShanexRoss: There are a few points that I should raise as a result of your last post.
Since you said you are Shane Ross's publicist, then you meet Wikipedia's definition of a paid editor. That obligates you to review and abide by Wikipedia's mandatory and non-negotiable paid editing disclosure policy. In summary, any edits you make on behalf of a client must be openly disclosed. The conflict of interest guidelines also apply to you as well.
Your account name could become a problem because you are using Shane Ross's name. If he is judged to be notable enough for an article, your account could be blocked as impersonation. We don't allow an accounts to be named after a notable person unless it is that person for real, which requires separate verification of their identity. I would advise you to submit a change of username to prevent this possible outcome.
Wikipedia's standards for reliable sources are quite high. Sources must have an established reputation for fact-checking and editorial oversight. Wikipedia maintains a list of commonly-discussed sources and the community's evaluation of their reliability. There is also a similar list of sources for music-related topics. Neither list is exhaustive, but it will give you a good idea of what types of sources are (and are not) considered acceptable.
Please realize that whatever content you write, neither you nor your client(s) have any right of ownership or control. Wikipedia articles are open to editing by anyone at any time. You will have to accept that if an article about Shane Ross is accepted, your contributions may be added to or altered, perhaps substantially over time. Of course, we strive for accuracy and don't allow defamatory content or vandalism to stay. You should become familiar with Wikipedia's dispute resolution measures in case there are disagreements over content.
Thank you again for the insight, all matters in regards to 'ShaneRoss' are all dealt with and controlled by one address, I will make a note that going forth especially here on Wikipedia for the future, we will aim to post from an unlinked account associated with the artist/person himself.
I will have a further divulge into the ins and outs of the essay you have attached in regards to publicizing a client's work.
Additionally, I will aim to hyperlink all materials of source information for the information provided.
@ShanexRoss: Just so it's clear, a Wikipedia account can never be shared with anyone else. If you are working with other people, each person must have their own individual account for their own sole access. Those individuals must also comply with all of the same policies and guidelines that I previously mentioned, if they apply.
Hey, wondering why there is a "speedy deletion" request on the new article I wrote.
Would love to talk more and know what i could do better to actually have it published. I have not been paid or forced to make it. Just wanted to make it and somehow its a conflict of interest? public facts and neutral language is not bias or conflict of interest please each out to me. still getting used to wiki would love tips from an acclaimed writer such as yourself, thanks. Laughtalee (talk) 00:37, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Laughtalee: There were multiple problems with your article:
Wikipedia is selective about the topics it includes, and they must meet Wikipedia's definition of notability. There are general criteria as well as subject-specific criteria, like these ones for musicians. There was no indication that the person you wrote about met these criteria.
A topic is considered notable if it has already gained significantly sufficient attention from the world at large and over a period of time. We consider evidence from reliable and independent sources to gauge this attention. We do not accept articles about emerging or up-and-coming people or things; possible future fame has no effect on present notability.
All content written on Wikipedia must be verifiable by providing links to reliable sources. We do not include unpublished personal knowledge or experience, referred to here as original research, as it is inherently unverifiable.
Sources are considered reliable if they have an established reputation for fact-checking and editorial oversight. This heavily favours mainstream news organizations, academic press, and reputable publishers of newspapers, books and magazines.
Sources that are not considered reliable include self-published sources made up of user-generated content. By default, social media sources are considered unreliable unless they are the official accounts of existing reliable sources. Other examples of unreliable sources include Internet message forums, blogs, and open wikis (including Wikipedia itself).
Articles must be written from a neutral point of view, using plainly factual and unemotional language to describe the topic, as if it had been written by a disinterested third party. Our goal is to inform the reader about a topic with dry facts and let them decide on their own how they feel about it. Using phrases like "masterfully intertwining" and "unapologetic storytelling and innovative approach" simply promote the subject of an article, while neither imparting nor plainly summarizing verifiable information.
It has been noted that creating new articles, especially for new users, is one of the most difficult tasks on Wikipedia. This is a highly regulated environment, with many policies and guidelines that must be followed. That is why it would be a more productive use of your time to go through Wikipedia's introductory tutorial, then make small edits to existing articles. This will help you gain experience with Wikipedia's policies and culture. --Drm310🍁 (talk) 04:32, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for taking the time to respond! I understand now and its my fault for not reading it, the explanation makes sense to me now. Didn't mean or want to cause any problems at all so I'm sorry if I did its just something I'm passionate about. I truly want to thank you again and hopefully soon ill be able to make one that meets the guidelines. Also I wanted to add that the way you write is literally immaculate LOL. Thanks for your time :) Laughtalee (talk) 08:12, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your feedback. I understand the notability guidelines and will work on creating a separate article. If you have any suggestions or can help, I’d appreciate it. Ghulam Nabi (talk) 14:22, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Ghulamwork4: We do not encourage people from attempting to create articles about themselves; see Wikipedia:Autobiography. A person is not an objective judge of their own notability. It would also be very difficult for you to write about yourself from the required neutral point of view. Articles also must not contain any unpublished personal knowledge or experience (called original research on Wikipedia). Basically, you would have to ignore everything you know about your own life, and attempt to write an article based solely on what other objective, third-party writers had written about you. So, I highly advise that you edit topics that are not related to you, and where you have no conflict of interest.
Thanks a lot for your reminder! I just submit the draft for review. Please let me know if you need any additional information. MingHuCCF (talk) 22:38, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your guidance
I had to come to your personal page and saw that you have a lot in common with my best friend here in Houston, she is 68 years old and originally from Regina Saskatchewan. I am new to using Wikipedia and my reason is to create more validation for my work in the nonprofit sector through my soccer and vocational education organization here in Houston and in my home country of Nigeria. I am writing because I need guidance on how to successfully create a page with my username or get someone to do it for me. Any assistance will be appreciated. Midas Media Consult (talk) 16:12, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The userpage guidelines give detailed information about what is, and is not, acceptable content for userpages. My only advice is to keep it brief; a lengthy autobiography or a CV/resumé-like listing of your professional achievements is not going to be accepted.
Your signature also appears to be the name of a business. This gives the impression that you want to promote yourself or your business, which is prohibited on Wikipedia. Please change it so that it either matches your account name, or something else that is not promotional. --Drm310🍁 (talk) 16:42, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your kindness and patience with your observation and attention to details. I have used the link you helped to create for me earlier if you want to take a look at and let me know if it is better. I had to take some of your brilliant creation and use to make it look better than it was. I am thankful again. Midas Media Consult (talk) 17:22, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This made my day. Thank you so much. I surely will explore what you ask me to explore and I was not able to add any image to the sandbox because I do not know how but since you are a master in this field, may be you can share more tips with me. Midas Media Consult (talk) 17:45, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know exactly what you were trying to do, but there is a guide at WP:Uploading images. Please note that Wikipedia has a strict image policy; you must be the owner of the image, and by uploading it, you are agreeing that anyone can copy, re-use, distribute and/or adapt it into derivative works, even for commercial purposes. Copyrighted images are not allowed. --Drm310🍁 (talk) 17:53, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
recover my sandbox
My draft wikipedia page I was writing on my sandbox was deleted by you. I accept that probably I made some mistakes about the wikipedia page structure rules, but my page was not at all advertising, as you tag me. And more important, how can I recover my text? It is no longer visible on my sandbox.
@Bazlin7: The page that was deleted was your userpage (User:Bazlin7), not your sandbox (there is a distinction). If you had created a sandbox, the page name would have been User:Bazlin7/sandbox.
In addition, I did not delete the page. I just notified you of what a userpage's proper use is. I am not an administrator, so I do not have the power to delete pages. That was done by the administrator Jimfbleak. You can ask him if there is a way to recover the text. Normally, I would direct you to submit a request for undeletion, but because of the reason why your userpage was deleted, it is ineligible for this process. --Drm310🍁 (talk) 14:12, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Can you please elaborate on which citations from the Bing Ren page are inadequate? It's not clear to me where the issue lies. MingHuCCF (talk) 18:59, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry
I was using Twinkle to nominate the talk page, and since you were the first person to leave a comment on the talk page, it thought you were the initial contributor instead of the actual user.
I nominated it because the user in question deleted all the comments on his talk page and turned it into an advert. That notification was not meant for you, sorry. ApexParagon (talk) 13:54, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@ApexParagon: No problem, I figured it must have been something like that. By the way, user talk pages are not typically nominated for speedy deletion, even when they're full of spam. Because it's the primary way of communicating with the user, it's preferable to just edit the page manually and delete the spam, then leave a warning like {{uw-usertalk}} to inform them that they are misusing their talk page. If they persist, I'll report them to WP:AIV as a promotion-only account; or if they're already blocked, I'll find out who the blocking admin is and ask them to revoke their talk page access. --Drm310🍁 (talk) 14:41, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This was deleted, although I did reply back to you. Can we please get it undeleted? If an user cannot create a page for a notable business, how can the page get created? Below are some of the comments I responded back - but the page was still deleted:
Pioneer Bank has a wonderful history in New Mexico, unfortunately, New Mexico is not the best in archiving articles or information. Many of the first directors at Pioneer Bank were all City leaders that helped the bank grow. https://pioneer.bank/timeline/first-board-of-directors-meeting/ The historical information that the bank has is listed on the website for the bank. https://pioneer.bank/learn-more-about-pioneer-bank/ The original meeting of the stockholders was held on December 27, 1900. A committee of nine was chosen to prepare the charter and by-laws, which were filed with the Secretary of the Territory of New Mexico and approved by the stockholders on April 5, 1901.
@Graphmaster: You will probably have to asking the deleting administrator, CactusWriter, if there are any options for you to retrieve the deleted content. In some cases there is an undeletion request but because your article was deleted as being advertising (WP:G11), it is ineligible for this process. --Drm310🍁 (talk) 16:52, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Graphmaster: Sorry I didn't notice your message until now. On every talk page (article or user), there is a "New section" tab near the top of the page that you can use to create a new topic.
However, because you have a conflict of interest, it would be better for you to use the Edit Request Wizard tool to request changes. While I have not used it personally, I understand that it was designed to be a step-by-step, easy to follow tool.
Anyway, it is unlikely that your source would be accepted. Coinspeaker has been identified as a "pay-for-placement" website, which means its integrity as an objective source is questioned. There was a discussion on it and related pay-for-play cryptocurrency sites here: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 251#RfC on use of CoinDesk
It is better to use mainstream news organizations that have an established reputation for fact-checking and editorial oversight. For example:
Hello Drm310. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of User:Binbindawang, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Misplaced draft on user page. Thank you. Whpq (talk) 17:44, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Tim Bozon has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Joeykai (talk) 21:29, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Maple leaves
It didn't occur to me until we crossed paths recently that my recent signature change uses the same emoji as yours. I certainly didn't mean to copy it, but who's to say where the line falls between subliminal inspiration from a memory and original thought. I can't see this being an issue as it's little more than a variation on the default, but I thought I would check out of courtesy. I hope you don't mind if there's another editor rocking the maple leaf. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 15:43, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Bobby Cohn: No worries! I have seen other editors use the maple leaf emoji in their signatures... the administrator Diannaa comes to mind. Actually, I think it's kind of cool to have a subtle way of identifying fellow Canadians on here. Have a great day! --Drm310🍁 (talk) 16:15, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Articles for Creation backlog drive
Hello Drm310:
WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a month long Backlog Drive in June!
The goal of this drive is to reduce the backlog of unreviewed drafts to less than 1 month of outstanding reviews from the current 3+ months. Bonus points will be given for reviewing drafts that have been waiting more than 30 days. The drive is running from 1 June 2025 through 30 June 2025.
Draft:St. Louis County Historical Society. I hope you don't mind I've chosen to intervene instead of properly U5-ing or G11-ing. I did some checking and I believe RS may be found via Newspapers.com which can anchor the page. Regardless of the (likely) connectedness of the page creator, the subject shouldn't be declined coverage unless it's unsourced. I'll take responsibility to do the sourcing. As an aside, IMHO local historical societies are natural allies of our movement: they often can be found to possess reliable sources and through their exhibits may be able to help illustrate many locally known objects and literature. BusterD (talk) 11:56, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
BusterD, no objection here. Thanks for finding sources that could prove WP:NORG. You might want to let the creator know, so they are aware that their content wasn't deleted. I sincerely hope they make the appropriate disclosures before attempting to edit again. --Drm310🍁 (talk) 14:19, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Drm310. Namaste!
Thank you for your feedback.
I acknowledge that the draft may have used AI assistance partially, but I’ve thoroughly reviewed and revised it to ensure it aligns with Wikipedia’s standards for neutrality, verifiability, and tone. I welcome any further suggestions or corrections. Zealsubedi (talk) 14:01, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I was using my user page space to draft a write-up of an article for improvement, but was suddenly all deleted by the user Drm310 for no reason citing a violation regarding 'web-hosting', not sure what that means, this may be an accidental automated false-positive? Using user-space area for drafting article are allowed according to draft article I think, I'm new here and not too familiar of this is right. Please restore TrendingChina (talk) 15:27, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'm just letting you know that I've declined your speedy nomination of Health Services Academy, because I considered the subject of the article an educational institution and, as such, ineligible for A7. I agree that, as things stand, it doesn't appear to be notable, but it'll have to be PRODded or sent to AFD. — Salviogiuliano18:45, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Gordon's School
Hi @Drm310 Gordon's School wishes to improve the Wikipedia page in line with the regulations and have employed a consultant to look at our page and rewrite it to improve neutrality and remove promotional language. Unreliable sources have been replaced or updated and references added. Please could I ask you to have a look at the changes here User:Silver8irch/sandbox
Hello Drm310. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of User:Geno Eric, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not a blatant misuse of Wikipedia as a webhost. Thank you. jlwoodwa (talk) 22:18, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Deletion for alexsmind page
Hello @Drm310. I am wondering how the page can be considered advertisement if it is just information on the artist? Is there any way to change it? There are not enough citations and I added what I could find that were interviews of the artist. Yes, the artist is me, but I wanted to make an information page on the project for anyone if they need more information. I apologize if I could not do it any other way. If that is the case I will leave it be. If there is anything else you need from me, please let me know. Thank you, Alexsmind (talk) 19:05, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Alexsmind: Wikipedia does not include topics about people or things simply for the fact that they exist. They must meet Wikipedia's definition of a notable topic to merit inclusion. In the specific case of a musician, they must meet the notability criteria for musicians. For this to happen, a musician must have already received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the musician. Interviews are considered primary sources because the information comes directly from the person being interviewed, so they can't establish notability. All social media and other self-published sources are invalidated because they consist of user-generated content with no editorial review.
Naturally, you are going to believe that what you do is important and the world should know about it. But, we don't gauge a subject's interest to the world at large by the subject's own perception of their importance; you are incapable of being an objective judge of your own notability. Therefore, Wikipedia is not a place for you to write about yourself, for reasons explained in detail at Wikipedia:Autobiography and the essay "Wikipedia is not about YOU". Writing at length about your achievements without any evidence of notability is seen as promoting yourself, which isn't allowed here; we have no interest in what someone wishes to say about himself. --Drm310🍁 (talk) 19:21, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
