User talk:Spooky213

Hi Steve, I deleted your recent article because it did not provide independent verifiable sources to enable us to verify the facts or show that it meets the notability guidelines. It is now wikipedia policy that biographical articles about living people must have references. It was written in a promotional tone; Please see this information. Just to take the opening line Steve Isaacs is a multi-talented performer and creative artist. Spammy claim with no independent in-line source  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  12:16, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Steve, I'll shortly post the text here for you to work on. Bear in mind that  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  10:45, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You should provide independent verifiable sources to enable us to verify the facts and show that it meets the notability guidelines. It is now Wikipedia policy that biographical articles about living people must have independent verifiable references, or they will be deleted.
 * Articles must be neutral and encyclopaedic.
 * You must not copy text from a website. 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.
 * You have an obvious conflict of interest when it comes to editing articles about this subject. Thank you for declaring your interest. If, after reading the information about notability linked above, you still believe that you are notable enough for a Wikipedia article (and that there is significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources), you could, if you wish, post a request at Requested articles for the article to be created. See also Best practices for editors with conflicts of interest.


 * Hi Steve, did you follow the link I put above? The text has been there for nearly a year.  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  07:04, 3 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Probably your first priority should be to get some proper refs as defined above. As it stands, your only refs are to your own website (obviously not independent) and a page that doesn't mention you at all.  Jimfbleak  -  talk to me?  16:45, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry Steve, accidentally cleared it with some old stuff. I'm going out now, but I'll have a look later  Jimfbleak  -  talk to me?  11:03, 12 December 2013 (UTC)


 * OK
 * Be wary of using value-judgement words like "talent" and "skills", particularly in the first line, otherwise the text seems mainly OK
 * Some of your refs are not acceptable. Wikipedia and Youtube are not reliable (although you could pipe the Wikipedia link in the text). Sales sites like iTunes will get the article deleted as spam.
 * Best to put the references in the the text so we can see what fact(s) each is supporting. Put your references between tags placed in the text where you need them, preferably immediately following punctuation. Put   under your References heading, and that will display the list of references.


 * I think your article's chances of survival depend on the quality of the references, so it's important to get them right  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  15:39, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

OK, it's better, but still needs some work  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  07:27, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * References precede external links
 * Two of your refs are bare numbers, format as so we have some idea what they are linking to
 * You have a heap of "references" at the bottom, but because they are not in-line, we don't know what facts they are supporting, and nobody is going to try to sort that out. Format them in-line properly as in the line above if they are supporting parts of the text, otherwise take them out, since they are pointless. The last two at least seem to be links to company pages that don't even mention you, hard to see how they can be references
 * As it stands, most of your text is still unsourced
 * there are still places where the text needs work. Two examples a popular weekly open mike show &mdash; unsourced spammy claim. Isaacs channelled his love &mdash; unencyclopaedic mush. Read through the text as if it's writeen by your worst enemy, and you are trying to find fault

I made these edits. Some is just formatting, but note that Wikipedia is not a reliable source, so I reformatted that ref as a link. There was a url link in the text, moved to Ext links, also note that a link shouldn't be in both Refs and EL. If you are happy, move (don't cut and paste) the page to the article title.  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  12:53, 20 February 2014 (UTC)


 * OK, moved to Steve Isaacs. I've left a redirect in your sandbox, but I can delete that if you wish. It will be interesting to see what happens <b style="font-family:chiller; color:red;"> Jimfbleak - </b> talk to me?  09:06, 21 February 2014 (UTC)


 * There is a "Move" tab. If you can't see it, you may not have made enough edits for it to appear. It's not available to new editors because of the risk of misuse, but appears automatically when you have made enough edits. I don't think that it's at risk of speedy deletion, but it's possible that another admin might take a different view, perhaps on neutrality, and push for a deletion discussion. I shouldn't worry unless it happens. <b style="font-family:chiller; color:red;"> Jimfbleak - </b> talk to me?  09:16, 21 February 2014 (UTC)