User talk:Trillfendi/Archive 2/Archives/ 3

Your draft article, Draft:Ellen Rosa


Hello, Trillfendi. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Ellen Rosa".

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 nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the, , or  code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, 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! 02:53, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Jess Cole


Hello, Trillfendi. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Jess Cole".

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 nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the, , or  code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, 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! 02:55, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Loane Normand


Hello, Trillfendi. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, Draft:Loane Normand.

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 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. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 04:17, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Faretta
Rather than re-creating the article with practically no more content than the version that was deleted, your correct course of action would have been to go to WP:DRV. If you want the content restored to Draft space so you can work on it there, let me know. Black Kite (talk) 23:01, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Of course it’s not much different than the original (only based on what I could remember at any rate. I know for a damn fact that the model is notable. Show me where fashion-related notability wasn’t proven. Was it not the fact that reliable sources like Vogue and NYT delineated multiple notable shows she did? Was it not British Vogue’s Editor-in-chief personally selecting her on the cover and 8 models for the cover, calling them “trailblazing”?) I’ve created 100 model articles on this website. I more than anybody would know what makes “NMODEL” by now. Not some random dudes who don’t even know what an editorial is. Why yes, the draft space would be the logical place, especially as more work happens over the summer and next fashion week, but I avoided that because the first time around a spiteful editor deleted it simply because I moved it (that’s been a whole thing for about 2 weeks, a peanut gallery of people who “don’t like me” trying to delete multiple pages I created with no regard for what notability actually means (see Birgit Kos for most recent example.) I stopped using the AfC process altogether when I encountered such ignorance. Actually, I think sandbox might be the best place for now. Why would I go to the deletion review where people who clearly know nothing about modeling already sabotaged a perfectly fine article? Please show the “promo”. It’s not like they can be reasoned with. It’s not like minds will magically change. The who could be of use, who have all these “opinions” whenever I do a model AfD, are conveniently never around for such things, of course. Trillfendi (talk) 23:59, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not actually disagreeing with you, but WP:CSD says what it says. I've restored it to Draft:Faretta (or will have, in about 30 seconds). Black Kite (talk) 00:16, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

DYK for All About That Bass
&mdash; Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Golden State Killer
&mdash; Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Nina Marker for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Nina Marker 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 Articles for deletion/Nina Marker 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.  DGG ( talk ) 05:08, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 7 Rings
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 7 Rings you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of AppleWormBoy -- AppleWormBoy (talk) 22:01, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 7 Rings
The article 7 Rings you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:7 Rings for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of AppleWormBoy -- AppleWormBoy (talk) 15:21, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Hailee Steinfeld
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Hailee Steinfeld. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:04, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

July events from Women in Red!
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:41, 25 June 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging

PAGE
can you move a draft to a regular page? Mm08jimmy (talk) 19:50, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The instructions can be found here. Trillfendi (talk) 21:02, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Can you do it for me If i do request? Mm08jimmy (talk) 21:24, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Sang Woo Kim (model)


Hello, Trillfendi. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Sang Woo Kim".

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 nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the, , or  code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, 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.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia!  CASSIOPEIA(talk) 12:57, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Hunter Pollack edit summaries
FYI, while the IP editor was wrong to call you a four letter word in their edit summary, it does not assist to goad them slightly in your own edit summaries. In a dispute such as the one between you and the other editor it’s better to take civil discussion to talk pages vs undoing edits and commenting via edit summaries. N.J.A.  &#124; talk  09:46, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Apologies
I'm really sorry. I would never edit what another user said. I have a filter on my browser that alters profanity, so when I entered the edit page, it changed your text while I added my comment. I didn't even realize. This is my fault, I'll have to be more careful in the future. Thank you for understanding. -- Puzzledvegetable Is it teatime already?  17:36, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Bekah Brunstetter
The article Bekah Brunstetter you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Bekah Brunstetter for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of SNUGGUMS -- SNUGGUMS (talk) 05:02, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Bekah Brunstetter
The article Bekah Brunstetter you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Bekah Brunstetter for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of SNUGGUMS -- SNUGGUMS (talk) 02:01, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Ryan Ashley Malarkey
Hello! Your submission of Ryan Ashley Malarkey at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 21:58, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Ryan Ashley Malarkey
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

June 2019
Hello, I'm Magnolia677. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Frank Ocean, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. ''You continue to add content which is not supported by the source cited, and to delete content which is supported by a reliable source. As a courtesy I have opened a discussion on the talk page. Until some consensus is reached to add original research to the article, I would urge you to stop adding your content. Thanks.'' Magnolia677 (talk) 21:10, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 30
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited St. Vincent (musician), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Anne Clark ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/St._Vincent_%28musician%29 check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/St._Vincent_%28musician%29?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:45, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Heather Kemesky


Hello, Trillfendi. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, Draft:Heather Kemesky.

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. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 06:03, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Chiharu Okunugi


Hello, Trillfendi. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, Draft:Chiharu Okunugi.

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. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 01:15, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Some of your GA nominations
Congrats on your GA article from some time ago. In looking at the GAN list, you presently appear to have 4 articles nominated. That seems nice, but on closer look only the Giselle article looks like it might be ready to start going through the process. The other articles appear less ready, namely,


 * Donald Glover (edit | talk | history | protect | links | watch | logs | page views (90d)) (start review) Trillfendi (talk) 14:40, 4 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Karlie Kloss (edit | talk | history | protect | links | watch | logs | page views (90d)) (start review) Trillfendi (talk) 22:05, 24 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Cara Delevingne (edit | talk | history | protect | links | watch | logs | page views (90d)) (start review) Trillfendi (talk) 20:45, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

From what I can tell, the Glover article is still rated at "C" level and could use some work to get to "B" before nomination for GA-level. The other two articles, especially the Cara biography looks like it lacks a narrative format normally expected at GA-reviews; its almost a list of sentences in parts waiting to be written up into a narrative form of presentation. These 3 articles do not at this moment look like they are ready for nomination, before more effort is put into upgrading them to, say, "B"-level articles.

That said, if you could take these articles off GAN, at least until more upgrades are completed bringing them up to the "B" level, then I might be able to pick up on your Giselle nomination. It will need an upgrade effort as well, but it is the closest one I can see among your picks to being in striking distance of a run towards a GA article. What do you think of this as a possibility? CodexJustin (talk) 17:17, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok, I will take that into consideration. I’ve been trying to fix the Cara Delevingne one because whoever wrote it seems like they were only trying to list accomplishments like an athlete. Trillfendi (talk) 17:28, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * If you are stating that you know up front that some of those articles you nominated are not ready for prime time, then the nominations should be withdrawn in that event. The understanding for a GAN nomination is that the editor believes that the article has reached the status of a GA article and is ready to be assessed by another editor in order to form an agreement about the GA status. If you already know that at least one of your nominations is damaged goods "because whoever wrote it seems like they were only trying to list accomplishments like an athlete", then it should be withdrawn from GA nomination. CodexJustin (talk) 18:58, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I already did it, but at the same time I already made improvements weeks ago. The only thing “wrong” with it is the prose of her early career. Trillfendi (talk) 19:49, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for doing that. I think that the list of sentences at the end of that one article also needs tending. You might also consider submitting your articles one at a time to WP:GOCE, and request that the article be copy-edited by an experienced editor who might also offer independent ideas on how to improve those articles if you ask them. I am adding another comment below in the spirit of your trying to improve your articles. CodexJustin (talk) 14:23, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Gisele Bundchen
Referencing your reverting of my edit on Gisele Bundchen, it does not matter in the least if you have “heard” Bundchen is a top-earning model since 2004 or that you have “known it from childhood.“ Unless you have published work and credentials to prove you are a viable source, you knowing something “from childhood“ is not a sufficient citation for a statement of fact in an encyclopedia. If you can source it, you can write it. However, if you have no appropriate source other than your own beliefs, then it cannot remain. As active as you seem to be on Wikipedia, you should know that. Clearly, you have a personal interest in the modeling industry. I do not. I have been a professional editor at the highest levels for more than 30 years. I am interested only in proper grammar, sentence structure, style and source. I don’t care whether an article includes information that Gisele Bundchen is a high-paid model or if it does not. I only care that if it does, that the statement is properly sourced. Thank you.MarydaleEd (talk) 23:14, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Wow it’s almost as if Google is free and you can do these things yourself instead of trying to admonish me for pointing out the obvious. Trillfendi (talk) 00:53, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I think that Maryd is referring to the Wikipedia policy for WP:NOR, which refers to No Original Research. That usually means that if another editor is requesting that you provide a citation for a fact which you are adding to an article, that you then add a citation for that fact in order to avoid it being labeled as WP:NOR. It would be proper to recognize that Maryd is trying to be helpful in requesting that you add a reference on this to the article, or that you return her edit into the article in order to allow some other editor to add it in. Obvious facts or not, WP:NOR is fairly clear on Wikipedia policy for this type of request for references. In its current form, the Gisele article is not ready for nomination due to an unfinished lead section and other issues. See the link for WP:Lede if what I am saying is unclear. Let me know if these links are useful to you or if you might need other links. CodexJustin (talk) 14:31, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Look, I get that you have taken interest on this subject of Gisele or whatever the case may be, but please... please... stop messaging about this everyday. Trillfendi (talk) 14:35, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Friend, I did look for the source of the statement but was unable to locate one quickly. As I mentioned to you, I am a professional editor with little time and cannot spend a great deal of time researching statements. I make an effort, but if I cannot find a source on first attempt I do not have time to dig further. My role here at Wikipedia is to bring articles into proper Wikipedia style. I have no attachment to any article other than to bring it into proper Wikipedia style. There are other editors who do not have the knowledge I have of proper writing and style but who are better at researching and finding references. We all have roles to play. I did not admonish you. I merely pointed out the folly of the reason you offered for reverting my edit. I see you returned the statement to the article and it is properly sourced. I am pleased. I also believed the statement to be true, but like you, I am also not an authority or a proper source for that information. Thank you for your contribution to bringing quality to the article. I would like to mention one other thing, and that is that I am also not here to make friends, but to do a job. Yet, I am able to do my job while still maintaining a level of decency and professionalism to other editors. It can be done. It is simply a choice.  Again, thank you for your contributions. Keep up the good work.MarydaleEd (talk) 16:10, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion - Sangramsingh Thakur
Dear @Trillfendi,

Please do not delete this page, I am constantly working on this page and other pages. In the coming days, I will add more information related to this page and I will continue to support my work on Wikipedia, so I request to you do not delete this page and give me a chance to do more work on this page. Thank you--Romeonew (talk) 17:02, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The policy is if a page was previously deleted via deletion discussion in the Articles for Deletion page and it was recreated without proper permission or is too similar to the original version it's speedily deleted. If you keep recreating the page it will be blocked from creation. If you are working on the page, simply create a draft and put it through the Articles for Creation process as most pages go through so that a page reviewer can make sure it's ready to be on Wikipedia. As it stands, obviously several people have questioned the notability of the subject at this time. Trillfendi (talk) 18:01, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi
I know you said you're not here to be liked. I livery in south africa I am a black African May you please teach mEnglish editing skills if you can You are really interested in the same things I am, I love models,fashion and shows link "this is us" May we please be friends and please teach my how to edit a page and create one. I suck at it😓 Please

Kind regards Rainbow your fellow wiki-editor Rainbow Dlodlo (talk) 16:03, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

October Events from Women in Red
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:36, 23 September 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging

September 2019
Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to Lisa Bonet. Your edits could be interpreted as vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:34, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Don’t fucking try me. WATCH THE DAMN VIDEO given in the reliable source and listen to what she had to say about it. I serve truth, not agendas. Trillfendi (talk) 23:12, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * You pinged me to your page to swear at me and show me what a sloppy editor you are? How vulgar. Leave me alone. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:26, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * YOU came on MY talk page with bullshit. You could’ve just reverted it and went about your (pathetic, I assume) day. I don’t give a good goddamn. So leave me alone or you’ll see how “sloppy” it really gets around here. Trillfendi (talk) 23:38, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Once Upon a Time in Hollywood
Hello. Do you know how to request page protection? There have been constant problematic edits by anonymous users. Thank you. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 00:54, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I’ll handle it. Trillfendi (talk) 00:57, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you so much! Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 00:59, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello. I'm curious how you feel about the page? Do you like it? Do you think it's overly detailed and needs things deleted? I ask because there's a debate on the talk page right now and I personally like the page and think the information is relevant and belongs there but others don't. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 23:39, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, it's far away from becoming a Good Article if that's the aim and I do think some parts can be taken out to make it more concise without affecting the information of the article. If all else fails, the page can be split but I think that should wait until awards season at the earliest. Look to Pulp Fiction as an example of how the article should be modeled. Also that talk page needs to be archived already. Trillfendi (talk) 23:54, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

I hear you. I've brought up Pulp Fiction as well because it's an example of another long, detailed movie article. One of these editors have stated that article is too detailed as well. I like them both, personally. I won't be the one to archive the talk page. I'm not sure how to do that. If you're up for it it'd be great t get your help editing the article and possibly reformatting it as I know it could flow better. What parts d you think could be taken out? D you mean merged or deleted altogether? Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 00:00, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Sorry. I guess my o isn't working very well. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 00:01, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * When it comes to an encyclopedia, it's supposed to be detailed, but it's not supposed to go off course and veer into detail that doesn't properly focus on the subject. Pulp Fiction the right amount of detail of a cult classic film with many unorthodox parts to it and theories that Tarantino wanted fans to fill in themselves (his words), without being too damn long. At any rate, if I do take up fixing the page it's gonna be a while due to other Wikipedia exploits I'm tied up in and real life. The main thing I noticed that needs to be addressed is that there is too much about the real Manson family compared to the characters and too much focused on the background / production of the film. Trillfendi (talk) 00:14, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Ok. Thank you. I think you're more aligned with the other editors than me on this one unfortunately for me. I appreciate your feedback. Thanks for your time. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 00:28, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

I just felt there was a lot of references to many things about the Manson Family. That, like Pulp Fiction were left to the audience to fill in. Perhaps it doesn't fit well with the page though. I think it does. But again, I seem to be in the minority. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 00:31, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

If you don't mind though, I still think it'd be good if you chimed in on the talk page. People there are arguing to remove the pop culture references and Tarantino references. I don't know how you feel about that. Either way it might be good. It's under character descriptions on the talk page. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 00:45, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

The page has been edited and trimmed quite a bit since you add the tag. I'd like to remove it now. I wanted to message you first though. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 23:36, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It's still very long to read and navigate comfortably for the average reader. Trillfendi (talk) 00:08, 25 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I disagree especially considering the amount of historical characters and references but it's your tag so I won't remove it. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 02:45, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello again. I know you're very busy but if you get a minute can you look at the portrayal of Bruce Lee under the controversies section. Attempts were made by myself and another editor to cut down on some of the excessiveness in the section. However, there is IMO, an extremely pro Shannon Lee editor who added the section initially, and seems to only have a handful of edits on Wikipedia, all dealing with this topic, who is edit warring with me and saying the edits were made to push a narrative rather than trim excessiveness. I may be the wrong with the edit warring. I certainly feel the other editor is. It'd be nice to get another perspective on it. Thank you. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 02:15, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * What it seems like to me is that section is in presents too many people in defense mode from too many people’s personal feelings invested in it. Someone who wasn’t involved with this at all such as a film reviewer should have a neutral take on the interpretation included here instead. Of course his daughter would be upset about it and as you well know Tarantino will always retaliate against criticism. Trillfendi (talk) 07:16, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

That is basically my perspective as well. At this point I was warned to back off though and the other editor was blocked although he wants to add more Shannon Lee. I think he may be Bruce Lee's biggest fan. It seems to me that most of the stuff he added just goes on and on about people's personal feelings. I understand where they're coming from but I don't think that section on a movie page is supposed to be about how everyone feels about it although there is some room for it. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 14:50, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

However I don't think the other editor is listening much to reason and even ignored an administrator's edit warring warning. He certainly won't listen to me as he feels I am part of a conspiracy to shame Bruce Lee. At least that's how I read his responses. That's why I asked for your input on the page. Not just for me but for that editor and the page in general. If you don't have the time I understand though. Thank you. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 14:55, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

We figured that out for now. Another editor was able to help. So it seems for now, that the editors who originally brought up trimming the page have finished. I'm sure some may still happen as time goes by but for now a lot has been done. I understand you feel it's not complete and can still be worked on and trimmed. At this point I really feel the tag should be removed though as the conversation on the talk page has stopped and a lot of editing has been done. I'm not advocating for its removal to stop editing or from you editing when you have time. I just feel for now, it's served its purpose and it just seems to be lingering. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 16:38, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Drake Burnette


Hello, Trillfendi. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, Draft:Drake Burnette.

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. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 01:34, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Women in Red stub contest
Thank you for adding Emily Zamourka. As far as I can see is not a member of Women in Red. In order to avoid any problems, articles should be added by those who create them. Continentaleurope is of course welcome to become a member of WiR. The article should be expanded to at least 160 words of running text before it is submitted. Thanks, Trillfendi, for Mona Tougaard. I hope there will be more.--Ipigott (talk) 14:29, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Ways to improve Mijo Mihaljcic
Hello, Trillfendi,

Thank you for creating Mijo Mihaljcic.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

"Thanks for creating this biography and for contributing to Women in Red stub contest."

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and prepend it with. And, don't forget to sign your reply with. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Abishe (talk) 02:41, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Campbell
Lady Jean Campbell seems to be a better disambiguation than Jean Campbell (model) seeing as she actually is a British lady and that is how she is referred to in the press. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 22:06, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * What part of she is known for being a model not a titleholder are you not understanding? Trillfendi (talk) 22:20, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not arguing that her profession isn't what makes her notable. Since when has profession been a reason to not include a title on Wikipedia? Particularly when the subject at hand is mentioned frequently in the press by that title? Is Lady Mary Charteris not both a lady and a musician? Lady Amelia Windsor not both a lady and a model? Edward Windsor, Lord Downpatrick not a lord and a fashion designer? -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 22:26, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Two of them are in the royal family. 🙄 Mary Charteris is another example of someone who only uses her normal name while the British press salivates over title. If nepotism weren’t running so rampant in the fashion industry these days no one would even care. Trillfendi (talk) 22:45, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * That sounds an awful lot like a personal opinion. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 00:45, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * If you don’t know what I’m referring to clearly you haven’t been paying attention to fashion this decade. Trillfendi (talk) 01:11, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Fashion trends of hiring European aristocrats is hardly the topic of conversation right now. Yes, I am aware. German princesses and English society darlings are on all of the runways and in the tabloids. That's hardly new news. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 02:15, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The fact remains, the sources you cherry picked go with an editorial narrative to point out that she has noble blood or is literally an “aristocratic beauty”. Meanwhile actual work remains Jean Campbell. The cover of British Vogue is Jean Campbell. The cover of Porter is Jean Campbell. The model signed to DNA Management and Viva is Jean Campbell. Trillfendi (talk) 03:42, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I did not cherry pick. I looked at the sources used in her article that included Lady Jean Campbell in their titles, since Jean Campbell is taken already by an American athlete. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 22:43, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Jessica Picton-Warlow concern
Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Jessica Picton-Warlow, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 23:44, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Ysaunny Brito concern
Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Ysaunny Brito, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 00:12, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Chu Wong concern
Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Chu Wong, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 00:17, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Akiima concern
Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Akiima, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 00:27, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Mia Brammer concern
Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Mia Brammer, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:22, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Unsourced DOBs
Hi Trillfendi. I have just hidden a revision of Nessa, wherein you inserted a date of birth without a source. Dates of birth in BLPs require a source; please make sure to add a reliable source for a date of birth next time. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:50, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Said information came from the California Birth Index which according to California law is legally public information whether people like that fact or not. Now had I actually cited said link inevitably someone would have come here to pontificate about why they don’t like the source so honestly I didn’t bother to look for another one. “Famous Birthdays” claims she was born in 1981 (and that’s why we can’t trust websites like that). Trillfendi (talk) 04:01, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Please refer to this discussion. ミラP 16:47, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Trillfendi, if you're not using a given source because people will object to it, your only other options are finding a better source or not adding the information. Adding the info without a source is sanctionable, so please don't do that again. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:55, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Donald Glover
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Donald Glover you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hiya111 -- Hiya111 (talk) 18:40, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Report of Billiekhalidfan Needed
You've made a good point regarding this user, and they've been warned far beyond the three warn rule. They've also now admitting to having an agenda regarding certain artists and their fans, and is editing/vandalizing pages accordingly. Are you familiar with the following template for reports? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring

It's also important to note that they are using duplicate accounts for editing wars as well.

Ilovetati91 (talk) 22:47, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I said what I had to say to that person and left it at that. If you have evidence that they are indeed socking then take it to the investigation page. Trillfendi (talk) 23:45, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of MJ Lee for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article MJ Lee 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 Articles for deletion/MJ Lee 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. Yoninah (talk) 17:22, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Donald Glover
Hello! Your submission of Donald Glover at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 22:21, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Monica Rose (stylist) concern
Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Monica Rose (stylist), a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:24, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Anne Baxter on screen and stage
Hi, hope you're well! Thanks for your DYK review of the above article but I think you forgot to sign your review. Cowlibob (talk) 12:17, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

DYK for MJ Lee
--valereee (talk) 00:01, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

December events with WIR
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:44, 25 November 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging