User talk:User4495

Welcome!
Hello, User4495, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may not be retained.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type help me on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! —C.Fred (talk) 23:41, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Your first article
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * Biographies of living persons
 * How to write a great article
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial

Proposed deletion of John Lavin (Artist)


The article John Lavin (Artist) has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern:
 * May not meet WP:ARTIST. Should include major contributions according to that policy. A Google search showed involvement minor productions, with the exception of a Macklemore video.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Esprit15d • talk • contribs 23:46, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of John Lavin (Artist)


A tag has been placed on John Lavin (Artist) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a real person or group of people, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the. —C.Fred (talk) 00:12, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

May 2017
Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that a recent edit of yours to the page John Lavin (Artist) has an edit summary that appears to be inaccurate or inappropriate. The summaries are helpful to people browsing an article's history, so it is important that you use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did. Feel free to use the sandbox to make test edits. Thank you. Theroadislong (talk) 13:18, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Friendly tips for John Lavin (Artist)
Hi and a belated welcome to Wikipedia. I see you're off to a bit of a contentious start, so I'd like to offer some tips and advice about what some others have been saying, and what some of the messages above are referring to. My only angle here is helping a new user who clearly wants to contribute, while balancing the policies and whatnot that go along with writing here. So first: Otherwise, the best thing for that article is to find third-party sources that cover Mr. Lavin in detail (not just production credits), and are unrelated (not interviews or own website). Basically we're looking for someone who went out and researched him on their own, then wrote about it. We can then use that source to establish notability. I hope all this helps! Crow Caw  22:21, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Notability of Mr Lavin. You've seen that term thrown around a lot so far, and have mentioned as much in your edit summaries. Wikipedia uses that term as a much more specific term-of-art than pretty much everyone elsewhere. Here "notability" means, and only means: "has been the subject of multiple published works that are unrelated to the subject". Basically, we're a "tertiary source". We only publish content that someone else, unrelated to the subject, has already published. A good analogy I've seen is that Wikipedia is the world's largest term paper. So looking at the sources in the article, I see a couple of interviews and a lot of Mr. Lavin's own website. Those are all considered Primary Sources. They can certainly be used as sources, but when looking at overall "notability" in the Wiki-sense, they don't count towards the inclusion criteria. For the actual guideline we use, see WP:GNG, and WP:RS for the kinds of sources that we consider good for notability.
 * One catch about Notability here is that it is not "inherited". Yes, Mr. Lavin has worked on several extremely popular productions, but the notability of those productions does not confer automatic notability on him. As I mentioned above, the only measuring stick we use is what other people (again, unrelated to him) have written or said in reliable sources.
 * Tags I know those tags are annoying, but they only mean that an editor has expressed a concern. That concern may or may not be valid (speaking generally here), but the article creator usually should not unilaterally remove them. An often-unknown purpose of those tags is to put the article in a grouping whereby other editors can see the name and help out if they know of the subject. An exception is that Autobiography tag. If you say you are not the subject (and I'm not asking to confirm or deny that here) then one of our core tenants says we believe you. If you are related or otherwise affiliated, we do like for that to be declared, but in any case it does not prohibit you from editing. And again, not asking for confirm/deny, just explaining why that was put on.
 * An option: We have a section set aside for works in progress, where the author hasn't got the page quite ready sources-wise, and that is Draft Space. Basically, an article in Draft won't get summarily deleted the way your first one did, and as long as you keep working on it, there's no deadline. Plus you can click a button on the article to get a review of its current state, with feedback as to where it might be lacking, again all without danger of deletion. If that's something you're interested in, let me know.

Hi Crow. Thank you very much for taking the time to write to me. I really appreciate your advice and guidance. Helps break things down to into a form which sounds more personal and "human"- that is the policies on Wikipedia. I didn't know about the draft section until now. Thanks for informing me. It will definitely come in useful for my moments of procrastination. After reading your message, I understand more clearly the meaning you have here for '' notability. '' It's pretty precise but I can understand the reasoning behind that because there would probably end up being every Tom, Dick and Harry with a biography on Wikipedia! Just out of sheer curiosity, would you send me an example website of a reliable and popular secondary source just so I can comprehend the exact requirements needed to meet the Wikipedia policy. Thanks again for your kind message. It has been accepted with open arms. User4495 (talk) 22:16, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources are things like newspapers, trade publications, magazines, tv and radio programmes, peer-reviewed journals, and the like. The key point we look for is that the source has a reputation for fact-checking their stories and similar editorial oversight. Things therefore like most blogs (depending on the author), social media, personal or corporate websites, fan pages and forums, and sites with user-generated content like IMDB and most wikis (yes even Wikipedia!) would not be considered reliable. Those sources can often still be used in the article, especially to support things an entity says about itself, but they don't "count" as much towards determining Wiki-notability. A relevant example here of a reliable source would be using his Art Director's Guild profile as a source for his filmography rather than his personal site. Similar coverage in trade pubs would also be good. Hope this helps! Crow  Caw  23:55, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Copyright problem on John Lavin (Artist)
Material you included in the above article appears to have been copied from the copyright web page http://www.pushing-pixels.org/page/3. Copying text directly from a source is a copyright violation. Unfortunately, for copyright reasons, the content had to be removed. Please leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions or if you think I made a mistake. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:49, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Diannaa, my profound appolgies. I should have known that. Thank you for noticing it. User4495 (talk) 22:20, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

September 2017
Hello, I'm Home Lander. An edit that you recently made to County Roscommon Disability Support Group seemed to be a test and has been removed. If you want more practice editing, please use the sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Not sure what exactly you were trying to do there... Home Lander (talk) 00:48, 23 September 2017 (UTC)