User talk:JoshuaAnderson15

Hello, JoshuaAnderson15, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:

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 need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or place {{Help me}} on this page and someone will drop by to help. Red Director (talk) 16:38, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Mathias le Fèvre (February 5)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Mgbo120 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.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Fails WP:BIO. Add more citations to prove notability.

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:Mathias le Fèvre 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:Mathias le Fèvre, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Mgbo120 (talk) 09:13, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, JoshuaAnderson15! 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! Mgbo120 (talk) 09:13, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Mathias le Fèvre (July 3)

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

This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.

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:Mathias le Fèvre 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:Mathias le Fèvre, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" 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.

DGG ( talk ) 10:02, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Mathias le Fèvre for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Mathias le Fèvre 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/Mathias le Fèvre 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. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 04:08, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (September 30)

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

Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at Mathias le Fèvre instead.

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 User:JoshuaAnderson15/sandbox 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 User:JoshuaAnderson15/sandbox, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" 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.

-Liance^{talk/contribs} 22:44, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation

An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JoshuaAnderson15, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

-- RoySmith (talk) 23:13, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SPI follow up

Hello JoshuaAnderson15, welcome to Wikipedia. I'm an administrator here who spends more time than most on investigations relating to our multiple accounts policy. In a nutshell, the policy says that all editors must use one account. Asking someone you know to create a second account for the sole purpose of supporting you in a content discussion is also forbidden: we call that meatpuppetry, and because of this I have blocked your second account. Normally we block all of a user's accounts when we discover abuse of the policy, but I have chosen to leave your main account accessible because you seem to understand what you did wrong, and Wikipedia doesn't gain anything by driving away editors who want to contribute. So, I'm here to offer some advice.

Regarding your article, Mathias le Fèvre, it has been nominated for a deletion discussion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mathias le Fèvre) because another editor has reviewed it and believes that the sources presented in the article fail to demonstrate notability. It looks like you started this article as a draft and had a rejection from a reviewer already, and by sidestepping the review process you've now exposed the article to deletion. Drafts can be left for you to work on, but articles must meet guidelines or they are deleted.

On Wikipedia, notability is not a popularity contest or a head-count vote, it's based on a set of criteria that our community has developed over nearly 20 years now, intended to reflect the real-world "importance" of a topic based on coverage outside of Wikipedia. The very basic broad rule is the general notability guideline, which says that subjects are notable if they have significant coverage in published reliable sources which are independent of the subject. No matter how many people you can recruit to make accounts and vote at the deletion discussion, if notability is not demonstrated it will be deleted. The guideline exists so that Wikipedia can reliably provide accurate coverage of the widest range of topics (we have over 6 million articles) without becoming a catalogue of irrelevant minutiae about every garage band or high school athlete or Candy Crush-type mobile game. That may not apply to your article, I'm just meaning to give you some sense of where we're coming from.

Since that rule is meant to apply to every conceivable topic, we also have a wide-ranging set of more specific "supplemental" notability guidelines; the one for fashion models is located at WP:NMODEL. In order to preserve your article, it's that sort of criteria that you'll have to find covered in independent reliable sources to demonstrate. Things like social media follower counts and publicity interviews and press releases are not considered, because they are evidence of ability to purchase an ad campaign but not of actual notability for an encyclopedia. We also don't normally consider "passing mentions" (e.g. a person happens to have their name mentioned on one line of a magazine article about some other thing) nor arguments that a topic is notable because of its relation to some other topic (e.g. a celebrity's spouse is not notable unless they are notable for their own accomplishments). Those are some of the common notability pitfalls. The detailed write-up in The Gentleman looks like a good source to me, it's definitely about your subject, whereas your Scan Magazine source is weaker (just a blurb with his photo), and The Londoner source is not really useful at all (just a photo with his partner). If you can find more in-depth coverage like the first source, you'll be well on your way to demonstrating notability. You may be able to find more advice and resources at Wikipedia:WikiProject Fashion.

I also have to advise you that if you are receiving any kind of compensation to write about a topic on Wikipedia, you are required to disclose your professional connection to the topic. If you are being paid to edit any topic and you do not disclose, you are violating our terms of use and you will be blocked from editing, and any articles you have contributed will be deleted. If that applies to you, please read these two links for instructions on how to properly disclose.

I'm going to suggest in the discussion that your article be moved back to the Draft: namespace so that you can work on improving it (add more sources that demonstrate encyclopedic notability and fewer that are just images and passing mentions) and making it read less like an advertisement and more like an encyclopedia article. However, AfD is a community discussion and other editors are allowed to express different opinions, and somebody who has not participated will determine the outcome in a few days. If you have any questions please feel free to ask. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:57, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

response to SPI follow up

Hello Ivanvector, thank you for welcoming me to Wikipedia and for following up on this thread. Your gentle way of handling the issue relating to multiple accounts policy is much appreciated. I was not aware of these terms and I am grateful for your details guidance for my future on this platform.

Regarding my article, (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mathias le Fèvre), I understand that more sources are necessary to demonstrate notability of the subject. While finding these sources, would you suggest that I move the article back into a "draft" page or will this be decided and handled by the user determining the outcome?

To be completely transparent, I am not in any way being compensated to write this article. I am a journalist with a focus on the fashion industry. I have been wanting to contribute to Wikipedia for a while as I feel that there is room to contribute on this type of pages.

I look forward to your answer. Many thanks, JoshuaAnderson15 (talk) 15:57, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Mathias le Fèvre

Hello, JoshuaAnderson15. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Mathias le Fèvre".

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 edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} 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! UnitedStatesian (talk) 19:24, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]