User talk:Lastphotograph

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Lastphotograph (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Not associated with any advertisers

Decline reason:

This account is not directly blocked. If you are unable to edit, please exactly follow the instructions which appear when you attempt to do so. Yamla (talk) 23:05, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

David Womack

No, the article is not "cited properly".

You do not make a person notable for writing a book by citing the book to an online bookstore as verification that the book exists — you make a person notable for writing a book by citing the book to journalistic content about the book in media, such as book reviews and/or news stories about it winning a notable literary award, as verification that the book has been externally deemed as significant. You don't make a person notable for directing a film by referencing the film to Netflix or IMDb as proof that the film exists — you make a person notable for directing a film by citing the film to journalistic content about the film in media, such as film reviews and/or news stories about it winning a notable film award.

People do not automatically qualify for Wikipedia articles just because their work exists. People qualify for Wikipedia articles by having enough media coverage about their work to establish that people independent of the subject have validated its importance. So you don't make a person notable by citing their work to itself as proof that it exists — you make a person notable by citing their work to evidence that journalists have written analytical content about the work. Bearcat (talk) 02:01, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I’ll get that worked on. Please remove delete notice. Lastphotograph (talk) 02:16, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's not how this works. An AFD discussion remains open for seven days, so you have a week to try to improve the article — if you find enough of the correct kind of sources and add them during that seven day period, then obviously the article can be kept once the work has been done. But no, the discussion cannot be closed before you've actually made any effort to improve the article — you have to do the improvements first, and then the question of whether you've done enough improvement can be considered, and it doesn't happen the other way around. Bearcat (talk) 02:26, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Again, not how this works. Once started, the AFD discussion stays open for seven days. No ifs, no ands, no buts, no nothing: seven days, the end. If people believe you have done enough to salvage the article, then they will start to vote keep in the discussion; if people don't believe you have done enough, then they will continue to vote delete. But the discussion will remain open for seven days no matter what, and you cannot shut it down by removing the template yourself. Bearcat (talk) 19:17, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Issuing level 1 warning about removing AfD template from articles before the discussion is complete. (Peachy 2.0 (alpha 8))

Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles, or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion debates, as you did with David S. Womack. Otherwise, it may be difficult to create consensus. If you oppose the deletion of an article, please comment at the respective page instead. This is an automated message from a bot about this edit, where you removed the deletion template from an article before the deletion discussion was complete. If this message is in error, please report it.—^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:14, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

February 2021

Hello, Lastphotograph. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} template);
disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:Spam);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. 2601:188:180:B8E0:15C4:2E2D:8425:5AA9 (talk) 17:32, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

These are unwarranted accusations. Hood riddens Lastphotograph (talk) 18:32, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]