User talk:Theosisfreak

Welcome!

Hello, Elenatina, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Draft:Jonathan Roumie, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's content policies and may not be retained. In short, the topic of an article must be notable and have already been the subject of publication by reliable and independent sources.

Please review Your first article for an overview of the article creation process. The Article Wizard is available to help you create an article, where it will be reviewed and considered for publication. For information on how to request a new article that can be created by someone else, see Requested articles. If you are stuck, come to the Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can help you through the processes.

New to Wikipedia? Please consider taking a look at the our introductory tutorial or reviewing the contributing to Wikipedia page to learn the basics about editing. Below are a few other good pages about article creation.

• Article development
• Standard layout
• Lead section
• The perfect article
• Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Go here.

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 ask me on my talk page or you can just type {{help me}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:26, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:Jonathan Roumie

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Draft:Jonathan Roumie, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

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 deleted 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 deleting administrator. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:26, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Redundant or non-useful sources

I started looking through the sources in Draft:Jonathan Roumie and stopped after I had to remove one that was useless (you can see it in the edit history). Please go through them and cull out the ones that are low-value, redundant, trivial, or otherwise non-informative. Interviews in particular aren't always needed (they are primary sources) if a good secondary source (which is preferred) can be cited. You don't need to overwhelm the article with sources just to demonstrate notability if you already have a handful of sources that provide significant coverage. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:57, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

@Anachronist I've cleaned up citations in all sections except Filmography. For Filmography, I'm using links from the below sources. Are they considered valid? If not, I'll remove them.

1. https://www.rottentomatoes.com/celebrity/jonathan_roumie 2. https://www.mobygames.com/developer/sheet/view/developerId,172633/ 3. https://lostplanet.fandom.com/wiki/Renard_LaRoche 4. https://www.tvguide.com/celebrities/jonathan-roumie/credits/3030260575/ 5. https://www.tvmaze.com/people/11049/jonathan-roumie

Elenatina (talk) 10:31, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Sources consisting of user generated content are considered unreliable and therefore aren't acceptable. That includes sites like IMDB and all wikis including Wikipedia. Of those you list above, mobygames and lostplanet wouldn't be acceptable. Tvmaze seems unnecessary as the page is nearly content-free. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:39, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

@Anachronist Thanks! On a different note, Maybe we should build a set of unacceptable citation links and automate the process so there's a rejection message while saving. Will save tons of review time. And we could keep adding to the list whenever we come across a new unacceptable source.

We could automate notability checking as well. I saw there's tons of articles where people spend time writing when the subject is not notable. If there's a way to identify it early on, we could save a lot of time. Here's something to start with.

1. Google news 2. Google trends 3. WP Refs

Elenatina (talk) 21:49, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

That's a good suggestion. While it is easy to identify some of the major unacceptable citations (IMDB, Wikipedia), there are thousands of blogs, forums, wikis, and other sites full of user generated content that cannot be kept track of. The two sources I mentioned above are so obscure that they would likely never be caught by an automated process.

We already have the following:

• WP:Perennial sources, a large list of sources that often come up, with community evaluations about reliability (and you'll see that many of them are not clearly reliable or unreliable)
• A blacklist that prevents you from adding a link to any page if the site is blacklisted
• User:XLinkBot for automatic reverting of other unacceptable non-blacklisted links

But sometimes a link that normally wouldn't be acceptable is occasionally appropriate to cite, depending on the situation. I don't see a good way to automate this reliably.

Many newbies write about non-notable subjects generally because they have a conflict of interest with the subject and don't understand that Wikipedia isn't Facebook or Myspace where anybody can have a profile, and it isn't a publicity medium either. Wikipedia doesn't have "profiles", it has articles. The problem doesn't get cured by auto-reverting sources added in good faith. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:45, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Anachronist I understand. I think the notability automation is separate topic in itself. Thanks for clarifying! Appreciate it! Elenatina (talk) 18:21, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Better

Better than before. David notMD (talk) 02:30, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

@David notMD Thanks! I hope to improve it further to be a GA.Elenatina (talk) 09:21, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Long path. P.S. Do not tag your edits as minor unless those are very little things, such as a spelling or punctuation change. David notMD (talk) 09:23, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Interviews and his own website cannot be used as references except in support of simple facts (age, where he lives, etc. Not career achievements). David notMD (talk) 11:36, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

@ David notMD Got it!

COI? PAID?

As this appears to be the only article you are working on, does WP:COI or WP:PAID apply? Either must be declared on your User page. David notMD (talk) 11:38, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

@ David notMD I didn't know volunteers had the bandwidth to work on multiple articles at the same time. I am keen on getting my first article accepted, get a hang of how things work and then hopefully attempt my next submission. WP:PAID doesn't apply and WP:COI doesn't apply as well. Elenatina (talk) 17:43, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Not a requirement, given your declaration here, but do consider putting a short statement on your User page attesting you are neither paid nor COI. Single-purpose accounts, i.e., new and one article creation focus, are suspected of being connected. As for multi-tasking, many editors have dozens, scores, hundreds of existing articles on their 'Watchlist,' so their efforts are dominated by reverting or fixing bad edits of those articles. Personally, I've been here 15 years, closing on on 40,000 edits, and have created only three articles. David notMD (talk) 18:27, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

@David notMD Hi David, Thanks for the suggestion. Makes sense to be clear about it so people are not inadvertently misled.Elenatina (talk) 03:59, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

I have 2500 pages on my watch list, and I've created several articles myself but not a lot (listed on my user page), some are well fleshed out, some are short stubs or disambiguation pages, some got merged into other articles. But I've never worked on the creation of multiple articles simultaneously, it's always one at a time, about one or two per year, when inspiration strikes. I don't go looking for subjects to write about, it just happens when it happens. I currently have one draft that got declined that I'm not sure what to do about (yes, even after 15 years and 50,000 edits I still occasionally submit a draft for review instead of publishing it myself, if I'm unsure about notability), maybe recast it as being about a notable book than about the author. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:23, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	For asking such a great question on Teahouse. I really loved that you wanted to try and understand why people make articles on non-notable subjects if they'll be declined and that you wanted to try and come up with a solution. I really hope you stay on Wikipedia for a while and edit constructively. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry | Discord: Blaze Wolf#0001 (talk) 19:03, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Also feel free to ask me if you need help. I'll do my best to answer and if I can't I'll make sure to refer you to someone who can. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry | Discord: Blaze Wolf#0001 (talk) 19:11, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

@Blaze The Wolf Thanks. I'm pretty new here so just trying to understand. Elenatina (talk) 03:54, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

@Elenatina: Hey that's great! Trying to understand is the best thing you can do as a newcomer. ― Blaze The Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#0001} 12:48, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Ref column?

I have never seen a ref column in a table. Consider putting to ref right after the role played. Given only one award (so far) perhaps as text sufficient. On your User page, consider being specific about not being Paid or COI for the draft in question rather than an all-purpose denial. Consider submitting the draft, to find out what an experienced reviewer thinks. There is no downside to getting a Decline (or two) on your way to getting a draft accepted. David notMD (talk) 11:04, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

@David notMD I got the reference column from here - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lauren_Cohan. Your suggestion seems valid as well. I'll just wait for the article to get reviewed. I guess they'll get to it someday soon..in 7 weeks or so.Elenatina (talk) 16:40, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

The review system is not a queue, so could be days. All depends on what reviewers pick from the pile. David notMD (talk) 16:44, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, Theosisfreak. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by Nick Moyes (talk) 23:14, 29 October 2021 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).

Your thread has been archived

Hi Elenatina! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Article Pending review - is there a way to expedite review?, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days (usually at least two days, and sometimes four or more). You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please feel free to . The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} here on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:01, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Jonathan Roumie has been accepted

Jonathan Roumie, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 20% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

––Formal ^talk 05:45, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

November 2021

Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia, as you did to Jonathan Roumie. While objective prose about beliefs, organisations, people, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. Thank you. bonadea contributions talk 09:22, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

@bonadea - Hi, It is not promotional material. It was added with references. Please check the cited reference. I am aware of the advertising and promotional stuff. But that sentence which you deleted is from a news article and I don't see how you deem it promotional. I understand the other edit which you deleted. That's clearly not notable and has no reference. But this sentence has. I think reviewers need to also be neutral when removed content citing "promotional fluff" when there is a reference cited.Elenatina (talk) 09:25, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Phrasing like "He donned the sandals of the character of Christ for the first time in an International, touring multi-media project" is not neutral, and there was an external link to IMDB embedded in the text as well. As for the sourcing, I read the source [1] several times and was not able to find anything about Faustina: Messenger of Divine Mercy, an international tour, or The Two Thieves. --bonadea contributions talk 09:53, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

@bonadea The first citation is a reference to "Once we were slaves". "Once we were slaves" was renamed as "The two thieves". And at the end of the sentence, you have the next citation which talks about the multimedia project.

Regarding the IMDB link, I remember removing a couple of them. So that's OK. I understand that shouldn't be there.

This is the entire section

---He donned the sandals of the character of Christ for the first time in an International, touring multi-media project about the life of St. Faustina called Faustina: Messenger of Divine Mercy and subsequently in The Two Thieves.[6] Roumie is also the co-producer, co-director and lead actor[9] of The Last Days: The Passion and Death of Jesus, a live performance about the passion of Christ.[10] ---

So citation 6 is what you looked at and it talks about "Once we were Slaves". That's the movie that's got a new name. So if we should stick to the old name as per the citation, that's fine. Citation 9 talks about "Faustina: Messenger of Divine Mercy". So it is just misplaced citations. I'll make the changes and let me know if it's valid now.Elenatina (talk) 10:44, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for that clarification. Please don't restore the "donned the sandals" and "international, touring multi-media project" phrasing, though; it is taken almost verbatim from Roumie's promotional material that can be found in various places, so the promotional tone originates there. Also note that Wikipedia takes copyright issues very seriously, so text should never be copied or closely paraphrased, except in direct quotations (which should be used very sparingly). --bonadea contributions talk 10:50, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Other accounts

Have you had any other accounts? I ask because you seem have known from the start citation skills that only experienced editors normally know and use. Doug Weller talk 10:02, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

@Doug Weller Thanks for the compliment :)! I don't have any other account. I've used citations in academic projects and research work. And also couple of reviews on my first draft, I realized everything on wikipedia can't just be our opinion but it needs to be notable and substantiated with a valid source so I tried to cite as much as I can. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elenatina (talk • contribs) 10:08, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Elenatina asked for guidance at Teahouse, and as a result, several experienced editors contributed to the draft. David notMD (talk) 12:25, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

New message from Mikehawk10

Hello, Theosisfreak. You have new messages at Mikehawk10's talk page.
Message added 05:14, 11 November 2021 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

— Mikehawk10 (talk) 05:14, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hi Elenatina! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Promotional vs Facts from a Neutral Viewpoint, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days (usually at least two days, and sometimes four or more). You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please feel free to . The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} here on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:01, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hi Elenatina! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Thank you!, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days (usually at least two days, and sometimes four or more). You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please feel free to . The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} here on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:00, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

I cometh with peace, and milkshakes!

	Milkshake
	Hi! This is just a token of appreciation. Hope you're doing well. Pass this on, everyone deserves it GFO (talk) 04:41, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hi Elenatina! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Is Error rate part of assessing Editors?, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days (usually at least two days, and sometimes four or more). You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please feel free to . The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} here on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:01, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Jonathan Roumie

On 3 December 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Jonathan Roumie, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that actor Jonathan Roumie, who plays the character of Jesus Christ in American television series The Chosen, is also an extraordinary minister of Holy Communion in the Catholic Church? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Jonathan Roumie. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Jonathan Roumie), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:03, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Communion at Home moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Communion at Home, is not suitable as written to remain published. I've moved your draft to Draftspace where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's General Notability Guideline and ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 09:52, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

@Padgriffin Well noted. I just created at it and it is not complete yet. Elenatina (talk) 14:43, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Communion at Home (March 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 GoingBatty was:  The comment the reviewer left was: 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:Communion at Home 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:Communion at Home, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" 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, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, 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.

GoingBatty (talk) 15:18, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Elenatina! 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! GoingBatty (talk) 15:18, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Communion at Home (March 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 HitroMilanese was: 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:Communion at Home 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:Communion at Home, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" 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, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, 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.

Hitro talk 14:10, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hi Elenatina! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Feedback for my article, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please . See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). Muninnbot (talk) 19:00, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Communion at home

Hello, Elenatina. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Communion at home, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 10:02, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Shmiras halashon

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Shmiras halashon requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

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 deleted 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 deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:55, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I should have added it as a draft and then submitted it for publication. I added all the sources and expanded the article as well but I guess there was a simultaneous edit by someone else. And I lost all my changes. But that's fine. It will take me a couple of hours to get it completed.Thanks again for your valuable input. I'll remember to create a draft article always before I hit publish. Theosisfreak (talk) 09:17, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Shmiras halashon moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Shmiras halashon, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Maliner (talk) 09:07, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Using refs that don't meet WP:RS

Thank you for contributing to the article Soulmate. However, please do not use unreliable sources such as blogs, wikis, personal websites, and websites and publications with a poor reputation for checking the facts or with no editorial oversight. These sources may express views that are widely acknowledged as pushing a particular point-of-view, sometimes even extremist, being promotional in nature, or relying heavily on rumors and personal opinions. One of Wikipedia's core policies is that contributions must be verifiable through reliable sources, preferably using inline citations. If you require further assistance, please look at Help:Menu/Editing Wikipedia, or ask at the Teahouse. Thank you. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:38, 10 May 2024 (UTC)