User talk:Aaronpac1

Hello! Thank you for your edits on The Wizard of Oz (1939 film) page, but as per Wikipedia's guidelines on external links, the following must be avoided, and I have reverted your edit.

"Blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority. (This exception for blogs, etc., controlled by recognized authorities is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for people.)"

Regards. —JennKR | ☎ 23:41, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, "recognized authorities" means that the fan-site is overseen by somebody considered notable and verifiable; at a minimum, the owner/creator/contributors of the site must meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for people. (To simplify: For the fansite to be included, you must be notable enough to have an article established about yourself). —JennKR | ☎ 23:56, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time.
Please read the comments left by the reviewer on your submission. 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, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Aaronpac1/The Wonderful World of Oz.
• To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the reviewer's talk page.

Thank you for your
contributions to Wikipedia!

• Please remember to link to the submission!

• You can also get real-time chat help from experienced editors.

j⚛e decker^talk 06:18, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Aaronpac1. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled "The Wonderful World of Oz".

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|User:Aaronpac1/The Wonderful World of Oz}}, paste it in the edit box at this link, click "Save page", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. JMHamo (talk) 22:19, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Aaronpac1. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places, or things you have written about in the article Reflections in the Mirror, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic, and it is important when editing Wikipedia articles that such connections be completely transparent. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. In particular, we ask that you please:

• avoid editing or creating articles related to you and your family, friends, school, company, club, or organization, as well as any competing companies' projects or products;
• instead, you are encouraged to propose changes on the Talk pages of affected article(s) (see the {{request edit}} template);
• when discussing affected articles, disclose your COI (see WP:DISCLOSE);
• avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or to the website of your organization in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
• exercise great caution so that you do not violate Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must 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 WP:PAID).

Please take a few moments to read and review Wikipedia's policies regarding conflicts of interest, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, sourcing and autobiographies. Thank you. Drm310 🍁 (talk) 14:14, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

-- UPDATE--- Hello there Thanks so much for your message. I understand what you mean. From what I can see the only "real" COI would be me linking to familyfilms.net (which is the store) site I can see this is spam in a sense so I will removed those now...the IMDB is as you know not my page and familyfilmsproductions.com is the production site so that is important for the source and all...for this reflections in the Mirror Aaronpac1 (talk) 15:06, 11 May 2017 (UTC) Aaron[reply]

Please place your newest comments at the bottom of talk pages, or at the bottom of the section when it pertains to a particular discussion. This is necessary so that discussions can be followed in their correct chronological order. Thanks. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 17:07, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not include every topic that exists - something has to be notable for it to be included. WP:42 is a one-line summary of what makes something notable enough for inclusion.

Your film is simply not notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. There are notability guidelines for films at Wikipedia:Notability (films), with a pertinent section about future films, incomplete films, and undistributed films. Your film does not meet these inclusion criteria - of course you think it's important, but since it's your film, you aren't a disinterested third party. The real test is, did enough other writers with no connection to the film think it was worthy enough to write about?

A reliable source is a source with an established reputation for fact-checking and editorial oversight. An independent source is a source that has no vested interest in a given Wikipedia topic and therefore is commonly expected to cover the topic from a disinterested perspective. The IMDb is neither of these things., because it is a site where users can write their own content, making it a self-published source. Citing the IMDb is appropriate only for writing credits marked with "WGA", and MPAA ratings reasons.

As has already been pointed out, writing about your own work is a conflict of interest and should be avoided. Using Wikipedia for publicity is not allowed. Even if your intentions are not self-serving, it's reasonable to expect other editors to question your motives for writing about your own project.

If, after all of this, you still believe that your film is deserving of an article, try the Articles for Creation process. It will let you write a draft article at less risk for deletion, and subject it to a review process with other uninvolved editors. Good luck. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 18:23, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for message. You can sign your comments automatically using four tildes ~~~~. I deleted your article because

• it did not provide independent verifiable sources to enable us to verify the facts and show that it meets the notability guidelines for films. Sources that are not acceptable include those linked to the film, press releases, IMDB, social media and other sites that can be self-edited, blogs, websites of unknown or non-reliable provenance, and sites that are just reporting what the production company claims or interviewing involved people. Your references were entirely to sources that were not independent third-party sources. Incidentally, don't use bare urls for refs
• There is no evidence that the film meets the notability criteria linked above. It's not made yet, and there is nothing to suggest that it will meet the criteria when it is, it's just a self-made fan-film
• it was written in a promotional tone. Articles must be neutral and encyclopaedic. Examples of unsourced claims presented as fact include: voice talents... Randy would be perfect... amazing nature... enthusiastic and upbeat... though [sic] he would be perfect— is a publicity leaflet, not an encyclopaedia article
• You have an obvious conflict of interest when editing this article, and you have been told more than once that you should not be writing about your own film here. If, after reading the information about notability linked above, you still believe that your film is notable enough for a Wikipedia article (and that there is significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources), you could, if you wish, post a request at Wikipedia:Requested articles for the article to be created. See also Wikipedia:Best practices for editors with conflicts of interest.
• Since you have a financial involvement with the film, you are very strongly discouraged from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly. Regardless, you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:Aaronpac1. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Aaronpac1|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. Please provide the required disclosure. Note that editing with a COI is discouraged, but permitted as long as it is declared. Concealing a COI can lead to a block. Please do not edit further until you respond to this message.

Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:52, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Elaine Elizabeth Presley requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from http://www.lizpresley.me/. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

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. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 03:30, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please use citations and not external links to reference articles. (This referencing guide should help with that.) Skarmory (talk • contribs) 03:32, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Liz. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person, but you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now. Wikipedia has a very strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate and clear. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:13, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The custom on Wikipedia is to place the newest messages at the bottom of the page, as I'm doing here. Please move your message to the bottom of my talk page where I can easily find it. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:42, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did at Elvis Presley, you may be blocked from editing. Walt Yoder (talk) 00:52, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have been talking to Liza. And we have alot more souces. 152.117.93.227 (talk) 02:12, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]