User talk:Christinagirgis

Hi Christinagirgis! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! Fiddle Faddle 19:25, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also I was trying to add Ciera Roger's social media pages below and it wasn't working it kept adding my name instead

Hi can you help move this page from draft to published article?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Davo

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Davo. Thanks! Fiddle Faddle 19:20, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is not acceptable to remove reviewer comments form draft articles. Please do not do so again. This one is not ready. It will be deleted if you move it to become an article (0.99 probability). There is work to do here. Fiddle Faddle 19:24, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You asked for help at the help desk. I gave you that help, and now I have pushed the draft back to you for further wok. You will see that the notice on the draft instructs you not to remove review messages.

You can always bypass the AFC process, of course you can, but the article as it stands will fail to stay as an article. An editor may move it back to draft space or may simply nominate it for deletion. If you want other opinions please ask for them. They may disagree with me. Fiddle Faddle 19:32, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I want to bypass the AFC but I keep getting this error message "You cannot move a page to this location because the new title has been protected from creation. " why?

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

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

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.

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:Davo 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:Davo, 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, 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.

Fiddle Faddle 19:29, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Christinagirgis! 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! Fiddle Faddle 19:29, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Celestina007 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 music-related topics). 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:

See WP:MUSICBIO, WP:GNG & WP:RS

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:Davo 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:Davo, 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, 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.

Celestina007 20:29, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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.

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 music-related topics). 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:

Here is an analysis of the references for this permalinks version

Source assessment table

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://www.complex.com/music/2013/08/mixtape-premiere-tory-lanez-conflicts-of-my-soul-the-416-story	Advert	Advert	Advert	✘ No
https://hollywoodlife.com/2020/06/30/davo-say-something-video-interview-tory-lanez/	interview with the subject	Gossip column	commentary in addition to advert	✘ No
https://www.miaminewtimes.com/music/interview-with-randb-singer-davo-11650056	interview with the subject	borderline reliable source	commentary in addition to advert	✘ No
http://officemagazine.net/davo-was-meant-spotlight	interview with the subject	tabloid style gossip	pretty much just an interview with the subject	✘ No
https://flaunt.com/content/davo-has-his-own-sound-psychedelic-randb	interview with the subject	tabloid style gossip	just an interview with the subject	✘ No
https://mymixtapez.com/album/22505	By the subject's record label owner	By the subject's record label owner	no mention of the subject	✘ No
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RnMeODGDD_s	youtube cannot be a reference	youtube cannot be a reference	youtube cannot be a reference so signficance is irrelevant	✘ No
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=giVtgpAr5Yw	youtube cannot be a reference	youtube cannot be a reference	youtube cannot be a reference so signficance is irrelevant	✘ No
https://www.billboard.com/articles/columns/hip-hop/9364093/tory-lanez-new-toronto-3-interview	seems to be independent	gossip column style	passing mention of the subject only	✘ No
https://www.complex.com/music/2019/09/davo-tory-lanez-pull-up-video	advert	advert	advert	✘ No
https://www.lyricallemonade.com/p/pull-up-davo-x-tory-lanez	PR piece	PR is never reliable	PR	✘ No
https://www.hotnewhiphop.com/tory-lanez-joins-davo-on-new-song-and-video-pull-up-new-song.1984509.html	PR piece and interview with the subject	PR is never reliable	PR	✘ No
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EU-XYbJEg6Q	youtube cannot be a reference	youtube cannot be a reference	youtube cannot be a reference so signficance is irrelevant	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

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:Davo 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:Davo, 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, 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.

Fiddle Faddle 21:47, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Our role as reviewers is to seek to ensure that an article will not immediately be subject to one of our deletion processes when it is accepted. That is why we push it back to the author. We want to accept articles.

Everyone who has looked at your draft has wanted to find a reason to accept it. People have spent time trying to show you what you need to do, or what is in the way of the draft becoming an article. Our role is to accept a draft if we thing it has a better than 50% chance of surviving an immediate deletion process.

So far everyone has agreed that the gentleman does not pass WP:NMUSIC, at least yet, and at least as the draft is written. So we have each of us prevented the article from being deleted.

No-one here is paid. All of us are volunteers. We are giving our time to you. So far in return you have not been particularly pleasant. We have thick skins. We can take it. But we are also human. Humans react when poked with sharp sticks. Pease stop poking us with sharp sticks. Instead why not try working with people to see of the draft can be accepted.

If Davo is not notable today he will be in a year, if his career takes off. There is no deadline here.

Most important, Wikipedia does not create reputations. It reports on them. Please try to understand that it is an encyclopaedia, not a blog. PR cannot happen here. So please tell us, what's the great hurry? Have you see deadline you have to hit, maybe a promise made, maybe a fee to earn? Or are you just Davo's number one fan? Fiddle Faddle 22:22, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, Davo (Musician), does not have enough sources and citations 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 (specifically WP:NBIO) and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. — IVORK _Talk 06:45, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment, or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. 331dot (talk) 22:51, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Davo (musician) 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/Davo (musician) 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. Fiddle Faddle 07:15, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

as your profile page states "I am not now, have never been, and do not wish to be an administrator here." so leave it to professional Wikipedia staff to consider the submission and stop harassing me and this page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Christinagirgis (talk • contribs) 23:22, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators are volunteer editors who have chosen to take on the hard task of clearing up behind the rest of us, and have been approved by the community to do so. There are a very few Wikimedia Foundation staff, but they tend not to involve themselves in the minutiae of article maintenance in their professional categories.

I am absolutely not harassing you. I have offered you advice, analysed your references and tried very hard to educate you, treating you with calm politeness at every step. The community decides, not an administrator. Any editor may nominate any article for deletion provided they have the reason to do so within our policies here. I have nominated this article for deletion because it is not of the quality that Wikipedia accepts. but, and this is important, the community will decide whether I am correct. Fiddle Faddle 22:43, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are Wikipedia pages for far lesser known artists with citations from every press website available. How can you continue to state an artist with over millions of Youtube views, spotify streams and signed to a major label with 2 of the hottest rappers on their album is not notable? I removed every single piece of Davo's press and instead put third party objective references. How am I supposed to reference that he has a Youtube video with 1.3 million views featuring Tory Lanez if I can't cite the Youtube link or any website that has posted the video? It makes absolutely no sense. I"m literally using citations like Billboard charts and you're saying well maybe it's reliable. I've included citations from direct instagram and twitter links from artists acknowledging the fatherhood of their child or that they've been frequent collaborators. You are being unfair, and the last page I created for Ciera Rogers which was accepted included all press links about her. Check other artist pages and see that citations include magazine and website articles about them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Christinagirgis (talk • contribs) 23:48, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No article on Wikipedia sets a precedent for ay other article. Each stands or falls on its own merits. There are many inferior articles on Wikipedia. In time they either get deleted or improved, depending on whether the subject has gained suitable referencing and/or notability.

Please read WP:42.

I'm very happy to have a look at Ciera Rogers in due course. Fiddle Faddle 22:59, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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 Davo (musician). Otherwise, it may be difficult to create consensus. If you oppose the deletion of an article, please comment at the respective page instead. Thank you. Fiddle Faddle 22:28, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Christinagirgis. The nature of your edits, such as the one you made to Davo (musician), gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not, and is an especially serious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat search-engine optimization.

Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists. If the article does not exist, paid advocates are extremely 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, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:Christinagirgis. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Christinagirgis|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, do not edit further until you answer this message. Fiddle Faddle 17:11, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Christinagirgis. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Davo, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. Bot0612 (talk) 22:53, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Christinagirgis. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Davo".

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 deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:17, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Dawn Dickson, 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. PRAXIDICAE🌈 23:39, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, Christinagirgis. I have been informed that the article is no longer up for speedy deletion. It has nevertheless been criticized for looking like advertising. If you could make it sound a bit more neutral, that might help.--Ipigott (talk) 16:27, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning if you make any further edits without responding to the inquiry you received regarding undisclosed paid editing. PRAXIDICAE🌈 23:46, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because your account is being used only for advertising or promotion.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  --Blablubbs (talk) 14:10, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm just seeing these comments. I became a fan of Dawn after watching her interview on the Breakfast Club and saw she didn't have a Wikipedia. I've created a couple pages in the past. I edited it so it didn't sound like a bio/resume although some of the places I pulled info from sounded like that. It has been edited. I do not know Dawn personally nor have I been paid anything. I'm not a paid writer. I just wanted more people to become familiar with her work in the tech community Christinagirgis (talk) 20:24, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but given your history of promotional editing, combined with this and some off-wiki indicators, I am not willing to lift the block. You may appeal it using the unblock procedure outlined above, if you wish. --Blablubbs (talk) 10:10, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

what is promotional editing? You make these accusations out of nowhere. You have no proof that I've been paid by anyone to write anything. You have nothing to substantiate anything you're accusing me of, you just have nothing better to do than harass people trying to contribute noteworthy people to Wikipedia. Because over the course of 5 years I've created pages for maybe 2 or 3 people all of which are still up and backed by tremendous press citations? This last page is a woman with like 100 press articles and TV interviews. You're upset I created a page for her and cited everything I researched? Christinagirgis (talk) 20:41, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I've created maybe 3 Wikipedia pages over the course of like 5 years I do not do this for promotional or paid gain but a genuine interest in artists, all the pages I created were cited with numerous third party/press references and all facts were accurate. There is no valid reason to why I'm blocked except some random administrators making "guesses" at why I would create a page. You can't just accuse someone of making a page for money. Anything that sounded "promo" was because I got the information from a site where it may have been written like that. The people whose pages I created deserve pages, they have hundreds of mentions in the press and are notable figures who didn't have Wikipedia pages and I contributed by doing research and adding them. The page I just created for Dawn Dickson was relevant and I did it after I saw her interview on the Breakfast Club as I saw she didn't have a Wikipedia page. I should not be blocked for this Christinagirgis (talk) 15:56, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Wikipedia has articles, not pages. Maybe you are a paid editor and maybe you are not, but I share the concerns of the blocking admin and also see the same indicators. I'd like to know who "we" is to start(in the aforementioned linked message you made). "Hundreds of mentions in the press" is irrelevant; we prefer quality sources over quantity. I'm not comfortable lifting the block. Maybe someone else will, but not me. 331dot (talk) 13:00, 24 August 2022 (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.

So instead you let other people come in to these articles and start making edits that are completely erroneous and un-sourced? Look at the article for Dawn Dickson now. While I spent real time researching this woman putting together a good quality write-up you block me and other people come in to create disinformation? Hundreds of press articles were mentioned because it means that someone may actually deserve an article. Instead it's so hard for you to comprehend that someone would want to contribute to a page/article/whatever without being paid. You guys are jaded. You don't have a quality page for Dawn Dickson now.

Please refer to log comments. MrsSnoozyTurtle 11:41, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]