User talk:Alien Superstar

Neo Rapetsoa moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Neo Rapetsoa, 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. MrsSnoozyTurtle 02:09, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good day MrsSnoozyTurtle. Thank you for your feedback. Could you please assist me further? Do you mean all the sources that I cited are not good enough or do I need to add more references to the one’s I’ve already listed? Alien Superstar (talk) 09:16, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good day @MrsSnoozyTurtle. Thank you for your feedback. Could you please assist me further? Do you mean all the sources that I cited are not good enough or do I need to add more references to the one’s I’ve already listed? Alien Superstar (talk) 09:16, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Neo Rapetsoa moved to draftspace

Thanks for creating Neo Rapetsoa. Unfortunately, it is not ready for publishing because you may have a possible Conflict of Interest and is not suitable as written to remain published. It appears there is a WP:UPE or WP:COI conflict. 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, and have addressed the UPE/COI issue, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. As per WP policy, please do not move into mainspace yourself. . Your article is now a draft where you can improve it undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:57, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Onel5969, on what grounds are you suggesting Alien Superstar is a paid editor? Unless something was purged from the edit history I combed through their contribs and found nothing that suggested it. People create accounts in order to create articles all the time, they aren't all paid editors. (I see that they said "I have noted the conflict of interest", but I think they may not understand what you mean, because I can't see it being noted anywhere, and it's not really something you can "amend".)

E: Well, never mind, the editor said it just now. I'm still curious as to how you knew before that. WPscatter ^t/_c 17:14, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Wpscatter, see here for clarification. (Never mind, you just posted about it). Notice the image of the subject uploaded as "own work" - that might've been a clue. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 17:28, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good day, thank you for your review of the page. Could you please assist me with the verifiability/notability issues that may be in the article? I think the sources I referenced are reliable according to Wikipedia’s guidelines because they are independent of the actress and they have an author and most are mainly about her.

I have noted the conflict of interest and will amend it. Alien Superstar (talk) 16:18, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Paid editing

As previously advised, your edits give the impression you have a financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. You were asked to cease editing until you responded by either stating that you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits, or by complying with the mandatory requirements under the Wikimedia Terms of Use that you disclose your employer, client and affiliation. Again, you can post such a disclosure on your user page at User:Alien Superstar, and the template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Alien Superstar|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. Please respond before making any other edits to Wikipedia. Theroadislong (talk) 17:45, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Theroadislong Hi, I will disclose that I was compensated by the client to write the article about her career and life. After disclosing this, is it advisable to publish the article for review or should I leave it in draft and wait for an editor to advise on the article's progression? Alien Superstar (talk) 18:03, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You can submit the article for review, if you move it to main space again you are likely to be blocked. Paid editing is allowed but barely tolerated by many editors, especially when they take up so much of reviewers time through inexperience. Theroadislong (talk) 18:07, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Probable copyright violation in reference

I was lookinhg at Draft:Neo Rapetsoa, and I noticed that one reference was source to "Google docs". This was immediately suspicious, because "Google Docs" is not a publisher. Anybody can write anything they like and put it on Google docs. One of the most important parts of any reference in a Wikipedia article is to identify the publisher, so that readers (and reviewers) can determine whether the source is reliable or not.

I had a look at the linked document to see who had actually published it - and found it was even worse than I thought. it appears to be a scan of a magazine article. Such a scan is almost certainly a copyright violation: Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and linking to a copyright violation is a no-no. So I have removed the link.

It is possible that that article was published by a reliable publisher, and so can be used (though since it is is moztly based on an interview with Rapetsoa, it is not an independent source, and so cannot contribute to establishing her notability); but without an identified publisher, it is completely worthless as a reference.

I did an internet search for the title and author of the article, but didn't find anything. So I have effectively removed the reference from the draft. If the article is in a magazine that counts as a reliable source, you can save the reference, by giving the actual publisher. Sources do not have to be available online, and a URL is only a convenience for the reader, not an essential part of the citation. As long as a reader can in principle get hold of the source (even if they have to order if through a library) that is enough.

On the other hand, you may decide that, since it is not an independent source, it adds little to the draft and can be removed. Remember that Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources.

I notice that you have an external link in the text (for her grandfather): that is not allowed either: see WP:EL. ColinFine (talk) 19:00, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Neo Rapetsoa

The article Neo Rapetsoa has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Doesn't meet WP:NACTOR, has only had marginal roles so far

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:32, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, @Liz I appreciate the concern you have raised about the article. However, the subject has had substantial roles/work considering the beginning of their career. I have noticed some articles where an entertainer has had one project and their article staying on Wikipedia. Alien Superstar (talk) 17:14, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See other poor quality articles exist for that argument. Theroadislong (talk) 17:33, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Neo Rapetsoa for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Neo Rapetsoa 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/Neo Rapetsoa 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 until the discussion has finished.

Theroadislong (talk) 17:46, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your user page

Thank you for making the required declaration on your user page. However, you got the wrong template, so I have edited your user page - it is not usual to edit another user's user page, but I hope you will take this as a friendly intervention.

To clarify the problems:

You used the template {{connected contributor (paid)}}, which is appropriate for the talk page of the article, not for a user page. I have changed it to the {{paid}} template.
You enclosed the template between <nowiki> and </nowiki>, which has the effect of not calling the template, but just putting the call into the text. (I guess you copied it from somewhere with that). I have removed these.

ColinFine (talk) 21:45, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ColinFine Hi, I really appreciate your assistance. Thank you! Alien Superstar (talk) 04:53, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stalking my edits?

Hello, are you WP:STALKING my edits?

The reason I am concerned is that you've had no involvement with the Anita Natacha Akide article (or any other article outside of Neo Rapetsoa) and have now just popped up to oppose the AFD that I created. MrsSnoozyTurtle 23:40, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No? I was curious to see other articles in the AfD section. It was a coincidence that you were a part of the discussion. Alien Superstar (talk) 23:55, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is it not allowed to participate in AfD discussion you’re a part of? Alien Superstar (talk) 23:58, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is allowed, as long as there is no Wikistalking. I am relieved to hear that this was only a coincidence. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 00:24, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]