User talk:Darkm777

Welcome!

Hello, Darkm777!

Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Getting Started

Tutorial
Learn everything you need to know to get started.

Introduction to contributing

The Teahouse
Ask questions and get help from experienced editors.

The Task Center
Learn what Wikipedians do and discover how to help.

Tips

Don't be afraid to edit! Just find something that can be improved and make it better. Other editors will help fix any mistakes you make.
It's normal to feel a little overwhelmed, but don't worry if you don't understand everything at first—it's fine to edit using common sense.
If an edit you make is reverted, you can discuss the issue at the article's talk page. Be civil, and don't restore the edit unless there is consensus.
Always use edit summaries to explain your changes.
When adding new content to an article, always include a citation to a reliable source.
If you wish to edit about a subject with which you are affiliated, read our conflict of interest guide and disclose your connection.
Have fun! Your presence in the Wikipedia community is welcome.

Happy editing! Cheers, Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:46, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practices;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

—Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:32, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sangdeboeuf what exactly are you referring to? did I do something I was not supposed to? Please be more specific. Darkm777 (talk) 01:56, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As stated above, the message does not mean there are any problems with your editing. It's just an FYI. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:33, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

Carol Cady

added a link pointing to Los Alamos

Lynn Bjorklund

added a link pointing to Los Alamos

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 19:58, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

oh sorry about that! Darkm777 (talk) 20:16, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AfD discussions

Hi Darkm777. There is a great need for more participants in deletion discussions, and every editor is welcome. But the speed with which you're contributing caught my attention – only a minute passed between your edits to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Capital Crime Writers and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Macon City Council and between your edits to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/INAT and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MyRepublic. In my experience, that's an extraordinarily short time to read an article, review its sources, and search for more sources if the ones in the article are insufficient. If you want to contribute helpfully in this area (again, more contributors are needed!), I'd suggest that you read (or re-read) the advice about contributing to AfD discussions. Regards, PrinceTortoise (he/him • poke) 02:30, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've generally tried to invest more time in these reviews, but for this case I quickly conducted a Google News search and looked at existing sources to confirm notability. For example, I found that "Macon City Council" didn't have any in-depth articles in Google News or on the first few pages of Google results, and checking took less than a minute. While three other individuals had already voted for deletion, I believed the decision was appropriate and didn't require further investigation. I usually dedicate more time when I'm the first to vote and no other viewpoints are provided, but here, the arguments presented by others made the decision much quicker. If you feel I've made any incorrect votes, please feel free to critique me, but I stand by my actions and the speed with which I voted. Darkm777 (talk) 02:45, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No critiques on the basis of correctness—your !votes are fairly accurate. The only thing I'd note is that the billboard source you cited at the Dophin Records AfD is labeled as a "Billboard Advertising Supplement". Otherwise, you seem to know what you're doing, so I'll stop bothering you about it. Happy editing. — PrinceTortoise (he/him • poke) 03:19, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@PrinceTortoise Thanks. Wow good catch on the Billboard. That was in tiny print on the side. I struggled to find it at first, but I still feel there is probably much more out there on Dophin Records in print media, not online. Darkm777 (talk) 03:10, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They really didn’t make it obvious that it was an ad. Your not noticing is their fault for hiding the information. Looking at the discussion as a whole: The argument in favor of keeping has strong support, and while I may disagree, it is a reasonable position to take. PrinceTortoise (he/him • poke) 04:57, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Olympics of AfD

I know you are still fairly new, but there is an extremely strong consensus that Olympics medal winners are automatically notable. There's lots of stubs out there to nominate that are clearly run of the mill athletes, tech companies, hotels, Court cases, and news stories. Bearian (talk) 04:28, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NSPORT does not state that Olympic Medal Winners are automatically qualified. Rowing does not have its own policy, but some sports such as track and field do and state that "Significant coverage is likely to exist for athletes who compete in the field of athletics if they meet any of the criteria below." One of the criteria is to have Top 8 placement in a major competition, but even then we need to have significant news coverage. If you can point me out to any specific policy that states Olympic medal winners automatically qualify, I would appreciate it.

I really think that there should be such policy myself, but just following the WIkipedia guidelines. Darkm777 (talk) 01:31, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Continually nominating articles for deletion against consensus is regarded as disruptive editing. The outcome of disruptive editing is a block. Just so that you are aware. Schwede 66 06:02, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't "Continually nominating articles for deletion" for any athlete with any Olympics wins after someone told me they think Olympic winners are automatically qualified, although no one has yet showed me where and how this has become an consensus? was it discussed some place?Could you please link any info you have on it?

It seems the policy used to be that Olympics winners automatically qualify, but it was later changed to "Significant coverage is likely to exist for athletes who compete in the field of athletics if they meet any of the criteria below." Meaning they still need significant coverage to qualify. However, many editors are not aware that this change has happened.

Please check this 2021 version of the policies, so you can see what I am talking about. Darkm777 (talk) 18:37, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for being such an awesome contributor! Maduka Jayalath (talk) 04:40, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Mita Gami (June 3)

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

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.

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:

Source 2 is a primary source. The rest, except for source 1, are all passing mentions. Please add more sources with SIGGCOV.

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 after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Mita Gami and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 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.

—👑PRINCE of EREBOR📜 03:16, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Darkm777! Having an article draft 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! —👑PRINCE of EREBOR📜 03:16, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

VFL/AFL players

Hi. Can I just confirm what steps you're taking (per WP:BEFORE) prior to these nominations? (It was noticeable that there were only several minutes between a bunch of these noms). Which newspaper archives for example do you check? Your AfD rationale of "Could not find coverage on him other than the stats and a book mention already listed" for Charlie Newman (Australian footballer) would indicate you just chucked his name through google? Jevansen (talk) 02:15, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I check Google, Newspapers.com and Google Books. Are there any other sources you know of to check? Darkm777 (talk) 21:34, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]