User talk:Midwifecrisis

Proposed deletion of Nicholas Kalikow

Hello, Midwifecrisis. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, Nicholas Kalikow, for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:

edit the page
remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}}
save the page

Also, be sure to explain why you think the article should be kept in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you don't do so, it may be deleted later anyway.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.

_signed,Rosguill^talk 04:32, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Kalikow moved to draftspace

I saw that you added more citations to Nicholas Kalikow, thank you for working to improve the article. Unfortunately, the additional citations you provided are not sufficient to demonstrate notability. Interviews are generally not considered reliable sources, as they rely too much on direct information from the subject. Meanwhile, the LA Times citation merely mentions Kalikow's name but does not discuss him in-depth, and thus is insufficient to establish his notability (although it would probably be a decent source for an article about the film that it was reviewing). I see that one of his films won an award, which could potentially justify notability per WP:CREATIVE--unfortunately, the "Sunscreen Film Festival" does not appear to be a notable enough festival for its Jury Prize award to demonstrate the subject's notability (although if several similar caliber awards were won, you could potentially make a case for him).

Thus, the article still needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?)

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. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:27, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A page you started (Virternity) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Virternity, Midwifecrisis!

Wikipedia editor Doomsdayer520 just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Thanks for your new article on Virternity. Note that the article is currently an "orphan", meaning that no other Wikipedia articles link TO it. This makes the article hard to find for interested readers. See WP:DE-ORPHAN for pointers. Good luck.

To reply, leave a comment on Doomsdayer520's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:57, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Proof-of-authority

The article Proof-of-authority has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Literally entirely self-cites and crypto sites. Has never had an RS. WP:BEFORE suggests negligible prospects of one.

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. David Gerard (talk) 19:50, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

February 2020

Hello Midwifecrisis. The nature of your edits 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 egregious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat SEO.

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, and if it does not, 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:Midwifecrisis. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Midwifecrisis|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. Praxidicae (talk) 15:29, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

– bradv🍁 16:04, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]