User talk:JeffJohnson123
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Welcome!
Hi JeffJohnson123! 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:
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:
If you are not sure where to help out, try the "Suggested edits" module top left on your homepage, or you can always find a task here:
Happy editing! All the Best -- Chuck Talk 23:21, 11 January 2026 (UTC)
Notice
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing a page's content back to how you believe it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree with your changes. Please stop editing the page and use the talk page to work toward creating a version of the page that represents consensus among the editors involved. Wikipedia provides a page explaining how this is accomplished. If discussions reach an impasse, you can request help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution such as a third opinion. In some cases, you may wish to request page protection while a discussion to resolve the dispute is ongoing.
If you continue edit warring, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, or whether it involves the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also, please keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule— if things indicate that you intend to continue reverting content on the page. DoubleCross (‡) 16:35, 15 January 2026 (UTC)
Nomination of Mr. Irrelevant (film) for deletion
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mr. Irrelevant (film) 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.Welcome!
Hello, JeffJohnson123, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions.
I noticed that one of the first articles you created or edited appears to be dealing with a topic with which you may have a conflict of interest. In other words, you may find it difficult to write about that topic in a neutral and objective way, because you are, work for, or represent, the subject of that article. Your recent contributions may have already been undone for this very reason.
To reduce the chances of your contributions being undone, you might like to draft your revised article before submission, which will be reviewed by other editors. See our help page on userspace drafts for more details. If the page you created has already been deleted from Wikipedia, but you want to save the content from it to use for that draft, don't hesitate to ask anyone from this list and they will copy it to your user page.
One rule we do have in connection with conflicts of interest is that accounts used by more than one person will unfortunately be blocked from editing. Wikipedia generally does not allow editors to have usernames which imply that the account belongs to a company or corporation. If you have a username like this, you should request a change of username or create a new account. (A name that identifies the user as an individual within a given organization may be OK.)
In addition, if you receive, or expect to receive, compensation for any contribution you make, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation to comply with our terms of use and our policy on paid editing.
Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- Best practices for editors with close associations
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- Contributing to Wikipedia
- Tutorial
- How to edit a page and How to develop articles
- How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
- Simplified Manual of Style
- The Teahouse, our help forum for new editors
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, visit the Teahouse, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{Help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:57, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
Mr. Irrelevant
I wanted to give you some general notes on this, to explain what's going on and why it was nominated for deletion.
Right now the article does not pass notability guidelines. To pass notability guidelines the article has to establish notability via one of two ways:
- That the film has received reviews in independent, reliable secondary sources, ideally along with coverage of the film's production and release. (General NFILM criteria.)
- That the film's production is so notable that if the film were to never release, it could still pass NFILM via copious amounts of coverage. This is only applicable if principal photography had commenced. (Specifically NFF.)
Establishing notability via either option is difficult, but NFF is especially hard to establish. Most films do not have notable productions, as the coverage for these is usually nonexistent and when it does exist, is fairly brief and often based on press releases. You also have to be careful as not all coverage is considered reliable on Wikipedia.
For example, the Investors Hangout source is not going to be seen as reliable on Wikipedia. Their editorial process is unclear. For example, the site says that they do not accept AI generated content, however the article in question reads very much like it was written by AI. I ran it through a few detectors and sure enough, it was flagged as 100% AI on all of them. It also doesn't help that they allow people to post guest posts for a fee.
The source from Licensing International is a press release. At best this would be a WP:PRIMARY source since it was written by someone paid by the film crew to promote the movie. You could use it to back up very basic, non-controversial details but that's about it.
Something else I noticed was that the article was written in a fairly promotional manner. To this end, if you are someone who was paid or otherwise asked to create/edit the article for the film crew, you must disclose your COI. The writing comes across like it was written by a marketing person. The style is one that wouldn't be so terrible off Wikipedia, but on Wikipedia it comes across as fairly promotional and non-neutral. I highly recommend reviewing the WP:COI guidelines. I have left a message about that on your talk page as well. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:58, 24 January 2026 (UTC)