User talk:Skiii davis

Hello, I'm Orxenhorf. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that in one of your recent contributions to Ferdinand de Saussure, you cited a link to a source that may not be reliable. Sources considered unreliable should generally not be used to support statements. Information from an unreliable source can be challenged by other editors and removed. Reliable sources are generally those with a reputation for fact-checking and editorial oversight. Self-published material, user-generated content, and certain other outlets such as blogs, wikis, personal websites, and websites or publications with a poor reputation for fact-checking may not meet these standards. If you are unsure about which sources are appropriate, there is a list of sources that are considered generally reliable. Additionally, some WikiProjects have their own lists of sources that are considered reliable for that particular subtopic. If you are still unsure about a source's reliability, you can ask at the reliable sources noticeboard. Thank you. Orxenhorf (talk) 09:09, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

thnx Skiii davis (talk) 09:12, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi, my article was taken from me by the admin saying I have been blocked from editing anymore pages/article. Can you help me get back to being allowed to edit again? Skiii davis (talk) 22:09, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what you're seeing. You are not blocked in any way (There is a link called "block log" at the top of your "Contributions" page.) and there would be a message from the admin who did the account block on this talk page about the block, if they had done one. Ferdinand de Saussure is also still there with nothing else happening to it since my revert. Is there a different page you are talking about? There's probably some sort of problem with that page. Orxenhorf (talk) 22:46, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Yes Nyota Parker. Is a draft I submitted.

On all pages even if I search one. I am only allowed to Source Edit. No visual Edits available. Skiii davis (talk) 23:11, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Draft:Nyota Parker looks like a perfectly normal draft article. The banner at the top is just saying that it has been submitted into the review queue. It says at the top "In the meantime, you can continue to improve this submission by editing normally" and indeed there is nothing preventing me from opening the editing screen on it. No other actions are recorded in its history since you submitted it for review either. One thing I'll say about the draft is that I suspect they'll tell you to use Template:Infobox musical artist at the top of the article for the artist's info instead of the table currently under Career.

Being stuck in source vs visual edit mode is not a thing I've seen, I just click on that icon that looks like a stubby pencil to get the menu to switch between the two modes. Orxenhorf (talk) 02:22, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't know what's going on.

All I can do is edit in the source. I can't even find the Nyota Parker Article. I think someone hacked me and stole the article for personal use. 98.13.96.121 (talk) 02:26, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

Can you not even see it when clicking on the link in my comment? (Draft:Nyota Parker)

"Draft:" pages do not show up in the search results by default, unless you go into the "Search in:" sub-menu, click on "Add namespaces...", and out a checkmark next to "Draft". Orxenhorf (talk) 02:41, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

I can now. I just checked. I think you fixed it somehow. I will edit it throughout the night and fix the errors. Can you review it for me after I fix these errors? Skiii davis (talk) 02:46, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

I'm just a regular user, not a page reviewer, so I can't actually do the review, but I can look at it.

What I was going to say next, if you still had an issue, was that you can post on WP:Help desk to seek general purpose admin or veteran user help when weird stuff starts going on. Orxenhorf (talk) 02:54, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

i'll keep that in mind. And yes please. Have a look at it. And give me feedback. 👍 Skiii davis (talk) 02:57, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

Looking at it again there are two more things I think the reviewer will flag:

• "Google Search" isn't sufficient as a reliable source either. You need to use the page that was found through searching that supports the statement, instead of the search itself.

• WP:BLP, in particular WP:BLPPRIVACY, requires that detail such as dates of birth and parents' names be backed up by a published source.

Orxenhorf (talk) 02:34, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

the problem is. I can't even find the file to fix these problems. Mine reads that only an admin can edit my page not me. But the reason to that I am kept from editing my own page and only an admin can is not stated. That's the problem. And I do wanna add more information. Or review it myself. 98.13.96.121 (talk) 02:39, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Qcne was:

This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject.

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:Nyota Parker 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.

qcne (talk) 16:56, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Skiii davis! 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! qcne (talk) 16:56, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Skiii davis. I read your conversation above. No one has restricted or deleted or hacked the Wikipedia draft you created. There must be issues with your computer or network connection.

I have, however, declined your draft as it is written in an inappropriate promotional tone. Wikipedia is not to be used for advertising, and this is also why we strongly discourage autobiographical writing as it is very hard to be neutral when writing about yourself.

You are free to re-write and re-submit for review if you want. Or, you can ping reply here and I can take another look at any improvements you make. qcne (talk) 16:59, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

the article is not about me.

The article is about Nyota Parker.

Not me.

I do not know Nyota Parker.

She is the first person I've published about,however I am not her promoter or advertise.

Her music is in my playlist, and I wanted to write a Wikipedia for people who ever search her.

When I head her music and searched her, the information wasn't reliable. Which is why I wanted to upload all that body of work into one article and publish it for the world to see her whenever they search for her/music.

And I thought Wikipedia was a platform where credibility, notability and reliability can be considered when trusting yourself with someone's words.

All the information I published is real and not fabricated in my article (DRAFT) .

The published citations and references are from reliable sources whom have published other global artist.

If the there is any other problems with my article (DRAFT), jot those points down for me in a reply.

I will adhere to those corrections I need to make and re-submit a new draft. Skiii davis (talk) 17:14, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks @Skiii davis. I read your reply above where you said "my own page", and I assumed that meant you were the subject of the draft. Apologies for misunderstanding.

Your draft has four issues:

First, and the reason I initially declined the draft: the language used is promotional in tone, and sometimes it is hard to tell where you are quoting a music reviewer or stating something in the Wikipedia voice. I will highlight some problematic words:

She’s caught the attention ... dominating the stage ... delivered a standout All Star performance ... she boldly tackles societal boundaries, fearlessly exploring the complexities of emotional struggles and proudly rejecting the constraints of restrictive systems ... highly inspired ..

A Wikipedia article must be strictly neutral and descriptive in tone, with no hints of promotional words. Check out Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch for a common list of words you should avoid.

Second, you cannot use Google Searches as a source. You need to cite an actual website, magazine, book, newspaper article, etc. You cannot cite a search engine.

Third, most of your references are formatted incorrectly as external links. Please follow the tutorial at Help:Introduction to referencing with VisualEditor/1 which explains how to reference and cite properly.

Fourth, in a biographic article every biographic statement must be accompanied by an in-line citation as the tutorial above. You have a couple of paragraphs in the draft that are uncited.

Hope that helps, qcne (talk) 17:32, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

How do I directly submit my rewritten draft to you? I want you to be the one that accepts this article and move it to the Main Page. Skiii davis (talk) 18:04, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

That isn't how Wikipedia works - everything on Wikipedia is public and you can't submit drafts to particular reviewers. However, if you can address the issues I raised above in the draft, reply here and I will take another look. qcne (talk) 18:15, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

and also there are only two options to adding a link. All the external links are external because the internal links have not be created.

I'm not a music reviewer also and nor am I willing to be. I am a brand new editor of Wikipedia.

The statements are facts! I am not a promoter nor do I wish to promote anything.

I cannot change how you view my reading, but I can't write please you and the system. I can only adhere to the rules which I did. The tone you are referring to as "promotional'' is non existant. Unless you would like to send me an example of what my paragraph should align with,I don't see anything wrong with my tone. Because I didn't intend to promote her, however if your mind registers it in such a manner then you need to do a deep dive on what promotional writing it.

Thank you. Skiii davis (talk) 18:19, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi again @Skiii davis.

If no Wikipedia article exists, then you shouldn't link to it as an external link. You can use a redlink instead. If you were trying to cite, then follow that citing tutorial I linked to above to convert any external links to in-line citations. Wikipedia has formatting rules you need to follow.

I did not disagree that the statements in the draft are or are not facts, but you must write them in a neutral way. Wikipedia uses formal, descriptive, neutral language that you must use: it is one of our rules.

For example, positions herself as a non-conformist, captivating the hearts and minds of those who appreciate her uncompromising artistic approach is pure promotion and must not be written on Wikipedia. qcne (talk) 18:24, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

I don't know her. Those do called promotional statements are from the sources you neglected to refer to otherwise you'd see that exact statement in the Glalour Magazine. The one and only Glalour Magazine. AKA the American Glamour Magazine. Written by American Auditors. Not me!

And as an editor I prefere using the external links because it's optional,( so deal with it). Otherwise I won't redline anything. Skiii davis (talk) 18:34, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Not sure why you are being a bit aggressive, I am trying to help. External links in the body of an article is not permitted, see Wikipedia:External links. Just remove them from the draft and you've instantly solved one of the barriers for publication.

If that sentence is a quote from a source, you need to cite and format it as a quote. Currently all you have is a citation to a random Google Search. qcne (talk) 18:37, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

I am not being aggressive I'm just doing my job as a new editor learning about editing with you. I will love all the externals to the external area. And redline the needed. What other barriers did you notice? Skiii davis (talk) 18:44, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

See my four points above. If you can address each one, which will require quite a lot of work and probably a re-write of the draft, let me know and I will take another look. qcne (talk) 18:47, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

I will re-submit the article.

With changes I see fit.

I would want you to review it and approve it, is that okay? Skiii davis (talk) 18:53, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

As I said, I can't guarantee I will review it. The easiest thing is for you to make changes then reply here to tell me you have, and I will take another look. qcne (talk) 18:54, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

👍 Skiii davis (talk) 19:18, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

how are u. i've been trying to add a redlink to the article since, the codes are not working. it keeps adding an external link instead. can u help? Skiii davis (talk) 21:36, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Skiii davis. I see no contributions in your history adding redlinks to existing articles? qcne (talk) 11:18, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

I don't know how to add it. The instructions didn't work. Skiii davis (talk) 11:24, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

In the visual editor, you would just select the text you want to redlink, click the Link button, and then type in the name of the non-existent article under the Wikipedia tab, then press Enter. This will insert a redlink into the highlighted text. qcne (talk) 11:26, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

okay. I'll do that. Skiii davis (talk) 11:27, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Hey Skiii davis. Please be careful moving a draft to the mainspace. Your Nyota Parker article was moved to the Template, Portal, and Wikipedia spaces; it shouldn't go in any of those places. You can move it directly to the mainspace, but I would be careful bypassing the draft system, as it could get deleted instead of just being denied. Thanks, win8x (talk) 02:29, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

what should I do now? I don't know how to move it to main space. Please help?? Skiii davis (talk) 02:31, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

I have made a request to clean up the mess. When it's done, you can try moving it again by picking "(Article)" from the dropdown instead of "Wikipedia". However, again, I would advise against doing so. You should try to get your article accepted beforehand. win8x (talk) 02:34, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

who can i contact to accept my article? Skiii davis (talk) 02:39, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Well, you submitted a review, you just have to wait. But I can tell you already that you don't have any reliable sources showing notability. Her own website doesn't work, Wikipedia doesn't work, Spotify and Instagram don't either (they're social networks). It leaves Nike, which is just a one liner, same for Glamour. The only source showing notability is from Hype Magazine, and one source is not enough to meet the notability guidelines.

It can't be reviewed right now, because it's not a draft, but it will get denied. And that's okay, but you have to put more work finding good reliable, independent sources. win8x (talk) 02:53, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

okay. When will it be moved to the draft? Skiii davis (talk) 02:54, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

tje sources cited there are all that she has. And all the red links are reliable. Just go and Google it. Skiii davis (talk) 02:55, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

thank you for cleaning up the mess Skiii davis (talk) 02:39, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Apple Music, Collect Everything Collective, Rolling Stone,Slikour On Life, Canvas Rebel, Ear Milk, Le Phoque Off, Glamour Magazine. All wrote about her and have published her on multiple occasions. Is that not good enough sources. They are all famous sources just like the ones Rihanna has. Skiii davis (talk) 03:01, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Looking at the reference list, only Hype Magazine is noteworthy. Most of what you listed aren't in the article.

To answer some of your questions above:

The article will be moved back to the draft when an administrator gets to it.

Red links don't matter for notability. You should read WP:NMUSIC. win8x (talk) 03:04, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

What is there is true. I can't lie and add things(non-existing) sources for the sake of acceptance. Just let them review it and then we'll see what to do next. Thank again. Skiii davis (talk) 03:05, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, no problem. Have a good one. win8x (talk) 03:06, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

thnx. Skiii davis (talk) 03:07, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

The page is back. How do I move it to the main space myself? Skiii davis (talk) 03:14, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Is it even possible?? Skiii davis (talk) 03:14, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

@Skiii davis If you moved it to mainspace it would likely be deleted as a non-notable person. qcne (talk) 16:04, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Okay. When I'm done I'll let you know. Skiii davis (talk) 05:44, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

The page Portal:Nyota Parker has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This was done for the following reason:

inappropriate redirect to what will be draftspace

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.

Please do not recreate the material without addressing these concerns, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you think this page should not have been deleted for this reason, or you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 03:11, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by HwyNerd Mike was:

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.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

Use of primary and unreliable sources. The use of Spotify is highly discouraged as it is a place where a lot of self-promotion happens, and "nyotaparker.com" is unreliable due to it being a primary source.

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:Nyota Parker 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.

HwyNerd Mike (t | c) 03:59, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

hi mike, the artist in question is another among alot of artist whom I am a fan of and frequently we speak about music and other art we are involved in. The primary sources are all that Nyota Parker has available you can check the whole internet. And the primary sources also only have themselves as reliable sources. They are not super famous brands or names in the industry, so you can not expect them to provide secondary or more sources with a known reputation. The sources provided are independent company whom are not close to the artist, I have a source whom provided that info. I read a lot of articles published by other people on Wikipedia and saw that a lot of these articles about up and coming musicians have only one if no reliable sources and if the sources was provided it was also a primary with no secondary info or publishing. I think my article is being treated with hostility, prejudice , and discrimination or sorts by the executives and administration. Because all that was required is listed just like other had to obtain and submit. I don't know why my lack of secondary sources is preventing my article from being available to those whom need it in the public as well as fans of the artists. I meet all the primary requirements for the template, I cannot wait untill the primary sources decide to develop a secondary sources for themselves. Nobody has that power the artist is an individual and independent just like those who wrote about her as they saw fit in the tone they chose to use. I am not responsible for how they decided to write about her, I am responsible for my article and I do not see a fair reason why my writing is not approved.

Please re-think your decision and approve my article or get me in contact with someone who can override your decision because what you are asking for are things we don't have control over, Thank you. Skiii davis (talk) 18:05, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Hey there, I just want to clarify that I do not discriminate when reviewing articles, and other reviewers will not override my decision because you believe this draft is worthy of being an article – we review based on whether or not the draft meets the Wikipedia criteria of being an article.

Otherwise, the main thing that I’m concerned about is the overwhelming use of Spotify as a source. If you read WP:BLP, there is a strict requirement of inline citations. Generally, primary sources are acceptable, yet I see that this draft uses Spotify as a source way too much. BLPs usually require all information to be verifiable and neutral, yet there is usually a lot of promotion on Spotify.

What I suggest doing to make your draft worthy of being an article – refrain from using primary sources like Spotify. Take the time to find reports and magazines and use these as sources instead. This will greatly help getting the draft accepted. Regards, HwyNerd Mike (t | c) 19:16, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

spotify is a streaming platform where all her music is publish to her listens. So ofcoz we will use that and relay that information to her fans. Every real artist has a streaming platform. You are concerned about the wrong thing here. The over use of Spotify is evidence that she is a real artist being marketed by real established companies. If she was allow to self promote of Spotify she would be bigger then yout favorite artists so stop being stupid. Spotify is her company of choice to deal with if you have personal problems with her primary sources then go and read these links you sent to me and make sure you follow the criteria. Because you are not being fair you and whoever is allowed to approve these articles. Skiii davis (talk) 19:21, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

You see, the key point is that her information page is hers. She writes whatever she wants on her information page, and chances are, she will promote herself and possibly add false information. This example is not limited to her only; this is the case for about every artist with an Spotify page. Again, Wikipedia is not a place to promote someone. I would instead say that if she is notable (not implying that she isn’t), media and magazines should cover her and provide information about her. Regards, HwyNerd Mike (t | c) 19:32, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

go and read Glorilla's page. She uses her own website as well. And that is already published. Stop being unfair asshole. Skiii davis (talk) 19:33, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

What makes GloRilla’s page different from yours is this: most of GloRilla’s information comes from secondary sources, like reports or magazines. Grab references 12 and 16 for example – they come from Billboard, which is independent, secondary, and therefore reliable. I don’t see sources of similar quality in you draft.

I would also like to remind you of a policy on personal attacks. Regards, HwyNerd Mike (t | c) 19:43, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

you don't understand music. You don't need a billboard chart to be a real artist, you're an inpathenic piece of trash. You are marginalizing Nyota Parker.

When will you get a song on Billboard, we'll do it when we see your name on there. Skiii davis (talk) 18:46, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

By Billboard, I mean the magazine, not any of the affiliated charts. Reaching the charts has never been a Wikipedia guideline for notability, and I believe that the subject does meet the notability criteria. The magazine serves as an example of an independent, secondary source, which is not what Spotify is. Again, Spotify is a primary source, and Wikipedia is not a place to promote somebody, even if you don't intend to. Also, please do not harass or use language like "inpathenic piece of trash". HwyNerd Mike (t | c) 07:19, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by MurielMary 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 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 it after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Nyota Parker 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.

MurielMary (talk) 04:44, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi,what is the clear reason why Nyota Parker's page is rejected? ~2026-37641-6 (talk) 05:12, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello, Skiii davis. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Nyota Parker, a page you created, has not been edited in at least five months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 13:06, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Nyota Parker is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article is being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nyota Parker until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may still edit the article, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the AfD notice from the article until the discussion is closed.

🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 22:34, 4 July 2026 (UTC)