User talk:Lemongirl942

Lemongirl942, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Lemongirl942! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Soni (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the Teahouse This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 17:26, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

December 2015

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Calvin Cheng. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Mdann52 (talk) 17:42, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi @Mdann52: Just to let you know that I reverted these 2 edits [1], [2] since a lot of reliably cited content (which was added after a discussion on the talk page) was removed. And after each of these 2 edits I posted on the talk page and after the second revert I did not revert any further. If you look at the history of the article [3] , there seems to have been a chain of such removal of content within the last few hours, in particular reliably cited content [4],[5],[6], [7], [8]. There has also been a violation of 3RR rule by one user who removed a large chunk of content (see the last 3 links) and has previously been warned about edit warring on the same article. I'm not sure how to deal with this. Should I seek dispute resolution?  --Lemongirl942 (talk) 18:08, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

That would be a good step. For reference, I am not assuming any bad faith here, I just delivered this notice to everyone involved in the dispute. Mdann52 (talk) 18:33, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

February 2016

Hi 'Lemongirl942" Being a Singaporean you need to take care of yourself when editing because the ISD has been known to trace IPS to real life people. Good luck. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.100.132.155 (talk) 08:46, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi! Sorry, what do you mean by IPS and ISD?  Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:33, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Internal security department. IP addresses — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.100.132.155 (talk) 10:39, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi! Sorry, I still don't understand what you are trying to say. Do you want me to add the statement/quotation to any article? Please mention any suggested edits on the talk page of the article and cite your sources. The statement you wrote does not have any citations.  Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:58, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

I see you you are editing the pages of Singapore political people. Please google Internal Security Department and detentions. They can trace you. You seem very young. Do your parents know what you are doing? Please be careful 14.100.132.155 (talk) 12:45, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. I still do not understand the purpose behind tracing me. Just to let you know, Wikipedia is a collaborative project which can be edited by anyone. Even you! Even if you are not an adult.  Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:14, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Now I am sure you are very young. In Singapore it is dangerous to offend people aligned to the ruling party in Singapore especially political figures. Don't get yourself and your family into trouble . Please talk to your parents. It is not worth wikipedia. 14.100.132.155 (talk) 15:03, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but who have I supposedly offended and how? And why is it dangerous to edit Wikipedia? Wikipedia is a knowledge base which relies on volunteers.  Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:13, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't wanna name names because I don't wanna be traced either. Just be careful editing the pages of real life politicians in Singapore. People are watching. You can continue to edit Miss Universe etc but just ask your parents before you go playing with the pages of Singapore politicians pages 14.100.132.155 (talk) 15:36, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Well if you cannot name even a single person I am supposedly offending, I have to conclude that I am offending none. In addition, Wikipedia is transparent and open to scrutiny.  Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:09, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

How many politicians pages are you editing???? This is not about Wikipedia. This is about your real life Anyway I am not your parent. If you don't take my concern it is ok. Good day 14.100.132.155 (talk) 16:24, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Okay, enough. Go away. You are also traceable by all means. These messages are beyond weird and bordering to WP:NPA and WP:COI. You are nobody's parent, so I suggest you stop this now and walk away. This is highly unnecessary. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 20:43, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

(removed misuse of template)2406:3003:3049:2:60C:CEFF:FEDB:9328 (talk) 09:03, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi, please provide evidence of the vandalism I have done. The content I removed was not about Cheng. It was about Lumina-Looque. You can place that content in a new article about Lumina Looque if you wish, but it does not belong to an article about Cheng. In addition, the content violated a guideline which I mentioned in the edit. Thank You.  Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:24, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

(removed misuse of template) — Preceding unsigned comment added by RobotRat (talk • contribs) 14:47, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

@RobotRat:Hi, before accusing me of disruptive editing, please give diffs and tell me how it is disruptive. I would take this opportunity to let you know about your latest edits. Your edit [9] reinserts a statement which is an example of WP:SYNTH and possibly violates WP:NOR. In addition, you did another edit [10] which you summarized as an "old better version" inserts a new section with the line "Please log on to http://www.nafa.edu.sg/admissions/admission-information". I fail to understand how is this an old better version since the content just pastes a link. I had removed it according to WP:LINKFARM. I would take this opportunity to request you to please undo your edits. If you feel you have a strong reason why your edits are correct, please post them here along with the evidence that it is not violating the policies/guidelines I mentioned. Thank You.  Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:11, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Instead of deleting the link, you should be replacing it with the entry requirements from the link. The sentence you deleted from NMP follows from the previous sentence and it is sourced RobotRat (talk) 17:15, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

@RobotRat:"you should be replacing it with the entry requirements from the link" Alright, so basically according to you, I should have deleted the link and then inserted the entry requirements from that link. OK, so what I did was that I deleted the link according to WP:LINKFARM. Now the next logical step would have been to insert the material from the link. You could have inserted the material too right? Instead of reverting and bringing back the link and violating WP:LINKFARM?  Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:21, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

You deleted it so it is your responsibility to replace it with the material the link points towards. Not mine. RobotRat (talk) 17:35, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

@RobotRat: When you restored the material, it was an instance of WP:LINKFARM. In addition, if you did not notice, I had cleaned an orphan reference. You brought it back for no reason and increased clutter in the article. Please review your own edits before accusing others of "vandalism" or "trolling".  Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:53, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Note

You may want to have a look at WP:SPI in case you have anything, like some evidence, to add where it matters. Feel free to delete my message once you've read it. LjL (talk) 15:52, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. I will keep monitoring the page for any suspected activity. Just in case I do find some evidence of any renewed sock activity, should I post it on the current ANI report or report it directly at WP:SPI? (Asking this, since I want to avoid making multiple reports).  Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:38, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

SPI will be better, because people with an actual ability to verify if sockpuppetry is taking place are more likely to monitor that place. LjL (talk) 18:16, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Lemongirl, I would suggest asking for a temporary page protection. You've had three socks randomly appear on your talk page and possibly a fourth one, which I have since reverted. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 00:58, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and semi-protected this page for 2 weeks. Please let me know if you would prefer the protection removed. SQL^{Query me!} 10:27, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

@SQL: Thank you for protecting it! I prefer to let it be semi-protected for a while.  Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:54, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

@Callmemirela and LjL: Thank you once again for your support! It is OK to close the ANI. Apologies for not being able to reply earlier. I took a short break from editing. Hoping no more socks disturb me in the future.  Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:58, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Robert Lee (actor), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chinese (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:25, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Hi, I'm Vanjagenije. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, In Love With Shah Rukh Khan - The Book, and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you. Vanjagenije (talk) 19:43, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

@Vanjagenije:, No problem. Apologies for my oversight. I didn't realise that WP:A7 is not applicable to books. Lemongirl942 (talk) 19:49, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion should be avoided from your end next time.

Speedy deletion Danish Mehraj, a wrong step taken by you. Don't do it again. The work mentioned in that article is real. I have added the references also. Don't delete it otherwise my pet bird will bite you Danish Mehraj 02:05, 11 March 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danish.mehraj26 (talk • contribs)

@Danish.mehraj26: Thank you for creating the article. Unfortunately, the subject of the article does not seem to be notable enough to warrant a separate article. Please read WP:BIO. In addition, it seems the subject of the article is yourself. Wikipedia does not encourage people to write autobiographies (see WP:AUTO) since there could be a potential conflict of interest (see WP:COI). In addition, please do not remove the speedy deletion template since you are the creator of the article. I have restored it as of now. Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:38, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Lemongirl942, I stumbled across the article randomly, and noticed the AfD entry was redlinked. As in it doesn't exist. Thought I'd give you a heads up. :)

When you nominate an article, you have to write why you think the article should be deleted. If you want to get an idea of how to format it, look at any of the current AfD discussions and copy/paste the material, changing what is appropriate and relevant to Danesh Mehraj. Just click the redlink in the template to create the page/nomination entry.

Good job on nominating it though. References are mostly YouTube videos, and the others probably don't qualify as RS; I don't think it meets the requirements of GNG or BIO. Quinto Simmaco (talk) 09:51, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

@Quinto Simmaco: Hi! I believe the created the AfD entry. Do you mean this entry Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Danish_Mehraj or is it something else I am missing? Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:59, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Ah, there it is! Well, it appears something went awry with the markup in the template, as it doesn't connect to the nomination entry; it shows it as redlinked. Looking on the Wikiproject, it shows up in the list of current AfD discussions, so the error is just localised to the link on the article itself. Not sure exactly how that happened. I'll correct it for you, so that it redirects to the page. No worries. :) Quinto Simmaco (talk) 10:06, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Nevermind, it seems to be bluelinked now. I promise it wasn't just fifteen minutes ago; I reloaded the page a couple of times, and looked on another browser, so I know it wasn't my imagination. Must have just been some weird (temporary) glitch. Nevermind! Quinto Simmaco (talk) 10:10, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

@Quinto Simmaco: No worries! Thank you so much for your help. The funny thing is I experienced a similar glitch. The sockpuppet template you placed on the user's page had a red link for the sockpuppet investigation page (even though I refreshed the page twice). Weirdly, when I clicked on the (red) link it was working and linking to the correct page. I guess it could be temporary wikipedia issue or maybe a browser caching thing. Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:05, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

No problem. :) Weird, indeed. Beyond my ken. Honestly though, I'm a bit more surprised that something like this doesn't happen a bit more often. When I was a more active (than I am presently) on the help channel/Articles for Creation, we experienced something nearly every day related to gadgets, integrated tools, or scripts (including the AfC Helper Script itself) going down, malfunctioning, or otherwise acting wonky. Most people wouldn't have noticed unless they were a reviewer or an administrator, but that's pretty much a typical day for WMF Labs. Thankfully, such things rarely affect the functionality of the main site.

Also, while I said it before, it's worth noting again... You did quite well with this whole ordeal, especially for a new-ish editor. Disruptive editors and cleanup can by trying, and you did so with grace and expertise. Drm310 and Ljl deserve their kudos too. Just nice to see everything handled so professionally, all around. :) Quinto Simmaco (talk) 04:47, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Glad I could help, and good work to you both as well. Cheers. --Drm310 (talk) 05:17, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

• (talk page stalker) On the subject of those unusual redlinks, I've seen this kind of thing a bit, and it has something to do with transclusions getting caught in the server cache, when this happens, the best thing to do is purge the page cache, and the server rebuilds it (this time with the blue link). -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 20:38, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Just a little something for all the work you have done. XD

MageLam (talk) 11:12, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

@MageLam: Thank you so much for this! :) I hope I can contribute more. -- Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:11, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

SG GEO Rename List

1. YFixed Bras Basah Road article is about the road itself. The article about the precinct is at Bras Basah. Hatnotes might need to be provided.
2. YFixed Changi Village restored (as article was originally about the Changi Village neighbourhood and not the 2014 URA planning area.

--Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:44, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

why you deleted my created page?

what happend? Adolf Hasan (talk) 18:46, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

@Adolf Hasan: Hi! Thank you for creating the page. It seems the article subject is an actor. For an article to be accepted in Wikipedia, the subject must be notable. In this case, for an actor, please read WP:NACTOR. (For general notability about a person you can also read this WP:BIO). I felt that the subject of the article is not notable enough to be on wikipedia. In addition, please add references to the article so that we can verify whether the facts mentioned are true. Thank You. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 18:51, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

I need some time to Enter his full bio. At this moment I don't have enough time to fix this. if I do this tomorrow it will be ok? Adolf Hasan (talk) 18:56, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

@Adolf Hasan: Hi, you can take your time. But in that case, you should use the sandbox to edit (see Wikipedia:Tutorial/Editing/sandbox and use the link in the last line). Your article is currently in the main article space and can be deleted anytime unfortunately. Also, are you by any chance related to the subject of the article? (family, employer of the actor?) Lemongirl942 (talk) 19:01, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

@Adolf Hasan: Next time you should start an article like this in Draft space (like Draft:Mahmudul Hasan Rahat), but honestly, judging from a cursory Google search, I don't think this actor is nearly notable enough to have an article on Wikipedia. Also, if I may ask, is the fact that both you and Mahmudul Hasan Rahat seem to have "Hasan" in your names a coincidence? Because if not, you may want to read the conflict of interest policy about relationships. LjL (talk) 19:05, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

The main fact is I'm new :'( Thanks for help. I'm try to improve my self. can I talk to you outside Wikipedia? I mean your fb or twitter for some question? Adolf Hasan (talk) 19:07, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

@Adolf Hasan: Unfortunately I am only here on Wikipedia. You can always ask your queries on Wikipedia. One of the best places to ask is Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions. A lot of helpful editors frequent the teahouse and they can answer your questions as well. Hope it helps! --Lemongirl942 (talk) 19:14, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks thanks a lot Adolf Hasan (talk) 19:16, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Deletion of QwertyAfro page.

Hi, you sent me a message saying that this page should be deleted for a couple of reasons, and I am interested to know the reasons why the page should be deleted, and why you think it is inappropriate. BoringBanana (talk) 09:54, 13 March 2016 (UTC)BoringBanana

@BoringBanana: Thank you creating the page. The page seems to be about a person. For an article about a person to be included in wikipedia, the person needs to be notable. (read WP:BIO). For a person to be notable, there should be multiple independent third party sources with coverage about the article subject. These are usually news reports about the person. In your case, although your article has references, they are all references to the person's youtube page which counts as a self published source (see WP:BLPSPS). As such, it is not possible for us to verify the notability of the person.

If you do not want the article to be deleted, please add some reliable sources (news reports etc.) discussing the article subject and what is the subject notable for. Thank You. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:20, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. I have found out that this page isn't notable, therefore, I am going to delete it. BoringBanana (talk) 10:42, 13 March 2016 (UTC)BoringBanana

Speedy deletion

Just a heads up that you can nominate articles under multiple speedy deletion criteria at once with {{db-multi}}, which can help get flat-out vandalism deleted, and can also save effort from good faith editors (who might rewrite an inappropriate article to address one serious problem, but not another). I saw you nominated Sachin S Tomar as A7, but later as G5, and that the latter was declined, where the former wouldn't have been. (It actually met G4 as well, per this AfD.) Hopefully it'll now disappear as a speedied redirect... --McGeddon (talk) 11:34, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

@McGeddon: Hey, thanks for this. Sorry, I wasn't aware initially that the author was a sock or that there were similarly named pages, so I only tagged it A7. Seems like my initial speedy template was removed (by the author) and another editor inserted a G5 template. This was removed by the author was well and later I just re-added the G5 back. Will take care to use {{db-multi}} from now on since it surely does save a of efforts. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:52, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Ah, fair enough, I guess I misread the edit history there. Thanks for helping to keep the floors clean here. --McGeddon (talk) 10:02, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Possible socks

Hey, just wanted to give you a heads up on the I5 Summit, IIM Indore article. It appears to have been recreated as I had tagged the page under G11 and the page was deleted a few days ago. It was actually created by User:Nidhidhanania the first time, but the current version was created by another single purpose account, User:Namisha Misra and the content/arguments on the talk page are pretty much the same. There's also User:RishiSinghal123, who's probably another sock. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Elaenia (talk) 23:43, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

@Elaenia: Thanks for the heads up. Looks good at the moment since the article has not been recreated. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:01, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

THANKS

Hi! Thank you for your review of my article "Pooja Sharma (TV actress)" and your valuable comments. I have done many edits as you suggested. Now, as you asked, I am to inform you that - "I am not related to the subjected of the article (the subject herself/family/employer/employee etc.). I am just a fan of the person, even we are unknown to each other." If you satisfy, will you kindly remove the problem tags you put on the page. Thank you in anticipation. --Teampoojasharma (talk) 07:17, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

@Teampoojasharma: Hi! Sorry for the delay in replying. Your username is "Teampoojasharma" so I was just wondering if there is any possibility of WP:COI. Am I correct in saying that you have never met the article subject and are not in any way related to her? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:05, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi! It's alright; you might be busy. By the way thank you for your reply. You are right; by seeing my username anybody might be thinking the possibility of my relationship with the article subject. But, it is not like that. You are correct that I am not in any way related to the article subject except that of 'fan-idol' relationship and it is also true that we never met and unknown to each other. The truth is - I became a huge fan of the article subject by seeing her debut TV show. Since then I have been watching all her TV shows and also collecting most of the information, picture and video related to her. In fact it becomes my hobby. I have already started administering her 'fan club' under the username "teampoojasharma" for 'twitter' and 'instagram'. I found some of her contemporary and notable TV actresses got a place in 'wikipedia' and so I wanted to create an article on her that is why this article and as usual used the same username. --Teampoojasharma (talk) 19:27, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

@Teampoojasharma: Alright. I am not totally sure if that is a violation of the username policy, but for the moment I won't discuss it. I noticed that you uploaded an image [11] of Pooja Sharma. May I know where did you get that image from? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:32, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

@Lemongirl942: Sure! The image is one of the profile pictures of subject's "twitter handle". I had downloaded it months back. I had reduced the resolution of the picture and made it to fit for "wikipedia". By the way, I would like to thank you for your last edit of this article. --Teampoojasharma (talk) 15:15, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

@Teampoojasharma: Unless the copyright holder explicitly allowed you to do that (and agreed to release the photo under a public license), I believe it is copyright violation. In addition, you tagged it as your own work (which I assume it is not). My suggestion would be to remove the photo as soon as possible yourself. You might also wish to read WP:IUP and WP:NONFREE. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:14, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

@Lemongirl942: The article subject makes her "twitter handle" "public" and anybody can access and share the contents. Many share pictures from this twitter handle. However, I am to ascertain the copyright legality. I simply tagged the picture as own work as I reduced its resolution to fit for "wikipedia". I was not clear what to be tagged. As you suggest, I am removing the picture till the matter is cleared. Please suggest me for rectification of any other problem. By the way, thank you again for helping me to improve the article and make it a perfect one. --Teampoojasharma (talk) 19:17, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

@Teampoojasharma: I'm afraid, posting an image on Twitter does not make it "public". The copyright is still retained with the original photographer and any use must require the person's written permission. Non-free images with a reduced resolution is allowed only in certain specific cases where a free image will never be found (For example, movie posters). Thank you so much for cooperating and removing it from the article. I would suggest you to delete it from the commons as well. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:48, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

@Lemongirl942: Thank you for your guidance. I am new here and there are so many confusions. I am trying to know wikipedia clauses but it is very vast and taking time. Please don't mind disturbing you repeatedly. (1) Can I use this image for my article [[12]] as free image? The subject on the poster is the same subject of my article. (2) I tried to delete the previous image from commons but failed; will you kindly help me to do that or you delete that for me. I will try to get the written permission as required. (3) By the way, can you now remove the "problem tag" put by you on my article? If so, please do that so that the article looks perfect. --Teampoojasharma (talk) 09:31, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

@Teampoojasharma: I'm going to be offline for a while. Will have a look in detail later. At the moment, for deletion you can see this [13]. Open the url of the image and select "Nominate for Deletion" (from the toolbox on the leftside of the page). In the reason, you can say that you are the uploader and you want it deleted since you are not sure about the copyright status. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:06, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

@Teampoojasharma: You will probably have to remove the Instagram link because only one official link is permitted WP:ELMINOFFICIAL. Generally links to Twitter are not allowed as well, but an exception is made when the person has no other official website (see WP:Twitter-EL). Another think which you can improve is the references. I see a lot of references to a site called "Tellychakar". This doesn't look like a reliable source to me though. You can try looking for reliable newspapers which report the same thing and then replace the citation. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:29, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

@Lemongirl942: I just followed some articles which give more than one external link. But, as you suggested I am removing Instagram link and keeping Twitter link. So far I know the subject has no official website. The site "Tellychakkar" is one of the most reliable news source of Indian TV. You can find most articles related to Indian TV are giving this site as reference. But, as you suggested I shall try to improve references by adding other sites. As already requested please let me know whether I can use this image [14] for my article as free image? The subject on the poster is the same subject of my article. Regarding removal of previous image uploaded by me on commons, the image has already been nominated for deletion. Thank you for your valuable help and suggestions. --Teampoojasharma (talk) 19:14, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

@Lemongirl942: After going through the clauses on "use of non-free image" I presume that the image [15] can be used under "Fair Use" criteria and used it in my article. It is for your kind information and consideration. --Teampoojasharma (talk) 22:56, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

LinkSpam

Stop spamming your link on the D.R. page please. Equally, this is not a topic which you have the knowledge to contribute to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.11.143.102 (talk) 09:24, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

I believe you imply why I just removed your spam link from the article. Yup, I removed it since was WP:REFSPAM. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:07, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

"Questionable"

I hope you understand why I've reverted you. Important the discussion remains as simple and as civil as possible, so the rules need to be absolutely stuck to. See my edit summary there. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:07, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

@Dweller: Ah yes, no worries. I totally agree. After looking at the previous debates on the page, I think it is better to keep it as simple as possible. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 12:17, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

A cheeseburger for you!

For All your efforts here Adamstraw99 (talk) 13:49, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

General Consulate of Moroccan Empire in America

FYI: AfD here. I wasn't quite happy to speedy today's version as a hoax, because the (very little) it said was true; but the previous version was another matter, and I thought it better to have both discussed at AfD, so that any attempts to re-create it can be dealt with swiftly, and anyone who comes here, say from its Facebook page, will read what we think about it. JohnCD (talk) 21:02, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Singapore public figure

Please refrain from your disruptive edits on the BLP of a public political figure in Singapore. Edits on BLP should be carefully considered as the person involved is a notable living person. Your edit on 17 Feb 2016 was a good one. Let sleeping dogs lie. 14.100.135.108 (talk) 03:32, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Please show me evidence of my disruptive edits (if indeed they are disruptive) and also quote the policies/guidelines I have violated. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:37, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello. 1) the WHOLE article is not in dispute. I read through talk page and the dispute is about inserting some incident. I actually thought that an edit a few before yours by a JamesSong was fair but someone reverted it and you seemed to have supported it. 2) It is not WP:SYNTH as sentence B does not follow Sentence A. It does not make any original claim 3) Putting 3 examples of models Elite represented is not coatracking. BUT that said, your edits were not disruptive compared to the University of Cambridge Anon. What is your opinion on how to deal with Anon vandal IPs from educational institutions? Genuine question 14.100.135.108 (talk) 03:40, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

The discussions on the talk page were by 2 editors who were constantly harassing me and were blocked. If you discount what they said, you will understand that other editors supported having that content. Are you by any chance related to the blocked editors? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:43, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

You need to provide me the diffs of my disruptive edits. Without evidence you point is null and void. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:43, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

No I am not related. I was actually looking at the University of Cambridge Anon and saw yours. Just want to re-iterate that when editing pages of living public figures let's be more sensitive. It is hard enough to be a public person in the era as it is. Let's exercise some discretion and sensitivity and compassion. A little compassion and sensitivity goes a long way! 14.100.135.108 (talk) 03:45, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

You have not provided me the diffs of my disruptive edits although you have accused me of disruptive editing. Please provide the diffs. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:47, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) So, can you provide a diff of a disruptive edit, oh familiar-sounding IP? SQL^{Query me!} 03:48, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

I do not know how to do that. I am sorry. I only know the 3 points I mentioned. That the neutrality of entire article is not in dispute, that the synthesis thing is not valid since there is no original claim, and putting 3 examples of models is hardly coatracking. 14.100.135.108 (talk) 03:50, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

6 edits into being here, you're quoting WP:SYNTH, but you aren't sure how to copy and paste a diff url? SQL^{Query me!} 03:52, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

No I don't. I clicked on the blue links to see what it is about and saw it wasn't what it is about. Sorry! And I am not a stalker. Sorry if I come across that way. Apologies. 14.100.135.108 (talk) 03:55, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

What is SQL Query Me. I see that after your comments. 14.100.135.108 (talk) 03:56, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Lemongirl942 - since this is the same IP block, pretty obviously the same person / group, and they keep coming back to harass you - I'm going to semi-protect your talkpage for 6 months unless you object. I could block the IP for a while, but as above they'll just keep coming back. If you'd like me to lift this protection, please ping me, use {{Admin help}} here, or ask at WP:RFPP if I'm not around. SQL^{Query me!} 03:59, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

@SQL: Thanks for this. I think the semi-protection is required. Seems like its pretty much the same user quacking. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:01, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Absolutely no problem. Feel free to ping me if they start up elsewhere. SQL^{Query me!} 04:05, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Advice needed

I added a missing hyperlink and corrected a full-stop into a comma and you reverted me. Did I do something wrong? Juicebaby (talk) 07:41, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

@Juicebaby: You did not add a "missing hyperlink". You added content which was a hyperlink (see [16]). For the purpose of maintaining neutrality and preventing edit warring, I would rather Jytdog do any edits. I haven't done any either except for reverting the IP if you look closely.

Also, are you by any chance related to the previously banned users? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:44, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

No I am not related. It is a missing hyperlink because the article said he was honoured as a Young Global Leader which is Wikipage in itself. There is nothing non-neutral about changing a full stop to a comma also? Juicebaby (talk) 07:48, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

@Juicebaby: Not related in any way right?...Hmmm...I see. Well, I would suggest that the best thing would be to not edit the article on your own. Just put up requests on the talk page. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:55, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

@Lemongirl942: Why do you think I am related? Anyway ok. It's a bit funny to revert a grammar and visual correction which is what I hope to specialise in on WP until I grown more familiar. Strangely enough, all the weird reverts I have had were on this page. A while back I changed Today newspaper to TODAY newspaper with a hyperlink and was reverted as well. Juicebaby (talk) 07:59, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

@Juicebaby: Have you heard that some ducks sleep for quite a while? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:05, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Shivshirsatlive

Hi. I've added a couple more potential sockpuppet accounts to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Shivshirsatlive. Regards. -- Whpq (talk)

@Whpq: Hey, thanks a lot for the good work. From the behavioural evidence I just glanced though, they seem to be socks for sure. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:45, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Sharoq Ibrahim A Al-Malki - should not be speedy deleted because

The contents are real and references were added to external supporting citation, this person is a well known lady and playing a very active role in the Qatari Society. any required proofs can be provided upon requests. I suggest openning the page for free edit for other people who know her to participate and add info . Ms. Sharoq is a key note speaker at important conference conference about How Women Work ; tomorrow evening 22 March and link can be provided to it.

Kindly let me know if you notice any issue in the article or require any evidences and it will be taken into consideration immediately MrSolution (talk) 15:07, 21 March 2016 (UTC) https://www.eventbrite.com/e/hww-2016-fringe-event-connecting-the-dots-east-to-west-tickets-22664617481?aff=erelexpmlt [File:How Women Work - Sharoq Al Malki.jpg|framed|How Women Work - Sharoq Al Malki.]

@MrSolution: Please do not use Wikipedia to promote your event or the person. You are pasting an event link and the image you uploaded seems to be promoting an event. I flagged the article for speedy deletion because the person does not seem to be notable acording to WP:GNG. I would suggest you to delete the article yourself. You can do it by blanking the article. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:17, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

@MrSolution: The page is already open for free edit. But I am not able to find multiple sources to support her notability. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:26, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

@Lemongirl942: the event is not mine and no intention was to promote it , Apology for posting the event link . the intention was to proof upto date activities ... the lady is very well known as active inspirational young talent and she is frequently participating in public officials and speaking conferences. many articles are usually published for he in government newspapers . you may check http://m.gulf-times.com/story/436563/Why-people-hate-HR and http://m.gulf-times.com/story/438546/Close-your-eyes-Let-s-imagine-the-Dream-HR .. if this is allowed to be posted then more links can be posted on WIKI page MrSolution (talk) 05:36, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

@MrSolution: I see. I replied to you on that other deletion page. The problem is that for a person to be notable, the person must be discussed in multiple media reports. May I suggest you to read WP:GNG and evaluate yourself? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:49, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

@MrSolution: Both the links you pasted in your last comment are articles written by her. We need multiple articles written about her. Also the sources should preferably be independent newspapers/books. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:51, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

@Lemongirl942: Well noted , please allow me couple of days to provide media proofs for Ms. Sharoq Malki, I will even try to contact her office and ask for proofs that I may not know about it.

Request

I would like if someone could have a look at Achu Vijayan and remove all previous revisions. Some critical personal info seems to have been inadvertently posted. (I have temporarily removed the info in the last revision). --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:00, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

I have emailed WP:OVERSIGHT, not sure if all the revs have to go or just the one. SQL^{Query me!} 09:40, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. The edit summary of the first revision contains the link as well. Anyway, I trust WP:OVERSIGHT with handling this. Thanks a lot for your prompt reply! (I deliberately didn't raise it at ANI since I didn't want it to attract unwanted attention) --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:43, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Apologies

[17] I sincerely apologize for having not replied earlier. I got busy, and I didn't not pay much attention to the SPI complaint. Please know that if you ever need help regarding the socks or anything else, do not hesitate to ask me anything. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 00:01, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

@Callmemirela: Hey, no worries! Thank you so much for helping me out previously. At the moment stuff seems to have calmed down after user Jytdog rewrote the entire article (Calvin Cheng) and had it semi-protected. I'll surely let you know in case any further socking activity occurs! Thanks once again for your help :) Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:17, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Has enough courage replying on a feedback within 15 minutes of it being raised on a talk page. Linrx (talk) 09:25, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you haha. :) I just happened to be active at that time by chance. Thanks for replying to my proposal at the notice board as well. I think it is good to discuss these issues and have some community consensus. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:28, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

We need peace

@Lemongirl942: I need you to intervene in this, Linrx has escalated the situation to an all time high, accusing me for WP:COI and cursing, even though Wikipedia is by right, uncensored. -- MageLam (talk) 11:35, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

@MageLam: I understand. However, you placed a level-3 warning here [18] which I am not sure was correct. Warnings are usually supposed to start from level 1. If possible please remove it or replace it by a level 1 warning. My suggestion would be to take a step back. Don't interact for the time being. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:42, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

@Lemongirl942: This guy has been harassing me non-stop. I believe an admin is gonna have to intervene. -- MageLam (talk) 11:54, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

@Lemongirl942: My best course of action right now is to strike off the name of this individual from the project list. I can't let him go on harassing me. -- MageLam (talk) 11:58, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

@MageLam: I'm not blaming you but you need to stop getting provoked and stop your interaction as well. Stuff like this [19] doesn't help at all (WP:FREE is not an excuse to say stuff). At this point, getting an admin involved might probably result in both of you getting short blocks. Just take a step back and do not retaliate. Just ignore for a while. You need to ensure that you maintain WP:CIVIL. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 12:00, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

@Lemongirl942: I'm already sick of this debacle, its like Calvin Cheng all over again. I'm going to take a step back and not intervene anymore, I'll be temporarily halting my involvement in the project for the time being. If there's anything urgent, contact me. -- MageLam (talk) 12:14, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Hey, @MageLam: - you're on Lemongirl942's talkpage. You don't need to ping or re - they'll get a notification regardless. SQL^{Query me!} 12:18, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

@MageLam: I understand that it was not started by you. It started with that one "rubbish" edit summary. But still, don't do stuff like this [20]. This doesn't help in a collaborative community at all. Just stay calm, do not argue back. Just provide your sources and backup your claim. The user will not be able to argue if the facts are backed up by sources. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 12:20, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Regardless, thanks for the help and support. I've never been put through a situation as bad as this. -- MageLam (talk) 12:27, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

You could pretty much say he is abandoning all forms of discussion at this point, the article and its associated pages have been edited without consent from the community. -- MageLam (talk) 13:15, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

@MageLam: Hey, don't worry. No point in edit warring though. (Also, the last 3 edits were not done by that user). The changes Linrx made are here [21]. The tags were removed, which is fine. The redirect notice was removed and the other pages were redirected to a different page. While I understand that Linrx's actions were not civil, to undo the edit itself would require us to back up the assertion with sources. I am currently searching for sources, but finding it a bit hard. Let's search for a while before reverting edits.--Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:28, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I would also prefer discussing here for the time being, I don't want unethical Shakespearean English to be thrown at me. -- MageLam (talk) 13:31, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm basically finding it hard to work with an individual like this, I don't think our stand on this discussion will last long. -- MageLam (talk) 13:40, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Let it be. Let's concentrate on the task at hand. We need citations to prove that "City of Singapore" and "Singapore City" is same as "Central Area, Singapore". Without citations, someone else could revert it as well. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:51, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Loubna berrada YES it is me

I read that there are some doubts that the person who edited the section loubna berrada, is me. How can I prove this ? To whom can I send my ID. The article is wrong. I am still a muslim. So I will edit that. And I was never (please read this) a politician. I was only a member of the libarel party. Every thing i done was on a volentuur basis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loubna berrada (talk • contribs) 23:41, 8 April 2016 (UTC) Loubna berrada (talk) 23:56, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Who said a politician needs to be paid? They can be a volunteer. A politician (from Classical Greek πόλις, "polis") is a person active in party politics, or a person holding or seeking office in government. LjL (talk) 00:00, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

@Loubna berrada: Thank you for responding. In Wikipedia, we generally rely on reliable published sources so that the information can be verified. I have looked at some of the previously published sources and made a list of them at the COI noticeboard. I would be glad if you could have a look and comment at the COI/N thread. Please excuse me if I made any mistakes since I have to rely on a Google translation of the Dutch sources. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:51, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

On going edit war on Laura Branigan

This somewhat my fault, but looking over the history of the page it becomes more clear that Thomas.W and Born53 swe have pretty much took ownership of the article history. I think in retrospect I really made a fool of myself trying to fix this issue. But, at this point I'm asking for support. The Consensus sadly only addressed her age, and not where she lived. Also the links may have been dunked in conversation, but not officially debunked. I need help and advice. Currently I made the mistake of trying to edit the "Early years" heading along with the birth date and birth location. The birth date was agreed upon, but now I can't fix it do to the three strike rule. Devilmanozzy (talk) 13:48, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Thomas.W_reported by User:Devilmanozzy, a totally frivolous report against me. Devilmanozzy is obviously out to get me, filing frivolous AN3/ANI reports and forum shopping all over the place... Thomas.W ^talk 16:46, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

@Devilmanozzy: I had a look at the article. Yes, there are problems. In particular multiple claims do not match the cited sources. However, I went through the history and I don't think Thomas.W is WP:OWNING the article. I believe your recent edits were undone because it changed a huge chunk of information at the same time. Anyway, may I suggest everyone to come to the discussion table and discuss contested facts in the article one by one. For you I would suggest you to please withdraw the report on the edit warring noticeboard [22]. You can simply post "I have agreed to withdraw this report and no action is required at the moment". --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:56, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

@Thomas.W: Let's just all come to the talk page of the article. I understand that you undid edits by Devilmanozzy since is was a whole chunk of information. That's fine, but there are indeed issues with the information and the citations backing it up. Let's all discuss on the talk page. I also disagree that Devilmanozzy is a sock of the manager of Laura Branigan or something. Looking at the history, it doesn't seem like a duck to me. Rather he seems to have come to Wikipedia after posts here [23]. In any case, I have asked Devilmanozzy to withdraw the edit warring report. Let's just discuss it civilly on the talk page. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:05, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I would drop the claim if Thomas.W would agree to go back to the discussion table and work towards a solution instead of blocking the article. Ultimately whatever is agreed upon is final. Devilmanozzy (talk) 17:48, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

@Devilmanozzy: I understand your point. But till the time discussions are taking place, preferably WP:STATUSQUO should be maintained and any edits done during this time should only be non-contentious edits. Also, if an edit has been reverted once, it is best not to do it again but to seek clarification on the talk page. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:52, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

@Lemongirl942: I am sticking to only input on the talk page til the RfC is decided in a month or so. I am not going to directly edit the article itself, since my edits keep being called into question. I noted on the talk page what should be done and that is up to other to address. My concerns are being considered, which is a what I really wanted from the start. Devilmanozzy (talk) 22:06, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Re: Updating Infobox

Hi Lemon~! I was trying to put most of the personal data into template in order to clear some unnecessary sections and/or redundant contents in the article. As the page for living leader of a country, private event might not be able to get fully citation or approved due to many factors. It could be better to focus more on the person's work and let the biography to reflect whose life story (also as per WiKi policies) accordingly. Kindly advise... Thank you!Gzyeah (talk) 06:51, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

@Lemongirl942: Is that "Trimmed content" really necessary for the page intro? There are already 2 sections talking about same information in body with template data beside and only few words excluded comparing to the sections. Hens I believe that we can just remove it accordingly. Kindly advise... Thank you! Gzyeah (talk) 00:19, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

@Lemongirl942: And further more, do you think we should make the Lee's family tree table as an individual template? I think it would be more easier for us to manage since it related to each family members whom having available wiki link for english. Kindly advise... Thank you! Gzyeah (talk) 00:33, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

@Gzyeah: For the family tree, I don't think a template is required right now, since only 4 members have Wikipedia articles. Ancestry Templates are usually used when there are a lot of family members with wikipedia articles. Even then, in most cases, templates are still not used, see Charles,_Prince_of_Wales#Ancestry. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:09, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

@Gzyeah: I was going to shorten the education information in the intro. But I only removed one line at that time because I was sleepy. I will do the changes tonight when I am free.

For the page intro, it usually contains a summary description of the person. Thus, the information in a page intro needs to be present somewhere else inside the article as well (along with citations). For example, if you see articles like Barack Obama and Gordon Brown, you will see that the intro included information about education, what the person's mail role is, and a brief mention of the appointments - and all of these are also inside the article along with citations. Same with the infobox, any information in the infobox needs to be present inside the article as well and cited. (Because we don't use citations in Infobox).

For example, in case of Obama, the infobox mentions his 2 daughters. But the same information is also there inside the article along with citations. Let me summarise the content a bit more today. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:29, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

@Gzyeah: I shortened the intro a bit. The education and military career is now only 1 line each. For any more details, the users can read them in the article section on education and military career. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:10, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

@Gzyeah: Sorry, I reverted your last edit here [24]. The reason is that the term "Profession" refers to the main job the person is doing for example, Lawyer/Accountant/Engineer etc. (see descriptionTemplate:Infobox_officeholder). Thus, "Mathematics" is not a profession, although "Mathematician" could be a profession. In Lee Hsien Loong's case, this should be something like Member of Parliament/Prime Minister. However, these have already been mentioned at the top of the infobox and hence it is redundant to mention it again.

As for the "Known For" field, if you see the description here Template:Infobox_person, it refers to what the person is widely notable for. In Lee Hsien Loong's case, he is notable because he is the Prime Minister of Singapore. Think of it this way - if you ask most people around the world who is Lee Hsien Loong, would they say "he is PM of Singapore" or would they say "he was a senior wrangler in 1973." Since it is already mentioned that he is PM, it makes it redundant to mention it again. You can look at Barack Obama for comparison since it is rated a "good article". (Actually this "Known for" field is usually used for low profile individuals whom many people may not know. PM Lee is a high profile person and it is already mentioned that he is PM). If you have any queries you can let me know. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:08, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

@Lemongirl942: Thanks with noted. Gzyeah (talk) 05:15, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Withdrawing legal threat

Hello! Could you please tell how can I withdraw a legal threat? Does it imply editing my comments removing these threats or is it a public announcement? In the latter case where should an announcement be done? Thanks!F aristocrat (talk) 11:40, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Suspicious IP address user for big volume of similar small edits

Hi Lemon~! I found this Hong Kong IP 183.178.39.252 had recently made many small updates to several Singapore & Malaysia related personnel articles about their traditional chinese names & incorrect pinyin format (i.e. separated pronunciations for given name using more than one character) into contents or templates via mobile devices. These revisions seem done by more than one person from same LAN/WLAN connection and in very closed time slots. I only choose some famous pages to revert or optimize the changes based on my ability as a sample, while may need you to assist for limiting & monitoring this IP in case of any vandalism issue happens in future. Kindly advise... Thank you! Gzyeah (talk) 15:16, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

@Gzyeah: Thank you for finding this out. I also noticed this IP doing small changes. Although the changes are technically not "wrong", they may not follow the Chinese naming convention, see MOS:CHINESE, for example [[25]]. I won't really call this vandalism though, since the user seems to be doing it in good faith. I will try to tell the user about MOS:CHINESE and see if the user responds. In the meantime, I will undo the changes for any Singapore related articles. The user has done changes for other Hong Kong/Taiwanese articles as well, but I don't want to revert them because I am not sure if MOS:CHINESE can be applied to Taiwan/Hong Kong articles. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:54, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

@Lemongirl942: Noted and here we detected another local (starhub) IP 182.55.160.197 recently placed several simply copied content from historical edits of the same article, which seems quite semi-vandalism and/or related to the above IP's edit behaviours. I had reverted the changes & please take a look at it when free. Thank you. Gzyeah (talk) 05:32, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

@Gzyeah: Noted. Thank you for your help and I will keep a watch out. I also looked up the guidelines the Chinese name format and I realised that both traditional and simplified Chinese characters can be used (using s= and t=), but in case of Singapore related articles, the simplified Chinese should be listed first. You can read more here Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/China-related_articles#Introductory_sentences. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:42, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

@Lemongirl942: Yes, I do know about the variables "s=" & "t=", but since here is using english as native & major language for articles, and for avoiding redundancy with considering wiki lingual rules, I would like to leave mostly "c=" in the intro to show either simplified or traditional chinese characters depends on not just where the person originally from but also the period of char type mostly in use. For example, Lim Boon Keng initially had his name in traditional way from Old China, while Lee Hsien Loong started his name in simplified way after SG learned & adopted New China's char system, and Wong Ah Fook was born in Penang where they inherited writing method at the beginning from the ROC style rather than later the PRC style. The comparison of "s=" & "t=" can be left into single template for display. Hope you understand. Cheers! Gzyeah (talk) 06:51, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Is this article insignificant?

Hey there mate. :D So I was looking through some edits made by Gzyeah on the Boon Keng article and I happened to stumble upon a hyperlink to a article called "Subzone". Looking through its contents, I noticed that "Subzone" largely discussed about non notable promotional material from a dead website that was abandoned by Subway back in 2007, according to the article's content. Doing a Google search, I have found nothing noteworthy or anything of interest related to the article in question. The article also lacks a lot of references and inline citations. Do you have any advice on this matter? -- MageLam (talk) 13:44, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

@MageLam: Ah, a pop culture article similar to McDonaldland. No references. But since it is pop culture, it will be harder to delete, considering that many pop culture facts may find it hard to be backed up by references. Not sure what to do either. Maybe asking for help at the relevant Wikiproject or contacting the author. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:28, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Oh my, I never knew subway did this [26]. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:43, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

@Lemongirl942: Ugh, if this was released in 2016, this would definitely be a PR disaster. XD -- MageLam (talk) 14:48, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

@MageLam: @Lemongirl942: Shall we move the current "Subzone" (fictional place) article into new name and rebuild the "subzone" link as an disambiguation page accordingly?Kindly advise... Thank you~! Gzyeah (talk) 05:59, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

@Gzyeah: There is no need for that. The reason is because the term "subzone" itself is not well defined and it would be hard to come up with an encyclopaedic article about it. I propose just let things be as it is. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:03, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

@Lemongirl942 and Gzyeah: I hate Wikipedia articles with trivia sections... -- MageLam (talk) 06:06, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Let it be lol. I personally feel popular culture is over-represented in Wikipedia, but that's the way it will be for a free encyclopaedia that anyone can edit. Popular culture has a higher number of editors. Also not all trivia is trivial. ;) (see Trivium). --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:10, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Apology for Absence

@Lemongirl942: Hey Lemongirl, khairulash here. I'd like to apologise for my absence on the Calvin Cheng article. I was emotionally exhausted by all the arguments that arose when I tried to amend the page. I'm relatively new to Wikipedia, so I didn't expect myself to argue more than I would edit. I felt I needed a break from it all. I'm so sorry once more. In any case, I'm glad to see that the article is now much fairer and better, no doubt thanks to your relentless hard work. Thanks and so sorry once more. Khairulash (talk) 16:50, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

@Khairulash: Hey! I'm glad you are back. Ah the Calvin Cheng article! I was emotionally exhausted too and initially even I gave up after a while since I was a new editor as well. Later there was a lot of drama involved, including trying to threaten me with ISD and stuff. (See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive915#Possible_veiled_threat_by_IP_editor_on_my_user_talk_page). In the end the user was blocked and an experienced uninvolved editor looked through the article and pruned it. Personally I feel it looks OK now and I didn't edit it after that since I felt my own bias (after this bad experience) might come into play. I just keep it on my watchlist in case the sockpuppets come up again and try to re-insert all that puffery. Glad to have you back though! --Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:01, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

@Lemongirl942: Wow, this is incredible. Not in a good way though, but still incredible. I'm sorry you had to endure all of that, and I'm glad it's all over. Do take care! I'll be keeping it on my watchlist too then--if anything happens, I'll try my best to help. Thanks :) Khairulash (talk) 15:10, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Kathleen O'Hare Branigan and James Branigan, Sr. who later separated.

I know I shouldn't write to you though I am out of Laura Branigan and her wiki. But that's not the point right now. During my 2 years research I never found anything that Laura's parents were separated. And I have read 100's of papers. My friend from Armonk, who grew up with Laura has never mentioned a word about a separation. You need to talk to your friends that sources must be shown. Personally I would never mention it without sources. But that's me. You need to think about the consequences when you turned 1952 to 1957. Again, who's birthday will you delete or change? Laura's? You can't touch her, though you must in the same time apologize to me. All my sources said 1952. But they were not reliable. But OK, you must have better sources than I have. (Do they really beat Billy Branigan, Laura's little brother who told me about Mount Kisco). You need to show sources of 1957! If Laura's birth year will stay at 1957, when was Billy born? US Public Records says 1957, his birth announce says 1957, etc. But you say it is Laura's birth year! I don't get it. That's why I wrote yesterday...how will you solve this? One question...Do you self believe in 1957? Are you fully convinced over 1957? Could it be 1952? Did Laura graduate in 1970 as I have shown in my sources? Watch this link https://se.pinterest.com/born53/laura-branigan-high-school-1966-70/. There are pictures from Laura as a student, cheerleader, etc. If this is not Laura? Who is she? Shall add that pictures came from her classmate. Do you think Laura graduated 1970 now? If not, I have no more add. You seemed a little bit different than the others, and I thought maybe I can get you on my side. So, am I right or am I wrong? Note! If you find this ridiculous, please don't answer.--Born53 swe (talk) 16:05, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

@Born53 swe: Hey Stig. For the parents separation, I found it here [27].

Anyway, here's my personal view of the whole birth date matter. From all the sources I saw, there definitely has been an effort to change Laura's birth date to make her look young. If you look closely, it seems these were done to launch her career as a young star. And the birth date was actually changed twice

• First in 1978 [28],[29] she was advertised her as a 23 year old (which gives a birthdate of 1954/1955)
• The second was in 1982 after her song Gloria became popular. She was popularised in the media as a 25 year old, which gives a birth year as 1957.

I don't know who did this - perhaps her manager or Laura herself - and why. Maybe they thought that people would like her more if she was young? I don't know the reason. But as the school records indicate, she was clearly born earlier.

You research is amazing and I think very well done. You have analysed multiple sources and helped reach a conclusion. Now let me look at the problem from the perspective of Wikipedia as a whole. Wikipedia's policies say that Wikipedia should contain "no original research" and no synth. (Original research here refers to research which has been done, but not published in a journal/reliable media site). Based on this policy, the 1952 birthdate is not being included in the article.

Alright, now let me come back to the situation and explain my perspective. I would like the correct birthdate to be on the article and I also want to respect the policies of Wikipedia. How to proceed then? I have a solution to this. Your research (the pinterest page) needs to be published somewhere. Once your research is picked up by the mainstream media (I hope so, because Laura is a popular singer), there will be no obstacles left and accordingly Wikipedia will have to change the date as well.

Now the next step is where to publish. I have identified some sites which might be willing to publish your research.

• TMZ - contact
• People Magazine - contact (they published a lot of information about Laura previously)
• HuffingtonPost - contact They allow people to send "news tips" to an editor
• The Denver Post - contact Many contact emails, maybe the arts department would be suitable
• LA Times - contact Try contacting editor Lorraine Ali, she deals with pop-music.

I know it might seem like an uphill task, but publishing your research is important. Once it is published by multiple media sites, it would be hard to dispute her age. Please don't give up Stig! Try contacting the media organisations I listed above. If you need any other help like finding out which editor to contact, I can search online and help you with it. But please try your best to get this published. I also think that if the media publishes it, the truth will go out to so many people. Good luck! And let me know if the organisations respond. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:05, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Email is sent to Lorraine Ali at LA Times. Hopefully she will answer. --Born53 swe (talk) 13:07, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Please, don't risk anything by writing to me. I had a real knife in my back from someone who mention that Billy Branigan has nothing to do with Laura. So please, no more contacts. I will find a way of restoring my reputation that wikipedia has crushed into dust. It's over for me. Hopefully I found someone who will support me and my research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Born53 swe (talk • contribs)

@Born53 swe: Hey Stig, just ignore. My suggestion: don't reply on that page any more. Like I said before, the best way of solving this whole thing is to get this research published. Publishing this research also gives you credit, since you were the one who found this fact out. I really hope Lorraine Ali replies (you may need to wait for 4-5 days because it is weekend now). If they are not interested, we can always try with another media organisation. I am sure there will be someone who would want to publish this story. Good luck and keep your hopes up! :) --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:48, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

This is from IMDb, a very trustful source according to wiki...http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2375148/bio Billy Branigan born 1957 Is that OK for wiki, or? And I don't have any account to make changes!--Born53 swe (talk) 14:18, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Many years ago Billy lived in Florida. He had an voter ID for elections. His voter ID can be seen in this link ....http://flvoters.com/by_number/1120/61343_william_c_branigan.html Is this enough?--Born53 swe (talk) 15:57, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Scroll down "Branigan died in her sleep in 2004, suffering a cerebral aneurysm. She was listed as 47 years old with a DOB of July 3, 1957. However, some reference sources claim her high school records show her graduating in 1970, which would mean she graduated at 13. Those records show a DOB of 1952. - See more at: http://www.goldminemag.com/news/goldmines-hall-fame-inductees-volume-59#sthash.USb1v2ts.dpuf http://www.goldminemag.com/news/goldmines-hall-fame-inductees-volume-59 --Born53 swe (talk) 19:16, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

@Born53 swe: Hey Stig! IMDb, Findagrave and other sites which contain user submitted content (by any user) are unfortunately not considered as reliable sources according to Wikipedia. The voter id site (flyvoters) may or may not be - I will have to check it. Usually, the definition of a reliable site is a website which has a "strict and well known editorial process". Thus, most well known news organisations are considered reliable.

The goldminemag is a useful source, though at present it can only be used along with the footnote, because it doesn't really explain the research behind 1952. Had it properly explained the research, it would have literally washed away all the sources saying 1957.

For Billy's birthdate, I am curious about one thing. Where is it written than Billy was born in 1961? Because I found an old article in the people magazine (vol 22, no. 5) [30], published on July 30, 1984. It gives the age of Billy Branigan as 26, which would give a birth year of 1957/58.

This is from an old website http://www.reocities.com/sonman7/page32.html Billy Branigan born 1961 You see, when Laura and her label occupied 1957, they had to do something about Billy's age. They had to have the real (almost) gap between them, so Billy suddenly was born 1961. What he thought about it is something to wonder over?--Born53 swe (talk) 11:30, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Anyway, did you get a reply from Lorraine Ali? If she replies yes, then you can suggest her to explain your research in the article as well. The explanation is important. In the meantime, I will look for more sources for Billy's birthdate. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:26, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

No answer yet. Following link is from a site "Copyright Encyclopedia". It seems to be those songs that Billy Branigan, born 1957-, has the copyrights with some others. http://www.copyrightencyclopedia.com/mesmerized-by-island-music-ltd-as-employer-for-hire-of-nick/ I don't know reliable an enclypodia can be in wikis opinion. One thing is clear, I haven't done it!--Born53 swe (talk) 08:52, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

@Born53 swe: I just checked this [31]. The website seems to be privately owned by one person, which unfortunately wouldn't fulfil Wikipedia's criteria for a reliable source. Similarly, this website [32] which gives a birth date of 1961 is also not reliable. So at the moment, Billy's birthdate seems to be 1957/58 according the source [33] from People Magazine.

Actually I am wondering something. Would it be possible for Laura's brother Billy to do an interview? Maybe if Lorraine Ali replies, one of the things you can suggest her is to interview her brother. If they don't want to publish this story right now, they can always publish this later in July, to coincide with Laura's birthday. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:14, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

This is the way it is....Branigan's has cut all bands and connections with Lauras official website and its owners, Kathy and Vince Golik. Golik's has only pieces comparing Branigans family. Branigan's all copyrights, royalties, etc. They dislikes

them for what they have done. Look at their website, just pencils, mugs, are all they can give to their fans. No pictures, etc,! So Billy, forget him. I did a short look in my collection and found this. Billy Branigan both birth years, 1957 & 1961! Nitesky was a Laura fan who sadly believed in 1957, so she had to give Billy 1961. Then Billboards poster came with Billys right birth year 1957. Funny is that Billboards denies changing Laura to 1952. But letting siblings have same birth year is nothing they have problems with. Hopefully you can see this link...https://se.pinterest.com/pin/ Billy Branigan born 1957 and 1961. --Born53 swe (talk) 18:11, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Three adorable artists, who graduated from the academy 1972. https://se.pinterest.com/pin/204913851774507986/ The American Academy 1972 "Ali"%20Ryerson,%20Class%20of%201970,%20Laura's%20classmate https://se.pinterest.com/pin/ Alice "Ali" Ryerson, Class of 1970, Laura's classmate --Born53 swe (talk) 04:50, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

@Born53 swe: That billboard clipping is interesting (and it seems they published the correct birth date of Billy). Can you tell me which edition it is (Year and month)? If the edition number can be found, then it can be used as a reliable source of Billy's birthdate. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:12, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

I need to look more after Billy's Billboard. It is not easy finding it. Here is another I had totally forgotten. From 2004, San Francisco paper had a story of passings that year. August 26 - Laura Branigan, 51, whose song, "Gloria," was featured in "Flashdance. "http://www.sfgate.com/entertainment/article/Passings-They-created-beauty-laughter-music-2660998.php She was 52, but it is better than 47!--Born53 swe (talk) 07:41, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Some references and sources about Laura Branigan. #4 is my research. If you take your time and watch all pages you will hopefully see that Laura was born 1952. Libraries and van Cleaves can also be found at the research.

• 1- Laura Branigan 1952-2004 at famous British Library http://explore.bl.uk/primo_library/libweb/action/search.do?fn=search&vl(freeText0)=Branigan%2c+Laura%2c+1952-

2004&tab=local_tab&mode=Basic&scp.scps=scope%3a(BLCONTENT)&vid=BLVU1&vl(1423900464UI1)=all_items&vl(488279563UI0)=creator

• 2 - Laura Branigan 1952-2004 at House of Names https://www.houseofnames.com/branigan-family-crest
• 3 - Laura Branigan 1952-2004 at Library of Congress http://id.loc.gov/authorities/names/n91051432.html Laura Branigan 1952-2004
• 4 - Laura Branigan 1952-2004 at my research about Laura Branigan. Everything you need to know about Laura included with sources. https://se.pinterest.com/born53/
• 5 - Chris van Cleave, former friend and member of Meadow. Read his story how he and Walker Daniels discovered Laura in 1972 at the American Academy in New York. http://www.chrisvancleavemusic.com/feature/home.html
• If this is not enough, I must say I don't know what else wikipedia needs. Van Cleave's story has a lot of people named who was involved when Meadow started in 1972. At last, Laura never talked or speaked about Meadow or the academy. It was impossible for her to hide she was born 1952. The academy demands high school for acceptance, and if Laura was born 1957, she was just 15y!--Born53 swe (talk) 22:50, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

@Lemongirl942 ...Remembering Laura Branigan on Her Birthday July 3, born 1952, Mount Kisco--Born53 swe (talk) 12:45, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

@Lemongirl942 ... Another website says 1952 and Mount Kisco. rateyourmusic.com/artist/laura_branigan

With remembering Laura's 64th birthday yesterday (July 3) my research of her early days ended. I have no longer any interest or intention of trying to change Laura's wrong 1957 or Brewster. Laura's former neighbours, friends and classmates from Armonk are laughing at wiki and how wiki has managed to first say Laura was born 1957, and later say her little brother Billy was also born in 1957. But it is up to wiki's writers (or Devilmanozzy?) to make the changes. I prefer to watch, read and also laugh until Laura's 1952, Mount Kisco and age 52 has replaced 1957, Brewster and age 47. On the other hand, there are so many internet users saying I shall do my homework about Laura. Maybe wiki should do their homework though wiki's different languages shows different data about Laura. Why should a wrong English wiki rule when other languages are right?--Born53 swe (talk) 09:58, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

@lemongirl... There are requests of having Laura's obituaries re-written.--Born53 swe (talk) 11:08, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Regarding PJ Media article

Hello,

I noticed you undid my edit on the PJ Media article. How long do I have to wait for a response to my discussion post before I can make the edit?

Also, most of the edits by the IP:219.77.82.45 were not discussed either, and that IP is now blocked by Wikipedia as it is a known vandal. Multiple users before me had also restored the changes made by the vandal, but the vandal undid their restorations. I was restoring the damage did by that vandal, seeing as he/she is now blocked. The blocked vandal was also the one who added the COI tag.

Regards, Marquis de Faux (talk) 03:42, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

@Marquis de Faux: The COI tag was actually added by me. There has been a long string of COI edits on that article and The IP was not blocked for vandalism, but rather for COI editing, in violation of a ban. The article was subsequently vetted by Jytdog who checked for COI edits. I suggest you raise concerns on the article talk page and wait for a response. This might take some time, but I feel it is better to discuss first rather than making changes. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:38, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Some personal talk

Hey there, mate! :D Sorry if I may have unintentionally flared up the discussion in any way. I've never really handled a debate/discussion on Wikipedia at this length before. I'm just saying this in advance as a friend. :) GL and hopefully we arrive on a consensus! :D -- MageLam (talk) 07:17, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

@MageLam: Don't worry, it's fine. It's natural during debates to ask questions though and it helps understand a person's point of view. Cheers! --Lemongirl942 (talk) 01:17, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

It's ok. Things will be more interesting this way :P Chongkian (talk) 16:56, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Was this of national significance?

Hey mate! :D So apart from all the debating we have been doing these past few days, I've been combing through a few Singapore-related articles. Just found this one recently, regarding some kinda social phenomenon that happened in Hong Kah back in 2007. Just wondering if it is significant and notable enough to be an article on Wikipedia. Its been quite long isn't it? That old tree stump could eroded away by now. Just saying, who knows? XD -- MageLam (talk) 09:12, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

@MageLam: Seems OK to me. Kind of borderline I would say, but I found references in 2012 [34],[35], in an academic paper [36] and also a book. The Yahoo report says the stump is all gone now. Keeping WP:NTEMP in mind, I would lean towards a weak keep I guess. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:35, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

@Lemongirl942: Well I did said I was "just saying". I never was against the idea of WP:NTEMP. -- MageLam (talk)

A barnstar for you!

	The Civility Barnstar
	You're way too nice to some editors! HappyValleyEditor (talk) 18:09, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

@HappyValleyEditor: Thank you so much! :) I just felt she was quite old and (from what I understood), wasn't intentionally trying to promote it like the regular cases of PR editors. Of course Wikipedia guidelines need to be followed as well, so I thought to gently explain her how stuff works. :) --Lemongirl942 (talk) 18:14, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia Malaysia Meetup 1

As an intermezzo to Lemongirl942 and MageLam, we've planned for the Wikipedia:Meetup/Malaysia 1 already to be held on Sunday, 22 May 2016 at OldTown White Coffee, Mall of Medini, Medini Iskandar, Iskandar Puteri (Nusajaya), Johor. There is a direct Causeway Link (CW7L) bus from Singapore 2nd link to that place. The Facebook event link is: https://www.facebook.com/events/1023904374352286/ Chongkian (talk) 16:54, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

@Chongkian: I may not have the time to attend given my busy schedule. But I could communicate with the rest via Facebook if you don't mind. Also, my parents are kinda worried about me traveling overseas alone. -- MageLam (talk) 16:58, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I see, it's ok. You can just click 'interested' or 'maybe' on that Facebook event page. Chongkian (talk) 00:14, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

@Chongkian: Thank you for the invitation! Unfortunately, I will probably be busy with a project that day. I'll surely read the minutes of meeting later! Hope the first Malaysian meetup is a success! --Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:03, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

AN/I notice

Hi, there is an AN/I discussion about User:JaberEL-Hour. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 20:07, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

@ThePlatypusofDoom: Sorry, I was asleep. To be honest, I am a bit surprised at being called "Western" by User:JaberEl-Hour. Anyway, with this kind of behavior, the block was inevitable. Thank you for posting at ANI! --Lemongirl942 (talk) 00:34, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Please read the guidance on Template Advert

Concerning GoDigital Media Group: Please read the guidance on Template Advert.

When to use
Add this to articles that need help from other editors because they sound like advertisements. For example, they may tell users to buy the company's product, provide price lists, give links to online sellers, or use unencyclopedic or meaningless buzzwords.
The advert tag is for articles that are directly trying to sell a product to our readers. Don't add this tag simply because the material in the article shows a company or a product in an overall positive light or because it provides an encyclopedic summary of a product's features.

There is no nothing "telling" readers to buy a product, there are no price lists or links online sellers, nor does the article use unencyclopedic or meaningless buzzwords. There is an interested editor here, if you want to discuss please take it to the talk page. 009o9^Disclosure(Talk) 01:35, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

@009o9: Hi! A large part of the article was sourced to press releases which are not considered independent sources. Prior to my editing, the article contained way too much information and it WAS promotional (advertising a list of clients and presenting a list of features is promotional). Content in articles is also governed by WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT. There was undue weight on certain aspects which I removed. As for the advert tag, I added it before beginning my editing and I will remove it once I am done. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 01:44, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Started a discussion at COIN --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:49, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Postmodern Jukebox

Now you are obviously stalking from my edit summaries.[37] Good luck with that, first and only warning.009o9^Disclosure(Talk) 04:01, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

@009o9: I hope you know there is something known as WP:BOOMERANG. Also please read WP:COI, particularly WP:PAY and WP:COIU. Please also familiarise yourself with this. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:14, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

What makes you think I have a COI on Postmodern Jukebox? I just happen to like innovative and good music and volunteer there. In AfD, you and I have ideological differences, I'm also volunteering there to expose what I feel is a broad misunderstanding of what is actually written in GNG. At this point you have proven the you are not capable of NPOV editing, regardless of content, where my interests are concerned.009o9^Disclosure(Talk) 04:40, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Please show the diff where I have indicated that "you have a COI at Postmodern Jukebox". Otherwise this is a straw man fallacy. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:42, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Hey lemongirl, you don't have email enabled here. If you like please pop me an email at jytdog at gmail. Jytdog (talk) 07:09, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

@Jytdog: Sent you an email from my gmail account. Exact same username as this Wikipedia account. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:26, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Defender of the Wiki

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		For your great work at COIN and WP:SPI recently. Thank you for defending Wikipedia! – Brianhe (talk) 23:24, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

@Brianhe: Thank you so much for this! I hope I can help out more. :) --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:04, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Regarding drive-by edits

Just a little get away from all the heat for awhile. Thoughts on these guys? -----> AnonymousChiBai, RafiPrime12

Apparently, one of these folks love to edit via the mobile app. -- MageLam (talk) 08:02, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

@MageLam: Thoughts as in? Actually I haven't really seen their edits. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:22, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

You should really see AnonymousChiBai's edits. He just edits pages without any citations and just leaves them as they are. If they are reverted, he/she isn't really bordered to do anything about it. Same can be said for RafiPrime12. ACB recently did an edit on the Bukit Batok Single Member Constituency page, where he removed Desmond Lee's name and replaced it with Murali's despite a hidden warning clearly stating that it shouldn't be changed until he assumed office.[38][39] After I reverted his edits, he strangely didn't respond back like the average editor would. These two editors in particular have largely remained silent in fact, while conducting their drive-by edits. Probably you should look through their edit history and see what they have contributed so far. -- MageLam (talk) 16:41, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, ACB just got blocked! Username violation apparently... -- MageLam (talk) 16:49, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

I guess its just RafiPrime12 to talk about now. -- MageLam (talk) 16:51, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

@MageLam: RafiPrime12 seems to add info but doesn't add citations for them. The info added is not necessarily wrong, but it is always better if citations are added. There seems to be no policy violations at the moment, but I will keep a look out --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:45, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

@Lemongirl942: I believe I've found ACB's new account, can't say its a sockpuppet though given the good faith edits. It was created on the same day ACB's old account was blocked. Also, given his signature move of conducting drive-by mobile edits without leaving any summary behind, I can conclude in other words that this is indeed him. -- MageLam (talk) 23:03, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

@Lemongirl942: I strongly advise you keep a lookout on his new account. His editing (although in good faith) may be slightly disruptive. -- MageLam (talk) 15:39, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

@MageLam: Duck for sure! But gonna AGF and let it be for the time being. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:47, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

@Lemongirl942: You might want to keep your eye on this guy by the name of Hillview. He has some kind of particular COI (from what I can tell) on Hillview, Singapore and his only contributions so far are to this one particular article (he very rarely edits any other article). His edits are done impromptu every two to three months and he occasionally comes to inspect this one article every now and then. I wouldn't necessarily consider his edits diruptive, rather, I would say that this user's actions are odd. -- MageLam (talk) 20:50, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

BELL SPORTS

Hi I have a question about the template left at bell sports about COI tag. Who do you think is the paid editor is or connected contributors are identified as you put it? Maybe I can help out with this matter. Also you posted this 'and the article cleaned up'. what part do you think needs cleaned up maybe I can help with this also. 72bikers (talk) 05:02, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi, sorry I didn't notice it at that time. Thank you for your help. Actually, I think the article is almost clean now. I will have a look when I have time and remove the tag later. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:00, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Ok thanks. 72bikers (talk) 18:12, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

An apology

Hey there. I do apologize for the times I had edited under the influence of anger or laziness. My actions are rather rash when such occasions arise (such as removing entire discussion sections). Sorry if I had caused you any prior inconvenience as a result of this. -- MageLam (talk) 06:57, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

@MageLam: That's OK! Anger gets to the best of us. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:58, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

I never should have gotten involved in this in the first place. I should have just retired from Wikipedia and never come back. I realized I dragged myself into a pit hole I shouldn't have been in. But given that I'm already in a sand pit that I cannot escape from, I guess I will continue to fix things while I'm still around. -- MageLam (talk) 18:23, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

@MageLam: Wikipedia is not a pit hole. For me it is place where we can keep knowledge and pass it down generation after generation. Debates are part of Wikipedia - if there were no debates, Wikipedia would not be what it is. If you feel my edits are wrong, please immediately comment on the talk page of the article. If you feel that I inserted anything incorrect at Masjid Temenggong Daeng Ibrahim for instance, please let me know on the article talk page. At the moment I get a feeling that you don't look for references extensively. As a small advice, when you look for references, you need to search at least the entire Singapore newspaper archives, the government websites and scholarly journals. I have a feeling that when you actually start looking for sources extensively, you will understand the nuances involving geography better. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 18:39, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

I think it's kind of hard for you to understand. I probably shouldn't be getting into this any further... -- MageLam (talk) 03:37, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

I just feel like I'm becoming more of a burden rather than an actual contributer on the site. -- MageLam (talk) 03:56, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Sheikh Aboobacker Ahmed

Thank you. You're so helpful. Now cleaned the article, I would like to suggest the article for semi-protection. • ArtsRescuer 17:32, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

@ArtsRescuer: Why would it require semi-protection? Also please answer the question I asked on your talk page. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 00:54, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

About delation of North African Arabs article

Hello Ms.Lemongirl942
This article is created by some pan-arabists his name is alhaqiqa
This person vandalized many times the berbers article and also he commented on the articles for deletion to save his article so i deleted his comment
The North African Arabs article is created to abuse berbers and to distorting facts
In a section of this article "Berberisation and Berberised Arabs" they write Racism in North-Africa !!
There is an article "Arabs" so there is no need to create another article
I realy want your your opinion
This is his comment on the debate
"Keep Be Aware! This page is put up for deletion by a Berberist which has deleted many important information of many good pages on wikipedia about arabs. I already blocked AyOuBoXe of the page because he has deleted much reliable information without any sources or explanation. This is just a childish act of a North-African Berber which is playing games on Wikipedia and trying to remove the history of North-African Arabs. "
I removed this comment because it's his article !!
My greetings AyOuBoXe (talk) 01:39, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

@AyOuBoXe: I understand what you are trying to say. Regardless, it is improper of you to remove anything from a deletion discussion. Please let it be there. You can reply to the comment on the AfD if needed, but you don't have the right to remove it. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 01:51, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

But it's the article creator comment AyOuBoXe (talk) 08:31, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

@AyOuBoXe: They can make their views heard as well. It is not forbidden. The admin who closes the AfD will evaluate each comment properly. If you have any comments, you can put a comment of your own as well. But please, do NOT edit anyone else's comment. Editing someone else's comment is considered disruptive editing and will get you blocked. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:17, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Ms.Lemongirl942
I have another point
I am very frustrated
Any amendment i do a person who's name alhaqiqa remove it
He vandalized all threads speaking about the Berbers and their culture (food etc..)
And he change anything from berber to arab
I think that Wikipedia must be neutral in this matter AyOuBoXe (talk) 18:47, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

May 2016

Hello, I'm ArtsRescuer. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions has been undone because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Why you reverted Template:Islamism in South Asia • ArtsRescuer 05:32, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Jamaat-e-Islami Hind one added on template, for what the repetition, what are you doing? • ArtsRescuer 05:39, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Please sign your posts. And read WP:DTTR. And please please leave edit summaries. You are doing questionable edits without leaving any edit summaries. If you don't leave edit summaries, how am I supposed to understand what you are doing? And you still haven't answered my question I asked you about using multiple accounts and COI. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:38, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Lemongirl. You apparently got reported to AIV as a vandal. I was pretty surprised to see your name there, and I thought you might want to know about that. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:37, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Hey NinjaRobotPirate, thanks for the heads up! Lol, I didn't know ArtsRescuer reported me (that too as a "vandalism only account"). I'm not sure if this is a good faith misunderstanding on their part, or a competence issue or some other attempt to conceal what I suspect is COI editing. The editor apparently has multiple accounts (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ArtsRescuer) and has recently nominated a bunch of articles without proving reasons. Anyway, I will keep a watch for any further activity. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:03, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Given the CU block for socking, it seems more difficult now to accept that it was a good-faith misunderstanding. Well, hopefully, this will be the end of it, but it rarely works out that simply. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:39, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Oh, they will be coming back for sure. But at least for a while there will be peace. I went through the edits a while back and it seems they were nominating multiple articles for deletion - incidentally many were publications by competing organisations. All these sneaky attempts at promotion gets to me sometimes. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:17, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Knowledge City

@User:Lemongirl942 7 Non-self-published sources included in the article, because removing the templates. • ArtsRescuer 15:14, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

1. http://www.arabnews.com/news/452012
2. http://twocircles.net/2013jan01/markaz_knowledge_city_construction_works_start_soon.html#.V0Rt-Pl97b0
3. http://www.madhyamam.com/en/node/13581
4. http://www.milligazette.com/news/11690-first-unani-college-in-kerala
5. https://www.e-grantz.kerala.gov.in/listofinstitutions.aspx
6. http://www.universityofcalicut.info/cdc/html/Academic/AffiliatedColleges.pdf
7. http://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/kozhikode/markaz-law-college-to-be-opened-on-saturday/article6487961.ece

- • ArtsRescuer 15:14, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Umm, many of these do not discuss the subject in detail. I am curious if it is notable enough. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:22, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Editor blocked. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Shafinusri. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:57, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Ashley Reed

Moved from above Just in case you didn't get a notification of my response to your question (on my talk page), I've answered it. JustLucas (talk) 01:17, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

@JustLucas: Thank you for letting me know. I will answer in a while on the talk page. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 01:43, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Concerning your constant patrolling of SG geo articles

I would like to talk about this personally as this has become a constant issue. If you believe you are "representing" on behalf of the community for your vigilantism, you are dead wrong. The Singaporean places WikiProject is dead. There is no real community today, it is just the two of us on the same boat. I co-founded the SG geo articles improvement project as a platform to improve such articles, not to bold-revert and discuss your way through. In fact, most of your time has been spent BRD-ing all these articles. Technical move after technical move, drive-by edit after drive-by edit. All you do is add sources and move on to the next article to repeat the process. Little actual effort has been put into improving any of these articles at all (like with Radin Mas). In fact, after most discussions, very little is done to improve such articles. Most of them are either abandoned or their contents are left with very minor improvements. I've been going around adding new infoboxes and large chunks of new information, but you constantly prioritise citations over content. Rarely have I seen you discussing about what we could improve these articles, instead, a good majority of your discussions are regarding technical moves. If you're committed to this project, I wish to see you not only simply provide citations, but also provide more extra content and improvements to these articles. If you also really want this to be like the community of the past, then let's really discuss improving these articles. -- MageLam (talk) 07:02, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

@MageLam: I don't understand where have I stated that I represent the community. Neither am I a vigilante lol. (Also, I don't think of myself as a founder/co-founder of any project. I simply steward the articles according to policies/guidelines). Now coming back to Citations, yes they are much more important than simply organising an infobox. The infobox could be organised anytime. But for adding any new content, reliable citations need to be found which is harder and takes a lot of effort. The big problem with the Singapore articles is that they are not cited (many have good content, but no citations). Certain facts are disputed like with the Clementi article I was recently alerted too (and I used BRD over there as well). All of this needs a lot of research and time. And I diligently research before coming up with stuff. Are adding citations drive by edits? Maybe (but most of Wikipedia works like that). Is it bad to add citations? I don't think so, I think it is important. Without citations, any editor can remove content and it will be hard to reinstate it. I want to avoid that and hence I look for citations and add to the article. (See WP:NRSNVNA)

When you say "Little actual effort has been put into improving any of these articles at all", I suggest you to take a step back and try finding citations. You will understand how hard it is. Adding "large chunks of new information" is good, but ultimately useless if citations cannot be found. And yes, I discuss about technical moves but that is how it is supposed to be - any move/redirect/merge is generally discussed first. You moves left a bunch of messy redirects in its wake which I noticed when an article on my watchlist showed up. I also told you previously that you need to understand some of the policies - both literally and in spirit. (Like today's WP:OR instance). Many of your edits have also resulted in loss of content. It is for these cases that WP:BRD is important and so is having patience. We improve articles a bit at a time, rather than reinventing the wheel. A lot of content is already there, added years back - the citations are not though.

This should not discourage or frustrate you. Changes happen slowly and incrementally and patience is required. This is how Wikipedia works. Trust me, for changing a birthdate, I was involved in a dispute which went on for months. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:42, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I believe you don't get my point. When you're involved in this project, I expect that as members, we improve content. I rarely see you bring up topics regarding the improvement of articles. Instead, you conduct technical move after technical move, with discussions that eventually lead to nothing. I want to see you discuss improving content not vice versa. -- MageLam (talk) 08:46, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

@MageLam: Improvements can be done in multiple ways - adding citations is a way to improve content. But if you really want to improve content, then do not move/merge/split/redirect/change scope of articles. That is not improving content. I discuss technical moves because you started a bunch of them. If you didn't I wouldn't have anything to discuss. Many of your moves and edits are contested and many do not follow guidelines/policies. I have to discuss them. BRD is good way to learn. You need to have more patience.

One reason why I always tell you to look extensively for citations is that the more you search, the more you learn. Before any improvement is done, it is very important to research diligently. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:03, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

@MageLam: I get a feeling you don't really research much before saying stuff. Like for example, a place (geographically) is not simply an urban planning division. If you have read scholarly works about geography and the concept of a place for example, Authors argue that the notion of ‘place’ is a socially constructed entity invested with human meaning. There is therefore a need to understand places beyond locality alone. (quoting Profs Brenda Yeoh and Lily Kong). Reading is extremely important here and it helps you to understand more. Unless you read more, you will only look at a something from a small lens. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:06, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

What you don't realise is that most of these discussions lead to no where. There is no proper guideline for SG places, that's why I've been suggesting we create an official one. Yet you insist to continue following the advice of Huaiwei (which is not an approved guideline). The only person I can bring to the discussion, since the community is dead, is you. And trying to get you to cooperate is the hardest thing. I need you to understand the situation we are in right now. We cannot allow this to continue. -- MageLam (talk) 09:12, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Also, yes I DO understand the notion of a geographical place. And yes I DO research. I am trying to address this issue by formulating a guideline that can benefit this stance and I want you to understand that I acknowledge this fact. -- MageLam (talk) 09:12, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

@MageLam: Please quote the scholarly work you read about a geographical place. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:13, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Trying to be nice is real hard these days given how much trouble I have to go through everyday to improve content. You're like some kind of bouncer who guards the doorway to every article I edit. You have to understand that the only people left in this community, is us. You do not singlehandely represent the entire community (that being the long dead SG places WikiProject). -- MageLam (talk) 09:17, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

@MageLam:Alright, calm. Please quote the scholarly work you read about the concept of a place. I am interested in seeing it. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:19, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Before I quote the work I've read, I do have one last thing to say. I am trying to improve the quality of every article's content overtime. I'm trying my best to include all interpretations available to give all perspectives a place on Wikipedia. I myself believe that WP:NPOV is an important principle, but I can't immediately just save a page knowing that the content I'm contributing is all neutral. It takes time to include info and research. Like with the Orchard article. I originally intended to include a paragraph regarding several interpretations to the place, but you reverted all my edits before I could contribute more. -- MageLam (talk) 09:22, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

@MageLam: That is the reason why we have a sandbox. Trying doing stuff like this in a sandbox. It is much easier and helpful. A page must be NPOV at all times - no relaxations on this. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:26, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm quoting this from a scholarly work I found on historical regions in Europe, I do admit the fact that there are historical interpretations to certain places and boundaries.

In certain instances, present-day regional structures reflect ancient divisions and identities. In others, little more than the name of the ethno-territorial entity has survived and the borders and social structures of the area have been totally altered.

— Sven Tägil, Regions in Central Europe: The Legacy of History

It is of course, important to take in all interpretations and I'm trying to find a way to explain this by formulating the new guideline. Look at Bethesda, Maryland for instance, on how a single article can handle numerous interpretations. -- MageLam (talk) 09:47, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

@Lemongirl942: Let's just get back to formulating this guideline shall we? I really don't want this to be troublesome for the both of us. -- MageLam (talk) 09:54, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

@MageLam: Interesting. I will read it. One of the several ones I read was this and it helped me to understand how the URA carves planning areas based on economic and practical factors, rather than a sense of place. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:57, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

@Lemongirl942: Hey, I do kinda feel a little sorry for you today. First you had to handle me, then you had to a handle a vandal. *Sigh* Troublesome... -- MageLam (talk) 10:03, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

@Lemongirl942: Anyways, I do wish to request for your feedback on the guideline. I want to see some community progress and ensure that we are heading the right way. -- MageLam (talk) 10:42, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

@MageLam: Lol, don't worry haha. If you look at my talk page you will realise that I am used to vandals by now, particularly those who indulge in COI editing and get caught. Anyway, I will provide feedback soon. It's just that I am doing some background reading on the topic as well. I also found something interesting today - the government apparently uses Mukims as the subdivisions when laws are created. Like for the Central Water Catchment. I am interest to see how that tallies with the URA maps --Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:01, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

@Lemongirl942: Alright then. I'm just going to say this for now. If you want to restore any content, restore it, just please don't do anything with it until we formulate the guidelines. I will try to resist myself from making anymore further moves, forks and redirects (which I personally find hard, but given the current situation, I will resist). Both me and you have caused enough havoc already, so let's all be calm and civil about this. We can decide what to do with them once the guidelines are formulated. I'm going to contribute my part and restore the Bukit Purmei article for now. Anyways, sometimes, I personally feel like a reincarnation of Bonkers The Clown, a great contributer who just dosen't know how to handle conversations with other editors. And look what happened to him, what a pity. -- MageLam (talk) 11:20, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

@MageLam: No worries. One of the reasons I am currently hesitating from changing articles is because of the guideline discussion. Hence, I stick to adding citations. You know very well I am generally calm and OK with a lot of stuff. Just had a look at "Bonkers the Clown" btw. I would probably have tolerated such a user for a while, but most of the community has far less patience. (I observed some recent ruckus where the community blocked an otherwise good content creator for borderline trolling). Which is why I suggest you to read policies/guidelines and understand how BRD works. I don't think you are a troll like Bonkers, neither do you have any bad intentions. It's just that sometimes your editing is a tad reckless and pointy, possibly caused by anger. I know very well that you don't mean it though, which is why I stay calm. I am personally fine with it and I understand it, but most people won't. Some would just find any excuse to inflame a conflict and if you get provoked it boomerangs on you. I think on Wikipedia, editors learn to deal with conflict after a while - some learn it early, and some in due course of time. In my case I was literally thrust into it, so I had to learn quickly. Also because I edit quite a bit in the project space (Wikipedia), it leads to conflict sometimes, but also teaches me how to collaborate and how evidence is the only thing which speaks in disputes. Anyway, I will look at the guidelines. One thing I want you to research - try finding out if the Planning Areas/Subzones are used as points of geographic reference. This is probably the most contentious part and I searched the newspaper archives extensively, but my results were that in most cases New Towns, "housing estates", HDB neighbourhoods/precincts or constituencies/wards have been used for geographic reference. I found very limited information for support planning areas. Subzones were literally mentioned only 1 or 2 times. I would like you to do a similar study on your own and find out what is used for geographic reference. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:50, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

@Lemongirl942: I'm gonna head on down to the library now to investigate the paper you presented to me earlier. I will see what I can report on. -- MageLam (talk) 12:23, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

@Lemongirl942: *Sigh* Was unable to find a copy. What a waste... -- MageLam (talk) 12:52, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

@MageLam: Oh no! Ahh, let me see if I can find a way to get a non-copyrighted version of it. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:32, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

on deleation of dinesh soi page

hi

I have added five news sources on dinesh soi page so how can it doesn't meet Wikipedia nobility policy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akash Dahariya (talk • contribs) 13:11, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Dinesh Soi Page

Hello

I added new Sources for my wikipedia page of Dinesh Soi . Check them and remove the notice form my page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akash Dahariya (talk • contribs) 14:05, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

@Akash Dahariya: I cannot remove the notices as the page has been nominated for deletion. Please read WP:AFD. Also for notability we need reliable sources. For what is a reliable source, please see WP:RS. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:03, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi Lemmongirl, thanks for sticking around the JNU pages and watching over the vandals and goons. Highly appreciate your help! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:12, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Hey Kautilya3, thank you! The 3 pages are on my watchlist and I occasionally have a look at the changes. Today's changes were grossly indecent and honestly, I was surprised at the intensity. I guess I will watch the pages more frequently from now on! --Lemongirl942 (talk) 18:52, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, there are nationalists, communalists, fundamentalists and what have you. They own the God-given truth! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:56, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

2016 Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Community Survey

The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.

• Survey, (hosted by Qualtrics)

Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:49, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

on dinesh soi

what you suggest how can i fixed the problem with dinesh soi page.Akash Dahariya (talk) 12:54, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

@Akash Dahariya: The problem is notability. The actor in not notable and it cannot be fixed unless the actor gets some major acting credits in some popular movies. See WP:ENT and WP:GNG. Also, please do not create a new section. Henceforth you can reply in this section. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 12:59, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

@Lemongirl942: Actually he is a casting director working in some films and television.I also improves the article.In his IMDB Prolie all details are given .Akash Dahariya (talk) 13:43, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

@Akash Dahariya: I see. If he is a casting director, then there needs to be coverage in reliable sources (the criteria remains same). I am not very well versed with reliable sources in India, but if Dinesh Soi is notable, I would expect an article about him in the Hindu/Times of India/Hindustan Times. And the article should contain a significant mention - not a 1 or 2 line mention. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:03, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

@Lemongirl942: Sir I am also not much know about reliable sources and I also think about your given news sources wedsite .but my page dinesh soi has link of tellychakkar.com ,tellyscoop.com and Tribune India famouse news site so it is not fullfill the wikipedia cateria .and I saw many artist page which have tellychakkar and tellyscoop sources like Krip Suri and MATS University which are standing on wikipedia very well.so, what would you suggest ? Akash Dahariya (talk) 09:23, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Response

I see no reason why you shouldn't reopen the case with evidence.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:32, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Bbb23. I will do so shortly. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:19, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Art4em SPI

Hi Lemongirl942: I've no background with the Art4em SPI. I looked up LG Williams here while looking into her co-curatorships, compared the Williams AFDs with the Friedman AFD and associated material, and decided I'd used more than enough good-faith time and energy in a conceptual art piece. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 05:42, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Hey Hydronium Hydroxide! Sorry, I had actually meant to tag User:Freshacconci (who had commented on a previous AfD) over there but I guess I had mistakenly copied your username. Struck it out (see diff) now. But regardless, thank you so much for pointing in the right direction. I can understand how frustrating it was and that it exhausted your good faith. Frankly, this is a long term POV pushing case and I will let the SPI take its own course! We can go back to editing! --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:21, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Lemongirl942: No worries, and thanks for your work too. Cheers ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 08:44, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Detective Lemongirl

		The Detective Barnstar
		Hello, Lemongirl. I've seen you around a bit, and I've been continually impressed with your diligence and unfailing politeness—not to mention your solid editing skills. I particularly appreciated your recent investigation into Wwwwhatupprrr. Thank you for the example you set and for all your hard work. Best. Rebbing 20:26, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Hey Rebbing! Thank you so much for this! To be honest, I am still learning and finding my way around. But I am glad to be of help. I had noticed you in discussions (through your unique signature), though I never interacted. I remember having a look at your user page previously where I saw this image (on the right). I really like your choice in art. Personally, I love magic/fantasy and this cute image appealed to me a lot. Thank you for making my day brighter! --Lemongirl942 (talk) 12:03, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

I love that I'm around enough that people remember me. Editing can be lonely at times, and it's nice feeling like I'm actually part of the community instead of just doing my own thing. I gravitate towards sparsely-watched (or at least sparsely-edited) articles, which is nice in that I rarely encounter conflict in those areas but not as nice in that there's little interaction with others.

I've finally started talking to my friends about Wikipedia. Saying that I edit Wikipedia as a hobby sounds lame, but when I explain what that actually entails, people are usually intrigued, not laughing. Yesterday, mentioned the Wwwwhatupprrr issue to my best friend (and fellow nerd)—we often IM about work issues throughout the day—and I explained how AfD works, how consensus works, and the huge volume of COI editing that goes on. She thought it was all really interesting: as a casual Wikipedia reader, she had no idea about the backoffice stuff or how decisions got made.

I'm glad you liked the fairy picture. I love magic, fairies, wings, and cute things. Cheers. Rebbing 08:00, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

It's been awhile

It has been a week since we last got into contact, how are things going for you? I've noticed your recent activity on WP:AfD and WP:DS, quite a commendable job there! The project has been pretty quiet these past few days, in fact, there was barely any activity at all. Anyways, I've done a bit of research into city and census boundaries recently and I think I've found our model city. When you're free, do come down and finish off the last assessment before we move onto the next point, just refer to the last two messages I posted. I'm hoping we can complete this guideline soon so we can all move on. -- MageLam (talk) 00:39, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

@MageLam: Hey! Sorry. Yeah, AfD and COIN kept me busy for a while and today I was totally occupied. OK, I will have a look at it soon. I have some new thoughts about it as well. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:11, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

I kind of find it odd that we are writing a guideline on a user sandbox. Most guideline pages are usually a sub page of a WikiProject. What do you think of this? -- MageLam (talk) 12:26, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

@MageLam: Guideline drafts are usually prepared in userspace first before an acceptable version is ready. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:38, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, then where do we move it to after it's completed? -- MageLam (talk) 16:42, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

@MageLam: If it is a formal guideline, then it needs to be ratified first. After it is done it can be moved to project space. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:45, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Anyways, got any idea how we can get other contributors to help us out? Also, how are we going to gain consensus from the larger community? -- MageLam (talk) 17:21, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

@MageLam: Usually promoting a formal guideline takes extensive consensus from the community (and from my experience, a painful process). The first step of course is to create a draft guideline. Then certain important stuff needs to be specified like what are problems the guideline is trying to solve, what exactly are the advantages offered by the new guidelines and whether it complies with existing policies/guidelines. RFCs are usually done for these particular points to gauge consensus and the draft is improved accordingly. Once, a version has stabilised it can be put to vote as a whole. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:48, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

@Lemongirl942: Problem is, given the current sunset state of our community, how are we going to achieve this? -- MageLam (talk) 11:41, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

@MageLam: Oh haha, let's draft it first. Right now we haven't event drafted it properly which is the first step. On a side note, I looked up Punggol Park and found sources saying it is park of Hougang Town. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:21, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Can we discuss on this a bit more? I think I may have found a solution. -- MageLam (talk) 15:52, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

@MageLam: Take a break and I will have a look at this later. I think reinventing the wheel is not sustainable. We don't do that in Wikipedia anyway. A good way to proceed is to suggest amendments to the existing Singaporean places guideline. Small amendments are easier for me to evaluate rather than an entire new guideline. The Singaporean places follows existing guidelines/policies so I will need to only evaluate each amendment you propose. That is much easier and sustainable. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 01:15, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

@Lemongirl942: I'm sorry, as I've explained earlier, proclaiming a wall of text on a WikiProject page as an official guideline doesn't automatically make it one. An official guideline is something that has been approved previously. However in this case, this isn't. It is not like the MOS, where feedback and careful consideration was made by the entire community before final approval. In the case of the WikiProject, a page with text was created, and a group of editors agreed on a template, while others didn't, like as if it was an essay. If we are creating a formal guideline, we gotta start fresh. There is no "reinventing of the wheel" here. (see WP:NOTPOLICY) -- MageLam (talk) 20:21, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

@MageLam: There was consensus on that Wikiproject and we respect the consensus (consensus is not temporary, it doesn't go away simply because the editors have become inactive). I don't see sustained opposition over the years to the existing consensus. Of course, consensus doesn't have to be static, but the burden of proof lies on the person trying to overturn the consensus to show how it contradicts policies. Till that time, we respect it. Often when creating a formal guideline, we work up from essays. From my analysis, the Singaporean places Wikiproject tends to respect key policies like NPOV. Hence, it is easier to add to it and ensure the policies are adhered to. You draft on the other hand violates multiple existing policies and guidelines. I prefer to work up from a clean version. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 00:12, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

regarding Pritam singh Politician

regarding Pritam singh Politician

the page again which you created Pritam singh, politician that has been made on the place of Pritam singh actor n Host.... Here's the link u get confirmation on this-- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigg_Boss_8 ( see the contestant list Pritam Singh... politician Page was created on dis one that's y I just removed this page transefrers it to Other page naming as Pritam singh Politician. Arunsingh2728 (talk) 07:21, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi Arunsingh2728. The page named Pritam Singh has existed since a long time. It is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the name Pritam Singh. If you want to create a new page for the actor named Pritam Singh, you need to create Pritam Singh (actor) --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:41, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Sorry

I really am sorry if my phrasing was offensive. I didn't mean it to be. I'm quite frustrated at AfD based on the absolute barrage of deletions logged by WikiProject women. It seems way over the top and I get a little hasty and hissy sometimes. Sometimes I do speak too sharply and in shorthand. So mea culpa. Montanabw^(talk) 08:47, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Hey Montanabw! Thank you for posting here. It's OK I now understand that it was never your intention to offend. I'm really really sorry for my outburst as well. I am usually calm and composed and I don't know why I literally exploded. Apologies for that.

Coming back to articles about women, I am personally passionate about writing articles about women (and I am currently drafting 3 articles, all about Singaporean women). Yes, I understand that sometimes even articles about notable women are nominated for deletion (see Jessie Chung, Ibtissam Lachgar, Elayne Angel, Cheryl B. Schrader). I will watchlist the alert page and save articles wherever possible. However some of the articles (particularly those created at editathons) like Janelle Heatley Hinnant and Hollis Heath are borderline or do not meet the notability standards. I usually hesitate to nominate these as they are good faith attempts. However, someone will eventually nominate them and at AfD I always try to be neutral.

I find this a no-win situation: An editor works hard to create an article, but the subject doesn't pass notability standards and hence it is deleted. I have been recently thinking of a solution to this problem. One way is to evaluate notability prior to creating the article. I believe there are many low hanging opportunities - women who pass notability standards quite well, but somehow we just don't know. I will try to create a list of notable women who don't have articles. In addition, the information about notability should be mentioned in the talk page of the article (once created), so as to keep a record to be readily used during AfDs. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:02, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

You may want to look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red that is accumulating precisely that sort of list! The solution is probably to work on the GNG guidelines. Just like we have NSPORTS, that now, though only a guideline, basically is gospel that someone who played one season of professional cricket in 1985 for, say, Manchester, is inherently notable, perhaps we need clarification for people who did their notable things in relative obscurity. Right now, I just unleashed a bit of snark at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mary Norris. I cannot believe someone AfD'd that one! Grr! Grr! Grr! Montanabw^(talk) 17:31, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Merge and delete

Hi Lemongirl. I saw your actions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Malayan Hymn and just wanted to draw your attention to WP:MAD. Basically the Wikipedia license requires us to keep track of the contribution history of kept edits to the encyclopedia. Therefore we can't merge an article and then delete it as that would remove that history. There are ways around it that are detailed in the linked essay, but as you have already completed the merge (kudos for the edit summary) it needs to be redirected or kept now. AIRcorn (talk) 02:41, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi Aircorn. Thank you for essay, it was informative. I was struggling with that as well - how to show attribution and yet remove the redirect. The problem in this particular case is that there are 2 possible redirect targets and both of them are equally plausible. To be honest, my first preference was to simply delete the article (without merging) as it is about a school song for which no secondary citations exist. But since a merge was explicitly suggested twice, I went ahead and did it. I'm not sure what can be done now, but here are some possibilities

1. Undo merge, delete Malayan Hymn as no reliable secondary citations exist.
2. Convert Malayan Hymn to a dab page. Create individual redirects such as Malayan Hymn (Malayan Colleges Laguna) and Malayan Hymn (Malayan High School of Science) to add to the dab page.
3. Record history of contributors at talk pages of merge targets. Delete Malayan Hymn.

I personally prefer choice 1 as ultimately the information added does not have reliable secondary citations. Failing that, choice 3 is OK as well. I don't prefer choice 2 - maintaining a disambiguation page for a non-notable school song (for which no reliable secondary sources exist) is a bit too much. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:23, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

I think I will post this on the AfD page so as not to fragment discussions. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:24, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Conflict?

I don't really do the COIN thing, but someone may want to look into this edit. TimothyJosephWood 15:54, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Hey, Timothyjosephwood. Thank you! Yes, there is a conflict of interest here. There is also a problem with the content itself - the IP claiming to be his daughter added a bunch of information without citations. I am going ahead and reverting this. I will also leave a message to the IP to propose changes on the talk page. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 12:08, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Oh, looks like this could be vandalism/trolling. Check out the contributions. Stuff like this and this seems to be sneaky vandalism. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 12:12, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Hmm...looks like a shared IP for Southern Company Services in Atlanta. That explains the lengthy history and mixed bag of constructive edits (ex.) and vandalism. Anybody's guess what the edit on Lee Anderson was. TimothyJosephWood 12:18, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

That may well have been a COI edit though. I looked a bit and found part of it was copied from here. In any case, since there were no secondary sources, I have reverted it and watchlisted that article. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 12:52, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Side conversation

I need to chat with you a bit about some of the AfD issues. You don't seem to understand systemic bias and what a problem it is across wikipedia, sometimes even in the GNG guidelines. I don't know how old you are, but you seem young and a little naive about how the real world operates. I am over 50 and I have seen a lot more of the world and it is a sad place where there is a lot of discrimination. It's important to bring forward the voices and images of people who have not had a voice. We do not "lower" standards to say that different standards are sometimes needed, we acknowledge the reality that some people simply do not have access to as big of a megaphone as does a white male in the United States. When pornstars and minor-league baseball players can get and keep a wikipedia article, but academics and people who work for NGOs cannot, we have a serious, serious problem. I hope you can see this. Montanabw^(talk) 06:36, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Hey Montanabw I'm younger yes (mid to late 20s) and maybe a bit naive sometimes ;) I do understand that Systemic Bias is a problem. I'm not totally opposed to having "separate" standards but I still feel a basic level has to be maintained and unless a consensus emerges for having separate standards, I would like to stick to the current ones. That said, I think a site wide conversation needs to start on this and I would willingly contribute. I have some ideas on it myself, particularly about Geographic Bias where a discussion needs to be started about identifying reliable sources in certain countries. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:53, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

The problem with the "current standards" is that there really is no consistency to them. When a pornstar's article is kept because she won an award no one outside the industry has heard of (for being a "cougar" and a "MILF", no less) while a respected university professor's article is at AfD because no one gives a flying damn about Pakistan, that is just beyond ridiculous.

Forgive me for butting in, but I think you're off the mark here. Your argument boils down to an ILIKEIT and a plea for social justice, but that's not our role. We reflect published information and social interest as it is, not as it ought to be. If pornographic performers and athletes receive more published attention than humanitarians and academics, then they are inherently more appropriate subjects for Wikipedia articles. Moreover, recall the intent behind the notability requirement: it's nearly impossible to write a meaningful, balanced, reliably-sourced article when the subject hasn't had significant coverage. If you think subjective importance and systemic bias ought to be considered in deletion decisions, then you should get them added as criteria to the guidelines rather than upbraiding other editors for faithfully following established community consensus. Rebbing 07:33, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

I disagree. For example, we immediately stomp on things like holocaust denial, and that is also a "social justice" argument. The guidelines are vague and GNG is basically a set of suggestions spun off from WP:N. WP:N is simple: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." End of story, it's not about how prestigious the source or how many people live in a given country. GNG is also often supplemented by the "outcomes" list that isn't even a guideline it is merely a !vote of IDONTLIKEIT crowd, but, your comment about adding systemic bias is a good one and I may initiate that process now. It is abundantly clear that there is a huge problem with bias against women and articles about women on Wikipedia, and even if it is unconscious and unintentional (AGF), or mostly rooted in sheer ignorance, it's still a problem. Montanabw^(talk) 20:17, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Since some of us are butting in, I agree with Montanabw here. "there is a huge problem with bias against women and articles about women on Wikipedia" I hope you will initiate the process Montanabw, because I hope we may be able to make some more progress against the systemic bias on Wikipedia. Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant 20:36, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Lemongirl492, your RfC clearly shows that you don't understand the issue at all. I would most graciously ask that you retract your RfC and allow the one I just posted to move forward. We don't "dumb down" the standards, or "pink it and shrink it." We address the reality that there is a double standard and address how to deal with it. Montanabw^(talk) 22:41, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

I specifically wanted the RFC to be neutral (and I didn't want to compare porn bio with profs as it would set a bad example for the reasons Rebbing mentioned above). I wanted to make the point clearly and I was proposing a separate standard of notability. The fact that systemic bias exists is acknowledged by many. But I prefer to propose a practical, to the point solution to the problem and that is what I tried to do in the RFC. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:46, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

But your wording showed that you completely misunderstand systemic bias -- it is not giving someone an A when they deserve a B. It is when someone EARNS an A and gets a B, just because their accomplishments are ignored or belittled as less important. It is when there are two people, of equal brains, talent, and accomplishments, but one is deemed less than the other. This is not about "relaxing" or weakening standards; it is about understanding the role that systemic bias plays in the coverage and publication of the true accomplishment of people who are not white males from the first world. There is the adage that women have to do twice as much as men to get half the credit, and that is very, very true. I have seen situations -- on wiki -- where an article about a woman is AfD'd while one about a very similar man is not even tagged, and when someone points that out, they are slapped with the usual "don't give us an OTHERSTUFF" argument. (Just like the pornstar problem is always defended with the totally bogus false NOTCENSORED argument). Montanabw^(talk) 17:55, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

In response to your request [40], [41] are just two examples. SusunW (talk) 19:11, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Interesting. I had noted the Sarah Ballard one before. If a subject truly passes WP:GNG, then the SNGs are not useful. However, it should be noted that GNG itself is quite nuanced and requires a depth of coverage. The Sarah Ballard one just managed to pass GNG as I voted in the AfD. I haven't look at the other one though. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:44, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

yes there was consensus

Alas, I should have known that this would have resulted in a huge fuckup. And it has. If you take the time to read the wall of text, the people ssaying "Keep but change" carry the day. I see your name in the "No change", which is exactly why you reverted me. And this will go on and on and on and on and on. And on. As fuckups do, whenever someone supports the fuckup, and no one wants to go through the time and trouble of another RfC. So. It's a fuckup.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 09:40, 6 July 2016 (UTC) PS Please note that the editor who closed the RfC has been editing.. since... 19 March 2016.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 09:47, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

@Lingzhi:, I was in the middle of posting on the sockpuppetry talk page actually. I understand your position, but consensus has to be respected. The RFC was closed as "Consensus to not remove WP:FAMILY from WP:SOCK has been established." by User:Music1201. I see that your change removed a part of it - the first sentence, and not the whole of it. But then, I don't see any conclusive evidence that part of it has to go either. This is an important policy and in my initial days on Wikipedia I was harassed by a woman and her grandson who threatened to send the secret police to my door. So the sentence that you removed is important. I don't mind if the community decides that it has to go, but till now, it seems that the community is not really willing to remove it. I really do not mind a fresh RFC to decide this issue specifically and if you launch one (specifically for this), I would be glad to participate --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:55, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I see User:Music1201 closed it. If it is a disputed close (although I personally don't think so), then a second opinion can always be asked right? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:56, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	For your always spot-on opinions at AfD! HappyValleyEditor (talk) 21:35, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you HappyValleyEditor! --Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:11, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

SNG on pageants?

Not sure precisely which page to spin off from, or if we want to add it to WP:NMODEL, but I'd be quite pleased to work with you on an SNG for these beauty pageant articles. I think we could collaborate even though we've had some differences of opinion -- and in fact, the difference in our perspectives would make for a very solid and strong SNG once we finished. Interested? Montanabw^(talk) 05:08, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Sure, I would like to work on this. Differences on opinion is fine and I think that is important for Wikipedia. I will do a bit of research about how pageants work. At this time, I am willing to say that participants in "Miss Universe" and "Miss World" are generally notable. Since they are representing their country, there will be at least some national coverage. Let me see if there have been any previous discussions on this. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:59, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

A lemon for you!

	The Defender and Lover of Lemon Award!
	Thank you for loving lemons and defending Wikipedia from people who steel lemons! ✉cookiemonster✉ 𝚨755𝛀 19:17, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Haha, thank you CookieMonster755! This was a pleasant surprise. I do like lemons a lot. I suppose you like cookies? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:49, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Hmm... I surely do like cookies! Enough for my username to be named after cookies! ✉cookiemonster✉ ^𝚨755𝛀 18:00, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Sweet Cosmetics

Appreciate your bringing that article and obvious WP:DUCK paid editing situation to light. Accounts like this are throwaway sock accounts and not much can be done about them. The problem, as you know, is that Wiki editors allow such contributions and are unwilling to police them. Indeed, the AfC process is a welcome mat for paid editors. That's just how it is and it is not changing, which is why I rarely become involved in such situations. Coretheapple (talk) 16:29, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Coretheapple, thank you. Sorry for the late reply. Yes, I do agree that AfC needs some changes. I like the idea by Widefox that articles shouldn't be accepted unless the paid editor declares that it is paid content and edits the article to an NPOV state. I'm a bit busy IRL at the moment but I will discuss more on this soon. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:52, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, it really is startling how much garbage comes through AfC. The problem really goes beyond paid editing and COI, although apparently AfC is used in large measure as a kind of back-door way to allow COI editors to put stuff in Wikipedia. One AfC product that recently came to my attention was pure promotional content. Yet it was approved by an administrator and sent on its way. Yet another reason to both distrust the AfC process and to limit administrator terms. Coretheapple (talk) 16:15, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Eden English School Btl

If you have some time, you may be interested in Eden English School Btl. It's a wholly unreferenced article about a private boarding school that has some serious undisclosed COIN editing. This is what it looked like before I cut out the worst of it. The tables of student names and photo arrays of graduates were all made by the article's author—clearly someone with inside access. It's currently up for deletion and slated to be kept based on a misunderstanding of SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Cheers. Rebbing 16:23, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Whoops—never mind. The discussion just closed as "keep." Apparently, our guidelines go clear out the window when it comes to schools. Rebbing 16:26, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Rebbing, sorry I am a bit busy these days and unable to respond in time. A facebook page and other profiles of students/teachers shows that the school exists (and it is not a hoax). However, none of the information in the article (not even the address) can be verified. I see that you have redirected it and it is the correct decision here. I would have gone for a redirection here as well as WP:V is important. Btw, I had previously encountered a hoax article about an alleged Nepalese language where the article creator had taken the pains to create a facebook page/twitter hashtag to convince us that it is real. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lapring language, link to deleted content and the Facebook page. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:11, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for taking a look and for the advice. The redirecting was undone per the AFD consensus, which seems to me to be contrary to the verifiability policy's direction that "[a]ny material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source," but it's probably not important as the whole mess is at DRV now (link if you're interested).

The Lapring hoax was pretty interesting. Rebbing 23:09, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Police list articles

I'll accept the argument in theory, but a few things that occurred to me were:

As [42] shows (see page 2, but I'll give you the figures) there are 17,985 police stations and over 1.1 million employees (as they differentiate "sworn" (i.e, badged LEOs) and "unsworn" (admin staff). That's a lot of hiring numbers to maintain, and a lot of reliance on primary sources to do it. I'm also not sure how we get to a level of "encyclopedic utility" from the current level of WP:NOTDIR, and it seems to be a perennial problem - big cities tend to be able to meet a bar of coverage, but little places don't, and even if they do, it's sometimes tangential - there was a big story about how a cop claimed he was under fire and was "killed", and in the end, the discovery was that the cop was embezzling money and committed suicide. So, in the end, the police agency itself had nothing ot do with it. MSJapan (talk) 00:08, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

@MSJapan:. Yes, I am not particularly fond of keeping such list articles. But I would like to get more community input before deciding. I'm looking at both a short term and long term solution. For the short term solution, if a few AfDs can establish that small town police departments are not notable, we can actually boldly redirect similar articles to the list articles without sending each to AfD. This saves a lot of time which would otherwise be spent debating on AfD. As for the long term solution, we need to decide if we want to actually keep the "list of law enforcement agencies in state x" articles. This can be decided later using an RfC since it would affect a lot of lists. If these lists are deleted, any articles redirecting to these lists would be deleted as well. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:21, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Pay Fong High School

Hi again, Lemongirl. Could I have your opinion on Pay Fong High School when you get time to look at it? It appears on the list of Chinese independent high schools in Malaysia that you informed me about here (thanks for that), but the school's website says that it is called Pay Fong Middle School. What do you think is happening there? Cordless Larry (talk) 20:28, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

@Cordless Larry: This is a genuine "high school" as well. Actually this school was established during the British colonial period in Malaysia. Chinese secondary schools in those days were termed as "Chinese Middle Schools" divided into "Junior Middle" and a "Senior Middle" sections in the same school. See this, page 99 for an explanation and also this for a related background. For all practical purposes, these are actually high schools as students go to university after finishing their schooling [43]. The term "high school" is generally used for schools which were established more recently while the term "middle school" continues to be used interchangeably for older schools. Pay Fong High School and Pay Fong Middle School are the same [44], [45]. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:52, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I didn't doubt that it was genuine, but was just a bit confused about its name and status. Thanks for expanding the stub, too. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:21, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome! :) --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:55, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Pulau Saigon

The article Pulau Saigon has been proposed for deletion. The proposed deletion notice added to the article should explain why.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles 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 article 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.--Moon King (talk) 07:01, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

@Moon King: I have DEPRODed it per WP:GEOLAND. You are welcome to AfD it if you want. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:15, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

I am. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pulau Saigon. Hopefully this will suffice as a notice. --Moon King (talk) 07:18, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. Please note that WP:POINTy actions can get you blocked. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:08, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm not trying to make a point. I just nominated an article for deletion. --Moon King (talk) 08:23, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Sun King

Please take a closer look at what you're doing here. The other editor isn't changing capitalization of "the" in "the Beatles". The change has nothing to do with capitalization. It is simply a change from "the [[Beatles]]" to "[[the Beatles]]" to avoid a redirected link. I'm sure you mean no harm, but you're edit warring over a minor edit that does not change the text of the article. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 14:54, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

I left it long back. My personal opinion is that "the" shouldn't be hyperlinked but yeah it's a minor issue so I'm not very bothered by it. I warned the editor though because the editor has been involved in a pattern of disruptive behaviour with a severe case of WP:IDHT (See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:_Moon_King_disruptive_AfD). --Lemongirl942 (talk) 00:58, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Are you continuing to insist you were right? This is the refusal to get it right here. "the" is linked to avoid a redirect. How many times are you not going to get this? --Moon King (talk) 03:49, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

You have a clear case of WP:IDHT. You tried to AfD a couple of articles to prove a point but failed horribly. Now you are being given a chance to prove that you can contribute to the encyclopaedia without edit warring and pointy editing, so I suggest you take the rope and not hang yourself with it. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:54, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

That is irrelevant to this discussion. You are actually the one with the "I did not hear that" and the WP:Competence problem in this particular instance. Do you still not understand why the "the" is linked and why it is better to have a direct link rather than a redirect? Do you still not understand you were in the wrong for edit warring about this? --Moon King (talk) 04:03, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

No, I was not wrong. You were wrong for edit warring because edit warring is wrong regardless of who is right. And you edit warred with multiple editors. And as for the "the", I don't support hyperlinking "the" in this case but it's a minor matter. I left it long ago, you are still going on about it. And please look into the mirror - will you admit that you were totally wrong about the AfDs and apologise for disruptive editing? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:14, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

No you were wrong. Forcing a redirect is not a legitimate view. I am willing to admit I was wrong to nominate your articles. I've already said I would stay away from AFD for some time. Why can't you admit you were wrong to edit war to force a redirect?--Moon King (talk) 04:32, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Oh the irony. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:36, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Not sure what's ironic. What I do see is that you are insisting on an illegitimate view. You cannot favor a redirect over a direct link. Why can't you see this? --Moon King (talk) 04:40, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

I am very clear that I do not favour linking "the" in "the Beatles". This is consistent as in many places we simply say "x is a Beatles song". A redirect does no harm btw and you could have changed the redirect to a direct link while still avoiding linking "the". But you edit warred with 3 different editors over this. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:50, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Actually I maintained the status quo. "the" is linked in every article about the Beatles, including this one in which you decided to edit war to force a redirect. The "the" is part of the name. You're continuing to confuse the issue. The "the" was always linked. Initially I decided to capitalize it. After learning about the consensus I did not do this anymore. Someone corrected it but did not link "the" as it always was and is on every Beatles article. MSJAPAN mistakenly believed I was causing a redirect, even though I wasn't. Then you edited, focusing on the capitalization even though that was not even the nature of the edits. Then you decided to edit war. Now you are clinging to an illegitimate view just to dispute me. --Moon King (talk) 05:02, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Campaigning

It appears that you have restored material that was campaigning. See WP:CAMPAIGNING.  Even if you support WP:TPO, when you restore inappropriate material, you take personal responsibility for what was restored.  Thank you. Unscintillating (talk) 02:12, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

@Unscintillating: I had a closer look now and I don't think it is really WP:CANVASSING (campaigning). The discussion seems to be specifically about flaws in how WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES is implemented. The potential for a campaign at a policy talk page is greatly diminished due to the varied interests of talk page watchers. Nevertheless, do you really think it is canvassing/campaigning? If yes, I will request the editors to word it in a neutral manner. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:21, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

@Unscintillating: I believe your removal of those comments was improper: TPO does not support the removal of canvassing, and this was not canvassing. Have a look at Wikipedia:Canvassing § Campaigning, which indicates that campaigning is permissible in certain discussions: it's clear from the context that the disputed comments were relevant to the effects of the essay under discussion and not mere discussion notifications (which should not include campaigning). Rebbing 02:52, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't really see how my comment could be seen as canvassing. I posted it on a relevant talk page, did not target specific editors, and worded it to be descriptive rather than prescriptive. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:05, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

• I see that I incorrectly believed that the post that followed yours, diff, was already at AfD.  My mistake.  Unscintillating (talk) 10:48, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for starting the COI investigation Welsh (Walled garden)-- it would be interesting to see how it develops. I've found these articles to be odd. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:06, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome K.e.coffman . I decided to post now as I am soon going to be offline for a day. It is best to have more eyes on the topic. I will keep a lookout for more when I return though. Cheers! --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:11, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Reason for my editing Fredrick Achom's Page

Greetings! First of all, at first level I am really really thankful to you, because I was not aware of all these conflicts that you brought to my notice. Now as I have great honor for you as you are much more senior and great editor. Honestly I request you to be my mentor, I first confess what I have done wrong. I was asked on fiverr to make some specific changes, about the Legal issues of Mr. Fredrick Achom, I was not aware of the conflict at that time and I took the project just for 40$, I had to change the heading and some data in that category. I researched, and found that my client has some legitimate claims, so I made the edit. But later, I got interested in the page, as it is my nature I get interested in things I do, (like you can see my contributions, I have made edits to a single article many times to make it better) and I was not even paid for that. I added the information after studying the references. It was just because of my curious nature, I was not paid a single penny after the first change. But I was not aware of the severity of controversial case. You can see my contributions and you would know that I love Wikipedia as it has been my source of knowledge and I love to spread knowledge. I apologies for my immature behavior, as I was not aware of such policies and conflicts, I request you to forgive my mistakes. I was trying to make some living out of my skills but I think I need a mentor to learn more, would you like to accept me as your student? and I promise I would never ever do anything like that again. and kindly guide me, how can I disclose that I was paid for that one page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Awais Azad (talk • contribs) 17:23, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Hey Awais Azad. Thank you for being gracious about it! I have to go offline now though. I will explain in detail later on your talk page. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 20:05, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

July 2016

@331dot: Please provide diffs showing that I am in an edit warring. Or otherwise remove this template yourself. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 01:16, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

You are entitled to remove this yourself if it bothers you. Threatening to haul someone into ANI for removing a speedy sounds like an edit war to me. Unless they are the page creator(which AFAIK isn't the case here) anyone can remove a speedy tag especially if they provide a reason, which was done. The next step you can do is begin an AfD. 331dot (talk) 01:21, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

@331dot:The 2 editors in question have severe competence issues and have been hounding me for a while - declining my speedies such as this. This article has a history of COI editing btw and it is badly promotional. It was largely written by a paid editor who I explained the process (of COI management)yesterday and who is now working on a new draft Draft:Surbana Jurong Private Limited which can go through AfC. I then tagged this article for speedy (which was declined no idea why by an editor with competence issues). I then moved it to draft. The same editor (who removed the speedy) then submitted it to AfC and accepted it themselves. How does that work - since when do editors submit an article to AfC and self accept it? I tagged it for speedy again and another of the editor's buddies joins in declining a G11 speedy with an A7 reasoning. And then you turn up and decide to revert and template me. Another editor has now reverted your removal of the speedy btw. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 01:28, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

My attention was drawn to the ANI statement so I am obviously unfamiliar with the situation. I still think the best solution is to start an AfD(which if removed is a blockable offense) however, I pledge to stop my interference. My apologies 331dot (talk) 01:34, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

@331dot: No worries. I'm sorry for my outburst as well. I understand that you only looked at that last statement. I think I will have to go to ANI though because these editors are not stopping their disruptive editing at all. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 01:40, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Unsolicited advice

Please take this advice in the spirit with which it was intended (charitable)...

You really need to back off and cease templating Zpeopleheart, going after their frequented articles, edits, and the like. It now looks like you are targeting them and it's very possible your charge against them of hounding will end up boomeranging on you. If I were you, I'd leave the articles they frequent alone for a while and definitely not do things that now just look like retaliation on your part. Every time you do what you're now doing, in light of the SPI and AN/I, it looks like you're intentionally poking them. And that kind of behavior typically ends badly in Wikipedia. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:18, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Hey Winkelvi. I understand you are talking about this [46]. I unreviewed the page in question (to let another editor review it) but it seems the page curation tool automatically left the templated message on Zpeopleheart's talk page the moment I unreviewed it. There should be a way of making this optional >.< (Anyway, I have self reverted now, since I'm not fond of templating either [47]). I understand about the boomerang and which is why I intentionally stopped looking at Zpeopleheart's edits after I filed the ANI and let the community handle them. This unreviewing (after 12 hours) is actually the first action I took after the ANI and even then I took care not to edit the page itself. Didn't realise about the templating though, so thanks for the head up. Don't worry, I try to stay on the high ground myself, although I may dip my toes in water. ;) --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:43, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your effort in creating a thorough ANI. Wow, the experience with the editors was bizarre -- but I'm glad it's resolved now. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:48, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you as well K.e.coffman. You were a great help! I am glad this is over haha. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:08, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Clarify relationship with the subject "Leung Tsang"

Hi Lemongirl942,(such a funny name :) ). I am creating the article "Leung Tsang". He is my advisor. But I did not write the article subjectively, I copied almost everything from his resume. And I was not paid to write an article for Leung Tsang. Thanks so much for your suggestions. Joestc (talk) 19:30, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Zzzzz

Regarding the discussion just above this one, I'm thinking WP:SLEEPER account (it was created in 2011 and has not been used until now. Is there anything in regard to the article discussed above that you think might connect the two accounts just indeffed at ANI and being looked at for SPI? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:46, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion/improvement of two articles

Hey there! Was combing through several Singapore-related articles recently. Came across two which I think are deletion worthy (National Night and J-Walk (Jurong East, Singapore)). Give the two a look and tell me what you think. The two articles seem to have a little coverage in secondary sources and could potentially be improved as an alternative. -- MageLam 06:17, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

MageLam Hey thanks! Just tagged J-Walk (Jurong East, Singapore) for CSD. (This was created by a sockpuppet of an indeffed user. I mean seriously, who creates an article for a covered walkway?) For the other one, there are secondary sources so I can't use speedy, but since it will be permanently a stub, it may be appropriate to cover it in the 2012 national day article. Also the campaign was actually called "Mentos National Night". Since "National Night" is a generic term and may involve other users, I think the first step is to do set up a request move. Once it is moved, a merge proposal can be set up. I can set up the RM if you want. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:30, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, who says Wikipedia doesn't create articles about covered walkways? Lol. XD Well of course, this really depends on notability. But anyways, yeah, I do think that the National Night page could be moved, it appears to be a rather generic term. As for merger, I'm not exactly too sure if we should merge it with the NDP 2012 page. -- MageLam 06:59, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Outcomes

Lemingirl, with all due respect, you are missing the point entirely. One policy is that our policies are not graven in stone. If a school is proven to exist and is a high school, it will be kept. You can't change the way way we do things here that are agreed by consensus evidenced by thousands of high school AfD closures. Perhaps voting on AfDs is not the best task for you - I've noticed you do some excellent work on Singapore articles, perhaps you can help more (I'm the coord of WP:WPSCH) to keep the the spam and promo out of the Singapore school lists and articles, they are particularly notorious for it. Primary schools in Singapore, List of secondary schools in Singapore. Regards, --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:57, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Kudpung Thank you, I do gnome Singapore/Malaysian schools once in a while and I might consider doing some more. I respect IAR and if there is consensus that the school exists, I generally tend to defer to that. But the reason I insist on WP:V is not simply because it is an essential part of WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, but because it goes a long way towards improving the encyclopaedia. I have noticed that many previous AfDs have been kept even though not one source was provided for verifiability during the discussion. While this has been going on for a long time, I think it is worth changing the culture. I see the AfDs as a good opportunity where the community (who may otherwise have never encountered the article) tends to at least look at the article. And this opportunity can be used to actually find sources and add it to the article or at least mention on the AfD. I have done so previously (See AfDs SMK Raja Muda, SMK Kok Lanas, SMK Mahsuri). While there may have been many previous AfDs where the school was not verified, it doesn't mean we need to continue that forever. I am trying to change this for the better and I think it is beneficial in the long term. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:38, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, it will be continued forever until such times as the rules or accepted procedures are changed by formal RfC. There really have been many attempts and they have all failed. Some people try the back-door approach through AfD (one user regularly sends an arbitrary selection of 100 or so schools to AfD every year in January, but they get nowhere with it. The community's tacit consensus is anchored on the clear statement by Jimbo Wales many years ago, the fact that literally 1,000s of school articles have been kept as long as their existence is proven, and that, most importantly, schools are the one and only type of articles in the entire Wikipedia that are even exempted from WP:A7. Anecdote: Have you tried changing Singapore law by deliberately chewing gum? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:10, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Kudpung With regards to this, I'm not sure if we are on the same page. My stance (explained in the AfDs) is very clear

Keep any accredited high school as long as one reliable independent source can be found to show that the school exists

I am struggling to understand how is this different from WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES in any way. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:20, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Keep Amit Lohani

An organization is obvioualy dependent on its leadership to attain growth and that is clearly evident in this case too. While we see mention of FIFI in electeonic and print media every now and then we also see name of Amit Lohani with it. Why do we have wikipedia pages on living individuals like John Mackey and others we should have a page only on whole foods as thats the organisation because of which he got recognition. As stated earlier the page has not been created to have Amit Lohani's cv but, with an objective to being his work at a platform. Also, you might be intetested to note that owing to his voice on several trade barriers, interactions with Government of India's his work has been recognized by several country governments. Indian market is growing at a considerable pace and should be given its due importance and it is extremly important to recognize trade voice like his in Indian context instead of not giving it due gravity and considering his work as negligible or of no importance. Thank you for your understanding. Mishra S Shukla (talk) 06:31, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Mishra S Shukla. Wikipedia has slightly different rules for notability: we rely on what has been reported. John Mackey is notable because there are sources like this article and this article which give detailed information about the subject. If you can find similar articles for Amit Lohani, I will be willing to keep it.

I'm not saying that Amit Lohani is of "no importance". I'm just saying that the article on him is not suitable for inclusion according to our policies and guidelines. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:47, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Lemongirl942. Thank you for your reply as I see that you expertise in Singapore I would want to highlight that Amit Lohani has been invited by Singapore Minister of Trade and Industries, Mr.S Iswaram, to sign MOU with singapore trade ministry. He also led delegation of 43 stakeholders for this initiative and has been covered well by media in Singapore.1 /article 2 [48].

He has been selected by Government of United Stated in 2013 for IVLP program which President and Prime Minister of numerous countries as its alumini. His views have been covered several times by numerous renowned print and electronic media groups, which clearly indicate that the subject holds a important position in the changing FnB trade scenario and also that such personalities are required to continue to bring India on a global platform. We are givng few for your reference and can refer to more if need be. We strongly urge that importance to India trade scenario and people involved should be given on platform like this. 1. Economic Times times 2. NDTV [49]. 3. Dollar Magazine (page 3: [50] 4. Progressive Grocers : ( Page 10 10 5. Media Today today. 6. Koam TV: TV. 7. FnB News news.

Umm, none of that is significant coverage. See WP:BASIC and WP:GNG for what is significant coverage. A quote is not significant coverage. I gave you a couple of articles in a reliable media which are reasonably detailed and talk quite a bit about the person. We need something like that. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:28, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

I understand you are creating the article in good faith, but we need reliable source: See WP:RS. Some of the sources above are not reliable. Newspapers with a track record of good circulation and sound editorial process are reliable sources. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:46, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Newspaper articles we referred to are obviously reliable and have great circulation. We can not question reliability of national media groups like Economic Times, NDTV, and others. These are widely accepted in Indian as well as global context. Also, that we do not have a one page article in newyorker on Amit Lohani but, we have his views covered by several renowed groups in pages. And I am sure that you understand that no media house of international fame will publish an individuals views in great length without any base to it.

To an extent UAE governement too covered him: UAE Embassy. Media today group had a two page interview by him and had him on the cover page story. Bussiness Standard : on technical barriers I have given you number of citations indicating that he is a strong voice and is heard across the board in FnB trade. From several country governments to government of India, to media groups both in India and abroad. You will have to give context to Indian trade scenario and importance of such notable personalities as India can not be compared to Singapore or United States, as a develiping economy it still has several teething issues and the work which might appear of less or no importance to you has great relevance here. This should be given gravity by team WP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mishra S Shukla (talk • contribs) 09:15, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

NDTV and Economic Times are definitely reliable sources. The problem here is the amount of content about him is restricted to 1 line in economic times [51]. We need something like the majority of the article focusing only on him and gives details about his life and work. The NDTV link ihas only 1 short quote by him.[52]. Sources in national media are what helps to make a person notable. We need significant coverage specifically about the person. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:25, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

A bowl of strawberries for you!

Hi, I just wanted to let you know that I am so sorry for my insensitive post to that talk page yesterday. I can guess how you must be feeling. My behavior was indeed inappropriate and hurtful. I hope you will be able to forgive me. I look forward to seeing you around the project. Mona778 (talk) 12:25, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Hey Mona778! Thank you so much. (I love Strawberries! It is one of my favourite fruits).

Don't worry about that post. I am not feeling bad anymore. I understand that you were stressed out at that time. No hard feelings! I would love to see you around the project. I was reading some of your articles today and I think you are doing a really good job! Cheers! --Lemongirl942 (talk) 12:40, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

school edits?

Please see comments from PamD and myself at User talk:Donald1659 and in extended form with some additional discussion on my talk p. DGG ( talk ) 14:24, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you DGG. I will comment there. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 01:20, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Lemongirl942. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:Page Curation.
Message added 14:50, 5 August 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

As to the deletion of "deepin"

Hi there, I just found out that "deepin" has been deleted for "not notable" and "not significant in its particular field". So I got deeply, deeply confused, because as far as I concern, deepin, whose popularity currently ranking 14 on distrowatch among Linux distributions, while SliTaz (no offense, just an example, randomly selected) ranking 91, got a wiki-page. Actually I randomly checked several distros ranking below 50 and no surprise, they all have a wiki-page, so we just do not understand why is this happening. We are just a free open source distro trying to contribute to the community. We have submitted millions of strings in Github. So please, do please give instructions. AlickDeepin (talk) 01:29, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

References

Hi AlickDeepin Distrowatch is not what I call a reliable source of ranking - a ranking on distrowatch is not an indicator of popularity. In additional, notability involves multiple factors.

I appreciate that you are working to create a good distro and contribute to the community. I commend you for it. However that doesn't correlate as to whether the topic should have a Wikipedia page. An important policy of Wikipedia is WP:NOTPROMO.We are not here to promote any distros. This is not notable at this time. I will not encourage you to try again because it might be considered disruptive. Maybe after a couple of years?

As for your questions about why there are other articles and why I chose to delete this one, it is possible that the other do not meet the notability criteria as well. You may wish to read WP:SEWAGE, a page which humourously explains a similar situation. I stand by my view that the distro is not notable at this time. My suggestion for you would be to try again in a couple of years once it actually starts being used by a significant percentage of linux users. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 01:46, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Han Chinese

Hi Lemongirl942, this user Lysimachi has added a lot of citation needed tags to the Han Chinese article previously. While I have no problem with adding tags to unsourced statements (but what about tags that are added to something that is fairly obvious), now the entire article is flooded with tags. The over representation of tags in the article is strange. It is also strange that in Lysimachi's edit [53], the user label the language as "Han languages", and changes link to the likes of Hakka Chinese, Gan Chinese to Hakka language and Gan language.--Balthazarduju (talk) 08:30, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Balthazarduju, I'm beginning to see slow POV pushing (and advocacy editing) going on by one particular user. Anyway, I'm reverting some of the changes and have added it to the watchlist. Thank you for letting me know. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 22:36, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I just want to thank you for cleaning up the Han Chinese article in the midst of tag bombing. On that paper [54] you were talking about, I think one analysis titled "Constructing Peace in the Taiwan Strait: a constructivist analysis of the changing dynamics of identities and nationalisms" isn't really relevant to prove a whole identity.

Also, Lysimachi last year created an article called Han American (See here). But that was redirected. And the Han Taiwanese article is also fairly new, and it was created by Lysimachi in November of 2015.--Balthazarduju (talk) 02:12, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Balthazarduju, thank you for your help. I have seen a lot of POV pushing going on in China/Taiwan article and I'm seriously sick of it. That paper was for a dispute at "Han Taiwanese". In English, "Han Chinese" is ethnicity regardless of nationality and this is the English Wikipedia. So a Han Taiwanese is actually a Taiwanese of Han Chinese descent. Somehow, Lysimachi doesn't want the word Chinese in the article. I'm sick of the edit warring at Han Taiwanese as well, so if you don't mind could you help discuss and show Lysimachi where they are wrong? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:00, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I changed the citation needed span into just a citation needed. Lysimachi used to put many citation needed span onto the Han Chinese article [55], which made the paragraph in my opinion, more laborious to see.--Balthazarduju (talk) 04:00, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

@Balthazarduju: The quotes in the citation are specifically because the sources are not accessible/paywalled. In such cases, we quote the relevant parts. As for citation needed span - it is generally preferred over the citation needed. In this case though, since the entire paragraph needs citations, I have removed the span. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:13, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Already on it

Hi LG, saw your comments at Talk:Whacked Out Media FYI: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Barney83Stinson. Two of his socks are indeffed. He was blocked for a week. If the disruptions persist, I'll indef him too. Lemme know if you see anything, please. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 08:31, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Hey, thank you for the SPI link. I will dig around to find more. Pretty sure they have been pushing a lot of articles. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:35, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

NativeForeigner confirmed another account, KittyLynch. I've indeffed her and upgraded Barney83Stinson's block to indefinite. If you have any other socks in mind, could you please add them and whatever behavioral evidence you have to the "Comments from other users" section at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Barney83Stinson? Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:17, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Battle of Ia Drang talk page

I don't understand why you revert my restoration of the RfC's ending. It's a result of vandalism and should be restored. Thanks for any explanation. Dino nam (talk) 02:07, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

p/s: If it's because of the IP, then I'm sorry for forgeting to sign in. Dino nam (talk) 02:09, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

@Dino nam: If one particular editor has reverted an RFC's closure twice, you are not supposed to reclose it again. You edit btw was bordering on comment refactoring. You started the RFC and you are not supposed to reclose it at all. Believe me, that is grounds for blocking. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 00:08, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Oh, actually I don't close it but restore the closure of another editor. It's the exact thing that user:AustralianRupert has put onto the RfC, no modification. Dino nam (talk) 08:02, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia email re Newspapers.com signup

Hello, Lemongirl942. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

HazelAB (talk) 14:06, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. I just replied. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:47, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Deletion of facts in Grace Chia's Wiki page

Hi lemongirl,

Thanks for pointing out flaws in Vuk Krakovic wiki page, as well as being so thorough on Grace Chia's article. It would have been fair if you did some research on edited article before deleting the contribution. Being apparently a native English speaker and Singaporean yourself, you should be aware that no female poet has won The Singapore Literature prize in English Poetry since its inception, and that the comment was directed towards this odd coincidence which suggests that either: a.No Singapore female poets opus was worthy of receiving the English Poetry prize, or b. Ther is an obvious preference and sort of commeradery between predominantly male judges when it comes to choosing the winners. I would really appreciate if YOU could address this fact about SLP in English Poetry section, so that people become aware of it, because Singapore certainly produced some outstanding female poets in last 50 years. Thank you. Tchkovu (talk) 10:04, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution Noticeboard

You are involved in a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:.25C3.259Cr.25C3.25BCmqi.23Demographics.Rajmaan (talk) 17:33, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

DZXL?

Absolutely nothing has happened with this in about a month. I'm still inclined to get rid of it or redirect it. MSJapan (talk) 01:05, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Hey MSJapan. I actually looked at certain stuff which makes me doubt supporting a redirect. For one, it seems the radio station is a well known radio station which produces its own original content. Here they interviewed a senator. This (although not sure how reliable), describes it as "dzXL, the flagship AM station of Radio Mindanao Network (RMN)". There are a bunch of small mentions in this blog (though self published), here, here. here and some union activity at this station. Although many are trivial mentions, my guess is that this looks to be important in the Philippines, so I am willing to let it be a stub. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 01:22, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

A scope regarding old Sentosa articles

Hey there, it's been awhile again. First of, I would like to apologize if you believe any of my recent edits appeared disruptive to you. Rather than being extremely bold, I've started to turn a little bit more lenient and pacifist with the way I handle things on this site now, given my recent brushes with a number of editors. Anyways, damage control isn't the main topic of this discussion, rather, I would like to open up on what I did in the past and I thought you would be the appropriate individual to handle this odd case. When I was still new to Wikipedia (circa 2012), I created several articles within the scope of old Sentosa (circa 1980-2007). Most of my edits were concentrated on articles regarding the Sentosa Musical Fountain, such as Magical Sentosa and Songs and Tunes from the Original Soundtrack of Magical Sentosa. I was an obsessed cult fan of Magical Sentosa at the time and as a result, the edits I made back then were heavily COI oriented (with an added hint of original research and unreliable sources of course). I also created stub articles regarding the Fountain Gardens and the Sentosa Ferry Terminal, most of which were also heavily original material (with few citations). Thinking of it now, I believe that these articles could be easily nominated for deletion given the way they are cited and written. However, if there's a possibility of cleaning up this mess as an alternative, I would gladly appreciate your help. Oh and finally, I'll leave you with a cringy "dedication quote" that I made in one of the older revisions of the Magical Sentosa article. XD -- MageLam 03:27, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Hey MageLam. The articles your wrote are pretty well written. Actually, I have noticed the same in most Singapore articles. There is tonnes of good content but lacks citations. This is a problem because other editors can remove the content and (although I might disagree with the removal), I can't do anything per policy as the WP:BURDEN lies on me. I feel quite sad because so many articles have good content. It is also worth mentioning that many were written at a time when the encyclopaedia was in the expansion phase with focus on content creation rather than citations (it is now in the maintenance phase). Although your article might contain a bit of original research, it contains a lot of valuable information as well. In fact, sometimes it is easier to search for sources on seeing the information in the article, rather than the opposite.

I can try to look for citations for your articles. I'm pretty sure there will be some reliable sources, considering the long history of the events and places. The topics are notable according to me so it shouldn't be nominated for deletion. If it does get nominated before I can improve, please let me know and I will help out.

About COI, you don't have a COI here. ;) COI is usually for someone connected with the subject of the article. Fans don't have a COI.

Wikipedia is built on collaboration. I have learnt a lot too and I now lean a bit towards eventualism. I don't immediately remove text, particularly for articles about places, unless it is blatant advertisement or directory. I trust that someone will come and provide citations.

That quote is nice (though a bit cringey)! :D But I read a lot on fantasy and magic, so I wouldn't mind it lol. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:53, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

@Lemongirl942: Thanks for taking the time to look through this. By the way, about the Songs and Tunes from the Original Soundtrack of Magical Sentosa article. I originally created the article because of how much content space it was taking up on the parent article. But now, I kinda feel that it doesn't really fit the criteria for a notable album. There's barely any sources out there that discusses in detail, the show's soundtrack. The most I could find at the time was a track listing on a website and a collection of audio recordings that were rediscovered in 2013 (ala original research). If there's actually a possibility of improving said article, please, do let me know. ;) -- MageLam 09:27, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Backlog

The NPP backlog now stands at 13,158 total unreviewed pages.

Just to recap:

• 13 July 2016: 7,000
• 1 August 2016: 9,000
• 7 August 2016: 10,472
• 16 August 2016: 11,500
• 28 August 2016: 13,158

You naturally don't have to feel obliged, but if there's anything you can do it would be most appreciated. I've spent 40 hours on it this week but it's only a drop in the ocean.--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:07, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Proposal: New Page Reviewer user right

A discussion is taking place to request that New Page Patrollers be suitably experienced for patrolling new pages. Your comments at New pages patrol/RfC for patroller right are welcome. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:07, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated (Aug 2016)

Hi, I'm Graeme Bartlett. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Socioeconomy, and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:21, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Graeme Bartlett: I apologize for intruding, but may I ask why you unreviewed this and Socioeconomies? Both appear to have been correct patrols—they were already at RFD when Lemongirl checked them off—and, from the page histories, it doesn't appear you changed anything. Thanks. Rebbing 22:31, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I clicked the review tick, as it at first said not yet reviewed, and it unreviewed it instead. Some kind of review edit conflict. It was a mistake caused by me not reading the confirm box carefully. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:41, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Oh, no worries Graeme Bartlett. I have noticed similar edit conflicts previously as well. I guess the software takes some time to update the review status. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 23:06, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Rebbing for clarifying! --Lemongirl942 (talk) 23:07, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

As always! I'd heard murmurs about this bug months ago, but I assumed it'd long since been resolved. At least now I know! Rebbing 23:41, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Now I see what happens if the page is opened for patrol and left too long—the token expires. But issuing a token does not stop anyone else from patrolling. I am not convinced that it is a "bug", as edit conflicts work like this too. Anyone can get in and edit and save if they are the first to do so, and everyone else gets an edit conflict. For "patrolled" though the option changes from "patrol" to "unpatroll". Though I think "unpatroll" should not be such an easy option to use, as it would be quite rare in its use. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:01, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

It seems to me the tool ought to be set up differently. When the editor opens the toolbar with the page unreviewed and the tick mark unticked and the page is subsequently reviewed by someone else, clicking the review button should do nothing instead of transforming into the opposite. Similarly, if I click "undo" on a change but spend a minute typing out an edit summary and you revert it first, my change is simply discarded (a null edit). Rebbing 00:50, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Although I'm not sure, my guess is that the tool simply "flips" the "reviewed bit". When 2 editors do it in succession, it results in the page being unreviewed. I think Rebbing's suggestion is worth looking into. Instead of flipping the value, it should simply discard the second value if it is same as the recent one. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:33, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Hokkien, Hoklo, and Minnan people and language in the United States

Hi, the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hokkien and Hoklo Americans has been closed and the result was "no consensus". From the discussion, the only users who supported keeping the article were Prisencolin, who created the article (does the creator of the article's vote count?) and Lysimachi, who wrote keep twice. With a result of "no consensus", what does it mean, what's next?--Balthazarduju (talk) 01:42, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm not very sure either. I guess you can start an RFC if you want. I have a lot to do right now though, so I will let it be for the time being. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:34, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Your Newspapers.com account

You should have access to Newspapers.com now. Please note that our WP Library free accounts do not include Publisher Extra content. HazelAB (talk) 14:15, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Chinese names in non-Chinese S'porean bio pages

Hi, I'd like to thank you for being proactive and keeping Tharman Shanmugaratnam's wiki page free of unnecessary edits. Linguistic chauvinism (ie. the act of pushing a language in a place where it is not required or necessary, especially when the language in question isn't the person's native tongue) is rather rampant on Wikipedia. I see that you recently reverted yet another edit (after we reached the consensus on the talk page) by a user by the name of 'Goldencheesepie'. I checked the contributions of the user and he or she appears to be going on a spree to add extra languages to the bio articles of prominent persons in Singapore. I have reverted the edits so far. Tiger7253 (talk) 18:20, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "Talk:Han Taiwanese#Lead_sentence_WikiLink".The discussion is about the topic Han Taiwanese. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! --—UY Scuti ^Talk 13:19, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Hakka Americans

Hi, so the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hakka Americans ended in a result of "keep"? I don't quite understand that. It had three votes of "redirect" to Chinese Americans, three votes of "keep" (one of the three votes came from the creator of the article, and I'm not sure what is the guideline on the creator's vote). One vote of merge to Taiwanese Americans, and one vote of keep or merge to Chinese ethnic groups in the United States. But how did this ended with "keep"? I think the discussion should've been kept open for longer.--Balthazarduju (talk) 00:40, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't understand how editors would see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manchu Americans need to be deleted, and yet Hakka be kept?--Balthazarduju (talk) 00:40, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

You did a cursory reading of the page for Sharon Christian and on the basis of what must have been only 2minutes of research conclude the page is a "delete". Seriously? Look a little harder. There is verifiable evidence in the Calgary Herald (a MAJOR newspaper), the Much Music/Much West national television broadcast (a MAJOR TV show from the 1980s and 1990s), the Arts West Journal (a MAJOR publication in its time), the Canadian Painters in Water Colour (the premier society for Water Colour artists in Canada), and the Alberta Foundation for the Arts (a MAJOR Foundation for arts). Unfortunately most of this documentation requires more than a trivial internet search, despite what some might think. You cannot find the full page spread in the Calgary Herald on the internet because the Calgary Herald does not have internet accessible archives; but when you do find it, you will see a large reproduction of the artists' work, which is clear evidence of notability per wiki definitions. And it's worth remembering that "Notability is not temporary; once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage." Although her work did have on-going coverage. We all need to remember that research is not just about a quick romp through the internet, which itself was only invented recently and which documents a tiny fraction of the notable work pre-internet. Icareaboutart (talk) 00:49, 1 September 2016 (UTC)