User talk:ReaderofthePack

·

WikiCup 2019 March newsletter

And so ends the first round of the competition. Everyone with a positive score moves on to Round 2. With 56 contestants qualifying, each group in Round 2 contains seven contestants, with the two leaders from each group due to qualify for Round 3 as well as the top sixteen remaining contestants.

Our top scorers in Round 1 were:

• L293D, a WikiCup newcomer, led the field with ten good articles on submarines for a total of 357 points.
• Adam Cuerden, a WikiCup veteran, came next with 274 points, mostly from eight featured pictures, restorations of artwork.
• MPJ-DK, a wrestling enthusiast, was in third place with 263 points, garnered from a featured list, five good articles, two DYKs and four GARs.
• Usernameunique came next at 243, with a featured article and a good article, both on ancient helmets.
• Squeamish Ossifrage was in joint fifth place with 224 points, mostly garnered from bringing the 1937 Fox vault fire to featured article status.
• Ed! was also on 224, with an amazing number of good article reviews (56 actually).

These contestants, like all the others, now have to start scoring points again from scratch. Between them, contestants completed reviews on 143 good articles, one hundred more than the number of good articles they claimed for, thus making a substantial dent in the review backlog. Well done all!

Remember that any content promoted after the end of Round 1 but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews.

If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk).

January 2020 at Women in Red

January 2020, Volume 6, Issue 1, Numbers 146, 148, 149, 150, 151, 153 Happy Holidays from all of us at Women in Red, and thank you for your support in 2019. We look forward to working with you in 2020! Online events: New: Activists / Public domain / Geofocus: Central America / Year-long campaign: Sports! Continuing: 2019 deaths / #1day1woman Editor feedback: Help us plan our future events at the Ideas Cafe Join the conversations on our talkpage Social media: Facebook / Instagram / Pinterest / Twitter Stay in touch: Join WikiProject Women in Red / Opt-out of notifications

Draft:Lost Islamic History: Reclaiming Muslim Civilisation from the Past

Hi! ReaderofthePack,

I'm Incognipedia, I submitted a draft for review recently which you declined today. You declined it because it was not written in a formal tone of a encyclopedia article and it contained Goodreads as sources and the review i mentioned in the article was very short. You recommended to find some article to prove notability of the topic of the article which is a book.

So, I made some changes i removed the Goodreads citations and I have included a longer review by a magazine named AramcoWorld in the article. Can you please have a look at the article and point out current imperfections in the article that will lead to a decline of the review of this article.

Thanks in advance :) --Incognipedia (talk) 13:23, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

• I'll take a look and give feedback. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:35, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

First of all, thank you so much for taking out time and editing the draft and making it much much better.

Now, as you've edited it, do you think I should resubmit it for review? Incognipedia (talk) 09:09, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

• I've left a note on your talk page. Ultimately I'm a little unsure as to whether it would pass. I'd like to approve it, but it's really kind of borderline and I'd like to have a fellow user check it out first. If he says no, then unfortunately it's not going to be able to be moved. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:19, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Drafts, talk pages and others

Hello. I wanted to talk not only about the draft, but also about other things. First, I am talking the part of the drafts. Remember the draft you denied due to many of its sections unreferenced, being very focused on the short instead of the character and the mention of a non-notable but existent fanwork? I have improved it by removing the mention of the animated series and I put 2 more sources, as well as I had to re-use some references to render the "Description" section less unreferenced. I have doubts about improving the draft: Do I have to add more references in the subsection where the Pixar character appeared for the first time? Do I have to move the part of the "Concept and creation" section (specifically where it focuses how the short film evolved) to the The Adventures of André & Wally B. article?

I also want to comment something on talk pages. Every now and then, I find sections which violates the talk page guidelines in a talk page about articles and then I remove them. So I recently found the talk page of Wolfwalkers (an animated film from "Irish Folklore Trilogy" I am not interested) and I considered it as the "worst" talk page I have ever seen, that is to say, all of its sections treat the talk page as a forum, even one of them (the "Wolfwalkers: Christmas Holiday Special" section) resembles mostly a fanfiction by its nature. That is why I came up with the idea of removing all sections of this talk page for violating the guidelines.

And regarding the edits which can be considered unconstructive, I can tell you one thing: I sincerely think that the list of Pixar shorts needs semi-protection because lately there are IPs that are putting false information, such as claiming that The Adventures of André & Wally B. was released theatrically with Luca, being the latter one my least favourite Pixar film.

In brief words, do you think I should keep improving more on the draft? Do you agree to delete all sections which violate the guidelines from the mentioned talk page? Do you think the list I mentioned deserves semi-protection?--André the Android^(talk) 21:17, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

• @André the Android: Hi! Here are my responses:

1. The draft is definitely improved. It still has the same issues with notability, so I like your suggestion of adding the concept and creation section to the article on the short. I think that yours is better written than the production section in the live article. I would merge in any missing information or perhaps add this as a subsection to the production section if you don't wish to do that. I think that you could also create a section on the short's characters and add the content you've created for André. My only advice there would be to leave out anything unsourced and to make sure that it's not written too in-universe.
2. With talk page articles, it depends on what is posted. In the case of the Wolfwalkers talk page, that was definitely a huge violation of talk page guidelines. I've gone ahead and cleared it out. The user in question had other talk page violations in the past, so I gave them a small block as a warning. In any case, if you're ever unsure about whether or not a talk page is appropriate, you can always ask myself, another admin, or trusted editor to review it. Thank you for letting me know about that page!
3. With the page protection, you can always request page protection here. I would first recommend bringing this up on the article's talk page, as the PP request page will look for that as well as how heavily the page is edited. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:55, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

@ReaderofthePack: Ok, I will answer your responses:

In my idea of moving the content of my draft's "Concept and creation" section to the short film's article's "Production" section, what I came up with was to add as a subsection, as you said before. To do this, I would have to cut or alter these paragraphs:

Pixar was founded on February 3, 1979 under a Lucasfilm division called The Graphics Group. At that time, six of the Computer Graphics Lab employees, including Edwin Catmull and Alvy Ray Smith, were hired by George Lucas.

Development of the short film began on July 31, 1983, when it was tentatively titled Android's Awake and its original plot was about an android gazing at the forest happily after waking up, as well as John Lasseter left Walt Disney Productions and he was hired to work for The Graphics Group.

And then I would paste that part in my own sandbox I will create later. Once it is ready to be transferred to the appropiate article (in this case, the article about The Adventures of André and Wally B.), I cut and paste it again. Meanwhile, the character development part would have to be written differently and it would included a text where it explains how Wally B. was created and the short film's title was eventually changed to the actual one.

As for talk pages, thanks for removing one of the pending tasks I must do... and you're welcome!

And about semi-protection, I didn't know there is a page where anyone can request semi-protection in pages. So I can request semi-protection in case there are more IPs which try to put false information on the list of Pixar short films.--André the Android^(talk) 22:01, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

• Sounds like a good plan! ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:47, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

@ReaderofthePack: I'm glad you liked my idea of moving content to the appropiate page. While I edit this text in the sandbox, I don't know what I should do with the copied text from the draft's "Concept and creation section". But I imagine that in that section of the draft, the text about the short film and its background will be either very brief (in the case of some articles such as Bowsette) or absent (in the case of many articles about fictional characters, such as Pichu and Buzz Lightyear).

And one more thing: about the semi-protection of pages, it seems that the list of Pixar shorts isn't having disruptive edits as of yesterday. So I have decided to ask an admin to render the list of creepypastas semi-protected instead because, despite I am not a big fan of horror fiction, I'm worried that this list would still be vandalized if no one acted.--André the Android^(talk) 21:17, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

• @André the Android: With the first point, I'm not entirely sure what you're asking - are you asking if it would be OK that the section would be more about the character than the short? If so, that's fine. The reason I say that is that while it would be more about the character, the character creation is still an important part of the development process. Also, while it would be more about the character, that would only be for now - there's always the possibility of you or someone else coming in and expanding it with additional information. If you're very worried, you can always make this a subsection within the development section entitled "Character creation". This would set it aside as specifically for the character.

For the list, I've given it a week's protection with pending changes enabled. This would allow IPs and new editors to suggest new edits but would require editors who have confirmed accounts (ie, enough time and edits) to accept the proposed changes. It's actually pretty surprising that it hadn't been protected before, to be honest. I can extend the protection once the time period is up and more unhelpful/problematic edits occur. I say when and not if, since the edit history makes it seem pretty obvious that it will continue. We have to work up to the longer page protections with this sort of thing, which can be a bit frustrating, but so it goes. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:50, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

@ReaderofthePack: It is exactly what I meant: that the "Concept and creation" section should focus more on the character than on the short film where he appeared. As of January 6, 2020, I currently own a Spanish copy of Pixar Short Films Collection, Volume 1 (which title is "Los Mejores Cortos de Pixar - Volumen 1", which literally means "The Best Short Films of Pixar, Volume 1" in Castilian Spanish, something the Spanish equivalent of the article about the compilation hasn't put yet) and I was checking if the audio commentary about The Adventures of André and Wally B. said any more information about the character development of André, but it turned out that it didn't say anything but the short film's initial plot, how they modeled the character and how they revolutionized computer generated images. As I move the text where it talks a lot about the development of the short film to my sandbox, I will go looking for some more information (and, of course, sources) about André's character development.

About the newly semi-protected list, thanks for doing it! I have been able to take advantage of it by correcting a word all in lowercase, reverting a (in my opinion) disruptive edit made by an IP in the process. Therefore, this prevents vandals who are either IPs or newly created accounts from editing disruptively the list.

And one more thing, I have observed that, after deleting all the sections of Talk:Wolfwalkers which violated the guidelines, some IPs created new sections which, instead of discussing about improving the article, treated the talk page as a forum.--André the Android^(talk) 23:08, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

• It looks like possible block evasion, so I've opened a WP:SPI looking into this. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:24, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

@ReaderofthePack: Prior to the creation of the sockpuppet investigation, I didn't know that these IPs mentioned in the newly created sockpuppet investigation was used by the same person, despite their similar writing style. And speaking about sockpuppet investigations, I have seen that, in the talk page of the sockpuppeteer StevenBInc, it contains a section full of personal attacks which makes an obvious reference to a subculture of Internet videos which involves grounding, and it was the origin of how he created accounts only for sockpuppetry.

An I discovered that an IP added content claiming that Buzz Lightyear of Star Command: The Adventure Begins counts as one of Pixar's theatrical films by mentioning it on feature films which aren't being accompanied with a short film. In my opinion, I would say that I disagree with the IP because its edits are not helpful to be honest.--André the Android^(talk) 23:27, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

I have had another look on the talk page of the article about Wolfwalkers to see if someone violates a guideline and I found one more sockpuppet from the bookworm-turned-cinephile.

And as for the edit from the List of Pixar short films I mentioned, never mind. I have seen that another IP took care of removing the mention of the direct-to-video animated film from the list.--André the Android^(talk) 21:34, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Roman Staněk

While I wasn't involved in this article's deletion or whatever went on to warrant the creation protection of its talk page, the article has since been recreated and I was hoping to add WikiProject banners to the talk page. Is it possible to get the creation protection removed or should I go through the formal request for protection reduction? Thanks,
5225_C (talk • contributions) 22:53, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

• @5225C: Eh, no need - long story short, someone had used the talk page to post some fairly nasty stuff about the deleting admin and nominator. I decided to protect against them using the talk page as a place to kvetch, but I've restored the talk page (minus the nasty comments) and removed the protections. No need for them, now that the article is back. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:59, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Ok, thank you.
5225_C (talk • contributions) 07:21, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of TanaCon: What Really Happened for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article TanaCon: What Really Happened, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TanaCon: What Really Happened until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:04, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Luca (2021 film)

Draft looks to be a clear pass now of WP:NFF due to multiple credible sources sharing screens and a confirmed release date. As such, we'd like to approve it out of AfC. Giving you a courtesy ping since you were the protecting admin on the redirect currently in place. If you agree with my assessment would you mind clearing the protection on the page or just outright deleting it so I can move the draft to mainspace? Cheers Sulfurboy (talk) 15:16, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

• @Sulfurboy: Since the article was up for deletion so many times, it would be best to go through the admin who deleted the most recent version at AfD. @Missvain: What's your take? I suppose it wouldn't hurt to also tag Robert McClenon, as they will likely have input on any draft moved live on the film. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:58, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

If consensus agrees that it passes GNG and/or NFF (preferably both for a bonus) then feel free to move it to wherever it needs to go through whatever process. Missvain (talk) 16:13, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

February 2021 at Women in Red

Women in Red | February 2021, Volume 7, Issue 2, Numbers 184, 186, 188, 189, 190, 191 Online events: New: Black women | Classicists | Folklore Contest (Jan/Feb/Mar): Africa Year-long campaign: Women's rights Continuing: #1day1woman Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage | Help us plan future events Become a member | Opt-out of notifications Follow us on social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Rosiestep (talk) 15:00, 27 January 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Thank you

Hello ReaderofthePack, I wanted to drop by and say thank you for explaining to User:Thaeon about the declined draft. It is very much appreciated. :) --Ashleyyoursmile! 17:32, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

• No problem! Once I looked into it, I realized that it was likely just a case of the name spellings being different. I can see where it could've been seen as a hoax, as well as Thaeon's frustration over it being tagged as such. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:40, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

From N32756377

Jenyire2 is threatening to delete Demonic Toys (film series) if we don't compete the discussion to keep it in the Wikipedia, — Preceding unsigned comment added by N32756377 (talk • contribs) 15:30, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Please can you patrol this page?

Are you able to patrol this new page please? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blake_Ridder thank you.