Jump to content

User talk:ReaderofthePack

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

20:30:01, 2 May 2015 review of submission by Tnguyen4321


Submission of ConcertHotels.com

Mjkelly26 (talk) 09:32, 12 May 2015 (GMT)

Hi Tokyogirl79, a few months ago you deleted a submission of mine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ConcertHotels.com, but you provided some fantastic feedback. I've taken your points on board and I've just resubmitted my entry. I hope that you feel it is much improved and would love to hear your feedback, Many thanks, Mike \

Madotsuki

Hi Tokyogirl! Was Madotsuki the Dreamer indeffed because you believe that he logged out and posted those hostile comments directed at you? Although it is possible, I (and I say this with the utmost of respect) am not sure that's very likely. He did make a valid point about this edit, which came from an IP who showed up out of the blue to make a few hostile comments [1][2]. And based on this edit summary from September 3, it appears that Madotsuki suspected a 4chan /pol/ lurker of the slurs. That doesn't sound like the most well-planned long con and it would be an extraordinarily passive-aggressive one at that. We know Madotsuki has a sharp tongue and apparently no qualms about using Aspergers as a pejorative, so my suspicion is that he pissed someone off with that tongue, they came by to grief him, used a really horrible insult, and it was interpreted as directed at you. Seems a stretch. I'm of the opinion that maybe this is one of those "unblocks are cheap" opportunities to be magnanimous and lift the hammer entirely on him. Anyhow, them's my unsolicited thoughts. Have a happy editing day! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:05, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Cyphoidbomb To be very honest, I think that's it possible that it's him. He's made some nasty comments towards you and other editors and I just can't help but be a little suspicious that after he got so angry with me over blocking him for his behaviors towards you and the other editor on his userspace. It's happened before with other editors, both to myself and other admins, after all. I still kind of think that he'll likely get re-blocked with the way his attitude runs. I'll give him a set of questions and if he can answer them even remotely well, I'll unblock him. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:25, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I defer to your judgment. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:12, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Him being Moon Metropolis would make a lot of sense, actually. The edit pattern is similar, since MM had a tendency to do the same thing with article creation: create undersourced stub-type articles and then leave them for others to improve. I can't entirely remember MM's behaviors since the stub article creation was what stood out the most (since I had to go behind him and clean up many of his articles), but I do vaguely remember him not responding well to other editors trying to help him out. I'd vaguely thought of MM while dealing with MtD, so I'm not entirely surprised at the speculation. I'm going to ping Netsnipe to this discussion since it looks like he had prior experience with the other accounts. I will note that if the Reddit claims are true (it's Reddit so we should question this to a degree) then the IP coming in and making rape threats on his page sounds like it could actually have been him. Still, it's speculation so if anyone wanted to check to verify this we'd have to check out both accounts' edit patterns (and the IP's) a little more thoroughly. I'm also pinging Cyphoidbomb. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:41, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have to admire the dedication that went into that Reddit narrative. That was some detailed Wikinvestigation. The sockmaster doesn't ring a bell with me. This 2013 edit was interesting to see because it was consistent with Madotsuki's more recent "Aspergers fueled" top shelf zinger. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:55, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Still Life

A month ago, you redirected The Still Life (2006 film) to Joel A. Miller, as the article didn't show any independent notability. The same editor has created The Still Life (2006 Film). It's just an infobox and eleven external links (it was created with two versions of the article on the same page, but I trimmed that out). Any reason to think that the article should exist now (the links don't look promising)? -Niceguyedc Go Huskies! 22:12, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please Help us Restore Rodleen's page

We are unfamiliar with how to use Wikipedia and we are concerned that Rodleen Getsic has been deleted from Wikipedia. I am sure if you look at the stats, her page had been visited thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands of times. Her page now redirects to the horror film she produced, wrote, and starred in, but even that page does not have her picture (it shows Martyr in the death scene, not Bunny). Seeing the page for denomination - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rodleen_Getsic_%282nd_nomination%29 - it seems to possibly have been deleted by people ganging up on her, as the film she made is very controversial and many people hate it.... So they erase her from Wikipedia? But you are an administrator so will you please take a moment to see what the article said before at least and help us to restore it because we like seeing it. In fact there is probably much more to add to it, and in time even more because she is awesome. Maybe some of the links were broken? Interviews and articles from early internet days.... Because Rodleen Getsic has been up on Wiki for a very long time. Please let me know what you think. If you can - email is best - because i do not know how to work this wiki but maybe in time i will figure it out more. Thank you!!! ⋆ i AM: wikigurrL comment added by (talk) 03:39, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Since Drmies is the one who closed the AfD, he's the one that you'd really need to talk to about this - he might be willing to move a copy of the article to WP:AfC for you. You'll need to show that Getsic has received coverage in independent and reliable sources for things other than the horror movie, as the general consensus at AfD was that this was the only thing for which she'd really received coverage. If he declines, you will have to request restoration via deletion review. I'd recommend that you sign up for an account rather than log in with an IP, since an IP made this edit to Getsic's AfD, where they tried to impersonate the person who started the AfD. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:47, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Hmmm... Well, i am sure others will get involved in figuring this out. I just saw you and thought you might be able to help. Whoever initiated the process for deletion ignored the fact that there actually existed several "independent and reliable sources for things other than the horror movie" in her article. It is obvious, just take a look. I guess I will try to contact Afd? And also, probably other people will begin to notice or care. Rodleen has done a lot of work including singing with The Deftones. We will get this figured out! Thanks for your time. ⋆ i AM: wikigurrL — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiGurrrL (talk • contribs) 04:03, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well... the thing to keep in mind is that not everything is considered a reliable source on Wikipedia. For example, at one point the article used IMDb as a source, but the problem with that is that the site is heavily reliant on user contributions. It's also considered to be a routine database listing, so the site in and of itself cannot show notability. Places like the BBFC are also considered to be database listings. It also used WP:PRIMARY sources, which means any sources released by Getsic, her agent, or anyone that is related to her. These can be used to back up basic details, but these cannot show notability. Some of the links were also dead links, which means that we're unable to verify the content. When looking for sources, make sure that you're careful to avoid self-published sources, which would be things like blog posts. These undergo little to no editorial oversight that Wikipedia can verify, so we can't use them to show notability. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:11, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes wikigurrL--what Tokyogirl says. Mind you, I don't believe in conspiracy theories, and that AfD discussion was clean as a whistle. There's no ganging up on anyone there. Now, what can restore this article is one thing: articles from reliable sources.

    I had a quick look at the biggest version of the now-deleted article, and I don't see any references to good sources in there. There's some blogs, there's some links to things about the movie ([3]), there's things like this, whatever that is, but nothing from reliable sources as defined in WP:RS. Now, if there are some, and Tokyogirl thinks there's something to it, I don't mind if that redirect becomes an article again; you don't need my blessing for it since I trust her judgment. But I browsed around real quick and besides the NYT article I can't find anything, so I think this is an uphill struggle. Drmies (talk) 04:42, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tokyogirl79 I have had very little time to devote to figuring out Wikipedia so far, but something that was brought to my attention is an example of why Rodleen's page should be restored. It was stated that many of the links are "broken" however these links can be found on The Way Back Machine. For instance, this entry formally in Rodleen's Wikipedia: "In some references, her voice is compared to Diamanda Galás[6] and Clare Torry of Pink Floyd's "Great Gig in the Sky."[7]" had a "broken" link on reference number 7. But - find that the article referencing Rodleen's work on still exists at https://web.archive.org/web/20091016065604/http://reveillemag.com/columns/warp-weft/warp-weft-deftones-white-pony. I am positive this same kind of thing can be done for much of what was written about Rodleen's career. What do you think? And I wonder what Drmies thinks? Thank you for your time. ⋆ i AM: wikigurrL WikiGurrrL (talk) 01:27, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Earlier in this post, I meant to say: The Wayback Machine. WikiGurrrL (talk) 01:42, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Drmies, that link you referenced, this is archive.org happens to be the Internet Archive - and if you scroll down, you see many recordings of Rodleen's music. WikiGurrrL (talk) 02:03, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello? TokyoGirl - please respond? WikiGurrrL (talk) 03:30, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • WikiGurrrL, can you provide sourcing for Getsic for something other than The Bunny Game? That's predominantly what Drmies needs in order for him to be able to restore the article. (He's the closing admin so this would basically need to go through him.) The link that you posted looks to just be things that Getsic has posted herself and inclusion in the archive isn't something that would give notability in and of itself. We need coverage in independent and reliable sources that covers her non-BG work. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:55, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't see why it needs to go through me, though I see now there's a complication: you moved it to Draft:Rodleen Getsic, and I suppose that's a new variation on "userfying". Now, that page was nominated as WP:G4 by Winkelvi and deleted by Mackensen, but G4 has a specific condition: "This excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version, pages to which the reason for the deletion no longer applies, and content moved to user space or converted to a Draft for explicit improvement" (my bolding). In other words, it shouldn't have been nominated and deleted under G4. I don't care for passing the buck here and I'll be happy to restore to a draft or to user space, but I think Mackensen shouldn't have deleted it. Again, article viability doesn't rest on procedure but on reliable sources and notability, but we didn't follow the proper procedure here. So in the meantime (don't know if this is really the "mean" time, because that suggest it's going places) I'm just going to restore it. Drmies (talk) 14:49, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Drmies, I don't know if the article was improperly deleted, however, I do know it was already and appropriately merged with The Bunny Game before the second deletion (of the draft). The article was a nothing BLP. No real references (except in relation to The Bunny Game). It was a puff piece (I suspect it was written by the article subject and/or a friend of the article subject) that was filled with unproven and improperly referenced accolades and many of the references were primary and written by the article subject herself. Nothing of substance or notability can be found on the article subject aside from her appearance on the film (a low budget independent scream film). It was merged the first time with good reason - no notability. The draft was deleted as (I assume) a rewrite and exact duplicate of the originally deleted article. What is the purpose of doing this all over again? There will still be nothing acceptable reference-wise on this person. Seems like a waste of Wikipedia space and editor time and that it will just be up for deletion again. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:45, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It was a draft, and drafts are exempt from G4... I agree with you on the article, but that's beside the point. I got stuff in my user space that will probably never see the light of day, but if it does, I'll be ready. I mean, you think Knút Háberg Eysturstein will never make the big time, but who knows... Drmies (talk) 16:05, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objection to being reversed. I'm not especially familiar with the good-faith draft exception to G4, and I would have expected that it applied only in cases where userfication was the outcome of the deletion discussion, but I don't feel strongly on the matter. Cheers, Mackensen (talk) 19:25, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd moved it because WikiGurrl wanted to work on it (it sounded like she had access to sources that weren't on the Internet) and I didn't think that it'd have been a huge issue if I'd moved it. Basically why I asked her to contact you is this: she can work on it and when she has provided coverage for non-Bunny Game work, she can contact you and ask if it's ready. The biggest issue here is that I don't know if non-BG sources really exist. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:20, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
They don't exist. Believe me, I looked and tried to do what I could to make the article work -- but there just is nothing out there that is not extremely primary and really old as well is irrelevant. Getsic simply does not have the notability needed to satisfy Wikipedia policy and guidelines for a standalone BLP article. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:38, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Hey, TokyoGirl, Drmies, and WV,

I found some links for Rodleen Getsic's career - separate from The Bunny Game. These references were found quickly and easily by searching the internet, and I'm sure there are a lot more:

Rodleen Getsic on Deftones platinum album "White Pony"

Rodleen Getsic on Tommy Lee album "Never A Dull Moment"

Rodleen Getsic on Tommy Lee album "Never A Dull Moment"

Rodleen Getsic on Tommy Lee album "Never A Dull Moment

Rodleen Getsic on Fermin Muguruza album with Aztlan Underground "Brigadistak Sound"

Rodleen Getsic on Knife Party, voice compared to Pink Floyd's "Great Gig in the Sky"

Rodleen Getsic on MOUR album "SO"

Getsic on Random Rab's album "Vissureal" and Rodleen Getsic on Random Rab's album "Release"

Other career and public service references:

Cine-Excess

Go Vegan Radio interview

career interview


WikiGurrrL (talk) 22:07, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Doing a quick look, I note that there are primary sources, unreliable sources, dead links, and a Wikipedia article. None are acceptable for sourcing or are valid to establish notability. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:41, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Hey WV, None of the links are dead, the ones I gathered (above). I do not understand what you mean by "primary sources" and what makes these unreliable? Why are you so quick to disregard this person, instead you could work to find reason as to how come she is notable. TokyoGirl, you asked me to find other things Rodleen Getsic is known for other than The Bunny Game. I am showing you. Since she was on Deftones White Pony album in 2000, she has been featured in many articles and interviews.

Which one of the links above that I listed could work as a reliable source?

What makes a source reliable?

Will you help to FIND and establish reliable sources for Rodleen Getsic's work?


Thanks WikiGurrrL (talk) 00:40, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:REF for an explanation regarding reliable sources. Please also read WP:NOTABILITY to understand what makes an individual notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Please read WP:PRIMARY to understand what primary sources are and how they are not really acceptable. And yes, there was at least one dead link that returned a 404 ERROR message. As far as finding sources that meet Wikipedia standards, after reading the above articles I included here for you, perhaps you will better understand why finding acceptable sources is nearly impossible for Getsic. And just so you know, its really no one's obligation to search for and find said links/reliable soyrces. Further, if none or not enough are found, you will probably have to give up, realizing not everyone who has done something musically or has been interviewed meets Wikipedia's standards for notability. If that ends up being the case with Getsic, there will be no article here on her. Sorry if that happens, because I can tell you really want it to happen. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:59, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]


WV

The link that was "dead" above is actually not dead (it was a typo).

Reality Sandwich Article: Rodleen on Random Rab album "Vissureal"

And the article from Reveille Magazine's article on Getsic is found in The Wayback Machine, the Web Archive.

https://web.archive.org/web/20080723120736/http://www.reveillemag.com/columns/warp-weft/warp-weft-deftones-white-pony

If that link doesn't work, you can find the article by going to www.archive.org and entering http://www.reveillemag.com/columns/warp-weft/warp-weft-deftones-white-pony


WikiGurrrL (talk) 02:32, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Both Reality Sandwich and Reveille Magazine only mention Getsic as having provided vocals on one song each. Neither mention establishes notability and mean nothing other than she appeared minimally on someone's album. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:45, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Arbitrary break

Dear WV, Drmies, Tokyogirl79 and anyone else interested in this conversation,

The way you word things is actually quite demeaning WV. "Mean Nothing"? This is your opinion.

The reality is that because Getsic is mentioned in several articles around the world, she is a notable person. It is not only a "mention" either. Getsic has won several awards for the film she produced, wrote, and starred in. Earlier in this conversation WV - you demean her work by saying she merely made an "appearance" on the film which you call "a low budget independent scream film". Again, your opinion. The reality is she is the notable person in several articles worldwide for her work on this film alone.

But let's talk about her music career. Getsic is featured in articles worldwide for her specialized notable singing. She is on a Grammy Award winning record that is multi-platinum. This alone should warrant her a Wikipedia article.

In the following articles she is not only mentioned, but compared to other notable singers, for her appearance on Deftones White Pony album. I have also provided the copy from the articles which note her special mention.


Date of Article: April 30, 2008

"...'Knife Prty' vaults the confusion and menace of "Street Carp" into the stratosphere with spine-tingling vocals from performance artist Rodleen Getsic that recall Pink Floyd's "Great Gig in the Sky"—if that song were doused in gasoline and lit on fire."


Date of Article: July 1, 2015

"A distinct air of progressive rock descended, with the track ‘Knife P(a)rty’ going so far as to actually riff on Pink Floyd’s ‘The Great Gig In The Sky’ with its soar-away vocals from the guesting Rodleen Getsic."


Date of Article: August 21, 2015

"Moreno bade us all get our knives for a good old-fashioned 'Knife Party' before contorting his voice later in the track into both his regular vocals and the guest-scream vocals, which were done on the White Pony album by the Quadraphonics' Rodleen Giecek."


Date of Article: February 10, 2008

"'Knife Prty' (sic) features a stunning, Diamanda Galás-like vocal performance by Rodleen, and a conceit to make Borges proud: a secret society of knife fighters... ...White Pony later went on to earn multi-platinum status as well as a Grammy award for Best Metal Performance."


I hope this provides reason to restore Getsic's Wikipedia article. WikiGurrrL (talk) 21:24, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My comments are not meant to be demeaning to anyone, WikiGurrrL. My comments are in line with Wikipedia policy and guidelines on what constitutes notability per Wikipedia. It appears from what you have said just today, your idea of notability still isn't Wikipedia's idea of notability. If you read the article on notability for Wikipedia purposes, you would see the discrepancy. It appears you have not read the article. If you have, please read it again so you can better understand where I and those who voted to delete Giecek's article the first time are all coming from. Our interests lie in what is best for Wikipedia. Please understand, Wikipedia doesn't exist for those whom articles are written about, it exists for readers. Our edits are (supposed) to be with readers in mind. Further, because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, our goals for Wikipedia are to be for readers to have encyclopedic content and information at their fingertips. It is not meant to be an online resume for living article subjects. It is not meant to contain what one would find in a fan magazine or a fan website. Generally speaking, those websites have lower standards of notability, content inclusion, and editorial oversight. Wikipedia is a different ballgame altogether. Question: are you just a fan or are you in any way related to Giecek personally as a friend, family member - or, are you Giecek herself? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:32, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't you just rewrite the article, with all these references you found, keep it neutral, and submit it through WP:AFC? It may be a while before someone goes through it, but at least you'll get an opinion from someone who is not us. Drmies (talk) 23:05, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Drmies, is your comment directed to me or to WikiGurrrL? The indenting causes me to think you were responding to me, but that doesn't make sense since I don't think the article should exist. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:09, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not to you--force of habit. Drmies (talk) 02:50, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Restoring Abdul Kadar Khatri Page

Hello Tokyogirl79, I want your help for restoring Abdul Kadar Khatri Article. It was deleted for A7 and later G4 by you. It was my brother's mistake, he didn't knew how to use wikipedia he mistakenly did that. May you please Restore this Article. (It is a Important Article!) Matin78692 (talk) 12:20, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Miscreated Page Deleted

Can I ask why you did this? It was just recently approved after several attempts, and after I spent several hours talking with reviewer to make it notable enough. You said it "wasn't ready for mainspace" - Can you be more specific? Page - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miscreated Jenilya (talk) 15:08, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Jenilya, the reason is that the page did not have sources that would establish notability, which is what we need to have an article in the mainspace. The person who accepted the article does not appear to have a very good knowledge of reliable sources or notability guidelines, possibly because they are a fairly new user. In other words, the information and advice they gave you was incorrect and I do apologize about that. I've given a good in-depth explanation of this on the talk page of the article at Draft_talk:Miscreated#Back to AfC, which is now back in the draftspace. Basically, the sources were either primary or were not in places that Wikipedia considers to be reliable. One of the sources was fairly short and wasn't really in-depth enough to show notability for the game, so it'd be considered a passing WP:TRIVIAL mention. I also need to note that you erroneously put down that Valve released the game. This is technically incorrect - the game was released independently through Steam. While Valve does run Steam, a game getting released via Steam is not the same thing as a game getting released directly by Valve itself. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:30, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Tokyogirl79 Well regarding the "erroneously put down that Valve released the game", I will argue you are incorrect. I put that Valve is the Distributor, because it is being sold on Steam, which is Valve's distribution platform. Like other Early Access titles that are Green-Lit on Steam, the company selling the game has a marketing deal to distribute the game with Valve on their Steam platform; and I correctly put the Publisher and Developer as Entrada Interactive. Regarding notability and "not in places that Wikipedia considers to be reliable", this seems to be a difficult criteria to fill (or a very picky one). I have seen Wikipedia entries with a single reference to a source I have never heard, and they are accepted onto Wikipedia. The Wikipedia article on notability is very sparse on this topic. In any case, I completely rewrote the topic for a second time now, and made it reflect what other game pages have done. If this fails to meet criteria, then I am at a loss, because as I told the other reviewer - I have seen pages with one reference to their Steam store page make it on Wikipedia. Jenilya (talk) 16:37, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Returning Sock?

Hi Tokyogirl! Regarding [4] which you deleted G5, a new article has popped up that is a match for mirrored versions of that article, at Circuito automobilistico di Mogadiscio, in case you think this is the same sock. I don't have the history with this one to make the connection, other than recreating the deleted article under a different name, which I've seen lots of socks do... CrowCaw 23:13, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hmm... it's definitely suspicious. I'm going to ping @Vituzzu: and @Berean Hunter: on this since I'm not as familiar with him as they are. It's possible that they just cut/pasted the material from the speedy deletion wikia page, but they've made a lot of edits in the same area that Brunodam would edit. His big calling card was that he'd create re-writes that made the Roman culture as important sounding as possible and edits like this one kind of give off the impression that this is what they're doing. I'd bet that the article Petrella-Mogadiscio aeroporto was also something created by Brunodam under a different name. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:22, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You got some mail!

Hello, ReaderofthePack. 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 remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Liz Read! Talk! 20:52, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 20 September

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:22, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 September 19#Bir avtomobil oğurlamaq və Las Vegas

Thank you for your close at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 September 19#Bir avtomobil oğurlamaq və Las Vegas. There are three other redirects that also would fit under that discussion but weren't nominated. To save me tagging them and since you have already looked at the situation, I'd like for you to look at them. They are: Mata tanpa wajah, عيون بلا وجه, and Augen ohne Gesicht. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 01:43, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hmm... I'm kind of wondering if this isn't the same editor as the other one? It's slightly suspicious that they were created around the same time period. The editor that was brought up at the AfD created them around September 15th while the editor for these redirects created them on the 8th. And both created them for the same song. I figure that it would probably be worth an SPI check, at the very least. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:24, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks. I just assumed it was the same editor (I can't see deleted edits, after all). If you want to pursue it further, go right ahead, but I will point out that guy hasn't edited since then, so I'm not sure it'd be worth it (maybe get them for a username violation? Check out their talk page). -- Tavix (talk) 04:29, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm going to go ahead and nominate them - one of the accounts was editing on the 19th, which isn't that long ago, so it's possible that they might return to the account. However if it is the same person then it's also possible that they'd create a new account - and launching an SPI would help show a bit of a paper trail in case it happens again. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:30, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like a good idea to me! -- Tavix (talk) 04:51, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Conflicts of Interest

Hello, thank you for responding, but my article and subject, does not have any external relationships with other people. So I do not have any conflict of interest within my article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrisMiller203 (talk • contribs) 16:50, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • ChrisMiller203, yes you do have a conflict of interest. You created Unfazed Life, thus you will always have a conflict of interest with this organization. You cannot come on to Wikipedia and create an article about a company that you run and founded, then claim that you have no connection to the company. The term "conflict of interest" means that someone is editing on a topic that is directly related to them, the editor, so it stands to reason that you would directly profit from having an article since it would potentially raise visibility. The article you wrote was fairly promotional in tone, as you included phrases like " Breaking through the grounds of doubt and total struggle, Miller has found a way to see the positive in every situation, which always leads to believing in yourself and your success." This is very, very unambiguously promotional per Wikipedia's guidelines. This, paired with the very obvious and prominent fact that you own and run this organization, is what caused me to post the conflict of interest guidelines on your usertalk page. I'm going to post this on your talk page as well so I can make sure that you read this. I'm going to assume that you misread the COI guidelines, so I have to warn you: saying that you don't have a conflict of interest when you clearly do will not reflect well on you. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:55, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for informing me, Tokyogirl79

Hello, and thanks for clearing up about conflict of interest, as I did not clearly understand it. However, I am trying to work and cooperate with you, and I can understand that you see a fairly promotional tone in my article. I would like for you to see that I actually was helping to give a short background of information for my company, as well as a bit of the mission statement of what my company stands for. I hope you can see what I am trying to show you that the article meant. I did not want to be a spam article at all. I do, respect the guidelines of Wikipedia, and thank you for your expertise on them because now I can follow them correctly. Now if I may ask, what is the next step I can take to provide my article a good, solid foundation for an article on Wikipedia? ChrisMiller203 (talk) 04:03, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'd recommend that if you want to continue working on it, that you create it via WP:AfC, the articles for creation process, rather than the mainspace. This will help with the COI a little and will also give you more of a chance to fix issues that reviewers may have with the article. What you need to do, apart from make sure the article is more neutrally written this time around, is to show where your organization has received coverage in independent and reliable sources like news articles. WP:PRIMARY sources like press releases, the organization's website, or anything that was written by someone/something that is directly affiliated with the organization will not be usable to show notability. What you need would be news coverage in papers like the Washington Post or the New York Times. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:09, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Enabled

My email address has been enabled. Let me know if you experience any problems, though I don't think you should.--Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 00:48, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One thing I forgot to add is notify me of the image owners so when I reload them, I can contact the users in question. Thanks again. Respects to you.--Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 00:51, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WARx2

I think the new WARx2 Wikipedia page was deleted earlier today without following proper Wikipedia rules and guidelines Katymall (talk) 20:12, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • No, it was. This was a re-creation of a page previously discussed quite thoroughly at AfD. The film received little to no coverage in reliable sources and one of the awards it's claimed to have won is nonexistent. You can't get much more official than the person who wrote the PBS article stating that the post was not a PBS award. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:57, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:DemonDaze

Please see that users talk page and you will note all the numerous deleted articles this guy has created. I have also had to nominate a number of his articles for speedy deletions for similar or exactly the same reasons. Don't worry this one is a quick look tells all.  ' Olowe2011 Talk 04:24, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the barnstar!

You rock! Josephjames.me (talk) 08:16, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I actually did it for my friend. Actually, he was the sockpuppet himself. I just tried to correct it and create the page. So, thanks again and take care :) Josephjames.me (talk) 08:34, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
How could you be so sweet? I can't keep on doing this anyway... :D So thanks for the final time... <3 Josephjames.me (talk) 08:47, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you!

For being so sweet!

Josephjames.me (talk) 08:48, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted Page

What was was wrong with Draft:Let Me Be the One (Webster Lewis) that you deleted, and you didn't even warn me and didn't say why you deleted the page. Jdogmad (talk) 08:01, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Jdogmad, the article was moved to the draftspace by I dream of horses and is not deleted. This was likely because the article did not assert how this particular album was notable outside of the artist and rather than nominate the article for deletion, they chose to move it. It would have been nice for them to let you know that they moved the article, but at the very least this way gives you more time to work on fleshing the article out and provide sourcing to show that it is notable on its own per WP:NALBUM. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:03, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Hi Tokyogirl79,

Thanks for your work with the plagiarism issue this morning. I really appreciate your willingness to directly engage with the student (rather than templating them) and quickly letting the prof know about the problem. I'm sorry I couldn't intercede earlier, but I was probably asleep from 3-5 AM UTC. Adam (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:02, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:27tvm shotcuts GNT 1219827e.jpg

Could you do me a favor and remove the warning in the file. I have added fair use rationale to the image. You're not directly involved in this, but it would be a favor if you could help me. Thanks! Josephjames.me (talk) 15:19, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Josephjames.me: Non-free images of living people almost always violate WP:NFCC#1 as being replaceable, because it is possible that someone could take an image of the person and license it under an acceptable free license. See WP:NFC#UUI. The only exception to this is people who are practically unreachable, such as prisoners. I've tagged the image for deletion as being replaceable. Cheers, Nick⁠—⁠Contact/Contribs 15:50, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, thanks! I hope I can add the image in Wikimedia Commons. Josephjames.me (talk) 02:27, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@NickW557: I am sorry if I've added any wrong info. It's the first time I had ever added an image of a person to Wiki. I've uploaded the image to Wikimedia Commons with correct info as to the best of my knowledge. Thanks! Josephjames.me (talk) 08:52, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The easiest way for this to be kept on here is for the person or a representative of his to file a ticket through WP:ORTS giving Wikipedia permission to use the photo. A lot of times people don't entirely want to do this since it does somewhat give up rights to the photographs (not as familiar with the policies on photos of living persons), which is why so many articles use photographs taken by random people. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:10, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@NickW557: As the image is anyway to be deleted, can I add an image from Aneesh Upasana's official website? JosephJames Talk / Contribs 15:48, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Josephjames.me: The only way one of those images from an internet source can be used is if the copyright owner follows the instructions at WP:DONATEIMAGE to agree to release it under a free license that allows anyone to reuse and alter the image for any purpose, including commercial purposes. If they are willing to agree to that, the instructions for providing such a release are on that page. If not, the image cannot be used. I hope this helps. Cheers, Nick⁠—⁠Contact/Contribs 19:42, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the info! I really had no clue about this. I'll try to do something about this or not upload it at all. JosephJames Talk / Contribs 04:19, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 22:58:23, 1 October 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Nedjamez


Kindly let me know which sources were considered reliable so I can find and include similar. Also what other mistakes do I need to consider? Am I free to resubmit for approval after editing? Thanks very much.

UPDATE: Never mind. I have just seen your comments. Quite concise. Thanks for that. I will take corrections, update and submit after the film is released maybe. Thanks again.

Nedjamez (talk) 22:58, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

COI thoughts (from Teahouse talk)

I saw your question in Teahouse talk and decided to answer here.

I judge that most new editors join with a goal. They start as an SPA with COI. I strongly agree that we need to educate them. That entrepreneur trying to get an article about his non-notable startup company has knowledge about products or services, business, their local area, and so on. They read newspapers, magazines and journals that we don't. They can become valuable Wikipedians... with a lot of help.

Welcome_Bot won't be accepted. See WP:Bots/Frequently_denied_bots#Welcome_bot and WP:Perennial_proposals#Use_a_bot_to_welcome_new_users. I would like to see a short intro/header or something to give a bit of advice to new editors. Ignorance of Wikipedia's rules is squashing them (for example, see User_talk:Stokesnet#July_2015 and down through User_talk:Stokesnet#Some_explanations_and_advice).

I add a lot of Welcome templates, literally thousands. Even though the intent is good, welcome templates can themselves be a problem. I didn't count them but there are a lot of 'em. I still remember mine, {{Welcomeg}} posted to my talk page by Bwilkins. Gad, it has over 60 links to policies and guidelines. Years later I know those links and their contents but as a noob, they were overwhelming. None answered specific questions I had at the time but all the links added confusion. You mention WP:TRAINING in your questions but there is zero training on that page, just more links to more pages that contain some guidance consisting largely of even more links to lots more pages. Thanks to Teahouse hosts, I got simple answers and I'm still here. Without that help? I doubt I would be a Wikipedian today. The best welcome may not be a welcome template at all; I like the Getting started help page.

There is lots of Guidance for COI editors. The problem is getting new COI editors to actually read it. Many, probably most, are working people assigned to update an article about a company, school or organization.

and even the mainspace article Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia.

COI editors aren't evil. Whenever possible, we should try to help them rather than just scolding them (or worse). If you have time, look at this as an example. I met Stwyford on IRC #wikipedia-en-help. She didn't understand independent reliable sources, the reason why her AfC draft was deleted again. The regulars were explaining why her article was rejected and telling her to find independent reliable sources. While on IRC, I found one source and told her I'd meet her on her talk page. I hoped she might become a regular. Alas, she stopped editing. Maybe she'll be back when she retires?

I hope this is helpful. I may be in the peanut gallery for your presentation. Take care, DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·ʇuoɔ) WER 21:14, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • DocTree This is incredibly helpful! My biggest concern with COI editors is that some of them actually do want to contribute well but don't get the information they need upon signup. Some of them seem to only get notices after they do something wrong, which can be extremely discouraging - especially given that a lot of editors tend to see COI editors as something that needs to be discouraged. I know that the two biggest points for me will be trying to assume better faith and trying to raise awareness of the existing resources. I'd like to find a way that we can get COI editors to the COI guidelines and other resources upon signup since a common theme seems to be that many are completely unaware of guidelines. With my account I noticed that upon signup I wasn't directed to guidelines, but to a random article needing work. If I was someone sent to edit a specific article I'd probably click right out of the page and into whereever I wanted. There's just got to be a better way with all of this. One of my ideas (now that the automated welcome message would be a NG) would be to have people select something to show what type of editing they'll do upon signup, which would direct them to the appropriate page. For instance, COI editors go to the COI page and if someone says they're a student or educator, they're taken to the university page. I am aware that TRAINING isn't really interactive, which kind of frustrates me a little. I know that ADVENTURE is, so it's easier for us to keep track of where someone is in the process (if we wanted to), but I've had several people say that there are flaws with ADVENTURE. (sighs) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:29, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • But yeah... the visibility is a huge issue. I'm not really sure what to say as far as this goes at the conference. Mostly it's going to be just that we need to try to assume better faith. I'm not too proud to admit that I didn't really help much with things prior to my gig at the Library of Virginia - something I will be bringing up in the presentation. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:52, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pradeep R. Gupta

Who patrolled this page and didn't nominate it for deletion? I did the right thing by going back instead of trusting other new page patrollers.--The Amazing Spiderman (talk) 17:29, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AFC submission moved to mainspace

It looks like you moved Alice T Days to Draft:Alice T Days, then edited it to remove a few copyright violations. {{AFC submission}} is complaining that the mainspace article may be a copy-paste move of the draft article, but I don't see how it is. Since you're familiar with AFC and this article, maybe you could make more sense of this than I can. The draft and the mainspace look like different articles to me, though the mainspace article will probably need its history merged. That's assuming that someone doesn't nominate it for speedy deletion. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:39, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • They are. (sighs) I'll have to look at it to see if they're still heavily borrowing or cut/pasting from the source material. Offhand the marriage section does seem to heavily borrow from this website, but not enough to where I'd say that it'd entirely be copyvio. I was just editing the draftspace copy, so I'll go and try to clean this turkey up. I may have to e-mail their professor again since I get the impression that the reason they're not working on the draft version is because they're trying to get a good grade. This is why teachers should not make posting a mainspace article a requirement for passing a class. You get stuff like this. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:44, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yep, contains copyvio. It's very, very closely paraphrased from the original source. I'll start working on the email to the professor. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:51, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm actually tempted to delete the history of both articles to deter temptation to repost the information. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:09, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Superstar

The Editor's Barnstar
You intelligently save more articles from AfD than anyone else. Great job on Medical Common Sense, kept or not -- Samir 05:11, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, Samir! I just don't want this to get deleted since it looks like this could be a WP:HEY situation. In the nominator's defense though, this did take some digging. For some reason it's specifically named in various places but these don't come up easily in a search as you'd think they would. (IE, if you do a word search they won't come up in the PDF or document, but if you look for them manually, they're there.) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:16, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Beta draft

Hello, thanks for your draft version. If you're interested in the topic, there are considerations to put it in draft space (here and here). Darth Viller (talk) 15:55, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 17:31:27, 8 October 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Indiefanatic



Indiefanatic (talk) 17:31, 8 October 2015 (UTC) I'm not understanding about reliable sources. I have 19 references. I followed the guidelines as to how to list newspaper articles, books and magazines. Here is a link to the newspaper, magazine, books and television interviews. http://filmlabshowcase.wix.com/filmlab#!news-articles/c14xp Another reviewer told me that with all of the scanned newspaper coverage I supplied there would be enough there for notability. That link should show that.[reply]

Request on 22:43:11, 8 October 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Indiefanatic



Indiefanatic (talk) 22:43, 8 October 2015 (UTC) Thanks for the information. I read your edit on the article. It doesn't leave much about his career. It reads as if he made one film with a series of short films. Mr. Stanley's work consists of at least six feature films. Left out was how he built up his own film company that is recognized by IMDB as a United States film company. His film company has been producing films for over 30 years. Yes, he is known mostly in Michigan, but his films bring recognition to Michigan as one article states. It's a shame wiki doesn't recognize indies who have brought so much attention to Michigan cities as Mr. Stanley has over the years. He even donates profits from his films to animal organizations in Michigan per another article. Maybe not notable around the country, but very notable for his home state of Michigan. Thank you.[reply]

  • Indiefanatic, having IMDb recognize a company or film isn't really that big of an accomplishment since all someone needs to do is register and show some proof that they exist. It provides proof of existence, but this in and of itself doesn't give notability on Wikipedia. It's expected that a film company (and directors) will exist and put out work. As far as him donating profits, that's not something that would give notability either since charitable giving is very, very common among people in general, let alone among people in the filmmaking profession. I have to caution you since you are definitely looking at Stanley with a bit of hero worship. This is probably why the article came across as non-neutral and had to have portions of it re-written. I can understand hero worshipping someone, but you need to make sure that you remain neutral or you run the risk of making the article promotional and puffing up claims to be more notable than they actually are on Wikipedia. Although I do have to ask: are you a representative for Stanley or Stanley himself? Or was asked to create an article for him? If so, you do need to make sure that you are up front about this per WP:COI. As far as notability in his state goes, what you need to do with the article is help provide coverage to show that he's notable outside of his local area. The sources in the article were predominantly local and were heavily from one specific newspaper. If you can show proof that the coverage in the non-local sources was in-depth, that'd be something that could help show notability. I've noted that a few people have asked for you to supply scans of the sources, so if you do have news clipping scans of these and can e-mail them upon request, this would help immensely. Like I said on the draft article, it's difficult for indie filmmakers to gain coverage, but it's still required on here and Wikipedia cannot make up the difference. Basically, the only thing you can do at this point is provide scans of the articles in Cinemagic and Starlog. If those are in-depth, the guy would pass. I'm just uncomfortable with accepting an article when the coverage is almost entirely local and predominantly through one specific newspaper. I'd like to have at least one or two more sources that aren't local. They're in the article, we just need to be able to verify them. If you have these clippings then you can e-mail them to me. My e-mail is enabled, so you can start the communication off by going here. I'd have e-mailed you, but your e-mail is not enabled. If you don't have them then you may want to contact Stanley and see if he can e-mail them or post clippings on his website - he should have a copy of them somewhere that he can scan and put online in some format. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:26, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah - saw the link above. Try to only post in one area since that makes it easier to follow the conversation. It looks like the Cinemagic post was only a brief post and is entirely a reprint of material provided by the filmmaker. The same thing goes for the Fangoria clipping. That's not an in-depth source - we need something more like this to show notability. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:28, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Darshan Raval (artist)

I found as a redirect Darshan Raval (Artist) as well-so that should be salted-wanted to give a heads up! Wgolf (talk) 05:21, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 20:46:29, 13 October 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Dearpinaki



Dearpinaki (talk) 20:46, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

--- Response --- Hi, I have added the needed online reference to the article, can you kindly review and approve the same. I am not familiar with these your help and guidance will be greatly appreciated. Thanks Regards, Pinaki

Reference and Citation ISBN Reference<http://www.isbnsearch.org/isbn/9789381672402> The Telegraph Review <http://www.telegraphindia.com/1121019/jsp/opinion/story_16100787.jsp#.Vhy1evlVhBc> Publisher website <http://www.booksway.in/index.html> Amazon Website with Review <http://www.amazon.com/God-Science-Reality-Audacity-Tenacity/dp/9381672407/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1444765927&sr=8-1&keywords=pinaki+ganguly> Nicebooks Canada<https://ca-en.nicebooks.com/book/31857056> Author's other publication <http://www.researchgate.net/publication/265281777_Bhrgu_The_God_of_God_Particle><http://scigod.com/index.php/sgj/article/view/179>

Dearpinaki (talk) 20:46, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

-- Response - Hi, I really appreciate your feedback, and I see your point. Is it possible that I can gift you a copy of the book and you can decide better. Or can we talk on the phone that way I can get more clarity and make appropriate changes (cell # <redacted phone number>). I think if I change the opening portion and make it impersonal then the Synopsis portion is ok, right? Also I understand that Amazon, Nicebooks should be removed. I have no intention of promoting the book on Wikipedia, but some discussion in the academic world has asked me that reference of this book should be in common domain due to the book's unique approach of using Linguistics (Sanskrit Verb Based) in decoding ancient scriptures and modern science. Yesterday I forgot to attach Library of Congress reference, attaching the same below - <https://catalog.loc.gov/vwebv/holdingsInfo?searchId=18000&recCount=25&recPointer=1&bibId=18393031>

Looking forward to your guidance and thank you once again. Hope you will be able to review and approve. Thanks.

Regards, Pinaki Dearpinaki (talk) 06:14, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'll have to decline the offer of a copy of the book, although it's kind of you to offer me one. I've altered the opening to the article, but left the synopsis portion as is for the time being. You will likely have to re-write that some or at the very least, cite specific book pages to back up the various claims in the article. The promotional tones have been dealt with for the most part, so at this point it all boils down to notability, which can only be proven through coverage in places that are independent of the author/publisher, like newspapers. If there were about 2-4 more reviews then notability wouldn't be as much of an issue, but right now all that we have is the one review. If there are more sources in other languages (like Hindi, for example) in reliable sources like newspapers, those can be used. Also, I need to say that being part of the LoC's catalog isn't a sign of notability, as they tend to catalog a lot of books and would be considered a database listing at best. I'm afraid that I can't call you at the moment (school and work stand in the way at this moment), but I can refer you to the WP:TEAHOUSE if you want. You might be able to get someone from there to give you a call. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:20, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Socks

Good block. I've a suspicion however that we haven't seen the last of this character. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:50, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I know... I'm mildly tempted to ask for an SPI check, except that I know that they're likely one of those people who make only one account at a time rather than several. I could always list it at SPI to get a paper trail going, but I hate to do that with only one account, especially as SPI is usually backlogged. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:52, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm going to ping the people involved with the tagging and deletion of their pages, just so they can keep an eye out on this. @CactusWriter:, @VQuakr:, @Enna25:, @Masssly:
Guys, long story short what we have here is a user that was previously blocked for creating inappropriate pages on Wikipedia, typically ones surrounding Disney films. You can read over this at Squeakmore and Squeakmo3. The user was blocked by myself and sought to be unblocked, but did not convince any of the other admins that they would edit in a beneficial manner. This new account shows that they did not learn anything from their past actions. What I would like to ask is that you just keep an eye out for any new pages similar to this. Squeakmore tends to like editing on things surrounding the film Dolphin's Tale and Pixar films like Finding Dory. They also like to edit the articles for Teen Beach Movie and its sequel. I'm going to keep an eye out as well, but I'm not sure if they'll use the same name or what they'll try to do as far as article titles go. One thing is sure, they have a strong tendency to insert speculation and sometimes outright hoaxes into Wikipedia, either by way of edits like this one or making pages for nonexistent films like The Polar Express 2. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:03, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Thanks for the heads up, Tokyogirl79. I agree that this type of editor (too immature or too incompetent to understand their edits or the blocks) tends to return again and again. I have at times opened an SPI with only one sock for the reason that you've stated -- to give others a paper trail. But you've templated the user pages to provide the sock connection, and I think that should be good enough for now. I'll keep an eye open for similar Crystal-type articles and edits. Cheers. — CactusWriter (talk) 16:16, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Like already mentioned - they don't seem to have learnt from their last block. Thanks for the notification I'll keep an eye on them also. —M@sssly✉ 19:39, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have been randomly selected to take a very short survey by the Wikimedia Foundation Community Tech team!

https://wikimedia.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_9mNQICjn6DibxNr

This survey is intended to gauge community satisfaction with the technical support provided by the Wikimedia Foundation to Wikipedia, especially focusing on the needs of the core community. To learn more about this survey, please visit Research:Tech support satisfaction poll.

To opt-out of further notices concerning this survey, please remove your username from the subscription list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:57, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Warrior Prophet (and at lots of other times)

Wonderful Editor
Thankyou for being so supportive and understanding :) Coolabahapple (talk) 10:53, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aww, thanks! I know that you always do a really, really good job of looking for sources and there have been times where you've outsearched myself, so I know that you looked hard for things. I dunno if Wikipedia offers memberships for the academic databases like they do for Highbeam and newspapers, but they should if they don't. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:04, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Otaku

If you don't mind, I need help with a vandal causing a stir over at that article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:20, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Knowledgekid87, he's now blocked. Thanks for letting me know about that. Actually... I'm mildly surprised that it isn't semi-protected. There's not a huge amount of vandalism, but it is there. I'm going to semi-protect it for about a month against non-confirmed editors. I'm sort of halfsies over this, but there has been repeated vandalism throughout the year as a whole. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:29, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah I was a bit surprised as well on that, anyways you're welcome. Good luck on your articles I see that Angus has a suggestion for you over at A&M talk, well back to work for me.. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:31, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Stanley

Hi Tokyogirl. Working on the Mike Stanley Filmmaker to add a reference I found and messed things up a bit. Somehow my reference list got moved to External Links. I took this project on as extra credit for school and am finding it very difficult. Anyway, I found a couple of references that may be what you need for completion of this article. http://moviefeast.blogspot.com/2010/08/bloody-nightmares-24-dead-is-dead-1992.html and http://dailygrindhouse.com/thewire/podcast-daily-grindhouse-presents-no-budget-nightmares-dead-is-dead-1992/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Indiefanatic (talk • contribs) 19:58, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Indiefanatic, Movie Feast can't be used to show notability since it's a blog (WP:SPS), but I'm not sure about the Daily Grindhouse. I'm familiar with it, but I'm not sure if it'll hold up at RS/N. Still, I know that they're quoted in other places and I also know that they don't accept article content from just anyone... I'm going to go ahead and consider that one usable. If anyone asks, I can say that they were quoted in this academic text (on Halloween), so the DG coverage should hold up overall as a RS. This should be enough to satisfy most in the mainspace, so I'll go ahead and accept it to the mainspace. Good work finding this! Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:07, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Help me remove my rejected draft article "Voluntary Principles on Security and Human Rights"

Hi Tokyogirl79 - you reviewed and rejected my draft article "voluntary Principles on Security and Human Rights". I thought it was a pretty good start at an article that others could contribute to, but if that doesn't meet Wikipedia's standards then I think I should leave it to others to properly start the article. I have deleted the material I put it - but I am not sure how to delete the draft article itself so it doesn't clutter up the drafts - can you delete the draft article for me, or send me some guidance on how to do that? (I agree with your suggestions of what would be good to clarify and expand on in the article, but feel me doing that in the draft will just set it up for the next editor to reject because they would like some other improvements, think this needs someone more Wikipedia savvy) Thanks DiligentDavidG (talk) 14:31, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • DiligentDavidG, I wouldn't throw the baby out with the bath water just yet. The thing about making articles is that it's expected that the article creator will establish notability and the basics of the article prior to it getting published in the mainspace, whether it's done via AfC or through other avenues. Part of the major reason for this is that while hopefully other editors will come in and help improve the article, this doesn't always happen. There are a lot of situations where people have come in and deleted an article rather than improved it. Sometimes this is done because the person genuinely can't find notability giving sources (despite them being out there), but I've seen people nominate articles without having done a search because they're just too lazy to improve things and they assumed that if nobody else added sources, then they don't exist. I think that this article has a good start, it just needs to have some aspects of it fleshed out and explained and better sources added. It's going to be more work, but less work than it'd be to just restart it. I can delete the article if you want, but I'd prefer that you continue to work on it since I do think it can pass guidelines as a whole. If you want, I can drop a line at Wikipedia:WikiProject Companies asking for help. I know that this isn't a company, but the organization WikiProject is only semi-active, which means that it's almost dead. Wikipedia:WikiProject Philosophy would also be good as well, and the WP:TEAHOUSE is always staffed with someone willing to provide help. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:11, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for your response - I am happy to leave the draft for now and I might come back to it. I do appreciate that you took the time to find the additional references - I have made a note of them in my background document, so they won't be lost if someone deletes the draft ... this topic is referenced in 14 other Wikipedia articles, at some point I will try again on it (I have the draft article backed-up in a Word document). DiligentDavidG (talk) 13:58, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

thanking you for the help I needed for the Brianne Siddall article, and the progress so far

  • @Tokyogirl79: Hi there, I just wanted to thank you for the help on the article earlier, cause lately, nobody has any need interest of reviving this article, but the way you stated on why this article should be restored, makes me feel so impressed on how much you reacted to this, and yet at the same time, it motivates me to continue on doing this, which reminds me, here's the progress on the Brianne Siddall aticle so far, tell me what ya think, ok?! :) Norozco1 (talk) 22:04, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks good so far - I'm going to try arguing a different route on the talk page. Basically, I think that if a review for one of Siddall's works has received coverage and mentioned dubbing, it should be counted towards notability - especially if her character is highlighted in the review. I've added one for .hack and I'll look to see if I can find one for Samurai X or the other ones. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)

Pyaar Ka Punchnama 2

Serious vandalism going on here. I asked for page semi-protection yesterday which was ignored. The movie was released this Friday. Semi-protect for two months, please!. And also spamming of new websites which i removed yesterday.--The Avengers (talk) 07:18, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you don't know Hindi swear words which were used here.--The Avengers (talk) 08:29, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well... the problem is that I don't want to give it too big of a protection too quickly, given that the vandalism was all fairly recent and this is the first protection. We're supposed to start small with protection times unless there are huge BLP concerns, like someone trying to add in death threats or allegations that something unsavory happened during production, like murder, rape, or that sort of thing. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:46, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Metcalfep/sandbox - un deletion issues

Hi. Firstly, apologies if I am not using correct method for responding to your points re the above draft article. Thank you for your response. To address your points: - as the grandson of the subject I do have a conflict of interest and am happy to mention this on my user page for visibility. It is purely on the basis that I am a member of the subject's family and I do not stand to gain in any way by publishing this article. I simply regard his pioneering road race activity in Northern Ireland as notable and worthy of publication. - I sought un deletion in March with the intention of correcting the issues raised but I was subsequently very busy with my job and family and procrastinated too long. I do still intend to correct the issues raised. - if you accept the above and un delete the article, as a total newcomer to Wikipedia I, no doubt, will require some further assistance but I believe there is sufficient independent verification of Norman Metcalfe's activities, in addition to family archive, to warrant publication and an opportunity to submit a second draft would be appreciated. Thank you Metcalfep (talk) 07:23, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GA nominee

Hai, I have nominated the film article Loham for GA-status. Which is currently on "Hold on" time and there are some corrections to be done before it ends. Mainly copy editing for grammer and writting style. For making it a good article there are some suggestions referred in Talk:Loham. I invite you to make your contributions to it.--Charles Turing (talk) 08:51, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ReaderofthePack&oldid=686330182"