User talk:kikichugirl

Beware! This user's talk page is monitored by talk page watchers. Some of them even talk back.

This friendly hippo tries not to bite or charge and apologizes if that happens. However, this hippo bites back. Visitors beware. ;)

your decline of my piece on Graham Cleverley - why???

Apologies for getting back to you, but I really do not understand your decision to decline this contribution. You indicate that I should have made it clearer as to why this was a significant person - apparently four scientific books published by respectable publishers do not suffice to make someone "significant"?? And a piece in a well-respected newspaper (obituary) is not "objective" or "independent from the person himself" (the guy was dead when this was written)?? Again, apologies to be so frank with you, but I really think that you made the wrong decision here - please revise. (I must admit that after over ten years of contributing to Wikipedia I am getting a bit fed up with these high school graduates thinking they know what an encyclopedia should look like. I know that you are investing your spare time in this, but that applies to me as well). 77.164.49.31 (talk) 09:20, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

77.164.49.31, You have made very, very few edits to this encyclopedia, and you choose not to register an account, which in fact would accord more privileges and even more security for your identity. We do not know who you are or what your qualifications are, and your condescending tone towards one of our regular editors is clearly inappropriate. Your article has been rejected on the correct grounds that it does not meet our criteria for insertion. Cleverly is possibly without doubt a notable person, but even my extensive research has failed to reveal any 3rd party archives that provide in-depth treatment of the subject that are sufficuent to meet our criteria. Unfortunate, but true. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:49, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

"very few edits": has it ever occurred to you (have you ever noted) that after moving house one's IP address changes? Of course, I could have registered, but I must admit that - as a full professor in psychology - I like my privacy, i.e. no real names here. The same applies to many other wikipedia people I believe, the difference being that I did not make up some kind of fancy alias. As regards my tone being "inappropriate": well, if being frank means being inappropriate: apologies (again), but the reasoning above is quite inappropriate as well and I think that I am entitled to give people feedback on their performance - without feedback there is no learning and no improvement. Then we have your "extensive research" - did that involve non-internet sources, or are you simply exaggerating your efforts? 77.164.49.31 (talk) 20:03, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

77.164.49.31, i am surprised that as, i presume, you have higher qualifications than high school graduate, and, "after over ten years of contributing to Wikipedia" you are unable to see that the draft as it now stands is not suitable for wikiarticle space. Cleverley was an academic, worked for a magazine, a newspaper, did some lecturing and wrote some books (amongst other things), nothing which makes him notable for inclusion in wikipedia. I suggest the article needs more reliable citations, possibly reviews of his books (although i realise that they may be difficult to find for these 'pre-internet era' publications). Coolabahapple (talk) 07:25, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

OK, so there goes another notable character down the drain of history ... pity. It is interesting to see that the world before the start of the internet is slowly vanishing. Anyway, as regards "Cleverley was an academic, worked for a magazine, a newspaper, did some lecturing and wrote some books (amongst other things), nothing which makes him notable for inclusion in wikipedia". Interesting reasoning: I would say that would be exactly the sort of things that WOULD make someone notable for inclusion. I guess that he should have been a xx-league football player or a third-rate singer or so to be included. FYI, his books are still available (2nd hand of course) on Amazon and some even continue to be cited. Well, so much for now. Will leave Wikipedia alone for a while and yes, that will be your loss, not mine. 77.164.49.31 (talk) 20:03, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

• It's interesting to note that in 2009 Clevery edited our Time Inc. UK article before his death. I still find it extraodinarily odd that there is hardly a mention of the man anywhere on the Internet except for entries for his books. I can understand why our psychology professor is so upset, but the onus is on him to provide sources, not us. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:28, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Microtrac

Hi! Can you help me with this draft? This draft has been resubmitted and is currently awaiting re-review Thanks!--27century (talk) 07:50, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

00:09:01, 29 December 2015 review of submission by Espang25

• Espang25 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Alan Morell (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, I was hoping you could provide some particular insights on how I can get this page approved and published on Wikipedia.

Espang25, your draft is dripping with praise and promotional fluff. Remove all the WEASEL words and FLOWERY language (for example, "...with high-profile companies..." and "...is well known among..."). Additionally, remember that the draft is about Morell, not about his clients. Finally, please make sure that your references talk about Morell, are from reliable sources, and are not directly related to him (i.e. a press release from the company that hired him is a PRIMARY source and thus discouraged). If you want more help, stop by the Teahouse, Wikipedia's live help channel, or the help desk to ask someone for assistance. Primefac (talk) 00:58, 30 December 2015 (UTC) (talk page stalker)Template:Z163

viviana mazza article

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Viviana_Mazza

hi, i tried my best to find good secondary sources for the article. could you tell me what was wrong with them and what type of better sources i should use? Legs of man (talk) 10:10, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Jay Burna

You declined Jay Burna's Wikipedia page and he's a credible music artist. Can you fix this2601:582:4302:2F8D:28D6:489D:3588:DBBA (talk) 22:01, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Burna may be a credible artist, but you have yet to demonstrate that he meets the notability requirements, specifically having significant coverage in the references. You've simply provided a handful of music videos and his entry on a list (which, to be fair, is a decent source). Please add additional independent reliable sources that discuss the subject in detail. If you want more help, stop by the Teahouse, Wikipedia's live help channel, or the help desk to ask someone for assistance. Primefac (talk) 22:45, 4 January 2016 (UTC) (talk page stalker)Template:Z163

16:47:05, 5 January 2016 review of submission by Bbrink8

• Bbrink8 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Newton Howard (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

In an attempt to make the article not sound so dry and bulletpoint-blocky, I first wrote it too much like a story. Then I had too few citations. Then I had too many publications. Then I had mention of a product, making it sound advertisement-y. I believe that I have fixed each of these .. please re-review, as it's plenty dry and bulletpointy, now. Just degrees and papers, with a tiny thread linking them together. If there's any specific line or word that I need to remove, please let me know so I can put this in my donebox. Thank you so much.