User talk:Lemongirl942

Sweet Cosmetics

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

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

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

AFD for ref: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sweat Cosmetics --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:45, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Chinese names in non-Chinese S'porean bio pages

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

Thank you! I will keep a lookout as well. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:44, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Anca Verma

Interaction between Authorincharge and that last editor you interacted with there: this interaction is combined wth Aic's known sock ('Utimatebeneficiary'). I note a structural siimilarity in username, as well as editing style (language etc) in edit-summaries, and general editing areas... FYI. (Update) Also, your remark about COI fits in perfectly when we consider this- Authorincharge is the subject's lawyer. Cheers, _Muffled ^Pocketed 14:49, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi. Sorry, got caught up in some real life work. This looks like pretty much someone from the same law firm who want to constantly update their clients Wikipedia pages. I don't understand why do they have to add their "net worth" to the articles. Anyway, I have watchlisted the rest of the articles as well and will keep a lookout on them. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:58, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Madam, I noticed that in one of the interactions you/others raised doubts on my edits as well as my integrity. I have nothing to do with any subject/article's lawfirm or related directly or indirectly to the persons/products named in the article. I am an independent editor on wikipedia and have edited wide range of articles which are quite visible from my contributions section(s). I am a journalist by profession and a university professor teaching journalism as well as political sciences in India and visiting professor to Iowa University USA. So please keep me out of any controversy and kindly read my work with embedded citations whenever or whereever I contribute before reverting my edits to another previous version. Whenever my edits on any subject are reverted, I feel like someone destroyed my manuscript which I painstakingly wrote and crafted. I can assure you that none of my work on wikipedia would ever fail the COI test. Should it be ever so required, I am happy to email to wikipedia my credentials and my press council membership card. Mainstreamwikipedia 03:43, 7 September 2016 (UTC)mainstreamwikipediaMainstreamwikipedia 03:43, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Ah, blocked I see. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Authorincharge/Archive. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:08, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) 200 people all on the same IP, apparently  ;) _Muffled ^Pocketed 14:11, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Curious

Hey, there, Lemmongirl! Am just wondering what you mean by "valid search term" (as you mentioned in the UP Naming Mahal deletion discussion). I am not sure myself what that means, but I figured you had a well formulated thought on it and I wanted to find out. Thanks! KDS4444 (talk) 02:37, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi KDS4444. You mean here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/U.P. Naming Mahal right? In certain cases, the article title is a plausible search term (that is there are references out there for it, but the subject is not independently notable enough for an article). This hymn for instance is referred in multiple source, although these are all trivial mentions. The article has also existed for sometime, so there might be incoming links from external websites. In these cases, I go for a redirect as long there is a single clear target. "Valid search term" is just a term I use in my lazy WikiEnglish ;) --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:01, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Talyah Porter

Thankyou for your informed, well thought out contribution to the discussion on weather the article on Talyah Porter should be deleted.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:00, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome Johnpacklambert! Cheers and thank you for your efforts. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:43, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Pál Milkovics

Thank you for your comments on Pál Milkovics. Just FYI, this particular user has threatened me with WP:AIV because of my actions tagging the article... see here. Any advice? --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 07:13, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

@Zackmann08: Ah, let me comment there. We just need to be careful not to WP:BITE and yet at the same time explain why we have the rules. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:17, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

On that I will concede the point. I need to get better about not biting the newcomers. I will confess it is rather irritating when someone with 79 edits (all about the same article) comes along and threatens to report me to administrators because they don't like the way Wikipedia works. That being said, I agree that a better job could be done. Thank you for the advice. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 07:39, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed followup you left on that page. You beat me to it by only a few moments.... Damn edit conflicts. :-p You made some excellent points!!! Well said and thanks for helping me take a step back. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 07:51, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Zackmann08: Actually, you are not wrong and I totally understand why you are irritated. When I saw almost all edits on a single article (SPA like behaviour), I suspected a COI as well (and I have seen multiple COI cases where editors were paid to remove tags). This may or may not be a COI case - only time will tell. At the moment, I guess I will AGF a bit. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:52, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Also, just to be clear I don't see any WP:BITING from your side. Your warnings (at least the ones which I saw) were pretty reasonable and descriptive enough. Thank you for your help as well! --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:52, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

This might be something you could do

Hey, any chance you could reach out to User:Fruitmince? I see you've posted at that user's talk page. S/he is enthusiastic, but a bit over-enthusiastic and needs a mentor. As this editor appears to be Asian, and I think you also live in Asia, perhaps you could assist this editor to understand that some of the issues s/he is having are not related to content but to things like formatting, citation, and so on. This editor is wreaking havoc at horse slaughter and while we "get" the point about a Eurocentric point of view, their approach is, well, see the article history. I don't want to bite a sincere editor, but they are causing problems and maybe some other voices can explain matters better than I can. Montanabw^(talk) 20:18, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Hey Montanabw! The editor seems to be from Finland (but knows some Japanese) and possibly not a native speaker of English either. I see now that they have started discussions on the article talk page so I guess they understand the situation a bit better. I will keep a watch on their talk page and should there be more warnings, I will try to explain. Alternatively you can let me know if they persist in editing against consensus. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:33, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

OK. Right now, they seem to be just stressed out about the whole situation. The problem I'm having is that I can't seem to get across the concept that I'm not arguing with them over content, I'm trying to get them to use citations properly and to stop making big drastic changes without discussion, particularly when they remove sourced material. As I tend to get a little sharp with people when they DONTHEARTHAT, sometimes it works better for someone who is a little more diplomatic to talk to them. But no worries. I guess we'll just wait and see how they proceed. Montanabw^(talk) 17:59, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

September 2016

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

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

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

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Lysimachi (talk) 21:00, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

For reference:

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive324#User:Lysimachi reported by User:Lemongirl942 (Result: Blocked)
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive326#User:Lysimachi reported by User:Lemongirl942 (Result: Already blocked)
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive327#User:Lemongirl942 reported by User:Lysimachi (Result: declined)
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive327#User:Lysimachi reported by User:Lemongirl942 (Result: 1 week)

--Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:41, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

About edits to SG articles by User:Morrisonjohn022

Hi Lemon! It is sometimes hard to define his/her edits if matching local facts & wiki rules, although I reverted some improper or useless descriptions from his/her works... Since this person is effecting many SG geo pages, could you please help on them accordingly? Thank you.Gzyeah (talk) 09:10, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

@Gzyeah: Apologies, didn't see this. Yes, I had noticed the user adding some original research. Some of the edits are useful while others might be true but have no citations. There have been no responses on the talk page of the user. I guess the only way is to keep a check on these articles and change as necessary. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:43, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Lemongirl942 reported by User:Lysimachi (Result: ). Thank you. —Lysimachi (talk) 09:49, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

For reference:

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive324#User:Lysimachi reported by User:Lemongirl942 (Result: Blocked)
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive326#User:Lysimachi reported by User:Lemongirl942 (Result: Already blocked)
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive327#User:Lemongirl942 reported by User:Lysimachi (Result: declined)
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive327#User:Lysimachi reported by User:Lemongirl942 (Result: 1 week)

--Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:44, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

WikiProject Malaysia October 2016 Newsletter

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:30, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia email re NewspaperArchive signup

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

HazelAB (talk) 12:34, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Third opinion on Académie Julian

Thank you for your third opinion on Talk:Académie Julian#Lists of notable professors and students. I am trying to hold back from further interventions on this until we get another third opinion. Verbcatcher (talk) 15:42, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Enough info for a sockpuppet investigation re Zeek AfD?

I am somewhat suspicious that the possible sockpuppet has a master who has participated in the AfD for Zeek. Do you think we have enough info to launch a sockpuppet investigation? Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 17:19, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

@Stevietheman: I am suspicious as well, but I don't think we have enough evidence. I am unable to find which one is the master account. There's actually a possibility that this is simply a paid editor recruited via one of the freelancer websites, in which case SPI is technically not very useful. The behavioural characteristics are hard to pin point. This is unfortunately a case but I don't see any way to proceed. :( --Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:01, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Pioneers press

The geographic location of the IP that made this edit is...interesting. Not really sure what we can do, but deleting the article might be the best move at this point since notability is marginal and there appears to be a persistent WP:COI issue. Safehaven86 (talk) 21:54, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

LA times and SF Weekly

Can you explain why you think LA Times and SF Weekly are unreliable sources on the article talk page please? Pwolit iets (talk) 09:35, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Discussion continued here. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:46, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Yale-NUS and NUS

Hello. I see one of my edits at Yale-NUS College was reverted. I got the information that Yale-NUS is under NUS, although autonomous, from these two pages: [1] [2]. It turns out that it's more strongly related to NUS than to Yale. Comments?--Officer781 (talk) 08:45, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi Officer781. Thank you for discussing. My impression has been that Yale-NUS is actually autonomous (with a separate governing body). Which is why I'm not sure if it is correct to term NUS as its "parent university". It is of course, closely related to NUS (partly sharing the campus). Usually the term parent university is used in cases of colleges which are affiliated to an university. In these cases the parent university specifies the syllabus, examinations and awards the degree. For example for the colleges at List of colleges affiliated with the University of Delhi, University of Delhi would be the parent university (as it specifies the syllabus, examinations and awards the degree). That doesn't happen in the case of Yale-NUS and NUS. Let me search for a bit more over this though. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:55, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Ah. Yeah I think that would be good, as the List of universities and colleges in Singapore lists a few autonomous schools of NUS and NTU as having a parent university. That term was actually included by me so if it's wrong I can go correct it. I'm from Singapore too, by the way.--Officer781 (talk) 09:00, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

This is interesting though. Every student will graduate with a Bachelor of Arts degree with Honours or a Bachelor of Science degree with Honours from Yale-NUS College, awarded by NUS So the degree is awarded "by NUS" but "from Yale-NUS". They couldn't have made it any more ambiguous lol. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:01, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

There's also another question I'm trying to solve: When MOE says that certain publicly-funded schools (like UniSIM, NAFA and LASALLE) are private schools, it means that the schools are managed privately (here "private" which means self-funded doesn't seem to apply)? What's the difference between them and autonomous schools (the other 5 universities) that also seem to be managed privately? The difference between these and the polytechnics (classed as fully public) are obvious enough (polytechnics are statutory boards). --Officer781 (talk) 09:12, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, this is a bit ambiguous as well. I guess I will have to look at similar lists for other countries to see how they do this. Over here it seems there are 3 different concepts of "Ownership", "Funding" and "Management". Let me look up the lists for other countries. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:22, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

It seems any institution in this list is considered private.--Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:26, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Thwack listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Thwack. Since you had some involvement with the Thwack redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Guliolopez (talk) 09:10, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

• Ah just done! Thank you Guliolopez :) --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:19, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Response on the vulture lead issue

A response. Thank you! Yvarta (talk) 17:31, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

A response again. Thank you! To avoid becoming frustrated in my responses, I will be stepping away from the issue for at least a day. However, I suspect we shall be able to discuss this issue in more detail when I return. Yvarta (talk) 17:37, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Let's keep the discussion on the talk page itself. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:38, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment

Hi Lemongirl942 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), so glad to find another Singaporean Wikipedian here! Nice to meet you and thank you so much for understanding my editing intentions! You pointed out something that many other editors have not noticed. I realised that Magnolia677 doesn't seem to be friendly when she left a message on my talk page, she warned me that I will be blocked if I continue to make unsourced edit and adding unreliable references. I was so scared of her that which is why I tried to include as many references as possible within a limited period of time to defend myself from other editors whom lack understanding in my editing patterns. Only you and Arjayay (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) seems to truly understand my good faith in making constructive editing, and I truly appreciates it. While I understand your perspective, I just couldn't resist listing out all the entertainment events for a huge music fans like me. I believe that what I have added are useful for music fans but of course I understand that not everyone will find it beneficial or meaningful and I totally respect their opinions. I am trying my best to include as many reliable references as possible and my apology if I am unaware of how strict it is to have a reliable sources. Some of the unreliable sources I have added may appear to be reliable to me as long as it is relevant to the event that I wished to source upon in the first place. Please teach me on what are reliable and unreliable sources so that I can look at it very carefully before adding it. Lack of citacions shouldn't be the reason for my edits to be reverted since I am very busy editing many other articles at the same time. It takes time for me to include more useful references but I hated it when editors becomes impatient. I hope to hear some advice from you on that, thank you so much for putting yourself into my shoes in the first place, cheers! Xinyang Aliciabritney (talk) 13:52, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Yvarta (talk) 18:31, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello Lemongirl942, I look forward to engaging in productive discourse. Yvarta (talk) 18:31, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

And I look forward to you not POV pushing on the article. Now please keep discussions on the article talk page. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 21:21, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Comment all of a sudden by Zandradiliges

jealousy can cause all sources seem unreliable, Wiki should set up standard so unreliable editors can't even write here Zandradiliges (talk) 20:05, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

@Zandradiliges: What exactly are you trying to say? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 18:09, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Note: This is related to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Linjie Chou Zanadu --Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:01, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

AFD

Would appreciate if you can delete Outeniqua Yeilowwood, or nominate it for deletion. It is a misspelling of Yellowwood. I am not familiar with AFD procedure. JMK (talk) 10:25, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

@JMK: This seems like a plausible redirect to me. Outeniqua Yellowwood might be incorrectly typed as Outeniqua Yeilowwood (due to the i and l similarity). I am generally not a fan of too many redirects, but this seems kind of OK to have. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:22, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

A redirect must represent a valid alternative name, or a commonly made mistake, and this one is neither of these. JMK (talk) 16:58, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Admin?

Are you admin on wikipedia, i want to report something (someone precisely)? a serious matter 84.255.215.13 (talk) 17:10, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

No I'm not an admin. What is it about? Is it any article? (Note: If it involves any private data, please do NOT reveal any information here). I can direct you to the appropriate forum. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:13, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Its about admins who are involved in WP:Paid but didn't disclosed their paid work. I have proofs. 84.255.215.13 (talk) 17:19, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. You will have to email this information. The correct place to send this information is "arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org" (this is the mailing list of the arbitration committee who can look into your queries). --Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:25, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for reference. 84.255.215.13 (talk) 17:26, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome! --Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:28, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Ah- trolling then. There's an admin that's repeatedly being accused of that but for the life of me can't remember who! It was at AN/I a while back though. _Muffled ^Pocketed 17:33, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I vaguely remember seeing something like that. Was it some Orangemoody related case in which they pretended to be an admin and gave assurances that their article would be kept? Regardless, the best place for this stuff is arbcom who can look into it. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:36, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

I have conversations with admin on freelancing site of him/her being committing that he/she is an admin , left me couple of his/her created pages. 84.255.215.13 (talk) 17:38, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it was something like that. In any case, of course your're right, Arbcom get paid for that stuff, not us... _Muffled ^Pocketed 18:22, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Arbcom get paid for that stuff I like that ;) --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:17, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

@84.255.215.13: Like I said, the best place to report this is Arbcom. They can take the necessary action if required. I suggest you email it there. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:40, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

AFD on Robert Niter

I thought you would want to know about a filing at the dispute resolution noticeboard. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Summary_of_dispute_by_Rniterjr.3B_Black_Kite.3B_Lemongirl942 First, the filing was very badly field. That isn't the problem. I could have fixed it if it had been a dispute that was appropriate for DRN. Second, the filing party has a conflict of interest because they appear to be the subject of the article. That isn't the problem. Third, DRN isn't the forum for review of AFD. I closed the filing (rather than fix it) and advised that review of an AFD close should go to deletion review. So it is likely that it will go to deletion review. I just thought that you and User:Black Kite should know. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:53, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Hey Robert McClenon. Thank you for letting me know. I had a hunch they would try to re-litigate the AfD after it was re-closed as a delete. All of this smacks of paid editing. Anyway, DRN is definitely not the venue, so if they want to do anything, they must go to DRV. Thank you for closing that. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:16, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

By paid editing, I assume that you mean paid by the subject of the article. As to thanks for closing that, you're welcome, but I will note that closing at DRN is very different than closing at AFD. Closing at AFD, like closing an RFC, is a formal assessment of consensus. A close at DRN may be for any of a number of reasons, such as that the case was not properly filed or doesn't belong at DRN, or that the editors have failed to respond, or have reached an impasse, or have agreed. In this case, it didn't belong at DRN, but at DRV. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:08, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Also, it appears that you and Black Kite are implying that there may have been sockpuppetry in the AFD, and/or paid editing by the subject. Unfortunately, there is often sockpuppetry in an AFD. I know that there is often paid editing in AFC, and one letter off is only one letter off. (One of the challenges for an Articles for Creation reviewer is that a lot of the drafts are spam.) Robert McClenon (talk) 23:51, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arrow Scout Group

Ping! :)--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 04:09, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Haha thank you Kintetsubuffalo! I will do the merge later today. The photos at Arrow Scout Group are valuable and I will add some to the target article. Regards, --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:12, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Ouch! Time flies. Still, it's on my to do list and I will do it. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 19:17, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Xinhua

so, if Xinhua publishes an editorial on someone, they're not notable? I'll just restate the definition of Xinhua here for you. "The Xinhua News Agency (English pronunciation: /ˌʃɪnˈhwɑː/[1]) is the official press agency of the People's Republic of China. Xinhua is the biggest and most influential media organization in China. Xinhua is a ministry-level institution subordinate to the Chinese central government. Its president is a member of the Central Committee of China's Communist Party." See Wikipedia. Drop the stick... your insistence on tearing apart refs like this incredible one from Xinhua is silly. The State of China does not spend their time publishing critical editorials on "nobodies". They deal with serious stuff. And this Xinhua ref is only one of dozens. Notability is very very clearly established.104.163.141.133 (talk) 09:58, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

National Husband Of China Jokes 'Big Boobs' Is A Must For A Girlfriend; State News Agency Fires Back. Please! We need better coverage than this. Also, keep discussions at the same place. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:26, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

04:58:33, 19 October 2016 review of submission by 99.242.160.75

• 99.242.160.75 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Kinron Community Event Planning Services Inc (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Why was our submission declined. We supplied enough Articles in respect to the festival Scarborough Community Multicultural Festival

Hello. Yes, there were quite a lot of references, but the references need to provide indepth coverage of the organisation. The references also need to be reliable sources - major newspaper like NYT/WSJ or the like. There also needs to be non-local coverage. At the moment, I see mostly local coverage. Please see WP:NORG for more. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 01:26, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks

For the tip to make my editing easier and more distinctive. I'm sorry for the length of my messages, but I used to get paid by the word, and brevity has never been easy for me. Beanyandcecil (talk) 00:05, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome. Using the templates just makes it a lot more easier. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 19:18, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Query

Hi, I wonder if I could consult with you on a civility-related matter? K.e.coffman (talk) 22:30, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

@K.e.coffman: Sure, no problem! What is it about? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 01:13, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

I am wondering what you'd make of this exchange: Talk:Wolfgang Lüth#Recent edit? "Ridiculous complaints"; "your edits are ridiculous"; "you (try to) use one source to denigrate another"; "your article"; "you've abused the RS source policy" etc. I wonder if it would be appropriate to take this to ANI at this point.

There's a pattern of similar behaviour from the editor in the past; more material on my user page from earlier in the year, in sections: User:K.e.coffman#Saga continues & right below it, in "Epic edit summaries from involved editor". This seems to be a cross between IDONTLIKEIT and outright uncivil behaviour. What would you do? K.e.coffman (talk) 05:19, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

@K.e.coffman: Apologies for reply late. Hmm, this seems bad. At the same time though, don't take the bait. In the interest of de-escalating the situation, the best way is to call for an RFC or post on a noticeboard. That helps to get eyes. I will take a look myself soon. I had a brief look and some of them is indeed a bit too much detail. I might tolerate detail someone (as long as it is sourced to a reliable source), but if the sources itself is not reliable, then there is no point in keeping it. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 18:59, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Your request

It is unfortunate that this request seems to have been ignored. I addressed the same issue here and my message was promptly deleted. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:52, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

@Magnolia677:, yes this is problematic behaviour, although I wanted to AGF first. I'm wondering if this needs to go to ANI or DRV. What do you think? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 19:03, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

There was a lengthy discussion at ANI last summer (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive930) and their talk page shows numerous warnings. At least the editor didn't swear at you (I wasn't so lucky). I will certainly add a comment whichever route your follow. Cheers. Magnolia677 (talk) 19:56, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

I asked again. Hopefully they will respond. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 20:12, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Need help with a redirect

I need help on starting a redirect debate on Transsexual pornography please. Dwanyewest (talk) 03:57, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

@Dwanyewest: Done! See Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 October 23#Shemale porn. You can add your opinion over there. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 19:10, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Singapore

Hi, I feel like I'm letting the good fight down a bit, but I really lack the enthusiasm to deal with what are obviously stooge accounts intent on edit warring their version of the world in at the moment. The lead is so hopelessly biased that it's not going to convince anyone, and actually works against what these people are trying to achieve. Happy to comment on ANI/3RR/RFPP posts though if you ping me. Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 10:01, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Hey Nick-D, I'm a bit down on enthusiasm too. The meatpuppetry is just waaaay too obvious over there. I'm also sick of it and I would actually prefer to let the current puffy version stand there. Whoever looks at the article would obviously notice the bias and also the tag. All this puffery is just going to have the opposite effect. Should something happen that it needs to go to any of the noticeboards, I would be happy to ping you! Cheers, --Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:13, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

@Nick-D: Looks like the 2 SPAs are now tag teaming on the article to remove the maintenance template. I'm not sure if they will listen to me that their behaviour is persistently disruptive. Would appreciate if you could tell them that their behaviour is blockable - if they listen and cease then it is well and good. Otherwise I will go to ANI and seek a PBAN. But I want to ensure that they understand how serious their disruptive editing is. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:09, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Wrigleygum is edit warring despite being recently warned, and could be reported at WP:3RR. I've warned the other account. Nick-D (talk) 09:53, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

crass comment

I found your comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GroceryRun to be very crass, insulting, and offensive. Editors are free to disagree on a topic, there is no need to attempt to ridicule anyone or make any personal attacks. There's no room for that in AFD.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:01, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

@Paulmcdonald: Do you mean this? I'm curious how is this a personal attack or an attempt to ridicule. You posted that "do not confuse stub status with notability" and I said "no, we aren't" confusing stub status with notability. I'm not sure why you think this is a personal attack or an attempt to ridicule. I have absolutely no intention to do that. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:13, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

It's picking a fight, and it doesn't belong. Discuss the topic, please don't argue or ridicule.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:20, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

I have no idea how is that considered picking up a fight or even ridiculing someone. There was no intention to ridicule you or denigrate you. If you didn't like that comment, I will remove it immediately. But I am still willing to listen and understand how it ridicules someone. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:31, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

It added nothing to the discussion, and since it adds nothing it takes away. It's targeting the credibility of my comment based on personal understanding and pulling the point that "everyone else agrees, you should too" which could be considered WP:BULLYING or at least Wikipedia:POV railroad. I'm convinced now you did not do it on purpose, but it was still done.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:39, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Actually, telling seasoned editors they are 'confused' is more of an attack, Paulmcdonald. _Muffled ^Pocketed 14:34, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

I was the one who was confused. Please stop ganging up on me, I don't like it.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:53, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

• Since the subject of "seasoned editors" was brought up:
  • Lemongirl942--not in the top 5,000 edits. #6687 with 11,267 edits. See Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits/6001–7000. Nice job, keep it up.
  • Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi--not in the top 5,000 edits. #5262 with 14,454 edits. See Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits/5001–6000. Admirable. Well done.
  • Paulmcdoanld--#1864 with 35,618 edits. See Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits. Not everyone agrees with me on a lot of things, and I'm still looking to learn too. It's best to refrain from any comment that could even possibly be considered an attack. Even if the person you are addressing does not feel attacked, other editors may and that can turn off a lot of new editors. It's not just what one person feels, but what one person could feel.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:06, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Sounds like we're comparing edit-counts behind the bike sheds: and absolute nonsense it is. Congratulations on being #1864 however; the air must be very thin at those dizzy heights. Whilst you get your breath back, may I suggest WP:EC as proferred reading? Cheers! _Muffled ^Pocketed 05:05, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

That is absolutely and without question a personal attack.--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:45, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

No, it's a measured response to what could be perceived as another personal attack. You must see that comparing editors on the grounds of a mere edit-count is belittling when not justified? I'm sorry, you have, if I may say so, a curiously one-sided view of what constitutes a p.a. Cheers! _Muffled ^Pocketed 11:51, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

On reconsideration, I will accept that what I said was mildly sarcastic, so apologies for Basil Fawltyesque remarks. However, I must reaffirm my then-following description of the situation. I also note that we've probably taken up enough time on LG942's TP that we should probably both start paying her rent... Cheers, _Muffled ^Pocketed 13:19, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

This section of the talk page is currently open for rent. Payments can be made in Wikilove

OK people let it be - no more discussion about personal attacks and edit. But to clarify Paulmcdonald, when Fortuna talked about the confusion part, it was because of your statement "do not confuse stub status with notability" - your statement implied that the other editors were confused about stub status and notability. I replied with that comment because none of the editors who had commented had expressed that confusion. I'm sorry if you felt my comment was a personal attack. Looking over it again, my comment was short and I believe you might have felt it was dismissive. But that's the way we talk here in Singapore in an informal setting. Sentences are short, to the point and without much grammar. For example, instead of asking a taxi driver "Hello. Would you be able to drop us at Esplanade?", we just say "Uncle, can go Esplanade?" I try very hard not to use it on Wikipedia but I guess stuff slips through sometimes. I'm sorry if that offended you. Anyway, this is done and gone. Now lets move on. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:49, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

COI at Beini Da

Hello,

I am hope you are doing well. You just tagged Beini Da, an article I created with COI tag. I do not have a conflict of interest with the subject of the article. I have never met or spoken to Beini Da. I found the article about her in the declined Articles for Creation. I saw she was notable, so I picked up the article, fixed it and created it. I guess the photos in the article might have given the impression of a COI. I didn't upload the photos. They were already uploaded on Wikimedia Commons, along with several other photos of her. As such, I have removed the COI tag.

Take careSusana Hodge (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:30, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

@Susana Hodge: Firstly, you should never have created that article like that. Wikipedia requires attribution. You copied content from the draft to mainspace without attribution. My suggestion is to blank the mainspace article and add your content to the existing draft. Then submit it to AFC and let it be accepted. Please note that there was a previous history of COI editing on the article and it was obvious that Wikipedia was being used for promotion. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:47, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

I actually did not copy anything from that article. I had to change almost all of the content in the draft. I had intended to create it as a draft and then submit it to AfC, however, I find the AfC process to be very arbitrary. I have done it in the past: fixing a draft, submitting it to AfC and then having it declined for the wrong reason. I am not going that route again. The page is on my watchlist and I will keep an eye on it to make sure its not used for promotion. Susana Hodge (talk) 09:22, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

You're misinterpreting things

Hey, I think you are misinterpreting the meaning of Aspie. If you read the last sentence in the top definition, it says "Aspie is an affectionate term, and is not meant as a put down" [3]. Because of that, it can not be a personal attack. I hope the situation is clear now. CerealKillerYum (talk) 14:00, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Yeah? You are seriously using urbandictionary to justify that? (For reference, the second definition of retard according to Urban Dictionary is "George H. W. Bush"). Would it be OK if I say you are a retard? Look, I am pretty tolerant on humour but making jokes on developmental disorders and targeting it at other users is just way not appropriate. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:52, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

That's a fallacy. Retarded is not equivalent to Aspie as the former has only negative connotations whereas the latter has a positive connotation. Look at the second definition, it says "those who have it are often very intelligent!" CerealKillerYum (talk) 14:58, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Your logic is laughable and you remind me of the people who say "Nigga" has a positive connotation, so it should be OK for use on Wikipedia. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:08, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Controversy on your talk pages

Hello again. Hopefully I don't come across as stalkish. It chanced upon me that your talk pages were very long, and I realized quite some of them have to do with disputes. Try not to be too accusatory maybe (at least don't sound so. Things like "you are" and "your" are quite incriminating. Maybe use "I think you might be")? We ourselves make mistakes too. Also, perhaps maybe some show of goodwill would be good? Like this message? I'm also one who comes across as too sure of themselves in real life. So maybe I could give a little advice as I'm learning too. Cheers mate!--Officer781 (talk) 03:35, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Cohesity

I reverted your edits as there is an ongoing discussion on the talk page about WP:PROMO - that section is about awards and accolades but it is neutrally written and referenced with third party sources. As the link you provided says (a guideline I am well aware of), "Information about companies and products must be written in an objective and unbiased style, free of puffery. All article topics must be verifiable with independent, third-party sources" - which this section complies with. I'm assuming good faith and hoping you can do the same! Garchy (talk) 22:09, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

I read your comments about WP:WEIGHT - that makes sense to me. I strongly decent the section is written in a neutral tone and is referenced to third party sources, however you are correct that for the size of the article the section is not necessary. Thank you for the insight. Garchy (talk) 22:17, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Kenny y los Electricos

Thank you. I was about to lose my temper. It is true that the article as it sits -- it's a translation that was only finished about 15min ago and on which I have already spent bunches of time -- does assume that readers understand that many of the musicians it mentions are famous, but that's a frequent problem with articles from other languages, and this is how we do it.

First we translate and then we edit.... Anyway, thank you for de-escalating this. I'll make sure it's referenced and further adapted for an American readership in a timely manner, but I am burned out this second from translating the Spanish, which is not that easy for me. I do know from looking for the wikilinks that there are numerous substantive articles (mostly in Spanish though), and a lot of the former members are also important. But the band only needs to have ONE record to be notable and they have a dozen, so I kinda have to wonder what that editor was thinking, as all the releases are prominently listed and on that basis alone he shouldn't be claiming lack of notability....

Anyway, sorry to bend your ear about this but I just wanted to express my profound gratitude that I don't have to wiki-litigate the obvious tonight...Elinruby (talk) 07:13, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Haha no worries! My usual way to deal with wiki-stress is to take a short break or reduce the intensity of my editing. I am just back from one. Cheers! --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:50, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

removal of sources

Your removal of sources from an article[4] was extremely bad form and reflects extremely poorly on your actions at AFD. You are much better than that Lemongirl942. Do better from now on. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 08:20, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

I removed it from the article because Wikipedia is not a link farm. The further reading section is not necessary. If you actually looked at it, my very next edit was to move the links to the talk page. Whoever wants to improve it can still find those on the talk. AfD or not, there is no need to dump the sources on the article page. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:56, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

List of cities and towns in Andhra Pradesh by nicknames

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cities and towns in Andhra Pradesh by nicknames has some error in merging. Its contents were not merged. If its merged, it will be a mistake, as towns are included in it. So, please review and make some alternative attempt. I've accepted it, but upon having a glance at the merge process, I found this.--Vin09 (talk) 04:42, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello Vin09. I merged the contents in this diff. I added everything (whether cities or towns). However, you are right that the destination article titled List of cities in India by nicknames might refer to only cities. Just wondering if the scope should be changed to cities and towns? Alternatively, we could remove the towns from the list. (I don't really know how towns/cities are defined by the Indian government, so I would need your help). What do you think? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:43, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes you are right. But if we change all the IPs start adding some WP:OR, that's why I changed my idea. However, I'll agree with what you said, change of title is a good idea. A city is a class I town with a population of 100,000 and above. All other municipalities and urban bodies are towns. Cheers!--Vin09 (talk) 04:50, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Redirect of Rebecca Masisak's Page?

Hi Lemongirl942, Wondering why Rebecca Masisak page was redirected to the TechSoup Global entry, with your comment about notability in mid-October? A notability discussion was opened on the talk page in July and a variety of other experienced editors voted to keep. -Bajeckabean (talk) 19:45, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Notification of Incident report

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vile-eight (talk • contribs) 10:23, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Wait what? I got dragged to ANI for stifling dissent in Singapore? The irony is strong here. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:20, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

@LemonG, a career in local politics awaits! ;) _Muffled ^Pocketed 18:49, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Hahaha. Maybe I should start trying for a seat in the parliament. :D --Lemongirl942 (talk) 19:07, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Classic! I wonder what'd be the best technique- treating them like they're at WP:DRN or WP:BLPN!!! ;) _Muffled ^Pocketed 20:24, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Parliamentary records of Singaporean politicians

Hi Lemongirl942, I noticed that you reverted my edits on the parliamentary record of Lee Bee Wah (specifically, changes Lee suggested in Parliament that have become national policy). Do you think that in general, parliamentary records of politicians are not suitable for inclusion into Wikipedia? I've noticed them on the pages of other Singaporean politicians, like Josephine Teo and Sylvia Lim. Personally I think parliamentary records can be included if they led to notable events or changes. These will inform the Wikipedia reader of what is notable about the subject. Wanted to hear your opinion on this issue.