Jump to content

User talk:ReaderofthePack

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Gracewan2016 (talk | contribs) at 09:53, 18 February 2017 (→‎Hi! User:Tokyogirl79, Please help J-Pimp Wikipedia article by re-review.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


10:02:33, 23 November 2016 review of submission by VeronikaHorvath


I want to inquire about the decline of the SaferPass wikipedia page. You mentioned that the three sources used are not enough and we need more sources. Please can you specify what type of sources are acceptable for this kind of page. Also we have been comparing our proposed SaferPass Wikipedia with other similar pages (meaning Password managers of similar reach) and their wikipedia pages are simple with less information and sources than ours. can you please investigate on that and let me know how can we improve our page.

Thank you for your help

Abdul Kadar Khatri (Bagh Printers)

I saw that you deleted the last incarnation of this page and it was SALTed but it's back again, so wanted to give you a heads up. Chrissymad ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Alarms & Clock (Windows)

Hi Tokyogirl79,

It looks like you were working on an article for Alarms & Clock but didn't get a chance to finish. I created a fairly basic version today. Check it out and see if you'd like to add anything!

Thanks,

Onecatowner 12:51 UTC —Preceding undated comment added 00:51, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for Helping with the Anne Elizabeth Page

I've tried to get this article included now for a couple of years. Anne Elizabeth is as notable a romance writer and comics creator as 90% of those already on Wikipedia and I'd like to see her have an entry here as well. She has influenced the genre for Navy Seal Romance and for larger teen comics. Thanks again for your assistance.Odubhain (talk) 00:23, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Luke

Saw your ANI comment, and I concur. You might want to see this and this for why we initially suspected just that. GABgab 16:52, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Telco Productions Inc.

Hello, please copy edit my Telco Productions Inc.. Open Source 2.0 (talk) 06:39, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Open Source 2.0 Hello, please add more references to this article. Open Source 2.0 check me 11:54, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Víctor M. Marroquín

Hi Tokyogirl79. Hope you're having a good 2017 so far. Would you mind taking a look at Víctor M. Marroquín when you get some time? The article's been tag with some maintenance templates since late last year, some of which may be warranted and some of which may be not, but it's kinda hard to tell be it appears to be quite a lot of IP SPAs editing the article, including some making claims like this. I re-added some maintenance templates just removed despite the edit sum since they reason did not seem like one that really addressed the issues, and now there's an IP apparently edit warring over them, I did start a discussion about this at BLPN, but the it was archived without getting much of a response. So, I was wondering if you'd mind taking a peek and see whether you think the subject is notable and whether the COI tag is warranted. Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:47, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • The version you've created looks like it should be OK as far as BLPN goes, but as far as notability I'm not entirely sure. I'm not as familiar with PROF and so I'm really unsure as to the person's notability. Testing it by fire at AfD might not be a bad idea, I suppose - but let me ask DGG about this since he's more familiar with the notability guidelines for professors and with biographies in general. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:49, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking a look Tokyogirl79. The current version of the article is not really one I created per se: there were some other editors more involved with the clean up. Even so, most of the content seems to have been edited by IPs who might be trying to slant the article in a particular way (both good and bad). -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:36, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Marchjuly, though the article asserts he teaches corporate law at the University of the Pacific in Lima, the web page for the department [1] does not list him. I assume he is just a part time adjunct there, and W\WP:PROF does not seem relevant. I see nothing in the article to demonstrate that he is notable as a lawyer. Ofh is two awards, one is from the school where he received his law degree and the other appears minor. I see the notability template you quite appropriately placed has been repeatedly removed. In a situation like that, the best way to settle the issue is to list the article for deletion at WP:AFD DGG ( talk ) 11:22, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for tking a look DGG. The maintenance templates had already been added to the article when I came across it. I just re-added them after they were removed by a couple of IPs. As for the subject's Wikipedia notability, I'll do a little more WP:BEFORE before bringing it to AfD. Thanks again. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:45, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:My Name is 'A' by Anonymous poster.jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:My Name is 'A' by Anonymous poster.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 19:09, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Absinthe Drinkers (film)

Hi @Tokyogirl79: - I noticed in September 2013 here you re-directed this film from a disambiguation page that was deleted for being non-notable to the director's page, here: [2]. I found this in searching for films on the late actor's page John Hurt which lists the film as a direct link. This causes much confusion to users unfamiliar with how WP works since the film is not listed in the director's credits, it was never released, and does not show up in IMDB for many of its actors. I would kindly suggest that you remove this redirect since it will most undoubtedly cause more problems in the future. In addition, by removing this link, it will allow others to create a more notable page in the future; since a "The Absinthe Drinkers (film)| The Absinthe Drinkers" tag will be red - indicating that a page is in need of construction. Thoughts? Comments? Thank you. Best. Maineartists (talk) 13:06, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Maineartists, you can restore it if you want to - the reason it was redirected was because someone had nominated it for deletion. I came across it via the proposed deletion category pages and figured that it would be better to redirect it until more coverage became available rather than leave it to be deleted, as it looked unlikely that it was going to be otherwise saved before the seven days were up. If you want to restore it and try to save it, feel free, but since it was never released as far as I know (I haven't searched for it since 2013) it would potentially run the risk of becoming a deletion candidate. At the time I figured that the director's page was the best target, as opposed to any of the actor's pages since at the time I believe it was listed on his page. In any case it was a proposed deletion that never came to fruition since I redirected it, so it doesn't have the same rules as a speedy or AfD deletion. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:44, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Tokyogirl79 No. That is not my intent. I am asking that you discontinue the redirect. It is confusing to users and forces them to search for a website on a director's page in the External Link section for a single website that is an unreliable source giving false information. I have no interest in salvaging the article for the film; but your redirect is not helpful. The mentioned film on WP should simply have no redirect at all; especially in its present state. Thank you. Maineartists (talk) 23:19, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't just delete the page. The only way that it can be deleted at this point is to restore it and take the page to AfD or to bring it to RfD. It doesn't qualify for a speedy since the redirect isn't new (and there is no speedy criteria for films) and it can't be PRODed since my turning it into a redirect was a contesting of the PROD. Of course if you think that it can be turned into an article now, that's always an option, as is listing the film in the filmography on the director's page and noting that it was an unreleased film. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 23:27, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

February 2017 at Women in Red


February 2017

Black Women & Women Anthropologists online editathons
Faciliated by Women in Red

(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 20:55, 28 January 2017 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Beyond Unbroken

Hey, I've been gathering sources and news coverage on Beyond Unbroken and I plan on submitting a edit request of a re-created version of the page. Just a heads up seeing as your the admin who has the lock on it. Let me know what you think :) Teddy2Gloves(talk)(contribs) 18:33, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Teddy2Gloves: I salted the page but it was actually deleted at AfD by Juliancolton and it looks like you did take it to DRV in November 2015. Long story short, you need to talk to Julian since he was the closing admin and he's still active - I can't really do anything here. The deletion I did was a G4, as there had been an attempt to recreate the page despite the AfD. I salted it since it was the second attempt at recreation after the original AfD. You could probably ask him if he could send you a copy of the deleted material. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:50, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

19:45:03, 31 January 2017 review of submission by Colineverest


Hi!

Thanks for your thorough review of the submission for Emily Noyes Maxwell. I have reflected on your comments and feel that resubmission with minimal revision is warranted. I'll explain in a little bit of depth right now:

1) The basic premise of this resubmission, as of the original submission, is that Emily Noyes Maxwell (ENM) is notable independent of her husband. This is supported by two strands in her working life: her painting and her writing. A sub-thesis of this resubmission is that ENM is independently notable because of her relationship with her husband. This is an independent argument from derivative notability, like might be claimed, for example, by Melania Trump. The relationship that ENM had with her husband was an essential part of working life for a number of authors. This is referenced directly in the Salinger warrant. Wikipedia's own entry on literary salons confirms the importance of these informal gathering spaces for artistic production, and also the central place that women had in them. I think both of these claims for notability were clear, though I can see how only a cursory reading would elide the salon role into a derivative notability claim.

A bit tangentially but on this same topic - the suggestion that ENM ought to be included in her husband's Wikipedia entry is: a) not supported by Wikipedia's own entries regarding the independent notability of women in creating spaces for work, for example in the salon example cited above; b) entirely unsupported by any of EMN's independent work; c) a bit disconcerting, given that I see no precedent for such a suggestion in Wikipedia's own guidelines.

2) I have reviewed your specific source concerns. They are not convincing.

a) You say: "The claim of popularizing TPT is problematic because the New Yorker doesn't actually say that she was responsible for popularizing it." Tricky attribution issues aside I'm happy to concede the point that the New Yorker itself does not say this: it is in fact THE AUTHOR of TPT who makes this claim, in an article published in the New Yorker. The full quote is: "Fifty years ago, the book was rescued from the remainder table, Juster recalls, when a rhapsodic review appeared in this magazine, by Emily Maxwell (who was, among many other things, the wife of the longtime New Yorker fiction editor William Maxwell), and then children readers instantly, mysteriously, took to it." Failure to recognize the source of the quote here is understandable as a byproduct of speed. I hope I have now cleared this up. Overemphasizing the "mysterious" nature of the relationship between the review and the subsequent popularity of The Phantom Tollbooth would require being willfully obstructionist and obtuse. The claim that because this is an essay about the New Yorker in the New Yorker and is therefore biased is supported by no Wikipedia editing policy that I am aware of, and quite candidly, given the extensive reliance on poor-quality internet sources abounding throughout this website. Even if this were not a comparative matter, I would assume the presumption would be on an editor to establish the biased nature of a source, rather than merely assert bias.

b) You say: "The New York Times obituary isn't really useful ... since it's more of an obituary." I am at a loss to understand this argument. Here is a comparable article on the wife Akiva Goldsman which is entirely dependent on an obituary: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebecca_Spikings-Goldsman. Here is another article entirely dependent on obituaries that I produced and that passed editorial standards: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cecily_Mackworth. I understand the concern about press releases. Again, I think the presumption ought to be that if you wish to discredit the New York Times (or any newspaper) or the New Yorker (or any magazine) as biased as a result of either press-release style writing or shoddy internal auditing, that is upon the editor. The presumption should be in favor of reliability in these cases, as it is throughout this site.

c) Neither of these source concerns, it should be noted, answer the core of ENM's core claims for independent notability: writing and painting. These are can be sourced elsewhere in the submission. The claims in both the obituary and the NYer piece add color to these primary claims.

3) Systemic Impacts:

Finally, you write: "In the end it's super difficult to establish notability for one spouse when the other is the far more notable of the two." You cite Tabitha King as a counterexample to ENM. It would not do to overemphasize this point, so I will make it succinctly: this counter example is as poorly chosen as possible. It merely establishes that the MORE notable the dominant spouse, the MORE LIKELY there will be coverage of the other spouse. This issue is precisely the opposite of independent notability - it is a form, rather, of superderivative liability.

As a mea culpa, I will admit: I have a deep personal interest in couples in which the wife, after a long and productive marriage, dies and the husband follows short after. (See, e.g., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnny_Cash; see also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Friendly) In my haste to emphasize this personal taste, I included the fact of EMN's marriage in the first line of this short submission. It has now been removed to later in the submission, to allow ENM's own work to stand independently. I think this a sufficient edit for inclusion in the People's Encyclopedia.

If this change is not sufficient, it will pain me deeply. This will be for at least two reasons:

A) The difficulty of establishing the independent notability of wives of notable spouses is a particularly fraught issue at this time. For generations the only path to notability for women was through marriage. I had thought that America, at least, was entirely past this cruel (and ultimately unproductive) mode of accomplishment. And I had thought that the example of the independent successes (and subsequent notability) of ENM was evidence of this fact. Discovering recently that not only was America not past this wretched ghettoization of female notability has been difficult; an official Wikipedia announcement that ENM has not even established her independent notability would be, I think, devastating.

B) While encyclopedias make claims to being purely descriptive reality, Wikipedia at least acknowledges a number of its shortcomings in this area. It is a normative position, and not a descriptive one, to claim that ENM is not notable, because her husband is. I think it also revealing of the systemic bias that this institution is often accused of, but which I thought was a result of participation matters, and not a result of ideology. Because of my enthusiasm for, and reliance upon, this institution, recognizing the depths of its inherited biases will be quite a blow to my self-conception of my mind. Which is really the only thing I really value.

Once again, thank you for the time you have taken to review ENM's submission and resubmission, and also, hopefully, this response. I look forward to a new, and hopefully revised, disposition on this matter.

Peace and aloha for 2017,

Colin Everest

  • You've linked to other articles, however be careful of saying that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, as the existence of other articles doesn't necessarily mean anything. The people in those articles might be notable in other ways or they might not pass notability guidelines at all and just haven't been found and deleted yet. For example, I don't know that Rebecca Spikings-Goldsman necessarily merits her own article, as a search doesn't bring up an awful lot that covers her independently of her husband. Now in the case of Cecily Mackworth, that article is severely underreferenced and I'm kind of surprised that it passed on only two references, as most articles require 4-5 sources at the very least. (The two sources pass argument was originally written to refer to people who have done extremely notable things, like be the first person in space or have won very, very notable awards.) This one was written by one of the paper's journalists and as such, would be considered a newspaper article since it's very long and goes into Mackworth in depth. The thing about obituaries is that most of them are written by a family member or someone who is otherwise affiliated with the person who died. Some even have more than one - an initial obituary written to announce a death right after the person dies and another published later on, after funeral arrangements have been made. You can usually tell these by the way they're written and the one biggest tell that you're looking at a family-written obituary is the lack of a journalist's name attached to the article, as is the case with the NYT piece.
Something else that I didn't notice when I went through the article is that it looks like her husband worked for the New Yorker, so that means that any reviews or articles written by that publication would be seen as a primary source, as they're more likely to say nice things about the wife of one of their employees - especially as it makes them look better to have ties to published authors.
If you want to put this back through you can, but the problem here is that I am unlikely to be alone with my concerns and you have to be careful when sourcing articles. I'm not the only one who declined the article and if you want to ask either ThePlatypusofDoom or SwisterTwister to review the article with its current sourcing, you can - I've also tagged them in this message. I just don't find the sourcing strong enough to pass GNG. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:45, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Open Source 2.0

Thanks. Last night I was going to suggest this to you and see what you thought but didn't get around to it. Doug Weller talk 09:31, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter - February 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.

Administrator changes

NinjaRobotPirate • Schwede66 • K6ka • Ealdgyth • Ferret • Cyberpower678 • Mz7 • Primefac • Dodger67
Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
  • Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
  • The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.

Arbitration

Obituaries

  • JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.
Discuss this newsletter • Subscribe • Archive

13:38, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Request on 16:13:10, 1 February 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Josephine Salt



Josephine Salt (talk) 16:13, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I require assistance from an ADULT ENGLISH PERSON WHO UNDERSTANDS HOW DIFFICULT IT IS TO FIND LIUNKS TO NON EXISTANT NEWSPAPER ARTICLES DUE THEM BEING WRITTEN IN 1928.

  • One of the best places to start would be some of the libraries in the area Hunt lived in, as many of them tend to have archives of past newspaper articles, typically on microfiche but occasionally in other formats. If you don't live in the area then you can always call some of the libraries and ask for their help. Since there is a trust in his name, it would be a good idea to start with them, as they can help you find this information.
Something I didn't mention in the article, but really should have, is that the last paragraph looks like it's written to malign the St Vincent de Paul Society because they do not mention Hunt at all. Please be aware that this can be read as an attack against this society and content of that type cannot be placed in an article. Wikipedia is not a place to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and content like that alone can keep an article from getting accepted. I've removed this content. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:34, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hearsay Social

Hi! I noticed that in the past, you've been involved in improving Hearsay Social. I'm hoping you can help with some edits to that article, which hasn't been significantly updated in several years. I've proposed and mocked up several updates on the article's Talk page, including updating the company name, updating the infobox, and fleshing out the details of the page. I work for a communications agency that represents Hearsay, and due to my COI I won't be editing the article myself. Would you be willing to take a look and implement my suggestions or share feedback? Thanks for your time! Mary Gaulke (talk) 17:14, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Checking in whether you've had a chance to take a look, or if I should go ahead and take this request elsewhere. Thanks! Mary Gaulke (talk) 14:53, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK! Thank you again. :) Mary Gaulke (talk) 16:00, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Circumvented salting of Kyle Kulinski?

FYI please see my edit summary here. - Brianhe (talk) 03:34, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well it obviously might be WP:TOOSOON since the earliest source is from the last week of January. But right off the bat, I also wonder about the lede: a movement within the Dem Party? Is Uygur in fact a Democrat? It doesn't actually say that anywhere in his WP bio. - Brianhe (talk) 07:46, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
He's an independent with but votes democratic. GeekInParadise (talk) 20:24, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure why he keeps getting deleted. Considering he's one of the top news shows in the world, has nearly 300 Million views, and started a political organization with over 100,000 members. Not to mention he's a regular commentator on The Young Turks. There are many YouTubers and viral videos with less exposure than Kyle. See here and here GeekInParadise (talk) 20:24, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

question about contesting a G4 deletion

Freezy weezy...

I've just deleted another Wisdom Collins thing and blocked User:John Michealson as 'not here'. I don't know if an SPI is in order, as there may be more lurking. One thing that seems to be lacking is wisdom... Peridon (talk) 21:37, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See how it goes, then. Peridon (talk) 20:05, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Now at WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Collins wisdom. Peridon (talk) 13:28, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for Edit on Silent Hill: Betrayal

Just wanted to say thanks to the edit on my Silent Hill: Betrayal pages. Wasn't sure how to reply to your message. I've noted your edit and agree with the removal of specified items. Shadowolfdg (talk) 17:41, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 8 February

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) 00:39, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dice Bob hoax

Hello Tokyogirl! Thanks for taking care of the Dice Bob AfD. For longstanding hoaxes, it is customary to follow the archiving instructions at Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia. That way there is a public record of them for later analysis. Kaldari (talk) 16:56, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • We do normally and I'm actually one of the most avid followers of this. However in this situation the guy openly wrote on the AfD that he wanted this kept around on Wikipedia for his own nostalgia (not in the hoax portion, but as an actual live entry) and didn't show any true remorse over having created the hoax or it being up for so long on Wikipedia. In this situation I felt that archiving it in any format would have been a reward of sorts for him because he'd be getting what he wanted, albeit in a different format, and it might encourage him to commit more vandalism since he's done some vandalism-esque (or at the very least unhelpful) edits in the last few years. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:17, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Secular Talk / Kyle Kulinski

Hi TokyoGirl,

It appears Secular Talk & Kyle Kulinski have been created and deleted before. Where could I find the discussion so that I could try to address the notability issues? Thanks in advance. AshLin (talk) 08:02, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You've said that you're interested in addressing the issues that led to the article's deletion, so I'm going to transfer a copy of the G4'd article at Secular Talk to your userspace. The AfD'd version was deleted by Ged UK and normally we don't restore an AfD'd article that has been deleted by another admin, but they're inactive and I'm going to go ahead and make a bit of a decision on their behalf. Since I was the last person to delete Kyle Kulinski, I can restore that one as well. I'll post in a minute with the names of the locations where I'm restoring each version. I figure I'll restore the two versions of Secular Talk to different locations so you can pull what you need from either.
I'm also pinging Lizzymartin. They'd expressed interest and I'd offered to restore the article but didn't get an answer, but I imagine that they'd probably like to help with the process if possible. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:06, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • You can find it at the following:
User:AshLin/Secular Talk
User:AshLin/Kyle Kulinski
User:AshLin/Secular Talk Radio - The Kyle Kulinski Show
Hope this all helps! Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:11, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Tokyo Girl. This is my first attempt at undeletion & I do hope that I can get it restored by improving the article and getting the concerns addressed properly. Thank you for replacing the texts in my userspace. I hope you won't mind my asking guidance if I'm stuck, AshLin (talk) 13:17, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hey TG, no worries about the restoration on my account. I'm hoping to get back on here more in the coming months, but work has been very busy. GedUK  18:02, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! User:Tokyogirl79, Please help J-Pimp Wikipedia article by re-review.

Hi! User:Tokyogirl79, I have resubmitted this article - Draft:J-Pimp (Recording engineer) - to incorporate all the changes suggested by Wikipedia reviewer (User:SwisterTwister). I have made substantial changes throughout this article J-Pimp (Recording engineer), I believe this article significant for independent notability. Please help J-Pimp Wikipedia article by re-review Tokyogirl79.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:J-Pimp_(Recording_engineer) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:581:4503:4B55:DE6:E468:B6D:8673 (talk) 13:43, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The IP is almost certainly a sock of Prince-au-Léogâne, who has made countless attempts to create articles about this individual. The draft is therefore eligible for speedy deletion under section G5. Favonian (talk) 13:51, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ReaderofthePack&oldid=766118878"