Jump to content

User talk:KylieTastic

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Musiciranfans (talk | contribs) at 15:12, 28 March 2020 (→{{You've got mail}}: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


View this userbox's documentationIt is approximately 7:59 PM where this user lives (Cambridge, UK).Refresh the time

I try to answer all questions, but I also have a busy real-life - If you have a general question it may be quicker to ask at the Wikipedia:Teahouse

Click to start a Question/section — Deleted image issue? Look up the files history here...


AfC Drafts NOTE: To be fair to all submitters I do not review/re-review on request, I just pick new and old submissions at random...

Current Backlog: 1,038 pending submissions

 


A barnstar for you!

The Editor's Barnstar
Thank you for all the feedback! Much appreciate the help in helping me with my first article! Amitavinod (talk) 18:48, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draft Crail Ranch Homestead Museum

Thanks for revision. This is my second article. I developed in sandbox, used wizard to set up draft page, and then copied from sandbox (in visual edit mode) to the draft page. Is there a better way to convert the sandbox page to a draft page? How do I clear the sandbox page? Appreciate any advice. Thanks! Aflockw12Aflockw12 (talk) 18:24, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi Aflockw12 normally we just move pages (assuming the target name is not already taken) and I believe you should be able to do that even as a new user, if not submitting to AfC will often get someone moving it to draft for you. There is reasons for doing a copy-paste rather than move if you have a very messy history, but others like to keep all the edit history so a move is better. I'm not a Visual Editor user, but you should be able to just select everything, delete and save. If there was a reason to fully delete, i.e. make the history not acceptable to non admins etc. then you can add {{Db-self}} to the top, or from the Visaal editor I think that appears to be Insert Menu > Template > Template name: Db-self. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 18:45, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Working on Robert Fulghum updates

Will add sources as I figure out the sourcing code. A little rusty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:200:4580:ED20:F91A:938E:E8EC:BF9 (talk) 18:28, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Revised draft for: Adonis Kapsalis

Draft:Adonis_Kapsalis

Hi Kyle, per your suggestion i have added several notable references to the aforementioned new article/bio. Could you please review when possible? Thanks! GP75S (talk) 22:00, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi GP75S I'm just off to bed and also to be fair to all submitters I don't re-review on request, I just pick new and old submissions at random, so it may or may not be myself who reviews it next. However I did submit again for you, so the other reviewers will see it on the list to be reviewed. All the best KylieTastic (talk) 22:11, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Outlasted the Invasion Award

For surviving a swarm of weevils
For surviving the grand weevil invasion of 2020. Sulfurboy (talk) 20:26, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
:) KylieTastic (talk) 20:32, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are ironically vandalizing people's factual statements by undoing their work

This is a factual statement: Chris Chibnall destroyed the long running series Doctor Who.

Why are you undoing this? This is a factual statement which can be proven by looking at the ratings and the number of views. This show has tanked. If you consider censoring free speech, as "vandalism" then you have a twisted mindset.

101.165.51.106 (talk) 23:35, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback on scamadviser

Dear KylieTastic,

Sorry if I am using the wrong way to approach you. I wondered if you have been able to look at the page on scamadviser. Feedback is very welcome.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Scamadviser.com

Best regards,

Jorij Abraham — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jorij Abraham (talk • contribs) 08:34, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Expanding article on Jonah Jones (sculptor)

Hello KylieTastic,

I have also posted the following message on Drm310's User talk. Sorry if I am doubling up but it is hard to keep up with who is who at Wikipedia. Three of your editors have now been on our case in the past 36 hours.

Jonah Jones was a figure of sufficient importance in Welsh, and indeed British, late-twentieth-century culture and education to merit an article on Wikipedia. He was not, though, important enough to motivate a range of scholarly publications, academic articles etc that can be cited as corrobating sources. The task of recording his life fell to a member of his family, as frequently occurs with public figures who are not considered, for whatever reason, to belong in the very first rank.

In 2008 the University of Wales Press's Seren Books imprint commissioned his second son, Peter Jones, to write a biography. Peter was well qualified for the task: he was a historian and former BBC journalist with the BBC Monitoring Service in Reading, from where he was seconded for three years to the UK Foreign Office, who in his early twenties worked for six years at Jonah Jones's studio where he was taught to engrave letters on slate to a high standard of excellence.

Peter Jones worked from many sources, all of which were cited over three pages at the end of the biography (Jonah Jones: An Artist's Life, 2011, ISBN 978-1-85411-556-0). He also drew extensively on private papers and letters and on archives held at the BBC, the Oxford Bodleian Library, the London Metropolitan Archives, the National Archives at Kew, the Tate Gallery in London, the Welsh Arts Council, the minutes of the Academic Council of the Dublin National College of Art and Design, the record of parliamentary questions in the Irish Dail Eireann, and the digital archives of The Irish Times newspaper.

The biography, in other words, was a thoroughgoing exercise in historical scholarship, not some hyped-up job designed to pour glory on its subject. If the manuscript had not passed this elementary test it would never have been accepted for publication. And, of course, the manuscript passed through all the usual editorial processes employed by any serious book publisher.

However, as far as Wikipedia is concerned, the central problem seems to be the lack of sufficient secondary sources to corrobate all the facts presented in the expanded article. If secondary sources do not exist - because, as I said at the beginning, other writers have not written much about Jonah Jones - then, according to your editors, all our efforts to expand the article to provide a fuller FACTUAL picture are doomed. You say you cannot accept the facts we have added because we (probably) cannot cite third-party corroboration for each added fact.

I say "we (probably) cannot" because, knowing Peter, I would not be altogether surprised if he dug up this and that from heaven knows where to cite as corrobation. He might be able to do so - he is, after all, a historian and a researcher, and disinterring well-hidden sources is what he does. He may therefore choose to rise to the challenge of proving to Wikipedia that every bit of his research was authentically truthful and that he was not a lying huckster.

For my part, I am so exhausted and disillusioned by the whole self-defeating pointlessness of all this that, together with my wife, I have decided to cancel my monthly financial support for Wikipedia. We have supported Wikipedia financially for many years because we believe it is one of the bulwarks of human civilisation and possibly the very best thing to have emerged from the internet. But after this despair-inducing experience, we turn away in sorrow. Good luck to you all.

Davidtownsendjones (talk) 17:49, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi Davidtownsendjones firstly you have updated Jonah Jones (sculptor) with this edit which although it appears you have a Conflict of interest the edit was not reverted. You then posted to the article talk page to explain your post, a good idea and shows your good faith, but you said "All my contributions had been undone" which is not true. Jeff G. replied pointing out "Your additions were not removed". You can see from the article history here that your edit was not removed just a WP:COI tag added, this just means someone independent should reveiw. You said you believed Wikipedia was "one of the bulwarks of human civilisation and possibly the very best thing to have emerged from the internet" which is why so many of us volunteer so many hours because we do as well. I would hope you would understand it is how it is because we do have policies and procedures to folow, if not it would be like the so much of the rest of the internet... garbage.
When you submitted User:Davidtownsendjones/sandbox/Jonah Jones to Articles for creation there was no statement that this was related to the article Jonah Jones (sculptor) and as we review hundreds of submissions a day we do not have the time to delve into users histories - as such I'm sorry that I missed the context it was posted in, or that it was about an existing subject. From your point of view it was obvious, but I hope you can see that from mine it was lacking context. However as your original edit stands, and your article talk page post is there for any discussion no further action appears to be needed.
On your user page you state "I don’t agree about a conflict of interest, because I was only a tool and not the originator of any of the content." but you have said you are "one of Jonah Jones's children", and the content was from "Peter Jones" also the subjects son. Note that conflict of interest just means linked to the subject, not paid and it does not mean that your edits are wrong or bad - just that it is human nature that people with a WP:COI are naturally going to find it more difficult to be neutral. Also most people with a COI are not historians and journalist, I'm sure you can envisage the types of biased edits that get posted by other people with close links to subjects. Please note again that due to the amount of messages, edits and articles we have to review many responses are just standard templates, so they are not personal or accusations.
To reiterate your edit to Jonah Jones (sculptor) has not been removed, and you have clearly been acting with good faith, and I'm sure Peter has done their best to be professional and accurate in their work. I'm sorry that the standard templated responses and our polices has left you felling "exhausted and disillusioned". They are tailored to cope with the thousands of biased and bad faith edits we get daily that do get reverted and accounts blocked. I'm sure also that neither Jeff G. or Drm310 meant in any way to make you feel we have been on your case. All the best KylieTastic (talk) 10:49, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi KylieTastic. Thank you. It feels like good sense has re-entered the discussion. As a fellow editor I can appreciate what it feels like to constantly be in the eye of a torrent of incoming submissions, many of them biased or in poor faith. You have my respect for stepping up to the plate and submitting to the torrent. So I do understand if there was some confusion - as appears, if I follow you correctly, to have been the case - about whether I had submitted a wholly new article or amendments to an existing one.
As I have already said in so many words, we cannot help being Jonah Jones's children. But if we do not accept responsibility for keeping an objective, balanced account of his life and work in the public eye, our experience over the past 16 years since he died is that no one else will. Inevitably this leads to remarks about conflicts of interest. You and your colleagues are not the first to challenge us on the matter. Our only defence is to be able to demonstrate that we apply the same objective and neutral standards to the subject of 'Jonah Jones' as in all other areas of our professional practices as historians, writers, journalists, editors and researchers. It was in this spirit that we approached these revisions to the existing Wikipedia article.
If, taking all of this discussion into account, you and your colleagues are satisfied with the outcome, would it now be possible for the template message at the top to be removed?
Also, please could you point me at any advice published by Wikipedia about how to replace an existing image with another one? Although not easily phased by backend editing systems, I have to say that some of Wikipedia's methodologies are a whole new level of challenge!

Davidtownsendjones (talk) 15:30, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi Davidtownsendjones, I've had to step back from doing much editing as real-life decided to throw a few issues at me, but I wanted to get an answer out. I'm not sure about the template message - the way things work here is either being WP:BOLD and then discussing if someone disagrees or getting a WP:Consensus. I don't have a problem with the additions, but I haven't been involved in such a case before and I don't feel like being bold at the moment as just exhausted with life, work and being sick. I'm sure some editors review these tags as they appear in automatically generated maintenance categories. So you can either leave is and see, or ask some others. I don't think there is a noticeboard for COI like other issues, so options to seek others input would be to add a {{help}} and question to the talk page, or to ask at the Wikipedia:Teahouse or Wikipedia:Help desk
on the issue of images that depends - if you have pictures that have not been published and you are happy to freely donate it's quite easy, however if they have been published or someone else has the copyright, or you aren't happy to donate on an open licence it's not easy. If it's the first then your account works on Wikimedia Commons our sister project for 'free' media. Any images uploaded there are usable on all language Wikipedias so any translations of the article would also be able to use. On commons you see "upload file" on the left had menu to this wizard. However, I just checked and see you already tried and run into an issue c:Commons:Help_desk#Changing_a_photograph where they did leave a reply. As I said if you have any photos of your own it should be easy if you use the commons wizard - it just appears the "Cross-wiki upload from" in the summary stopped your first attempt. If you do want to use images from another photographer a they say you have to go though the Commons:OTRS procedures. A real pain to get actual licence/copyright holder to do and frustrating if you know it's with permission, but they have to legally protect copyright holder from fraud - from just my little experience on Commons there are a lot of people uploading stolen files from the internet claiming as there own, which just means people like you have to deal with more procedures. Hope that helps a bit KylieTastic (talk) 18:37, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 17:54:07, 6 March 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Nicolas Dalmata


Dear Kyle, thank you for your message. Of course this is a draft and requires thorough elaboration. Being a non native writer, I will be grateful for any help to revise the page. I will also invite other wikipedians to work on the draft. As you can see in the text, there are several references that need to be added and cited properly. The page also needs a more consistent table of content. Please le me know if you have ideas on how to structure the paragraphs. My point in creating this page is that the recent surge of regional as well as transnational forms of crime narratives or crime sub-genres in Europe (e.g. the Nordic or Mediterranean Noir) invites the creation of a specific article presenting the history of this genre in Europe from a comparative angle, addressing its multilingualism and cultural plurality as a major defining feature.

Nicolas Dalmata (talk) 17:54, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looking in here,Nicolas Dalmata because I was about to review the draft also, the problem isn't that the concept isn't likely to be notable , but that you need to show this by actually having references. Unfortunately, our form notices don't really differentiate between a draft that just needs to be referenced, and a draft about something that probably will never be able to be adequately referenced. Unfortunately, we're reliant on notices because eveything needs to be reviewed, and we have insufficient reviewers to do it more individually. DGG ( talk ) 09:29, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Nicolas Dalmata as DGG said I'm not sure the subject would be notable enough for an Encyclopedic article, certainly the lead section is very much like an essay rather than Encyclopedic. Also for the rest it wasn't clear if it was based of sources or if it was original research (see WP:NOR). Unfortunately its not a subject I'm familiar with to be able to assist, and we still have thousands of other articles waiting for a review. You could do with finding editors with an interest in the subject... you could try Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Crime task force, or look at edits on similar subjects to find active editors with an interest, lately you could post at the Wikipedia:Teahouse to see if anyone has any suggestions. All the best KylieTastic (talk) 11:06, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Count Von Aubel's Article

Dear KylieTastic; thanks for the review on my article.

I understand only partially the policy of the reliable sources, I tried now to reference the journal as far as possible.

Anyhow, I do not understand how my article should be rejected when other similar ones have been approved i.e. Forum Geometricorum. Could you help me to work out the article's weakness if I am doing something very wrong?

Best Regards;

Count Von Aubel (talk) 18:20, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi Count Von Aubel over time the polices and standards of English Wikipedia have got stricter, so yes sometimes articles exist that if submitted now would not be accepted. Most often the Other stuff exists argument get the existing articles improved or deleted, and never helps drafts get accepted. As you first submitted you only had one reference, and it's multiple independent reliable sources that count to our notability guidelines - that are the basis of the main decisions to if a subject qualifies for an article. However you have already done the correct thing and added more references and resubmitted, so no your doing nothing wrong. Someone will review and get back to you, maybe myself or probably someone else as I have a drink and a curry to enjoy. All the best KylieTastic (talk) 18:36, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request for submission

Hi KylieTastic, thank you for taking the time to review the draft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Gabriel_Kunda_Jr. upon your review does the article merit it being able to live for submission as it meets the requirements?. In the first draft, I was befuddled at the article being declined, as the comment mentioned the player did not play in a fully professional league, but I corrected it by adding that the player had indeed played in a professional league which is Segunda B and added his appearances, would this article be able be in for submission? Thanks Vivalionel1 (talk) 21:02, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi Vivalionel1 I didn't do a complete review, but I noticed the double submission and that as they had played for Real Zaragoza they were playing in a league on the list Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues. So they are partially notable, but there has been some issues that some think WP:NFOOTY is not enough and WP:GNG is also required... and I didn't look deep enough to decide either way. Someone will do a full review, maybe myself, but if you can find any other sources that have significant coverage of the subject that will help. All the best KylieTastic (talk)

JFrog Draft

What was wrong with the draft JFrog? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:JFrog#fixed_all_comments — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhijoshi90 (talk • contribs) 10:10, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Abhijoshi90 Firstly notability as the comment says subjects require significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources - currently none. Secondly it looks more like marketing - such as all the products listed twice - and I picked one sentence "JFrog's end-to-end solution—from Development to Distribution—is a vital part of a faster, more efficient application development and release processes" and googled, and no surprises it is a direct copy from marketing here see WP:COPYVIO. KylieTastic (talk) 10:45, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question about rejection of page draft: The Elephant in the Brain

Hi! Apologies in advance if I'm messing up Wikipedia etiquette and/or wasting anyone's time - I'm still getting to grips with Wikipedia!

You reviewed my draft of the page for the book 'The Elephant in the Brain' and flagged it for notability. I did read the notability page before I started the draft and thought that 'The Elephant in the Brain' satisfied notability requirement 1)"The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. " To make this clear, I cited both of the 'non-trivial published works' about the book in the 'Reception' section of the draft. The two works were both reviews, one in the Wall Street Journal and one in Quillette. I wanted to ask you more specifically why this does not meet requirement 1)? Is it because Quillette is an online magazine? (though apparently Quillette itself is non-trivial enough to have its own Wikipedia page)

If you could clear this up, I would really appreciate it. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alfredsph (talk • contribs) 14:56, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi Alfredsph asking a fair question should be considered by no one as "wasting anyone's time" and welcome to Wikipedia. Although WP:NBOOK says two or more in general for subjects to be deemed notable with only two they would have to be very solid, reliable, and in-depth. The Wall Street Journal is definitely a very reliable source, but yes Quillette is flagged by the review tolls I use as "Generally unreliable" as listed here. I'm not aware of the site myself but the author "Samuel Hammond" is only listed as writing two reviews, so it's difficult to tell if they are promotional or biased. So although I would not discount the review it leaves more than enough doubt that if this was accepted into mainspace it could be nominated for deletion as only having one reliable source. Our job as reviewers is to accept articles that have a good chance of surviving any Wikipedia:Articles for deletion nomination. Look to see if you can find some more reviews/coverage and also I would drop the first source as the OUP one has the ISBN and makes it look like source padding. Hope that helps, KylieTastic (talk) 15:51, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi, thanks for taking the time to answer. This clears up my confusion. The link you provided to the list of sources and their status as 'reliable', 'Generally Unreliable' etc. is particularly helpful. I've made the suggested changes and resubmitted. All the best, Alfredsph (talk) 18:42, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Teamwork Barnstar
Thank you for reveiwing my artcile and giving such great feed back Quantum squid88 (talk) 19:32, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

referencing

Hi, I had my page decined when i tried to publish it due to there not being referneces. But i'm slightly confused as to what I need to reference, please could you helo me with this DanielCoen123 (talk) 11:45, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for editing

Hi Dear editor / administrator (KylieTastic)

Thanks for correcting the grammar mistakes i am thankful to you. is there a possibility to approve this page earlier ? as the lady (Ayesha Chundrigar) Draft:Ayesha Chundrigar is a notable person and she is now showing and coming in television daily since last week.


Thanks Memon KutianaWala (talk) 08:13, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

privacy

actually reading [1], and looking at the details about school and so on, this is an inappropriate posting and I think delete would have been better than decline, so I did it. I may be oversensitive about this, but I can imagine the problems it might cause. DGG ( talk ) 08:55, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

sorry, I forgot you were not yet an admin & couldn;t see it--bio of a young person giving too much detail. DGG ( talk ) 10:44, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi DGG I think I vaguely recall the article, was it about a girl from an admirer - if so I thought it maybe should be deleted but it's one of those cases of trying to work out what speedy condition would match. You deleted as "BLP privacyviolation" but when the page is not negative or an attack I didn't think G10 would apply (or more that it would depend on which admin dealt with it), so what would you think it should have been tagged as? KylieTastic (talk) 11:37, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request for submition

Hello, I have changed the Draft:Amit Bhadana (YouTuber) article. Please review the article. Mr Vikas07 (talk) 11:01, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi Mr Vikas07 to be fair to all submitters I don't re-review on request, I just pick new and old submissions at random, so it may or may not be myself who reviews it next. Also I'm busy in real life dealing with pandemic related issues so I have not got much time to review/edit. We are still getting high number of submissions daily, but their is less reviewing than normal is going on so it may take a while. Regards KylieTastic (talk) 11:19, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request for submition

Hello, I Draft:Sumit Godara Create in the article. Please review the article. Mr Vikas07 (talk) 11:04, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Oh Seung-ah

Hi KylieTastic. I saw this Draft:Oh Seung-ah and i did some improvements and added reliable sources. Can you published it. I fixed mistakes and everything. It's not my draft it is someone else's draft. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.43.31.84 (talk) 18:15, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My Article

I have recently posted an article called "Federated States of Gapla" and I have noticed that you have declined it for being humorous. The article was for a micronation, which is a project to start a new nation by someone, and I feel that it should not be marked as humorous. There are articles of other micronations on Wikipedia such as the Principality of Sealand or the Republic of Molossia that have been approved. The Republic of Molossia is very humorous, they have claimed to go to war with East Germany! If there is another reason why my article was declined, feel free to message me! Thank you for the support. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seungri400 (talk • contribs) 17:12, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 12:18:29, 28 March 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Binilselva


My content based on a service, which provides materials for students to reach their goals easily. And, I'm the proprietor of this service. I decided to add this in Wikipedia so that large number of students can identify this service online. And I never found any reference for this service online. So I'm unable to add a reference. So, kindly go through the content once again, and give permission. Thanks.

Binilselva (talk) 12:18, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

==

Hello, KylieTastic. 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.

==
Hello, KylieTastic. 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:KylieTastic&oldid=947798760"