User talk:009o9

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

March 9 edit-a-thon at MOCA in downtown LA[edit]

LA Meetup: March 9 edit-a-thon at MOCA
Moca.jpg

Dear fellow Wikipedian,

You have been invited to a meetup and edit-a-thon at the Museum of Contemporary Art in downtown Los Angeles on Sunday, March 9, 2014 from 11 am to 6 pm! This event is in collaboration with MOCA and the arts collective East of Borneo and aims to improve coverage of LA art since the 1980s. (Even if contemporary art isn't your thing, you're welcome to join too!) Please RSVP here if you're interested.

I hope to see you there! User:Calliopejen1 (talk)

To opt out of future mailings about LA meetups, please remove your name from this list.

Notice[edit]

5th Annual Wiknic[edit]

5th Annual Wiknic (Saturday, July 11, 2015, ~9:30am-4pm)
BBQ - 001.jpg

Dear fellow Wikipedian,

You are cordinally invited to the fifth annual Los Angeles Wiknic!

The Wiknic is a part of the nationwide Great American Wiknic. We'll be grilling, getting to know each other better, and building the L.A. Wikipedia community! The event is tentatively planned for Pan-Pacific Park (map) and will be held on Saturday, July 11, 2014 from 9:30am to 4pm or so. Please RSVP and volunteer to bring food or drinks if possible!

I hope to see you there! Howcheng (talk) - via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:40, 21 June 2015 (UTC) Join our Facebook group here! To opt out of future mailings about LA meetups, please remove your name from this list.

Your submission at Articles for creation: Lo Mein (book) (June 28)[edit]

AFC-Logo Decline.svg
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Winner 42 was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
Winner 42 Talk to me! 01:39, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikinic rescheduled[edit]

5th Annual Wiknic rescheduled to Saturday, July 25, 2015, ~9:30am-4pm
LA Wiknic 2011 Group Photo.jpg

Due to a conflict with the Redondo Loves Wikipedia edit-a-thon, the fifth annual Los Angeles Wiknic has been rescheduled. As before, the location will be at Pan-Pacific Park (map) and will be held on Saturday, July 25, 2015 from 9:30am to 4pm or so. Please RSVP and volunteer to bring food or drinks if possible!

I hope to see you there! howcheng {chat} - via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:28, 7 July 2015 (UTC) Join our Facebook group here! To opt out of future mailings about LA meetups, please remove your name from this list.

Reference errors on 12 July[edit]

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) 00:19, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Solutions for Dreamers has been accepted[edit]

AFC-Logo.svg
Solutions for Dreamers, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Sulfurboy (talk) 22:18, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
@Sulfurboy, Thank you, for reviewing the article and doing the move. Under the rules for COI and paid writing, I have to use AfC for submission -- thanks again for your work. -- 009o9 (talk) 23:33, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Request on 20:03:18, 19 July 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Carvic65[edit]



Carvic65 (talk) 20:03, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Carlos Vicioso, Abelardo Vicioso's son. I'm just noticing that my article about my father was denied to publish because it's a translation of the article about him in Wikipedia in Spanish, which it's true, BUT I WAS THE ONE WHO CONTRIBUTED WITH WIKIPEDIA.ES GIVING ALL THAT INFORMATION. So, of course, it has to be the same article, but translated. That's the biography of my father, not only because I'm his son and I knew him while alive, but also because he's a very renown person in my country, the Dominican Republic, and beyond, and his life is publicly debated in several Dominican books and articles, by the way reviewed for me.

@Carvic65, I've formatted the article Draft:Abelardo_Vicioso, which should give you a head start, you should provide links, even in Spanish in your references. I'm not fluent in Spanish, so I doubt if I can be much more assistance, but feel free to ask. You might try Help:Other languages. Regards -- 009o9 (talk) 21:13, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Lo Mein (book) has been accepted[edit]

AFC-Logo.svg
Lo Mein (book), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Sulfurboy (talk) 03:52, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Request on 14:36:14, 25 July 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Carvic65[edit]



Carvic65 (talk) 14:36, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Carlos Vicioso, trying to submit my article about my father Abelardo Vicioso, Dominican writer, and I want to send you some pics (photos) of documents, degrees, certificates, etc., that may contribute to raise the credibility of the text. How do I do? Can you please give me a contact e-mail where I can send you the referred pics, if possible?

@Carvic65 if you own the license to the images (i.e., you are the photographer) you can upload them to Wikimedia. You will need to keep track of the file names, then we can create a category to make them easier to find. Again, the copyright owner must do the upload and give a release.
Additionally, if Abelardo Vicioso is a Spanish language writer, do we need a full biography in the English version? It seems to me that a short stub article, linking to the Spanish biography would suffice. If you need to email me. there is a link in the left column on this page "Email this user" -- Regards -- 009o9 (talk) 16:49, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Ruse (book) (August 8)[edit]

AFC-Logo Decline.svg
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Tokyogirl79 was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 12:47, 8 August 2015 (UTC)


Teahouse logo
Hello! 009o9, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering or curious about why your article submission was declined please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 12:47, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Lo Mein (book) for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Lo Mein (book) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lo Mein (book) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. DGG ( talk ) 20:22, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Draft:Ruse (book)[edit]

Ambox warning orange.svg Draft:Ruse (book), a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Ruse (book) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Draft:Ruse (book) during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. DGG ( talk ) 02:01, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

my approach[edit]

I've worked with a number of paid editors. Most of them were very unsatisfactory at first, but some learned to improve. The key area in which they improved was learning what articles to write, and what not to write; the second, was understanding about writing them proportionately. For the ones willing to learn, i have always been willing to help. I hope that this may also become the case between the two of us. I'd be very glad to withdraw the MfD on Ruse if it became unnecessary. The key signal to me of it being unnecessary would be the withdrawal of the article on Lo Mein, followed by a rewrite of Ruse to eliminate the duplication with the bio. I don't like to force an issue. DGG ( talk ) 05:13, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

DGG I'm not trying to be difficult here, this is not a campaign and a couple of articles are not going to sell any $2.00 used books. The concept was a couple of blue links in Eringer's bio (a discriminate collection) with a sample of his fiction and his non-fiction. With that in mind, my writing was geared toward WP:BKCRIT #5 for Lo Mein and the college reviews seemed to support WP:BKCRIT #1.
Revisiting Eringer's bio concerning Ruse, there are exactly three sentences in the lede only that references the Ruse portion of Eringer's life.
Quote from Bio: Eringer freelanced for the FBI's Foreign Counter-Intelligence Division[3] to assist with the apprehension of Edward Lee Howard, an ex-CIA officer who defected to the Soviet Union in 1985. In this ruse, Eringer commissioned Howard to write the, Spy’s Guide to Central Europe.[4] Eringer’s assignments for the FBI, which also included keeping tabs on Ira Einhorn,[1] are detailed in, Ruse: Undercover with FBI Counterintelligence (2008).[5]
This ten years of Eringer's life in not expanded upon in the body. 1. because of the consensus constraints from the editor I was working with, and 2. the sheer size of the controversies section. The reason I got so verbose in the style section is because there are historical facts in the book that I thought should be exposed to researchers.
My resistance to the deletion to Lo Mein is that this has become a policy/guideline issue, if college newspapers are not RS as you say, even for something as non-contentious as book reviews, then where will the college newspaper ban also apply? To just the Book Wikiproject? To articles about athletes? Or, the entire Wikipedia? In any case, college newspapers being problematic should be listed in WP:QUESTIONABLE or at least WP:NBOOK so that other people don't have the same problem.
So where should we open a discussion, on the reliability of college newspapers? Do you want me to move my sandbox copy of "Lo Mein" to drafts so we have a copy for the discussion?[1] Pending the result of that discussion, I might want to resubmit.
Happy to work with you on the Ruse talk page because I'm still not sure what you want. 009o9 (talk) 07:03, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
P.S. I just got done reading your response on the MfD, I guess your threshold for the number of WorldCat listings should also be discussed, with a set number, that would make it incredibly easy to determine if a book has the juice for an article. 009o9 (talk) 07:21, 12 August 2015 (UTC)


There's a basic principle in applying WP guidelines: they are guidelines, not cast-iron rules, and they are applied according to the consensus of the community, and in a reasonable way. The consensus is not necessarily precise, and is always subject to to change, though usually the change is slow and incremental. It's relatively rare that we make a definitive change in a guideline, because it tends to have unforeseen consequences & is often very difficult to get agreement; rather, we change the interpretation. We go a great deal by common sense, tho it isn't a formal guideline, and trying to establish something on a technical bases when it doesn't seem reasonable does not usually work.
for deletion, our practice is recorded the records of past AfDs--which, though they show considerable variation, do tend to indicate what is accepted and not. There is no summary of them other than WP:COMMON; you need to observe them. I've observed them for many years now, and I remember. The variability comes from the people who participate in them,since we do this by self-selection of whoever wants to appear. For other matters which may affect deletion--such as the standards used at AfC, or the meaning of WP:Reliable Sources, there are noticeboards and centralized talk pages, and some of them are indexed. I pay a great deal of attention to the discussions at WP:RSN and at WT:CSD, though other boards are relevant for other issues.
At RSN, I have consistently said, and I think to general agreement, that there are no absolute rules: it is a matter of judgment. There is no source that is absolutely reliable for every purpose, and almost no source that cant be used for something. I've increasingly deprecated, with general consensus, the use of college and local newspapers, especially for books: they tend to be remarkably indiscriminate. The trend in fact has been becoming much more demanding for what book reviews actually show notability, and some we have before accepted we no longer do, possibly even more so than I would myself advocate. At AfD, many things which are not formal guidelines are nonetheless applied: library holdings is relevant, and has usually but not always been an accepted argument--the reason for not making a fixed rule about it is that it depends in an inexact way on the type of book and the country of publication. The only really extensive source is WorldCat, and it is only comprehensive for US and Canadian libraries--elsewhere it covers mainly major university libraries , and there is no equally comprehensive index elsewhere. When applied to non-English material ,it will always be very incomplete. Different books have different expectations. I'd be prepared to argue that 20 or so holdings of a book in an arcane field of archeology is relevant notability, but it's otherwise with current English language fiction in a very popular genre such as spy stories, where not even 200 or 300 holdings really matters,because if there's anything even halfway decent, public libraries tend to get them. There is an applicable control: comparsion with the holdins of books that ate of acknowldged importance.
I've learned something about tactics here: Never argue to strongly for one's own article--it's counterproductive, even when there's no coi involved. Take defeat gracefully, and don't fight things too hard against opposition. In trying to change a practice, carefully select your examples. If you want to establish a principle, pick a very strong test case, and one where common sense supports your argument. This is about the weakest case imaginable--the onloy thing weaker would be if it were self-published.
But here's the fundamental problem for me: what are you trying to accomplish? Are you honestly in goo faith trying to establish a eule about book reviews? If so, you are going about it in an unhelpful manner, because the best way to to take strong clearly notable example first, and theyn gradually try to expand it. By picking the weakest of almost all possible examples you hare setting common sense against you, and this is not to good way to accomplish your end of establishing a guideline. Those who really want to change a rule pick stronger examples,and challenge notable cases first.
I do not think you are really out to establish the rule for its own sake. You want to change the rule to get this particular article accepted. You want to keep the article because you are being paid for it. Most people here only tolerate paid editors very reluctantly, and you are not likely to get the benefit of the doubt. This has so far not come up principally with books and authors--its come up mostly with businessmen and companies, and the current trend is to find some reason to delete anything by a paid editor unless it is unquestionably notable and unquestionably neutral. I don't say whether this is good or bad, or whether it is fair or unfair, but it is the current trend, and I would be remiss if i did not alert you to it. I've looked at your other editing--much of it is in fields I neither know nor care about very much. Some of it seems ok; some of it seems excessive, such as the track listing on a recent festival article, and I am likely to challenge it. You have been relying on approvals at afc mostly by someone whose approvals are often very questionable, sometimes so questionable that he has been warned about them.
I do not plan on making many further comments at the XfDs. But I think you are being unreasonable, and letting your coi override your judgment, to the extent that i may carry that part further. I don't like to do that while the XfDs are active. But I think it's only fair to warn you that there are admins who would certainly block you indefinitely for promotional editing if the pattern came to their notice. I myself might not, for I block and ban much more rarely than most of the active admins--I mostly warn. (and in any case I cannot act here myself even if I wanted to, since I've become involved.) DGG ( talk )
Here's my problem, if I take a "take strong clearly notable example first," we are never going to be discussing that particular article, we'll fix the defects in the writing and the article will be approved, end of story. The problem in the various guidelines is that they don't adequately inform the editor of what book articles are likely to be accepted. Especially in cases like this, where the author's notability is established and a book articles should be considered ancillary or part of a "discriminate collection" under BKCRIT #5. If my writing seems COI, with too much background on the author, writing to demonstrate BKCRIT #5 may be part of the cause.
I found this passage last night in WP:UNIGUIDE:
  • Student-published college newspapers and university-published press releases are generally reliable sources for verifying information, but these sources are not as strong a source to demonstrate notability as mainstream news organizations, and they should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis
The community seems to think that BK:CRIT stand for "Critic" or "Critique", the section heading is actually "Criteria," and reviews is the last in the list of BK:CRIT #1, "published works in all forms," (presumably the weakest qualification by order of precedence). But even with the Ruse, clearly having other references, it was declined because one of the references discussed what was in the book, but did not offer a reviewer's opinion. (Come to think of it, opinion is the weakest form or ref going toward notability -- even from mainstream established sources.)
I can clearly see from this and other writings that you are vehemently opposed to paid editing and apparently feel that along with the various other sanctions, paid editors should not be allowed comment in AfD, nor edit their work during AfD. Making it impossible for other voters to fairly judge the article after other editors have hastily deleted content.
  • Example quoted from another AfD (4) I think you would do well to confine your editing on these articles, or a combined article, to their talk pages. Having commented here, I cannot take action as an administrator, but if you continue to edit them in mainspace, I will recommend at least a topic ban. DGG ( talk ) 02:43, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[2]
The result of that discussion was a merge, where everybody seems to be agreeable to the result.
As a courtesy to the reviewing editor, I've recently begun declaring that the article is paid, above the fold on the article itself. In addition, to providing a talk page notice (before moving to Drafts) and trying to keep my user page updated. I don't know how I can be more forthcoming in that aspect.009o9 (talk) 17:11, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Lo Mein Robert Eringer Book Cover Art.jpg[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Lo Mein Robert Eringer Book Cover Art.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) 17:25, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Ruse (book) (August 23)[edit]

AFC-Logo Decline.svg
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Wxidea was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
Wxidea (talk) 04:53, 23 August 2015 (UTC)