User talk:Tokyogirl79

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

Submission declined of Draft:Meadows[edit]

HiTokyogirl79! I made use of the sources you mentioned and I would be glad to make any other suggested changes if this needs another round of revisions. But I worked carefully, and believe this will meet the requirements. I have added in lots of new sources.

On the question of notable literary awards, the following url shows the notable poets in Wikipedia who, like Deborah Meadows, have been awarded the Gertrude Stein Award:

I understand that items published on university sites are held to high standards of truth and faculty members could be charged with fraud if they erroneously publish information about their degrees and publications.

FYI. This is published on the Jacket2 site as a description of their mission, editorial process, and affiliation with the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Penn.

About us

Jacket2 offers commentary on modern and contemporary poetry and poetics. We publish articles, reviews, interviews, discussions and collaborative responses, archival documents, podcasts, and descriptions of poetry symposia and projects. We also publish discursive explorations and transcripts of material in the PennSound archive. Features in Jacket2 present a wide range of materials about and responses to the work of a single poet or group, and might include reissued or original poems. Jacket2 is also committed to preserving a full, searchable archive of Jacket Magazine issues 1–40, published between 1997 and 2010 by John Tranter, a database of more than a thousand pieces of criticism on contemporary poetry in addition to more than a thousand original works by poets from around the world.

Jacket2 (ISSN 2167-2326) is associated with PennSound and the Kelly Writers House at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. We gratefully acknowledge the ongoing support of Harry Groome (C’63), whose generous endowment gift helps sustain this website. Other supporters include Elisa Caterfino Mandel (C’83), the Center for Programs in Contemporary Writing, and the Office of the Provost at the University of Pennsylvania.


Jacket2 does not read unsolicited submissions. We will be reading unsolicited queries during the month of January 2016. Please note that Jacket2 publishes new poetry only as part of critical commentaries and features; we are not currently reading submissions of poetry.


Publishers, please send review copies to: Michelle Taransky, Reviews Editor, Jacket2, Kelly Writers House, 3805 Locust Walk, Philadelphia, PA 19104-6150. Please note that we cannot guarantee reviews of books sent for consideration.

Also I wanted to let you know that I did contact the Poetry Foundation to ask them if the bio was written by the poet or a press agent of Meadows. Here is what they wrote back to me:

From: Poetry Foundation <> Sent: Monday, July 6, 2015 8:37 AM To: Jenny Carden Subject: RE: Contact Submission for Hi Jenny, Thank you for your email. Our site’s biographies come from a variety of sources and were written by various critics, scholars, and freelance writers and are edited by the website editors, with periodic updates by other writers, and so on. Unfortunately, we did not keep records for each bio, but you could cite unattributed biographies properly using this template: “Biography of [Poet].” The Poetry Foundation, n.d. Web. [Date of access.]

This template comes from Purdue University’s guide to MLA format: None of the bios are self-authored, but relevant information and publications can be emailed to James Sitar, Senior Editor, Thank you for your interest in POETRY. Sincerely, The Editors From: [] on behalf of PF Contact [] Sent: Friday, July 03, 2015 12:03 AM To: Poetry Foundation Subject: Contact Submission for

Jenny Carden ( has sent the following: I have a general inquiry.

Can you please direct me to a place on your site that shows the Poetry Foundation's policy on who authors the biographic materials of poets listed on the site. That is, is it safe to assume that it is impermissible for self-authored biographic descriptions? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jennycarden (talkcontribs) 20:49, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

20:30:01, 2 May 2015 review of submission by Tnguyen4321[edit]

Submission of[edit]

Mjkelly26 (talk) 09:32, 12 May 2015 (GMT)

Hi Tokyogirl79, a few months ago you deleted a submission of mine, but you provided some fantastic feedback. I've taken your points on board and I've just resubmitted my entry. I hope that you feel it is much improved and would love to hear your feedback, Many thanks, Mike \

The name[edit]

In case it wasn't clear CrazyAces newest known account is NegroLeagueHistorian. I say "known" because after yet another attempt to evade scrutiny, he has decided to make another account as he says. Hopefully you can sort him and the articles out soon.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 08:29, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Thanks for this! I'm going to tag User:Bishonen in on this. I'm sort of frustrated since I do think that there has been some good faith attempts here, but I'm concerned over the huge spate of moves with articles that have some serious issues with them in various formats, but then you've seen that can of worms on his talk page. In any case, I do need to caution User:NegroLeagueHistorian/User:CrazyAces489: creating new accounts is only an option up to a certain point. You have a habit of creating articles that have various issues with them. Moving to a new account does not give you immunity and after a while a chain will be noticed if you continue to engage in the same practices that resulted in you wanting to create a new account in the first place. Part of WP:FRESHSTART requires you to start learning from past mistakes and I don't entirely see where you're doing this. The fact that you went back to your old account to push a ton of articles with various issues into the mainspace doesn't really give off the impression that you're looking to learn from past mistakes. If anything, this gives off the impression that you're really just trying to avoid scrutiny and having to deal with the aftermath of your mistakes. To be perfectly honest... at this point the best thing for you to do would be to go back to your first account and face the music. You made a lot of mistakes with articles and while there are a lot of issues to deal with as far as those goes, they're not things that would cause me to throw the banhammer at you. The only thing I've really recommended so far is that you only create articles at AfC for the time being since you do have several issues with your articles. This would actually solve a lot of issues for you because if someone accepts one of your articles at AfD then the onus is more on them to explain why they accepted the article than to explain why you did or wrote a certain thing. Running to new accounts every time you start having a problem is not really a solution here - especially if you end up editing many of the same types of articles since that'd only make it likely that you'll run into the same editors again. (Although even editing new articles isn't a guarantee since many editors on here edit a wide variety of topics.) Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 08:46, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
I just feel if CA took more time to write a cohesive article rather than spit out as much as he can, these issues wouldn't be brought up as much. There is so much potential in CA to be a great contributor, but he isn't learning from mistakes. I agree he needs a single account and needs to face what ever scrutiny or punishment comes with it. Otherwise I feel we're taking a wrong turn and his last chance may just run out.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 08:53, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  • That's kind of my take on this. I think that there is good intent here for the most part and to a degree I can see his point on you hounding him. There is definitely some bad history between the two of you, so I'd have personally recommended that if you believed him to be the same editor that you instead went to an uninvolved third party and reported your concerns, then let them deal with them. However at the same time this has already happened and at this point there's not much that we can do about that. I am going to tag some other admins on this and let them see what they think should be done here, if anything. I'll post that in a minute but I want to direct this at you right now: Basically right now if you see a new account that is making the same errors and you believe it's the same guy, just report it to someone and let them handle it. At this point if you did get involved with a third account of his it would likely be seen as hounding at this point. You've got promise here but also a bit of a history, so I'd hate for you to jeopardize that over this editor. That doesn't mean that there isn't absolutely nothing that can be done, but I'm going to see what these other guys say. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 09:03, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Can you please read this Tokyogirl79 [ [1]]. When I was outed, TheGracefulSlick started following me around on that account. [2] I was barely using my new account and TGS was already following me around. On this account, TGS was warned for 3rr [3], reported at AN/I [4] and blocked for Canvas (since I reported him) [5]. He is not acting in good faith. [6] and [7] I simply wanted to honestly use a new account. On subjects that were not so problematic. I was specifically avoiding martial arts. The problems that existed with many of the martial arts articles was notability. NLH did not make articles on martial arts (with the exception of a collegiate wrestler, if you would call that a martial art). I simply would like to create small stubs of proven noteworthy subjects so others can contribute. CrazyAces489 (talk) 09:06, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

  • OK, here's the deal: CrazyAces489, if you want to keep your original account then you can. I'd actually prefer that, but that's just me. However here's the exchange: TheGracefulSlick, you have to agree to not directly interact with him. This is not an official ruling and it's not an official interaction ban, just a request from myself. There's some bad blood between the two of you. To be fair, I don't think that this was intentionally malicious on either person's part. I think that this was basically two people who are fairly new at what they're doing that just don't really work well together for the most part. This might change over time - I know that I'm a dramatically different editor than when I first started editing, but for right now you two are just like oil and water. Here's my request: Crazy, please run your article submissions through AfC. Grace, please try to avoid interacting with Crazy. If you see something that's wrong, let someone else know and ask them to edit the page on your behalf. (Just calmly state that you've been asked not to interact with the editor and that you'd like them to investigate a specific edit. No more, no less.) Crazy, this applies to you as well. If you two find that you're at odds over something, approach another editor to act on your behalf - preferably one that has a lot of experience in the specific edit topic. To this end I'd like to recommend the adoptee program on Wikipedia, since that's a good way to get an experienced editor to help give you general advice and to follow along your general edit style. You can also use WP:TEAHOUSE to this effect, although it's more general and not a one-on-one like a mentor would be. However I will say that the Teahouse is always staffed whereas a mentor will not always be on - I would recommend doing both, optimally. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 09:18, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  • However if you do want to have a new account, Crazy, you need to completely walk away from everything you've edited to this point. That's not an easy thing to do at all, which is why I'm mostly recommending remaining at your original account since you'd still be able to edit articles you've previously edited, as long as it doesn't end with you and Grace interacting. (This does not mean that either of you should start staking out claims on articles, mind you.) Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 09:20, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  • You do need to take into consideration that if you do go to a new account you will need to deal with the issues you've dealt with under your old accounts, at least when it comes to tone and sourcing. I do see where you've been trying, FWIW, I just disagree with your recent page moves to the mainspace. I don't want this to seem like I'm coming down harsh on just you. 09:22, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
I will gladly leave Crazy alone, so long as they start trying to make articles that do not violate so many policies on a consistent basis and he keeps one account. It just irritated me to see such a thing, but from now on I will uphold your recommendation.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 09:25, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  • BTW, all those AN/I were with Crazy and the community agreed he was the problematic factor in it all. Even the canvassing block lasted just ten minutes, and turned against CA. He then "retired" to evade an indefinite block, just so we're clear.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 09:28, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Well... not all of them. Basically what I want you to do here is just follow the spirit of WP:IBAN. The problem is that after a while stuff like this can somewhat stick to a person and I think that in this situation an IBAN might become inevitable. You may have meant well with your edits but Crazy does sort of see them as harassment. I don't necessarily agree, but at this point I don't think that he's going to respond well to anything that you say. I've had that happen with me as well and after a while I just had to walk away from the other editor (or even an entire page) and let others handle it. If he continues to edit under this account and you see where something is an issue, bring it up at WP:BLP/N or on another person's page. The only requirement with that is that you need to phrase the issue with the edit in a manner that complies with IBAN. Again, this is not an official IBAN - you can only get those through ANI, however I think that this is a good solution for the time being. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 09:39, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Tokyogirl79, I was considerably less active on my new account. ( The only reason I pushed through the last articles was because they were userfied and I was doing finishing touches on this account.) I just got so annoyed with TGS and some of the arguments on Wikipedia. I would really appreciate an official interaction ban with TGS. He just stated he would leave me along, "so long as they start" (meaning he won't leave me alone). I don't approach other editors about TGS like he has with me. I haven't posted on any of his topics in a while. I am not new, I have been here for a few years (just more active this year). I am only replying to individuals. I will leave this account as soon as I stop receiving messages. BTW the block was for 48 hours but lasted two. [8] I was also not trying to EVADE any indefinite block. I had spoken previously (about 3 weeks) about leaving Wikipedia due to all the arguments prior to me retiring this account. CrazyAces489 (talk) 09:33, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

  • CrazyAces489, part of the issue with an interaction ban is that we can only really enforce it as long as we know what account you're editing under. (And an official one can only be given through ANI.) I can caution Grace to let someone else know if they think that they're interacting with you and not to engage your new account. However if you edit under your new account and he doesn't seem to know that it's you, there's not really anything to be done about that. I also want to make sure that you understand that if you go to a new account that means that you need to essentially abandon your old editing style and you'll need to avoid editing on the same topics you've edited about before. Again, this is an extremely hard thing to do and one that you've already shown difficulty doing. Retaining your old account and editing under that name will enable you to edit some of the same topics/articles that you've edited previously. The only difference here is that I'm asking Grace to essentially leave you alone. This does not mean that you will not run into other editors trying to let you know about issues with edits or articles, but it does mean that Grace is requested to not interact with you directly per WP:IBAN. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 09:39, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Now if you do want to request an official IBAN (as opposed to me asking Grace to follow the spirit of IBAN), you need to go through ANI. I'm hoping that this isn't necessary, but I'll support an IBAN if it comes to that. Again, I think that both of you have good intentions here, but right now you're both sort of worked up to the point where I can't see the two of you really collaborating well together. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 09:41, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Ok how about this, since you are trying to make thing difficult, I will leave you alone, period. If you wish to make stub articles that will more than likely be deleted, fine by me. I'm going back to the music articles. And I said ten minutes, because that is how long it took after my unblock request. And you were trying to evade scrutiny, but I don't care. I'm here to improve Wikipedia and I'm proud of it. I agree to the recommendation and that is final. Peace. Tokyogirl I appreciate your civilty and understanding in all of this.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 09:42, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Thank you TheGracefulSlick. I know that this isn't an easy thing to do, walking away and again - I do think that you meant well. However at the same time I just don't think that CrazyAces489 is really going to listen to anything you say. I do think that the new account move is a bit of a way to avoid scrutiny, so I'd recommend remaining under the old account name since that'd enable them to continue to edit the same type of articles. A new fresh start would basically keep them from editing any of the same articles period. However at the same time this doesn't mean that you can't let people know about issues: for example, if you see something wrong with a page you can let WP:BLP/N know about the article. You just can't say that it's because it's an article edited by Crazy. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 09:46, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  • This isn't me agreeing with one specific person as much as it is me trying to avoid blocks and official ANI sanctions here. Crazy, if you do go back and try to edit prior pages then you run the risk of violating WP:FRESHSTART and this can bring with it a host of issues. Grace, basically I don't want you to get in trouble if you do accidentally interact with Crazy in the future and he accuses you of harassment. He does have issues with his pages, but that's something to leave to other editors for the time being because he's not going to really listen to what you're saying, even if you meant well. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 09:49, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  • The only way he can ensure that he doesn't interact with you again is to remain under the name that we're familiar with. If he edits under a new account then he'll know who you are, but you won't know who he is- and as such, you can't be held responsible if you have some WP:GOODFAITH interactions with an editor that you believe to be a separate person. However again, I have to make sure that CrazyAces489 is aware that a fresh start requires that you abandon all old accounts and the pages associated with them, move to new topics, and edit in a different pattern. That's not an easy thing to do and in many cases ghosts of old accounts can come to haunt you - especially if it's believed that you haven't learned anything from the old accounts' past issues. You'd still have to deal with issues with tone and sourcing with your old account, but it's less of a tricky landmine to navigate. Your main reason for abandoning the account seems to be Grace, who has agreed to leave you alone. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 09:53, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  • He especially needs to make sure to read Wikipedia:Clean_start#Editing_after_a_clean_start. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 09:54, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
I understand, the pages were my main concern. So many have issues that are so fixable, if only CA takes a little more time to write the article. Perhaps a more experienced user can teach him, but he needs to be willing to learn. Hopefully CA is ready for that. But, again, I'm not involving myself anymore.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 09:56, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Just two things, could you tell CA to remove his "retirement" sign since he clearly is no longer retired on that account. Also he made a new article, you can see why I was so concerned when you read it. But, again, no longer my issue. Thanks.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:40, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I've removed the tags and left a note on his talk page - I'll try to take a look at the page he created a little later tonight and see if there's anything I can help with. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 05:10, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I requested an IBAN on TheGracefulSlick. Bischonen closed it as retaliation. [9] I would like it implemented. Any help would be appreciated. CrazyAces489 (talk) 20:43, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Romano-Berber template[edit]

Hello, I enjoy reading about the Roman Empire. I have noticed various pages made by some random user about the Neo-Latin Berber states in North Africa were deleted. I read the pages before and they seemed fine. Why have the pages been deleted because the user is now blocked from Wikipedia? That seems a little ad hominem. What will happen to the pages too? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:37, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

  • The user was blocked because they were a sockpuppet of a user that was very well known for creating articles that had multiple factual issues. Some of their articles were either partially or entirely false. Because there was such a long term history of abuse from this user and because they were well known for these issues, they were speedy deleted as pages created by a blocked user evading a block. I will not restore them unless an experienced Wikipedia editor agrees to vigorously fact check the articles and take complete responsibility for their content. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 04:09, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
I find that a weird attitude. Extensive articles should be cleaned up, not deleted just because you cannot be bothered to put in the necessary work to "to vigorously fact check the articles". Stop using the letter of the rules against the spirit of the rules. ♆ CUSH ♆ 12:20, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Draft:2015 Hong Kong protests[edit]

How is the sourcing not adequate? Which sentences need referencing? --George Ho (talk) 16:30, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

  • My basic issue with the page was that the coverage so far has been fairly light and so far the protests haven't been very well attended. I can easily see this getting merged into the main article for the Umbrella Movement or added to the main article for last year's protests as a subsection. I think that right now the best thing is to just wait and let the protests get more coverage. Basically, I have to judge whether or not the topic has enough coverage to really warrant its own article at this point in time. It's unlikely that these protests will be the last ones of the year or the last ones to gain coverage, but I really can't approve an article with the idea that it'll eventually gain more coverage. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 04:05, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
  • It's just WP:TOOSOON. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 04:06, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
  • The sourcing issue was vague. Can you rewrite your phrase to be more elaborate? I'll try harder. --George Ho (talk) 17:41, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
  • George Ho, basically what you need here is to provide more sources that go into depth about the 2015 protests. When I'd come across the article it had about 8 sources to talk about two protests, which were pretty poorly attended in comparison to what was expected. (IE, they had about less than a tenth of what people were expecting.) My basic worry was that if I'd accepted it to the mainspace people would say that these protests had such a mild turnout that it didn't really show where the 2015 protests were large enough to warrant their own articles at that specific point in time. (IE, WP:TOOSOON.) Even though there was a third protest, I'm still worried that this might not be large enough to warrant a separate article considering that the basic gist of everything is that more protests were held but most had a poor turnout. In other words, I'm concerned that even if I did accept this, people could argue that this could be summarized in one paragraph on one of the other pages since the protests aren't getting as much coverage as last year's protests did. I don't want to accept it to the mainspace only for it to be quickly nominated for deletion. If it got nominated and redirected to one of the other pages it would make it that much harder for it to be recreated later on down the line. Essentially what I'm saying here is that you need to source this up to the gills and really show how these three new protests are independently notable outside of the prior year's protests. I'll drop a line on the main page for the 2014 protests and the UM for people to come and help you flesh the article. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 03:28, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I was supposed to say the banner in the Draft page. I understand your point though in both paragraphs. --George Ho (talk) 07:18, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
  • The banner on the draft page? You mean the red one? That's pretty much a standard banner that gets posted at AfC. I typically use the preset banners and then write something underneath of that. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 07:30, 4 July 2015 (UTC)


Sorry to say it, but ever since CA was left to roam free he has started some more conflicts. Right now he is at AN/I and his last edits are controversial to say the least. I know our relationship wasn't healthy, but I kinda kept CA in check for awhile. It really unleashed the monster, figuratively speaking, when I agreed to leave him alone, so I think he needs to be addressed soon for the sake of everyone else's sanity.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:30, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

It unleashed no monster. So please stop with the ad hominim attacks . Please read WP:HOUND . CrazyAces489 (talk) 03:34, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

DRV vs REFUND[edit]

Thanks for the heads up on the DRV/REFUND mixup. Having read through a few of the talk page comments at REFUND I can see why it would be an issue pointing people there (though it's not terribly obvious anywhere that A7 is not valid for that page). I shall change my future responses accordingly. Cheers, Primefac (talk) 11:41, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Library of Amartya[edit]

I would have put this in the deletion discussion earlier, but I was viewing it on a mobile and I find it extremely difficult to edit anything on a mobile.

I think you're right in that it was someone's idea of a joke (delivery of any book. any book? really? Not sure about its free membership either. And I don't think the author has made many edits outside of the article, but I could be wrong.). If it's a personal library (and the article didn't say it is) there would likely be something out there, otherwise how would people know about its existence? (the article didn't provide specifics; only vague information) Also, there does appear to be a place called Amartya, but it's not in Delhi (I don't think Delhi is in Amartya either), which makes things more suspicious.

Which brings me to my question; should it be listed? It's survived for 8 and a half years, and as we saw in the discussion, someone appeared to believe it (listed under public libraries), and they'll likely continue to do so. There's certainly a lack of evidence of its existence (I also got mostly results about Amertya Sen, with no mention of this library). Adam9007 (talk) 01:35, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Adam9007, I think that this is a good idea, especially since it was included in a powerpoint presentation somewhere. I'll get started on that in a few minutes. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 08:13, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
    • Thanks Tokyogirl79. I noticed a slight error in the listing; it's 8 years 6 months, not 9 years 6 months. Still it's going to be pretty embarrassing if somehow it does turn out to be real, but this is highly unlikely given the evidence (though it's certainly not Wikipedia-worthy in any case). Adam9007 (talk) 13:30, 7 July 2015 (UTC)


Hi, Tokyogirl. I made a proposal re CrazyAces on ANI.[10] If you'd like to add your opinion, please do. Bishonen | talk 20:31, 5 July 2015 (UTC).

A barnstar for you![edit]

Barnstar of Diligence Hires.png The Barnstar of Diligence
Dear Tokyogirl79,

I appreciate the points you make about the reinstatement of the Speedy (Band) page, but can assure you that I now have additional information and references that may make this page acceptable for inclusion.

I requested reinstatement of the page in November, so that the page would not be lost, but then hit a very busy period at work. The independent release of the bands album was then delayed so I had nothing concrete to put on the page.

I'm a bit of a novice at this and not sure how to respond to a 'Ping' but will keep a keener eye on my page for new messages from now on.

If the page could be restored I will work on it and re-submit almost immediately. If it then fails the tests for inclusion, I would be happy for the page to be deleted. Please accept my apologies for any inconvenience caused. JMH1963 (talk) 22:08, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library needs you![edit]

Wikipedia Library owl.svg

We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!

With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways:

  • Account coordinators: help distribute free research access
  • Partner coordinators: seek new donations from partners
  • Communications coordinators: share updates in blogs, social media, newsletters and notices
  • Technical coordinators: advise on building tools to support the library's work
  • Outreach coordinators: connect to university libraries, archives, and other GLAMs
  • Research coordinators: run reference services

Sign up now

Send on behalf of The Wikipedia Library using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Editor for Kogan Page[edit]

Hey Tokyogirl. I had an editor, Bayleyinlight, request mentorship who is exclusively interested in working with this article, which appears to be involved in a big sockpuppet investigation. The editor appears earnest, and hasn't edited the article itself, but has declared a COI on their userpage, though the specifics of that COI are unclear right now. I usually give the benefit of the doubt here, but I suspect some funny business. Let me know what you think. I, JethroBT drop me a line 17:15, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

  • I, JethroBT Hmm... I suppose that we could give them a chance and give them a little rope. However what bothers me is that they say that there's a COI without exactly stating what that is. I think that given the sockpuppet investigation and the blatant COI issues with the pages, it'd be well worth it to point blank ask her what her affiliation is with the company. It's quite obvious that she was specifically asked to come here. It might also be worth getting someone to check her out just to make sure that she isn't a sockpuppet. Either way, she needs to make her COI extremely clear as far as her relation to the company goes. My guess is that she's likely an unpaid intern or a friend/family member that was enlisted, assuming the claim of no rewards or financial compensation is true. (If she's an unpaid intern then I actually feel a little bad for her since they're essentially throwing her to the lion's den.) I think that this line of questioning might go over better if you ask her, but I can ask if you want. In any case, this is one area where it doesn't pay to play coy with how they're associated, given the SPI and the mass deletion of Kogan Page related articles. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 07:43, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[edit]

Wp:Soapbox does not seem to apply since I am obviously not supporting the site and all claims where footnoted. “Scandal mongering” is rumor or gossiping and this information is all sourced. If the issue is how “it comes across” that sound a bit arbitrary but that can be corrected. To meet the requirement that the article not be “cut and paste”, I paraphrased. I could extract exact words from the sources if that is acceptable? In that case, the “tone” and nature would exactly match the sources.

Deleting the Science blogs sentence or using another source with an exact quote is a reasonable although in the Natural News Wiki article, Steve Novella’s personal blog is sited as a source for a Steve Novella quote and I fail to see the difference. As for the tone, I’ll change all comments to exact quotes such as the highly critical ones in the Wiki Naturalnews article. I can also find better sources. I was using sources that are easy access as opposed to print sources but they are available.

It seems an issue for you appears to be if the site is relevant. To me. it seemed as relevant as and I did not see any difference between the two sites in terms of the Wikipedia rules. I did not see a special criteria for a “threshhold of interest” in the Wikipedia rules . I noted that the article met the criteris for “The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself” so I thought that was settled.

As for my comment on Gjoyle’s talk page, It was a serious question since one person rejected the first version for being and attack page, Gjoyle undeleted it, then a third part deleted it again, all without comment. Knowing that this page was kinder to its subject than naturalnews page, this was a serious question. With no commentary, the implication was that it would not be acceptable in any form. Blind rejections indicate bias along with the history I read on Gjoyle’s talk page.

I do appreciate your commentary and actually agree to a large extent in terms of tone on sourcing. I have a lot to learn. I think I could follow your guidelines and meet your requirements. The only problem I see is that no matter what I do, it is impossible to please all of the people all of the time. The next attempt will be reviewed by somebody else with different interpretations of the rules and tone. It seems an insurmountable task for difficult subjects. The goal posts are continually moving. I’ll return to Wikipedia when I have the patients to try to please a multitude. Still, I really appreciate you replying to me and giving me useful advise. You are one out of five.Everyoneshouldknow (talk) 18:51, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

  • I've looked at the pages and I'm more concerned now that you're here to use Wikipedia as a soapbox against VacTruth. From what I can see, you first created the page in the draftspace. It was deleted as an attack page by Diannaa. You then reposted the exact same content in the mainspace, where it was deleted by JohnCD. Within a day you reposted the content, at which point I deleted it as an attack page. I can't see where this was ever restored at any point in time and to be honest, I find it unlikely that any admin would restore this content at all. At most I could maybe see them e-mailing you the content, but as I have not seen any of the other admins post an e-mail message or mention this anywhere, I have to assume that they have not. I'm also not sure where Gjboyle comes into this since I don't see where he edited the now deleted pages at all. I also do not see where he's edited any of the other pages you've been on. At this point I have to ask: do you have any other accounts that you're editing under? That's the only explanation I can see here. If you are editing under different accounts you will need to either provide an explanation for the other accounts that satisfies WP:VALIDALT or abandon them, as multiple accounts are not permitted on Wikipedia.
Now as far as bias goes, there was no bias as far as the deletions go. The pages came across as attack pages and if it looks to be pretty unambiguous, the pages can be deleted instantly without commentary. It's a legal issue since it could be considered libel and someone could lob a lawsuit against Wikipedia if they don't think that the site acted quickly enough. It's happened before. Also, the thing about soapboxing is that it doesn't have to be in support of the site - soapboxing basically means that you're here to further a specific point of view, whether it is favorable or negative. The tone of the pages combined with your username comes across like you really, really don't like the site and that you want to use Wikipedia as an outlet to tell everyone how awful VacTruth is as it is something that "everyone should know". Wikipedia is not meant to be a platform to raise awareness over how good or bad something is. I have to give you a pretty big warning: if you continue to make pages that come across like attack pages you run a very serious risk of getting blocked from editing. I need to make sure that you're aware of this. I'm not making any threats, just letting you know that this is a possibility.
I also want to point out that while you're continually comparing VacTruth to NaturalNews, the fact is that saying that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS on Wikipedia doesn't really hold any water on here. NaturalNews has received quite a bit of coverage, enough to where it would warrant a page on here and pass WP:NWEB. From what I can see via a search for VacTruth, their site is pretty solidly ignored by the media for the most part. The reason it's likely not received coverage is because most of the sites treat it like a crackpot conspiracy site and from what I've gathered from a search for sources, it looks like even the anti-vax groups tend to view it as a crackpot site for the most part and pretty much give it a wide berth. I don't really think that it's likely that this group/website will ever pass guidelines and to be completely honest, I think that your efforts would be better served trying to edit other anti-vaccination topics on Wikipedia. VacTruth has been around since 2009 and they haven't gained any substantial coverage and while it's possible that this could change, it's also entirely likely that it won't. If you want to try to continue to make a neutral page then you can (although I will say it should only be created at AfC at this point), but I do think that it might be for nothing since I really don't see where this site passes notability guidelines and if you create something that comes across like an attack page again, the next admin may block you. I think that you do mean well for the most part so I don't want you to get in trouble for a site that really isn't worth it. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 04:12, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Anime Expo problems[edit]

So, I'm one step away from having to post this to a noticeboard because it's a continuing issue. I've posted this to the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Archive 63 before, so I don't want to appear to be "shopping," as another user posting on the editors wall has also not helped. While this has not got to the stage of WP:EDITWAR, it's close, and I'm escalating this due to a major concern I have. To start, User:Ucla90024 doesn't like to use sources/citations or update them for the vast majority of their edits. To try to fix this, I went back and at least cited the official webpage for Anime Expo, as it's a heavily visited page. Lots of undo's and talk page comments later, nothing has really changed but at one point they cited Anime News Network for a few edits. This has been fixed as has published the whole list for 2015.

The current issue I have is, while using a press release for an edit about the location for the next four-five Anime Expos (2015-2019), Ucla90024 added the dates. While it's probable that Anime Expo will happen around these dates, the source as far as I can read (and re-read many times) does not have these dates. We have 2016's dates from the official webpage. Right now there's potentially false dates on the page, and that's concerning. I would appreciate if you could look into this, as it's extremely frustrating, and Ucla90024's communication is rather poor. Esw01407 (talk) 21:53, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Esw01407, I've reverted this and left a message. They've been warned about edit warring, so I may block them if they do this again. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 03:58, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the help, but they didn't listen and restored the removed content. Esw01407 (talk) 17:22, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Esw01407, I went ahead and indefinitely blocked them. It was originally going to only be for a week, but it looks like they have a long, long history of edit warring. They've have been doing this since 2008 and in 2010 even created several sockpuppets at one point to actually try to give off the impression that others agreed with his edits. Let me know if anyone starts trying to restore the edits since that'll more than likely be a sockpuppet and I'll take that to SPI in a heartbeat. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 10:55, 11 July 2015 (UTC)


Although I highly disagree with him working to do edits. I have seen enough edits like this [11] on various talk pages to make me think differently. I can probably pull up about a dozen of these types of diff's. I will though work with him. [12] CrazyAces489 (talk) 04:30, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Crazy, you're not really helping your case much right now by pulling up these diffs. At this point in time what I'm endorsing is this: that you only create via AfC, that you get a mentor that's willing to do a 1:1 with you, and that you try to stick to minor edits (providing dates, adding sources, etc). You don't want to work with certain editors. That's fine. However at the same time you need to understand that several editors have had issues with your edits and at this point you're pretty visible so it's likely that you'll probably have various editors coming behind you to verify your work. At some point you may have an interaction with them. What you need to show us is that you can take criticism in a mature manner and not try to make it seem like they're bad guys for doing this. The only thing that Grace has really done that I disagree with is that he continued to interact with you after you showed that you were clearly not going to listen to anything he said. I agree with his concerns over your editing habits since there has been a problem with your editing habits. Right now that ANI thread is not about Grace. It's about you and ultimately whether or not you should be allowed to continue editing with restrictions or if you should be blocked. It's easier for Wikipedia to block someone than it is for them to work with someone. Please don't give them a reason to take the easy out. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 04:41, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
It seems that there is nothing left for me. I said I am willing to work with him. I will work with him and others. I am going to get banned from creating articles. All that is going to do is have me do minor edits. I have asked for a mentor before April of this year. [13] . No one ever came by. So minor edits is what I am left to. Life is weird sometimes. I am going to go for a walk. CrazyAces489 (talk) 04:53, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
  • It's not a ban, it's AfC. Yes, it will take a while to get them approved, but that's kind of the point. Also, you can ask people to review AfC articles as long as you ask the right people and in the right way. (IE, someone that is a good editor that is likely to give it proper scrutiny.) Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 04:58, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Please Help[edit]

Please Tokyogirl....Help........I have spent all day searching references the same my husband used that they approved We worked on the same recordings Why am I being deleted this is exhausting I would pay anything you want to help me My neck has bolts I hurt after all day finding links to magazines albums movies all my work Help me PLEASE !!!!!!#! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kitty Terry aka Kitty Woodson Terry (talkcontribs) 21:08, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Heather Bresch[edit]

I noticed you've been very active at BLPN and was wondering if you might have an interest in reviewing my Request Edit here on a BLP page where I have a conflict of interest. CorporateM (Talk) 18:14, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Nevermind. Another editor just took care of it; sorry for being a bother! CorporateM (Talk) 19:47, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for your good work[edit]

CopyClean Barnstar.png The Copyright Cleanup Barnstar
Thank you for your assistance! 2601:188:0:ABE6:AC1F:A6:FD78:C358 (talk) 06:03, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Thank you! I wasn't aware that there was a specific copyright barnstar! Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 06:18, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I can fool the Administrators[edit]




  • You really don't have anything better to do with your time, do you? Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 13:07, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[edit]

Good day Girl - I'm writing to you today because someone at wikipedia is practicing favoritism regarding the extension I am unable to use this extension as a valid citation source due to the fact it was blacklisted over 7 years ago. How can DS not be considered a valid news source when sites like and are? They do more interviews, album reviews, exclusive premieres and publish more original content then either of those sites. This week, an admin deleted a page I created because wiki will not accept DS as a valid source. Please instruct on what avenues we must pursue to get justice in this matter, thank you. Robzwop (talk) 15:53, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

  • I'll reply on your userpage. On a side note, it's usually better to just approach one person than to go posting on multiple pages. A good place to start is usually at the WP:TEAHOUSE or at WP:RS/N for reliable source questions. However since this was blacklisted, it becomes slightly more complicated. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 12:37, 15 July 2015 (UTC)


Sorry to read that "I'd actually gotten pretty heavily insulted in the process and accused of WP:BADFAITH deletions" because of the removal of some of the articles I have written. I can assure you that if I could I would defend all my posts, with detailed references & bibliography.....but admins like user:Vituzzu NEVER allow a defense (to get more information on him please go to [14] and click on Manmer2015 you'll understand more about who really is this "deletionist" damaging Wikipedia with his "evilness", as he wrote on his user page). I hope you are the kind of people who listen to both sides before making judgments about a person accused of vandalism on Wikipedia: so allow me to defend myself pinpointing that I have never damaged Wikipedia ....while I have written more than 100,000 posts on Wikipedia in 8 years after my "ban", that was based on complete lack of justice (only if you are hurt like me, you'll behave the way I did: a vandal will abandon Wikipedia soon or later as all of them do, don't you agree?). Anyway, I wish you the best in your life....BD

PS: A lot of the sections of what I wrote on "Christian Berbers" -just to show you a simple example- was transferred from other articles like Early African Church, Muslim conquest of the Maghreb, etc...but no one has complained about these articles for many months, while User:Berean Hunter with a bit of malignity found that "..In short, verifiability would be a nightmare.." on the article written by me ..........but if I could I'd be showing all the references & data needed, be sure of that! — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:20, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Are you referring to the Brunodam articles and if so, are you Brunodam? If you are then posting on my talk page isn't really a good way to go about contesting this since this can be seen as a block evasion. You need to first contest your block, which will require that you explain your edits, why you did things the way you did, and how you can go about writing in a way that Wikipedia prefers. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 03:42, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

The Wikinomics Project page[edit]

Hi there,

This is an EU publicly funded project with results openly available.

Thank for helping me to better develop this — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thanough (talkcontribs) 10:05, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

  • I deleted the page for promotion, but it was also taken from this site, which has its copyright information clearly marked. You can write a new version of the project but you will have to write it in your own words in a neutral tone. You will also need to show how this project has received coverage in independent and reliable sources per WP:RS. The project's existence does not automatically make it notable (WP:ITEXISTS). Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 10:09, 16 July 2015 (UTC)


Hi, I'm not sure why but I remember you as someone with an eye for hoaxes. Would you have any interest in archiving Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reede-drum to Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia? The article was out there for 7yrs 7mos so it has a decent pedigree and even a bit of humor (note the kangaroo skin part). Cheers, Vrac (talk) 10:48, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Can do! Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 10:55, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Uninvolved Admin[edit]

Hi Tokyogirl79, I would request you to consider giving your opinion, as an uninvolved Admin, on an ARCA discussion featuring me: Soham321 (talk) 02:24, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

  • I'm going to decline since I'm friendly with Bishonen, Spaceman Spiff, and Ogress, and thus more likely to think well of them. One thing I can recommend though: learn how to be more concise when writing out things. I've limited experience with arb requests, but I can say that being lengthy does not always work in your favor there - especially if the people you're complaining about can summarize their arguments in far less words. After a while people will start to just skim what you've been written and their eyes will glaze over - this is not something you want to happen at at arbitration. I've got a tendency to be wordy, but I'm trying to get better about that. I also want to suggest that you try not to bring up past things that the other editors have done unless it directly pertains to your editing. Not only will that help keep things shorter, but bringing up other editors' past conflicts (especially if you weren't involved) doesn't show that you're really WP:AGF. Only bring up something if you think that it mirrors your current issues. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 12:45, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

A kitten for you! Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Green Thumb[edit]

Kitten (06) by Ron.jpg

Hi Tokyogirl79, just to let you know i have contributed to the above afd based on your recent edits on the article, did you forget to do so?

Coolabahapple (talk) 14:57, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Request on 16:38:47, 21 July 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by MJR Creative Group[edit]

Hi Tokyogirl79,

I am looking for feedback in regards to your declining of the submission of our draft for the Autumn Glory Apple ( I was wondering if you could help with any suggestions to make the page less promotional as you suggested. There are more sources that I found now, but it is a new product that is only grown by one grower, Domex Superfresh Growers, and was introduced in 2011 so it's difficult to find too many sources. Is there anyone that can assist or people for hire who specialize in helping companies publish content to Wikipedia? Thank you!

MJR Creative Group (talk) 16:38, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I've soft-blocked this account given they were warned and asked to do so back in March but never bothered, nor did they disclose their obvious COI. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 16:45, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Re. User:Imthi nadubail[edit]

Hi Tokyogirl79,

I came across 'Imthi' edit warring over the name and many moves [17] of the now Perla, Kasaragod page. The 'Nadubailhero' account created Perla City on 12 July 2015‎, which was almost empty but basically about the same place (as far as I could tell, the map seemed wrong), hard to tell as the original editor 'Imthi' wouldn't explain what they were doing in an understandable manner. I have redirected the duplicate page back to Perla, Kasaragod.

Anyway, considering similar username and creation of a duplicate page about that place, almost 100% this Nadubailhero is a sock of Imthi nadubail. Just FYI. Pinging @RHaworth: as they were very involved with Perla, Kasaragod and 'Imthi' too, @GB fan: as they have reverted [18] related IP edits at Perla, which 'Imthi", and his other account, edited or edit warred at too, & @Agtx: involved with 'Imthi' & 'Perla' too. 220 of Borg 20:32, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Definitely a sock. We can get CheckUser to confirm it, but WP:DUCK is enough. Between the edits on Perla and creation of "Imthiyaz Mohammed," this is the same person and an immediate block is warranted. agtx 20:44, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Strewth! That block took about a quarter of the time it took me to write that message. 'Super Admin' strikes again! 220 of Borg 22:00, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oh wow - I missed some excitement once I went off WP for a few days (on vacation)! Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 18:31, 23 July 2015 (UTC)


For moving Bhadravarman I. (I was going to just tag-thank you but on moves you can't do that.) Ogress smash! 06:11, 26 July 2015 (UTC)


Hello, an article was previously deleted by yourself, and I would like to ask a few questions in general about wikipedia and keeping articles from being deleted. is it possible that we can discuss this on Skype, etc? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zazier (talkcontribs) 20:59, 26 July 2015‎

  • Zazier, I don't really use things like Skype except for school and my personal life - I generally like to stick to Wikipedia for discussions about Wikipedia. I also need to note that I did try to reach out to you in June via your talk page and received this rather nasty attack on your talk page in response. I'm not really keen to give you my Skype information since I have to assume that a Skype chat would have a very high likelihood of you using it as a venue to launch more personal attacks to my face. Forgive me, but I would really be genuinely uncomfortable giving out anything even remotely personal to you when you made a comment like that. If you want to discuss pages that's fine, but it will have to take place on either my talk page or yours - and the first time you make a personal attack like that again, we're done. (I also need to warn you that making a personal attack like that again will bring a high chance of you getting blocked from editing.) Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 03:32, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Ana María Llona Málaga[edit]

I don't speak English very well, but I have studied Literature in Peru and I can attest that doña Ana María is a nonentity. Nobody knows who is this person, not even me, an scholar. Kerplunk! (talk) 01:58, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Kerplunk!, I declined the speedy since she has gained just enough coverage to where she would have the most basic assertion of notability. The thing about speedy deletions is that someone can pass a speedy deletion but still fail overall notability criteria. It's meant to really only take care of the articles that are so blatantly non-notable that they would be obvious, which usually means no newspaper coverage. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 13:35, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
My sister constantly interviewed on television and in newspapers. Should she appear therefore in Wikipedia? My photograph was published in a magazine because I won a literary contest. Should I be included in Wikipedia? We all have our "five minutes of fame". Is it possible consult with other editors on deleting of the article? Kerplunk! (talk) 09:20, 1 August 2015 (UTC)


Hello. Have you been in dispute with anybody recently? I only ask as this was posted to my user page, while this was conveyed to my colleague. Any ideas? CassiantoTalk 09:31, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

  • I have been, actually - there was someone who got rather affronted when I moved their article to the draftspace and then suspected them of sockpuppetry. That doesn't seem their style, though... Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 12:47, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Levi Niblack[edit]

Hi you deleted my wiki page on Levi Niblack even though i clearly wasnt finished editing it. I read the wiki terms an conditions I know what I am doing thanks.

  • @Levisfann:, when I'd deleted the page you had not edited for a few hours and I had to assume that there was a strong chance that you might not have come back. However at the same time, you also didn't really show how he would pass WP:NATHLETE and a search didn't bring up anything promising. From what I can see, it looks like this is someone who is only competing locally and has yet to compete on a national level that would gain him any coverage, as I can't really see where he's received coverage in independent and reliable sources. If you do want to try to continue to make an article, I would suggest going through WP:AfC rather than the mainspace. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 13:34, 29 July 2015 (UTC)


You helped with a similar matter regarding Cultural Marxist, whereby the fork of the deleted article was deleted and protected. This has happened again, at Cultural marxism. Can you please delete the "article" and protect the redirect, in line with the community deletion result? RGloucester 14:07, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

It has already been dealt with. Much obliged for your potential assistance. RGloucester 14:32, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

fyrtyjry — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:18, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Murtaza Khojami[edit]

Can you have a look at this: Murtaza Khojami (Musician). In 2014 you create-protected Murtaza Khojami, but I figured the new article should either be moved there or deleted (for whatever reason, like A7 or block evasion). — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 09:00, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Nvm, taken care of. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 07:12, 1 August 2015 (UTC)