This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
I just want to say thanks for proactively protecting my userpage and watching it for vandalism. Keep it up! Gparyani (talk) 21:14, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Oops; guess I forgot to put it on the barnstars page instead of on this page. Could you please move it? Gparyani (talk) 21:16, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
The Night Party draft
Hi Tokyo Girl this is Mango North. I put together the draft page for Australian band The Night Party.
I'm unsure which specific references / citations you felt were not objective enough to warrant notability.
I figured the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) citation as well as the link to reviews on prominent indie websites by respected Australian music journalists would be sufficient.
I've read through the information provided by Wikpedia but feel as if this application has been misunderstood.
I suppose I'd like to know what kind of other objective signs of notability I require to legitimize the band in the eyes of editors.
Regards
Mango North. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mangonorth (talk • contribs) 07:02, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
@Mangonorth: Gosh- that was a while ago! I'm glad to see that you're still interested in improving the article! Here's a rundown of the sources:
Title
Raw Roots Rock The problem with this is that a lot of people might consider it to be a self-published source since it greatly resembles a personal blog and we can't really verify that there is any true editorial oversight. I couldn't see anything that suggested that there was an editorial board of any sort, which works against it.
Mess + Noise This one is better, since it does have a staff and an editor. It could potentially be used as a reliable source. The problem here is that this is the sort of thing that could be argued against if it came up to AfD since it isn't as wildly recognizable on Wikipedia.
YouTube This is a YT video of the ferry, which cannot be used to show notability for the band since notability is not inherited by association with notable things (ie, past jobs). With YT videos there's also a bit of a problem with copyright, as we can't always verify that the uploader is also the owner of the footage. It doesn't entirely matter with this video, but if it was a video of the band getting interviewed on a news or major TV show then that would potentially become an issue.
Beat This one is good and it's one that I'd argue can be used to show notability for the band. Beat is pretty recognizable published magazine and I know that it has editorial oversight, so it'd be usable.
ABC This one is also usable as a source for obvious reasons: it's ABC.
Official website This is the official website and cannot be used to show notability, as it is a WP:PRIMARY source. It can back up some trivial information, but cannot give notability in and of itself.
Basically my problem with the page is that we only had two really good usable sources and one potentially usable source. If someone wanted to nominate it for deletion via AfD (if I'd accepted it) then odds are high that someone could argue that the coverage in the article is not enough to firmly establish notability via WP:BAND. The bar is set pretty high and band articles are some of the most frequently deleted articles on Wikipedia. If you can find a few sources like the Beat or ABC, then that'd really help firmly establish notability. The thing about sources is that not all sources are considered to be reliable per Wikipedia's RS guidelines. Someone can be well-known, but being known doesn't always mean that they'd be considered reliable. I run into this a lot when I write articles for books or movies: there are a lot of sites that I frequent, some of which are incredibly popular. However at the same time, the sites don't always have editorial oversight or an editorial process that we can really verify and as such they'd probably be considered unusable if the article would come up at AfD (articles for deletion). It's kind of a struggle sometimes to argue for a site's usability, so that's why I'm usually a little strict when it comes to judging sources. It's better to be a little strict now and know that it can be well argued for if it comes up for AfD, in my opinion. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:43, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, Tokyogirl79. I probably should have just asked an admin. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 09:36, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
@Peacemaker67: It's no problem- I can userfy the content for you if you like. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:39, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
No content to worry about. I just came across it when I was assessing new Milhist articles, and realised it was retread. Thanks again. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:16, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Archiving on your talk page
I noticed that you archive your talk page yourself. Out of curiosity, why don't you let User:Lowercase sigmabot III do it for you? Gparyani (talk) 00:41, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
(turns red) Because I never thought about doing that... Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:41, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
How would I go about getting it to do that? Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:42, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
@Tokyogirl79: Have you figured out how to get it to work yet? Gparyani (talk) 19:11, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
@Gparyani: I think I have- I put some code on so maybe it'll work soon? You can take a peek at it if you want- I posted it at the top of the page. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:58, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
@Tokyogirl79: Since you're already on archive 12, I've made a minor modification to your code so that it archives to the newest instead of to the first. You can see a working example at my talk page. Gparyani (talk) 05:05, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
@Gparyani: Sweet! I'll have to give you a Wiki-beer or a Wiki-kitten. Maybe both! You uh, aren't allergic to gluten or cats are you? XD Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:19, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
AFD
Hi TG! I not trying to canvass you (I'm really not!) but I think this AFD could do with some additional "expert" opinion. As it happens, OrangeMike would be my other go-to person in this instance but he's already there and we know what he thinks about it. Your thoughts would be appreciated! Cheers, St★lwart111 09:31, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
The Barnstar of Diligence
I was hoping you might glace quickly at it over the next couple of days and (*fingers crossed*) have some time to contribute a few thoughts! Your considered and detailed analysis and explanation is very much appreciated. St★lwart111 11:02, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Bodrad Sandbox: Abbey Rader Deleted
Hi there, I noticed you deleted my sandbox draft page for the Abbey Rader article. Is there any chance at restoring it so that I can work on the edits that are needed to publish this article? Prior to the review in the Articles for Creation space, it was reviewed by another Wikipedia editor with no problems. Apparently the other editor did not feel the same and then deleted it. I am awaiting to hear back from that editor to see how I can adjust the article to fix it. In the meantime, can you assist in restoring the article to my sandbox? I am reaching out because I saw you were responsible for it's deletion. Thank you for your consideration as I learn the Wikipedia process.
Bodrad (talk) 20:55, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
@Bodrad: I actually wasn't the one who deleted the page itself- that was @Jimfbleak:. I deleted a redirect to a non-existent page, but not the material itself per se. I'd normally have no problem restoring it (although I'd prefer it was the admin who deleted the actual page), but what bothers me is that the page was labeled as being a copyright violation from this page. @Cutest Penguin: tagged it as copyvio and offhand it looks like it was because you very closely paraphrased the article in several different places, not including the quotes. I'd ask him as to what exactly it was that caused him to tag the page. That aside, I would like to warn you about relying overly much on the AMN source because it does somewhat hit the WP:SPS vibe since it's published through WordPress. Most blog-type sources aren't usable as a reliable source, so I'd recommend that if the page is restored, that you run it through WP:RS/N, our reliable sources noticeboard. It does seem to have an editor, which works in its favor, but not every site is considered to be reliable. There were some other issues I saw with the page, but I figure since that's not exactly what you came here for I'm not really going to go into those. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 21:33, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
@Tokyogirl79: I realize I made that mistake just after I sent you the message, but thank you for clarifying. I also very much appreciate your insight on the WP:SPS sourcing, I'll look into how to run it through the reliable sources noticeboard. Lastly, if you do have the time and inclination, I'd enjoy hearing your thoughts on the other issues. I've worked rather hard on this article and want it to be able to proudly be added to Wikipedia. Thanks again for the response, and showing me how to do this ping!
@Cutest Penguin: Very cool tool! Thank you so much for posting it. I was already trying to figure out how I'd find the areas of my article that too closely resemble AMN and it seems like this tool will do the heavy lifting. I'll spend some considerable time seeing how I can best rework things. Bodrad (talk) 22:16, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Writer's Barnstar
Dear Tokyogirl79, thank you for all your contributions to Wikipedia, especially your recent creation of List of Nancy Drew video games. Keep up the good work! You are making a difference here! With regards, AnupamTalk 04:19, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Recreation of a deleted page
Hi, I am creating a page deleted by you ( 08:13, 18 October 2014 Tokyogirl79) deleted page Amol Arora ((G4: Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion). The reason of deletion is that the page lacks notability. I have tried to improve the page and collect more information to prove the notability. Thank you for your advice and help. Pls review the page and give me some suggestions to improve it. I will really appreciate that! Best Regards (User talk:Interactanand) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Interactanand (talk • contribs)
Hmmm... some of the sources would be useful, but others still have some issues: thesetwo links are primary, so they still can't show notability. I'm not entirely certain that Elets Online or Franchise India are usable, as I can't entirely verify their editorial oversight. I'd run those two through WP:RS/N to know for certain. News Square looks like it'd be usable for the most part, although that would probably be something to ask RS/N as well. WP:INDIA would also be a good place to ask as well and would probably be the first place you should ask about these, as they'd likely have more experience with those sites. The Economic Times would be usable, except that it doesn't seem to mention Arora at all. Was it written by him? If so, then that'd make it a primary source as well. I think that it might be best to move this to your userspace if you're interested in still working on it, otherwise it may still run the risk of deletion via G4. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:56, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
October 2014
I self-reverted and fixed the problems I found instead. The problem is a very bad edit with the same opening paragraph was added earlier in the day. I checked the rest of your edit and it was an improvement. However, albums are italicized and songs are placed in quotes. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:26, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
@Walter Görlitz: That's fine, I just wish that you hadn't posted a disruptive editing template to my page because I don't really see that my specific edits were disruptive per se. I can see where you're coming from with the intro, but another person making a similar edit with a promotional intent doesn't mean that mine were necessarily disruptive. Just informing me of the changes would have been fine- I don't have any issue with the changes you've made. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:47, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Truth or Dare (2013 film)
I saw you created Truth or Dare (2013 film). I noticed an IP is insistent on altering the reception to be "positive" rather than mixed and erasing the critical reviews. Stickee(talk) 05:44, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
I've put a semi-protect on the page. It's my first time doing this for a page that would otherwise be still edited, so I hope I did this right. I've also left a note on the article's talk page. It looks like at least one person has signed up with an account, so I'll direct them to the article's talk page. Thank you for letting me know about this! I don't think that it's the film crew necessarily (although I did need to warn about that), but either way this seems to be a clear attempt to make the page more promotional. (sighs) Stuff like that can really backfire on people. I wish they wouldn't do that... Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:09, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for that. It was probably just a fan. And yes I've seen that behaviour on other movie articles too, even going as far as to alter the Rotten Tomatoes ratings! Stickee(talk) 09:19, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks for looking at Jonas's article - could you perhaps have a dig through the history? I think the author (who is not Jonas...) could have a case of OWN (and possibly COI), or perhaps the stuff being added wasn't properly referenced. I'm not sure of the reliability or otherwise of some of this pop stuff. Peridon (talk) 16:51, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Hello Tokyogirl79: Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween! – NorthAmerica1000 06:05, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Send Halloween cheer by adding {{subst:Happy Halloween}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.
I did a punt close of this one, to leave the door open for you and your version, which I'm confident will actually pass criteria. As I said in the close, I leave it to your discretion if you want to merge histories or just delete and move. Hopefully, this is something you can do sooner rather than later, considering there is a clear consensus to remove that old article. That makes me lean delete/move. If you like, I can do that for you, to keep you removed, but I don't think it is required via my close. Dennis - 2¢ 23:08, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
I'll move my copy and delete the history, but I'll make a mention on the article's talk page that if anyone particularly wants it in the edit history, I'll make it available. I don't see much use for the old article version, to be honest, as it was so promotional. Part of me wants to restore the history, but I'm very slightly concerned over the potential for people to revert to that history. Not overly so, but just enough to where it is/was a concern in the back of my head. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:49, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
@Oiyarbepsy: Hmm... I probably meant to, but forgot to move it. I'll restore adn then move it to the proper hoax receptacle. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:52, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
16 Symbols
Hi Tokyo Girl, You have locked 16 Symbols at http://wikipedia.org/wiki/16_Symbols. It would be really Helpful if you can unlock it. I can assure you that i wont try to create a page again without valid sources. Thank You. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.1.80.15 (talk) 11:09, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
I would actually need to see some sort of coverage in reliable sources before I'd be willing to unlock the page. You could probably create a new version of the article in your userspace or at AfC. However since this was deleted at AfD here, you'd have to also ask @Salvio giuliano: for his perspective and if he doesn't believe that you've met the issues at AfD, you'd have to go through deletion review. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:58, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Abhijeet-Thakar. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Rohanthakar (talk) 07:09, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
@Rohanthakar: I don't see it listed on deletion review, but to be honest I don't think that it would be overturned at DR or anywhere else. It was a very clear copyright violation and even if the information was given up as fair use, it would still require a complete re-write to read as neutral. The best option in this instance is to write a new article in your draftspace (ie, Draft:Abhijeet Thakar) and submit it for consideration. My biggest concern though is that I couldn't really see anything to show that this person passes notability guidelines. He's successful and he's worked for various companies, but that does not mean he's notable per Wikipedia's guidelines. We're not really a place to post resumes, as we are not an extension of Linkedin. I'll warn you, if either you or the other editor continues to try to post copyvio or promotional articles, you both stand the risk of getting blocked from further editing, either temporarily or permanently. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:32, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Hey Tokyogirl. So, I'm developing and will be piloting a new mentorship space here called the Co-op with a small team. I wanted to ask if you might be interested in mentoring 1 or 2 editors during our pilot in January 2015. The idea is that mentors will be doing one-on-one teaching of specific skills based on what an editor wants to do or accomplish, and it's not some huge commitment to teach comprehensively about Wikipedia. Obviously, your experience as an admin, with article building and deletion processes would be valuable to us in terms of providing appropriate guidance to editors. If you're interested, please sign up here and we'll keep you posted when we have an actual interface to work with. I'm happy to answer any questions you might have, of course, so let me know if there's anything about the space you'd like to know more about. Much like the Teahouse, the only way we'll know if our project is useful is if we can get folks to help teach. I, JethroBTdrop me a line 05:04, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
@I JethroBT: Sounds good. I could probably mentor one person during that time. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:56, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Fantastic! Thank you so much. Could you sign up at the talk page I mentioned above? We'll be getting in touch with everyone in this month. I, JethroBTdrop me a line 06:47, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Hello, ReaderofthePack. 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 Tokyogirl79, I am writing to you, because I am in a quandary and truly do not know what to do. May I give you some background information? I do most of my editing in Commons - adding blazons to the many thousands of coats of arms that are there. A (quite literally) thankless task, but one that is very necessary. In the heraldry world, a person eventually gets to know everybody of importance - it is a small world. (I personally know all the members of both the College of Arms and the Lyon Court, two of the Canadian Heralds, one South African and the royal Serbian herald. So, of course, I know the two directors of the Armorial Register. But, I am not employed by them and have not received any payment from them (in money or in kind). They have consulted me in the past about blazoning foreign shields and I have done so freely because (1) I'm good at it and (2) I enjoy it. There is no conflict of interest. I was the main author of the page, because I saw the page for the U.S. Heraldic Registry. At the time the web page had been blanked and there was a rumour that the owner was dead. I thought that I knew of another registry that was 100x better and deserved to be promulgated.
So I wrote the article. I know that it is not very good. I know that it reads like an advert. I know that it is not very Wikipedia like. What I don't know is how to improve it! I would welcome collaboration. Frankly, I have had no help with this at all and don't know how to get any. All I have had is Yopie deleting references and saying "Read MoS". Although he told me that he wanted to improve the article, he has not done so. He put up the Advert Notice and the Notability Notice and when nobody took any interest in that he nominated for speedy deletion. When the speedy failed, he then went down the AfD route. Then out of nowhere SR-7v appears. I am sure you have noted that he has made no edits at all, but knows how to add information and format. I am sure that he must be a sock puppet. Whose, I don't know, but I would believe that it is Yopie. Then when the AfD seems not to set the world alight, NorthAmerica1000 "Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached." I would have thought that as there was so little interest in deleting, that would have been a clue.
What do I do? I feel as if I am being attacked from all sides. Apart from me, no one in the discussion has any heraldic knowledge or background. Yopie hates me and the article for reasons that I cannot fathom; SR-7v is a sock or a troll, again for unknown reasons; Northamerica1000 could re-list from now until forever, or such time as he gets his consensus.
Tokyogirl79, you are an Admin - advise me. What should I do? Thank you in advance. Kiltpin (talk) 19:45, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
@Kiltpin: Hmm... this is a good first start, asking for help- I'd definitely recommend avoiding getting overly upset on the AfD page because of how poorly that can sometimes be received. I think that what you should ask is that if this gets deleted via AfD, that the closing admin transfer a copy of the article into your userspace so you can work on improving it. I think that another good idea would be to ask Yopie for specifics on what he wants as far as MoS edits goes. It's very, very common for editors to quote a policy without going into a huge amount of detail about why this has to be as such, so asking for a little more detail would be a good idea. I think that what he was referring to was that the way you listed the sources was not how we typically list references on Wikipedia. It's kind of a tricky thing, since citing sources like that would suffice in other places but not on Wikipedia. Another tricky thing is that because Wikipedia is a place that can be edited by anyone, you can't really use Wikipedia as a source to show notability. At best it's a trivial source and for the most part I try to avoid using it because of how easily information can be added, removed, or edited to make that reference obsolete or otherwise incorrect. As far as the page in general goes, one of the biggest issues I see is that many of the links in the external sources section aren't really what we'd consider to be reliable sources that show notability. For example, while some of the registries list the ARL, it is more in a "see also" or "these are places where you can get this done" type of manner and would be considered trivial. The other issue is that you'd have to show that these mentions show notability and would not be considered to be WP:PRIMARY in some manner, meaning that the website owners is not involved with the ARL in some form or fashion. What I can do for you in this instance is to refer you towards WP:THIRDOPINION, a page where you can request people come in and help give a third opinion on disputes about article content and sourcing. I would not recommend addressing any of the sockpuppetry or bullying allegations there, since that page is meant to be used for just content issues. You can ask for help at the dispute resolution noticeboard and also at the requests for comments noticeboard for that sort of thing. Although... I do have to say that when/if you post there, that you try to be as neutral as possible and make sure that you back up your claims with article differences. Also make sure that you take into account that it's entirely possible that the others might not be acting in bad faith, but may just have been on the defensive. Unfortunately people can get pretty defensive when editing articles and sometimes things will get heated. The best course of action is to first politely ask for more explanation as to why they did what they did and ask if there is more that they can do to help show notability or edit the article. If they request that you do the work or give no answer, the next best step is to ask what you can do to make it better and to then request help from others, which looks to be what you've done here. The number one thing is to try not to get angry or make any sort of accusation unless you have quite a bit of evidence, because there's really not a lot that admins can do without that evidence. I may make a request at DRN or RFC for the article. I'm not taking anyone's side here, but I think that we do need a neutral third party to mediate here. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:04, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Writer's Barnstar
for your work at The Russell Girl, rescuing an article created by a troll account. Avono♂ (talk) 12:53, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Sapphire International Aviation Academy Deletetion,
Hi, Tokyogirl79 this is Gmxian89 for A7. No indication of importance (individuals, animals, organizations, web content, events),, Sapphire International Aviation Academy is indicated as Institution or Colleges, School. For G11. Unambiguous advertising or promotion, I think I havent promote anything from that page.
Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gmxian89 (talk • contribs) 10:04, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
The page had some fairly promotional prose in it and the history section was actually a copyright violation of the academy's "about us" page. The article would need to be re-written to meet our neutrality standards as a whole. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:39, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Please provide me which part of the "about us" I violated,, Thanks comment added by Gmxian89 (talk • contribs) — Preceding undated comment added 02:59, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Like I said, it was a copyright violation meaning that it copied the "about us" section word for word in the article. Please understand that Wikipedia is not an extension of your school's website and that not only should any text be written neutrally and without copyright, but we actually prefer that people with a very strong conflict of interest (WP:COI) not edit their own pages at all, especially if there is a strong chance that they might make the same actions again that caused the page to become deleted. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:45, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Blvck Amsterdam
Hello TokyoGirl79, I wanted to write an article about a group of producers based in my area. They're called Blvck Amsterdam, It seems someone wrote about them and deleted the post. Please let me know if its ok to write another article about them.
@Kingmarcus88: Hmm... it looks like you did create an article, but it was tagged for a speedy deletion per WP:A7. Unfortunately there just isn't enough in the article to really firmly establish how they meet notability guidelines. However since you are interested in writing the article, I'm hoping that you will be interested in continuing to work on it. I've moved the article to the draftspace at Draft:Blvck Amsterdam, where you can work on improving the article by providing more information and by providing coverage in reliable sources. Reliable sources would be coverage in independent and reliable sources like newspaper articles, articles by reliable music magazines and websites like Pitchfork. The trouble with saying that they produced notable songs is that notability isn't entirely inherited by that (WP:NOTINHERITED) association with the notable singers and you'd still have to have some sort of coverage for that. It's kind of tricky when it comes to producers. I definitely recommend hitting up Wikipedia:WikiProject Hip hop and asking for help on finding sources and generally improving the article, since the editors there will be more familiar with searching and so on. I'm not entirely unfamiliar with the process, but I do think that you'd benefit more by going directly to WP:HIPHOP in this instance. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:59, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
November 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to David Baldacci may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
# ''Freddy and the French Fries: The Mystery of Silas Finklebean]'' (Little, Brown and Company, 2006)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:18, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
American Orthopsychiatric Association
Holy smokes, I restored that, went to update REFUND and you had already declined... I saw DGG's last decline and no further edits, so I figured maybe give them a chance. You want me to nuke it again? §FreeRangeFrogcroak 04:32, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Nah, if you've already done it then let's give it a whirl. I was going to initially but I was concerned that they didn't really change much promotional-wise between the two times they submitted it and figured that it was probably because they didn't want to do the re-writes. I figure let 'em have one last try- maybe they'll get it right this time? Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:41, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Hello Tokyogirl79,
I have read your "FAQ" section and am still curious as to the decision for deleting the Angels in Paradise page? I expected a notification regarding specific reasoning but I contested the page and made revisions and added its significance. Not upset, just genuinely curious as to the reasoning for the decision. I am new to Wikipedia and am a producer on the project that we will be debuting in a few weeks. I have seen and been in projects that have had a Wikipedia page before. Should I add more references? Other websites, IMDB, etc.? If you could give me insight and guidance on this, I would appreciate it. I am not using Wikipedia as an advertising platform, rather adding a page on this controversial media piece.
@M.osman07: What bothered me were the sentences like this: "The series address them in a unique captivating way allowing the viewers to peek in to the dark side of Los Angeles. " That's very, very promotional in tone and would need to be completely re-written in order to be neutral per Wikipedia requirements. It may have been unintentional, but it still came across as promotional. The other element is that the series has not yet started and hasn't received any coverage to show that it would pass notability guidelines even upon its release. The thing about series of any type is that existing doesn't equal out to notability on Wikipedia (WP:ITEXISTS) and until the series has receive reception in reliable sources (WP:RS) that are independent of the series and in places Wikipedia would consider to be reliable, there's no way that the series would pass WP:GNG. IMDb can't be used as a reliable source since it is, at best, a database. It can be used to back up trivial information, but it is not a reliable source in and of itself. The official website is seen as a WP:PRIMARY source and as such cannot show notability either. A good example of a reliable source would be if say, Twitch Film did an article on the production where they interviewed you and went into depth about the production. However I do need to caution that reprints of press releases are seen as primary sources or at best, WP:TRIVIAL sources that can be used to back up some information but would not really count towards notability as a whole. The other thing I should probably mention is that the page had a lot of information that would be considered a copyright violation (WP:COPYVIO) per Wikipedia's guidelines. Even though you are the producer, posting this without filing a ticket at WP:ORTS giving permissions for use is still something that we can delete the entry for. The only thing about using copyrighted material is that in most instances the text is written in a way that can give off somewhat promotional vibes as well. This isn't as much of a problem except that if there is promotional-ish language elsewhere then it can really come across as promotional as a whole. There's an additional problem that some of the information (character sections) can come across as too "in universe" in how it's written and would require a re-write anyway. I think that right now a better option would be to start a Wikia site and edit there for the time being since it's just too soon for this to have an entry right now. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:47, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Interesting. I have read and understood all of your arguments for deletion. Would you kindly take a look at this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_(web_series) as I've tried to use it as a reference. They have one secondary source and their 2 primary sources are IMDB and their own website. We too have a full interview with Supermodel Magazine. I'm just trying to understand how they were alright and not flagged for deletion. The series will be released this week which is when I will try to create another article using the information you have given me, so if you could help me not get flagged again, and clarify the other web series' inclusion on Wikipedia, I would appreciate it. M.osman07 (talk) 20:13, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Just butting it to say that using another article as a guide is often problematic. It could be that the other article needs deleting, and no one has gotten around to it. With over 4 million articles, we have many that need deleting. It is why we have a policy page Other stuff exists that talks about how one article it isn't a valid reason to keep another. And that article is about something in the past with at least one good source, from Vanity. That is different than something that is in the future and has no strong sources at all. Each article has to stand on its own merits, and can't be compared to the quality of others. Dennis - 2¢ 20:22, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
@Dennis Brown: Thank you for clarifying, Dennis. Is there a good place to go that explains all the necessary steps to building a solid article aside from reading all 35 different abbreviated links? At least to get a start?
Yes there is! I have two links for you, actually. Wikipedia:Your first article is where you learn. You can probably just breeze through most of that. WP:Articles for creation is where you draft. AFC is the best place for a new user to build an article because it is in "draft" space, not "main" space. You get it reviewed, they offer tips, you don't have to worry about it getting deleted as long as you are working on it once a month or so. It is a slow process, but effective. You can also go to any Wikiproject, or to any editor and ask them for help building it. Once it is ready for main space, you just ask for it to get moved over, and it becomes an article. It takes the pressure off, lets you work at your own pace. Dennis - 2¢ 09:48, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Much appreciated you guys! M.osman07 (talk) 20:34, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Usaidfarooqui
Hi, can you block him? He's just removed the AFD banner and spam edited the article again.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:12, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
@Dr. Blofeld: Done- I've blocked him for 48 hours and left him a strong warning not to spam edit the article again. If he does, I'll block him for disruptive editing again, possibly even permanently since the spam edits seem to be his only real reason for editing. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:15, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Nice one. BTW, if you like horror movies I recommend Black Sunday (1960 film)! Films like Don't Look Now, The Omen and Repulsion also have horror ingredients and are great films. You're most welcome to recommend great films on the talk page of User:Dr. Blofeld/Great films! Generic slasher type films admittedly don't float my boat but if they're gripping and unpredictable I might like them!♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:08, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
@Dr. Blofeld: I've actually got Black Sunday on my Netflix queue! I wasn't able to get through Repulsion- the film just sort of creeped me out a little too much at times. I'll admit that I'm not an overly big fan of slasher films myself- I mostly like my horror to be slow building supernatural flicks. I've never quite gotten into the films that were mostly about body counts, although I can see where they're popular. I remember seeing one of the Zombi films and knowing that I'd never really enjoy that sort of thing. My favorite horror films tend to be stuff like Night of the Demons (1988 film), The Changeling (1980 film), and Trick 'r Treat. I'll freely admit that 80s and early 90s horror has a pretty soft spot in my heart. On a side note, have you ever seen the original The Last House on the Left (1972 film)? Admittedly slashers aren't my sort of thing, but it was sort of fascinating in its own way. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:04, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Not seen those, will add them to my see list. Yeah Repulsion is a really creepy one, 10 Rillington Place too! I highly recommend Don't Look Now, The Omen, both "slow building supernatural flicks". Oh me too I love the supernatural and classic horror films, but I really don't like those low budget generic slasher/zombie types films, nasty stuff! An old one I really recommend is The Phantom Carriage, the carriage appearing in the mist, one of the most atmospheric films ever!♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:16, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
@Dr. Blofeld: Brrr... stuff based on a true story is usually pretty scary for me, so I'll have to check that one out. I think that's why I tend to dislike many slasher films- real life murderers are scary enough as it is, so slashers usually pale in comparison. I notice that you have The Haunting (1963 film) listed- have you ever seen the remake? Once I got past my incredibly rabid dislike for how much they changed, it wasn't that bad of a film. But man oh man, I do love a good haunted house flick. There's just something great about people venturing into a place with a History (with a capital H), especially if it's been abandoned. I've always thought that if I were a bit more bold I'd have really gotten into urban exploration. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:21, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Not seen the remake! Anything with Vincent Price is usually pretty good. I still have House of Wax to see though! The Uninvited (1944 film) is pretty good, you seen that? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:25, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
@Dr. Blofeld: Heh, I had a humongous crush on Vincent Price growing up. I haven't seen The Uninvited, but it sounds absolutely amazing! I haven't seen the original House of Wax either, although I'm embarrassed to say that I've seen the 2005 Paris Hilton movie. That actually wasn't that bad for what it was- I admit that I mostly saw it for the same reasons a lot of other people did: to see if Paris Hilton actually died in the film. She was a surprisingly good sport about all of the "see Paris die" t-shirts and posters, if I remember correctly. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:41, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Can you please delete its userpage? Because other user wrote on userpage "Good block me, I don't care!..." would be deleted, but it would permanently. 183.171.180.173 (talk) 07:55, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
I initially deleted it, but it looks like the content was re-added several times by Radiopathy. I've restored the content and left him a message. I personally wouldn't leave it on my page, but it's not my place to remove it if this was something he wanted to have on his page- and he's re-added it several times despite people removing it. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:07, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
I wonder if you could semi-protect this one to prevent IPs editing it. The subject is certainly notable and quite interesting, but there seems to be a drive to add all sorts of unsourced rubbish including honorific titles, a copyvio picture from a blogsite and an unsourced genealogy - probably all by the same person. See the latest set of edits. Thanks, Aymatth2 (talk) 15:47, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
@Aymatth2: Seems reasonable- I'll do a semi protect for about a week and see if that helps deter it. If it keeps happening I'll protect it for a little longer and so on. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:52, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Hmm... I didn't realize that this was still at AfD. We usually don't like to protect pages when they're up for AfD. I'll do it for a day rather than a week and see if that does anything. I'll put a post on the AfD page and the talk page. I have a feeling that this is the same guy that I temporarily blocked for making those extremely unhelpful edits and continually removing the AfD template, though. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:55, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. Could be. Recent IPs are near Washim in Maharashtra. Older IPs are in Mumbai. The motive defeats me. The article is neutral, I think. You have made it clear that unsourced material will be removed – but they keep adding it. Maybe the article was not meant to be. Sigh. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:56, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Username madness
After a user named after the Vice President of the Philippines, here comes a user named Iamnancybinay and his/her edit. --Carlojoseph14 (talk) 02:49, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
@Carlojoseph14: I've blocked them and given them a warning about adding information without showing proof. Given some of the stuff they tried to add, I'd hope that this wasn't Binay herself. If this keeps up then we may have to open up a SPI to check for sleepers, unfortunately. I have a feeling that this is a case of sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:13, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
She claims to be the real Binay, see her message on User_talk:Mcmatter. I personally think she is not Binay. --Carlojoseph14 (talk) 04:33, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
I honestly don't think she is either, given that she alleged that someone stole building funds and said that the building had started construction in the early 1900s. Claiming either doesn't really look good for her, if it was her. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:35, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Deletion of Thick Toast (Hau Dor Si)
Nice to meet you. I created an article called Thick Toast (Hau Dor Si) which was deleted by you on 09:26, 6 November 2014 for not indicating the significance. However, I think I did state the importance of this article. The colloquial expression "Hau Dor Si" has had an immense influence on Hong Kong. Not only has it become a common expression among different age groups (which is totally not seen before considering that expressions originated from the internet usually affect teenagers, but this time, the influence is very extensive even someone who doesn't go to the Internet very often would use the expressions for different purposes, such as teasing). Other than that, I also included information that this incident was a notable one that reflected the poor relationship between Hong Kong and Mainland China. In Hong Kong, people use Cantonese as their mother tongue while in Mainland China use Mandarin instead. The conflict between these two districts has been fierce in recent years and "Thick Toast (Hau Dor Si)" can serve as an indicator on this issue because it is intriguing to know that Hongkongers in general despise the Mainland Chinese, even those have immigrated to Hong Kong but speak with strange, non-native and funny accent of Cantonese.
Indeed, I have tried hard to make my article stick to the notability guidelines but surely there are still something I haven't done enough, so if it's the case, please kindly give me additional advice on how to improve it to an appropriate Wiki article. And may I ask to retrieve the deleted material please? Thank you and look forward to hearing from you soon.
@Stevenwai1217: I've restored it and moved it to the draftspace at Draft:Thick Toast (Hau Dor Si). The only thing is that you must show coverage of this phrase in reliable sources like newspapers and the like before moving it back to the mainspace. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:31, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Copyright checks when performing AfC reviews
Hello ReaderofthePack. This message is part of a mass mailing to people who appear active in reviewing articles for creation submissions. First of all, thank you for taking part in this important work! I'm sorry this message is a form letter – it really was the only way I could think of to covey the issue economically. Of course, this also means that I have not looked to see whether the matter is applicable to you in particular.
The issue is in rather large numbers of copyright violations ("copyvios") making their way through AfC reviews without being detected (even when easy to check, and even when hallmarks of copyvios in the text that should have invited a check, were glaring). A second issue is the correct method of dealing with them when discovered.
If you don't do so already, I'd like to ask for your to help with this problem by taking on the practice of performing a copyvio check as the first step in any AfC review. The most basic method is to simply copy a unique but small portion of text from the draft body and run it through a search engine in quotation marks. Trying this from two different paragraphs is recommended. (If you have any question about whether the text was copied from the draft, rather than the other way around (a "backwards copyvio"), the Wayback Machine is very useful for sussing that out.)
If you do find a copyright violation, please do not decline the draft on that basis. Copyright violations need to be dealt with immediately as they may harm those whose content is being used and expose Wikipedia to potential legal liability. If the draft is substantially a copyvio, and there's no non-infringing version to revert to, please mark the page for speedy deletion right away using {{db-g12|url=URL of source}}. If there is an assertion of permission, please replace the draft article's content with {{subst:copyvio|url=URL of source}}.
Some of the more obvious indicia of a copyvio are use of the first person ("we/our/us..."), phrases like "this site", or apparent artifacts of content written for somewhere else ("top", "go to top", "next page", "click here", use of smartquotes, etc.); inappropriate tone of voice, such as an overly informal tone or a very slanted marketing voice with weasel words; including intellectual property symbols (™,®); and blocks of text being added all at once in a finished form with no misspellings or other errors.
I hope this message finds you well and thanks again you for your efforts in this area. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC).
Hi. Can you please un-protect this page title? I'd like to write an article. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:55, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
@MZMcBride: Sure- do you want any of the sources from the previous versions? My only request is that you build it in your userspace first at User:MZMcBride/ClassDojo and then transfer it to your userspace. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:36, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
You mean transfer it to mainspace afterwards? LorChat 02:43, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Yep- that way you can work on it more at your leisure and make sure that it passes, yada yada. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:35, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
I've seen today my article has been rejected due to copyright issues. I can't seem to see any comments on the draft page -- which has been deleted already. I don't believe I violated copyright, I put sources whenever I used material that was not written by myself. I would like to know more about this, and would also like the opportunity to amend the article and resubmit it. I also believe that the "copyright infringement" was originally cited (http://www.bigsocietycapital.com/sites/default/files/pdf/Building%20the%20Capacity%20for%...). Please do let me know. I am keen to learn and thought I had followed all the guidelines. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Awesomelisa (talk • contribs)
@Awesomelisa: From what I could see, the copyright issues came from you very, very closely paraphrasing and occasionally outright copying broad swaths of text. Even if you cite the source, copying the text into the main article still violates Wikipedia's copyright policies (WP:COPYVIO), as does very closely paraphrasing the text. I do understand that there are only so many ways to write a sentence, but this was just too closely paraphrased to be seen as anything other than a copyright violation. It's kind of a little like writing a paper for class: if a student were to hand you a paper where they pretty much copied someone else's work verbatim or nearly verbatim, you wouldn't be able to accept that as a valid student paper. Now even if the foundation were to submit a ticket through WP:ORTS giving permission to use the work, we still wouldn't be able to accept the article and it would still have to be deleted on the basis of it being extremely promotional in tone. That's kind of the unsaid thing about using an organization's work: it's almost always written in order to promote the company to the reader. That's expected and even encouraged for the organization because they have to get their message out, but it's just not acceptable on Wikipedia and the entire article would pretty much have to be completely re-written to meet the policies on writing with a neutral, encyclopedic point of view and without any copyright violations. I can e-mail the text to you, but I really can't restore it to AfC space given that it has both of these issues. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:26, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
@Tokyogirl79: Thank you so much for the feedback, that makes a lot of sense! I must still have the original text I submitted so I'm going to rewrite it. Much appreciated!!
Mummy, I'm a Zombie
I actually downloaded both films to double-check credits. Schmidt, Michael Q. 08:59, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
@MichaelQSchmidt: I was wondering if that's what you did! I have to admit, the movie sounds cute enough that I was debating seeing if it was on Netflix. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:00, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
The English language versions DO indeed remind of something by Tim Burton. While it's personal opinion... they share unexpected quality for an animated film from Spain. Schmidt, Michael Q. 17:00, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Little Chapel that Stood
Hello! I wanted to thank you for converting the article The Little Chapel That Stood to be about the book rather than the cover illustration. I was able to find quite a bit of coverage about the book, so I expanded the article with references. I think between us we may have rescued an article about a notable book. --MelanieN (talk) 20:20, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
New director stub
Hello! :) You started To Jennifer back in 2013. Someone just made the director article James Cullen Bressack. Thought you might like to have a look. (Maybe COI by the looks of the photo.) Scratch that. It's a youtube copyvio screenshot. I'll nom it for deletion. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:06, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Just to be clear, I nommed the image for deletion, not the article. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:39, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to David Baldacci may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
§FreeRangeFrogcroak 04:42, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Schmidt, Michael Q. 08:59, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Schmidt, Michael Q. 17:00, 30 November 2014 (UTC)