User talk:Trillfendi

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

Tagging articles[edit]

Actually, it's your responsibility to open a thread on the talk page of any article you tag, and there explain precisely what you find objectionable about the article and, preferably, propose specific changes that would address the issue. Simply tagging an article and walking away means that any editor can remove your tags at any time because they aren't valid. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:06, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

As Template:POV itself states, Drive-by tagging is strongly discouraged. The editor who adds the tag should discuss concerns on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies. In the absence of such a discussion, or where it remains unclear what the NPOV violation is, the tag may be removed by any editor. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:08, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Bekah Brunstetter (March 4)[edit]

AFC-Logo Decline.svg
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Legacypac was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
Legacypac (talk) 22:05, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
@Legacypac: This “review” to me to me that I can no longer trust the process and simply have to do everything myself. If full fledged profiles in multiple prestigious newspapers such as the New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Denver Post, her own regional reliable source and an Emmy nomination isn’t enough then... there must be an impossible standard for screenwriters to meet. Or maybe, just women. Trillfendi (talk) 22:18, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
I can assure you my assessment has nothing to do with gender. It's just my assessment. You are welcome to move the page to mainspace yourself. Legacypac (talk) 22:21, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Bekah Brunstetter[edit]

As you can tell, I expanded the article a bit. I'm thinking of nominating it for DYK (it's within the 7-day mainspace window for a "new article"), and since you went through all the trouble to bring the article into the world, I thought I'd run the idea past you. I'd nominate it so we'd both get credit, but would be happy to handle the actual nominating process, which can be irksome. Do you have any objections to a) nominating it for DYK b) having a dual credit? Bakazaka (talk) 23:40, 6 March 2019 (UTC) @Bakazaka: No objections. Go right ahead. Trillfendi (talk) 00:11, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

After some some kind assistance from reviewer Bennv3771 the nomination passed DYK review (see Template:Did you know nominations/Bekah Brunstetter). Assuming we don't make changes that would trigger a re-review, it should slowly make its way through the DYK acceptance-prep-queue sequence over the next few weeks. Bakazaka (talk) 19:03, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
The content you just added duplicates material that was already in the article, and adds a lengthy quote similar to the one that was removed at the request of the reviewer. Why did you add duplicate material? Bakazaka (talk) 23:55, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
I simply didn’t notice it was there... I didn’t read new additions to the whole article, since it’s no longer a stub. Whoever wants to remove it, can. Trillfendi (talk) 23:58, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
No worries. Some of your text was an improvement over the existing sentence, so I integrated it with what was already there. Bakazaka (talk) 00:14, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Jim and Mary McCartney[edit]

Just for the record, I am a Beatles fan, and have taken The Beatles (album) and Abbey Road to GA status; however I think this article is horrible and reads like a Daily Mail gossip piece that has no place on an encyclopedia. If you can come up with a convincing argument to AfD it, I am all ears. I am certain JG66, who's written numerous Beatles and George Harrison related GAs, feels the same. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:57, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

I've not looked at that article in years, but "horrible and reads like a Daily Mail gossip piece that has no place on an encyclopedia" is precisely how I've always felt about it! I was astounded to see the article survived AfD in July 2014, and even with the scrutiny of a recent GAR, it still exists. Lawdie. (The only minor positive is that at least it's a combined article for Jim and Mary McCartney, whereas I believe they used to have separate pages here.)
When I was writing Deep Blue (song) in about 2013, I did consider starting an article on George Harrison's parents, Louise and Harry, simply because of the coverage afforded McCartney's family members. But I couldn't justify its inclusion. And I don't think the likes of Jim and Mary McCartney would have a prayer if someone started them nowadays. On the other hand, I've started articles that (I trust) do merit a place here, and I can see good reasons for expanding Wikipedia's coverage in other areas: the Beatles' 1963–64 and 1964–65 Christmas shows, their US TV debut on The Ed Sullivan Show in February 1964, and (especially) the 1971 High Court suit. JG66 (talk) 03:19, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Spin off articles like those, and More popular than Jesus are fine, because they have sources that are specifically about those events and are the main topic of conversation. I don't think I've ever seen a single source that is actually about McCartney's parents, as opposed to just mentioning them in pieces about Paul (and, to a much lesser extent, Mike). Anyway, at the risk of being pilloried for canvassing, I have sent the article off to AfD. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:23, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

NDOCTOR?[edit]

Hi, I have a question: in this deletion discussion you placed a "delete" vote, indicating that the subject did not appear to meet NDOCTOR (with no link). However, I wasn't able to find a subject-specific guideline called WP:NDOCTOR anywhere; neither does it appear one ever existed. Could you explain what you were referring to ? Thanks! A loose necktie (talk) 20:56, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

@A loose necktie: Hmm... such a weird Mandela effect. I literally looked at it before voting but it appears that it was archived and that’s what I may have been looking at.Trillfendi (talk) 21:03, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Double weird: when I checked to see if there was an article called NDOCTOR I not only found none, but found no record that one had ever existed (i.e., there was no deletion discussion). I am pretty sure there are ways to "scrub" some undesirable material from Wikipedia's history, but can't think of why that would have been done in this case. Do you remember creating a link to it in that deletion discussion à la [[WP:NDOCTOR]]? If so, then the link was also removed somehow and your text was changed in the process. Like I said, double weird! A loose necktie (talk) 21:37, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Please stop throwing my name out there[edit]

If you want to DM my email is cgaucher2002@gmail.com, don't throw my name out for stupid reasons, thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheRealCanadian71 (talkcontribs) 18:05, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

@TheRealCanadian71: No, enough is enough. I’m not going back and forth anymore. Get in line or the administrators will handle you. Trillfendi (talk) 18:11, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Is this a threat? I am literally trying to help and all I get is you trying to fucking bully me and I wont take it!!
@TheRealCanadian71: No, it’s not a “threat”. I’m just telling you what they’ll do if you don’t stop disruptive editing. You have to learn the rules of the website, if you don’t they will block you if they decide to. Trillfendi (talk) 18:19, 13 March 2019 (UTC) Give me the rules

Administrator here. I take no sides in a dispute, treat people equally (as possible), and so - chill out, the pair of you and stop arguing over a photograph. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:47, 13 March 2019 (UTC) @Ritchie333: It’s not one photograph, it’s at least 13 photographs they have changed in just weeks because of they “like” and I decided this was the last straw to keep witnessing this type of vandalism, so I reported it. 🤷‍♀️ It’s not about Rihanna, it’s about all of em. Trillfendi (talk) 19:10, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Victoria's Secret[edit]

There is no need to distinguish between former and current Angels in a category. Categories are not meant to be continuously changing like this. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 19:54, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

@Jjj1238: There’s no reason to include models who haven’t worked for the brand in decades with models who just became Angels within the past few years (or even week). Trillfendi (talk) 19:55, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
That is absurd rationale. Look at any other category --- Category:American female country singers --- Kacey Musgraves just won a Grammy for her country album, but Taylor Swift has not released a country album since 2012. Yet they're both here because they at one point have both been country singers. It is the same thing for literally every other category. Barack Obama has not been moved to "Former United States Senators from Illinois", he is a part of Category:United States Senators from Illinois because at one point he was a U.S. Senator from Illinois. I think you are misunderstanding what categories are for and I'd ask you to undo your edits. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 20:04, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
@Jjj1238: They don’t work for a brand.... Trillfendi (talk) 20:06, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Where is the relevance? If those two examples have not resonated with you then how about this --- Category:The Voice (TV series) contestants includes both current and former contestants. Like, I don't know what else to say. This has nothing to do with working for a brand. You can go on to do other things in your career but they are still always going to have been Angels. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 20:11, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
@Jjj1238: Yeah, well, that's just like, your opinion man. When media describes them as "former Victoria's Secret Angels" I do the same. It's an anomaly. It's a specific thing. List of Victoria's Secret models also differentiates between the current and the former by using bold marking. Trillfendi (talk) 20:30, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, the media also refers to Obama as a former President, and this list you're referring to also refers to them all as Victoria's Secret Angels. It all goes both ways, which is why I set up a discussion for others to discuss this. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 20:38, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
@Jjj1238: and someone who felt inclined could create a former presidents category... already 44 people who would go in there. 🙄 Trillfendi (talk) 20:42, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) Category:Foo isn't for people who are currently Foo, but for people who are known for Foo. Presidents are known for being presidents, and Angels are known for being Angels, regardless of whether they're current or former. The list of current Angels is at List of Victoria's Secret models; I don't think it's a good idea if we split up every category into "current" and "former" sub-categories. That would create a lot of maintenance. Levivich 21:07, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
"and someone who felt inclined could create a former presidents category" this is just proving that you're not understanding what the categories are for. As @Levivich: pointed out, categories are not for people who currently are x, they're for people who are known for being x; this clearly demonstrates there is no need for a formers category. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 16:41, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Adele[edit]

Hello, Trillfendi. I noticed this edit you made on Adele, and I'm not sure that is notable enough. Many women who become mothers take a break from their careers to take care of their children, and it's rarely, if ever, mentioned on their article that they're stay-at-home parents. I didn't want to revert your edit just like that, so I'm asking you for your opinion first. Thank you. Shuipzv3 (talk) 04:36, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

@Shuipzv3: I said in the edit summary it’s trivial to me, but reliable sources ran with it and that’s obviously what she’s been doing for years now. It’s only as notable as when Lennon did it. Trillfendi (talk) 04:39, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Bekah Brunstetter[edit]

Updated DYK query.svgOn 25 March 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Bekah Brunstetter, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Bekah Brunstetter's play The Cake, about a baker refusing to serve gay customers, was partly inspired by her father Peter S. Brunstetter's opposition to same-sex marriage? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Bekah Brunstetter. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Bekah Brunstetter), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Marissa Miller[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Trillfendi. You have new messages at Talk:Marisa_Miller#Advertisement.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I thought you would have removed your tag already. Do you still have issues with the article? Please reply on article talk page. -- 109.76.241.1 (talk) 19:47, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

A7 and credible claim of significance[edit]

Dear Trillfendi, I have noticed that you are nominating some pages for deletion under A7 when a credible claim of significance is clearly and credibly asserted on them— including Sabine Ehrenfeld and Juliana Martins. Please understand that significance is a lower standard than notability — if you feel that the subject fails notability guidelines, the appropriate venue is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks. Zingarese talk · contribs 05:13, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

@Zingarese: Anybody can say anything. They can say she modeled on the moon. One job doesn’t automatically create notability. As far as I’m concerned, credible claims of significance require actual sources and these have none! Trillfendi (talk) 14:16, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
Dear Trillfendi, According to Wikipedia:Credible claim of significance, claims don’t need to be supported by reliable sources; the fact that any claim of importance exists on an article disqualifies it from speedy deletion under A7, so long as it is a credible claim. You are correct that one job doesn’t automatically create notability — but we are talking about significance, not notability. Obviously, claims that are unsourced and seem so outrageous there’s no way they could be true are tagged with {{Db-hoax}}. (The external links in both articles verify the claims of significance made.) If, to you, the Juliana Martins article doesn’t meet our notability guidelines — it may or may not be possible that it doesn’t — please start a debate at WP:AFD. Thank You, Zingarese talk · contribs 14:45, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Hi Trill, I'm not sure if you're aware of this essay page WP:CCSI, but you might want to check it out and possibly join the discussions on the talk page WT:CCSI, where I recently started a discussion WT:CCSI##Athlete. I think the concerns for athletes and actors are similar. It seems like we have very little written on WP:CSD#A7 CCSI criteria, and I'm thinking it would be helpful for the community to flesh that out. Similarly, since unsourced BLPs can be WP:BLPPRODed, I've been wondering whether, for soccer players, a single external link to a statistics website like Soccerway should "count" as a source for BLPPROD. Similarly, I've been wondering whether, for actors/filmmakers, a single external link to the user-generated not-a-reliable-source IMDB should "count" as a source for BLPPROD. A related question is whether a BLP that plainly won't meet the applicable WP:SNG like WP:NACTOR or WP:NFOOTY should be considered an A7 candidate if the article is otherwise unsourced (e.g., no indication that it would meet WP:BASIC or WP:GNG). I think it would be great to get more editors' input on those subjects at the CCSI page. Cheers! Levivich 15:32, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Edit summaries[edit]

With your recent edits, I would like to note your edit summaries have shown what can be perceived as incivility (specifically "Edit summary do's and don'ts") to not just newcomers but also regulars. I do not want to make this seem like a personal attack on you but a reminder to please be mindful of your edit summaries. I think you provide some amazing edits and articles within the subjects you frequent (I wouldn't survive trying to edit gossip content). – The Grid (talk) 16:03, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Ways to improve Shanelle Nyasiase[edit]

Hello, Trillfendi,

Thanks for creating Shanelle Nyasiase! I edit here too, under the username Citrivescence and it's nice to meet you :-)

I wanted to let you know that I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:-

please add notability info to lead

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Citrivescence}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Citrivescence (talk) 19:06, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Amalie and Cecilie Moosgaard has been accepted[edit]

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

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Cerebellum (talk) 21:01, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Adonis Bosso[edit]

Hello, Trillfendi. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Adonis Bosso".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz Read! Talk! 23:48, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Adonis Bosso[edit]

Hello, Trillfendi. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Adonis Bosso".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Legacypac (talk) 02:01, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Chill[edit]

Can you just hold back firing both barrels off about the McCartney parents article? I basically agree with pretty much everything you say, but calling it an "abysmal sack of bullshit" isn't particularly helpful. Cheers. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:18, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: I said what I said. But really, at point I’ve been dealing with that situation for 5 months and no more holds are barred so it is what it is; I’m just gonna be blunt about it. It seems to be only way to get throught to people. That’s what that article is. A monstrosity. For anybody to be "fascinated" by it is beyond sense. Trillfendi (talk) 17:39, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

A star is born[edit]

SpecialBarnstar.png The Special Barnstar
Keep up your great Wikipedia work! Lubbad85 () 02:29, 14 April 2019 (UTC)