Jump to content

User talk:ReaderofthePack/Archive 16

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18→Archive 20


A thanksgiving Turkey for you!

 LorChat has given you a Turkey! Turkeys promote WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a turkey, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy Thanksgiving!

A day before thanksgiving where I am but, close enough. Spread the goodness of turkey by adding {{Thanksgiving Turkey}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Happy New Year

Happy New Year !!!
Michael Q. Schmidt talkback is wishing you Season's Greetings! This message celebrates the holiday season, promotes WikiLove, and hopefully makes your day a little better. Spread the seasonal good cheer by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and aHappy New Year, whether it be someone with whom you had disagreements in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Share the good feelings. - MQS

Nice

- to have you around on Wikipedia, Tokyogirl, so here's just a quiet ‘’all the best’’ to you for 2015 and I hope you’ll continue to be around on Wikipedia for a long time to come.

Happy New Year!

Dear ReaderofthePack,
HAPPY NEW YEAR Hoping 2015 will be a great year for you! Thank you for your contributions!
From a fellow editor,
--FWiW Bzuk (talk)

This message promotes WikiLove. Originally created by Nahnah4 (see "invisible note").

Beta Minetest Article

Hey, @Tokyogirl79:! I want to redo the Minetest article in the Beta space. Could you please move the old article to Draft:Minetest?

--User:AKA Casey Rollins Talk with Casey

Seeking your assistance

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.

Thanks:3

22:02:23, 15 April 2015 review of submission by Guruness Brownie


Tokyogirl79, I have requested your feedback/help already on 22nd March, then another time on 12th April re my article review here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tokyogirl79#Re_submission_Atlantic_Horns_by_Guruness_Brownie But sadly I was left without any reply so far and asked myself why it is that I don't hear anything back? Could you please let me know, if I'm getting there after I've edited down quite a lot? I would appreciate another look on it, before I would resubmit it and also further suggestions would be welcomed in case it is in your opinion getting nowhere near a submittable article - although I of course hope it'll do how it is now... Guruness Brownie (talk) 22:02, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Sorry about that! This year so far has been a bit of a cluster of various things IRL that have decreased my time on Wikipedia. I won't bore you with the details, though. I'll earmark it to look at later on tonight. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:21, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • @Guruness Brownie: The article doesn't seem promotional any longer, at least not to where I'd worry about it, but I am concerned about the lack of coverage. You have a lot of coverage about things that the band members have done independently of the ensemble, but not really that much that's about the group itself. You need more coverage that's specifically about the band. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:59, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
    • Thanks for coming back to me! I'm happy that the article feedback seems to be a go-ahead one. I'm just a bit desperate about the coverage & the sourcing - there's just not that much useful stuff about the 3-piece-band other than what I've found so far. My problem is to find a good sourcing about the current group. Will try to dig deeper... Guruness Brownie (talk) 06:11, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Since you can speed delete....

Hi Tokyogirl79, came across this article for afd: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shubham Gupta Just wondering whether you would like to use your magic powers to speed delete it?? Coolabahapple (talk) 11:15, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Lviv through the ages

Hi Tokyogirl79, I had a look at this article which you put up for deletion and couldnt resist playing with it (creating talk page to ukraine project, deorphaning, adding categories and notices), i think its the wikikitten in me:) (i agree that it should be deleted in its present form so have probably wasted my time). i also had a look at the article's creator who as a wikinewbie has made 3 articles which are all up for deletion! This may be disheartening for them. As a wikiveteran, do you know any wikiuncles or aunties that could offer to help them or do you have any suggestions to assist them so we dont lose a budding wikieditor? Coolabahapple (talk) 03:34, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

  • I've asked the Ukraine WikiProject and a Ukrainian-fluent editor to step in and talk with the editor, since there seems to be a pretty big language barrier. I think that we could invite them to the Teahouse, but I'm very, very concerned that this may not be very helpful since they may not speak English very well or at all, which would make everything far more confusing than it would be if they had a person who spoke/read Ukrainian. The pages they made kind of give off the impression that they were relying fairly heavily on Google Translate since that's sort of the same way they look when I use GT for foreign language pages. Basically what I'm kind of concerned about is that their level of English may be so poor that they aren't really ready to edit on the English language WikiProject yet and would probably benefit more from editing on the Ukrainian Wikipedia or just requesting pages on the Ukraine WikiProject until their English gets a little better. It's pretty much the same reason why I don't edit on some of the foreign language Wikipedias, as my language level is so poor that I wouldn't be able to really create a proper page. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:49, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

thanks for your help, it didn't occur to me that there would be a wikipedia Ukraine (duh:)). Coolabahapple (talk) 11:01, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

ps. you may wish to hit me with a fish? Maybe not a minnow because as a wikikit i may just eat it:) Coolabahapple (talk) 11:25, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Nah, it's a good idea to follow up on stuff like this to ensure that everyone is given a fair chance to learn policy and procedure. I know that unfortunately a lot of editors don't do this and a lot of people get discouraged and leave because of it, so this definitely doesn't deserve a trouting. If anything, you trying to follow up with this and show good faith with an editor deserves a barnstar. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:49, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Mahalo

Thank you for all your help, guidance, and for assuming good intent as opposed to being an evil genius Chrisabraham (talk) 20:57, 22 February 2015 (UTC)


Thank you for the deletion of the user page

Hi Tokyogirl79; thank you for the deletion of my user page. I saw Pathoschild's Synchbot deleting a whole bunch of pages, replacing it with global user pages (which I didn't know that was a thing! XD). Thank you also for all you've done here. DivineAlpha (talk) 23:08, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

A kitten to look after

Coolabahapple has given you a kitten! Kittens promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Your kitten must be fed three times a day and will be your faithful companion forever! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a kitten, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Spread the goodness of kittens by adding {{subst:Kitten}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or kittynap their kitten with {{subst:Kittynap}}

For being so kind to wikinewbies!Coolabahapple (talk) 05:07, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Mmm - Milk!
A tall, cool glass of milk just for you! Milk somehow promotes WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a glass of milk, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Enjoy!

and some milk for you and your kitten:)Coolabahapple (talk) 05:07, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Spread the goodness of milk by adding {{subst:Give milk}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

1/ ∞

Hi, the draft has not been abandoned at all but rather the article was created see 1/∞. Tkuvho (talk) 08:34, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Tkuvho Well... the issue with the draftspace article is that there weren't any edits past July of last year, apart from someone nominating it as an abandoned draft. For all practical purposes the draft hadn't been edited and would be considered abandoned, especially if there was already an article in the mainspace. We can't really indefinitely host draftspace copies of articles, especially if there's already a mainspace version. It'd just always be considered a bit redundant and unnecessary for the most part. Was there anything particular that you wanted from the article? From what I can see there weren't any sources in the draft copy and the bulk of the draft copy was a debate between editors, all of which was from July of last year. The article is differently phrased than the draft copy, but not really enough to where it'd make an overwhelming difference. I don't have any true issue with restoring it, but I don't really see where there's that much of a need for it unless you wanted to save the page debate for some reason. If I do restore it, it'll be as a page in your userspace rather than in the draftspace since odds are it'd just be renominated again in another 6 months. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:41, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes please do restore it in my userspace as the debate was rather instructive. Tkuvho (talk) 08:51, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. Tkuvho (talk) 09:03, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Alex Gilbert

Hi Tokypgirl79,

Please give me advice and on how I can build up User:DmitryPopovRU/sandbox until it is notable? Is it written incorrectly? :)

Thanks! --DmitryPopovRU (talk) 19:01, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

  • I think that one of the biggest thing so far would just be to work on the citations to make them a little more even. You've got a lot of places where you overlink to various cites to the point where it's a little intrusive. You could probably work on condensing a little of the material as well, since at this point in time he hasn't done a huge amount of work and he has more coverage of this than some of the bigger filmmakers out there. If/when he does get more coverage you'd need to condense this anyway in order to avoid having the article be too overly long, so it'd probably be better to try to finesse it now. Other than that, it's pretty much just a matter of waiting until he gets more coverage for his work. The thing to be careful of is that participation in notable films/shows/etc doesn't always mean that he would gain notability- this is usually reserved for the people who play very, very large roles in the production process like the director, executive producer, and so on- the people at the top rungs. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:27, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks heaps for your reply! Like I said he is not notable for the film work, this is more in the background rather than his story and book which has had media coverage etc. I just do not know how to word this correctly to make it relevant. I am ideally looking for someone to help me word it correctly :) Thanks heaps for your response so far Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  ! --DmitryPopovRU (talk) 04:59, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Sacred Heart School

Ooops, didn't even check to see if it was a dab page, my bad. Either way as you said it's still copyvio, and the accounts have been doing nothing constructive, clearly not here to contribute, IMO. -War wizard90 (talk) 06:21, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Ed Lyon

@Tokyogirl79: Can you go ahead and reinstate Ed Lyon now please? I've contacted GB Fan and he's doing nothing. -- Aronzak (talk) 07:55, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

  • @Aronzak: I'm always a little leery about stepping on the toes of other editors. I don't anticipate him having a huge issue, but general procedure is for the deleting admin to approve recreation of an A7 or for it to go through DRV. So far it just looks like GB fan is off Wikipedia for the moment since he hasn't edited for a few hours, so I don't think he's going to decline it. Now if he doesn't answer by this time tomorrow then I'll look into userfying it for you. I just want to make sure that he has the ability to look over the request first. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:19, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
If you didn't see it, I included seven links from Google News in the talk page (5 1 2 3 4 6 7) - if any of these are not RS then tell me. The user that created the article, User:Bartolomeorastrelli has only 48 edits. You stated "you only put WP:PRIMARY sources in the article" but I made no edits to the article, just the talk page. I'd appreciate it if you could userfy it for my now, so I can fix it for Bartolomeorastrelli. Deleting articles by users with 48 edits in a manner that they can't understand or find opaque is, in my opinion, a sure way to drive inexperienced editors from the project. -- Aronzak (talk) 11:39, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
  • @Aronzak: I still kind of don't like restoring an A7 without the deleting admin's OK, especially if I'm not overly familiar with that admin's editing style. If it'd been by an admin I was more familiar with I'd be more likely to do it if I know that they'd approve it, but I'm still kind of uncomfortable with reinstating an A7 without waiting for the deleting admin to weigh in. The thing is, A7 deletions can't be restored through WP:REFUND and you have to ask the deleting admin to reinstate it. If they decline you (or haven't been on Wikipedia for a very long period of time) then you can go through deletion review at WP:DRV. The thing is, I've reinstated articles that were deleted via A7 before and it ended up that the admin various reasons they didn't want to restore it. This doesn't look like it'd be one of those cases, but I'd still prefer to wait for GB fan to have a chance to log back in and restore the article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:46, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

WP:Co-op: Presentation at Wikimania 2015

Hey ReaderofthePack. I've put in a submission for a presentation at Wikimania 2015 called Is Two the Magic Number?: The Co-op and New Editor Engagement through Mentorship. I'll be talking about the state of finding help spaces on en.wiki and how our new mentorship space, The Co-op, factors into that picture. Reviewing will begin soon and I'll need your help to be able to present our work. Please review our proposal and give us feedback. If you would be interested in seeing this presentation, whether you are attending or not, please add your name to the signup at the bottom of the proposal (you do not need to attend Wikimania to express interest in presentations). I, JethroBT drop me a line on behalf of Wikipedia:Co-op.

(Opt-out Instructions) This message was send by Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:19, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

International Union of Bilateral Chambers of Commerce and Industry

Hi Tokyogirl79 ! Thank you for your support with the article about the International Union of Bilateral Chambers of Commerce and Industry and for moving it to Draft. I've made some changes on the article, please if you can just take a look and let me know if it is ok now and if i should continue. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivladoiu (talk • contribs) 00:48, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Battered Soles

Thanks for your comments on Draft:Battered Soles. As you suggested, I've asked at WP:RS/N about the reliability of the review in Pickle Me This. You may be right, but I'm not sure what I'm missing in the applicable guidelines and policies. I'll see what the consensus is.

I was surprised that you couldn't confirm the content of the Winnipeg Free Press review. When I follow the link and scroll to the bottom of the page, I see the review, albeit buried in all the other text from that page of the paper, and with all formatting removed. Perhaps WFP only makes it available for free to users in certain locations or something. Earlier I encouraged the author of the draft to incorporate material from it, but maybe she can't see it either.

You may be right about Prairie Fire, it could just be a capsule review. I guess I'm WP:AGF that the editor who first added it didn't make it up and correctly evaluated its quality as a source. I'm trying to get hold of a print copy.

I don't think you should assume that a source is unusable just because you haven't been able to view it to verify it. That seems to go against WP:SOURCEACCESS. In any case, thanks for your time reviewing the draft. I didn't accept it through AfC myself because I'd contributed to it and wanted a second opinion. I can't carp if I disagree with some parts of that opinion :-) Worldbruce (talk) 09:28, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Well... without seeing it we can't really tell if it's going to be usable or not. There have been a lot of times in the past where I'd assumed that something was usable, only for someone to come forward with a fuller copy of the text and say that it wasn't usable because it was too brief to be used. (This happened a lot with Highbeam before I got approved for an account.) Basically, there have been too many cases where people have argued for a source, only to find out that it wasn't usable. I know that in one instance I had to write out an entire book passage in my userspace in order to show that a book mention was lengthy enough to be used as a RS since the book wasn't really available in Google Books at that point in time and looking for terms in the book didn't bring up any visible results. It's just that easy for people to contest sources, especially if they're difficult to view. In any case about the WFP, it may be that I'm on my work computer, which can sometimes restrict views. I'll try to take a look at it when I get home and see if that makes a difference. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:13, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Thanks for the note Tokyogirl. Done! (I am a little bummed that you AREN'T actually from Japan, but I'll get over it :-)

Internegative (talk) 16:36, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

A bowl of strawberries for you!

For you! Wgolf (talk) 01:45, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Jennifer A. Nielsen

The article Jennifer A. Nielsen has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this newly created biography of a living person will be deleted unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Wgolf (talk) 01:44, 27 February 2015 (UTC)


well looks like what happened was someone edited a redirect you made-if you want it to go back to a redirect go ahead! Wgolf (talk) 01:45, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Troubletwisters Series

Hi Tokyogirl79, ive just assessed the above article for child lit as start and mid importance but noticed that the project banner says - This redirect does not require a rating on the project's quality scale. - is this an issue? (it still showed up on the unassessed articles page of child lit). thanks Coolabahapple (talk) 14:58, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Concerning: Recent Article Review

Hello. I have responded to the review for the' False production' article. It can be found at the Articles for creation help desk.

I highly appreciate your timely and professional response.

Habatchii (talk) 15:14, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Could I ask your opinion on this?

Hi, I hope this isn't an inappropriate thing to do (if,so, I apologise), but as I don't know you very well and you have no connection to Israel-Palestine topics as far as I know, I figure you're a good person to ask about this. Could I get your opinion on these edits? I made a comment in this RFC about now the topic of how to represent Jerusalem and how it was becoming unnecessarily complicated. Unfortunately, I phrased it in a very unfortunate manner. "What a tangled thread we weave" (thread to avoid using web, which would make it sound like I was saying someone was lying). Unfortunately another user (I would highlight, but I don't want a fight to cause disruption on your talk page) took it in a way I didn't intend and in retrospect, can't quite understand, and things got bad. I would appreciate it if you could look at all the diffs and give me your opinion as a neutral party. I think this is better than me further giving my side of the story as that would be tainted by my own perceptions and emotions. I'm trying to figure out what our disagreement is over and what I might be doing wrong here/not seeing. Thank you very much for your time. First Second Third Fourth Fifth Sixth and Seventh. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 9 Adar 5775 01:03, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Creating an article on a self-published novel

Hi there! I have a question for you (or anyone else that might be watching your page). I got it into my head that I wanted to create an article on Autumn, a self-published novel by David Moody. Mostly because I like it. The problem is that I've been able to find very few reviews: Time Out, Dread Central, and Kirkus Reviews. Think that's enough? Or would it be better to create an article about the entire series? Would that survive Afd if each book had only a couple reviews?

On an somewhat related note, I felt all proud of myself when I gathered enough interviews and other sources from my searches to possibly improve Moody's article. And then I noticed that you had already added every source I found. A year ago. I'm trying not to be bitter. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:14, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

  • XD Don't be bitter! I'll see what I can find about this. I don't know about the Kirkus Review source since they started doing paid reviews in the last few years. Those are labeled Kirkus Indie (and this isn't one of those reviews) but it'd probably get dumped on if it came to AfD. I think that offhand it'd probably be better to do one for the whole series instead of the individual novels. You can always create articles for the book and then redirect them to the main series page if you think that you may be able to find additional sources over time, though. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:19, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I was afraid the Kirkus source might be unhelpful. Moody's official website has a really extensive list of reviews linked, but most of them are blogs. I'll admit that books aren't my strong suit, so if you've got any advice or help, that'd be appreciated. I tried checking WikiProject Novels, but it seems pretty dead over there. Mostly, I'm worried that any article about a self-published book will face intense scrutiny. I've created a few articles on books (eg, Zombie Movies: The Ultimate Guide), but these are mainstream, traditionally published books with a large number of reviews. If you think it's best to do a single article on the entire series, I'll do that instead. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:48, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oh yeah- that's a given. I remember getting into a bit of an argument at an AfD once where someone tried to argue against notability just by saying it was a self-published book, which I objected to on the basis that I didn't want people to automatically assume that sp books were non-notable, which is something that's a pretty big trend right now. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:03, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
    • That's frustrating. I can't imagine a more tempting target than self-published genre fiction. Although, I did run into someone who deliberately created unreferenced microstubs on obviously notable topics. The idea was to disruptively make a point about heavy-handed speedy deletion on NPP. Unsurprisingly, he was blocked shortly after berating several overly enthusiastic patrolers. Anyway, I haven't started that article yet. I'm so lazy. But thanks for the sources! NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:29, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Co-op: Mentor profiles and final pilot prep

Hey mentors, two announcements:

  1. You can now make your profile at The Co-op! Please set up your mentor profile here as soon as you are able, as the pilot begins on March 4th. It isn't very involved and should only take a minute. If you need more info about what the different skills mean (e.g. writing, communication), please refer to these descriptions.
  2. Profile creation, invitations, and automated matching of editors, profile creation, that will be coordinated through HostBot and a few gadgets may not be ready for our pilot, and will have to be done manually until they are ready. In preparation for the pilot, please read over these instructions on how we will be manually performing these tasks until the automated components are ready. I, JethroBT drop me a line on behalf of Wikipedia:Co-op.

(Opt-out Instructions) This message was send by Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:42, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

inre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monkey Kingdom

My explanation of my !vote: WP:NFF tells us how we may determine if "the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines." It does not state coverage must somehow be only about the unreleased film itself when it states "the production" (of the film). The trailer brought the production the requisite media attention allowing us information about "the production" that can use to inform out readers... plot, cast, crew, shoot locations, etc. The film is to be released in just 6 weeks and exceptions can be through common sense application of policy. I believe the article is a suitable stub that will be expanded and improved. Schmidt, Michael Q. 23:30, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Request on 16:24:05, 5 March 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by ZRay22


Help on Conscience: Taxes for Peace not War draft

Hi there, my page was rejected with a NPOV tag and I have just resubmitted.


Hi there, I have removed any references to Conscience's website and replaced those links from other sources including BBC news, Huffington Post and the Backbencher. I have also added a Controversies section featuring criticism of Conscience found in the London Telegraph to remove any NPOV concerns. Please let me know if that deals with your concerns :)

ZRay22 (talk) 16:24, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

IP user removing sources

The IP editor who was removing sources, 165.228.41.149 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), is still at it, especially at Stormbreaker (film), where the editor has been edit warring to remove mention of The Numbers in favor of Box Office Mojo. I posting to the IP's talk page, I tried posting to the article talk page, and I've run through the templated warnings. The problem is that I've seen similar issues declined at AIV recently as "not vandalism". If I go to ANI again, I'm afraid that it's just going to turn into another long debate about whether I'm overreacting to the IP's edits. I'm not really sure what to do. I requested temporary page protection as an interim solution, but SummerPhD suggested that maybe this was not the best idea when I asked her for advice. So, now I ask you: what in the world am I supposed to do? I'm beginning to think that maybe I should just take the page off my watchlist and let the IP editor do what he/she will, as I'm tired of fighting over this. I agree with many of the IP's edits, but there seems to be no way at all to discuss the ones with which I disagree. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:01, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Rebecca Donovan

Hi Tokyo girl, would you be willing to revisit your nomination of Rebecca Donovan for deletion? There do seem to have been sources sugarscape.com, Boston Globe and some others that eluded you. Best, E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:45, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

  • E.M.Gregory I've replied on there, but I have to caution you about your tone. You need to assume good faith when it comes to nominations. Saying that the editor did not do a proper WP:BEFORE procedure doesn't come across as very good faith, nor does calling other editors' nominations of articles "dumb". Furthermore, when you say that searches coming up blank are "patently untrue", understand that you are implying that the editor is lying about performing a thorough search. If you have questions about the search procedure, then the best thing to do is ask how and where they searched for articles or to just quietly put the sources on the page and vote "keep". Not only does the comments on the Donovan AfD come across as a bit of a personal attack against my editing, but it also makes me extremely concerned that you may be doing this to other editors. I'm used to getting questioned since I'm a very frequent editor and an admin, but please understand that this sort of thing can run off other editors if they think that you are not assuming good faith. Not only can this be seen as aggressive behavior, but it also puts a lot of people on the defensive when it comes to AfDs and interacting with you, especially since we cannot see inflections, body language, and general gestures on the Internet. You may not have intended anything you've said to come across as as overly negative, but that's how it can come across and it really isn't beneficial in the slightest. If you do think that someone (even myself) frequently make bad nominations then bring it up on the editor's talk page or go to WP:ANI or to another admin. Don't use the AfD as a place to complain about that editor or about other editors. That's not what AfD is for. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:55, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
  • E.M.Gregory I'm also going to reply on this here so I don't drag out the AfD with more comments but... I do want to say that I was fairly offended that you remarked that I was overly confrontation and driving away female editors. A large bulk of my conversation was about how I did not see your earlier comments as having good faith. Now while I know you wanted to prove your point with notability and to a degree I can respect that, but did you stop to think that maybe I did see the comments as bad faith and harassment that might come across as something that would drive this particular female editor away from Wikipedia? Just because I'm nominating the article for deletion and thus is likely to have an opposing viewpoint doesn't mean that all of my comments should have been seen as something to throw to the side. I'm not permanently leaving Wikipedia, but I do think that you need to think about how your comments come across to other people. Holding a long series of comments with another editor about how you believe that few nominators do a proper search (even going so far as to say things that come across as you saying that people are deliberately not putting information in pages) and that the nominations are "dumb" does not really come across well. That's the sort of thing that should be held on talk pages, not at AfDs because it's so easy to assume that you're indirectly talking about the nominator. If you were the nominator and someone started doing the same thing (and you genuinely believe that you're right and you did a thorough search), wouldn't you be offended? Especially if that person started accusing you of being "part of the problem" with Wikipedia? Especially if that person was making comments that gave off the impression that they had done zero research on your prior edits on Wikipedia? It's extremely offputting, to say the least. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:15, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I mean, the big thing is that by commenting on all of these other AfDs and nominations in my AfD (rather than each other's talk pages) it really comes across like you are indirectly saying those things about my nomination. If you did something and then people started making comments about how other people who did the same stuff were wrong and their actions were "dumb" then don't you think that it would come across like they were trying to insult you? Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:29, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
  • E.M.Gregory One last comment. This isn't about "winning". Frankly, if you'd commented on the sources without the long drawn out discussion about the other AfDs and the other editors, I would't have thought anything about it and might even have been more willing to work with you. However you really need to understand that this is why you need to be careful about where you discuss things adn how you discuss them. If you mention multiple faults with other AfDs or editors on another AfD then odds are high that someone will assume that you are indirectly talking about them- especially if you follow the comments up with more comments that also give the impression that you were indirectly talking about that person. It's an easy thing to do, considering how often I see people do this on various AfDs on Wikipedia, and it's especially easy to do since you are not personally there to provide inflections and body language to show that you are not talking about that specific nominator or AfD. Even if you think that the AfD was about me "winning", I really want you to take away from this that you should likely think about how your wording may come across to other people. I do have to assure you that my harshness on the sources is not about me winning, but because I want to ensure that if/when an article is kept at AfD, that it won't be nominated again a few months later for a lack of coverage. While I can understand your passion for wanting to keep articles, the sad truth is that notablity guidelines are strict and a lot of the people, items, and topics may deserve an article, they also may not have the depth of coverage to really survive an AfD. Heck, a great example of this would be many of the horror authors from the 1980s. Many of them were household names and sold exceedingly well, yet they never gained the coverage to pass notability guidelines. Another example would be several erotica authors like Sunny, who are popular but never really gained that much coverage.
My point with the sources was mostly that when I have an article up for AfD and argue against it, it's rarely because I want to win but because I want to ensure that the article will be safe from deletion from that point onwards. When trying to keep articles I try to avoid making arguments based on passion or anything that would fall into WP:NOT because that's a good way to get an argument depreciated, particularly if the article goes back to AfD.
At the very least please try not to discuss other AfDs or other editors' activities on another AfD. I've been assured by another editor that you likely didn't mean it that way, but please understand: it's extremely easy for people to take comments in a way you did not intend. That's why when you are at AfD it's a good idea to stay on the topic of that particular AfD unless those other AfDs or editors are extremely pertinent to that AfD. If you think that there is a bad trend of unreasonable nominations at AfD and its' done by a very general set of editors, take that up on the AfD page or on a user talk page. Do not use another AfD to talk about that because it runs the risk of turning into what you see here. It's just that easy for things to be taken in a completely different manner than what you intended. In all fairness that looks like it's what was happening with the things I was saying to you, as you're now assuming that everything I'm writing to you from this point on will be an attempt to "win".
I do think that this last bit is good advice, but I'm afraid that you are just doing to discredit it because you think I'm doing "sour grapes". I can't stress enough: please be careful with what you write and where you write it. Don't censor yourself, but please try to consider that what you write can have different connotations depending on where you are saying them. You've only been editing on Wikipedia since September of last year, so you haven't yet had the ability to experience this more fully, but I again have to ask you: please be careful of what you say and where you say them. I can't say that enough because if you hadn't used the AfD as a forum to talk about other nominations and editors, odds are that I probably would have just shrugged this off or been more calm in talking to you. I'm not trying to say that I couldn't have phrased myself more clearly at the AfD, but you could have as well. This is getting long and rambling, but I hope that you will take this into consideration, otherwise I can guarantee that you likely will run into other people that react as I have. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:49, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

User-reported

I have made a report on a user due to multiple issues such as vandalism, dispute edit, criticizing me and original research. I am wondering that I am reported on right place. Please have a look. Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism > User:Jaimal.sumbria --AntonTalk 14:26, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Rebecca Donovan

Hi! I looked again at the article, and left a comment on its talk page, to the effect that the publishing party sentence makes the article weaker rather than stronger. I agree with your reasoning for the AFD, but did not feel strongly enough either way to !vote. If it does not improve from the current state, eventually it will get nominated for AFD again. — Neonorange (talk) 01:59, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Involuntary celibacy

RFC is up, comments would be appreciated. :) Valoem talk contrib 20:05, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Alan Watts - Tao: The Watercourse Way

Thanks so much for your great contibutions & improvements! I was so angry when I saw my stub was proposed for deletion, I ignored it from then on - I had trouble finding refs online that would justify its importance, but you have done a great job! D A Patriarche, BSc (talk) (talk) 02:41, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

11:04:01, 17 March 2015 review of submission by Drowz0r


Not requesting a re-review just advice from the same reviewer if possible. I have removed items that had citations which weren't considered much good by wiki and added some more third party citations so most are now from third party, not primary. Tone has changed some - but I'll be doing some more of that. There is still work to do on the article, need to add a couple more citations... I'm just trying to get an idea if the article has been improved or if I'm going down the wrong track.

Thanks

Drowz0r (talk) 11:04, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

17:30:41, 20 March 2015 review of submission by Consumptionsgirls


Consumptionsgirls (talk) 17:30, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi, one question for an draft page

Oyecrystal (talk) 21:23, 20 March 2015 (UTC)Hi Tokyogirl79

I found Bezalel Inc. under item of Bezalel was removed to draft because of the problem of verifiable reference. Actually, I knew this wireless charger from one technical event, and I think it is really cool! And, I just found more reference from News organization, like LA times, etc. Maybe we can post it. Maybe someone want do more edit to it.

Thanks!Oyecrystal (talk) 21:23, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

SCP Foundation‎

Hello, it appears that you create protected this page on 30 January 2014. I was wondering if you could unprotect it, as Draft:SCP Foundation seems to be supported by independent reliable sources, such as CNET and the subject now appears to be notable. Thank you. Puffin Let's talk! 18:43, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

23:09:58, 23 March 2015 review of submission by MustaphaNG


Thanks for your help, i figured i had some unreliable sources on the article and i have taken them off. 360nobs, Jaguda and other sources left do have an editorial team that review each content before posting hence, making them very reliable. Will look forward to my article on the mainspace. Thanks again.

MustaphaNG (talk) 23:09, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

18:59:10, 23 March 2015 review of submission by SEOMozinator


Hello. I have received a message from you that article about Google pagespeed tools has been declined due to unreliable sources. At the same time all sources i have provided are from actual official Google Developers pages, official Google Coder blog, official Google WebmasterTools Central Portal or well-known and respectful SEO web news portals like searchengineland.com. Obviously, there are no newspaper articles about this subject, since it's only web-existant and I have never heard about any newspapers or magazines, writing about this subjects, which are known/ well-respected in SEO world. So, my question is which of sources, I have provided, are unreliable, and can you give me suggestions on what type of sources would be considered reliable concerning this topic? SEOMozinator (talk) 18:59, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Here's a layout of the sources:
Title
  1. [3] The problem with this source is that it looks to be one of the blogs that HuffPo runs on its website. If it was a staff member then it might be usable, but from what I can see on Ivanovs's profile he's one of the bloggers. If you can show that this went through the HuffPo's editorial staff then it could be usable.
  2. [4] This one does have an editorial staff and it was written by a staff member, so it should be usable.
  3. [5] This is a WP:PRIMARY source. The thing about primary sources is that while they can be used to back up basic details, they cannot be used to show notability.
  4. [6] This looks to be a self published blog-type post and per WP:SPS it would not be usable as a reliable source. If you can prove that the blog is routinely quoted in reliable sources (not primary ones that are associated with him or other blogs) as a reliable and authoritative source, then it can be used. The thing to remember here is that while a person could be a reliable source in other outlets, this doesn't automatically mean that their blogs or personal websites would be considered automatically reliable since those are self-published sources.
  5. [7] This is a routine database type listing and at best they're considered WP:TRIVIAL sources. They can prove that the tool exists and that the developer's page can be accessed, but they cannot show notability. This is because it's generally expected that anything that can be indexed in a database (businesses, software, tools, people, etc) will be indexed somewhere. In many instances the database entries are edited or submitted by the developer, so it can sometimes also be viewed as a primary source.
  6. [8] This is another database type listing. In this instance it looks like this is the type that is usually created via information submitted by the developer, so this is a good example of the type that's a primary source at the same time.
  7. [9] This one was sort of iffy because I couldn't see where this was a staff member's article and the person who wrote it is in marketing. That doesn't automatically mean that the person who wrote it was hired to market Page Speed, but it is enough to where I'd recommend running this through WP:RS/N, the reliable sources noticeboard. I also didn't entirely see where there was anything that said that the contributed articles were edited, so again, this is something that should be run through the noticeboard.
  8. [10] The problem with this one was mostly that I didn't see where it really discussed Google PageSpeed. It discussed things that GPS would cover, but it was never actually named in the article and unless the articles state that it's about this specific tool then we have to assume that they're talking about web tools in a general manner. I also didn't really see anything about the website's editorial process, so that was another reason that it came off as unreliable per Wikipedia's purposes. The reason why a transparent editorial process is so important is that there are a lot of websites that accept articles "as is". Sometimes they'll state it outright on the article's page (usually by saying something about the content being only the work of the author, doesn't reflect their views, and so on), but in many cases you have to really hunt to find evidence that the editorial staff actively edits articles that are written by people who aren't staff members.
  9. [11] This is a page in a marketing website and they're a Google Certified Partner, so that gives off the impression that they were hired by Google to write about GPS or would at the very least have a vested interest in writing about them.
  10. [12] This one was like Smashing Magazine in that it never explicitly mentioned GPS and there wasn't really anything to show the site's editorial process.
  11. [13] This also didn't mention GPS. There were also concerns about the editorial process, but mostly it was that it didn't mention GPS.
  12. [14] This didn't mention GPS. The writer is an editor for the site, so otherwise there was no issue.
  13. [15] This one was sort of iffy. It is about GPS and there is an editorial process per this page, but I can't quite tell if they edit the contributed posts or not. It's another one I'd run through WP:RS/N.
  14. [16] This one is usable. It's about GPS and is by a staff member. The only thing to be careful about with TC articles is that sometimes they're heavily based on press releases, but this doesn't seem to be the case with this article.
So far there were only three articles that really sort of passed muster- the rest were primary sources, didn't mention GPS in the article, or had issues with the editorial oversight. I'd recommend running ProgrammableWeb and Search Engine Lab through WP:RS/N to really give them close scrutiny and if they pass muster there, then they can be used to show notability. I don't know that HyperLinksMedia would be usable because of the connection, but it'd be worth mentioning as well. If these are approved then they could push it pass the notability barrier. One thing to be careful of, however, is that you need to make sure that none of the articles were written by someone who is involved with Google or the tool itself at a level where that would pose a WP:COI. That's usually the main thing that proves to be an issue with anything computer, internet, or software related since there can be a lot of people working with the topic at some level, especially if it's open source. I will openly admit that I am fairly strict with notability, but that's partially because I want to ensure that when it does pass through AfC that it doesn't get second guessed. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:30, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

10:55:38, 23 March 2015 review of submission by Maybelline Ooi


Maybelline Ooi (talk) 10:55, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Dear Tokyogirl79, Thank you for your comments. I have since added some references based on your suggestions. Are these considered reliable? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Queen_Silvia_Nursing_Award

Maybelline Ooi (talk) 10:55, 23 March 2015 (UTC)Maybel

Hi Maybelline Ooi
I have had a look at the 4 references you have included in Draft:Queen Silvia Nursing Award
Here are some comments on them:
So, although, providing info about the award I would not say that they are reliable sources.
Here are some great wiki info that I have found useful in this regard - General notability guideline WP:GNG,
Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, Wikipedia:Independent sources WP:IS, Primary, secondary and tertiary sources WP:PRIMARY
Coolabahapple (talk) 00:14, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you

Hey Tokygirl79, the comment you posted on the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Journey_To_The_Forbidden_China was immensely helpful, I've been working on improving the article to make sure it is up to snuff. I can't thank you enough and I appreciate your offer to help. I just graduated and as such no longer have access to my university's library or catalog resources. Once again, thank you, and have a great day! You're helping me learn how to navigate wikipedia's rules much better, the examples were exactly what I needed. Clone019 (talk) 16:06, 23 March 2015 (UTC)Clone019

  • Clone019: I can help look for those sources with my college's databases, so I'll try to get to that later on tonight. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:32, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Done! I found a ton of sources and since you've already submitted it, I've accepted it to the mainspace. My only concern is that rather than include a section on the controversy, we may want to briefly mention it in the article's lead and redirect them to the section on the author's article that goes into more depth. I kind of edited it some to fit what sourcing I could find, but I'm fairly sure that I borked it up in the process since the expulsion affair had a lot going on. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:46, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Csw1854

Tokyogirl79, can you help with review the block of Csw1854 (talk · contribs)? The editor behind this account made an unblock request yesterday which I declined. In looking at his edits, I was able to easily see his addition of a draft article which was an exact duplicate of the deleted article here. I made a critical error and mis-read the timestamps; csw1854's submission pre-dated the sock edits which moved the article into mainspace, making this easily explainable as the socks copying his work and not vice-versa. I didn't see anything else at the sock investigation other than this, and I don't see anything independently suspicious. Any objection to unblocking, or is there more to this? Kuru (talk) 14:34, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

One more bump on this. Kuru (talk) 11:05, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

11:20:50, 24 March 2015 review of submission by Maybelline Ooi


Maybelline Ooi (talk) 11:20, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Dear Tokyogirl79,

I appreciate @Coolabahapple's comments regarding the notability of my sources. I have given another attempt to improve my content as well as the references. I would like to know if I am on the right track now.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Queen_Silvia_Nursing_Award

I am grateful for the help and support I got from the editorial community. Thank you so much!

Maybelline Ooi (talk) 11:20, 24 March 2015 (UTC)Maybel

Fair Stone Standard review

Hi Tokyogirl79,

thanks for your review of my wikipedia article about the Fair Stone Standard. I updated the article and the text segments in question. Are there other parts where a formal tone is missing? Off-topic: Got any good and new shoujo manga to recommend? I still need a present for my girlfriend ;)

Greetings from Germany! FairStoneLabel (talk) 08:13, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Hmm... I don't read as much shoujo as I used to and a lot of what I do tends to be scanlations, but here's what I've been looking at recently: I've heard that The Devil Is a Part-Timer! is supposed to be pretty good, as is Love at Fourteen. Those aren't shoujo, though, since the former is seinen and the latter is josei. My Little Monster is pretty good and that's definitely shoujo, so I'd recommend that. My Love Story!! is freaking awesome, mostly because it's lead character is an incredibly likable character and because it's slightly unusual to have a male lead like that. Kamisama Kiss is also one that I've heard a lot of good things about, and that's also shoujo. If she's really OK with fanservice and I mean really OK with it, Monster Mutsume is surprisingly good. I'd initially dismissed it as wank fodder due to some of the pictures I've seen of the manga on the Internet, but at it's heart it has a pretty decent story (of sorts). It kind of reminds me of Tenchi Muyo with how the harem is set up. I can also recommend some new light novels since there's been some really good ones out lately. Yen Press has published quite a few and I recommend the following: Is It Wrong to Try to Pick Up Girls in a Dungeon?, Accel World, and Sword Art Online. It took me a while to get into light novels since I didn't really get into the Haruhi Suzumiya or Spice and Wolf series, but these are pretty fun to read, especially the Dungeon series since they have a fairly unique perspective on JRPGs. Heh... has she read the Puella Magi Madoka Magica mangas? That's an interesting spin on the whole idea of shoujo, as is Magical Girl Apocalypse. They're both seinen, but they have shoujo elements.
Now as far as the article goes it's kind of tough to say specific points because there are bits here and there that are sort of iffy. They're not technically promotional/non-formal, but they're written in a way that could set off some editors' spidey sense, which is sort of what happened with me. I'm going to bring in a third opinion on the page since it may be possible that I'm being too strict, which is entirely a possibility. I'll also tag King of Hearts in this conversation since he closed the original AfD for Fair Stone back in 2009 and could probably help give a good opinion on Draft:Fair Stone as well. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:38, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

————————————————————————————————————

  • Whoa, thanks alot for that comprehensive list. You do know your stuff... Im more of an anime and shounen guy and shoujo doesn't really tickle my fancy. Will check out your tips!
  • I watched Sword Art Online, but found the second season to be lacking and never finished it. Does the story pick up? My time resources are not what they used to be... I miss my studies ;)
  • I've only ever really read the light novels, which are pretty good so far. I've finished the third volume, but I will admit that I am a little afraid that it'll get somewhat redundant as the series progresses since later story arcs seem to take place over multiple volumes. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:08, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Request on 08:56:55, 26 March 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Maybelline Ooi


Dear Tokyogirl79,

Thank you for reviewing my submission previously. I have taken your comments into the editing. Could I know if I am on the right track with regards to the notability of the references?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Queen_Silvia_Nursing_Award

Thank you in advance!

Maybelline Ooi (talk) 08:56, 26 March 2015 (UTC)Maybel

Maybelline Ooi (talk) 08:56, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Hmm... I've re-written portions of it to take some promotional-ish language out and I've added some sources into the article. I'm leaning towards it passing notability guidelines now. There's still an issue with some of the sources sort of being primary or database type listings, but the scholarship does get news coverage each year when the recipients are announced. I'm somewhat on the fence still with this one, but I think that I will approve it based on the news sources I found along with the news sources you had in the article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:45, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Cybernatural 2014 poster.jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Cybernatural 2014 poster.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 16:15, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ReaderofthePack/Archive_16&oldid=1077710543"