User talk:ReaderofthePack/Archive 18

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 → Archive 25

Caldecott Medal Holly Keller Talk:When Francie Was Sick plus others

Hi Tokyogirl79, yesterday i noticed that an editor had made a number of random incorrect edits to the Caldecott Medal article. Following this up i found that they did the same to a number of other articles. These have been reverted by me and other editors, but they are at it again. one of them has made quite a few edits and attempted to create some articles in talk pages, so could be okay with some assistance? Here are their contributions: [1] [2]. Are you able to look into this as it is getting late where i am, and i need some snooze time:) thanks Coolabahapple (talk) 13:52, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

  • I've given them a vandalism warning since one of the talk page edits looked to be clear vandalism (a children's book wouldn't have "son of a bitch glasses", lol) but they do seem to be otherwise non-intentional in their vandalism. I'll issue a teahouse invite as well. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:09, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Admin's Barnstar
For helping to delete all the random things Keegan (talk) 07:20, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Class Volunteer: Thank You!

Hi Tokyogirl79! I see that you are on my classes as an online volunteer. Thank you so much for your support! I meant to say something earlier, but the students are keeping me VERY busy. A little too busy, actually. HullIntegrity\ talk / 14:50, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

  • No problem! I hope I can be of good help - I know that my school is keeping me busy, but this is definitely something that I think is pretty awesome. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:15, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Selvin (actor)

Hi, I'm rather surprised that you are working to keep this article, given that it has been deleted twice by two different admins. The editor is a serial remover of SD tags and has recreated virtually unchanged from the previous versions. I'm reluctant to delete or tag for a speedy again given your involvement, I just wanted to check that you were aware of the history, thanks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:07, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

  • I was going to delete it, but I hesitated since there were some film reviews out there in avenues that are typically considered reliable sources. My rule of thumb is that if I think an article has somewhat of a chance of succeeding at deletion review, I'll decline it in favor of taking it to AfD. This guy has just enough coverage to where it isn't really a clean speedy. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:50, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Vincent Godino

With regards to you saying that Vincent Godino is a hoax. I can appreciate you not understanding the validity for the references I've provided. Please understand, a lot of information (certificates, awards and other valid information) was discarded by a very bad and jealous father. I DO however, have photos, some awards and plaques, with my name on them to prove the validity of all statements being made.

Let me know how you can help me and I can prove to you that I am what I say I am.

Regards,

Vincent Godino (````) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.227.15.206 (talk) 19:00, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

  • You'd have to show coverage in independent and reliable sources- just showing plaques and photos of things in your possession would not be enough to establish notability. A good start would be to show something like a baseball website (like the Baseball Reference website that Muboshgu mentioned at AfD) that lists you as a player. If you're not listed on one of the bigger MLB websites then that's pretty troubling since one of the lowest thresholds at WP:BASEBALL/N is that you had to have played in at least one major league game. If you played at the minor leagues (per the Mets claim) then that doesn't automatically mean that you would pass notability guidelines- many minor league players don't. However before you can even include your name on one of the minor league lists somewhere on Wikipedia you would still need some proof that you played with them via a RS other than your photographs. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:57, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Melanie Specht (2nd nomination)

Chandana Jayasinghe(Sri Lanka), the creator of the page is now trying to discredit another user who voted to delete the page saying they are an single purpose account when they are not. They are argumentative and using logic that doesn't even make sense in an AfD. Any help to simmer this situation until close? LADY LOTUS • TALK 11:32, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Wow... that's pretty extensive. I'll see what I can contribute. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:20, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
  • @Lady Lotus: I've tried, but he seems pretty gung ho about arguing his point and has now resorted to what I'd say are personal attacks and borderline harassment. I've formally asked him to walk away from the AfD, but if he doesn't stop then I'd recommend taking this to ANI since now he's just harassing any editors coming into the AfD. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:12, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
  • If you do, let me know- I'm off work this weekend and I have my sister's kids over, but I'll try to give my side of everything, although I'm sure that they could guess that from the AfD comments. I was trying to give the other editor the benefit of the doubt but at this point he's soaring pretty solidly into bad faith territory. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:18, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Indonesia Seven Summits Women Expedition

Thank you to make it a draft: Draft:Indonesia Women Seven Summits Expedition. I hope it can be an article as its sibling Indonesia Seven Summits Expedition. But I cannot update it fast due to the expedition is running and take two years to accomplish.Gsarwa (talk) 15:19, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

My Courses

Hey! Thanks for your suggestions and links. I also wanted to let you know that my students are on an alternate schedule and still have five weeks to go so, hopefully, we will clean up citations by then. Cheers, HullIntegrity\ talk / 21:53, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

  • No problem- I figured that the schedules might be a little off. Mostly I wanted to post this since a few were making edits to the mainspace and there were a few issues with sourcing such as one student linking to a NYPL search results. I figured that I'd put this on the page just in case. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:22, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Kevin Doherty (filmmaker)

Hi TG, if I may abbreviate! I'm following up on the copyright bot's tag of this article. It was obviously a mirror of the prod-deleted version from February. Can you check the deleted version and see if the substantive authorship is the same, or if a history-merge might be needed to properly attribute the material that was "duplicated"? Thanks! CrowCaw 22:17, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

  • @Crow: I think that I'll just restore the article's history so that this will be clear. I've removed the bulk of the article's content since a lot of it was unsourced, but having the article's history to check out wouldn't be a bad idea. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:22, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
  • That works too, thanks! CrowCaw 22:18, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

coi editor

you said just the right things. thanks. we will gradually develop proper responses for this sort of thing DGG ( talk ) 06:33, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

  • No problem- it really burned my biscuit that they were trying to say that this was being done purely because they were a COI editor. It's extremely rare that you would even mention that in an AfD. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:45, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Assuming this is the issue involving me, thank you very much for dealing with it. Their articles were substandard, their undisclosed paid editing was not okay, and their resorting to attacking me was definitely unacceptable. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:38, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Draft:MTrain Tour

Please see this draft article. Would it be worth approving this and putting at MTrain Tour (which you protected against recreation)? Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:43, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

You were mentioned in a student essay

Not sure if you've seen this yet, but some students wrote about their experience going through AfC in the classroom and how you helped them out with it. [3] Winner 42 Talk to me! 16:53, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Rape jihad afds

Hi Tokyogirl79, i have posted the following message on FreeatlastChitchat talk as i was a little bit peeved that i was unable to put in my 5 cents worth:)

Hi FreeatlastChitchat, just wondering why i wasn't pinged for the 4th nomination even though i commented on the 2nd nomination with a suggestion that it might be a keep? See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rape jihad (2nd nomination) Also, im a bit confused about the timing of the final two nominations - 4th opened 0605 on 13 April (only two days after previous nomination was closed?) and closed at 1534 on 13 April and then the 5th nomination opened at 17:39 on 10 May 2015 and closed at 17:01, 11 May 2015. I am also copying this message (with some more words:)) to Tokyogirl79 an administrator who may be able to clear up the timing issues of this afd avalanche and puts up with my, at times, naive 'kittenish' comments/questions.thanks, Coolabahapple (talk) 07:20, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Also, are you able to clear up the timing of the afds as they are extremely confusing for a wikieditor like me, let alone a casual reader who may stumble across them....
And a question about the red rape jihad page, here is the log at the top:
This page has been deleted. The deletion and move log for the page are provided below for reference.
17:02, 11 May 2015 Spartaz (talk | contribs) deleted page Rape jihad (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rape jihad (5th nomination) closed as delete)
00:29, 27 March 2015 DGG (talk | contribs) restored page Rape jihad (39 revisions restored: temp undelete)
22:42, 26 March 2015 Hut 8.5 (talk | contribs) deleted page Rape jihad (G4: Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion)
01:38, 4 March 2015 Coffee (talk | contribs) deleted page Rape jihad (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rape jihad)
just wondering why all the afds aren't shown.
and just wondering why a 'redirect' wasn't entertained as i think some curious kittens net readers might google the term, then think about wikisearching it.
and finally (phew!:)),(humor alert!) could this be seen as an example of wp:mobbing or wp:avalanche (where are the wikiarticle on this?), where wikieditors pile on to an issue?
thanks Coolabahapple (talk) 07:20, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Coolabahapple I have to admit that I wasn't aware of the last two AfDs while they were active. I know now that they happened, but at the time I'd been relatively unaware because of how relatively quickly everything happened. Given how controversial everything had been over the article I do think that it might have been slightly better if it'd run for a full week instead of just 1-2 days. In any case, the reason why not all of the AfDs show up on the page for Rape jihad is because the article had been present under a different capitalization. Here's basically the timeline I'm somewhat familiar with:
  1. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rape Jihad September 2013 (first AfD, closed as delete)
  2. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rape jihad March 2014 (second AfD, closed as delete)
  3. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rape jihad (2nd nomination) April 2015 (marked as the second AfD, but this is actually the third AfD for the article, closed as no consensus)
  4. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rape jihad (4th nomination) April 2015 (fourth AfD- the number of this one is changed to reflect on the prior AfDs, closed as speedy keep due to it being too soon to renominate)
  5. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rape jihad (5th nomination) May 2015 (fifth AfD, closed as delete)
The article has only been deleted four times, technically. The first one at Rape Jihad was deleted and never re-created, but the second article at rape jihad was deleted three times: the first time was for an AfD, the second time was as a recreation of a deleted article (but was recreated in order to bring to AfD again), and the last time was for an AfD. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:03, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
thanks for the explanation, yes it would have been nice to have the discussion open for a bit longer, oh well.... next! :) Coolabahapple (talk) 08:45, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Kendriya Vidyalaya, Rayagada

Hello Tokyogirl79. It would be appreciable if I am given one more chance to improve and resubmit the article Draft:Kendriya Vidyalaya, Rayagada Hpsatapathy (talk) 14:09, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

15:45:53, 20 May 2015 review of submission by Puppysnot


Hi Tokyogirl79, thank you for reviewing my draft article. I would like to request a re-review of the article based on the alleged lack of primary sources in Draft:University of Virginia Greek life. I believe that notability was very clearly established, as the university was the birthplace of two national fraternities (in addition to having a very large number of Greek organizations that were significant to the history of the university itself, and significant coverage in national media in the past year). I've looked back through my references, and there are a number of sources that meet WP:RELIABLE, certainly a greater number than required by WP:NOTABILITY. The following are just some of the sources I used that are published, independent, secondary sources permissible under WP:PRIMARY:

The following are also permissible as reliable sources under WP:PRIMARY, which states: "Secondary sources are not necessarily independent or third-party sources. They rely on primary sources for their material, making analytic or evaluative claims about them." The sources listed below meet these guidelines; even though they are related to the University of Virginia, they are published histories that analyze the material and do not rely on the author's own experiences.

  • Jefferson, Cabell, and the University of Virginia, by John S. Patton, Librarian of U.Va. This reliable source was published by The Neale Publishing Company, an independent publisher.
  • Mr. Jefferson's University: A History, by Virginius Dabney. Published by the U.Va. Press and the author was a U.Va. alumnus and fraternity member, but again, a published source that analyzes primary material, making it a reliable secondary source.
  • History of the University of Virginia: 1819-1919, by Philip Alexander Bruce. The author was a U.Va. alum but was a notable historian and the work was published by Macmillan, an independent publisher. The source is secondary and reliable for the same reason as listed above.

With this, I think that there are a very appropriate number of reliable, independent, and secondary sources used in this article. I do use a lot of primary sources as well, but those are mainly for the brief notes about each chapter listed in the tables towards the bottom of the article.

Also, I tried to avoid any issues with WP:PEACOCK, but I'd be happy to go back through and try to remove any phrases that may sound too pro-Greek life.

Thank you for your help, and I hope to hear from you soon. Puppysnot (talk) 15:45, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Puppysnot, the issue with the rape allegation stories is that it could be argued that it's redundant to the article on the false charges and as such, the information about Greek life can be divvied up between the main UVA article and the one on the false charges. However what makes the other sources primary is that Patton is the Librarian of UVA. He's an employee of the college, so that would make him primary. The same thing goes for the one printed by UVA Press, the college's publishing arm, and for the one published by someone who attended UVA. The thing about these isn't that they used primary sources to write their work but that two of the people have direct links to the college and UVA Press is part of the college. Basically, one is an employee of the college and as such, would have a vested interest in writing about the college in a positive manner. The same thing goes for the alumni- since he attended the college there's the potential that his view could be altered by this fact. That UVA's official publishing company could be prone to biases goes without saying, as everything they release is a reflection on the university itself. What makes primary sources unusable is that it's in their best interests to promote themselves and since they are writing about themselves, there's the potential that they could either gloss over facts, eliminate them, or change them. They're not secondary in the slightest and all of the sources here are too close to the topic (UVA and by extension its Greek life). There's also the issue that it's obvious that UVA and its alumni will want to write about the college- the question here is whether or not an independent, secondary source would. In other words, the issue here isn't that the authors are using materials that were released by UVA but that the authors/publisher themselves are very closely affiliated with UVA. You need to have more coverage on Greek life that isn't written or published by someone that is directly affiliated with the school. For example, if Alexander was not an alumni of UVA, his work would be fine to use as a secondary source. However because he's alumni, that makes him a primary source.
Now this doesn't mean that any of these people would compromise the material for their work and odds are that they wouldn't. However the fact is that Wikipedia has had this happen with primary sources to the point where they just can't be used to show notability. In this instance what I'm more worried about isn't that the claims in the article aren't true (although it'd be good to back them up with non-primary sources) but mostly that someone will come in and say that UVA's Greek life has not been covered in secondary, reliable sources apart from the recent coverage about the Rolling Stone controversy and say that it should redirect to the main article. It can and has happened before with college related groups and I've seen some fairly well-known organizations get deleted/redirected to the main article because of a lack of secondary coverage. However you should also gradually try to find non-primary sources to back things up just so you can fact check things. It's something that people tend to ask for with research in general, really. If you research for a living you're eventually going to be asked if you looked at sourcing that wasn't directly released by the subject, just to make sure that you double checked things. Sometimes you find nothing different when you look and the apple is just an apple. Other times you look and find that the apple isn't an apple, but a pear. And then other times you look and the apple is actually a zebra. But again, what I'm more worried about is that someone will come in and lob "not notable" at the article. AfC articles tend to get a pretty bad reputation so they sometimes get scrutinized far more than articles that are just transferred to the mainspace.
What I'm basically asking for here is for you to throw about 2 sources covering UVA's Greek life that are more than just 1 sentence long. For example, this source would be a good secondary, reliable source to add to the article. Geiger isn't affiliated to UVA and the book isn't the UVA publisher, so this would be usable. To a degree this book would be as well. The mentions are pretty insanely brief, but there are two separate mentions on two different pages. A news search didn't really produce much, mostly because there are so many recent articles on the Rolling Stone stuff. Mostly what I want is to be able to say that when/if someone asks about the article's independent notability, I can say that there was enough non-Rolling Stone coverage to where it'd pass notability guidelines independently. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:02, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Tokyogirl79, thanks for your reply and for your advice. I have no problem adding additional sources, I just felt that the article contained enough reliable sources already. Anyway, I have added the two sources that you mentioned as well as a third independent source that briefly mentions a UVa student who helped preserve chapters of Sigma Chi during the Civil War. (This fact is also mentioned in the Encyclopedia of Southern Culture that you linked). I have resubmitted the article for review. In the meantime I will continue to look for more secondary sources.
To address what I said in my last comment, I guess my confusion is with Wikipedia's WP:PRIMARY policy. Under the definition of a "secondary source," the article states: "Secondary sources are not necessarily independent or third-party sources. They rely on primary sources for their material, making analytic or evaluative claims about them....Whether a source is primary or secondary depends on context. A book by a military historian about the Second World War might be a secondary source about the war, but where it includes details of the author's own war experiences, it would be a primary source about those experiences." In this respect, the Patton and Bruce books should be considered secondary sources, because the authors research and analyze the history of Greek life at UVa based on primary sources; they don't discuss their own experiences. Based on the policy above, that would mean the works are secondary sources when discussing the history of the university's Greek system. Any part of the book that relied on their own experiences, however, would be considered a primary source. I'll agree that the Dabney book is more of a primary source because it is published by the U.Va. Press.
Furthermore, WP:BIASED states, "...reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject" and goes on to say, "When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control and a reputation for fact-checking." I believe at the very least the Bruce book, and likely the Patton book as well, also pass this test. Even though the authors likely have bias, both works were published by reliable third-party publishers (or at least Patton's was since it was published by Macmillan; I couldn't find much information on The Neale Publishing Company).
Puppysnot (talk) 15:01, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • The long and short of what I wrote was that if the author or publisher has a direct tie to the subject material then that makes it primary. The authors/publishers all had direct ties to UVA and as such, to the Greek life. It doesn't matter what aspect of UVA they write about- it will all be considered a primary source. Basically the worry with primary sources is that since they have that direct tie they have a very strong bias. It's far more likely that they will not want to write about the university in a negative bent, either because they don't want to think about it negatively or because the're afraid that by "biting the hand that feeds/fed them" they will suffer negative repercussions. For the librarian writing negative things about the school could cost him his job. For the author, it could make his degree seem less prestigious and/or interfere with other things. Again, I don't think that either person would be afraid to do this and by large there are more people who have integrity than those who do not. However at the same time there have been multiple cases of bias factoring into academic writing and research (aside from the non-academic bias) to where anything written or published by someone with a direct tie to the topic will be considered a primary source that cannot show notability. That's the biggest thing with this- even if the primary sources are accurate they're not considered to be something that can give notability. It's well within the best interests of all of the people involved to write about something they're involved with. That's only part of the PRIMARY stuff. The other part of it is that there's a concern that even if the material is accurate, that it doesn't show that the topic is of any interest to anyone outside of UVA. That's why the sources need to be completely secondary/independent of the topic. The question/concern here isn't entirely whether or not the sources are accurate but whether or not the topic is of enough interest to where non-UVA people/publishers would write about the topic. Although on a side note, it is good to look for secondary sources as well when you're researching just to get outside opinions and reflections- if your work only contains primary sources then at some level people will start to wonder why you aren't bringing them in. I know that when it comes to history it's harder to look for secondary sources because in many times the historians are drawing from primary accounts (narratives, letters, records, etc), but sometimes you can look at secondary sources to see if others interpreted the source material differently. It's usually easier to explain this with science related materials since a scientist that only references work from his own institution and its scientists will show more obvious flaws.
Notability is proven through secondary sources, which is what I'm most worried about here. If someone goes to the page and sees only primary sources then they're going to wonder why there aren't any non-primary sources. Sad enough to say, a lot of people on Wikipedia do not perform very in-depth source checks. Some don't perform them at all. That means that if they may just assume that there are no secondary sources because no secondary sources exist and that Greek life at UVA is of no interest to anyone other than UVA, which will make them doubt notability and (worst case scenario) they'll put it up for deletion. I've seen people do it with some incredibly notable things. Heck, just recently someone put Captain Sabertooth up for deletion and a search easily proved that the character was notable- he's the Mickey Mouse of Norway for the most part. Same thing goes for a lot of different topics, enough to where I can't remember all of them. AfC articles are scrutinized incredibly heavily, to the point where there's a pretty clear cut bias that AfC is equal to "non notable". I want to ensure that when this gets accepted to the mainspace that people see that there are non-primary sources in the article that do not pertain to the Rolling Stone debacle and don't assume that UVA's Greek life isn't notable. I know that it seems like this would be obvious, but that's how obtuse things are on Wikipedia when it comes to notability. UVA has been around since forever and it makes a lot of sense that this aspect of the university would be notable, especially if you live around the area and see how strong the university (and by extension Greek life) is in the community, even beyond the whole negative, unfair stereotypes towards Greek life. However on Wikipedia whether or not something merits an entry all boils down to secondary, independent coverage and there are a lot of editors that are so single minded about this that unfortunately the rest of us have to edit and source accordingly. They're very vocal and while the standards now are pretty strict, people are only making them stricter and trying to insert some common sense guidelines practically takes an act of Congres. Now that said, if you add those sources to the article I'd be more than happy to accept it. I was trying not to say that directly, but so it goes. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:45, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for clearing up my confusion. It makes sense that the article would need to demonstrate that it's of interest to the general population, not just people at UVa. That said, I've added the two sources you mentioned and the third source that I found (mentioned above), and I've listed the article in AFC again. If you wouldn't mind reviewing the article again at some point, I'd appreciate it! Thanks for your help. Puppysnot (talk) 19:18, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • No problem- I was thinking about it and I realized that we were thinking of primary sources in a different way- you're thinking of them from a historian's point of view and I was thinking about them from the notability point of view. I volunteer at the Library of Virginia and had a similar-ish conversation with one of the historians there over primary sources and then realized that what was going on here. Don't worry if all of this sounds really, really maze-like. Initially the guidelines weren't meant to be as labyrinthine as they are now, but they had to make them more strict over the years to help keep the obviously non-notable stuff off Wikipedia (like my personal family history). It's unfortunately made it harder for the less mainstream visible but obviously notable stuff to get in. (sighs) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:35, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Also delete Manjalgaon

There are two articles on same city, Majalgaon(2005) and Manjalgaon(2007). I have tagged latest, very very stub and wrong spelled Manjalgaon for deletion. Please delete it. Thank you. --Human3015 Say Hey!! • 09:33, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

The name 'Dego Hoe'

I reverted your reversion of the removal of the term "Dego Hoe" because you didn't provide any references, indeed nobody so far has found good references for the term, ie ones that pre-date the first mention of it on the Hoe (tool) article. Batternut (talk) 09:59, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

The reference you subsequently found actually post-dated the first mention of it on the Hoe (tool) article, and has now been shown to be WP:CIRCULAR (see the talk page - the author has confirmed that it was sourced from wikipedia). Any other good reference you can find to support mention of the derogatory term "Dego Hoe" would be useful a contribution. Your edit did actually provoke further improvements to the article for which we can all be grateful. However, I'm sure you're familiar with WP:WIKIHOUNDING - given your recent disagreement with SageRad, I'm afraid that your edit to Hoe (tool), an article in which you haven't previously shown interest, reverting an edit of SageRad's, only 4 minutes after calling for a topic ban on him on Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard might cast the wrong impression! Batternut (talk) 11:21, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Not unanimous

Please be more careful when closing discussions. Your requested move close at Windows 10 Mobile stated that it was "unanimous" in the edit summaries when in fact it clearly was not. Mdrnpndr (talk) 02:33, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

I later realized that the "close to" part means "near" as opposed to the meaning of "close" usually used for discussions on Wikipedia. I guess it's more of a clarity issue then... Mdrnpndr (talk) 13:41, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Those weren't really my words. Someone had requested a speedy deletion (WP:G6) where they'd written that as the rationale- I hadn't come across it to specifically close the move discussion. I should have looked closer at the wording, but the consensus at the move was pretty much unanimous towards the end and there was really only one vote against the rename. There was one person asking for caution, but that wasn't really a vote either way. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:25, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

WP:NAUTHOR

I saw your discussion on this on WP:BIO Talk and wondered if it was moved elsewhere to get a consensus? I'm in support of your position and want to see a clear guideline on this. Right now I'm working my way through past recipients of the RITA Award on the assumption that this makes them notable, but some have been tagged as questioning notability. Many are bestsellers too, so this will help.plange (talk) 17:06, 28 May 2015 (UTC) plange (talk) 17:06, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

  • plange: It's still active here. Someone brought up something that poses a good point: that arguing for bestsellers lists as a sign of notability would probably need to be added to NBOOK along with NAUTHOR. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)

Submission declined Respecting elders: Communities against elder abuse

I don't see anything in the guideline you referenced that states that I need more than 3 sources. And can you be more specific about the problem with the tone... it's a description. Miami19 (talk) 15:09, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Miami19, it's more bits here and there, paired with the fact that the sourcing is fairly light. It's not awful, but it is enough that I can tell that you either work directly with the group or were asked by them to create the page. It's the WP:BUZZWORD type of stuff and you can see it best in the sections about the theater and digital world. Don't take this badly, it's just that it's easy to miss buzzwords when you might have a conflict of interest, are used to writing promotional materials, and/or are just unused to editing on Wikipedia. I know that sounds condescending, but it's an issue that just about every new editor on Wikipedia will have when starting out. It's simply just that it's exceedingly easy to write things as a bit of a soapbox or promotion without realizing it. Your article wasn't as bad as others go, but it was noticeable enough to where I felt it needed to be mentioned.
As far as sourcing goes, the issue with organizations is that they are very frequently scrutinized and articles that have exceedingly sparse sourcing are very frequently challenged and brought to WP:AfD or otherwise nominated for deletion. It's expected that they'll have to have a lot of sources- more so than for most other articles. This is partially because many organizations tend to get coverage from outlets they are affiliated with. For example, if RECAA has worked with the University of Concordia then that would make UoC a WP:PRIMARY source or at the very least, a very depreciated source. For example, this source gives off the impression that they've worked together, as did the word "partners" in the article. You can't really rely on awards to give much notability because most of the awards out there aren't considered to be all that major per Wikipedia's guidelines. A lot of editors tend to say that less than 5% of any award ever given (Nobel, Pulitzer, Stanley Cup, etc) would be the type that would give notability. The ones that would give total notability (the very major awards) tend to make up about less than 1% of that 5%. Basically, when an article only has sparse sourcing it leads other editors to believe that those three sources are the only ones that exist and they'll be more likely to tag it for deletion in some form or fashion. Articles accepted at AfC tend to be especially scrutinized since a lot of editors feel that too many articles are prematurely accepted. Many get nominated for deletion and my thing is that I want to make sure that if I accept something, that it won't be challenged and deleted within a year of its acceptance. In other words, you shouldn't be aiming for the bare minimum of sourcing since the minimum level of anything on Wikipedia is extremely likely to be challenged and deleted. Notability standards get strict with each passing year. When I first started editing you only needed 1-2 sources to show notability. The general rule of thumb now is that an article will need at least about 4-5 very solid RS to really be considered notable. The point of all of this is that you shouldn't be complacent with only 3 sources for an article about an organization- they're exceedingly prone to getting nominated for deletion and I'd go so far as to say that they make up about 40% of the articles deleted on Wikipedia.
I'd say that you'd probably need about another 2 sources to really give it a comfortable level of sourcing. Sources like "RECAA"+elder&hl=en&sa=X&ei=5YxmVZmHEeTjsATBwoFw&ved=0CB0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22RECAA%22%20elder&f=false this academic text are excellent things to add to an article and are actually considered to be even stronger than newspaper sources for obvious reasons. Journal entries like this one are also extremely usable for notability purposes. Of course newspaper articles are still usable (I've added one to the article), but academic sources tend to hold a lot more weight since textbooks and journals tend to be considered more authoritative and official. Newspapers are more frequently written so they can cover more material- academic sources tend to be more infrequently written so when they do cover something, it's considered to be quite weighty.
I've added one source to the article and provided two more- these should be able to show notability for the organization. However the RECAA section still needs to be re-written to read a little more neutral. Again, be careful about descriptions since they can very, very easily become promotional without you intending it to read as such. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:04, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
  • It's very funny to see how different wikipedia's referencing rules are from our standard in academia! What is unveiled as a partnership or affiliated source and what is not! Miami19 (talk) 13:02, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Well... one of the biggest differences between academia and Wikipedia is that academia is free to write almost whatever they want, to the point where many of us on here will readily state that an encyclopedia article is a completely different beast than most things created/written in the academic world. They have some limitations of course, but they can do more original research and use fewer sources to back up their claims. This is because they're creating research and they don't have to rely on proving notability and backing up claims. Academics also have more freedom to insert objective prose into their work- especially if there is an open tie between its author and the topic of their research/article. They can't be over the top promotional, but they have much more freedom with buzzwords, descriptions, and peacock phrases than they would in an encyclopedia article. However the thing with encyclopedia articles is that they have to be completely free of anything that would come across as being a potential bias (promotional tones, overly negative tones, etc) and they have to solidly assert notability. The notability part is especially important since as was said above, academia doesn't always have to have a ton of sources to back up their work and can rely on only a handful (or none, although that's frowned upon in many places). They don't have to assert notability- they only have to back up claims. However with Wikipedia articles you have to assert notability, which is probably one of the most important parts of the article's creation. Promotional tones and OR are issues that need to be fixed, but the vast majority of deletions on Wikipedia are done because notability was not thoroughly asserted. There have been pages that have been proposed for deletion based on promotional or OR concerns, but were saved because there were enough sources to thoroughly assert notability- in other words, to show that it would be worth someone's time to clean things up. However there have also been times when pages were deleted based on promotional/OR concerns because notability was not thoroughly asserted and a page that's borderline promotional with a low amount of sourcing is more likely to be deleted because it raises concerns about notability overall. I can't stress how important it is to try to properly source things with as many good, strong RS as possible. Don't do the bare minimum, as standards constantly change. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:30, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Request on 15:18:15, 29 May 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Walking High Point


I would like to know how to link my references to Wikipedia? If I can get photocopies of the newspaper articles that I referenced could I e-mail them to you? I still trying to figure out how to put my article in encyclopedia format. Maybe I could log on to another Wikipedia article and use that as a guide. I NEED HELP!Walking High Point (talk) 15:18, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Walking High Point (talk) 15:18, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Hmm... It's not as easy as just mailing me, but I wonder if there's a way around this. Let me ask over at WP:RS/N to see if there's anything that can be done. I know that this is a pretty common issue with topics that have mostly/only received coverage in the pre-Internet era so there must be something that can be done. I'll tag you in the conversation, so feel free to join in. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:37, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Can you upload them to a website maybe? I know that it's not preferred, but sometimes we can use that if the article shows the full information needed to really verify the source. (IE, it shows the date of the article, who wrote it, and so on.) Something like this is sort of what would be needed. I'll post on RS/N, though. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:42, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Menotti Lerro

Menotti Lerro - analysis of remaining references:

1. Chiappani Rodichevski, Gloria. "Intervista a Menotti Lerro: editoria e poesia". Moroedro. Retrieved 28 May 2015. -> This is one person's site (Chiappani), a rather extensive blog.

2. Annali Storici di Principato Citra - IX, 1, 2011, pp. 5-27" (PDF). Retrieved 2012-07-23. -> This lists a work of his in a table of contents, but that's all.

3. Poesia, Crocetti, Anno XVI Giugno 2003 N° 173 - ?? No access to this

4. The Poetry of Menotti Lerro". Cambridge Scholars. Retrieved 28 May 2015. - a sales site

5. "31 STYCZNIA - Pieśni Tomasza Krezymona". The University of Gdańsk. Retrieved 28 May 2015.n -- Announcement of an event with his name

6. "Menotti Lerro a Danzica". Sudsostenibile. Retrieved 28 May 2015. -- A single paragraph announcement of an event using his poetry. Unclear editorial status of the publication -- seems to be a local news outlet for a small area of Southern Italy.

7. Andrew Mangham, The poetry of Menotti Lerro (Newcastle upon Tyne, 2012), p. 15 -- You already commented on this. However, this may well be the most significant of sources. It appears to be a "facing text" translation, and given the authorship to Mangham must include some analysis.

8. "04/04/2008 - PREMIO DI POESIA "RENATA CANEPA" III EDIZIONE 2008 Ecco i premiati- La cerimonia il 10 maggio prossimo a Rubiana (TO)". Il Grappolo. Retrieved 28 May 2015. --> This says that he was a finalist, but did not win the prize.

9. Pontiggia, Giancarlo (2010). "Primavera (review)" (PDF). Testo 59: 159-160. Retrieved 28 May 2015. --> This is a literary journal with a full page review of his book of poetry "Primavera." I would guess that this is a reliable source.

10. "Rescigno-Lerro, Gli occhi sul tempo". Manni. Retrieved 28 May 2015. --> is a review of a book about two poets, one of which is him. The book itself, if we could access it, could well be a significant resource.

-- So, we seem to have 3 possible reliable sources, #s 7, 9, and 10. LaMona (talk) 15:18, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

  • LaMona, the problem with Mangham is that he works for UoR. Lerro has not only received his degree from that university, but he also works there as a guest lecturer. That poses a pretty strong tie between the two, since Mangham is pretty much writing about a fellow employee/former alumni. It helps that it was through a different publisher, but I've seen sources with weaker connections get labeled as primary. I figured that given the promotional concerns, it'd be best to just name it a primary source. The Poesia source concerned me since I couldn't access it at all. It's a journal so it'd be good if it was an in-depth source, but since we can't access it we can't verify it.
I took a second look at the Manni link. It looks like the book is a collection of Lerro's poetry that was released by Manni. (See here.) There are prefaces by someone else, but from what I can see it's a book of his work that Manni published. I didn't realize that they'd published the work as well, so this would make any Manni reviews invalid as a RS. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:41, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Good catch on the Manni site -- I was so focused on the text I missed that it is a publisher! Meanwhile, we've got a SPA adding links back into the article... but you've already seen that. *sigh* LaMona (talk) 13:42, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Yeah... and now they're continuing to make ad hominem attacks against everyone. I hate to assume bad faith, but they seem to be ticking off all of the "what not to do/say" boxes. First they say that there were different people, now apparently there aren't (RainerMaria's writing gives off the impression that there's just one person), and now they're essentially calling us all mean people. (sighs) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:36, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Request on 07:56:19, 1 June 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Zombiezilla


I just wanted to say thank you very much for your help! I understand completely why my article was declined and I will definitely follow all your suggestions. I really appreciate how specific and clear you were with plenty of examples. I didn't even know about Daily Dead so thanks again! I will resubmit after getting a lot more sources like the ones you named. ZombiezillaZombiezilla (talk) 07:56, 1 June 2015 (UTC) Zombiezilla (talk) 07:56, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

  • No problem- I hope that there will be more reviews and other coverage. We always need more coverage of horror films on here, but then I'm a big horror film fan so that's probably just me. XD Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:58, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Article for Deletion

I have checked the source of khaleej times and the article is present online http://www.khaleejtimes.com/kt-article-display-1.asp?xfile=data/uaebusiness/2014/January/uaebusiness_January38.xml&section=uaebusiness Regarding the amendments to casual write up, i will edit it to perfect state. And make sure the links are as reference and not external links. I had a word with Masala Magazine and due to server issue, some of the links aren't popping up. --NGupta123 (talk) 08:14, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

  • It's still far too promotional to restore, even if you promise to clean it up. I'd prefer that you create a new copy from scratch at WP:AfC. Being at AfC would be better because this way you'd have more time to provide more sources to show notability. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:30, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Tokyogirl79 I have redone the article in my drafts (sandbox) is it possible for you to have a look and advise if its an improvement to the previous article i did. as per your advise, i have inserted citations and removed the lines that sounded like promotion and casual writing NGupta123 (talk) 16:47, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Jake Redmond

No problem with an indef ban, once you heard the duck the quacking was very loud. Nthep (talk) 07:55, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Nah, I as bordering on a NOTTHERE indef myself for the hoaxes I knew about plus lack of undertsanding of copyright plus just generally being annoying (see his interactions with Giant Snowman). Nthep (talk) 08:04, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

New article

Could you look at the history of Gary Anthony Ramsay? It was posted as a 10,000 byte article in one edit, and that edit included a citation needed tag. That makes me think that it may have been recreated after having been deleted for some reason. Although Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gary Anthony Ramsay is a redlink, Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2011 March 28 links to the page. So, I guess it was probably speedy deleted as a copyvio? The current version looks like would survive at AfD, so I marked it as patrolled. But it would set my mind at ease if you could peek into the article's history to verify I didn't make a mistake. I'm already having second thoughts about it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:30, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Stephanie Bond (author)

Hi, I have a few questions regarding the edits made to my article Stephanie Bond (author). You removed references and links to her hometown, including a link to a country singer also from her small hometown in KY. I thought Wiki preferred these links...I also thought it interesting that this small town produced two talented people; so I'm curious as to why it was removed. Also, the revisions made don't truly reflect what has happened in her career. She now only self publishes her books, unless the rights have not yet reverted. The article now sounds like she only decided to self publish certain books. Finally, as you can tell, I'm new to this and had difficulty attaching a photo; any hints about successfully attaching a photo are appreciated.Thanks. Southerngal23 (talk) 23:49, 3 June 2015 (UTC)southerngal23

  • Southerngal23, the reason I removed them is because I couldn't really verify that the sources mentioned this and there were large chunks of the article that had no sources at all. You need to be able to back everything up with reliable sources. In the case of basic information like home towns and such, it's rare that this sort of thing will be wrong but it has happened before, which is why I removed it. I do remember putting in the article that she chose to self-publish books where the rights had reverted back to her or had gone out of print, so this is mentioned. Other than backing things up with RS, the other reason I removed a lot of the article was because it was written in a fairly promotional tone. You have to be extremely careful about this because promotional articles can be deleted regardless of whether this was your intent or not. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:43, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Response to the Women of Tibet: A Quiet Revolution question of notability

Thank you for taking the time to edit this page and make some adjustments to the tone of the writing. I posted this comment on the Women of Tibet: A Quiet Revolution page but I didn't hear anything back so I thought I would respond to you here as well. You have held the page up in review because you question the notability of the film. I'd like to assuage your concerns by giving you some insight into film industry.

Firstly, a regional Emmy is notable. An regional Emmy award is an Emmy and it is considered one of the most notable 'peer- judged' honors in television. I mention 'peer-judged' to be clear that the judges for these awards are professional filmmakers in the specific field they are judging. For example only working film producers can judge films nominated for production. If you are still unsure about an Emmy’s notability please read this article, it should help you understand what an Emmy is. [4] It is also important to note that Northern California is a very large and thriving community of documentary filmmakers. These filmmakers make up this competitive pool of Emmy contenders who are producing high quality films that are informative and groundbreaking. A Quiet Revolution, had to compete in this pool in order to be awarded an Emmy.

Secondly, it is not a given that a film is accepted at a film festival and for some film festivals, you must be invited. With that said, in the film community, it is an honor to be accepted and screened at a film festival, especially one as prestigious as the Mill Valley Film Festival—as was the case for this film. In short, being invited to be screened at film festivals does increase the films notability.

To be clear, there is no dispute that this film has won multiple awards, including an Emmy; has been aired on PBS; has been screened at prestigious film festivals; screened at reputable universities, included in university curriculums and libraries, at institutions such as Stanford University, University of Southern California, the University of Virginia, among others. As far as the film community, there is no issue with notability.SeaSalt7 (talk) 22:42, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Film festival showings cannot show notability. They can make it more likely that a film will gain coverage but it is never a guarantee and Wikipedia does not consider showings to be something that will give notability. I'm not sure where you heard that they would, but they do not. We've had multiple films get deleted via AfD due to a lack of coverage despite the films screening at various festivals, sometimes even festivals that are exceedingly notable. When it comes to the Emmy, regional Emmys tend to be greatly depreciated on Wikipedia and are not considered to be on the same level as the Emmys seen on TV. Generally speaking they're considered to be the type of award that can give partial notability since they are an Emmy, but they cannot give the complete notability that a national Emmy would. As far as being the focus of instruction in various colleges, that also doesn't guarantee notability. The same thing goes for being shown on PBS. Like film showings it can make it more likely that there will be coverage, but it is not a guarantee. The long and short is that there just isn't enough coverage right now to warrant this film passing notability guidelines.
Also, are you the film's director or anyone involved with the film in any context? By this I mean that you are part of the cast, crew, friend/family, or someone who was asked to create an article for the filmmaker? I'm asking because your edits tend to center predominantly upon Rawcliffe's work. If you are, I would like for you to read over the conflict of interest guidelines and I'd also like for you to declare your COI on your userpage. You can still edit with a COI, but the issue with COI editing is that it's very easy to take things more personal than they are intended and it's also easy for you to see more notability than there may otherwise be. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:42, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Re: Chuck Tingle

Thank you for creating this article. I added it to Wikipedia:Wiki Loves Pride 2015/Results, which records LGBT-related articles created during the month of June as part of the annual Wiki Loves Pride campaign. If you happen to create or improve other LGBT-related articles this month, feel free to update this Results page accordingly. Thanks again! ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:05, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

  • No problem! Actually you should thank NRP- he kept getting after me to move it to the mainspace but I felt sort of weird moving it because of how silly some of the book titles were. He's the one who really deserves the credit here since he was bold enough to move it for me. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:30, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Mahabharatha and socking

Hi Tokyogirl79 and thanks for the heads-up about the SPI on Certified&Verified et al. I definitely suspected something like this given the various accounts' eagerness to promote a film that clearly is a figment of their imagination. I spent some time trying to find evidence that it existed when the first article was posted, but like you I found nothing. That is unusual because Indian films tend to be written about in blogs and on Facebook if nowhere else, as soon as they are first talked about - and in addition there is another upcoming Bengali-language film based on the Mahabharata epos, Mahabharat (2015 film), featuring several of the same actors that were listed for the other film. I don't believe two films in the same language based on the same epic story would be created that close to each other (the most recent version of the hoax article said that the film was to be released Dec 31, 2015, which is only a couple of weeks after the release of the other film...) I thought at first that there was some confusion and that the editors were in good faith trying to create a second article about the 2015 film, but since there were also other actors mentioned (in particular Jeet, who was impersonated by one of the accounts), and a different producer, director etc, I really don't think that's the case.

This is turning into a bit of a wall of text, sorry - I see that the SPI has confirmed that these are sock puppets, so there the matter rests. Thanks again for alerting me to it. Cheers, --bonadea contributions talk 10:45, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

  • No problem- I figured that it had to be a hoax for the same reason- there was no chatter about this film. Like you said, if the film was going to happen it'd be mentioned somewhere since Indian films tend to get a lot of blog/forum chatter, which is picked up by a Google search even if the news sources aren't always found. I found the lack of a TOI article to be one of the most telling bits- they usually cover any of the films worth covering, especially if there are any major players. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:47, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Ádám Bogdán

Hello Tokyogirl, could you please semi-protect Ádám Bogdán, lots of non-constructive IP edits. The player does not join his new club until 1 July. Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 10:35, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Can do! I was going to just protect it for a few days or a week, but 2 weeks should help deter the worst. If it needs it past that, let me know. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:40, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Thank you JMHamo (talk) 10:53, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ReaderofthePack/Archive_18&oldid=1084141632"