Jump to content

User talk:ReaderofthePack/Archive 25

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20←Archive 23Archive 24Archive 25Archive 26Archive 27→Archive 30

Derek Savage

I only learned of the incident after the fact. I go to IHE occasionally, so I didn't see any of the videos when they came out, but reviewed the situation when it was over. I am sure that many people will come to wikipedia looking for information on Savage, and the incident, but so far all I can find are blogs, youtube videos, imdb and material that Savage has put out himself. These are very hard to justify as RS, but if someone at a newspaper or perhaps a blog that is considered a "respectable" news source (most newspaper content is online only these days anyway, so the line is very thin), maybe an article could be created for Savage, his movie or the incident itself.

So, BTW, I see you are a female wikipedian who loves horror movies. You wouldn't be like available, right?;)(I hope that statement is not against Wikipedia policy)--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 18:33, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

I guess that was inappropriate, and I'm sorry if I made anyone feel uncomfortable. Its just that time of the year between Christmas and when things get going again in mid-January when one gets bored and lonely, and after hours of just killing time on wikipedia I thought "What the heck? She seems nice, has similar interest, might be worth a shot"--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 05:46, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
I have been a "fan" of chick tract for awhile now. It surprises me that they actually got Jack Chicks permission to make their movie, which appears to be available in 4 "episodes" on YouTube. I'll check it out.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 18:09, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Thank you for being so generous with your time, and for your clarity. Duruflerequiem (talk) 02:52, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Unprotecting Futuristic (rapper)

Hi, Tokyogirl, would you consider unprotecting Futuristic (rapper)? The article was created yet again at Futuristic (Rapper), but I believe that all the previous issues have been addressed this time. The false claim about him being #86 on the overall Billboard chart is gone, the tone is no longer promotional, and I think notability has been demonstrated in accordance with WP:NMUSIC through two rankings on the Top R&B/Hip Hop Albums chart. If you agree that the article passes muster, the only step remaining is to move it to the style-conforming title with the lower-case "r". —Largo Plazo (talk) 13:08, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Steve's acting career

I noticed you were an admin person involved with the Steve Comisar article. I am having a problem understanding why the January 16 edit was deleted. It was completely fair and reliably sourced. You also temporarily blocked my account for COI and puppet issues. I do not know Comisar or any of the other people who edited his page. I do not engage in any dishonest practices. I also live in India. Can you please look at the January 16 edit and if you feel it was fair, please revert it. I think that the editors watching the article have something personal against Comisar and are deleting all edits. By reading their talk pages, they all seem to know each other very well. Amit Mishra, India. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maniamit (talk • contribs) 11:36, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

  • @Maniamit: I'm re-writing this all for clarity because the Comisar situation is very complicated. Here's the gist of the situation:
Comisar's article has a history of people coming on and trying to push a specific version of the article. The man himself made some of these edits and there have been accounts that, if not Comisar himself, were people that he clearly asked or paid to come and edit the article themselves. At some point Comisar took it upon himself to send out unsolicited snail mail to people, without first asking if this would be OK. This came across as harassment, especially as he was sent out a large amount of editors to one person. During this time there were also apparently some threats made against one of the editors that was involved with the article. It got so bad at one point that the WMF got involved and contacted at least one of the editors involved, Cullen. There was also some confirmed sockpuppetry during this time.
One of the biggest things that people tried to add to the article was that Comisar was an actor. This was removed with a request for proof and the only proof provided was IMDb and clips on YouTube, neither of which are enough in and of themselves to prove that someone is an actor. With IMDb, anyone can edit and add material, and in the past we've had cases where people managed to add things to IMDb that were provably false. Since Comisar has a history of being a con artist and there has been so much trouble with the article, it's reasonable to ask for proof that isn't WP:PRIMARY, IMDb, or YouTube. There was also concern that Comisar's roles were so incredibly minor that they wouldn't be considered major enough to warrant inclusion in the article, as there was concern that these were minor walk on roles with no lines. It's actually quite common for Wikipedia to not include information about trivial roles.
Before I get into what can be done about getting the content added to the article, I first have some questions/concerns that you will need to answer.
  1. You mentioned that I blocked your account at one point. I cannot see where I've blocked you or where any other admin have blocked you. What account are you talking about? If you do have another account then you will need to be transparent about this.
  2. You have really only edited Comisar's article, which leads me to believe that you are someone that he has asked to edit the article. If this is the case, you need to divulge this information per WP:COI. Considering the article's history it's unlikely that you don't have a conflict of interest of some type.
  3. What is your relation to Jim bexley speed? I didn't see where you made any edits to the article around the 16th, but I see where he did. The article has a history of sockpuppetry, so this will need to be answered.
Now that said, the question here is what can be done with the article. First and foremost, I would recommend that you not make any direct edits to the article page and if you're in contact with Comisar or anyone else involved with this, I'd also recommend that you tell them not to make direct edits either. The basic consensus with the article is that Comisar is trying to use it in order to rehabilitate his image and right now there will be pushback to any addition of his acting career. I'd actually go so far as to say that the reason why there's opposition to adding even a one line sentence is because of the past history of the article.
During this time you should only post on the talk page of the article with sourcing. The best sourcing to use would be something that focuses on Comisar as an actor. Primary sources, IMDb links, YT, and similar will not count as reliable sources in this case. Passing mentions can help somewhat, but what you really need right now are things that would firmly establish that he was an actor and that it'd be worth at least mentioning in passing in the article.
The article version you are referring to here tried to back up the acting claims by using this GQ article. The issue here is that the article doesn't actually back up the claims of Comisar as an actor. It says that he was on a few talk shows, but that's not considered to be an acting role on Wikipedia. An acting role would be where Comisar was playing someone else, like Johnny Depp portraying Edward Scissorhands, and you need coverage that discusses him in this capacity. Until that can be produced, we have to leave this out. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:04, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your Reply on Steve

Hello Tokyogirl79 Thank you for replying to me. I will never again attempt to edit Comisar. I do, however, respectfully request that as someone who obviously cares about the Wikipedia encyclopedia, you please take a look at the November 22, and the January 16 versions of the article. If you feel that either of these 2 versions represent a more complete biographical picture of Comisar, please revert or edit as you feel appropriate. His acting career, while not notable in itself, should not be hidden from the public. He is the only famous con man who is also an actor. That's something the public should know. As is, the aticle is biased, one-sided, and non-neutral. Thank you, Amit Mishra, India. You replied here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Maniamit#Managing_a_conflict_of_interest — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maniamit (talk • contribs) 08:53, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Special Barnstar
Thankyou for your, time, advice and help. I very much appreciate you getting the article on the 'main space'. Cheers, 
Sage1200 (talk) 17:28, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

start.me

Hi Tokyogirl79, thank you for your quick reply. I understand it may seem there is a COI here as I have an external relationship to start.me. Still, that does not warrant speedy deletion citing A7. I believe my article about start.me is neutral. I consider myself an expert on the field and have written articles about similar services (e.g. IgHome and Symbaloo). The field of start pages is rather small and apart from me there are few Wikipedians willing to document. Michieldewit (talk) 07:10, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh, forgot to mention

Oh I forgot to tell that Piyushratnu contacted me over email, Facebook also. I could not reply anywhere because of my hectic work-schedule and too many pending tasks. --Tito Dutta (talk) 11:14, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

  • It's a tricky situation. I'm going to shoot you an email about this, since I don't entirely feel comfortable talking about this in specific, given what the editor is going through if I read the situation correctly. It's why I'm kind of trying to give him a bit more leeway, as it explains his actions fairly well. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:15, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

GQ article is a reliable source.

The GQ article is a reliable source. It was an investigative piece written by Sabrina Erdely, an award-winning journalist. (see her Wikipedia page) The article clearly references Comisar's acting. GQ was used to reference Comisar's acting in the very first version of the article. Every subsequent version of the article over the past 4 years mentioned his acting until last month. The mention of his acting only became problematic when IMDb was added as an additional reference. One short sentence about his acting, referenced by GQ, at the end of the career section seems reasonable. This in no way implies that he is notable as an actor. This merely reveals the biographical fact that he did some acting. If anyone agrees, please edit.

"Comisar had supporting acting roles in several motion pictures, television shows, and commercials.[3]"

[3] GQ article link.

I also strongly disagree that the Observer piece is not a reliable source. It was not an opinion piece, and it was not from a blog. It was an investigative article from the actual New York Observer newspaper, a very reliable source. (see their Wikipedia page) I'd ask that you please reconsider this edit as well. If anyone agrees, please edit.

"The FBI has ranked Comisar in the top ten con men of all time, second only to Frank Abagnale, the subject of the motion picture, Catch Me if You Can, directed by Steven Spielberg.[12]"

[12] The New York Observer http://observer.com/2015/11/how-watching-mr-robot-made-me-paranoid-about-getting-hacked/

I completely agree with everything else that all of the other editors had to say about this article. A big heartfelt thanks to @Tokyogirl79, @DanielRigal, @LjL, and @Onel5969, for educating me on the Wikipedia editing process. You all seem like very intelligent, dedicated, and decent people. Keep up the good work. 205.115.188.114 (talk) 20:44, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

  • I'm going to repeat what I wrote above about the GQ article: The article doesn't actually back up the claims of Comisar as an actor. It says that he was on a few talk shows, but that's not considered to be an acting role on Wikipedia. An acting role would be where Comisar was playing someone else, like Johnny Depp portraying Edward Scissorhands, and you need coverage that discusses him in this capacity. Until that can be produced, we have to leave this out. As far as the claims of Comisar being ranked, the Observer article references this interview with Comisar shows that he made the claims. We cannot accept his say-so on something like this, especially as he has a very long history of conning people to get what he wants - it's the whole reason he's in jail right now. If you had a source from the FBI itself, that'd be different. Now the interview does have him mentioning his acting career, however we cannot accept that for the same reasons: it's coming from Comisar, who should be viewed as an unreliable source concerning himself because as someone convicted of lying/conning people, we have to assume that there's a chance he could be lying during the interview. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 22:53, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Geographical Indications in India Edit-a-thon

Hello,

CIS-A2K is going to organize an edit-a-thon between 25 and 31 January this year. The aim of this edit-a-thon is creating and improving Geographical Indications in India related articles.

We welcome all of you to join this edit-a-thon.
Please see the event and add your name as a participant: Wikipedia:WikiProject India/Events/Geographical Indications in India Edit-a-thon

Feel free to ask if you have question(s).
Regards. --Tito Dutta (talk) 17:07, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

A bowl of strawberries for you!

For dealing with the Comisar situation. GABHello! 03:51, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

GQ does mention acting!

The GQ article most definitely mentions Comisar's acting. Please read the entire article again. When you find the acting claim, can you admit you were wrong and add the suggested sentence to the end of the career section? Please be fair.

The top ten con men claim in the Observer article was not a reference from an interview with Comisar. The claim was independently investigated by the writer. I just emailed him and he told me.

Comisar has no control of what goes into the article. The article is referenced by sources independent from him. The fact that he is a liar or scam artist is irrelevant here. We should focus on the Comisar "article" and not Comisar the person.

  • Can you give me the exact quote from the article? When I read the article it mentioned his time on several talk shows, but not any of the films he was supposedly in. If it's in there, it was so brief that I didn't see it. So far anyone lobbying for this person has only stated "it's in the source" but they don't actually quote the part of the source that backs up the claims. If you want to get it added, you need to be more specific. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:45, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
  • As far as the top ten claim goes, the Observer article links to the interview from Comisar. The common thing for articles is that if someone takes info from somewhere, they cite the source. This means that the author pulled the claim from the interview and that might have been the extent of their research. You need to have better sources to back up major claims like that one and claiming that you e-mailed the author is not good enough, as first off, anyone can claim that they've done this and again, you don't know exactly how far the person researched. It could be that their research went only as far as the interview. Out of good faith, I examined the GQ article again. I still did not see any reference to his acting career, so if you're going to say that it's in the article you need to give the exact quote and the page where the quote is located. Saying "it's there" is not good enough, especially in this situation. When it comes to him being a con man, this is extremely relevant, as the nature of his crimes means that we cannot use sources that rely solely or heavily on information supplied by Comisar. If someone is in jail for crimes that rely heavily on someone lying or misrepresenting themselves, we have to assume that there is a high likelihood that they would lie or misrepresent themselves when asked about themselves. When it comes to the claims we need extremely strong sourcing. For example, if you can find a source released by the FBI that official states this then that would work. I'm not going to change my opinion otherwise. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:56, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

email

I've sent you an email. I hope this is the correct way of letting you know. User:Michaelmcgrinder — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelmcgrinder (talk • contribs) 08:01, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

How do i send you an email? Could not find your address I want to send you some of the article clipping. Susanmac50 (talk) 13:45, 24 January 2016 (UTC)SusanSusanmac50 (talk) 13:45, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Admin's Barnstar
Thank you for your guidance. Jdellapina (talk) 14:02, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Puzzling close

I just stumbled across a puzzling close that you might want to reconsider.[1] You preemptively closed it as a hoax just two and a half hours after it was listed? Google Scholar turns up a (very small) number of viable sources, Bing reports four hundred million results. The Scholar hits are very thin, and trying to find RS in the general hits would be a long ugly slog through mud, but with hundreds of millions of general hits it's implausible that there aren't more RS in there. Alsee (talk) 00:37, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

  • You're correct in that it doesn't seem to be a hoax, but it does seem to be a neologism that isn't in very common use. I can restore it and send it back to AfD, but I don't know that this would necessarily survive given the extremely small amount of sourcing that's out there in places that could be considered a RS. Saying that there are search hits on Google/Bing doesn't necessarily mean that they're usable. Offhand a quick look brings up predominantly junk hits, so even if the hoax part isn't accurate it does seem like it's a neologism. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:45, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I've sent it back to AfD. It was closed mainly as a hoax, so there's no harm in letting it go back. I primarily see it ending one of two ways: either it's deleted entirely or it's merged into another article. It's possible that it could end otherwise, but I think that it'd need some fairly strong sourcing to show that it's independently notable outside of the main categories of shouta or lolicon. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:54, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Strange Fruit Lillian Smith 1944 Paperback.jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Strange Fruit Lillian Smith 1944 Paperback.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. --B-bot (talk) 03:37, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you

The Barnstar of Diligence
Just wanted to say thanks for the work you did looking into CNNYAW. It looked a little suspicious to me but I didn't have the time to put into it. Appreciate your work! Cheers, Melcous (talk) 06:46, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Comisar's acting claims ARE mentioned in GQ article!

Hello @Tokyogirl79: I found Comisar's acting claims in the GQ article, page 156, second paragraph. It says: "Comisar will now make money the legitimate, old fashioned way, by acting. . .He landed a role in the movie, Tough Luck, playing the boyfriend of all things, a femme fatale con artist. . .Producer Josh Etting said, "You know, he's not a bad actor." I guess now you can add this to the article and correct your mistake about it not being there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:A000:F283:3D00:28C9:39:29DB:2536 (talk) 22:27, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Thank you for pointing out the specific quote. I did find it and this was my mistake. However we would still need to have more coverage to show that this would warrant a mention, given the history with the article. Comisar pretty much poisoned the well here because not only has he harassed multiple editors himself, but there's also the heavy implication here that he's enlisted various other people to harass on his behalf. There would have to be at least another 2-3 sources out there to justify re-adding this content to the article because the resistance here is so incredibly strong. At this point it'd almost be easier for him to argue for the article's removal as opposed to argue for the inclusion of any content about his acting. This is how poorly everything has been handled by his camp. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:24, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

You win!

We are done making suggestions for the Comisar article. We will take your advice and wait until he is released. I did, however, contact his management team and this what they said: "Steven Comisar has been in federal prison for the past 14 years. He has absolutely no access to email or the internet, including Wikipedia. His only contact with the public is through carefully screened US Mail and highly monitored telephone calls. While he is aware of his Wikipedia page, Steven has not instructed anyone to attempt to make any changes whatsoever. He is fully aware that the content of his page is completely out of his control. Steven has literally millions of fans worldwide. Any of these people can be doing this without his knowledge or consent. While Steven is not yet a known actor, he does in fact have real acting credits. Steven's team consists of very well-established and reputable agents, managers, and lawyers. None of us would attempt to use any unethical means to influence the content of his page." Please post this on the article talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.184.35.7 (talk) 00:21, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

  • I've posted the comment, but please be aware that this can be construed as you saying that the fans will try to make these same edits or that you'd ask them to make them. Regardless of whether or not either is the case, please be aware that at this point any attempts to re-add the information by anyone will come across as the management team or Comisar asking them to make them. If you do see them trying to do this, the kindest thing you can do for Comisar is to ask for them to leave the Wikipedia page alone for the time being. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:54, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

My final posting.

This will also be my last posting until Mr. Comisar has been released and gained more media recognition as a notable actor. So, let me get this straight. You confirmed that the GQ article actually contains an acting reference but you still won't add it to the Comisar article because he is a known con man? Really?

Comisar is in prison and can't manipulate the article. You saw the statement from his handlers. Your assertion that any edit or suggestion to the article must have been initiated by Comisar is totally preposterous. His acting is now reliably sourced, and should not be concealed from the article. This is very biased and not in compliance with Wikipedia policy. (See WP:NEUTRALITY)

Maybe you should just put a big sign above the article that says, "Nothing can be added to this article because Comisar is a con man." The one proposed sentence about his acting was merely to add a biographical fact about him. It is perfectly appropriate and is done all the time in other articles. It was in no way to imply that he is a notable actor or has a major acting career. Con man or not, Comisar's acting is backed by a reliable source, by your own admission, and the one sentence should be added for biographical purposes only. This is not just one person's opinion.

  • There has already been more than enough said to explain why this is happening, both on my talk page and on the article's talk page. One source is not enough in this situation, especially given the harassment that has occurred in the past concerning that article. Even if I was inclined to add the information, there would need to be a consensus at this point about adding the information into the article and at this point the consensus would most assuredly be to not include it. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:06, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, ReaderofthePack. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 11:31, 2 February 2016 (UTC). 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.

Tito Dutta (talk) 11:31, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Clarification of disclaimer

After reading your last post, Comisar's management team adds the following to be posted on the article talk page. I think it will help make things more clear. "To clarify the statement in our disclaimer, Mr. Comisar, and his management team, asks the friends, fans, and supporters of him to refrain from attempting to add anything to his Wikipedia page and not make suggestions on any of the Wikipedia talk pages. Any additions made to the Steve Comisar Wikipedia page will be made by experienced editors and administrators only. We do not encourage or condone anyone else making additions or comments to this page. Steve Comisar and his entire management team thank you in advance for your cooperation." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:A000:F283:3D00:1DD9:7738:40F4:E5E9 (talk) 22:16, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Like those who comb their hair over a bald patch

It annoys me when someone thinks they have fooled me into thinking that they have hair. "That man thinks I am stupid, He thinks that I think that he has hair!"

It is the same with dissemblers such as our mutual friend.

I would be in two minds over his request myself. WP:ROPE is a powerful tool, and it's not hard for an admin with a bulk undo tool to remove any intermediate ordure. Yet it might be seen as setting a precedent for others.

I do not see, now, this editor to be in the position where they may own up, apologise and undertake until they have cooled their help for a bit. The block is preventative here. It prevents putative harm.

It's strange how they seem to believe that bluff and bluster is likely to win the day. It was the same when they accused me of rudeness. I can be very rude under the right circumstances. I can destroy them with words. But I have not yet stopped so low here to anyone. Fiddle Faddle 12:26, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

  • That's what really got me with all of this. It was pretty obvious that he was caught and he knew he was caught, but he continued to try to pull one over on everyone. Then when he was given the option of a standard offer, he continued to bluster... and then started chomping at it once he realized that he wasn't doing himself any favors. Then he was reticent when naming his sockpuppets, which is kind of wow - he really doesn't get the whole "you need to be forthright" thing. That's what concerns me the most, since I don't know how many of his past mistakes were really legitimate mistakes and how many are him deliberately doing something wrong because that's what he wanted to do and he thought he could lie his way out of it. I'm thinking that it's more the latter than the former, unfortunately. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:29, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Necronomicon Providences

Thank you for changing my draft into a decent article. I haven't had a decent internet access for more than 5 minutes since mid 2015 and haven't been able to access the page long enough to make the needed changes before my ancient laptop crashed. Please delete the draft and keep the article you created up and running instead. So sorry - and thank you again for your work on the Necronomicon Providence article. LadyLovecraft (talk) 08:14, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

A brownie for you!

Thank you for all the hard work you put into Wikipedia! Jbegle (talk) 00:05, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Collaboration

Hello TG79 I have been working on expanding articles on horror films and have been focused on expanding one such article. The problem is the scope of the article makes it so that I cannot do it alone. I was wondering if you would be willing to collaborate with me on expanding this article. Here is the link to it if you are interested: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Drink_Your_Blood P.S. Please let me know if you are willing to collaborate with me on this article.--Paleface Jack (talk) 19:35, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, for starters I need citations for the unsourced material, I a working on doing other things for the article but also also need someone to focus on adding ore information on the film's reception. Just reply on my talk page and let me know.--Paleface Jack (talk) 00:46, 8 February 2016 (UTC) I do have a userspace draft already created so don't do anything on the actual page. Also remember to add yourself in the WikiProject Horror collaboration page--Paleface Jack (talk) 01:05, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you.

I wanted to thank you for watching over wikipedia and providing feedback. I'd like to encourage you to watch over my wikiedu.org class, Women in Warfare. We are currently building stubs for women warriors who died in Feb and will, by the end of the semester, be building full pages on female warriors. Again, I appreciate your assistance. Bellicist (talk) 16:53, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank You

Dear Tokyogirl79, tank you for taking the time to message me and thorough information. And your kindness. Your quality work, detached openness and sagacity is most inspiring to me, as a beginner. Wolfgaenger (talk) 18:00, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

13:15:12, 9 February 2016 review of submission by Amanda Paul


Hi Tokyogirl79, thanks for taking the time to review my article.

A couple of points, in your comments you asked me to provide evidence that the film has been taken into the Museum of London collection permanently.

I did provide a link to the Museum of London's Show Space page http://www.museumoflondon.org.uk/london-wall/whats-on/exhibitions-displays/show-space/

Which clearly states "We are continually adding new objects to our collections and here we present some of our more recent arrivals..."

I am unclear what more evidence you would require, especially as you say this would probably establish the films notability in itself?

Secondly I have also now added a link to a news interview Paul Atherton undertook with London Live (TV channel) News yesterday morning http://www.londonlive.co.uk/news/2016-02-08/london-life

Would that be sufficient for an overturn of your former decision?

I'm going to continue tidying up my citations.

The references to things contained within the film are there as an aid to the reader, as unless you're from London many of these things would be unknown. They are not there to establish notability.

I have followed Atherton's career closely, as I was hugely impressed with The Ballet of Change but no longer have any direct connection with him.

Many Thanks

Amanda (Amanda Paul (talk) 13:15, 9 February 2016 (UTC))

  • The link shows that it was displayed, but doesn't establish that it was a permanent part of the museum. I also have to repeat that the sources that do not pertain to the movie do not really add anything to the article and I don't think that the average reader will really have any true issue with establishing that a theater performance was held and Atherton attended. If they're not aware of the actual things being posted, you can always link to the Wikipedia article, if it exists. Also while I know that this was not your intent, linking to sources that don't pertain to the article (ie, cannot show notability) can actually work against the article, as it can be seen as an attempt to make it appear less notable. This is because we've had people try to establish notability for an article by inserting numerous citations in the hopes that a large number of citations will make something seem more important. It's probably one of the largest differences between a personal paper and an encyclopedia article, since you'd need to put these in a personal paper but not in an encyclopedia article. Again, I don't think that this was your intent, but it is something you need to be careful of, since a lot of people may look at the fact that a large number of the sources do not pertain to the actual film and assume that it's a distraction technique. I'll try to take a look at the article later tonight and clean it up some so you can see what I'm getting at. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:34, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Rita Pam Tarachi

Hi Tokyogirl79. A while back you were very helpful in answering some questions I had at WP:BLPN about Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive233#Nikki and John Pranksters in Love and also at WT:BOOKS regarding Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Books/Archive 18#Red Gambit. So, I am wondering if you wouldn't mind taking a look at Rita Pam Tarachi. I have a feeling that she probably satisfies WP:GNG, but I'm having a hard time finding any sources. I've tried doing a bit of good-faith cleanup, but it seems this has not been received well by the article's creator. Anyway, I don't want to "bite" anyone or drive anyone away from Wikipedia and of course I am not saying my edits were mistake free, so perhaps a new perspective from someone more experienced at editing would be helpful in improving the article and preventing the situation from spriring out of control. For the record, I came to the article because some non-free cover art uploaded by the editor was being discussed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 January 11#File:Fragments of her identity book.jpeg, so it was on my watchlist. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:17, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

  • I'll try to take a look at it later. Offhand I can see one thing that needs to be removed: the Readers' Favorite award. A quick look at the website for that organization shows that it's a vanity award, as they offer authors marketing services. It's actually listed at the vanity awards entry here on Wikipedia. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:09, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for taking a look Tokyogirl79. In hindsight, my edit sums may have been a little confusing since I left only wikilinks without going into too much detail. So, I have posted some things on the article's talk page which might help clarify the changes I made. I am a little concerned, however, about some of the comments being made by the other editor in their edit sums. Not so much for me, but more for them. They do seem to be trying to exert some ownership over the article which is probably going to end badly for them. Anyway, if you have any comments on what I added to the article's talk page, then please add them. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:07, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi again Tokyogirl79. Just wanted to let you know that I mentioned you in WP:BLP/N#Rita Pam Tarachi with regards to the above-mentioned talk page post and your response. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:07, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Revision

Could you please restore the last userpage version here if you think that they were not a sock. --Tito Dutta (talk) 14:27, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Origins: Discovery

Dear Tokyogirl79. Thanks for your comments about my article Origins: Discovery. I will try to find more information about the book. If I find more sources would it be enough for resubmitting my article? This was my first article and your points about it would be very helpful for future articles. I will count them for now. --Narine-GH (talk) 09:00, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

  • @Narine-GH: It would be worth a try. Right now one of the biggest concerns was that there was really only enough to justify one article, as the coverage for Wicks was a little light overall. That's mildly a problem, since establishing independent notability for the book might put the main article at risk, although hopefully by that point there would be enough coverage overall to justify two articles, so there's no reason to really worry about that now. I'd say that a good idea would be to work on a copy of the article in your userspace at User:Narine-GH/Origins: Discovery or ideally at WP:AfC, since I think that there's likely a conflict of interest here. (IE, you know Wicks and/or were asked to make the article.) You can still edit with a conflict of interest, you just have to be as careful as possible during the whole editing process. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 02:41, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Curiouser and curiouser

Thanks for blocking Bonadeaeaea and the other lookalikes. I'm frankly a bit baffled - there are attempts at SPIs at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Bonadeaeaea, Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Bonadea, Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Bonadeaeaea and Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Sonicwave32, naming these accounts and others; the "brand-new" editor who created them makes some weird claims and it's all rather peculiar. --bonadea contributions talk 11:52, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Please delete these two pages to make way for a move

Hi, I don't know what CSD rationale I use to do this so I contacted you directly. Can you please delete Fueled By Ramen and Fueled By Ramen discography? These are the correctly capitalisation and I wish to move Fueled by Ramen and Fueled by Ramen discography to those titles. Anarchyte (work | talk) 06:16, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

@Tokyogirl79: And what rationale would something like 1979 AMA National Speedway Championship fall under? Anarchyte (work | talk) 12:41, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
  • @Anarchyte: Where would it be moved to? Or would it just be outright deleted? If it's an outright deletion then you could either propose it for deletion or take it to AfD. Since it's a championship it's possible that it could be restored if it was contested, since championships do infer just enough notability to where it would likely pass the very low bar of speedy criteria. However since the article was recently created, it'd be best to go through AfD, since a recent creation makes it more likely to be de-PRODed or restored via REFUND. Although of course the best-best outcome would be to contact the article creator and ask if they'd be willing to userfy it until they can provide better sourcing. I'll drop them a line on their userpage. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 02:47, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I'll also ask for help with the racing WikiProject. That way if it isn't notable, then we can say that some WP:BEFORE was done. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 02:50, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Huh. I thought that we had a general racing one. This looks to be a motorbike competition, so that limits what we can go to offhand. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 02:51, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Draft:William Pittman Lett

Hi. Just sort of curious why you removed the G13 tag from a test draft which has only a single line of content and no evidence of notability? Not a big thing, but I try not to make work for other editors, so I was wondering if I missed something? Onel5969 TT me 15:00, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Just wanted to make sure I hadn't missed something. Onel5969 TT me 04:55, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Responding to Concerns on the Washington Papers page

I appreciate your bringing forward concerns regarding recent edits of The Washington Papers page. However, in trying to appropriately address those concerns, I have found the response less enthusiastic.

As you had originally offered to help with editing, a colleague of mine and I emailed you multiple times last week indicating we would like to address these concerns and requesting help in appropriately doing so. Of the three attempts, you responded once, and only to the potential copyright concerns. We still have yet to receive response or acknowledgement from you regarding the language you thought may be too positive.

In regards to your advice regarding the potential copyright concerns, I submitted a ticket for use of copyrighted language, as you suggested, a week ago, yet I have seen no change regarding the copyright notice on the page.

At this time, despite numerous attempts to respond directly to the concerns raised, we are frustrated our efforts have not been acknowledged, and thus in turn, the notices on the page have not changed.

With no further advice for moving forward, I have removed any potentially disruptive content—essentially everything but the introduction—from the page in the hope that the notices would at least be removed promptly.

With guidance, I am willing to work to improve the page in the future. If you would like to do so then please reach out to me using the email address I have already provided you as I will shortly be deleting this username in a final effort to respond to the potential conflict of interest concerns. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Papersofgwashington (talk • contribs) 19:55, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Hi there! Thanks for saying hi, we are a class in Berkeley trying to add LGBTQ content to Wikipedia, students are excited and so am I. BTW--I think Librarians rock! Juamari (talk) 21:32, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Responding to Concerns on the Washington Papers page

I appreciate your bringing forward concerns regarding recent edits of The Washington Papers page. However, in trying to appropriately address those concerns, I have found the response less enthusiastic.

As you had originally offered to help with editing, a colleague of mine and I emailed you multiple times last week indicating we would like to address these concerns and requesting help in appropriately doing so. Of the three attempts, you responded once, and only to the potential copyright concerns. We still have yet to receive response or acknowledgement from you regarding the language you thought may be too positive.

In regards to your advice regarding the potential copyright concerns, I submitted a ticket for use of copyrighted language, as you suggested, a week ago, yet I have seen no change regarding the copyright notice on the page.

At this time, despite numerous attempts to respond directly to the concerns raised, we are frustrated our efforts have not been acknowledged, and thus in turn, the notices on the page have not changed.

With no further advice for moving forward, I have removed any potentially disruptive content—essentially everything but the introduction—from the page in the hope that the notices would at least be removed promptly.

With guidance, I am willing to work to improve the page in the future. If you would like to do so then please reach out to me using the email address I have already provided you as I or any other editor will no longer be using this username in a final effort to respond to the potential conflict of interest concerns.

Thanks!

Thank you very much for your contributions to Mental Models. They were much appreciated because they have improved the article quite a bit. Spalding (talk) 14:17, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Men On The Border

Hi. I replied to your comments directly on the page Draft:Men_On_The_Border. I hope it's normal if you counterreply there. I don't know if I have to update here each time I update there to let you have a notification of the update. I've updated the issue also here: User_talk:SwisterTwister#Draft:Men_On_The_Border, since I thought it was clearer to write there and also to let know my probable "last words" to SwisterTwister.PCMorphy72 (talk) 20:39, 22 February 2016 (UTC) PCMorphy72 (talk) 19:00, 23 February 2016 (UTC) PCMorphy72 (talk) 21:44, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Update

Please read the talk page for User:Paleface Jack I Drink Your Blood (revision).--Paleface Jack (talk) 01:17, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Deleting "Excellent academic help"

An attack page, huh? ;-) Thanks for actioning that! Ajraddatz (Talk) 08:17, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Apology

Hi Tokyogirl79, I see you have criticized this user's hard work of making the articles they have made and edited. By doing this you are what is known as a cyber bully. This is not nice to people and can hurt people's feelings. I recommend that you apologize to this user. Thanks, YoutubeAuthor. The user was Youtube0117.

Hi T. I wanted to let you know that the person who posted this is now blocked and this Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Youtube0117 has been filed. Feel free to delete this if you want. Enjoy the rest of your week in spite of this. MarnetteD|Talk 20:48, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Nah, I'll leave it up in the hopes that he may come back and read this:
  • To the young authors: I'm sorry that your feelings were hurt by the article's deletion, but you've got to understand that Wikipedia is not like Wikia or other sites on the Internet. In order to have a page the series would need to be considered very notable per Wikipedia's guidelines. To use an analogy, getting a page on here is a lot like getting a position on a professional sports team. People might might want to join but unless they have what it takes to make the team they'll get eliminated during the tryouts. It might hurt their feelings that they didn't get in, but the team can't take every applicant. It's the same on here - while it'd be nice if we could keep every article, that's not how Wikipedia works and all articles need to show how the topic passes a particular requirement. (In this case, WP:NBOOK.) This isn't cyber bullying, it's just the rules on Wikipedia. Now what I recommended to you on the other pages I'll repeat here: I would recommend that you try making your own wiki on a site like Wikia, since they don't have the very strict rules and requirements that Wikipedia does. I would also recommend that you be very, very careful about what you put on the Internet. If I remember correctly, you gave out a lot of personal information that could lead someone to find where you live. Most people are good and wouldn't do anything bad with this, but because there are bad people out there, you need to be more cautious with your personal information. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:12, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Seriously

Why did you delete my article? Please don't bite the newbies. Is this how bad Wikipedia has gotten? Also, are you an admin?--MML Ruler (talk) 23:15, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

  • @MML Ruler: That's not really how WP:BITE works. Bite is more for cases where someone is far more harsh than is warranted. Deleting pages isn't really being harsh, not if the page genuinely falls under deletion criteria. In this case the article was nominated for speedy deletion because it was redundant to an existing article on the product, HeadOn, and articles on products should be under the product name. We also already had a redirect based on the slogan "Apply directly to the forehead". Since there are no other products that use this line, there's really no need for a title that specifies that it's a slogan used in a commercial. In any case, be careful when using the term "bite" on here, because using the term when there's really no "biting" can be seen as an WP:ADHOMINEM attack. I know that you're frustrated, but it's better to assume good faith from other editors on here since going in and assuming that something was done out of bad faith can backfire pretty solidly. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:23, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Request

Can you delete Thank You (Meghan Trainor album) so the draft can be moved there?--MaranoFan (talk)

Re: User:Vicky85144

Just a followup on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Vicky85144 and the IP sock puppets. During the previous report, I blanked User talk:103.41.99.126 based on the report over the editor repeated re-creation and restoring the deleted article and vandalize of other editor's user pages. Now the IP has restored the article back to the talk page. —Farix (t | c) 12:21, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Hizon's Catering page Recommended for AfD

The page is declined since the overall notability is still in question. The page is recommended for AfD, but it is not in the March 4 to March 7 log. I want to contest the deletion recommendation. Jenv Corre (talk) 02:11, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Timothy Parker

How is it that Arcenter (who seems to have created his own page in the first place) is allowed to continue editing his own page willy-nilly? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:CE4E:3B20:8E5:4AF8:44C1:566 (talk) 20:09, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi

Hi Toykogirl79!

I wanted to thank you for protecting the Timothy Parker page. In the crossword world, this is a huge deal, (It's like if a baseball team were caught throwing games, imagine the outrage). The allegations are undeniable when presented with the facts, and his use of pseudonyms and other general shadiness was extending into an edit war. Thank you for stopping that

Xmaster8621 (talk) 14:29, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

  • No problem - I am concerned about that as well. I've blocked the main editor for a short period of time and asked him to start collaborating on the talk page, since he kept making some problematic edits and wasn't responding to direct questions about his COI. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:32, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

I want to thank you for taking such a calm and rational approach to this edit war. I was wondering now that this story has been covered not only by the original website, but also by the New York Times, New York Daily News, National Public Radio, CBS Evening News, and around the world in Mexico, Australia, and Switzerland, if this scandal, which likely constitutes nearly all of the the traffic to his page, should have a separate section. Xmaster8621 (talk) 12:05, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

  • I'd say to start small for now and build as we get more coverage. If this account is Parker, which does appear likely, I don't want him to complain about BLP violations. The coverage has been mild but steady enough to warrant mention and if it keeps going the way it has, it'd at least merit a subsection in the part of the article pertaining to his career. It's just that we have to be really careful about BLP stuff in case he wants to say that we're being salacious, which is why we need to be careful on the article's talk page. The media could report on him (possibly) editing the article, but then they could also say that we didn't try to work with him. Wikipedia is a pretty popular target for the media, after all. In any case, I did note that there are two stories by CBS News, here and here. This website reported on it, but I'm not sure if this is a RS per Wikipedia's guidelines. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:18, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Collaboration

Hello TokyoGirl79. Just to let you know I have replied to your comment in the Userspace draft that we are working on. You might want to check that out. Also please add your name to the project in the collaboration of the month on WikiProject Horror.--Paleface Jack (talk) 16:38, 9 February 2016 (UTC) Have an idea for expanding the article. I'll let you know more about it on the Userspave Draft talk page--Paleface Jack (talk) 17:35, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Just to give you a heads up I have worked with another user NRP (NinjaRobotPirate) and have expanded the lead in the User Draft. There is only a couple of things that still need to be worked on and added. Here is a list of the things that still need to be worked on:

  1. Quotebox needs to be added somewhere in the article (preferably in the production section).
  3. An image of Sharon Springs, New York where it was filmed with the appropriate caption included.
  5. Sources need to be added to the unreferenced material.
  7. Home media section needs to be expanded in more detail.
  9. Release section needs more information (how much money did it gross, and popularity).


--Paleface Jack (talk) 18:57, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ReaderofthePack/Archive_25&oldid=1146522919"