User talk:ReaderofthePack: Difference between revisions

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 24 Archive 25 Archive 26 Archive 27 Archive 28 Archive 29 Archive 30 Archive 31 Archive 32 Archive 33 Archive 34 Archive 35 Archive 36 Archive 37 Archive 38 Archive 39 Archive 40 Archive 41 Archive 42

This page has archives. Sections older than 31 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Hi, Thank you so much for reviewing the Draft version and adding comments on it. Its helpful. I didn't know that in the EL section only official links are needed. That's why I put all other links into EL. I am thinking to do some more reasearch and connect the relevant links to the references. Also, you spoke about the tone of the content as promotional, I feel its neutral. Kindly suggest. Thanks a lot!!! Vivek.bekhabar (talk) 07:05, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Vivek.bekhabar, it's pretty promotional in places. For example, this sentence is pretty problematic:

"It serves as a platform for Indian Contemporary artists to present their individual art, their inspirations, their desires and most importantly, a part of their soul."

This type of thing is written in order to promote something and it's seen as fairly non-neutral on Wikipedia. You've got to be very careful of these things since they can cause an article to be deleted on that basis alone. I do have a question: are you affiliated with the company, possibly with the marketing department? If so, you will need to disclose this on your userpage per WP:COI, but the main reason I'm mentioning this is because in most cases marketing people are very used to writing in a promotional tone - so much so that you won't see the promotional-ness when others point it out. I've had that happen on multiple occasions with marketing people (or just people who are used to writing promotional material). In any case, the promotional-ness isn't so bad that it can't be fixed, though. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:17, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Thanks for your inputs. I too thought of that sentence as promotional. But I didnt change it because it was cited in the news article. I thought if its in the sources, then its OK! Anyways, its a learning for me.

And I am not affliated with the company. I am a student currently pursuing post graduation and I had a project on aroma industry in the last semester. I had trouble in finding the information on the internet. So, thought of putting some.

Thanks for the comments, they are really helpful!!! I will remove this kind of contents. Vivek.bekhabar (talk) 08:40, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• No problem - let me know if you need any help with this. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:44, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sure and Thanks!!! Vivek.bekhabar (talk) 09:43, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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. [1] 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• Tnguyen4321 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Ia Drang Battle in its Pleime Campaign Context (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Mjkelly26 (talk) 09:32, 12 May 2015 (GMT)

Hi Tokyogirl79, a few months ago you deleted a submission of mine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ConcertHotels.com, but you provided some fantastic feedback. I've taken your points on board and I've just resubmitted my entry. I hope that you feel it is much improved and would love to hear your feedback, Many thanks, Mike \

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• Since 7 & 10 are primary, that essentially just looks like only 9 is a reliable source. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:43, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

• I think that I'm going to take this guy to AfD and let it get hashed out there. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:36, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Walking High Point (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:John Harrison Finger - Mr. Walk America (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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)[reply]

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

• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

• Zombiezilla (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:The Sky Has Fallen (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

• Cool- I was worried that I might have been stepping on some toes there. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:56, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
  • Ha. I only wish I could take credit! NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:56, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Nah, take the credit. I probably would never have moved that to the mainspace otherwise! Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:57, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• Thank you JMHamo (talk) 10:53, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. At least one of your recent edits, such as the edit you made to Adam Bogdan, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. TeaLover1996 ^{Talk to me ☏} 13:21, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker)lol! I'm sure she will, Tea Lover, one way or another _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 15:31, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• No, they weren't test edits. I was asked to protect the page by another editor since people were pre-emptively adding team information to Bogdán's article. The reason why some of my edits (the addition of a protection template) were reverted was because I'd edited a version that had the wrong information on the page. That information was removed by JHamo and in the process it ended up reverting my edits as well. While this might have looked suspicious at first, they were not unconstructive edits and as such, putting this template on my page was unwarranted. I think that you meant well, but you do need to be careful about adding this template without checking to make sure that this should be added. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:38, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please block the obvious sock Againt frustrated chauvinist slovak IP (talk · contribs). This account restored info added by the previous socks Invetorlist (talk · contribs) and Inventiorlist (talk · contribs). 213.229.69.40 (talk) 06:00, 13 June 2015 (UTC) 213.229.69.40 (talk) 06:01, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• It looks like this account was already blocked by Jimfbleak. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:13, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please accept my sincere apologies, when I saw that 3 of your edits were reverted I presumed you had done wrong, without checking what and why they were reverted, I jumped to conclusions, and I am sorry for that, in the future before adding warnings to talk pages, I'll check the edits and why they were reverted. Thank You. TeaLover1996 ^{Talk to me ☏} 07:52, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@TeaLover1996: Eh, no worries. :) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:27, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	Thank you for your help with my students this semester! HullIntegrity\ talk / 13:13, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies about the ED page, that was the other rapper in the group. Homosexual Compound is a legitimate, non-satire group.

I'm assuming i'm not aloud to re-add the page? I do have references this time.

Thank you for the info as well, sorry for the misunderstanding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zazier (talk • contribs) 17:35, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Zazier, what type of sources do you have? To show notability you would have to show where the group has received coverage in independent and reliable sources like newspaper articles and reviews in notable media outlets like Pitchfork. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:44, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

dear tokyogirl79 hello! :-) you have deleted my page Eby G. Friedman due to G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion: G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement of http://www.ece.rochester.edu/~friedman/

so i wanted to clear a few thing so that my page could be up again and also ask a few question

this page is a biography of Eby G. Friedman and it has been given to me by the dean of the department of computer science in my university. it is a gift to Eby G. Friedman ,for his long and important help for the departments of electronics and computer science in our university. the site http://www.ece.rochester.edu/~friedman/ is his! and he accepted to receive this gift

so why is there problem with copywrite ?and why is it advertising?

thank you ! :-) Gal lilos (talk) 13:15, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Gal lilos: Just to clear up any misunderstanding: Tokyogirl didn't delete the page(s). I just recommended her in case you need some further advice as she knows a lot more about copyright than I do. Tokyogirl, hope you don't mind :) --TMCk (talk) 14:13, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@The Magnificent Clean-keeper:@Tokyogirl79: guys. this page is important (not only for Eby G. Friedman and my university.but also for me to finish my degree!! :-) ) so please tell me what i need to do to restore this page corectly. thank you very much! Gal lilos (talk) 19:16, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@The Magnificent Clean-keeper:@Tokyogirl79: --TMCkUser:tokyogirl79 dear mr TMCk i see that tokyogirl179 is the one who deleted my page!! if not please tell me to whom should i talk Gal lilos (talk) 10:54, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Gal lilos, I did delete the page but I was not the one who tagged it. What you will need to do is re-write the article in your own words without any promotional tones. Regardless of whether or not this is needed for graduation Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted or promotional materials. It may actually be even more important that you write this in your own words since cut and pasting or closely paraphrasing the source material can be seen as plagiarism- something that will earn you a zero (and possible disciplinary action) at almost all educational facilities. You can re-create the page, but you should not post copyrighted material. I also have to note that I'm also more than a little leery of the fact that you were asked to create this by the college and that they made it a requirement for your graduation. That seems a little bit like your school is extorting you since it sounds like they will not pass you if the article is not on Wikipedia. In other words they weren't looking for an attempt (ie, showing that you got experience) but an article itself and unfairly punishing you if the article is not kept for whatever reason. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:05, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Now as far as copyright goes you can always get the school to file a ticket through WP:ORTS that would give Wikipedia permission to use the material but even so it would still be promotional, which would also keep it from being used. It reads too much like a CV (ie, trying to show how great he is) than a neutral article- the entire research summary section is pretty unambiguously promotional. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:06, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Basically, Wikipedia articles should not be given as a gift nor should the absence of a page be grounds for not passing someone. A class that uses Wikipedia as a tool should take into consideration that they can be removed for various different reasons- notability, promotion, copyright violations, and so on. Like I said above, I have no problem with you re-creating the page in your own words, although offhand you will need to provide better sourcing since everything was WP:PRIMARY. In order to show notability per WP:PROF you will need to show how he's notable outside of his own college. Publishing things is not enough by itself to show notability, nor would holding patents. Also something to take in mind is that not all awards are considered to be noteworthy on Wikipedia because there are so many awards out there. A common saying is that if you took all of the awards that were ever given for any accomplishment (from Nobel Prizes to Newberry Medals) only about 5% of them would be considered the type that would give even partial notability. Of that 5%, less than 1% would give notability. That doesn't mean that the awards aren't difficult to receive or impressive, just that Wikipedia is pretty strict about this sort of thing. I'm not saying that he is non-notable (him being a fellow with IEEE alone makes him pass WP:PROF), just that you will need to find better sourcing for any future incarnations of the article or it will run the risk of getting deleted due to a lack of notability even if you fix the copyvio and tone issues. Any claims that are not sourced are typically removed in articles, so if the IEEE fellowship isn't sourced and that gets removed and there's nothing else in the article that would pass notability guidelines, then the article is at risk for deletion. Again, not saying that there aren't things that would make him notable, mostly I'm just trying to show how important it is to properly source things and to write things properly- this is something you will absolutely need to know how to do in a professional setting if you choose to say, write a paper for an academic journal. (You'll likely have some leeway with promotional prose to a degree since some non-NPOV tone is allowable, but most journals really want to make sure that you properly source material and do not take material from other places without proper attribution!) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:26, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tokyogirl79 ok. thank you for the elaborated answer .but i have a problem i need the page i wrote. since it has alot of changes i did can i have it in beck in my sandbox? i had alot of work on it.this is more then "copy paste" from other website! tnx Gal lilos (talk) 12:14, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Since some of it was closely paraphrased it's still considered to be a copyright violation and as such I cannot restore it. I can, however, e-mail you a copy if you enable this in your user account. I would recommend that you not re-add the information that was taken from other sources, though. I would also recommend that you get your college to file a ticket through WP:ORTS that gives the site permission to use material from the official page, since that would give you some wiggle room on material that you can't really rephrase without it coming across like possible copyvio. I still have to stress that it's important to re-write the material in your own words since pages that heavily take material from other sources are frequently targeted as promotional and WP:COI pages. I've had experiences with fairly neutrally written pages where it was actually more work to deal with incoming editors accusing the page of bias due to the use of copyrighted text than it was if I'd just re-written everything. (And it ended up that everything was re-written anyway, at which point the page was left to its own devices.) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:22, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tokyogirl79 i will do as you say.and get the permission as you say.because i want this page to stay forever :-) i will be happy to recieve it by mail. what do you mean enable the user acount is it not enabled? TNX Gal lilos (talk) 17:29, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I checked and you have e-mail enabled.
  BTW, my comment above is confusing, just as I was early that morning. I had referred them to Moonriddengirl and didn't realize they posted here.--TMCk (talk) 22:13, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Weird- when I'd checked earlier I hadn't seen it enabled. Anywho, it's up now so I've emailed it out. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:17, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tokyogirl79 tnx! got it. ill fix every thing. if i want to post it can i give it to you for review? Gal lilos (talk) 19:39, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

It was handful receiving an email saying that my article had been declined then accepted. I got quite confused. I am aware about the theft, but I hadn't been able to add the new content. As for your proposal for the Fifty Shades of Grey series, I am in! I had initially made Draft:Fifty Shades (film series), but I was told to only submit it once the second movie had been released, and that's it in two years. Regardless, I'd be more than happy to contribute into creating the franchise article. Callmemirela (Talk) ♑ 16:17, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @Callmemirela: Yeah... I'd initially declined it since I was worried that it'd be too soon for an entry, but the more I thought about it the more I felt that it could stand on its own despite it not releasing yet, so I went back and reversed the decline. I figure that at the very least if anyone argues against it we could always redirect for a few days, although I doubt that anyone is going to really question the article. In other words, I made a mistake by declining it the first time, but at least I realized that before the night was out. :) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:34, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• In any case, I'll start on the franchise page in my userspace at User:Tokyogirl79/Fifty Shades (franchise), although I anticipate moving this to Fifty Shades (franchise) very soon. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:36, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I wonder if I should style it after the Harry Potter pages? One for the book series, one for the film series? It may be too soon slightly for the film series. Hmm... I think I'll go with the one about the franchise and just let it get figured out from there. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:41, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Huh. Looks like there's already one for the book series at Fifty Shades trilogy. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:02, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I wonder if we should create one for the franchise or if the trilogy page is enough. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:40, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The decline for the film series page doesn't entirely make sense since I'd say that the film series page could go live as soon as filming for the second film has officially begun. The rationale for that is that we can have pages on un-released films if principal filming has begun, so it stands to reason that a page on the film series could go live at the same time. Filming is supposed to start this month, so as soon as that starts I'd say that the film series page could be created. I'm going to shelve a page on the franchise for now since we already have a page for the trilogy in favor of working on a page for the second film. (Plus it looks like the standard here is to have separate pages on the film series and the book series and not a franchise page.) You've already got a lion's share of the work on that done with the film series page so we should be able to port a lot of the information over. Sorry if some of this sounds a bit disorganized- it's sort of the way my thought processes go when I'm working on new pages. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:56, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Damn woman. 6 replies within 4 hours lmao. Yes, it is a bit disorganized :P Let me answer reply by reply. I don't remember who told me, or how, about publishing the film series article, but I do remember them saying to only publish it once the second film had been released. I reluctantly agreed to it and I update the article whenever there are big chunks of information available instead of wasting time going one source to another. I totally understand about the franchise article. It was fun for a moment there :P "Lion's share of the work"? I suppose that's good? Hahah Callmemirela (Talk) ♑ 20:50, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I wanted to request an english translation of this article: https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/ClassDojo. However, when I checked to see if there was a translated, I found that the page had been deleted by you: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ClassDojo because of somekind of ban of an editor. Is still alright to request at least a translation of this article into english? While ClassDojo is a very notiable in Spain, it used starting to be a few teachers in the US. How can I request a translation? 162.242.9.16 (talk) 02:19, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Sure, I don't mind. I do need to give you one slight warning, though: the page has a history of being connected with a very well known sockpuppet so some of the translators may be quite hesitant to translate as a result. I will say that if you can translate it you can always sign up with an account and translate it yourself, although odds are high that you'll likely get a perfunctory check to make sure that you're not the same person avoiding a ban. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:31, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The page is deleted by you as ‎"(G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement of {{{url}}})", I don't know who added copyright content, so please restore and check all edits, and hide the copyright content edits. Chander 17:48, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd checked and it's in most of the past edits. It was honestly just easier to delete the history and just recreate it with the sources that had been in the article, minus the copyrighted content. The only ones that didn't have copyvio were the first 1-3 versions that only had about a sentence's worth of content. Other than bragging rights as to who created the article, there's really no reason to restore the article history. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:45, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, That's not a good reason to delete all good edits (edits with no copyright material). You are an admin so please do hard work like an admin Wizardman, please see this. Chander 15:10, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• It's ultimately up to the admin. If the copyvio goes back far enough and the only other edits are extremely small (ie, almost no content) and are fairly few in number then it's not a big thing to delete the complete article history. However I need to point out that while you're arguing for keeping an article's history you've also turned the page into a redirect that leads to a new page (with a new spelling) that you've created with the cut/paste of the other article's history. This really gives off the extremely strong impression that what you wanted wasn't to have the history intact but rather you wanted to be given credit as the creator of the page. (If the article's history was that important, why not move the article and continue to argue your point? Moving the article would move the prior article history that should include the deleted history as well.) In other words, all you were looking for were bragging rights and not really a complete edit history. I had a strong suspicion that this was ultimately all you wanted and your actions have proven this. If you'd just been open about this then I'd have been OK with that. I don't personally care terribly much about article creation bragging rights since that isn't really all that important on Wikipedia, but I know that some find this extremely important and there's not really anything wrong with that. A little tip for the future though: just be honest about what it is that you want. If you want the bragging rights of having created the article then just say that this is what you want. Most admins don't care since like I said, who created what is ultimately not all that important (although be careful that you don't fall into WP:OWN territory). What we do care about is when people try to hide what it is that they really want and argue from another standpoint when they couldn't care less about that particular standpoint. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:30, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• In any case, I'm going to consider this closed since you moved the article and there's even less point restoring the history to a redirect. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:34, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for Putting Mouseheart are going to do the Characters of Mouseheart. and Thank for putting The Mouse with the Question Mark Tail When are you going to put the Characters and Plot onThe Mouse with the Question Mark Tail and Secrets at Sea. When? 90731fly (talk) 05:47, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not, although you can feel free to add these if you wish. I was more just working on the pages to show enough notability to where the pages would not be deleted since I knew that the pages were notable. I left you a long message about this on your talk page. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:48, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I just wanted to make sure everything ok. Bye? 90731fly (talk) 05:57, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tokyogirl79, I have just come across the above awards by i310 Media Group ([2]). Although they don't appear to have a wikiarticle, would being a winner or a finalist be okay for an article's notability or should we just treat it as a bit of industry cruft? thanks Coolabahapple (talk) 11:50, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Coolabahapple, no- they're considered to be a vanity/scam award and they're even listed in the vanity award article. They've sank in the public eye because they've become fairly well known as a scam in the literary circuit, partially thanks to this Salon article and this blog article at Writer Beware by Victoria Strauss, but every once in a while I'll see them pop up on Wikipedia. Hmm... this might actually be something worth covering at the books WP and NAUTHOR/NBOOK guidelines since vanity awards will frequently come up at AfD often enough to where searching is necessary. Writer Beware is considered to be fairly definitive (and would be a RS in my opinion) since it's sponsored by multiple writing associations. I know that they have a list up of bad publishers, but I don't know if they have one for awards. I'll have to ask them since that'd be invaluable to have. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:51, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tokyogirl79, thanks for the heads up.Coolabahapple (talk) 05:47, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can very short articles be GA? After one claim is referenced or removed I think the Adi Hasak article might qualify in so much as everything will be sourced and it covers all available information. I also hope that the prospect of it being a GA might temper its COI editor's desire to add un-referenced material while still giving him a certain 'feel-good' factor. There is not much on the subject but ultimately I think he is notable enough. I would also like to get a feel for getting some of the short marginal topic articles we have up to some standard. Cheers. Jbh^Talk 18:31, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• JBH: Nah, the expectation is that GA will be more substantial than what's currently in the article. One of the criteria is that it also has to be stable, which isn't really the case here with the COI editor edit warring with you in the past few days. He isn't so bad that I'd outright block him, but unless he shapes up I think that he's cruising for a 24/48 hour warning block. I'll leave a stern warning on his talk page about all of this. I don't know if he realizes that he can get blocked for this or not. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:21, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Looking at his edits, I wouldn't give it GA quality just to pacify someone who is clearly here to promote someone/himself. I've left him a stern warning and if he does this again, I'm blocking him. If he keeps it up and doesn't use the talk page, it'll become permanent. I'll drop a note at WP:FILM asking for people to come and take a look at the page to judge notability. I'd also probably recommend getting User:DGG to take a look as well. He's strict, but if DGG thinks he passes notability guidelines then that's as good of a seal of approval as any. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:41, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you for the advice and help. I was near the point where I should check myself to make sure I ]am editing for the article rather than against the editor - kind of a mental reset plus an attempt to find a way to co-opt the COI editor into cooperation. Thanks for bringing the subject up with WP:FILM, I hadn't thought of that. I will drop a note to DGG if no one pops over from WP:FILM. Have a good weekend. Cheers. Jbh^Talk 11:28, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have, just like Tokyogirl79, increasingly been encountering COI editors complaining that I have rated their article Start, or C. It seems that some paid editors are paid higher if their work becomes a GA. I don't think any paid editor, declared or undeclared, should ever be offering this, not even a fully declared paid editor, as they're offering what they alone are not able to fulfill and what will depend on the work of others, whom they have no right to enlist for their pecuniary benefit. Any COI editor with any form of COI should not be insisting on it: they should be pointed to the criteria, and told to edit the article as best they can, in accordance with them, and let it be judged by the community. One thing that can be fairly said to any editor, is that additional good pertinent 3rd party sources will help any article.

And I really think that in any case, including voluntary good faith editing, an author of an article should leave quality rating up to other people, and limit themselves to taking account of the suggested improvements. It's a little futile in our environment to be overly attached to any particular article.

As for notability, being screenwriter on two notable films is I think enough. The article should have rbe re-focused on what he has done already, because that is notable, not on what he has done for a film that won;t be released until 2016. Any non promotional editor would have done that; organizing an article to highlight the latest work, especially forthcoming work, is in my experience an almost certain sign of promotional intent. DGG ( talk ) 20:10, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: Thank you for the input. The only reason I thought about GA was I thought that might be a way to get the creator of the article to focus on solid sourcing and good writing and to give me some experience in the process. It has been a battle to get un-sourced biographical material out of the article and to get RS references in. Mostly I thought, if such short articles could qualify, getting the other editor (who says he is the subject's son) on board with GA might de-escalate the situation over there.

A couple of other editors have shown up to work on the article and I think my removal of the prospective Eyewitness script has stuck. Again, thank you for your help. It looks like the next thing for me to learn here is how the article assessment system works. PS I really wish the requirements for articles went sourcing --> notability rather than the other way around. No sources == No article. And for my next wish.... world peace! :) Jbh^Talk 20:44, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Day-um! You beat me to the punch =D!

Any ways; Hi Tokyogirl79, It's Kandiwell I hope you don't mind but I'm going to help out on that article; I've started and have been out in the sun all day and feel exhausted and just wanna crawl in a nice cold area of my house and sleep; I've upload the photo of all six of the books to the article and I am starting to write a synopsis for all the books (so far started writing 'bout Trainers V. Tiaras but I will do some more tomorrow and possibly Saturday - all depends on the weather as I hate being out in the sun using my iPhone or iPad and the sun reflecting on it.)

Hope you don't mind just thought I'd let you know what's what really and just to be friendly and would like to suggest if you want to get the books get them you'd enjoy them (if you're like me 22 and still enjoys reading them) but in all honesty they are a good laugh and funny some of the lines in the book will have you crying with laughter (especially in Too Cool for School) Kandiwell 21:07, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes please! I haven't read the books so I was kind of going by the summaries. I'd added one or two bits to them that tend to be the standard of any YA novel/series (ie, overcoming obstacles), so I'd really appreciate help from someone who has read them. I have to admit, they sound like a lot of fun - I got some "teenage Bridget Jones" type of vibes as far as the humor goes, so the books sound right up my alley. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:15, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• You'd love it; if I was you and this is my honest opinion I'd buy them off of the Amazon.co.uk website (it might cost a tiny bit more in postage if you don't live in the UK/Channel Islands) and if I was to be honest if it's out of sync don't read until you've read Trainers V. Tiaras it is a good read and I think you will enjoy it Kandiwell 16:24, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• I'll probably do that- I know that once I get started on series I want to finish them. I've got an account with Amazon UK - I ended up getting a book from an English author from there since I didn't want to wait for the US release. (Argh... the wait for books while they edit the text to replace the UK references with US equivalents is just frustrating!) If I can recommend an author, I'd recommend D. Rus, if you like sci-fi/fantasy books. He's got this series called Play to Live that's surprisingly good. I'm actually mildly surprised at how little coverage it's getting in English. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:21, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Let me know once you've got them and I didn't realise that they changed some of the UK references when a book goes to America (would love to have seen what they would've done for Keeping it Real as she name checks both Mariah Carey and her song I Stay in Love) and I've got a book I'd like to recommend to you; Jan Lowe Shinebourne's The Last Ship one of my best mates is a post man and he delivers to her and she signed a copy of the book for him Kandiwell 21:30, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to create new article about this person please unlock this topic. Best OKD — Preceding unsigned comment added by Okejdokej (talk • contribs) 09:40, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't have any true opposition to this, mostly I'd just like for you to give better evidence for notability. Your sources were pretty much entirely WP:PRIMARY or were linked to places that cannot be used as a source to show notability, such as a random YouTube video. (YT is not a good thing to link to in articles since many are not uploaded by the person who owns the rights to the content, making it a potential copyright violation.) Also, please do not put the film posters on his article. The thing about film posters is that copyright laws only allow us to use them in the infobox for the article about the films - they cannot be used anywhere else unless the person who owns the rights gives them up as fair use. It also doesn't entirely help that using them all can sometimes come across a little promotional or at the very least, makes the page look and feel pretty cluttered. I'd also like to ask that if you speak/read Polish, that you help look for sources on his other films since so far the coverage for them as a whole is actually pretty light. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:40, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, I wanted to make sure you received my message I just sent to your inbox. Please let me know if that will suffice and look at the last edited page of me as there are sources for everything which was the main concern. Before Karina I was on here for a decade...please let me know what else, besides today I can add so you can restore I'll do whatever it takes..if I need to post the last article somewhere else let me know. Thanks again I really appreciate you and your hard work! Robot19332 (talk) 13:01, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Robot19332, ultimately this will have to go through deletion review at WP:DRV. The only person who could have restored this was the administrator who closed the request and he has declined to do this. I didn't see anything in my e-mail inbox as far as sources go, so you may have to send it again. However I will say that if you can, try to see if these sources are ones that you can post to DRV since that'll make it easier for everyone to verify. If they're sources that aren't currently on the Internet that can't entirely be helped, but you can still send the sources to someone. I'll take them if you want to try to send them to me again, although I'll openly say that I'm not sure if you can send attachments via e-mail. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:38, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tokyogirl79. You recently left a message message for a blocked use who had talk page access revoked. info-en is OTRS, and is not a suitable appeals venue. Instead, it would be better to direct such users to UTRS, and failing that, BASC. LFaraone 17:24, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi it's Jason again. I sent the sources on your talk to you page. However , if it's easier if you can look at the page before it was removed there are active sources for everything. Or please tell me where to send them exactly . Can I email them to you? My email is jadelman1977@gmail.com or whatever is easier... Robot19332 (talk) 03:54, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Talk to you page? That would be this page, but I don't see them. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:39, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	Great Ipadcover777 (talk) 09:58, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Tokyogirl79, You supported the proposal to delete Methods for the timely replacement of cartridges in respirators. This article has been significantly changed. If You think that this change is not enough to save the article, please indicate the specific reason for the removal, or to indicate that still requires improvement. Please help - I am not a Wikipedian, and could not find a place to discuss articles that are put up for deletion. Thank You very much. AlexChirkin (talk) 10:30, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• AlexChirkin, the problem with this is that it ultimately looks like it's a personal essay/academic article that was posted on to Wikipedia and as such, has several sections that look like original research. This is fine in some outlets and if it was an academic journal it wouldn't be so bad, but it's not really an encyclopedia article. You draw a lot of your own conclusions in the article. You use sources, but ultimately this is sort of your own personal research on the topic. There's also the problem that there's already an article on respirators and this sort of just goes into more detail on things that are already sort of covered in that article. This brings up another concern: did you post any of this content anywhere else or is any of the material closely paraphrased from somewhere else? I got a strong feeling that this was the case, which would make it a potential copyright violation. To be honest, I'm not really sure what can really be done to this article at this point in time to make it fit the standards for an encyclopedia article since this was ultimately written in the style of a student/academic paper. You'd pretty much have to start from scratch with this. I can move it to your userbox (if you're interested) and you can work on culling material from there for a new article. The things to remember are as follows:

1. It must be written in an encyclopedic format, which is dramatically different from a personal paper. The biggest difference is that you can make your own opinions/original research (WP:OR) with papers whereas you cannot with an encyclopedia - everything must have already been said in a reliable source and it must not be written in a fashion that gives off the impression that this is your own personal take on things. This doesn't mean that your OR is wrong, but it's still considered OR.
2. You need to show how the topic of respirator cartridge replacement would merit its own article separate from the main article. This is a pretty big issue since the article for respirators is already pretty expansive. Is it already covered in the article? If not, can it be added? Remember: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that gives a general overview of things and as such, does not go into extremely specific detail. If this is already generally covered at the main article for respirators then odds are that it likely doesn't need to go into any more detail. I say "likely" since you may still be able to justify some more information.

I'll be pretty honest in that I don't really think that all of this information needs to be in the main article for respirators (although you could probably merge a little) and I don't entirely think that it would merit its own independent article. Many of the sources in the article have to do with general respirators and there isn't a lot there that specifically goes into cartridge replacement methods outside of the regular coverage you'd get in manuals, mentions in articles about overall respirators, and the like. What you need to show is how replacing cartridges is independently notable outside of cartridges (much like how someone would have to show that a specific respirator is notable outside of the general discussion) and you'd have to have an article written in encyclopedic detail. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:58, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm beginning to understand You. But there is a problem.

1. You write that I did my own research and You suspect that I have violated copyrights. This was a surprise to me, since almost all the material taken from open Western sources, and mainly from textbooks NIOSH (1987 and 2004), which are public domain, and that are written in the same (English) language. More detailed information about ESLI is in the (English) documents: G. Favas, End of Service Life Indicator (ESLI) for Respirator Cartridges. & Integration of Sensor Technologies into Respirator Vapor Cartridges as End-of-Service-Life Indicators: Literature and Manufacturer's Review and Research Roadmap. Of course, You may not be familiar with NIOSH books in detail, but if You look them up, You can see that "my findings" are a repetition of the opinions of specialists NIOSH. It's hard for me to look at it from the side, because the experts NIOSH has allowed to use these books, and I translated them (and other documents) into Russian. Maybe need to make more references - for example, in each phrase, and to specify the page numbers in the source?

2. The placement of this information in the main article. I believe that this should not be done, because the main article becomes very large, and as will be "not convenient" to make links from the article Gas mask, for example. And those experts who developed the methods of replacement cartridges, usually studied the cartridges separately from the respirator.

3. Information from open Western sources was used earlier in the article in Russian. Because of the similarity of the themes, it was similar with an article in the RuWikipedia. But we received permission to "use" this article: {{permission OTRS|source=http://ohranatruda.ru/ot_biblio/articles/147204/|2013042410005972}}. AlexChirkin (talk) 15:20, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• If the copyright isn't a problem then that does solve that particular issue, although I do need to specify that each Wikipedia is different with their rules. You can't say that something was OK in the Russian Wikipedia so it should be OK here. I'd highly recommend that you refile this ticket through the English language Wikipedia's ORTS, since I'm not sure if a ticket filed in Russia would necessarily be valid on the English Wikipedia. As I said above, each language Wikipedia is different in their rules- partially because there are different laws in each country when it comes to copyright issues. In the same tone, each Wikipedia is also different in what they consider to be acceptable as far as tone, notability, and such goes. Just because something was put on the Russian Wikipedia does not automatically mean that it will be approved for the English Wikipedia. This article still reads like original research and if I picked up on it then others are likely to pick up on this as well- especially if they were to think that this was copyvio from somewhere. The unsaid thing about copyvio is that even when Wikipedia has permission or the material is open source, re-writing the article becomes inevitable. I've worked with multiple articles where people contributed text that was wholly neutral and encyclopedic in tone, only for the material to constantly be bombarded with various tags (OR, promotional, copyvio, etc). It actually ended up that myself and a few others had to re-write the material from scratch because it was the only way to keep the article from being targeted.

In any case, I still think that this article needs to be re-written to remove the student/academic paper tone. I'm not going to change my opinion on that. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:42, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think you deleted a template page that I created citing G7 as the reason. I don't remember requesting that the template be deleted and I am the author. It was called WikiProject Women's health invite. It was deleted on 6/13. I just got to the message informing me of its deletion. I probably can do without the template because I have kept a copy of the wikicode that produces the image and can just cut and paste that, but I was wondering why it was deleted? Best Regards,

  Bfpage |leave a message  18:30, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Bfpage, you moved the template to Template:WikiProject Women's health invite from Template:WikiProject Women's heath invite and then you put in a request for the recently created redirect to be deleted. (Any move will leave behind a redirect unless you are an admin.) The template still exists, but under a slightly different name. I was wondering why you moved it to a misspelling, but I didn't want to ask. You can just move it back to the original name and then request that the misspelled redirect gets deleted. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:47, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there! The Co-op has been on a hiatus for a bit, but we are planning on opening up shop again soon. When you're able, please read over and respond to this update on our talk page. We have favorable results from our final report regarding the pilot, and we are interested in seeing who is available to mentor when we reopen our space and begin to send out invites again. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:16, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This message was sent by I JethroBT (talk · contribs) via Mass Message. (Opt-out instructions)

Hello Tokyogirl,

This is Generic345, please separate LA EigaFest and Japan Film Society into two separate wikis. I believe you made it harder for people to understand between one being a film festival and the organization behind it. I do have more links for LA EigaFest and Japan Film Society http://www.scifijapan.com/articles/2009/12/02/mothra-night-at-sony-studios/

http://www.scifijapan.com/articles/2009/10/01/blood-the-last-vampire-%E2%80%93-free-screening-in-monterey-park-ca/

http://cinema.usc.edu/events/event.cfm?id=12385

http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/press-release/2009-11-30/japan-film-society-presents-the-winter-shorts-at-the-royalt-cafe

to prove they are both notable and need seperate pages that should be link

thank you for getting rid of the Japanese Film Society page, that was an accident as the real name is Japan Film Society — Preceding unsigned comment added by Genericusername345 (talk • contribs) 02:18, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Genericusername345, I'm sorry but I am not going to do that. The problem here is that the group and the film festival both have issues with notability, enough to where I'd argue that neither really has enough notability on their own to merit individual pages. That left a choice: either let both articles be deleted for a lack of notability (since it's likely that the film festival page would have been next) or merge them into one article that contains information about both that could possibly squeak by notability guidelines. You can separate them, but I wouldn't recommend it. That'd almost certainly be a death sentence for the article about the organization since the film festival is the only thing that's asserting some notability. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:49, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to argue that the LA EigaFest is just a West coast version of the New York Asian Film Festival if you look at what's cited on that page there's really no difference except years they've been happening. If you feel that LA EigaFest isn't that notable than I would say neither is the New York Asian Film Festival on notability. So let's seperate them and put LA EigaFest as one as JFS I'll try again with more sources and notable events. Genericusername345 (talk) 05:34, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, the existence of other pages does not automatically mean that both the organization and the festival merit pages and even at the AfD there's an argument that neither particularly warrant pages to begin with since most of the coverage is routine and that the only in-depth coverage is in non-reliable sources. In any case, the article for NYAFF has some serious issues with coverage and unless there's more coverage out there, NYAFF doesn't look like it'd pass notability guidelines either. The thing about pointing out other pages is that it's possible that the other page passes notability guidelines in a way that the other does not or (more likely) it's that the other page just hasn't been discovered and nominated for deletion at this point in time. The drawback of pointing out other pages is that it can exponentially raise the chances of the other page getting deleted. Sometimes people point the other pages out in the hopes that the other page will be deleted as well, but I don't think that this was your intent. However, this is kind of an example of how pointing out another page can backfire pretty badly. The bottom line here is that the other page is not the topic of this AfD so right now the only thing to do is find coverage that could show that the organization and festival are notable and would merit their own pages. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:11, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Genericusername345, I was able to find where the NYAFF has received mention in several academic sources so if you or someone else were to put it up for AfD I'd argue for a weak keep. You can feel free to nominate it if you desire. As I said on the AfD page, I think that the only real chance that the society or film festival has of remaining on Wikipedia is for them to be merged into one article. Neither of them has a particularly strong chance of surviving AfD otherwise and I think that separating the two pages is pretty much a death sentence for the articles. I know that you want two separate pages, but you've got to think about what will be more likely to survive. I merged the two pages because I felt that this was going to be the only true option here. I could have easily just left it as is and let both get deleted. But then, that's my personal take on things - it could be that they would survive, but I think that the chances of that are fairly slim, given that there were already two "delete" arguments against the JFS page. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:47, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gotta say he's persistent. [3] And inventive. Don't think I've ever seen an RFC added to ANI. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:21, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• NeilN, I wish that guy would get a new hobby. I have to say, the more he does this the more I'm thinking that this is likely one person instead of many. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:50, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lives in isn't correct, "hails from" is. There's only one userbox/category for both, so prone to confusion. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 12:51, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I was wondering if it was "from" rather than "in". In any case I was kind of going "huh?" with that, since you're very clearly someone who would be India savvy. A quick question though - have you heard of the actor Dhruv Bhandari? Someone created a fairly malformed article and I'm trying to sweep for sources, although I know that some will likely be in Tamil or one of the other languages spoken in India. Want to do a quick sweep? I can probably handle the English language end thanks to WP:INDIA's search engine. I mostly want to make sure that I find everything that's out there. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:00, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • See User_talk:Psychonaut#Dhruv_Bhandari, this article's been a part of a set created by a sockfarm. I'm not sure of the entire history behind the farm, I just deleted a few articles after the last SPI. But to your original point, the Hindi TV articles have quite a few sock farms operating to get bit part actors in as major achievers with source fudging etc; I haven't been around much over the past year, but some of my editing history on the SPIs prior to that will give you an idea of that problem. As far as Hindi TV series go, most of the coverage is available in the English media, especially in Times of India or Hindustan Times -- typically the coverage in Hindi media is about the same as in these two; you'd have to look at other language newspapers only for non-Hindi TV and movie stuff. —SpacemanSpiff 13:12, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Eww... I may have found a new sock then. I'll go drag the new account to SPI and see if anything matches up. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:15, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, I think I'll wait for Psychonaut's response since it may not be one. I'll bow to his rationale. I admit that since I've cleaned it up a little I'm a little hesitant to delete it outright as a sock evasion if it is a sock account. It's not a perfect copy of the prior versions so it might not be? Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:20, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, I'm not familiar with this set of socks, that's why I had alerted Psychonaut instead of acting (but it was twice created by the particular set of socks). Right now it won't qualify as a G5 anyway, with the effort you've put in. —SpacemanSpiff 13:23, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• That's good to hear- I think that it'd pass notability guidelines if it came to AfD, but if it came down to it I wouldn't mind deleting the article history and then reposting the content if anyone really objected to an article that started off as a sockpuppet creation. I know that it would likely keep it from being as much of a target for speedy deletion, at least. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:26, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Since you happen to be a bibliophile and are looking to edit India articles, a couple of them that could easily be expanded are here for you Coolie and Two Leaves and a Bud (both stubs that I created as a newbie and was hoping to make GAs out of, but as usual got sidetracked!). Indo-Anglian literature is something I've been hoping to focus on, but hasn't happened. —SpacemanSpiff 13:30, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Sounds like fun! I'm definitely trying to help out India related articles whenever I can. I know that a lot of them tend to languish because there are so many of them and it's so difficult for some India sources to show up in an English Google search. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:46, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• I think I've actually heard of Coolie - I can't remember which article it was, but I seem to remember someone comparing something to that book. Wasn't a movie based on that book? Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:47, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Coolie (1983 Hindi film) is the film you might have heard of, but it's not directly based on the book (but Hindi movies do a lot of take from here and there stuff); I don't think a movie's been made of the book. The book along with The Guide are sort of iconic books in Indian literature. —SpacemanSpiff 13:52, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll have to see if I can locate both books. I'm trying to cobble together a plot for Two Leaves and a Bud and it sounds like it's an amazing and heartbreaking read. I'll have to steel my nerves for these reads, that's for certain. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:21, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Woot! Found a cheap copy on Etsy for Two Leaves and a Bud! I don't think that they knew what they were sitting on, exactly - most of the copies I'm seeing are going for quite a chunk of change. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:29, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I've just created Bhabani Bhattacharya, in case you'd like to work on it. I've put in some of the possible refs in the biblio section, as I don't have access to them just yet. —SpacemanSpiff 12:25, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	Thank you so very much for your help with my courses this semester! You da bomb! HullIntegrity\ talk / 19:22, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since you blocked Rodelyn18 and socks earlier, I'm notifying you of the SPI I opened for a new sock. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 14:43, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you so much!! I kind of figured they'd be back. (sighs) I'd posted to another person's page about this, but you may be interested in reading it as well. It's kind of a history of the whole thing: User_talk:C.Fred#Rodelyn_onggo. Long story short, it's a pretty clear and obvious hoax article. I think she was trying to copy the article for Gretchen Ho, which she'd vandalized at one point. In any case, she's got a Twitter account full of very poorly photoshopped pictures, some of which she tried to add to Wikipedia. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:27, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the info. I hadn't investigated her vandalism of Gretchen Ho. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 15:13, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I'd like to ask you to revert the unilateral additions of dubious text made by User:Rob.HUN at the semi-protected article called Austria-Hungary. His edits were once reverted after my talk page request at Talk:Austria-Hungary#Semi-protected_edit_request_on_28_June_2015, but now he restored them. 213.229.101.59 (talk) 08:23, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd prefer that someone more familiar with the page deal with this, to be honest. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:27, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In case it wasn't clear CrazyAces newest known account is NegroLeagueHistorian. I say "known" because after yet another attempt to evade scrutiny, he has decided to make another account as he says. Hopefully you can sort him and the articles out soon.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 08:29, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for this! I'm going to tag User:Bishonen in on this. I'm sort of frustrated since I do think that there has been some good faith attempts here, but I'm concerned over the huge spate of moves with articles that have some serious issues with them in various formats, but then you've seen that can of worms on his talk page. In any case, I do need to caution User:NegroLeagueHistorian/User:CrazyAces489: creating new accounts is only an option up to a certain point. You have a habit of creating articles that have various issues with them. Moving to a new account does not give you immunity and after a while a chain will be noticed if you continue to engage in the same practices that resulted in you wanting to create a new account in the first place. Part of WP:FRESHSTART requires you to start learning from past mistakes and I don't entirely see where you're doing this. The fact that you went back to your old account to push a ton of articles with various issues into the mainspace doesn't really give off the impression that you're looking to learn from past mistakes. If anything, this gives off the impression that you're really just trying to avoid scrutiny and having to deal with the aftermath of your mistakes. To be perfectly honest... at this point the best thing for you to do would be to go back to your first account and face the music. You made a lot of mistakes with articles and while there are a lot of issues to deal with as far as those goes, they're not things that would cause me to throw the banhammer at you. The only thing I've really recommended so far is that you only create articles at AfC for the time being since you do have several issues with your articles. This would actually solve a lot of issues for you because if someone accepts one of your articles at AfD then the onus is more on them to explain why they accepted the article than to explain why you did or wrote a certain thing. Running to new accounts every time you start having a problem is not really a solution here - especially if you end up editing many of the same types of articles since that'd only make it likely that you'll run into the same editors again. (Although even editing new articles isn't a guarantee since many editors on here edit a wide variety of topics.) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:46, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just feel if CA took more time to write a cohesive article rather than spit out as much as he can, these issues wouldn't be brought up as much. There is so much potential in CA to be a great contributor, but he isn't learning from mistakes. I agree he needs a single account and needs to face what ever scrutiny or punishment comes with it. Otherwise I feel we're taking a wrong turn and his last chance may just run out.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 08:53, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• That's kind of my take on this. I think that there is good intent here for the most part and to a degree I can see his point on you hounding him. There is definitely some bad history between the two of you, so I'd have personally recommended that if you believed him to be the same editor that you instead went to an uninvolved third party and reported your concerns, then let them deal with them. However at the same time this has already happened and at this point there's not much that we can do about that. I am going to tag some other admins on this and let them see what they think should be done here, if anything. I'll post that in a minute but I want to direct this at you right now: Basically right now if you see a new account that is making the same errors and you believe it's the same guy, just report it to someone and let them handle it. At this point if you did get involved with a third account of his it would likely be seen as hounding at this point. You've got promise here but also a bit of a history, so I'd hate for you to jeopardize that over this editor. That doesn't mean that there isn't absolutely nothing that can be done, but I'm going to see what these other guys say. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:03, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please read this Tokyogirl79 [ [4]]. When I was outed, TheGracefulSlick started following me around on that account. [5] I was barely using my new account and TGS was already following me around. On this account, TGS was warned for 3rr [6], reported at AN/I [7] and blocked for Canvas (since I reported him) [8]. He is not acting in good faith. [9] and [10] I simply wanted to honestly use a new account. On subjects that were not so problematic. I was specifically avoiding martial arts. The problems that existed with many of the martial arts articles was notability. NLH did not make articles on martial arts (with the exception of a collegiate wrestler, if you would call that a martial art). I simply would like to create small stubs of proven noteworthy subjects so others can contribute. CrazyAces489 (talk) 09:06, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• OK, here's the deal: CrazyAces489, if you want to keep your original account then you can. I'd actually prefer that, but that's just me. However here's the exchange: TheGracefulSlick, you have to agree to not directly interact with him. This is not an official ruling and it's not an official interaction ban, just a request from myself. There's some bad blood between the two of you. To be fair, I don't think that this was intentionally malicious on either person's part. I think that this was basically two people who are fairly new at what they're doing that just don't really work well together for the most part. This might change over time - I know that I'm a dramatically different editor than when I first started editing, but for right now you two are just like oil and water. Here's my request: Crazy, please run your article submissions through AfC. Grace, please try to avoid interacting with Crazy. If you see something that's wrong, let someone else know and ask them to edit the page on your behalf. (Just calmly state that you've been asked not to interact with the editor and that you'd like them to investigate a specific edit. No more, no less.) Crazy, this applies to you as well. If you two find that you're at odds over something, approach another editor to act on your behalf - preferably one that has a lot of experience in the specific edit topic. To this end I'd like to recommend the adoptee program on Wikipedia, since that's a good way to get an experienced editor to help give you general advice and to follow along your general edit style. You can also use WP:TEAHOUSE to this effect, although it's more general and not a one-on-one like a mentor would be. However I will say that the Teahouse is always staffed whereas a mentor will not always be on - I would recommend doing both, optimally. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:18, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• However if you do want to have a new account, Crazy, you need to completely walk away from everything you've edited to this point. That's not an easy thing to do at all, which is why I'm mostly recommending remaining at your original account since you'd still be able to edit articles you've previously edited, as long as it doesn't end with you and Grace interacting. (This does not mean that either of you should start staking out claims on articles, mind you.) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:20, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• You do need to take into consideration that if you do go to a new account you will need to deal with the issues you've dealt with under your old accounts, at least when it comes to tone and sourcing. I do see where you've been trying, FWIW, I just disagree with your recent page moves to the mainspace. I don't want this to seem like I'm coming down harsh on just you. 09:22, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I will gladly leave Crazy alone, so long as they start trying to make articles that do not violate so many policies on a consistent basis and he keeps one account. It just irritated me to see such a thing, but from now on I will uphold your recommendation.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 09:25, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• BTW, all those AN/I were with Crazy and the community agreed he was the problematic factor in it all. Even the canvassing block lasted just ten minutes, and turned against CA. He then "retired" to evade an indefinite block, just so we're clear.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 09:28, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Well... not all of them. Basically what I want you to do here is just follow the spirit of WP:IBAN. The problem is that after a while stuff like this can somewhat stick to a person and I think that in this situation an IBAN might become inevitable. You may have meant well with your edits but Crazy does sort of see them as harassment. I don't necessarily agree, but at this point I don't think that he's going to respond well to anything that you say. I've had that happen with me as well and after a while I just had to walk away from the other editor (or even an entire page) and let others handle it. If he continues to edit under this account and you see where something is an issue, bring it up at WP:BLP/N or on another person's page. The only requirement with that is that you need to phrase the issue with the edit in a manner that complies with IBAN. Again, this is not an official IBAN - you can only get those through ANI, however I think that this is a good solution for the time being. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:39, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tokyogirl79, I was considerably less active on my new account. ( The only reason I pushed through the last articles was because they were userfied and I was doing finishing touches on this account.) I just got so annoyed with TGS and some of the arguments on Wikipedia. I would really appreciate an official interaction ban with TGS. He just stated he would leave me along, "so long as they start" (meaning he won't leave me alone). I don't approach other editors about TGS like he has with me. I haven't posted on any of his topics in a while. I am not new, I have been here for a few years (just more active this year). I am only replying to individuals. I will leave this account as soon as I stop receiving messages. BTW the block was for 48 hours but lasted two. [11] I was also not trying to EVADE any indefinite block. I had spoken previously (about 3 weeks) about leaving Wikipedia due to all the arguments prior to me retiring this account. CrazyAces489 (talk) 09:33, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• CrazyAces489, part of the issue with an interaction ban is that we can only really enforce it as long as we know what account you're editing under. (And an official one can only be given through ANI.) I can caution Grace to let someone else know if they think that they're interacting with you and not to engage your new account. However if you edit under your new account and he doesn't seem to know that it's you, there's not really anything to be done about that. I also want to make sure that you understand that if you go to a new account that means that you need to essentially abandon your old editing style and you'll need to avoid editing on the same topics you've edited about before. Again, this is an extremely hard thing to do and one that you've already shown difficulty doing. Retaining your old account and editing under that name will enable you to edit some of the same topics/articles that you've edited previously. The only difference here is that I'm asking Grace to essentially leave you alone. This does not mean that you will not run into other editors trying to let you know about issues with edits or articles, but it does mean that Grace is requested to not interact with you directly per WP:IBAN. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:39, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Now if you do want to request an official IBAN (as opposed to me asking Grace to follow the spirit of IBAN), you need to go through ANI. I'm hoping that this isn't necessary, but I'll support an IBAN if it comes to that. Again, I think that both of you have good intentions here, but right now you're both sort of worked up to the point where I can't see the two of you really collaborating well together. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:41, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok how about this, since you are trying to make thing difficult, I will leave you alone, period. If you wish to make stub articles that will more than likely be deleted, fine by me. I'm going back to the music articles. And I said ten minutes, because that is how long it took after my unblock request. And you were trying to evade scrutiny, but I don't care. I'm here to improve Wikipedia and I'm proud of it. I agree to the recommendation and that is final. Peace. Tokyogirl I appreciate your civilty and understanding in all of this.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 09:42, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you TheGracefulSlick. I know that this isn't an easy thing to do, walking away and again - I do think that you meant well. However at the same time I just don't think that CrazyAces489 is really going to listen to anything you say. I do think that the new account move is a bit of a way to avoid scrutiny, so I'd recommend remaining under the old account name since that'd enable them to continue to edit the same type of articles. A new fresh start would basically keep them from editing any of the same articles period. However at the same time this doesn't mean that you can't let people know about issues: for example, if you see something wrong with a page you can let WP:BLP/N know about the article. You just can't say that it's because it's an article edited by Crazy. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:46, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• This isn't me agreeing with one specific person as much as it is me trying to avoid blocks and official ANI sanctions here. Crazy, if you do go back and try to edit prior pages then you run the risk of violating WP:FRESHSTART and this can bring with it a host of issues. Grace, basically I don't want you to get in trouble if you do accidentally interact with Crazy in the future and he accuses you of harassment. He does have issues with his pages, but that's something to leave to other editors for the time being because he's not going to really listen to what you're saying, even if you meant well. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:49, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• The only way he can ensure that he doesn't interact with you again is to remain under the name that we're familiar with. If he edits under a new account then he'll know who you are, but you won't know who he is- and as such, you can't be held responsible if you have some WP:GOODFAITH interactions with an editor that you believe to be a separate person. However again, I have to make sure that CrazyAces489 is aware that a fresh start requires that you abandon all old accounts and the pages associated with them, move to new topics, and edit in a different pattern. That's not an easy thing to do and in many cases ghosts of old accounts can come to haunt you - especially if it's believed that you haven't learned anything from the old accounts' past issues. You'd still have to deal with issues with tone and sourcing with your old account, but it's less of a tricky landmine to navigate. Your main reason for abandoning the account seems to be Grace, who has agreed to leave you alone. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:53, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• He especially needs to make sure to read Wikipedia:Clean_start#Editing_after_a_clean_start. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:54, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, the pages were my main concern. So many have issues that are so fixable, if only CA takes a little more time to write the article. Perhaps a more experienced user can teach him, but he needs to be willing to learn. Hopefully CA is ready for that. But, again, I'm not involving myself anymore.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 09:56, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Error, edit not saved.

Thank you for your efforts. I sincerely appreciate them. CrazyAces489 (talk) 10:25, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]