User talk:ReaderofthePack/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

the Six Month Rule

Apparently my submission was already deleted before I had a chance to contest the deletion. I think that there should be a page for it - for example the concept was even made into a movie. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0865561/

Please reconsider.

Thank you.

JStanwood JStanwood (talk) 17:11, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

• Sorry, but I'm not going to undelete it. A fictional film isn't really a good source to show notability and you'd have to show that this has been covered in reliable sources such as news stories and the like. I really can't find anything to show that this is an actual rule of any sort. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:10, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Thank your for cleaning up Dan Green (author).

—Tom Morris (talk) 12:19, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Re: Tale of Two Kingdoms

Hi, thanks for your note. I think we're going to have a tough time with WP:RS for some of the sources on that page. Andrevan@ 15:39, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

• That's kind of what I figured and why I didn't remove the PROD. It might still get removed by someone else, so it might be a good idea to update your PROD rationale with a little more explanation since I made those changes. If I could've had the actual magazine as a source (their website, a cached version, or a GBooks snapshot of the issue) then I'd be more confident, but I'm always inherently leery of picture taken and placed on company websites. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:57, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Keshia Thomas

Thank you for the Keshia Thomas article. I saw the BBC story and had never heard of her before, and was thinking she would already have a Wikipedia article, but apparently her story had been semi-forgotten in the fire hose of history. I wonder what led to the BBC article, which I guess brought Thomas to your attention also.CharlesHBennett (talk) 10:17, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

• Yep- that's pretty much what drove me to write the article. I remember reading the article and thinking "gee, I remember hearing about this a few times in class from my teachers", then getting fairly surprised that there wasn't an article. The picture was considered to be pretty significant- not maybe as mainstream as say, the Times Square kiss photo or the photo of the Kent State Shooting, but it's still pretty darn influential. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:25, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I'll second that "thank you" and I'll suggest that you send it to DYK. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:19, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, ReaderofthePack. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion.
Message added 06:18, 3 November 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

  — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 06:18, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Thanks for deleting †Euenantiornithes Retartist (talk) 07:25, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	Awarded for your diligence in defending the Wiki from a block evader.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 07:55, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

In The Swim

Hello,

I noticed that you have deleted the page In The Swim. Can you please let me know what I can do to have the page made visible. If the conent of the article needs to be changed or edited please let me know and I will change it. If you are able to remove or edit certain content in order for the article to be published please feel free to do so. I look forward to hearing from you.

Thank you,

KakrupaKakrupa (talk) 16:24, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Jamal Blackman

Thanks for keeping a copy about this player in my userspace area. I will keep this in my files, and follow it up keenly, awaiting for a confirmation of professional career in a well known professional sport club which is bound to happen quite imminently based on the reports on this player. Thanks Tokyogirl79 for the help. BTW, Tokyo Girl from Ace of Base is a favourite song of mine from them... I don't know if you are aware of a new 2013 release also called "Tokyo Girl" [1] by Kaname Kawabata . There is also an acoustic melodic song called "Tokyo Girl" [2] a beautiful song by Jackson Browne about how he met his wife in Tokyo. werldwayd (talk) 09:31, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

• I didn't know that! I'll have to go check it out on YT! Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:47, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Moving page "List of space shuttle missions".

Hi Tokyogirl79. You have renamed the article List of space shuttle missions to List of Space Shuttle missions on ground of "fixing capitalisation of Space Shuttle". NASA's Space Shuttle should be written with capital S, but the article was about US and Soviet space shuttles. 'Was', because a user exploited the change of name to discard the Buran (Soviet space shuttle) information. The problem is that I can't find the move request at Wikipedia:Requested moves. Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves must have been done, since the exclusion of Buran seems nationalistic, IMHO. --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 18:06, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

• I'll move it back. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:32, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Thank you. --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 18:25, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Happy Editing

Hello ReaderofthePack, Eduemoni has given you a shining smiling star! You see, these things promote WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day better. Spread the Shining Smiling Star whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or someone putting up with some stick at this time. Enjoy! Eduemoni↑talk↓ 12:42, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Keep.com Speedy Deletion Comments

Hi,

(I hope this turns out right as it's the first time I'm using the "New Section" button and fancy editor.) Anyway...

• Thanks for your comments on the new article I made for Keep.com. I think I need your help in figuring this out. You'd suggested Keep.com is really a replacement for AdKeeper.com. It's not. It's a completely separate product from the same company; whereas AdKeeper may still exist, it's private now. So my thinking was exactly the opposite of yours... that is, when something disappears from the world, it's even MORE important for an encyclopedia like Wikipedia to have had a record of it. Hence, I didn't think it a good idea to replace AdKeeper with Keep.com.

• Um... also... I don't really know how to re-name and replace an article. If you think that's the best solution, can you tell me how to safely do that? I can probably find it in the help section, but such actions could get messy and I don't want to make a mess.

• You suggested making an article for the parent company "Keep Holdings" but I'm not sure that makes sense as the holding company doesn't seem notable. It's their two currently active products that get press and third party mentions; hence notability. And the way people would search for such things would be by their main names, right? Some larger companies with many brands that have their own sub-articles, like Microsoft, Jarden, etc. may warrant such treatment. But it just doesn't seem the case here.

Bottom line is if you really think Keep.com should replace AdKeeper, please tell me how to do that. Or if you agree historical things should stay in place, just undelete the article.

• Last question is procedural: While I've edited a wide variety of articles for many years, I've really not done much of this talk page stuff. Should such conversations be on original talk page, (that is, my page?), or here?

Thanks Scottwrites (talk) 15:59, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

• The conversations can be on either, really. Now as far as renaming goes, it's a little tricky in this situation. Adkeeper was sort of turned into Keep.com, but not really. The parent company isn't notable but their products are, which is also tricky. The problem with Keep.com is that the website hasn't really gained that much coverage in RS from what I could see. Even though it's sort of Adkeeper 2.0 (but separate) it's not really notable in and of itself. That's why it was nominated for deletion in a nutshell. The speedy on it was sorta iffy the more I think about it, as there would probably be enough of an assertion of notability to merit it passing speedy. I don't know that it'd pass an AfD, though. The company would probably be the best target page if you want to create an entry that has all of their products/websites listed. I agree that the overall company isn't as notable as its AdKeeper website, but I know that sometimes we can get away with making a basic page and listing their products/websites there with some sourcing about the pages. I'll ask for some help from Wikipedia:WikiProject Internet, as they'd probably be one of the best places to get advice from since this is sort of a trickyish situation. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:33, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	Thank you for being such a welcoming and instructive editor for newbies like me. Stockwellnow (talk) 00:24, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Need Help

Hi, I need your help in checking an article. I created the article and another user marked it as a press release. I was careful in making sure that I follow Wikipedia guidelines. I saw multiple articles for non-profit organizations on Wikipedia to see how to structure the article and I was careful in the wording. The user that placed the tag and I have a bit of a history. I did paid editing in the past and may be the user is still against me for that. Anyway, this article is not paid and I wish to contribute positively to Wikipedia. Can you please take a look at the article and fix the issues? It would be really kind of you. I am not doing it myself because I might be biased since I have created the article myself.Muhammad Ali Khalid (talk) 15:59, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

• I'll try to take a look at it tonight! Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:58, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Live Wire Radio

Hi, you'd previously moved Live Wire Radio to the creator's userspace due to notability issues. I wanted to let you know the creator has undid your move and moved it back to a main article entry, though he doesn't appear to have made any actual corrective edits. I added a notability tag as the only reference is to a coffee shop's blog, but also wanted to give you a heads-up. BlueSalix (talk) 01:43, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Goldenville School of Montessori

Hello Tokyogirl79. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Goldenville School of Montessori, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: A7 does not apply to schools. Thank you. —Darkwind (talk) 08:52, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Sex Drugs & HIV

Can I ask exactly why this page has been deleted. Although the page may have been put up by a redlink contributor - the subject matter, a recording project which took over fifteen years to complete, is about the work done by over two hundred named musicians - most of whom are blue linked.

The project has importance and interest because nothing as far-reaching as this has never been done.

If there are edits which would enable this page to be reinstated then this is something I would like to explore.

MaxLondon (talk) 15:13, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

• The problem was that in the end, the article didn't have anything to show that the project passed notability guidelines. I can't see where it's really ever been the focus of any in-depth coverage in RS. There have been some one-off mentions in relation to it in passing, but not much that truly covers the project in-depth. Some of the sources on your userspace copy, such as this one don't mention the project at all when it comes down to it. The thing to remember is that notability is WP:NOTINHERITED by it having any notable persons involved in it at any stage. Notability is also not given by the project being particularly expansive, long-running, or noble in its intent. All of those things might make it more likely to gain coverage, but they don't give notability in and of themselves. The other problem I came across is that the sources that did seem to cover the project, such as Musos Magazine, aren't really as verifiable as other sources can be and to be honest, wouldn't really stand up against a lot of the more harsh scrutiny of AfD. If you want to re-instate it and run it through an AfD that's fine, but I have to say that I'm not really all that optimistic about it passing. I think that right now the best place for it is your userspace, where you can search for sources that mention the album/project in-depth. And again, the sources have to cover the project and not be about the people who might have participated in it at some point or had any sort of association about it. The death of a person that participated in it might be noteworthy on an article about that person, but it doesn't give any notability to the project. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:43, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Regarding notability of the subject matter ... I suggest that the examples below would indicate that notable people working on the project would make the project notable. Although the obituary sources may not mention the project, they indicate notability of the participants in the project by virtue of the fact that these reports were published in national newspapers.

Notability is inherited[edit]

Examples:

Keep: She once worked with someone famous – Keeper, 14:15, 03 March 2009 (UTC) Keep: his brother is a notable athlete. – Family Tree, 19:44, 29 October 2007 (UTC) Keep: there are lots of famous people on this list, so it's notable. – Adrian Listmaker, 18:20, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

MaxLondon (talk) 23:37, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

• You're misreading the point of WP:NOTINHERITED. The whole point of that argument is to show that the notability ISN'T inherited by notable persons working with something. Notable persons interacting with a project only makes it slightly more likely that something will gain coverage- it isn't a guarantee. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:39, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Place-based_Advertising_Association

Tokyogirl79:

The page you deleted was live on Wikipedia for more than 2 years. All I did was enhance the entry by adding additional detail, with references. The subject in question, the DPAA, is the only trade association that represents the entire digital place-based advertising industry, whose scope is now described in the entry. Not sure why, after 2 years, the entry is suddenly not valid. Thank you in advance for your reply.

Mark RBraff (talk) 15:04, 20 November 2013 (UTC)Mark BMark RBraff (talk) 15:04, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

• Well, the problem with longevity is that this doesn't always mean that an article would pass a speedy deletion criteria. The thing is, it read exactly like a press release whose intent was to sell the company to as many people as possible. The entire article was so promotional that it would have to be re-written entirely from scratch. An example would be phrases such as "The DPAA exists to drive consistent growth for the industry through collaboration among advertisers, agencies, place-based digital and video advertising networks and their suppliers." That's considered to be pretty spammy in and of itself. If you're interested in trying to re-create it, I'd personally recommend that you get someone from the Corporation WikiProject to help you with issues of tone and also with sourcing to show notability for the company. You need to be careful of any sources that are more like press releases than articles or are out and out press releases. PR can't be used to show notability for an article and if the news story is mostly taken from a PR, then people will argue about its neutrality, as there would be a conflict of interest. Now notability can't be given to a corporation by just having a few news articles. The problem is that it's expected that a company will get a few news articles written about them when they release or make any huge moves. Those can count towards notability to an extent, but you have to show that the company has received coverage over a longer period of time. The other issue is that something isn't given automatic notability by being the only version of something. Another issue is that a large, large chunk of the article talked about digital advertising as a whole rather than about this specific association. Notability is not inherited by the company being involved with something that is notable. (WP:NOTINHERITED) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:37, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

I can delete the entire portion describing digital place-based media, so that's not a problem. Re this comment: "The DPAA exists to drive consistent growth for the industry through collaboration among advertisers, agencies, place-based digital and video advertising networks and their suppliers" -- this is how the organization describes itself in its charter. How else would I describe it? How can I protest your statement that the article is promotional? My contention is that it describes what DPAA is and does, as any encyclopedic entry would do, but you are calling it promotional. It doesn't use superlatives; just states facts. There are other trade associations with Wiki pages- why are their's accepatable although written in the exact same format and tone? I just don't get it and would like to request a second editor's opinion. At this point I don't even know how to view the copy I submitted recently. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark RBraff (talk • contribs) 19:42, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

• The problem is, any given company description from the company would be written in a way that makes the company look as amazingly awesome as possible. In almost virtually every instance they're written with the intent to promote the company to anyone that reads it. That's OK for their company statements because in the end they have a good reason to promote themselves. But that type of tone is not considered to be appropriate for Wikipedia. A better way to phrase that would be to describe it in the most basic way possible, removing any words that would be considered buzz words. I'll say that if you're not used to writing in a WP:NPOV, this can seem difficult because you're not used to writing as such. I know that I wasn't when I first started editing here on Wikipedia. Sometimes it can be very hard to take a mission statement and pare it down to the barest essentials, but it needs to be done. A mission statement can be quoted sometimes, but ultimately it shouldn't be the only way the company is described. The opening sentence was fairly neutral in tone and summed it up relatively well, so if you're looking for something to keep from the article, I'd suggest that. ("The Digital Place-based Advertising Association (DPAA) is a non-profit 501(c) trade association representing digital place-based networks, its suppliers and the advertising community that is involved in this media sector".) Now the problem of saying that other stuff exists is that the existence of other articles with more visible problems means absolutely nothing. We have a lot of articles on Wikipedia that are in poor shape, many of which should probably be outright deleted for promotional issues. Some of them are about subjects that do not pass notability guidelines. The thing is, we get thousands of these pages created a year (and that's at least) and only a very limited amount of editors that monitor the new page creation. They can't possibly catch every spammy sounding page that comes in, so sometimes a page can go years without being detected. The existence of another page on Wikipedia that seems to fail notability guidelines or neutrality/promotional guidelines does not mean that another page can or should pass guidelines. It might just mean that the page in question should be nominated for deletion in one way or another. If you want to nominate any of those pages, feel free to do so. Now I'm willing to transfer a copy into your userspace, but I will warn you that you will REALLY need to show notability for the company per WP:CORP before re-adding it to the mainspace. You will need to show a depth of coverage that goes beyond a handful of articles. Remember, being the first or only example of something does not guarantee notability. It just means that you're the first or the only one. It might make it more likely to give notability, but that's not a guarantee. The same thing goes for whether or not you have notable persons involved- notability isn't inherited. I think that getting a second experienced editor to help you out is a good idea. If I can be so bold, I would say that if anyone tells you that the article is fine in its current state or that you don't need more sources, they're not someone you should be getting help from. I would recommend that you also heavily utilize the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard for anything that would be considered a reliable source. The problem with sourcing so far is that I'm seeing that there are a lot of press releases, trivial mentions, and routine notifications, but not a huge and overwhelming amount of coverage as far as first glance goes. An example of a trivial source would be a news source that briefly mentioned that the organization held an event. Many such orgs have events, so this is not something that is automatically noteworthy. Another source that is considered trivial would be an article that focuses predominantly on one person but briefly (1-2 lines) mentions the company in relation to them. A story about someone getting a job at the company is somewhat dodgy since many would consider it to be routine coverage unless it goes into particularly long depth. Another issue is that many times only 1-2 publications will routinely cover a subject. That is troublesome because it doesn't show a depth of coverage, plus you have to be careful that the news source doesn't have a link to the company itself, such as the company sponsoring the paper or something along those lines. It's not exactly commonplace, but it does happen. Finally, the last major thing to watch out for is for the reliability of the source. Some niche trade coverage is to be expected, but not all niche publications are usable because very often it's hard to verify the editorial process. You get some sources that allow anyone to submit or they take a lot of things heavily from a press release- which means that the neutrality and verifiability is in serious question. There's more to this, but this is already very long as it is and I don't want to overwhelm you too much. I'll drop a note on your talk page when I've moved the article to your userspace. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:32, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

November 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Madison County (film) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• 2011/|publisher=Horrornews.net|accessdate=30 November 2013}}</ref> In contrast, ''[Dread Central]]'' and ''[[Fearnet]]'' gave more positive reviews, with ''Dread Central'' commenting that while "it

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 08:52, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello. Sorry for curiosity, but are you really from Tokyo or that's just your pseudonym? (You don't have to answer if you don't feel comfortable with this question.) Alex ^{discussion ★} 13:31, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

inre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frankenstein (2015 film)

The cited source toward filming having begun does not give us a title... calling it an "untitled Frankenstein project". Searches for "untitled Frankenstein project" does not give a searchable title that could be redirected.[3] And as IMDB still lists this as pre-production, we do not yet have a solid title. I suggest incubating until more comes forward. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 03:49, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

Thanks for supporting my articles .. Have a lovely time ahead. Cheers! Ashishlohorung (talk) 17:21, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Stark County History Articles

Hello! Thank you for message and warnings re Stark County Historical Society. I have a great deal of respect for Wikipedia and do not wish to cause harm. The image you referenced (and removed) is based on publicly available factual information. It is meant to illustrate a larger issue, not point fingers at a particular person, but I can see why you would assume otherwise. As for my handle, you may also assume what you wish. I appreciate your point-of-view, and will consider it carefully. Starkmole (talk • contribs) 15:14, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Starkmole, including a diagram such as this "to illustrate larger issues" is what we at WP call WP:COATRACK and WP:ADVOCACY. The larger issues are to be discussed in articles on the larger issues, and the discussions are to be based on secondary sources, not what the reader may deduce from selected primary examples, especially primary examples annotated by the contributor, which is what we call WP:Original research and avoid. Tokyogirl is not expressing her POV, but basic Wikipedia policy on WP:NPOV. Please see also WP:BLP, which applies to all content in WP, not just to explicitly biographical articles. These two policies in particular are among our most basic principles, and as an administrator I can tell you that we treat them very seriously. DGG ( talk ) 20:24, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Altered speedy deletion rationale: Church of God Rayos de Esperanza (Harrisonburg, Virginia, Pastor: Angel Echegoyen - Spanish Language)

Hello Tokyogirl79. I am just letting you know that I deleted Church of God Rayos de Esperanza (Harrisonburg, Virginia, Pastor: Angel Echegoyen - Spanish Language), a page you tagged for speedy deletion, under a different criterion from the one you provided, which doesn't fit the page in question. Thank you. GedUK  15:21, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

December 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Zarela Martinez may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• * {{official website|http://www.greatchefs.com/zarela-martinez/

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 10:35, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Tandoor Chef

There's an article on the parent company Deep Foods, so the wisest course is probably to withdraw your AfD and redirect Tandoor Chef to the parent company. Maybe merge anything if it's worthwhile (though that ain't obvious to me). Cheers, WilyD 10:06, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

• It's not really me as much as that User:DGG started it. I'd feel uncomfortable withdrawing an AfD that he started even if I was the one who officially completed it. I'm all for redirecting, for what it's worth. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:13, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
• Although I'd recommend deleting the history to keep it from being re-created even if it's redirected. There seems to be an issue with the editor that created it, as they immediately set about trying to re-create it once it was deleted from the mainspace. They haven't been active since that point in time, but I'm slightly worried that they would poke their heads out once it was redirected. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:15, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

• Hmm, okay. If there's likely to be an editing dispute over it, letting the AfD run it's course make sense, and assuming the outcome is redirect (likely, unless real sources can be found?), then any subsequent disputes will have some established consensus as a baseline. WilyD 10:19, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

• That was my thought. I'm glad that the original editor went through AfC, but that they went to such lengths to get it re-added months after the original deletion shows that they would be likely to return if it was deleted again. At least this way we'd have an additional AfD to pull from, just as you said, to show consensus. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:21, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I would accept the redirect as a solution, and I will say so at the AfD . I should have thought of it. DGG ( talk ) 10:28, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

• Sweet- then we can just close the AfD as redirect. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:29, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

User:WillisKneeland

Per WP:Child protection, he needs to have email disabled as well. I sent an email to arbcom an hour and a half ago but my message hasn't even been approved to be posted on the list yet. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 06:43, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

• I didn't think of that- I'll add that on as well. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:46, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Joseph Zettelmaier

Can you prove that Joseph Zettelmaier is notable? I mean, when I looked for notability proving sources, I didn't find much of anything. I see where he was nominated for some awards, but not really where he won anything. There's local coverage, but not much more than that. I just think that he's going to be a red link forever, as I don't think he'd ever pass notability guidelines. WP:REDLINK does say that using red links can help WP grow, but that you should try to only include red links that can show some notability and that you should eventually write the article for the writer. If you can show sources to show that this guy is actually notable enough to where someone will eventually create an article then he should be added, but I really don't see where he'd pass notability guidelines. Other than local coverage and notifications of events, there's really nothing out there to show he's notable enough to merit an entry or a mention. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:40, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

• I've asked for a third opinion on this, as it's clear we're not going to agree. I don't think that we shouldn't have any red links ever, but the list on that page is prone to a lot of people adding a lot of nn people and I want some assertion as to why he'd pass GNG enough to merit an article. I need something beyond you saying he's notable and a link to a WP policy. Some proof is required to show that some day someone could create an article for him that would pass GNG, assuming that you don't want to. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:52, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

First, let me say that your (what comes across to me as a) projection of "red links must pass muster with me for I am the arbiter who is and is not a notable person" power on this issue is a big part of what's getting in the way here. Now, regarding the "Zettelmaier issue", another individual included his name,though misspelled, and when I saw it I had the same questions as you and, also like you, I looked for notability proving sources, and my findings jive, to a degree with yours. However, I decided not to delete the entry, but to correct the spelling and leave it. My thinking was, that while it might (IMO) be a stretch to call this person notable (and there indeed numerous non-notable or quaisi-notable people on the various Notable People lists), perhaps someone who believes that he is notable will pursue it. So, whatever the third person's opinion is will be fine by me. What got in the way here was a clash between your editorial style and my response to it. Drdpw (talk) 18:09, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Talkback: third opinion on red link regarding Michigan playwrigth

Hello, ReaderofthePack. You have new messages at Talk:List of Michigan writers.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

—Ahnoneemoos (talk) 19:25, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello, ReaderofthePack. You have new messages at Talk:List of Michigan writers.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

—Ahnoneemoos (talk) 06:20, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Harperbury Free School

I understand you have deleted my page on Harperbury Free School which was originally rejected because at the time it had yet to be approved. It has now been approved and will be opening next year so I would like to update and submit it again please.

Thanks

Clive Glover (CliveBG) — Preceding unsigned comment added by CliveBG (talk • contribs) 09:41, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

• I'll undelete it and restore it to AfC. Just be aware that the article will still have to establish notability, as existing does not mean that things are automatically notable. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:47, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Upper Footage page

How can you say you do not have bad intent? You have written a factually inaccurate page in so many ways it is hard to count. The reviews currently are 13 positive to 3 negative. Explain how that is mixed? All from legitimate sites, 2 that were on the Rotten Tomatoes page you linked that it seems you missed but you were able to find the worst quote from the worst positive review and quotes from 2 pages who had a vendetta against the film and its production team, because they were fooled by the marketing and look silly now. As for the IMDB page the reviews from critics there are 8 positive and 2 negative. Again there is no mix anywhere to be found. Not to mention you say reception to the marketing was mixed when even the places who bashed the film, gave the marketing kudos. It is obvious where your intentions stand. You are probably part of one of these sites that slander the film trying to save face. It is sad someone like you is an administrator and uses such power to put down others creative works by stating things that are not factually true. Not to mention that that you have not seen the project and are completely unaware to its back-story. If you take pride in your work why don't you actually do it instead of shilling for those with an axe to grind and deleting everything that goes against your fraudulent narrative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BigGameFish (talk • contribs) 07:28, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

• Show me which reviews they are and where they are posted and I'll add them to the page. Like I said, the reviews have to be posted in places that Wikipedia considers to be reliable. That's the whole thing that makes the big difference in how we can say something was received critically. Now as far as my affiliation to any website, I have none other than to Wikipedia. I'm just someone who loves movies and when I see a review for a film, I try to see if I can add it to Wikipedia. No more and no less. Since you don't seem to want to compromise and work with me rather than against me, I'm reporting you. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:09, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Umm, I'm not sure why you rolled me back. You just reinstated the copyvio. Ishdarian 08:13, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

• Sorry about that- I thought I was rolling back to remove the copyvio. I've fixed it. I'm reporting the guy to 3RR as well. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:14, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Mark D Hemmingway incident

Hello, User:Mark D Hemmingway involved in reverting the vandalism on The Upper Footage turned out to be a vandal himself. Refer to my talkpage for his vandal activities. You may want to review the edits made by him on this article as I do not have much knowledge about the subject. Thank you. Hitro talk 13:18, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

TCM

Just wanna say thanks, and it's a good headsup really on that book :) Yeah, I kind of want to get the 1974 film's article to Featured status, but a lot of things have caught up with me, plus I could use some help with it, the history of the article shows I've tried several times. Having said that, I'll probably look into doing more editing on Chain Saw and the book's article, when I can. Thanks for the award :) --Tærkast (Discuss) 13:51, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

For saving Michael Schmidt's article from deletion. A job well done! Neonchameleon (talk) 14:41, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

The Upper Footage

It has become clear to fans of the project that you are trying to spread negativity about a project you clearly know nothing about yet spend unite a bit of time on here making sure that it looks bad. You put up 3 quotes, all negative, and take down all positive reviews. Can you explain your actions? Does not seem very logical at all. You can say all the negative you want and spend as much time as you please dedicating yourself to a page that you know nothing about, but when other post positive things, while leaving your negative things intact. You should just leave it be.

Markedwalla (talk) 07:50, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

• No, I'm not. I'm reporting based on the reviews, which were mixed as a whole. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:53, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Raees (film)

Hello Tokyogirl79. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Raees (film), a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: See the Talk page; this is the older article and the other one should be speedied. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 15:00, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

NOTE to Tokyogirl79: While Raees (film) (created December 15) and Raees Movie 2015 (created December 17) are "now" identical to each other, when each was nominated for deletion they were significantly different articles on the same topic: When nominated, Raees Movie 2015 looked like THIS and Raees (film) looked like THIS. Albeit poor, different enough to not meet an A10.

Neither will survive AFd in any case, but the second's content should be reverted and the speedy declined. Keep in mind that at time of AFD, the two articles were not identical... and per criteria for A10: "This deletion rationale should only be used rarely. In the vast majority of duplicate articles, the title used is a plausible misspelling or alternate name for the main article, and a redirect should be created instead. This criterion should only be used if its title could be speedy deleted as a redirect." Your thoughts? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 18:51, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

• I would have redirected, but the only issue was that both articles were up for AfD so I didn't think I could redirect. I figured I'd just try to speedy so that we'd only have one, sort of to save time and all that. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)
  • Well... the deleted title might be used to create a redirect in the future, as it is searchable... but I am hoping the author is willing to take it back and enlist help in bettering it for eventual return. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 12:22, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
• No problem with that! Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:17, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Pratyya ^(Hello!) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Pratyya ^(Hello!) 05:09, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Soham (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the Christmas cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas3}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Soham (talk) 06:50, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Mediran (t • c) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Mediran (t • c) 08:34, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Hi!

Christmas dinner

Machinima of Santa Claus's reindeer filmed in Second life

Imploring that Tokyo Girl enjoys a sumptuous Christmas holiday and a naughty New Year! First play this → → →

Now play this!
I dare you to tell me that you did not smile.

Cheers!
— | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 02:10, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

inre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Truth About Lies (film)

The original version of the article from 2011 was based upon on old and inaccurate source. Further research shows the project began filming December 2013 and is now in post-production. I made corrections/expansions to the article to address the original author's errors and have added a different set of "Find sources" at the AFD. I think the now-better-sourced and improved version gives us a basis from which to build a decent article. What you think? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 02:44, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Whisperback

Hello. You have a new message at Kudpung's talk page. 00:23, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Asylum (2013 film)

Just a heads up, but your redirection of this page has been reverted by an IP. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:51, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

• I've re-redirected it. If I have to I'll bring it to AfD, but I don't really want to do that. If all else fails, I'll comment at AfD saying that I'd be willing to userfy the content since there is somewhat of a good chance it'll get coverage once it releases. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:43, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

You just blocked Zad68

I'm 99.99999999% sure you didn't mean to do that. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:14, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Um...

Hey, Tokyogirl, I've undone your block of User:Zad68; I can only imagine it was a mistake. Not sure who that block was intended for, but I'm pretty sure it wasn't intended for them... Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:15, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

• Oh wow- that totally wasn't the person I tried to block. I'll have to give them an apology. I must have clicked the wrong thing by mistake. I'm on my laptop, which sometimes gets a little weird with the scrolling pad. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:17, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
  • No biggie! Stuff happens... Zad68 23:26, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Happy New Year Tokyogirl79!

	Happy New Year!
	Hello Tokyogirl79: Thanks for all of your contributions to improve the encyclopedia for Wikipedia's readers, and have a happy and enjoyable New Year! Cheers, Northamerica1000(talk) 05:41, 1 January 2014 (UTC) Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2014}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Happy New Year, Tokyogirl79

Pratyya ^(Hello!) — is wishing you a Happy New Year! Welcome the 2014. Wishing you a happy and fruitful 2014 with good health and your wishes come true! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year! May the 2014 goes well for you.

Spread the New Year cheer by adding {{subst:User:Pratyya Ghosh/Happy New Year}} to their talk page with a Happy New Year message.

--Pratyya ^(Hello!) 13:25, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Tom and Jerry 2013

Hi, Tokyogirl79, I'm contacting you because you contributed your thoughts in this AfD regarding a rumored 2013 Tom and Jerry cartoon. A user has nominated the existing article (which is nothing more than a redirect) for deletion, on the basis that 2013 is over. But the user's other activities raised some red flags with me. Firstly, it's a brand new user who seems familiar with modifying templates and nominating pages for deletion. Secondly, the 2013 Tom and Jerry cartoon was poorly sourced to begin with, and it appears that they are attempting to prolong the whispers by creating a new article on the subject. I was hoping to get your thoughts on the matter. My instinct tells me that the user could be a sockpuppet of a previously banned user, probably KuhnstylePro. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:36, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

• I've deleted the article and left a note on the user's page. I'd recommend opening up a SPI if you're concerned- and there's reason to be since KuhnstylePro has a habit of trying to create a new account and get around his block. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:52, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I've responded to the SPI, I appreciate your participation, as I'm sick of seeing his disruptions and would prefer he start acting like an adult. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:30, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

• I've asked that whomever checks the stuff out, looks into blocking his IP if it's him. He's been disruptive enough that I think he'd merit a more severe blocking. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:31, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of The Monsters in the Morning for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Monsters in the Morning is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Monsters in the Morning (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Levdr1lp / talk 09:31, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you!

Hi Tokyogirl79. First of all, let me apologise for any trouble I have caused by the articles in question, I kinda love contributing to Wikipedia and I usually do to pages that involve fantasy, so I think sometimes I get really carried away when I find information - any information. I really appreciate the information you posted on my talk page. I have had a read through and I think I understand it a lot more now. I bet you get a lot of amateurs just adding to Wikipedia articles without knowing what's reliable and what isn't. I do want to be better at editing articles and the information you have sent me was very helpful and I really appreciate it. Codywarren08 (talk) 14:44, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Recreated

For your information, I recreated the article Summer Happiness because you were apart of the discussion.HotHat (talk) 04:53, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Your welcome, I hope you enjoy the new better article.HotHat (talk) 05:00, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

{{Discussion top}}

Hey—just wanted to give you the heads up that I edited your recent {{discussion top}} archiving of Talk:Fez_(video_game)#Merge_Fish_with_Fez since it closed the level two heading in with the discussion (against Template:Discussion_top#Usage). Take care  czar ♔ 05:03, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Incomplete move

Please don't forget to move talk pages along with articles - you recently did so at Talk:Teletoon (Canada), and I have reminded you of this on at least one other occasion in the past. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 08:45, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

My apologies if it wasn't clear above, but I was implicitly requesting that you please move the page I linked to. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 09:46, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Abyssal Sanctuary: Remnants of the Damned

Hello Tokyogirl79. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Abyssal Sanctuary: Remnants of the Damned, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: This article should go, and I have no doubt thre is promotional intent, but it is not actually written in promotional enough terms to qualify for G11. Let the AfD take care of it. Thank you. JohnCD (talk) 08:58, 10 January 2014 (UTC)