User talk:ReaderofthePack/Archive 22

Archive 15

←

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

MugenDarkness

Thank you for blocking him. His personal attacks were starting to get on my nerves. Frankly dealing with him has been frustrating to me.--Krystaleen 09:57, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

• No problem. With him I admit that it was pretty much just a matter of "when" and not "if" when it came to blocking, but finding the 3RR material where he showed even more poor behavior just sort of cemented that I didn't have to wait any longer. I have a sneaking suspicion that there's a chance that he may try to come back as an IP or another account, so let me know if you receive more harassment. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:05, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't be surprised if he did either, I'll definitely let you know if it happens, thanks again!--Krystaleen 11:41, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

An IP editor just removed the AfD template from the article, can you do an IP check to see if it's him? Here's the diff [1] Thank you!--Krystaleen 12:04, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Starkillers

Hi! I wanted to inform you that I have posted a [review] for Starkillers. Kiran chandani (talk) 20:22, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

User:Aarna Gupta

You might want to take a look at User:Aarna Gupta Ludhiana. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 06:36, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

• It looks like John took care of them, but I've tagged it as a sockpuppet. Thanks for letting me know! Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:23, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

is it ok to include reviews from these two sites for a book article?

Hi Tokyogirl079, I have been assessing some child lit articles which have popped up on the unassessed list including Snow Like Ashes and came across reviews on these sites: [2] - GERM Magazine, and [3] - Fantasy Literature's Fantasy Book and Audiobook Reviews. Im just wondering whether they can be used for notability? The 1st seems pretty good as they have an editorial team and the 2nd one looks okay with a reviewer team, they don't seem to just allow anyone to list reviews on their sites. If not for notability, as ive seen with afds that editors appear more comfortable with established papers and more established review groups like kirkus, pw, commonsense, sjl, booktrust and so on (note this is also ok with me:)), would they still be alight to include as 'semi reliable'(?) sources or would they be seen as the 'thin end of the wedge' of unreliable fansites? thanks for your patience ... ps. the snow like ashes article does not really need them as I have found reviews from kirkus and pw (hooray!) which bolster the notableness of the article. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:43, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

• Coolabahapple, I'd run these through RS/N just to be on the safe side. I think that GERM would be usable since it has an editorial staff, was written by a staff member, and the submission page has some pretty clear cut guidelines on submission acceptance. Fantasy Literature is the one that might be a little iffy. They have a staff, but not a whole lot about the editorial process. As far as the semi-reliable sources go, the best rule of thumb is to not add them. I know that a lot of times if a book comes up to AfD, these sources are viewed with a bit of suspicion because normally they're pretty heavily abused by COI editors. I'd run into a little guff with a few sites that I'd figured should be reliable enough (like Dear Author), so this was just something I've picked up over time. It's a little frustrating when I run into the more popular sites, as many of them (like Dear Author) are considered to be book blogs. (sighs) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:21, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

thanks Tokyogirl79, it gets a little bit monotonous to bring up those pesky stubbies to starts by using the same reviewers ie. pw and kirkus, with an occasional newspaper review thrown in... ps. Squark squark, speaking of penguins (huh?), as you lurv penguins so much thought I would mention a stubby (now a start, Yay!!) that ive been working on, its called Penguin. The article looks funny without a plot but it is such a popular book that the earliest I will be able to get it out of any library within 50 miles of where I live is 15 October! so I might have to buy a copy, oh well whats another book to the collection:) Again thanks for all your assistance. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:21, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

• Squeee! Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:29, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Regarding Tracealyzer article

Hello Tokyogirl79,

I have revised the "Tracealyzer" article you deleted, toned down the promotional tone and provided links to publications where this software has been reviewed. I hope you are satisfied with this, otherwise let me know how I can improve it.

Best Regards Johan Kraft — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johan Kraft (talk • contribs) 09:35, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

• I'm currently leaving a long post on your userpage about this. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:39, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Madotsuki

Hi Tokyogirl! Was Madotsuki the Dreamer indeffed because you believe that he logged out and posted those hostile comments directed at you? Although it is possible, I (and I say this with the utmost of respect) am not sure that's very likely. He did make a valid point about this edit, which came from an IP who showed up out of the blue to make a few hostile comments [4][5]. And based on this edit summary from September 3, it appears that Madotsuki suspected a 4chan /pol/ lurker of the slurs. That doesn't sound like the most well-planned long con and it would be an extraordinarily passive-aggressive one at that. We know Madotsuki has a sharp tongue and apparently no qualms about using Aspergers as a pejorative, so my suspicion is that he pissed someone off with that tongue, they came by to grief him, used a really horrible insult, and it was interpreted as directed at you. Seems a stretch. I'm of the opinion that maybe this is one of those "unblocks are cheap" opportunities to be magnanimous and lift the hammer entirely on him. Anyhow, them's my unsolicited thoughts. Have a happy editing day! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:05, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

• Cyphoidbomb To be very honest, I think that's it possible that it's him. He's made some nasty comments towards you and other editors and I just can't help but be a little suspicious that after he got so angry with me over blocking him for his behaviors towards you and the other editor on his userspace. It's happened before with other editors, both to myself and other admins, after all. I still kind of think that he'll likely get re-blocked with the way his attitude runs. I'll give him a set of questions and if he can answer them even remotely well, I'll unblock him. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:25, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

I defer to your judgment. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:12, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

• I figure I'll see how he answers the questions. I don't want to unleash him on Wikipedia if there's a chance that he could treat another person the same way he treated you. Him making that negative statement about Asperger's was pretty out of line. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:17, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

• FYI: There is some speculation here which mentions you. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:31, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

• Him being Moon Metropolis would make a lot of sense, actually. The edit pattern is similar, since MM had a tendency to do the same thing with article creation: create undersourced stub-type articles and then leave them for others to improve. I can't entirely remember MM's behaviors since the stub article creation was what stood out the most (since I had to go behind him and clean up many of his articles), but I do vaguely remember him not responding well to other editors trying to help him out. I'd vaguely thought of MM while dealing with MtD, so I'm not entirely surprised at the speculation. I'm going to ping Netsnipe to this discussion since it looks like he had prior experience with the other accounts. I will note that if the Reddit claims are true (it's Reddit so we should question this to a degree) then the IP coming in and making rape threats on his page sounds like it could actually have been him. Still, it's speculation so if anyone wanted to check to verify this we'd have to check out both accounts' edit patterns (and the IP's) a little more thoroughly. I'm also pinging Cyphoidbomb. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:41, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

I have to admire the dedication that went into that Reddit narrative. That was some detailed Wikinvestigation. The sockmaster doesn't ring a bell with me. This 2013 edit was interesting to see because it was consistent with Madotsuki's more recent "Aspergers fueled" top shelf zinger. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:55, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

• I was impressed as well. Whomever they are, if what they found is true then they could make a pretty good checkuser or private investigator. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:16, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Returning Sock?

Hi Tokyogirl! Regarding [6] which you deleted G5, a new article has popped up that is a match for mirrored versions of that article, at Circuito automobilistico di Mogadiscio, in case you think this is the same sock. I don't have the history with this one to make the connection, other than recreating the deleted article under a different name, which I've seen lots of socks do... Crow^Caw 23:13, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

• Hmm... it's definitely suspicious. I'm going to ping @Vituzzu: and @Berean Hunter: on this since I'm not as familiar with him as they are. It's possible that they just cut/pasted the material from the speedy deletion wikia page, but they've made a lot of edits in the same area that Brunodam would edit. His big calling card was that he'd create re-writes that made the Roman culture as important sounding as possible and edits like this one kind of give off the impression that this is what they're doing. I'd bet that the article Petrella-Mogadiscio aeroporto was also something created by Brunodam under a different name. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:22, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Restoring Abdul Kadar Khatri Page

Hello Tokyogirl79, I want your help for restoring Abdul Kadar Khatri Article. It was deleted for A7 and later G4 by you. It was my brother's mistake, he didn't knew how to use wikipedia he mistakenly did that. May you please Restore this Article. (It is a Important Article!) Matin78692 (talk) 12:20, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

• Matin78692, the article was deleted via AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abdul Kadar Khatri by Nakon and they're the person that you really need to talk to in this situation. What you will need to show is how Khatri has received coverage in independent and reliable sources per WP:RS to where he'd pass notability guidelines for individual people (WP:NBIO). If Nakon declines, you can always take this to deletion review. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:33, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
• Okay, Thanks! Matin78692 (talk) 06:13, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Miscreated Page Deleted

Can I ask why you did this? It was just recently approved after several attempts, and after I spent several hours talking with reviewer to make it notable enough. You said it "wasn't ready for mainspace" - Can you be more specific? Page - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miscreated Jenilya (talk) 15:08, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

• Jenilya, the reason is that the page did not have sources that would establish notability, which is what we need to have an article in the mainspace. The person who accepted the article does not appear to have a very good knowledge of reliable sources or notability guidelines, possibly because they are a fairly new user. In other words, the information and advice they gave you was incorrect and I do apologize about that. I've given a good in-depth explanation of this on the talk page of the article at Draft_talk:Miscreated#Back to AfC, which is now back in the draftspace. Basically, the sources were either primary or were not in places that Wikipedia considers to be reliable. One of the sources was fairly short and wasn't really in-depth enough to show notability for the game, so it'd be considered a passing WP:TRIVIAL mention. I also need to note that you erroneously put down that Valve released the game. This is technically incorrect - the game was released independently through Steam. While Valve does run Steam, a game getting released via Steam is not the same thing as a game getting released directly by Valve itself. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:30, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Tokyogirl79 Well regarding the "erroneously put down that Valve released the game", I will argue you are incorrect. I put that Valve is the Distributor, because it is being sold on Steam, which is Valve's distribution platform. Like other Early Access titles that are Green-Lit on Steam, the company selling the game has a marketing deal to distribute the game with Valve on their Steam platform; and I correctly put the Publisher and Developer as Entrada Interactive. Regarding notability and "not in places that Wikipedia considers to be reliable", this seems to be a difficult criteria to fill (or a very picky one). I have seen Wikipedia entries with a single reference to a source I have never heard, and they are accepted onto Wikipedia. The Wikipedia article on notability is very sparse on this topic. In any case, I completely rewrote the topic for a second time now, and made it reflect what other game pages have done. If this fails to meet criteria, then I am at a loss, because as I told the other reviewer - I have seen pages with one reference to their Steam store page make it on Wikipedia. Jenilya (talk) 16:37, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

You got some mail!

Hello, ReaderofthePack. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:52, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 20 September

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Phoenix Rising (series) page, your edit caused an unsupported parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:22, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Follow-up to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 September 19#Bir avtomobil oğurlamaq və Las Vegas

Thank you for your close at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 September 19#Bir avtomobil oğurlamaq və Las Vegas. There are three other redirects that also would fit under that discussion but weren't nominated. To save me tagging them and since you have already looked at the situation, I'd like for you to look at them. They are: Mata tanpa wajah, عيون بلا وجه, and Augen ohne Gesicht. Thanks, -- Tavix ^(talk) 01:43, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

• Hmm... I'm kind of wondering if this isn't the same editor as the other one? It's slightly suspicious that they were created around the same time period. The editor that was brought up at the AfD created them around September 15th while the editor for these redirects created them on the 8th. And both created them for the same song. I figure that it would probably be worth an SPI check, at the very least. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:24, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks. I just assumed it was the same editor (I can't see deleted edits, after all). If you want to pursue it further, go right ahead, but I will point out that guy hasn't edited since then, so I'm not sure it'd be worth it (maybe get them for a username violation? Check out their talk page). -- Tavix ^(talk) 04:29, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

• I'm going to go ahead and nominate them - one of the accounts was editing on the 19th, which isn't that long ago, so it's possible that they might return to the account. However if it is the same person then it's also possible that they'd create a new account - and launching an SPI would help show a bit of a paper trail in case it happens again. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:30, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea to me! -- Tavix ^(talk) 04:51, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

• Looks like there were more socks than I was expecting... Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:32, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Conflicts of Interest

Hello, thank you for responding, but my article and subject, does not have any external relationships with other people. So I do not have any conflict of interest within my article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrisMiller203 (talk • contribs) 16:50, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

• ChrisMiller203, yes you do have a conflict of interest. You created Unfazed Life, thus you will always have a conflict of interest with this organization. You cannot come on to Wikipedia and create an article about a company that you run and founded, then claim that you have no connection to the company. The term "conflict of interest" means that someone is editing on a topic that is directly related to them, the editor, so it stands to reason that you would directly profit from having an article since it would potentially raise visibility. The article you wrote was fairly promotional in tone, as you included phrases like " Breaking through the grounds of doubt and total struggle, Miller has found a way to see the positive in every situation, which always leads to believing in yourself and your success." This is very, very unambiguously promotional per Wikipedia's guidelines. This, paired with the very obvious and prominent fact that you own and run this organization, is what caused me to post the conflict of interest guidelines on your usertalk page. I'm going to post this on your talk page as well so I can make sure that you read this. I'm going to assume that you misread the COI guidelines, so I have to warn you: saying that you don't have a conflict of interest when you clearly do will not reflect well on you. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:55, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

• There was also a (now deleted) edit by you on another page where you openly stated that this was your company. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:55, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for informing me, Tokyogirl79

Hello, and thanks for clearing up about conflict of interest, as I did not clearly understand it. However, I am trying to work and cooperate with you, and I can understand that you see a fairly promotional tone in my article. I would like for you to see that I actually was helping to give a short background of information for my company, as well as a bit of the mission statement of what my company stands for. I hope you can see what I am trying to show you that the article meant. I did not want to be a spam article at all. I do, respect the guidelines of Wikipedia, and thank you for your expertise on them because now I can follow them correctly. Now if I may ask, what is the next step I can take to provide my article a good, solid foundation for an article on Wikipedia? ChrisMiller203 (talk) 04:03, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

• I'd recommend that if you want to continue working on it, that you create it via WP:AfC, the articles for creation process, rather than the mainspace. This will help with the COI a little and will also give you more of a chance to fix issues that reviewers may have with the article. What you need to do, apart from make sure the article is more neutrally written this time around, is to show where your organization has received coverage in independent and reliable sources like news articles. WP:PRIMARY sources like press releases, the organization's website, or anything that was written by someone/something that is directly affiliated with the organization will not be usable to show notability. What you need would be news coverage in papers like the Washington Post or the New York Times. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:09, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Enabled

My email address has been enabled. Let me know if you experience any problems, though I don't think you should.--Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 00:48, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

One thing I forgot to add is notify me of the image owners so when I reload them, I can contact the users in question. Thanks again. Respects to you.--Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 00:51, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

User talk:DemonDaze

Please see that users talk page and you will note all the numerous deleted articles this guy has created. I have also had to nominate a number of his articles for speedy deletions for similar or exactly the same reasons. Don't worry this one is a quick look tells all.  ' Olowe2011 ^Talk 04:24, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

WARx2

I think the new WARx2 Wikipedia page was deleted earlier today without following proper Wikipedia rules and guidelines Katymall (talk) 20:12, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

• No, it was. This was a re-creation of a page previously discussed quite thoroughly at AfD. The film received little to no coverage in reliable sources and one of the awards it's claimed to have won is nonexistent. You can't get much more official than the person who wrote the PBS article stating that the post was not a PBS award. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:57, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar!

You rock! Josephjames.me (talk) 08:16, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

• No Josephjames.me, you rock! I admit, a lot of people wouldn't have been willing to take on an article that had been written by a sock, so you have my admiration for doing this. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:28, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, I actually did it for my friend. Actually, he was the sockpuppet himself. I just tried to correct it and create the page. So, thanks again and take care :) Josephjames.me (talk) 08:34, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks for being honest about knowing the sockpuppet. That actually takes a lot of courage since sometimes we'll have non-involved second parties want to do this, but end up getting wrapped up in everything. The article looks great. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:43, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

How could you be so sweet? I can't keep on doing this anyway... :D So thanks for the final time... <3 Josephjames.me (talk) 08:47, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

For being so sweet!

Josephjames.me (talk) 08:48, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Deleted Page

What was was wrong with Draft:Let Me Be the One (Webster Lewis) that you deleted, and you didn't even warn me and didn't say why you deleted the page. Jdogmad (talk) 08:01, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

• Jdogmad, the article was moved to the draftspace by I dream of horses and is not deleted. This was likely because the article did not assert how this particular album was notable outside of the artist and rather than nominate the article for deletion, they chose to move it. It would have been nice for them to let you know that they moved the article, but at the very least this way gives you more time to work on fleshing the article out and provide sourcing to show that it is notable on its own per WP:NALBUM. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:03, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi Tokyogirl79,

Thanks for your work with the plagiarism issue this morning. I really appreciate your willingness to directly engage with the student (rather than templating them) and quickly letting the prof know about the problem. I'm sorry I couldn't intercede earlier, but I was probably asleep from 3-5 AM UTC. Adam (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:02, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

• I felt a little bad for them and I hated that I had to end up doing what I did, but they just weren't stopping. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:06, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Request on 22:58:23, 1 October 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Nedjamez

• Nedjamez (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:O-Town (film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Kindly let me know which sources were considered reliable so I can find and include similar. Also what other mistakes do I need to consider? Am I free to resubmit for approval after editing? Thanks very much.

UPDATE: Never mind. I have just seen your comments. Quite concise. Thanks for that. I will take corrections, update and submit after the film is released maybe. Thanks again.

Nedjamez (talk) 22:58, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

File:27tvm shotcuts GNT 1219827e.jpg

Could you do me a favor and remove the warning in the file. I have added fair use rationale to the image. You're not directly involved in this, but it would be a favor if you could help me. Thanks! Josephjames.me (talk) 15:19, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

@Josephjames.me: Non-free images of living people almost always violate WP:NFCC#1 as being replaceable, because it is possible that someone could take an image of the person and license it under an acceptable free license. See WP:NFC#UUI. The only exception to this is people who are practically unreachable, such as prisoners. I've tagged the image for deletion as being replaceable. Cheers, Nick⁠—⁠^Contact/_Contribs 15:50, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, thanks! I hope I can add the image in Wikimedia Commons. Josephjames.me (talk) 02:27, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

@NickW557: I am sorry if I've added any wrong info. It's the first time I had ever added an image of a person to Wiki. I've uploaded the image to Wikimedia Commons with correct info as to the best of my knowledge. Thanks! Josephjames.me (talk) 08:52, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

• The easiest way for this to be kept on here is for the person or a representative of his to file a ticket through WP:ORTS giving Wikipedia permission to use the photo. A lot of times people don't entirely want to do this since it does somewhat give up rights to the photographs (not as familiar with the policies on photos of living persons), which is why so many articles use photographs taken by random people. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:10, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

@NickW557: As the image is anyway to be deleted, can I add an image from Aneesh Upasana's official website? JosephJames ^Talk / _Contribs 15:48, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

@Josephjames.me: The only way one of those images from an internet source can be used is if the copyright owner follows the instructions at WP:DONATEIMAGE to agree to release it under a free license that allows anyone to reuse and alter the image for any purpose, including commercial purposes. If they are willing to agree to that, the instructions for providing such a release are on that page. If not, the image cannot be used. I hope this helps. Cheers, Nick⁠—⁠^Contact/_Contribs 19:42, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the info! I really had no clue about this. I'll try to do something about this or not upload it at all. JosephJames ^Talk / _Contribs 04:19, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

COI thoughts (from Teahouse talk)

I saw your question in Teahouse talk and decided to answer here.

I judge that most new editors join with a goal. They start as an SPA with COI. I strongly agree that we need to educate them. That entrepreneur trying to get an article about his non-notable startup company has knowledge about products or services, business, their local area, and so on. They read newspapers, magazines and journals that we don't. They can become valuable Wikipedians... with a lot of help.

Welcome_Bot won't be accepted. See WP:Bots/Frequently_denied_bots#Welcome_bot and WP:Perennial_proposals#Use_a_bot_to_welcome_new_users. I would like to see a short intro/header or something to give a bit of advice to new editors. Ignorance of Wikipedia's rules is squashing them (for example, see User_talk:Stokesnet#July_2015 and down through User_talk:Stokesnet#Some_explanations_and_advice).

I add a lot of Welcome templates, literally thousands. Even though the intent is good, welcome templates can themselves be a problem. I didn't count them but there are a lot of 'em. I still remember mine, {{Welcomeg}} posted to my talk page by Bwilkins. Gad, it has over 60 links to policies and guidelines. Years later I know those links and their contents but as a noob, they were overwhelming. None answered specific questions I had at the time but all the links added confusion. You mention WP:TRAINING in your questions but there is zero training on that page, just more links to more pages that contain some guidance consisting largely of even more links to lots more pages. Thanks to Teahouse hosts, I got simple answers and I'm still here. Without that help? I doubt I would be a Wikipedian today. The best welcome may not be a welcome template at all; I like the Getting started help page.

There is lots of Guidance for COI editors. The problem is getting new COI editors to actually read it. Many, probably most, are working people assigned to update an article about a company, school or organization.

• Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and all the links in its See also.
• Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide.
• Wikipedia:Best_practices_for_editors_with_close_associations.

and even the mainspace article Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia.

COI editors aren't evil. Whenever possible, we should try to help them rather than just scolding them (or worse). If you have time, look at this as an example. I met Stwyford on IRC #wikipedia-en-help. She didn't understand independent reliable sources, the reason why her AfC draft was deleted again. The regulars were explaining why her article was rejected and telling her to find independent reliable sources. While on IRC, I found one source and told her I'd meet her on her talk page. I hoped she might become a regular. Alas, she stopped editing. Maybe she'll be back when she retires?

I hope this is helpful. I may be in the peanut gallery for your presentation. Take care, DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·ʇuoɔ) WER 21:14, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

• DocTree This is incredibly helpful! My biggest concern with COI editors is that some of them actually do want to contribute well but don't get the information they need upon signup. Some of them seem to only get notices after they do something wrong, which can be extremely discouraging - especially given that a lot of editors tend to see COI editors as something that needs to be discouraged. I know that the two biggest points for me will be trying to assume better faith and trying to raise awareness of the existing resources. I'd like to find a way that we can get COI editors to the COI guidelines and other resources upon signup since a common theme seems to be that many are completely unaware of guidelines. With my account I noticed that upon signup I wasn't directed to guidelines, but to a random article needing work. If I was someone sent to edit a specific article I'd probably click right out of the page and into whereever I wanted. There's just got to be a better way with all of this. One of my ideas (now that the automated welcome message would be a NG) would be to have people select something to show what type of editing they'll do upon signup, which would direct them to the appropriate page. For instance, COI editors go to the COI page and if someone says they're a student or educator, they're taken to the university page. I am aware that TRAINING isn't really interactive, which kind of frustrates me a little. I know that ADVENTURE is, so it's easier for us to keep track of where someone is in the process (if we wanted to), but I've had several people say that there are flaws with ADVENTURE. (sighs) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:29, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

• But yeah... the visibility is a huge issue. I'm not really sure what to say as far as this goes at the conference. Mostly it's going to be just that we need to try to assume better faith. I'm not too proud to admit that I didn't really help much with things prior to my gig at the Library of Virginia - something I will be bringing up in the presentation. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:52, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Pradeep R. Gupta

Who patrolled this page and didn't nominate it for deletion? I did the right thing by going back instead of trusting other new page patrollers.--The Amazing Spiderman (talk) 17:29, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

• The Amazing Spiderman, it looks like it was nominated for deletion mere minutes after its creation but the article creator removed the speedy deletion tag. This tends to happen quite a lot. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:32, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

AFC submission moved to mainspace

It looks like you moved Alice T Days to Draft:Alice T Days, then edited it to remove a few copyright violations. {{AFC submission}} is complaining that the mainspace article may be a copy-paste move of the draft article, but I don't see how it is. Since you're familiar with AFC and this article, maybe you could make more sense of this than I can. The draft and the mainspace look like different articles to me, though the mainspace article will probably need its history merged. That's assuming that someone doesn't nominate it for speedy deletion. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:39, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

• They are. (sighs) I'll have to look at it to see if they're still heavily borrowing or cut/pasting from the source material. Offhand the marriage section does seem to heavily borrow from this website, but not enough to where I'd say that it'd entirely be copyvio. I was just editing the draftspace copy, so I'll go and try to clean this turkey up. I may have to e-mail their professor again since I get the impression that the reason they're not working on the draft version is because they're trying to get a good grade. This is why teachers should not make posting a mainspace article a requirement for passing a class. You get stuff like this. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:44, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
• Yep, contains copyvio. It's very, very closely paraphrased from the original source. I'll start working on the email to the professor. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:51, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
• I'm actually tempted to delete the history of both articles to deter temptation to repost the information. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:09, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I guess you could revdelete the copyright violations, but if this is required coursework, then the student could very well feel required to keep pasting the article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:24, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

• That's what I figure. I tried to delicately point this out to the teacher in the email. I ended up also directing them to the student's talk page, where they said some fairly alarming things. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:26, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

The Still Life

A month ago, you redirected The Still Life (2006 film) to Joel A. Miller, as the article didn't show any independent notability. The same editor has created The Still Life (2006 Film). It's just an infobox and eleven external links (it was created with two versions of the article on the same page, but I trimmed that out). Any reason to think that the article should exist now (the links don't look promising)? -Niceguyedc ^{Go Huskies!} 22:12, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

• I'll delete the new article since it'd still redirect to the director's page and it's fairly redundant to the pre-existing redirect. None of the existing sources are good enough to warrant restoring the redirected article since they're all press releases or things put out through SPS (or sites that don't really look to be the stuff Wikipedia likes). Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:18, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
  • The same editor has reverted the redirect at The Still Life(2006) into the same non-notable article. -Niceguyedc ^{Go Huskies!} 21:06, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
• I've re-redirected it. If they keep it up, I figure that we can just take it to AfD and let it get sorted out there. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:30, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Superstar

		The Editor's Barnstar
		You intelligently save more articles from AfD than anyone else. Great job on Medical Common Sense, kept or not -- Samir 05:11, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks, Samir! I just don't want this to get deleted since it looks like this could be a WP:HEY situation. In the nominator's defense though, this did take some digging. For some reason it's specifically named in various places but these don't come up easily in a search as you'd think they would. (IE, if you do a word search they won't come up in the PDF or document, but if you look for them manually, they're there.) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:16, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Beta draft

Hello, thanks for your draft version. If you're interested in the topic, there are considerations to put it in draft space (here and here). Darth Viller (talk) 15:55, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Request on 17:31:27, 8 October 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Indiefanatic

• Indiefanatic (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Mike Stanley (Filmmaker) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Indiefanatic (talk) 17:31, 8 October 2015 (UTC) I'm not understanding about reliable sources. I have 19 references. I followed the guidelines as to how to list newspaper articles, books and magazines. Here is a link to the newspaper, magazine, books and television interviews. http://filmlabshowcase.wix.com/filmlab#!news-articles/c14xp Another reviewer told me that with all of the scanned newspaper coverage I supplied there would be enough there for notability. That link should show that.

Request on 22:43:11, 8 October 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Indiefanatic

• Indiefanatic (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Mike Stanley (Filmmaker) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Indiefanatic (talk) 22:43, 8 October 2015 (UTC) Thanks for the information. I read your edit on the article. It doesn't leave much about his career. It reads as if he made one film with a series of short films. Mr. Stanley's work consists of at least six feature films. Left out was how he built up his own film company that is recognized by IMDB as a United States film company. His film company has been producing films for over 30 years. Yes, he is known mostly in Michigan, but his films bring recognition to Michigan as one article states. It's a shame wiki doesn't recognize indies who have brought so much attention to Michigan cities as Mr. Stanley has over the years. He even donates profits from his films to animal organizations in Michigan per another article. Maybe not notable around the country, but very notable for his home state of Michigan. Thank you.

• Indiefanatic, having IMDb recognize a company or film isn't really that big of an accomplishment since all someone needs to do is register and show some proof that they exist. It provides proof of existence, but this in and of itself doesn't give notability on Wikipedia. It's expected that a film company (and directors) will exist and put out work. As far as him donating profits, that's not something that would give notability either since charitable giving is very, very common among people in general, let alone among people in the filmmaking profession. I have to caution you since you are definitely looking at Stanley with a bit of hero worship. This is probably why the article came across as non-neutral and had to have portions of it re-written. I can understand hero worshipping someone, but you need to make sure that you remain neutral or you run the risk of making the article promotional and puffing up claims to be more notable than they actually are on Wikipedia. Although I do have to ask: are you a representative for Stanley or Stanley himself? Or was asked to create an article for him? If so, you do need to make sure that you are up front about this per WP:COI. As far as notability in his state goes, what you need to do with the article is help provide coverage to show that he's notable outside of his local area. The sources in the article were predominantly local and were heavily from one specific newspaper. If you can show proof that the coverage in the non-local sources was in-depth, that'd be something that could help show notability. I've noted that a few people have asked for you to supply scans of the sources, so if you do have news clipping scans of these and can e-mail them upon request, this would help immensely. Like I said on the draft article, it's difficult for indie filmmakers to gain coverage, but it's still required on here and Wikipedia cannot make up the difference. Basically, the only thing you can do at this point is provide scans of the articles in Cinemagic and Starlog. If those are in-depth, the guy would pass. I'm just uncomfortable with accepting an article when the coverage is almost entirely local and predominantly through one specific newspaper. I'd like to have at least one or two more sources that aren't local. They're in the article, we just need to be able to verify them. If you have these clippings then you can e-mail them to me. My e-mail is enabled, so you can start the communication off by going here. I'd have e-mailed you, but your e-mail is not enabled. If you don't have them then you may want to contact Stanley and see if he can e-mail them or post clippings on his website - he should have a copy of them somewhere that he can scan and put online in some format. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:26, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

• Ah - saw the link above. Try to only post in one area since that makes it easier to follow the conversation. It looks like the Cinemagic post was only a brief post and is entirely a reprint of material provided by the filmmaker. The same thing goes for the Fangoria clipping. That's not an in-depth source - we need something more like this to show notability. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:28, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Darshan Raval (artist)

I found as a redirect Darshan Raval (Artist) as well-so that should be salted-wanted to give a heads up! Wgolf (talk) 05:21, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks! It's gone now, I'll also go and protect that as well. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:23, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Request on 20:46:29, 13 October 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Dearpinaki

• Dearpinaki (talk · contribs)
  • Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/GOD, SCIENCE, AND REALITY (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dearpinaki (talk) 20:46, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

--- Response --- Hi, I have added the needed online reference to the article, can you kindly review and approve the same. I am not familiar with these your help and guidance will be greatly appreciated. Thanks Regards, Pinaki

Reference and Citation ISBN Reference<http://www.isbnsearch.org/isbn/9789381672402> The Telegraph Review <http://www.telegraphindia.com/1121019/jsp/opinion/story_16100787.jsp#.Vhy1evlVhBc> Publisher website <http://www.booksway.in/index.html> Amazon Website with Review <http://www.amazon.com/God-Science-Reality-Audacity-Tenacity/dp/9381672407/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1444765927&sr=8-1&keywords=pinaki+ganguly> Nicebooks Canada<https://ca-en.nicebooks.com/book/31857056> Author's other publication <http://www.researchgate.net/publication/265281777_Bhrgu_The_God_of_God_Particle><http://scigod.com/index.php/sgj/article/view/179>

Dearpinaki (talk) 20:46, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

---

-- Response - Hi, I really appreciate your feedback, and I see your point. Is it possible that I can gift you a copy of the book and you can decide better. Or can we talk on the phone that way I can get more clarity and make appropriate changes (cell # <redacted phone number>). I think if I change the opening portion and make it impersonal then the Synopsis portion is ok, right? Also I understand that Amazon, Nicebooks should be removed. I have no intention of promoting the book on Wikipedia, but some discussion in the academic world has asked me that reference of this book should be in common domain due to the book's unique approach of using Linguistics (Sanskrit Verb Based) in decoding ancient scriptures and modern science. Yesterday I forgot to attach Library of Congress reference, attaching the same below - <https://catalog.loc.gov/vwebv/holdingsInfo?searchId=18000&recCount=25&recPointer=1&bibId=18393031>

Looking forward to your guidance and thank you once again. Hope you will be able to review and approve. Thanks.

Regards, Pinaki Dearpinaki (talk) 06:14, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

• I'll have to decline the offer of a copy of the book, although it's kind of you to offer me one. I've altered the opening to the article, but left the synopsis portion as is for the time being. You will likely have to re-write that some or at the very least, cite specific book pages to back up the various claims in the article. The promotional tones have been dealt with for the most part, so at this point it all boils down to notability, which can only be proven through coverage in places that are independent of the author/publisher, like newspapers. If there were about 2-4 more reviews then notability wouldn't be as much of an issue, but right now all that we have is the one review. If there are more sources in other languages (like Hindi, for example) in reliable sources like newspapers, those can be used. Also, I need to say that being part of the LoC's catalog isn't a sign of notability, as they tend to catalog a lot of books and would be considered a database listing at best. I'm afraid that I can't call you at the moment (school and work stand in the way at this moment), but I can refer you to the WP:TEAHOUSE if you want. You might be able to get someone from there to give you a call. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:20, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Socks

Good block. I've a suspicion however that we haven't seen the last of this character. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:50, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

• I know... I'm mildly tempted to ask for an SPI check, except that I know that they're likely one of those people who make only one account at a time rather than several. I could always list it at SPI to get a paper trail going, but I hate to do that with only one account, especially as SPI is usually backlogged. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:52, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

• Actually, Kudpung, I might have justification for doing this, since their username gives off the impression that there is a second account, if the 3 is meant to signify that this was the third attempt to create an account. What do you think? Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:05, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
• I figured I'd ask at SPI whether they thought it was worthwhile. I'm leaning towards "no", at least for the time being. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:13, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

• I'm going to ping the people involved with the tagging and deletion of their pages, just so they can keep an eye out on this. @CactusWriter:, @VQuakr:, @Enna25:, @Masssly:

Guys, long story short what we have here is a user that was previously blocked for creating inappropriate pages on Wikipedia, typically ones surrounding Disney films. You can read over this at Squeakmore and Squeakmo3. The user was blocked by myself and sought to be unblocked, but did not convince any of the other admins that they would edit in a beneficial manner. This new account shows that they did not learn anything from their past actions. What I would like to ask is that you just keep an eye out for any new pages similar to this. Squeakmore tends to like editing on things surrounding the film Dolphin's Tale and Pixar films like Finding Dory. They also like to edit the articles for Teen Beach Movie and its sequel. I'm going to keep an eye out as well, but I'm not sure if they'll use the same name or what they'll try to do as far as article titles go. One thing is sure, they have a strong tendency to insert speculation and sometimes outright hoaxes into Wikipedia, either by way of edits like this one or making pages for nonexistent films like The Polar Express 2. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:03, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks for the heads up, Tokyogirl79. I agree that this type of editor (too immature or too incompetent to understand their edits or the blocks) tends to return again and again. I have at times opened an SPI with only one sock for the reason that you've stated -- to give others a paper trail. But you've templated the user pages to provide the sock connection, and I think that should be good enough for now. I'll keep an eye open for similar Crystal-type articles and edits. Cheers. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 16:16, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Like already mentioned - they don't seem to have learnt from their last block. Thanks for the notification I'll keep an eye on them also. —M@sssly^✉ 19:39, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

You have been randomly selected to take a very short survey by the Wikimedia Foundation Community Tech team!

https://wikimedia.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_9mNQICjn6DibxNr

This survey is intended to gauge community satisfaction with the technical support provided by the Wikimedia Foundation to Wikipedia, especially focusing on the needs of the core community. To learn more about this survey, please visit Research:Tech support satisfaction poll.

To opt-out of further notices concerning this survey, please remove your username from the subscription list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:57, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Warrior Prophet (and at lots of other times)

	Wonderful Editor
	Thankyou for being so supportive and understanding :) Coolabahapple (talk) 10:53, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

• Aww, thanks! I know that you always do a really, really good job of looking for sources and there have been times where you've outsearched myself, so I know that you looked hard for things. I dunno if Wikipedia offers memberships for the academic databases like they do for Highbeam and newspapers, but they should if they don't. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:04, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Otaku

If you don't mind, I need help with a vandal causing a stir over at that article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:20, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

• Knowledgekid87, he's now blocked. Thanks for letting me know about that. Actually... I'm mildly surprised that it isn't semi-protected. There's not a huge amount of vandalism, but it is there. I'm going to semi-protect it for about a month against non-confirmed editors. I'm sort of halfsies over this, but there has been repeated vandalism throughout the year as a whole. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:29, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

  Yeah I was a bit surprised as well on that, anyways you're welcome. Good luck on your articles I see that Angus has a suggestion for you over at A&M talk, well back to work for me.. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:31, 16 October 2015 (UTC)