User talk:Femachisma

Welcome!
Hello, Femachisma, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Shalor and I work with the Wiki Education Foundation; I help support students who are editing as part of a class assignment.

I hope you enjoy editing here. If you haven't already done so, please check out the student training library, which introduces you to editing and Wikipedia's core principles. You may also want to check out the Teahouse, a community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to helping new users. Below are some resources to help you get started editing. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:09, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Imerman angels


A tag has been placed on Imerman angels, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion,. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discusion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. CHRISSY MAD ❯❯❯  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  15:19, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

YuanYuan Chen，Circle’s Peer review： Imerman’s Angels
Circle’s Peer review. Imerman’s Angels

A lead section that is easy to understand： Overall, this is a good Wikipedia article, it is written in plain language and easy to follow.

A clear structure: I like how your group made the structure. I especially like the “history” section, and how you guys introduce Imerman’s Angels’ milestone events steps by steps. However, the “mission” section overlap something from the general introduction part and “organizational structure” part, I think you guys could revised them a little bit.

Balanced coverage I think the article could become longer and with more detail to describe about the organization in general. According to the reading, I believe “Imerman’s Angels” is a large or middle large size international non-for-profit organization. Around year 2015 to present time, there has a total of 6,000 mentors in 65 countries, and I want to know more about it. As a result, I think the article needs more work.

Neutral content Yes, no mention of personal opinions and apparent biases. No claims made in the article. However, it might contain too much positive information in the text. For example, “Imerman now spends his time meeting with patients, angels and donors. He holds and speaks at many events and fundraisers while also living a vegan and alcohol free lifestyle.” The sentence up there is from “Organization Structure”, the introduction of Jonny Imerman, and this sentence can be removed since it is not relate the topic.

Reliable sources Some of the sources are PDF document and official reports that released by the organization. Some of the sources are from news website and official website. I think most of the sources are reliable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Circlechen002 (talk • contribs) 03:02, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Femachisma (talk) 03:51, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Warren, NH
Hello Femachisma. Can you tell me more about this addition that you made to Warren, NH back in 2017? The URL describes a 19th-century dispute in Wyoming. Does someone in that dispute have a connection to Warren, NH? In other words, is there a reason for this dispute to be mentioned in our article on the town of Warren? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 20:03, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Article Evaluation of US-Taiwan Business Councils

 * When I was reading the main paragraph (introduction) of its wiki, I saw some words that are considerably biased.
 * "generally considered to be one of the most influential organizations...."
 * Most of its sources came from their official website which looks like it has not been updated for a while.
 * One of the newspaper sources were from 2002, and when I click the link, it seems to not work at all.
 * The wiki people involved in the wiki page seem to know every single person invollved in the council. They are particularly on point on who were chosen in the council for every year and so. There were no link indicating the changes of positions
 * In addition, most statements made in the page has little to no links at all.


 * Moving your evaluation here. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:21, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Userspace pages
Hi, you moved your sandbox into mainspace. After an editor moved it back to userspace, you created another sandbox page in mainspace. Please do not create sandbox pages in mainspace. In the article title, always include User: before your user name so the pages remain in your userspace. Thank you. Schazjmd  (talk)  16:35, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks I don't know what I was doing Femachisma (talk)


 * Hi Femachisma, I have moved the second sandbox you made into your userspace; you can now find it at User:Femachisma/sandbox 2. If you want to move content you have created into the main article space, I suggest asking for advice from whoever is running your course first. WJ94 (talk) 17:36, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Moving page
Hi! I took a look - it seems like the page has some issues that need to be addressed first. I'm not sure what article you wanted to move live, the one on anime or the one on Imerman's Angels. I'll go over the anime one first:


 * Anime


 * This just feels kind of strongly like original research. It needs some editing for tone and style. I would also have this encompass both anime and manga rather than just anime, since so much of this will overlap.


 * Some of the claims feel a little dubious. For example, someone could argue that there were LGBT themes around prior to the rise of yaoi and yuri since there were series around like Princess Knight that dealt with gender non-conformity. While none of the characters were gay, transgender, or bisexual, the issue of gender non-conformity would fall within the spectrum of LGBT themes as far as this series is concerned. Be very, very careful when it comes to a single person claiming something - it's best not to write things in absolutes unless you're going to attribute them to the person making the claim or write it in a way that shows that there may be some exceptions, such as "Scholars generally agree that...". If it's something that is widely agreed upon then that's different, but it's still important to note what exactly they are agreeing on. For example, if they're saying that there pretty much weren't any real gay or trangender characters prior to the 70s, keep in mind that this isn't the same thing as them saying that there were no LGBT themes.


 * I renamed the genre section to just genre for naming conventions - but also because it's not really limited to just anime.


 * The censorship section is both far too general and far too specific. By this I mean that the censorship looks to be extremely general and doesn't show how it specifically applies to anime/manga with LGBT themes. With the US example, this is so specific that it doesn't really give a good idea of the overall censorship that was going on at the time with LGBT themes and anime/manga in the US.


 * It looks like you used at least one study as a source in the article. In order to use this you need to have a secondary, independent source that covers the study to show where the study is notable enough to justify including in the article. Studies should generally be avoided unless they're accompanied with a secondary source that reviews the study or comments upon the specific claim that is being stated. The reason for this is that studies are primary sources for any of the claims and research conducted by their authors. The publishers don't provide any commentary or in-depth verification, as they only check to ensure that the study doesn't have any glaring errors that would invalidate it immediately. Study findings also tend to be only true for the specific people or subjects that were studied. For example, a person in one area may respond differently than one in an area located on the other side of the country. Socioeconomic factors (be they for the person or a family member) also play a large role, among other things that can impact a response. As such, it's definitely important to find a secondary source, as they can provide this context, verification, and commentary. Aside from that, there's also the issue of why a specific study should be highlighted over another. For example, someone could ask why one study was chosen as opposed to something that studied a similar topic or had different results.


 * I'm concerned that the section on examples could turn into an unwieldy list. You also want to make sure that it doesn't come across as selectively chosen. For example, you want to make sure that if you're citing examples, that they're ones that are extremely widely cited as examples in research as opposed to just one or two people writing about them. I would also make this into a different sort of section, I'd style it after the mainstream American comic books section in the LGBT themes in comics article, so perhaps rename and retool it to be "Mainstream anime and manga series"? Again, you should make sure that you're really only listing the ones that are most frequently cited.

I have more for this, but this should be good to start with. I think that this does merit its own article, it just has to be carefully written. I can definitely help with this, as I'm a pretty big manga and anime fan - and I'm familiar with these genres.

Hi Shalor,

Thanks for this feedback! I was honestly having a hard time writing a wikipedia because I am not used to writing in this style and we didn't really address about writing style in my class. It seems that I should avoid writing absolutes unless there is evidence. Should I add another paragraph to give more information prior the genre yaoi/yuri. (Pre-Yaoi Works??) For your second to the last point, how should I double reference my information? Also thank you for sharing the article for reference- this really helps! I'm also writing by an upcoming deadline, so quick apologies for my mistake. Femachisma (talk)


 * Imerman Angels


 * I moved the work on this to User:Femachisma/sandbox2.


 * Make sure that you're being as neutral as possible, since it's easy to be promotional or non-neutral with charities without meaning to be.


 * I don't really think that the history section needs to be split apart like it is in the draft since there's not a huge amount of history to really tell that is in reliable sources and that would be pertinent as far as Wikipedia is concerned. For example, while there may have been some coverage about the Omaze and Ryan Gosling thing, that's not really something that's of true importance to the organization since it's kind of a given that a celebrity will promote a given charity. Now if he were to have launched a whole new campaign along the lines of a new service, then that would be something that should be mentioned. A brief fundraising event isn't really going to be notable in the grand scheme of things unless he raised an astronomical amount or something really bad happened or became visible.

I hope that this all helps! Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:10, 2 December 2019 (UTC)