User talk:Innisfree987/Archive 4

2019

2019


Die Zeit, die Tag und Jahre macht

Happy 2019 -

begin it with music and memories

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:37, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much --a very bright and happy new year to you! Innisfree987 (talk) 04:47, 2 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Please check out "Happy" once more, for a smile, and sharing (a Nobel Peace Prize), and resolutions. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:32, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Your e-mail
I'm afraid I don't see it clearly enough to do anything. You're free to file a report at WP:SPI, though.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:41, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * , Thanks so much, input’s greatly appreciated. Innisfree987 (talk) 16:30, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Children of Blood and Bone
I am in process of getting Children of Blood and Bone up to GA standard. If you have a chance, I would welcome any assistance in copy editing the rather extensive plot section I have now written, and which I used to replace the extensive clan section (which was a lot of OR)and character section (which I tend to avoid per MOS guidance). Figured since you started the article you might be interested in doing so, but if not, no worries. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:40, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh that's great ! Definitely. Thanks for those big cuts/rewriting--I meant to address it but had been daunted by the wall of text. Happy to help with copy editing and any other way I can! Innisfree987 (talk) 00:46, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah I had decided to do some work on it in December considering all the acclaim it has received and was scared away from that wall of text myself so I had to actually read (well listen) to the book. Having looked at the history I would suggest UPE by Melsfelton who did most of that writing. Anyhow, thanks for the work you've already put into and know I will be continuing to work on it as well. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:36, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that one is a real headscratcher! It caught my eye as well but I couldn't figure who'd be incentivized to pay for an addition of that nature (I've seen similar that are cover for WP:REFSPAM but it wasn't obvious that was the issue here). I wondered if it had been copy-pasted from some kind of reading guide but Earwig didn't turn anything up, not that that's conclusive. Puzzling. Anyway, onward and upward! I think it's a great GA candidate, thanks for your initiative! Innisfree987 (talk) 19:44, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * My thinking was given the money behind this, that the publisher hired an outside PR firm who hired someone who did the work; could be a little more or little less direct. But yeah I agree that this is a good candidate. I'm looking forward to diving into the sources and seeing what we find. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:26, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Dick Black (Politician)
I am not being paid to make edits to this site. If you will notice in the talk section, the information I removed that you then re-added was the subject of intense debate where I was vindicated. Too many people have been using this site as a smear page for far too long. I occasionally work to clean it up and provide balance when new graffiti gets put up. Since I am currently furloughed due to the shutdown I have some extra time on my hands.

All my edits conform to the BLP standards. Review them for yourself. Everything is sourced and in a neutral point of view. I would be happy to go over them with you if you like. Ashburnian (talk) 18:34, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi,, thanks for your message. Sorry to hear you're dealing a furlough and thank you for spending the time contributing to the encyclopedia. Please do have a read of the COI policies, which provides good advice on conflicts that extend beyond paid editing: since you mentioned on your talk page discussing the entry's material with its subject, these policies are relevant to your editing of this entry. The chief recommendation is that those with a personal relationship to the subject make suggestions on talk page and see whether there's agreement, rather than editing the entry directly. Here that's particularly advisable because it appears you have repeatedly removed material that's unflattering to the subject, which coming from someone with a personal connection to the subject severely undermines the legitimacy of the entry. If instead you raise concerns on the talk page and leave it to an uninvolved editor to make the changes as they see fit, the entry has much more legitimacy. I have read the contested source, the entry's talk page, your talk page, and the editing page history, and I don't see that there is the consensus you describe above; however I will read all a second time and reply further on the entry's talk page so we can rectify this. Innisfree987 (talk) 19:39, 22 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Dick Black is a politician that represents my district. It was easy enough to ask him about something.  I understand that it certainly does appear I have repeatedly removed material that is unflattering to the subject because for years that is just about all the material there was.  People who disagree with his politics have repeatedly placed nothing but negative information on this page (which is, in itself, a violation of COI guidelines). The only material I have removed is either unverifiable, poorly sourced, not written in a neutral point of view, or some combination of the three.  Similarly, the information I have added is all sourced, non-controversial, and written in a neutral point of view to provide additional content or to provide balance and context to negative information. If I was looking to create a fluff page, there is certainly a dearth of remaining material I would try to remove but I am not.  All I am trying to do is provide balance to this page in accordance with BLP guidelines.  As I said before, I am happy to review all my edits wtih you.  Ashburnian (talk) 20:16, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Ashley Feinberg
Hi there. I removed the link per WP:ELNO #10 as well as MOS:LAYOUTEL. As there wasn't any other "official page" that I saw, I left the Twitter account in the info box even though social media accounts are not typically included because a lot of her activity is there ("Official" pages generally meaning their personal website). Info in External links is not there to dupe what is in the article, it is more like "here's something that should be incorporated directly in it if it is a reliable source, and if it's not a reliable source, it is here for additional support - let the buyer beware." I kind of view it as leftover tidbits that are interesting to nibble on, but it can get cluttered up easily so I tend to try to nip that in the bud where I can, out of habit - perhaps overly so. Thanks for working on the article. LovelyLillith (talk) 13:42, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah ok, so to clarify: for sure agreed,, that Externals links should not duplicate anything in the body of the entry or the references. However, the infobox isn't considered part of the body--a surprisingly important distinction because, as you're maybe aware, infoboxes are a remarkable source of contention (read: edit-warring), to the extent they are subject to ArbCom discretionary sanctions (!) So as a rule everything in an infobox should be found elsewhere in the entry, particularly because as an entry improves and may attract folks who bring things up to GA/FA standard, there's an increasing possibility the whole infobox will be deleted. And per WP:ELMIN, I have the understanding (I think similar to yours) that while we strongly prefer official sites over social media, in absence of an official site a single social media account is permissible.
 * Anyway. It's not the biggest deal, for now the link's there somewhere, but it felt worth explaining where I was coming from because the matter of duplicating material in the infobox and the rest of the entry seems likely to come up somewhat often. Happy editing, Innisfree987 (talk) 21:33, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually no, I didn't know that it wasn't considered part of the body of the article - so you've taught me something new, thanks. I did know that infoboxes had some kind of negative buzz over them, but wasn't sure of the details. LovelyLillith (talk) 18:12, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * , I understand completely, it came as quite a surprise to me! I personally favor infoboxes--they make information machine-readable, which allows for a variety of uses of data that aren't possible when the same information only appears in the rest of the entry--but I don't feel nearly as strongly about it as some who are opposed, so I tend not to count on that always being there as a source of info for the reader. Definitely not something I expect anyone to know unless they had encountered the Infobox Wars though! Innisfree987 (talk) 03:52, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * , I understand completely, it came as quite a surprise to me! I personally favor infoboxes--they make information machine-readable, which allows for a variety of uses of data that aren't possible when the same information only appears in the rest of the entry--but I don't feel nearly as strongly about it as some who are opposed, so I tend not to count on that always being there as a source of info for the reader. Definitely not something I expect anyone to know unless they had encountered the Infobox Wars though! Innisfree987 (talk) 03:52, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Re OR and NR/OS
Pardon my failure adding primary and secondary sources verifying my submitted edit & content. Please note, although Word Choice, Tone, and Inclusion of certain aspects mentioned, including the example of bias and assumption listed in the rant decrying said behaviours, all terms and points are not opinions. Whilst I assume and don't deny fault, because of the nature behind the direct quote and body of the statement, if proper citation saw inclusion and proper application, would it allow the now-removed edit to stand? Or, would it require adding a possible link to another existing/new article? I've read the suggested information and reason I'm posting is seeking verification and clarification.

Thank You! Please, take your time and respond whenever best suits your schedule. Have a wonderful day!

PVH PVHenry (talk) 22:38, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reading up on Wikipedia sourcing policies, !
 * Beyond that, the thing to remember is that that entry's purpose it to describe Riot grrrl. If you can find reliable secondary sources that specifically critique the movement on this point, you could potentially include those, subject to Wikipedia policy on WP:DUEWEIGHT (in short: one must consider how significantly reliable sources have covered that particular aspect, relative to all the rest of the coverage of the subject, and then only add it to the entry in appropriate proportion.)
 * But if no one else has brought up this issue with regard to Riot grrrl in reliable secondary sources, then making that analysis yourself is a violation of policy on WP:Original research, specifically the WP:Synth segment. Reliable sources that discuss such misuses of these terms, but don't cite Hanna or Riot Grrrl would have to be added to, for instance, a page on Stereotypes of mental illness (I'm surprised we don't have one yet!)
 * For better and for worse, Wikipedia has a limited role: we only record what's already been said in reliable sources rather than producing new commentary (see: WP:NOTFORUM). It's also WP:NOTCENSORED. So as concerning as that comment is, Hanna is a significant figure in the movement and that is how she discussed an aspect of her experience. So unless we have another reliable source further commenting, that's really all we can add to that entry.
 * I hope that's clarifying, at least, even as I imagine it's probably not an entirely satisfying answer. Innisfree987 (talk) 03:58, 30 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you so much!! I appreciate your very hasty and very helpful reply! You definitely covered and clarified all of my questions (plus a few aspects I didn't consider) as well as offering more helpful links and examples! Please, know I meant no offense towards any one (from the Scene & related figures, to the authors) and I share your suprise re lacking a Page! Defo something I'd love seeing and even possibly helping (after a lot of studying and understanding the necessary steps, of course) create!


 * Again, thank you so much for your time, help, information, and a great idea! If not too much trouble, I hope you don't mind me asking another question, or two, sometime in the future! Have a lovely weekend!


 * Cheers,


 * PVH PVHenry (talk) 17:12, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * , so pleased I could help! And certainly, if I can be of assistance again in the future, please let me know! My time on-wiki varies so if I don't get back to you promptly, you can always inquire at the WP:Help desk as well. Happy editing! Innisfree987 (talk) 05:45, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:RuPaul's Drag Race
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:RuPaul's Drag Race. Nihlus 21:18, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * , thanks for the ping. Just a flag as I imagine you're inviting more folks--this link sends people to the main page rather than the RfC. Innisfree987 (talk) 21:40, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I've fixed them. Nihlus  22:02, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Editor of the Week
User:Barkeep49 submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:
 * I nominate Innisfree987 to be Editor of the Week for continuous efforts to improve the encyclopedia, particularly in working on articles of underrepresented groups. Innis just goes quietly about their business having created over 300 articles, authored 5 DYKS, and being an active patroller on many more. They exemplify the Wikipedia spirit as a wonderful collaborator, which I had the pleasure of experiencing firsthand while working together on improving The Hate U Give. His efforts over the last 3+ years at building a better encyclopedia are the sort that can be easy to miss but are exactly the kind that this award was created to honor.

You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:

Thanks again for your efforts! ― Buster7  &#9742;   15:03, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Wow--,, I have been delayed in properly thanking you because I'm not sure I can adequately convey how much I appreciate this gesture! I am completely surprised and so very touched by your thoughtfulness. I return all these kind words and more to both of you for your contributions to the project, and to the community--you are both prime examples of the best parts of working on Wikipedia! Appreciatively, Innisfree987 (talk) 02:59, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Incomplete DYK nomination
Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/My Year of Rest and Relaxation at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; if you would like to continue, please link the nomination to the nominations page as described in step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with db-g7, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 02:48, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

New message from Narutolovehinata5
Please propose a new hook for your DYK nomination; it may be marked for closure if you will be unable to do so soon. Thank you. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 07:31, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/My Year of Rest and Relaxation
This is your final ping for this nomination. If you are unable to reply by tomorrow, the nomination will be marked for closure. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 13:05, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * , ok you just pinged me yesterday but if the issue is this pressing, go ahead and close it. As I explained in the nom, finding a new hook will involve more research which hasn’t proven successful yet and I doubt I’ll accomplish before tomorrow. My original hook had been approved for a month before anyone flagged a problem so I had moved on to other matters; doing my best to find research time for it but yeah doubtful it will happen tomorrow. Innisfree987 (talk) 19:31, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Mira Jacobs article
Hello Innisfree987!

I just noticed your reversion of June 6th 2019 to the "Mira Jacobs" article. You indicate that the previous edit introduced a "typo". I compared the versions and don't see a typo. What was it? The previous edit was annotated very clearly in a way that indicated that an issue of terminology, not orthography, was at issue.

143.120.100.118 (talk) 20:33, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Looks like the preceding edit introduced an accidental parenthesis in addition to the terminology change, so that's the typo part of the issue. Cheers! Innisfree987 (talk) 21:38, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

DYK for My Year of Rest and Relaxation
Vanamonde (Talk) 02:29, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Came Here To Say Hello And Noticed Strange Coincidence
I recently joined the Novel Project and was looking through the various members, and that's when I noticed your listing where you mention you are interested in adding to the Critical Reception sections. That is one of my primary interests on here as well, so I thought I'd come say hello and see if you had any projects or ideas you'd be interested in collaborating on.

So as I came here to do that I saw the above post on your Talk page about the additions to My Year of Rest and Relaxation's page, and I'm almost certain that notification is in reference to additions I made, haha.

Anyway, thought I would reach out. Good work on the Rest and Relaxtion page creation, Ottessa Moshfegh is a writer I revere. ANDROMITUS (talk) 19:16, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * , hello! I’m sorry I missed your note that came just after I went on wikibreak, and now it looks like you’re on break but thank you for reaching out. Perhaps one of these days we’ll be on the project at the same time and have a chance to collaborate! Innisfree987 (talk) 01:15, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Fenty Beauty
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Fenty Beauty you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Lingzhi2 -- Lingzhi2 (talk) 12:01, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Fenty beauty
Still interested in GAN? ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 02:16, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Fenty Beauty
The article Fenty Beauty you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Fenty Beauty for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Lingzhi2 -- Lingzhi2 (talk) 23:21, 10 October 2019 (UTC)