User talk:Lemongirl942/Archive 3

September 2016
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Han Taiwanese. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Lysimachi (talk) 21:00, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
 * For reference:
 * Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive324
 * Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive326
 * Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive327
 * Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive327
 * --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:41, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

About edits to SG articles by User:Morrisonjohn022
Hi Lemon! It is sometimes hard to define his/her edits if matching local facts & wiki rules, although I reverted some improper or useless descriptions from his/her works... Since this person is effecting many SG geo pages, could you please help on them accordingly? Thank you.Gzyeah (talk) 09:10, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Apologies, didn't see this. Yes, I had noticed the user adding some original research. Some of the edits are useful while others might be true but have no citations. There have been no responses on the talk page of the user. I guess the only way is to keep a check on these articles and change as necessary. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:43, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Thank you. —Lysimachi (talk) 09:49, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
 * For reference:
 * Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive324
 * Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive326
 * Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive327
 * Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive327
 * --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:44, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

LA times and SF Weekly
Can you explain why you think LA Times and SF Weekly are unreliable sources on the article talk page please? Pwolit iets (talk) 09:35, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Discussion continued here. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:46, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Kenny y los Electricos
Thank you. I was about to lose my temper. It is true that the article as it sits -- it's a translation that was only finished about 15min ago and on which I have already spent bunches of time -- does assume that readers understand that many of the musicians it mentions are famous, but that's a frequent problem with articles from other languages, and this is how we do it.

First we translate and then we edit.... Anyway, thank you for de-escalating this. I'll make sure it's referenced and further adapted for an American readership in a timely manner, but I am burned out this second from translating the Spanish, which is not that easy for me. I do know from looking for the wikilinks that there are numerous substantive articles (mostly in Spanish though), and a lot of the former members are also important. But the band only needs to have ONE record to be notable and they have a dozen, so I kinda have to wonder what that editor was thinking, as all the releases are prominently listed and on that basis alone he shouldn't be claiming lack of notability....

Anyway, sorry to bend your ear about this but I just wanted to express my profound gratitude that I don't have to wiki-litigate the obvious tonight...Elinruby (talk) 07:13, 30 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Haha no worries! My usual way to deal with wiki-stress is to take a short break or reduce the intensity of my editing. I am just back from one. Cheers! --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:50, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Notification of Incident report
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vile-eight (talk • contribs) 10:23, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Wait what? I got dragged to ANI for ? The irony is strong here. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:20, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * @LemonG, a career in local politics awaits! ;) Muffled Pocketed  18:49, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Hahaha. Maybe I should start trying for a seat in the parliament. :D --Lemongirl942 (talk) 19:07, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Classic! I wonder what'd be the best technique- treating them like they're at WP:DRN or WP:BLPN!!! ;) Muffled  Pocketed  20:24, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Parliamentary records of Singaporean politicians
Hi Lemongirl942, I noticed that you reverted my edits on the parliamentary record of Lee Bee Wah (specifically, changes Lee suggested in Parliament that have become national policy). Do you think that in general, parliamentary records of politicians are not suitable for inclusion into Wikipedia? I've noticed them on the pages of other Singaporean politicians, like Josephine Teo and Sylvia Lim. Personally I think parliamentary records can be included if they led to notable events or changes. These will inform the Wikipedia reader of what is notable about the subject. Wanted to hear your opinion on this issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heathercai24 (talk • contribs) 04:17, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi . On Wikipedia WP:NOTNEWS is a policy which is used in conjunction with WP:IINFO. The spirit of the policy is that not everything that has happened is worth including on Wikipedia. We use due and undue weight to determine what should be included. In cases of MPs, a lot of routine coverage is generated because the press reports on parliament proceedings. We thus, try to only add information which has a certain enduring significance and has been persistently reported over a period time. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia and we hold stuff to an academic standard here. The articles like Josephine Teo and Sylvia Lim suffer from similar problems as Lee Bee Wah. You can contrast this with, for example, Curt Clawson, a US politician about whom there was a lot of coverage, but going by weight, very little which could be included. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:53, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I will have a look at this article later today. What should possibly be included in Lee Bee Wah are the election records - the GRC she contested from and the vote percentage. This is encyclopaedic information which should be mentioned. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:57, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Will look into adding more encyclopedic information there.

Redirect of Rebecca Masisak's Page?
Hi , Wondering why Rebecca Masisak page was redirected to the TechSoup Global entry, with your comment about notability in mid-October? A notability discussion was opened on the talk page in July and a variety of other experienced editors voted to keep. -Bajeckabean (talk) 19:45, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello. The reason was that the subject is not independently notable of the company TechSoup Global. Usually per, WP:BUSINESSPERSONOUTCOME we redirect these to the company article and add a one line mention in the company article. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:59, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

List of cities and towns in Andhra Pradesh by nicknames
Articles for deletion/List of cities and towns in Andhra Pradesh by nicknames has some error in merging. Its contents were not merged. If its merged, it will be a mistake, as towns are included in it. So, please review and make some alternative attempt. I've accepted it, but upon having a glance at the merge process, I found this.-- Vin09 &thinsp; (talk)   04:42, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello . I merged the contents in this diff. I added everything (whether cities or towns). However, you are right that the destination article titled List of cities in India by nicknames might refer to only cities. Just wondering if the scope should be changed to cities and towns? Alternatively, we could remove the towns from the list. (I don't really know how towns/cities are defined by the Indian government, so I would need your help). What do you think? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:43, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes you are right. But if we change all the IPs start adding some WP:OR, that's why I changed my idea. However, I'll agree with what you said, change of title is a good idea. A city is a class I town with a population of 100,000 and above. All other municipalities and urban bodies are towns. Cheers!-- Vin09 &thinsp; (talk)   04:50, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Hey . Thank you for your efforts. It looks much better now. I like the idea of creating separate sections for each state. I noticed that they do something similar in List of city nicknames in the United States (except that they don't use a table). --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:03, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Controversy on your talk pages
Hello again. Hopefully I don't come across as stalkish. It chanced upon me that your talk pages were very long, and I realized quite some of them have to do with disputes. Try not to be too accusatory maybe (at least don't sound so. Things like "you are" and "your" are quite incriminating. Maybe use "I think you might be")? We ourselves make mistakes too. Also, perhaps maybe some show of goodwill would be good? Like this message? I'm also one who comes across as too sure of themselves in real life. So maybe I could give a little advice as I'm learning too. Cheers mate!--Officer781 (talk) 03:35, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Haha, thank you. I guess I was getting wiki-stressed with all the POV pushing. Took a break and feeling much better! Cheers. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:04, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment
Hi, so glad to find another Singaporean Wikipedian here! Nice to meet you and thank you so much for understanding my editing intentions! You pointed out something that many other editors have not noticed. I realised that Magnolia677 doesn't seem to be friendly when she left a message on my talk page, she warned me that I will be blocked if I continue to make unsourced edit and adding unreliable references. I was so scared of her that which is why I tried to include as many references as possible within a limited period of time to defend myself from other editors whom lack understanding in my editing patterns. Only you and seems to truly understand my good faith in making constructive editing, and I truly appreciates it. While I understand your perspective, I just couldn't resist listing out all the entertainment events for a huge music fans like me. I believe that what I have added are useful for music fans but of course I understand that not everyone will find it beneficial or meaningful and I totally respect their opinions. I am trying my best to include as many reliable references as possible and my apology if I am unaware of how strict it is to have a reliable sources. Some of the unreliable sources I have added may appear to be reliable to me as long as it is relevant to the event that I wished to source upon in the first place. Please teach me on what are reliable and unreliable sources so that I can look at it very carefully before adding it. Lack of citacions shouldn't be the reason for my edits to be reverted since I am very busy editing many other articles at the same time. It takes time for me to include more useful references but I hated it when editors becomes impatient. I hope to hear some advice from you on that, thank you so much for putting yourself into my shoes in the first place, cheers! Xinyang Aliciabritney (talk) 13:52, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Discussion continued here and at ANI --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:08, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Admin?
Are you admin on wikipedia, i want to report something (someone precisely)? a serious matter 84.255.215.13 (talk) 17:10, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * No I'm not an admin. What is it about? Is it any article? (Note: If it involves any private data, please do NOT reveal any information here). I can direct you to the appropriate forum. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:13, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Its about admins who are involved in WP:Paid but didn't disclosed their paid work. I have proofs. 84.255.215.13 (talk) 17:19, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you. You will have to email this information. The correct place to send this information is "arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org" (this is the mailing list of the arbitration committee who can look into your queries). --Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:25, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for reference. 84.255.215.13 (talk) 17:26, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * You're welcome! --Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:28, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah- trolling then. There's an admin that's repeatedly being accused of that but for the life of me can't remember who! It was at AN/I a while back though. Muffled Pocketed  17:33, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I vaguely remember seeing something like that. Was it some Orangemoody related case in which they pretended to be an admin and gave assurances that their article would be kept? Regardless, the best place for this stuff is arbcom who can look into it. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:36, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry this is slightly belated ;) but I've just realized, it was . Not that it matters anyway, just funny how things remind you out of the blue. Carry on! Muffled Pocketed  11:08, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I have conversations with admin on freelancing site of him/her being committing that he/she is an admin, left me couple of his/her created pages. 84.255.215.13 (talk) 17:38, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, it was something like that. In any case, of course your're right, Arbcom get paid for that stuff, not us... Muffled Pocketed  18:22, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Arbcom get paid for that stuff I like that ;) --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:17, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Like I said, the best place to report this is Arbcom. They can take the necessary action if required. I suggest you email it there. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:40, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Loh Miaw Gong has been accepted
 Loh Miaw Gong, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article. You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. . Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia! SwisterTwister  talk  05:09, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the  .
 * If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.
 * Haha, thank you . --Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:25, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Can you check this vandal's edits?
I know all of their articles are hoaxes, but I'm not sure about edits like, etc. Can you check to make sure they should be reverted? Timmyshin (talk) 20:47, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for getting those articles deleted. I had a look at the other edits as well and I think it is safe to revert them. For example, in this diff, the user added "Lost Soul" as a 2001 movie, but it was actually a 1999 TV series and was already mentioned in the article.
 * I actually did a bit of digging around and found Lost Soul (film) which was created by who was possibly the original sockmaster of this vandal. Moreover, the content of Lost Soul (film) was entirely copied from here.
 * As for these addition to Singapore films, I found most of the additions were not movies but actually Channel 8 dramas (like On the Fringe 1987) and the years were incorrect as well. For others I wasn't able to find any sources to show that they even exist. I think the revert is fine here. Thank you for letting me know about this. Cheers. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:25, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, someone reverted these edits already. Turns out this is a serial hoaxer with many sockpuppets: Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of FilmMakers00023. But as long as we pay close attention to List of Singaporean films I think we'll spot him quickly if he resurfaces. Cheers Timmyshin (talk) 15:54, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

New Page Review needs your help
Hi ,

As an AfC reviewer you're probably aware that a new user right has been created for patrolling new pages (you might even have been granted the right already, and admins have it automatically).

Since July there has been a very serious backlog at Special:NewPagesFeed of over 14,000 pages, by far the worst since 2011, and we need an all out drive to get this back down to just a few hundred that can be easily maintained in the future. Unlike AfC, these pages are already in mainspace, and the thought of what might be there is quite scary. There are also many good faith article creators who need a simple, gentle push to the Tea House or their pages converted to Draft rather than being deleted. Although New Page Reviewing can occasionally be somewhat more challenging than AfC, the criteria for obtaining the right are roughly the same. The Page Curation tool is even easier to use than the Helper Script, so it's likely that most AfC reviewers already have more than enough knowledge for the task of New Page Review.

It is hoped that AfC reviewers will apply for this right at WP:PERM and lend a hand. You'll need to have read the page at WP:NPR and the new tutorial.

(Sent to all active AfC reviewers) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:33, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Notice
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Singapore article. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that:
 * 1) You have been reverted by multiple editors for edit-warring, tagging on the article. You are ignoring Wikipedia rules and have not explained your reasons, despite requests to do so at Talk:Singapore
 * 2) You have been cited by  at [Talk:Singapore] for WP:THREATEN - Threats and intimidation

Wikipedia's policy on edit warring further states:
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.''Please do not remove templates without consensus. You apparently have some experience but prefer to ignore the rules.''


 * At least sign it lol. Also, nice to receive a template from a someone who has absolutely no understanding of policies and guidelines. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 12:04, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

User group: New Page Reviewr
Hello.

Based on the patrols you made of new pages during a qualifying period in 2016, your account has been added to the " " user group, allowing you to review new pages and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or in some cases, tag them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed.

New page reviewing is a vital function for policing the quality of the encylopedia, if you have not already done so, you must read the new tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the various deletion criteria. If you need more help or wish to discuss the process, please join or start a thread at page reviewer talk. The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In case of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, the right can be revoked at any time by an administrator. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:34, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Be nice to new users - they are often not aware of doing anything wrong.
 * You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted - be formal and polite in your approach to them too, even if they are not.
 * Don't review a page if you are not sure what to do. Just leave it for another reviewer.
 * Remember that quality is quintessential to good patrolling. Take your time to patrol each article, there is no rush. Use the message feature and offer basic advice.

Singapore education
While I agree that the content in question is poor, I reverted your pushing forward of my edit. Appropriate discussion has begun on the matter, which was my bold edit of a piece of text that has in fact been around in various forms for a few years. This isn't something that has been discussed recently. Implementation after dispute resolution is of course a different matter, as we have seen with the recent RfC and all that, but it would be best not to conflate the various disputes as much as possible with regards to content. Best, CMD (talk) 17:45, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Not a problem. I didn't realise that part of the content was there for a few years - prior to the bloating in 2015. However quite a bit of the stuff was also added recently. Regardless, I don't mind discussing. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:51, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Certainly not all of it was there before, but the concept of the bullet points presentation was. I don't think removing the recent additions does much compared to fixing the overall presentation. CMD (talk) 18:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

November 2016
Please do not Move other editors comments as you did at Talk:Singapore, without consent. I had to copy some relevant information back to the survey section thread before you decided to move everything back to the same place. Please review the Wikipedia guidelines and policies if you are uncertain. Thank you. - Shiok (talk) 06:44, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Another template by the SPA hahaha. I already moved that back long ago, but you decided to template now after all of it has been done? Really? Continue your antics. You actions show that you are WP:NOTHERE to improve the encyclpaedia. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:47, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually it was yet another mistake thinking I had posted on my own talkpage. Well, will get use to it and preparing more templates, since you like it. Shiok (talk) 06:55, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Why would you post that template along with that comment on your talk page? Your "mistakes" are way too many. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:57, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Invitation to the Wikipedia Selangor Meetup 1
The 3rd Wikipedia Malaysia Meetup had now arrived on Selangor! Pack your bags and your laptop, and meet some fellow Malaysia Wikipedians in the meetup!
 * Date: Sunday, 11 December 2016
 * Time: 12:00 - 2:00 pm
 * Venue: Sudo Brew, 7 Jalan SS 22/11, Damansara Jaya, Petaling Jaya, Selangor (3.13169°N, 101.62122°W)
 * Medium of communication:
 * English language - for the general overall meetup
 * Malay language - for a special session to discuss ms.wikipedia.org (subject to enough number of participants)

This meetup was initiated by Chongkian and the invitation was written and sent by NgYShung. For more information, see the meetup page. If there is any enquires, feel free to discuss at the talk page or at the Facebook event page. (Delivered: 07:27, 24 November 2016 (UTC))

November 2016 - Notice of Edit-warring
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Singapore. This is the second time you have reverted the same sourced content I posted. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. - Shiok (talk) 06:34, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
 * It was my mistake. I copied her template after seeing it. Shiok (talk) 06:34, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm curious why would you impersonate another editor. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:39, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't need to impersonate anyone. Everything in WP is logged. A genuine mistake that's all. Shiok (talk) 06:47, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Regarding "This is the second time you have reverted the same sourced content I posted." Umm, please see WP:BRD. You added, I removed. You now need to get consensus. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:40, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Roll call of WikiProject Malaysia for 2017
Hello there ! The biennial/annual roll call of WikiProject Malaysia have been started! The roll call was intended for maintaining a healthy list of active members in the WP:MY members section. You may follow the instructions to stay in the WikiProject, or leave the WikiProject. Make sure you've make the right choice! After about 1 January 2017, you will be moved to the inactive members list. The link is at here. On behalf of WikiProject Malaysia, NgYShung  huh? (Delivered at: 11:19, 25 November 2016 (UTC), one run)

Hira Public School
Hello Lemongirl942, as you have been responding to recent edit requests for this article, just a quick info: I have opened a new SPI at Sockpuppet investigations/AdnanAliAfzal, as this is probably another sock of a recurring problem editor. Regardless of this unfortunate issue, your good-faith help on the article's talkpage is appreciated. GermanJoe (talk) 15:28, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

New Page Review - newsletter
Hello ,


 * Breaking the back of the backlog

We now have New Page Reviewers! Most of you requested the user right to be able to do something about the huge backlog. Now it's time for action. If each reviewer does only 10 reviews a day over five days, the backlog will be down to zero and the daily input can then be processed by each reviewer doing only 2 or 3 reviews a day - that's about 5 minutes work! Let's get that over and done with in time to relax for the holidays.

Not only are New Page Reviewers the guardians of quality of new articles, they are also in a position to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged for deletion and maintenance and that new authors are not being bitten. This is an important feature of your work. Read about it at the new Monitoring the system section in the tutorial.
 * Second set of eyes

With some tweaks to their look, and some additional features, Page Curation and New Pages Feed could easily be the best tools for patrollers and reviewers. We've listed most of what what we need at the 2016 WMF Wishlist Survey. Voting starts on 28 November - please turn out to make our bid the Foundation's top priority. Please help also by improving or commenting on our Wishlist entry at the Community Wishlist Survey. Many other important user suggestions are listed at at Page Curation. Sent to all New Page Reviewers. Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:16, 26 November 2016 (UTC) .
 * Getting the tools we need - 2016 WMF Wishlist Survey: Please vote

Spec Property Page deletion
Hi Lemongirl942

Im writing to ask you to reverse the deletion of the Spec property wiki page. Im not to clear after reading the reasons why it was deleted how the sources were not credited to be reliable.

The sources referenced used a lot of Australia media that operates in both the Financial and Property areas. The business Spec Property has built over $1b in apartments in Melbourne, Australia.  

thanks Tom Specpropertydigital (talk) 01:07, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Kepompong for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Kepompong 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 Articles for deletion/Kepompong 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. ArdiPras95 (talk) 04:06, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

November 2016 - Harassment Notice
You appear to be sending another notice to harass, even when the original tag editor has not done so. Please note that:


 * the tag was unexplained and unwarranted
 * You have been cited for WP:THREATEN - Threats and intimidation on other editors previously.

You may be reported and blocked from editing the next time you do it again. Shiok (talk) 13:52, 29 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, another template by an SPA. Go ahead and show me the diffs of my harassment!. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 18:41, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Personal attacks and frustrations
Lemongirl, I find it difficult to read this diff as anything other than a personal attack. I suggest you redact/remove or modify it. I understand you may be frustrated, but simply linking to CIR is not helpful for anyone, nor does it move conversation forwards in any way. Best, CMD (talk) 18:11, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am sorry for that. I have redacted it and I deserve to be trouted for it actually. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 18:27, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Masjid or Mosque
Hi. I believe my page moves were sufficiently uncontroversial, per MOS:PN. That is why I did not start a discussion. If you thought that my edits were controversial, you should have at least started a discussion before making mass reverts. --Peace world  16:04, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello . My reverts were per WP:BRD. These names had been there for a long time. I apologise for not leaving a message on your talk page though. My reason for keeping the names as "Masjid x" instead of "x mosque" is due to WP:COMMONNAME in the Singaporean context where "Masjid X" is more common. I would be glad to start a discussion about this at an appropriate forum (since it concerns a lot of articles). Thoughts? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:10, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply. I would assume that MOS:PN takes precedence in cases where we are considering foreign languages. Singaporean mosques are little known outside Singapore. The case is the same with most mosques and religious structures in any country of the world, and we don't usually start adopting country-specific languages to words such as "church", "temple" or "synagogue". You are more than welcome to bring in the views of others by which ever method you consider appropriate. --Peace world  18:27, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you . I will start a discussion later today or tomorrow about this. The reason I would like a discussion about this is because it is not only Mosques but other entities (hills, rivers, islands) about Singapore where the common name is used instead of the English name. If we are having a discussion about this, we might as well fix the other articles as well in one go. In the meantime, I will have a look at how it is done for other countries (particularly neighbouring countries in Southeastasia). --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:38, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, any updates? --Peace world  08:09, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * My apologies. I was stressed out with some stuff. But yeah, I did look at other countries such as Malaysia and Indonesia and they seem to use "Mosques". Singapore is slightly different though because it is mostly English speaking and the term "Masjid" is widely used. This is also similar to other cases such as "Bukit" for hill and "Pulau" for island and "Sungei" for river. Thus, the WP:COMMONNAME argument might actually favour "Masjid"/"Sungei"/"Pulau" in certain cases. I am personally agnostic to the change, but I realise that other members might be opposed to such a move (considering that this has been the accepted convention for a decade). One thing which I can do it to start an RFC and propose that religious buildings in Singapore be referred to as "x Mosque" or "x Temple" or "x Monastery" and argue for WP:CONSISTENCY (instead of WP:COMMONNAME). If most of the community agrees, then all of them can be moved to " X Mosque" and so on. Would this be a good way forward? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:31, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I would assume so. Just to note however, there is no consistency among Singaporean articles themselves. While some use the term "Sungei" for rivers, not all rivers in Singapore do. Being accepted as a convention for over a decade can be a consequence of the fact that many of these are articles (Mosques, Rivers, etc) are stub articles, some of which have not had major edits for years. --Peace world  09:27, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Regarding RfC non-admin closer talk page
Any interactions between us should be on our respective talk pages for now. So please to not obscure my questions to the closer. Wrigleygum (talk) 11:23, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello! I am perfectly free to reply wherever I want. You have a problem, you can choose not to reply there. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:27, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Taking this to WP:ARBCOM?
I see you are really frustrated dealing with Singapore articles and the users. And also seems like WP:ANI doesn't work for that matter. I suggest taking this to WP:ARBCOM and naming it "Singapore" (if you are opening). Remember to read WP:A/G and if you request one I may be there commenting. Good luck! NgYShung huh? 04:07, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Hey . Thank you for your concern . To be honest, while the ANI didn't have a lot of comments from editors, quite of few editors did stop by and help fix the article and participated in talk page discussions. That helped to provide a diversity of opinions, which ultimately improved the article! Yes, I was a bit frustrated, but I guess as long as more editors keep it on their watchlist, it is fine. ARBCOM is more for behavioural issues rather than a content dispute. Now, this case is partly a behavioural issue, but it hasn't risen to the level of disruption that ARBCOM needs to step in (that would involve multiple ANI threads and blocks). I guess the best solution is for editors to keep monitoring the page and ensure that future edits follow NPOV. Thank you! I appreciate your concern. Btw, congratulations for your recent GA! ;) --Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:38, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, glad to hear that. I will help as much as I can if I have free time for the article. Thanks for your comment and happy editing! NgYShung  huh? 13:10, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Correcting the founding date of Rajah & Tann Asia
Dear administrator,

I am writing to inform that the founding date of Rajah & Tann Asia is inaccurate. Could we get permission to correct the year to 1976 please? Accurate information: Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP (then known as Tann Wee Tiong & TT Rajah) was founded in 1976.

Thank you and best regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RTAfan88 (talk • contribs) 07:53, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello . On Wikipedia we need reliable sources for that information. The current citation states the founding date as 1954. I would request you not to change it unless you can find a reliable source for the information. Btw, are you affiliated with Rajah and Tann in any way? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:55, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I am an employee. We have documents to support our claims, may I check how I can pass them to you for verification? Best regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RTAfan88 (talk • contribs) 12:43, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * , I will take this discussion to the article talk page then. Usually we don't rely on documents, but published sources. So for example, if a newspaper has published a report saying that the Rajah and Tann was founded in such and such yeah, it can be used to support a claim. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 01:54, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

BBC 12-hour Editathon - large influx of new pages & drafts expected
New Page Reviewers are asked to be especially on the look out 08:00-20:00 UTC (that's local London time - check your USA and AUS times) on Thursday 8 December for new pages. The BBC together with Wikimedia UK is holding a large 12-hour editathon. Many new articles and drafts are expected. See BBC 100 Women 2016: How to join our edit-a-thon. Follow also on #100womenwiki, and please, don't bite the newbies :) (user:Kudpung for NPR. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:55, 7 December 2016 (UTC))

BBC 12-hour Editathon - large influx of new pages & drafts expected
AfC Reviewers are asked to be especially on the look out 08:00-20:00 UTC (that's local London time - check your USA and AUS times) on Thursday 8 December for new pages. The BBC together with Wikimedia UK is holding a large 12-hour editathon. Many new articles and drafts are expected. See BBC 100 Women 2016: How to join our edit-a-thon. Follow also on #100womenwiki, and please, don't bite the newbies :) (user:Kudpung for NPR. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:02, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Your opinion
I would value you opinion on User talk:TheMagnificentist. I may be way off base, but I'd appreciate your opinion. Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 03:25, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Dictionary of non-notable artists
Thanks for linking to this book at AfD. Pretty clever—hadn't seen it before and actually laughed out loud a few times. By the way, there's a PDF here. czar 20:02, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Haha, thank you. I had seem that earlier on the talk page of WP:AFD or WP:DELETION (can't remember the exact page). It was pretty entertaining to read actually! ;) --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:54, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

New Page Review - newsletter #2
Hello ,


 * Please help reduce the New Page backlog 

This is our second request. The backlog is still growing. Your help is needed now - just a few minutes each day.


 * Getting the tools we need

Sent to all New Page Reviewers. Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:54, 11 December 2016 (UTC) .
 * Improve the tools: Vote here.
 * Reduce your review load: Vote here

Hi
Hello Lemongirl942,

I understand you live in Singapore, which is a beautiful country (which I've visited).

I'm wondering if you have ever read a copy of The Reader Magazine and if so, how many?

I'm wondering why you would eliminate the work of contributors to this page who actually have lived in the region where this magazine has been published for more than ten years?

You have eliminated neutral, descriptive text such as it's business model, which I contributed and so did others, who quite possibly also live in the region where the magazine has been distributed.

Recently, you added a link to a headline concerning The Reader at the Poynter web-page, a headline which states that most or nearly all of The Reader is plagiarized according to the CJR article.

This is quite a damning statement-- and it is also false.

The CJR article contained no actual numerical analysis of the proportion of articles they alleged The Reader plagiarized. And yet the headline you linked to states The Reader is mostly plagiarized. To use the term "most" or "a lot" or "half" you would want to normally make the case by determining how many articles were original, properly attributed or improperly attributed. Ms. Fry never even came close to this. She simply made a statement without showing any numerical evidence. She went as far as to call the business model of The Reader based on plagiarism-- because she says so, not based on evidence.

Unfortunately, this is how falsehoods become perceived as real. In this case, you placed a link at The Reader Magazine page on Wikipedia that people from all over the world would see that connects these people to a headline that is patently false and quite injurious.

In her article, you may also notice that to make her case "compelling" Ms. Fry did not distinguish between her allegations of copyright infringement and allegations of plagiarism, which are two very different things.

Hopefully, your sense and pursuit of fairness will be affected by this rather large omission of actual evidence in Ms. Fry's article which did not stop her from making blanket and sweeping allegations-- and didn't stop others from repeating them as if they were the truth.

If you can, please read her article for yourself. The Reader addressed Ms. Fry's article at www.readermagazinefactcenter.com.

Please consider allowing those of us who know this magazine and are doing our best to describe it accurately, neutrally and fairly to contribute to the page. I am personally doing the best I can. WikiBalandina (talk) 09:01, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

And thanks for reading this!

All the best,

WikiBalandina (talk) 09:13, 26 November 2016 (UTC)


 * User blocked. Sockpuppet investigations/WikiBalandina/Archive. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 00:53, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Daniel Son; Necklace Don
If you want the sources for Daniel Son; Necklace Don, here you go. I just find it odd that you'll revert my edits from weeks ago though, weird. JayPe (talk) 1:53, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Unsourced information can (and should be removed) particularly if it is has been recently added (within a few weeks). That is how we maintain the quality of Wikipedia. Thank you for the sources. What I don't understand though is that you can search for the sources but you somehow never add them to the article. Adding them (inline) is what is sorely needed. Anyway, I will source this article later today and you can see how I do it. Later you can source others article similarly. Btw, please please do not add any more unsourced content. I get a feeling that the admins will not listen this time. So when you add content, add sources. If you don't have sources, then don't add content. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:05, 14 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that, just know that edit was made before I was getting into blocks and arguments between you and Magnolia, so you won't have to worry about this next time. JayPe (talk) 02:09, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I understand . But this was recent and although a minor edit, was still modifying the same unsourced content. On Wikipedia we generally WP:AGF, but after someone has been blocked, the editor needs to Demonstrate good faith. As such, you could do that by going over some of your previous edits and adding sources to them. Or if you can't find sources immediately, at least add a template so that others are alerted to the unsourced data. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:16, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello and thank you
Just wanted to drop by and say thanks for leaving the Exceptional Newcomer Award on my page for Iskandar Ismail! I'm a music student currently based in the USA, but I grew up in Singapore and would love to keep contributing to articles pertaining to Singapore's music scene in the future. I created the page for a school project and it was an honor to do it for Mr. Iskandar. Limjlcm (talk) 16:39, 14 December 2016 (UTC)


 * You are welcome . I liked the article you wrote - well written, to the point and most of the content was quite well sourced. There are actually quite a number of articles about Singapore's music scene already but many of these need additional sources for verification. When I find time I try to add sources. You can always chip in! Happy editing and if you need any help, feel free to let me know. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:51, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Illuminating perspective barnstar

 * Thank you . I am always glad to be of help! --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:41, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

This Edit
I would be interested to know which parts of the article do not have reliable sources as per your reinstating the notice. TIA Tushi  Talk To Me  03:18, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The problem is notability, not RS itself. It requires significant secondary coverage in reliable sources, independent of the subject. Source in which the subject is talking about themselves are not good enough. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:22, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I thought notability is conferred by RS. The sources are not affiliates of the subject from the sources I could find online. A source like today.com has been referenced to more than 2K times on English Wikipedia alone and more times in other language Wikipedias. The fact that such a source would publish about the subject is quite something. Tushi  Talk To Me  03:33, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Depends. "Publication in a reliable source is not always good evidence of notability". The source you added is a contributor article which is not considered an RS. The article also went through an AFD where is was not determined if the subject is indeed notable. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:00, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Please explain what you mean by contributor article. See the subject interviewing Wozniak too * http://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/news/2016/11/17/apple-co-founder-steve-wozniak-talks-happiness-and.html Tushi  Talk To Me  04:22, 14 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Hey @Lemongirl942. Would you mind to respond? Thanks Tushi  Talk To Me  15:48, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah sorry. Well, the subject interviewing Wozniak is immaterial - notability is not inherited. The "contributor" articles refer to those which are not written by full time staff writers. These are not subject to the same level of fact checking and hence are not considered RS for the purpose of notability. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:53, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Tushi  Talk To Me  16:03, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Season's Greetings!
Happy Holidays text.png Hello Lemongirl942: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, Mona778 (talk) 03:18, 19 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message

The "China" issue to be at WP:move review
Do you plan to have the closures reviewed at MRV? --George Ho (talk) 06:25, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Talk:Politics of China
 * Talk:Flag of China

Help re. undeclared COI
Hi , I notice you're an expert with COI issues and wonder if you could take a look at | this page and it's | archive #3. I'm at the end of my tether with trying the gentle approach, and it's now interfering with improving/editing this page. I would truly appreciate your advice. I think it should probably go to COIN as it's interering with good faith editing, but I'd appreciate a second opinion. Thanks in advance Luther Blissetts (talk) 19:32, 23 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi . Sorry, was a bit busy for the last few days. I had a look and I'm not sure what exactly is the conflict of interest. There is also quite a lot of text in the page. In addition, has the editor declared a conflict of interest? Or has the editor been trying to promote/POV push a certain viewpoint? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:13, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Hor Ying Ying
Can you please restore the page, and avoid doing anything to it? I am in the midst of improving the page and trying to add any reference as soon as there is more published, and since the page is still in its preliminary stage, I strongly encourage others to add in more information rather than have it speedy deleted. The page I created is on a relatively new star, whose popularity is on the rise. LMX97 (talk) 12:56, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The article was deleted after a discussion. See Articles for deletion/Hor Ying Ying. The subject doesn't satisfy the notability guidelines. See WP:N. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:43, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Narelle Kheng and User:CO16
Note: The header originally contained a Hokkien profanity which I removed. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:12, 18 December 2016 (UTC) Then why don't you help to improve it? Rather than despising on other noob Editors? Talk so much might as well help. Why can't the singers have their own page? You can have a user page which are not any important or famous person while at least those Singers are famous or to you they are not. Talk only, why don't you help improve. I know I suck i know but all you do is despise, can't you improve? Does 1 more or in fact 4 more articles kill you? No right? Can't you just leave it? If you can't, then ignore it. CO16 (talk) 23:57, 18 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Besides deleting are you sure there is nothing that we can do? All you do is delete people's work, can't you help to improve it? 1 article would not kill you la please. Why would it want to delete it when there is no harm. Even there is something wrong, can't you help the editor to improve? Please la aiyo. CO16 (talk) 00:17, 19 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I answered on your talk page. Let's keep the conversation at one place. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:27, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Kk then just delete it. But I have another question, if I create a page, how Long must I wait before it appears on the Google search page? Sometimes when I create a new page, when I head to google and search the page I created, it doesn't appear. Help answer this question.User:CO16 (talk) 16:34, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Walao answer leh. You say must be polite then is it polite to ignore people?. Walao eh — Preceding unsigned comment added by CO16 (talk • contribs)

Narelle Kheng
Can you please set it back and do not redirect it to The Sam Willows? Please? I do not understand why you have to do that. Please just make it a standalone page. Please do not delete it or do anything to it. Please please? Can you reply me? CO16 (talk) 01:59, 18 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Hey CO16, I had already explained it to you at User_talk:CO16. That is your "talk page". Please comment there from now on. (I have it on my watchlist and I can see it). --Lemongirl942 (talk) 18:01, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Editions war
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Singapore Tamils. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.''Please stop edit warring and adding content sourced to unreliable sources. If you continue to do so, you might be blocked.'' Winnan Tirunallur (talk) 15:34, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.


 * I'm going to preserve this warning
 * Apparent retaliatory template for this
 * Word to word copy of even the custom message "Please stop edit warring and adding content sourced to unreliable sources"
 * "Editions War" - that's the first time I have heard this term!
 * Sequence of edits for reference later 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:48, 24 December 2016 (UTC)


 * [[Image:Ambox warning pn.svg|25px|alt=|link=]] Please assume good faith in your dealings with other editors. Assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Wikipedia. Winnan Tirunallur (talk) 03:51, 25 December 2016 (UTC)


 * AGF can only go so far. And this inappropriate warning you left on another editor's talk page doesn't make me want to AGF any more. At this point, you need to demonstrate good faith and slapping inappropriate templates is clearly not the way to go. I suggest you contribute to the encyclopaedia, particularly outside some South Asian topics, and learn more how WP:RS and WP:NPOV is applied in practice.--Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:20, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

YGM
-- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:46, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Why are you deleting my references?
Who are you and why are you deleting my references? They are valid and not spam! — Preceding unsigned comment added by H4km4k (talk • contribs) 16:14, 27 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Please see WP:RS for what are accepted as reliable sources. The links you are adding are not reliable sources for the purpose of Wikipedia. The best sources are news websites with a proven editorial oversight. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:59, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Correct they are the best links but the links I posted are also relevant and I'm pretty sure people would appreciate the reference and information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by H4km4k (talk • contribs) 06:35, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Need your help at COI board
Hello Lemongirl,

I see you are a helper at the COI board. If you have a moment could you please read the report about the article Charlie Zeleny. there is a SPA ip editor who is acting very aggressively toward me. I think he has a conflict either being the subject himself or a friend or family member. He denied it to me, but he has taken ownership of the article and says he is going to ban me from wikipedia. Look at the talk page with all the threat and calling removing weasel words as vadalism. Thank you. Pauciloquence (talk) 13:55, 17 December 2016 (UTC) 13:55, 17 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Apologies . Was occupied for the last few days. I have placed the article on my watchlist and will keep an eye on it. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:52, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

List of literary adaptations of Pride and Prejudice
As you and I were discussing (separately) on Juliancolton's talk page about the inappropriateness of merging the content of Conviction: A Sequel to Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice into List of literary adaptations of Pride and Prejudice, and as the merge has taken place already, I'd invite you to continue the discussion at Talk:List of literary adaptations of Pride and Prejudice. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 00:56, 29 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I have temporarily reverted the merge. Just commented on the talk page. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:17, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Unitus Seed Fund
Thanks for your contribution to that article - it recently went through an AfD (result: keep, at my urging and that of others) and I have begun to improve it in the wake of that process. I hadn't yet worked my way down to the portfolio section, but my plan was to trim it back substantially, which you did - so, thanks!

That said, a few of the funded companies had separate profile-type articles on them in reputable publications (NYT, Forbes), so I'd consider them deserving of mention in this article. I will incorporate them into the History section, today if I have time. I'd just humbly suggest that maybe next time, if you are going to remove that much content from the page (including a slew of references) that you check the talk page first - in this case, for instance, I had flagged a couple of notable portfolio companies there. I fear that aggressive WP:NOTDIR edits like this run the risk of removing useful content - much of which deserved to go, but some of which should have been kept, albeit in a different form. Once that content is deleted, realistically, no one is going to remember that it was there and retrieve the good bits. I almost missed it myself; I skimmed my watchlist and saw that you removed the excess external links but since it wasn't in the last edit, I didn't notice the removal of the portfolio section until I went back to the page.

Thanks-

--Vivisel (talk) 17:51, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Hindi (clarification)
Hi, I saw that you reverted the disruptive user's edits on Hindi. Your edit summary said that you were unsure as to why he arbitrarily removed a lot of information. It is highly likely that this user is a Dravidian nationalist, that is, a person of South Indian descent who harbours an intense and irrational dislike of North Indian culture, languages, or festivals. Hence the user's removal of Hindi, a N. Indian language, Holi, a festival that is predominantly associated with people of North Indian stock, and so on. Just informing you in case the user continues with his disruptive edits after his 30-hour block has expired. Tiger7253 (talk) 18:39, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Query on things deleted on Algebris Page
Hi Lemongirl942!

Wanted to know the meaning of the phrase you used when reverting my edits on the Algebris page. I wanted to know what this phrase means - "Doesn't seem to be an RS"

Thanks!FlyingBlueDream (talk) 08:26, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Quick note
Hi Lemongirl, how are you doing? Good to see you around Afds. Just wanted to drop in a small, quick note. Generally, I would have done this by first striking out my earlier vote and earlier statement rather than overwriting it, and adding a new comment before or after the struck !vote. Nothing important, but it helps understand what your original view was and how it changed. Thanks. Lourdes 15:15, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Mayank Prakash
Hi,

I see you've been monitoring the Mayank Prakash page. It looks to me like he's been editing his own profile from an IP address of 92.237.49.254 - the amends sound like his rather distinctive use of English. Is it appropriate for him to be puffing his achievements in this way?

Sjoh0050 (talk) 16:57, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Removal of relevant attribution to Bus Interchange articles
Please refrain from removing relevant references to the Land Transport Guru website as you have done so on multiple pages with regards to Bus Interchanges in Singapore. The proper removal of SPS content as per your intentions should be the complete deletion of all copied content from Land Transport Guru, and not the convenient deletion of proper content attribution which other Wikipedia users have done.

Wheelandaxle293 (talk) 06:51, 6 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Hello . Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia and we only use reliable secondary sources. The "Land Transport Guru" website is what we call a WP:SPS - a self published source. As such, we cannot allow it to be there in the references. Please do not add it back again.


 * Regarding "content copied from Land Transport Guru website", could you please point me out where is the copied content. I would be glad to have a look and if it is a copyvio, remove it entirely. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:27, 12 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Hello Lemongirl942 and thank you for your reply and clarification. My concerns are with regards to constant plagiarism performed by editors to Wikipedia pages covering the Singapore bus scene. On many occasions, content is lifted word for word from the "Land Transport Guru" website, with or without attribution. One such example would be Bukit Batok Bus Interchange, which shares paragraphs copied from a similar Land Transport Guru page. Note: the "'Thank You, Bukit Batok !'" and "The Day Before- 28th May 2016" sections.


 * I do apologize for the slightly overzealous reverting of edits on the other pages with regards to freely available information. -- Wheelandaxle293 (talk) 07:21, 12 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your diligence. I managed to find the edit responsible. This is a pretty blatant WP:COPYVIO. (In fact on Wikipedia, copying content is not allowed, unless the source has released it under a compatible license). I also noticed that it actually replaced previously sourced information. I will try to clean this up maybe later today and ask for a revision deletion. I will also check the other contributions, particularly the bus interchange articles. In the meantime, if you know of any other plagiarism incidences, please let me know. I would be happy to help remove them. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:54, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Manulife page
You were probably right about the list of presidents - but I've seen it on other bank pages so I thought I would get some credit for adding it here. Not sure why you would then question my motives. The Kendall-K1 removal of sponsorships and awards is not warranted. Those are both common sections. This page is easy to update so I was trying to score some points.

Thanks for your consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fastboy18 (talk • contribs) 15:59, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Taiwan moves
Hello Lemongirl942. I noticed your recent request at WP:RMTR. In fact, there is a recent trend to have ROC things renamed to be Taiwan things. I don't have the links handy, but it's not a question of pure nationalism any more. More like common usage. This happened even with some election-related articles. So I wouldn't be shocked to see some undiscussed moves go by in this area. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 20:18, 13 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I understand. But I also think that it needs a bit more discussion. The terms ROC and Taiwan are not always interchangeable and this needs to be looked at in a cases by case basis. (For example such as here and here). --Lemongirl942 (talk) 20:28, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

== How do I challenge this decision? Both the admin and the user need to be punished. That page was under 1rr and I documented 4 reverts, and admin just writes "no violation" without comment. I am refiling too ==

Honestly, did you see that? Ridiculous! This wasn't even close! He reverted 4 times in a row on a 1rr page, and the admin says "no violation!" Is every admin in this joint corrupt? I don't get it. 4 is obviously more than 1. I didn't even get an explanation.63.143.196.107 (talk) 12:37, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Umm, who are you? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 12:38, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Hang on, is this related to this and this? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 12:39, 15 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes. Sorry my IP address keeps changing. I do not understand the decision. The page was under 1RR. This is clear. User warred with me reverting 4 times when I told him to stop, and that this article is under 1RR. I report him. Admin says "no violation by JFG", yet gives no explanation (and then protects the page, effectively locking me out, when JFG was the 1st reverter, and I had every right to keep reverting him after he ignored 1rr and reverted again. I don't get it. Aren't rules rules? If the rule says "no more than 1 revert per 24 hours" and I provide clear evidence that he did so, why does an admin just ignore it and say "no violation" without even so much as giving an explanation? Not only that, JFG repeatedly lied, 1st lying about the document he kept removing being "copyrighted" (it is not), lying about the fact that the document "isnt used on any other wiki pages" (it is, in the corresponding page on German wikipedia, which he knew), lying stating the page is not under 1rr (it is, as he should have known when I told him to discuss the removal on the talk page, since two other editors had already restored it that day before he reverted their edits, and in fact all US politics pages are) and then lying about the relevant policy, stating the "burden of proof is on you" (he provided no evidence for this either. So far as I can tell, the policy just says content that violates copyrights will be deleted, and there is no evidence that the document is copyrighted and it would be implausible that the document is copyrighted) There is no legiitmate argument to not linking to the document the article is about, and more to the point, he simply flaunted the 1rr restrictions to get his way, and he's just getting away with it. This is corrupt! I do not even see what the argument can possibly be for not linking to the primary source. He has zero evidence that it was copyrighted. Aargh.63.143.196.107 (talk) 12:49, 15 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Whatever, I think I'm just going to let it go, since I doubt filing again is going to get anywhere. . But he clearly crossed the line, and he was very dishonest about his reasoning, and he's getting away with deleting the relevant document, which no one claims to have a copyright. And the admin isn't even going to stop him from flaunting the revert rules. I don't get it. The admins seem to play favorites, since every time I even come close to violating 1rr or 3rr I get slammed. He went way over. It really doesn't make much sense to me.


 * Umm, I don't know which article is this and what is the dispute about. In general the place to post any challenge of closes is WP:AN. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 12:55, 15 January 2017 (UTC)


 * It's Donald Trump Russia dossier. The article included a link to the dossier hosted at Wikipedia commons. He reverted the addition of the dossier (not mine). The article is under 1rr. I reverted his addition. He then reverted me 3 more times. I reported him. I don't understand what the meaning of 1rr is if someone can revert 4 times and be told "no violation" by the admin. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me. I posted diffs of him reverting 4 times. I guess I'll take it up at AN. Thanks. 63.143.196.107 (talk) 13:00, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

This IP is a sock of, just to let you know. JudgeRM  (talk to me)  17:52, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

January 2017
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Taiwan under Japanese rule. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. --Matt Smith (talk) 03:03, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.


 * Wow, retaliatory template? Heck, I opened a discussion, but you didn't even look and didn't bother to participate. Instead you decided to blindly revert quoting IAR. You behaviour is tending towards WP:BATTLEGROUND here. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:12, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Please read this message
Every edit all must be made by you It is also let us new editors to gain some experience if not why not u run the entire Wikipedia if that is the case or close down Wikipedia!!!!!!!! 😡😡😡😡😡 Bryan4562013 (talk) 06:40, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Please do not disparage editors on their own talkpages. And if you are going to do so, please make yourself clearly understood. You have not so far. Carry on, LG! O Fortuna!  ...Imperatrix mundi.  06:45, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello . I am happy if new editors gain experience. But some of your edits are creating problems. For example, on a school article, you copy pasted stuff (which is not allowed on Wikipedia). We also do not create new articles - unless absolutely required. Before creating an article, we need to look at sources and find news articles. Otherwise, someone will come along and delete it.
 * I know that you have created some nice articles, so I don't want you to be blocked by an admin. If you want, I can help you learn a bit more (such as how to add sources, what are reliable sources and more. Tell me if you want to learn!. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:48, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

regarding recent edit dispute
hello. The reason that I'm writing here on your talk page is because the discussion on the notice board was closed before I got a chance to respond, due to the Admin's decision and action (that you had a bit of a disagreement with). Forgive this lengthy comment here, but I needed to thoroughly state some things, on this matter.

Anyway, thanks for your consideration and concern to this matter from yesterday. I want to say that I do apologize for going a bit past the 3RR rule myself (though Jytdog went further beyond as you can see), and also my occasional somewhat battle-ish tone, or maybe sometimes over-bluntness.

And I do appreciate that later the editor Jytdog made an excellent modification, and found an agreeably better and more solid source for my section and paragraph. If he had done that to begin with, I swear I would NOT have undone it or fought it, as I respect people’s meaningful modifications, adjustments, or better source referencing. You see though that that’s not what he did at first, nor later on even. But only after he went beyond 3RR and for some reason afterwards he went to the noticeboard where he didn’t think that he’d be reprimanded or would get in trouble or have 1-day block himself. But after I wrote my defense on here, he did see (is my surmise) that he broke 3RR badly, and was gonna be in hot soup as well as myself. We both edit-warred, obviously, with 3RR violation, though he a bit worse, and yes I a bit worse with a more combative tone (though not every statement of mine). But I was rightly and understandably both hurt and annoyed, at what was disrespectful and overly hasty, and it came across as "Own" and "I don't like", rather than totally valid reasons to completely delete. Yes, admittedly the source I put in was not the best, or the most reliable, in WP policy, but I hope you can see that WP policy is not necessarily to wholesale remove everything just because the source used is not the most reliable by WP standards.

There are plenty of other sources, more solid, for the drift of my addition. (And Jytdog, to his credit, did a good job later on in finding and placing one, and modifying etc.)    But before that was the problem, where he totally removed hard work, that a very good-faith (and accurate and copiously sourced) contribution, and hard work, were just summarily dissed and dismissed by him, simply because the source that I put was not the best, but he wrongly accused or said that it was just “original research”. That is patently not true. I did not come up with the Jesus using Lot’s wife to warn against clinging to material possessions at the end of a world thing. That’s obvious from the Biblical text itself, AND ALSO FROM VARIOUS OUTSIDE SOURCES. Yes, I may not have picked the best source (admittedly), but it seems to be forgotten that WP policy and strong recommendation is to NOT destroy another contributor’s edits because of that, completely, but to try to find a better source, or give a source TAG, or modify the edits or additions. Not totally remove or eliminate. And sorry, I had a very valid point with that. '

And as I said, it was arguably very needed, and sorely lacking, the thing that was only slightly briefly mentioned in the lede. Needing elaboration, as NO "New Testament" reference in the body of article regarding "Lot's wife" was present anywhere.

Now, as far as another thing that’s been said by both Jytdog and you Lemongirl etc, that is actually a misunderstanding, and NOT what I did, regarding “pointy” about the name of God matter. No, that’s not what I meant. The edit itself (in that small matter of putting the Anglicized form “Jehovah” instead of what was there “God”) was to NOT “make a point” but for valid varying and clarity, in the Jewish context, of the God of Jews, and elaboration etc. When I said “my point” that was only in my comment on the TALK page, in response to Jytdog’s objection that that form “Jehovah” (the tri-syllabic English Latin form) is somehow not used by “scholarly sources” even though it clearly is, past and present...in various reputable works, by various scholars and theologians...though maybe not as much as the less-accurate two-syllable form “Yahweh”. When I said “it was not that big a deal to me” I meant if consensus (which is what Jytdog was later calling for on that specific matter) went against having that form there in that specific place. I would not fight against that so much, because it’s overall minor...though my EDIT on the actual article was NOT “pointy” but simply clarity and varying and elaboration. The edit itself was not meant as “to make a point”, but rather my comment to Jytdog on the talk page about “scholarly sources” and that the motive to remove that form was not really warranted given the fact that it’s a long-established form and found in a number of scholarly books, sermons, and references, as well as in a number of reputable Bible versions. THAT was my “point” about “point”. Not the actual original edit itself in the article. That was just for clarity in context.

Anyway, as I said, I do appreciate your thought to all this, though I do not think it was all that necessary for Jytdog to even go on the board to report me, since he was (though unintentionally) also ipso facto reporting himself. But his subsequent modification and compromise and collaboration and better source that he found I do appreciate and have no problem with. It’s cool. I appreciate also Jytdog’s diligence for good sourcing on Wikipedia, though I don’t agree that he handled it originally in the best way or in line really with WP recommendation or policy. And that was my argument with all of that. Anyway, sorry for the long presentation here. I appreciate your taking the time to read through it. I felt it was necessary (since I was not able to all day yesterday) to further state my case and maybe clarify a misunderstanding or two. thanks again. Regards....... Namarly (talk) 14:29, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Reasons of the revert
It has been two hours since you reverted my edits on that article. I hope you have been preparing a list of your reasons of the revert for starting a discussion in that article's talk page. --Matt Smith (talk) 07:34, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * My suggestion here for you would be to try editing in an area other than Taiwan/China. That would help you to understand better how policies and guidelines are applied in practice. It will also help you to understand that a lot of what you consider NPOV problems are actually not problems.
 * As for this particular revert there are multiple reasons - adding coatracky information, changing content which doesn't follow the source, and adding redundant info. If you edit in different areas (where you are not involved in the topic), you will understand better how NPOV works. For example try American politics. You will also find more editors there willing to help you to understand. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:53, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the suggestion. But I have been editing Taiwan/China articles on Chinese Wikipedia since October 2014 and I know mostly how Wikipedia works.
 * Please make it clear that which edits are adding coatracky information, changing content which doesn't follow the source, and adding redundant info, respectively. You may also explain about them in that article's talk page. --Matt Smith (talk) 08:10, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The English Wikipedia works differently from the Chinese Wikipedia. (Every language Wikipedia has its own rules). And the way policies/guidelines are applied in spirit here, often differs from how the guideline is actually written. I know this is hard to understand, but the only way to understand is to edit outside your comfort zone. I myself learnt it that way. When you edit in an area outside your own, it also helps to provide an additional perspective - for example you might be able to see bias/undue content in an article, which an American may not be able to see. And this helps to improve the encyclopaedia while also helping one to realise one's own bias. Editing in one narrow area is also generally frowned upon by the community here due to multiple instances of POV pushing and disruption and WP:ADVOCACY editing. I suggest you try editing a different area for once. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:26, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the suggestion.
 * Please rationalize your revert by making it clear that which of my edits are adding coatracky information, changing content which doesn't follow the source, and adding redundant info, respectively, in either this page or that article's talk page (preferred). --Matt Smith (talk) 08:39, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, I will do that later today. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:41, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. --Matt Smith (talk) 08:43, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 24 hours have passed and still no response from you. Are you encountering any difficulty drafting the list? I will restore the article to my last revision if I still hear no word from you after 2 hours. --Matt Smith (talk) 09:01, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * please note WP:NODEADLINE. In any case, I would advise against restoring edits that removed sourced material. I also suggest that far too often you take conversations to user talkpages rather than article talk, which is, of course, the preferred venue. Cheers, O Fortuna!  ...Imperatrix mundi.  09:17, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It was not me who proposed a "deadline"; it was her. Note that she said "I will do that later today" yesterday. I was just showing my patience by allowing for 2 more hours.
 * It is weird to me that you only saw my edits removed sourced material and didn't see her edit removed sourced material. Also, my reason for removing a certain sourced material was clearly summaried. Feel free to let me know if you still have any question.
 * I will start conversations in talk pages of articles whenever possible in the future. Thanks for the suggestion. --Matt Smith (talk) 09:28, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Restored. --Matt Smith (talk) 12:19, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Strange editing skills
Hi there, I noticed, several times, that you keep reverting true info to untrue and, in fact, this is an attempt to defend untrue info. I noticed that you don`t work on how info is correct or incorrect. On top of that you disseminating conspiracy and that I am the paid user. It is very strange to see how you don`t examine true or untrue information but escalate simple situation to conflict. Sorry about that, but it is very strange and non-constructive behaviour.

Also, how do you come to conclusion that corporate info is not useful info? Please give the source or link.

Kind regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.227.216.246 (talk) 14:26, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi again, still no reply on my questions, so I am feeling that I am entitled to ask you , please, stop disruptive editing/reverting. Most of them doesn`t make sense and it gives feelings that you are defending untrue information and in not-good-faith mode. Thanks and kind regards! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.227.216.129 (talk) 07:29, 17 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Hello. I presume this is related to Nobel Oil Group. I reverted it because the sources you provided are either affiliated to the company (or reprints of press releases) or they do not provide enough context to verify the information. I suggest you open a discussion on the talk page rather than reverting on the article itself. I also see a history of sockpuppetry on the article, so it would be helpful if you declare your other accounts. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:41, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Notification
It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Regenteditor (talk • contribs) 08:23, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello . Where is this canvassing you are talking about? Is this related to Nobel Oil Group? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:29, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Personal reminder 20 Jan 2017
(This is a personal reminder of the stuff that needs to be done today) --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:23, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * File SPI
 * Reply to problem about rap articles
 * FA review comments
 * Primary sources at Talk:Jonathan Cohler
 * 2 Chinas
 * Selective merge of scout group

FAC: House of Music
Hello there. Would you care to review or comment at my nomination of House of Music for featured status? The previous nomination did not gather enough commentary, so anything at all would be appreciated. Dan56 (talk) 04:39, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Referencing
Hello, I'm Simpletester. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Umid gas field, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. addition of improperly cited material, dead links, put correct sources,please  —Preceding undated comment added 09:08, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I suppose this is again about the Nobel Oil Group right? Honestly, how many socks do you guys have? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:25, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Swami Nithyananda
Hi, this is regarding your aggressive edits on the page of Swami Nithyananda. You have made the whole page into a mockery and destroyed the hard work of many editors including wikipedia admins over the past few years. If there are specific references that you are opposed to you should discuss them. I am wondering if there is any COI from your side and whether you have a vested interest in writing against the subject of the BLP article. Acnaren (talk) 06:49, 27 January 2017 (UTC)


 * The "aggressive" edits were done since the BLP article was highly promotional and extensively self-cited from WP:SPS. All edits had edit summaries with clear reasonings. If you are still aggrieved please discuss on article talk page under WP:BRD to achieve WP:CONSENSUS. Inlinetext (talk) 16:43, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Lemongirl, there is a user who just deleted all of the content of the page... I was simply reverting it back to the version you had previously. It's obviously defiled and lost information in its current state — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rurban23 (talk • contribs) 14:16, 27 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I have replied to this editor on the article's talk page. Inlinetext (talk) 16:43, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Barnstar for you

 * Thank you so much . I am happy that you appreciate it :) To be honest, sometimes I actually don't feel like analysing the sources (as it is time consuming), but given that results of an AFD can change just due to one analysis, I try to do it wherever possible. Thank you once again!. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 01:37, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Happy Chinese New Year
Thanks a lot for your wishful message on my talk page User talk:Lemongirl942! Just wondering, how do I insert those templates for birthdays and festival templates to you? I always see other contributors doing so for a very long time, but I have no idea how to do so. Besides that, how do I get started for inserting those introductory templates on my User Page? Do provide me with tips accordingly for that.

You are always so kind and patient with me, I am still grateful that you defended me at Anon a few months back when almost every other editors were criticizing me but you always believed my true intention of edit and have excellent faith in me; thank you so much for that! :) Don't mind me asking, may I add you on any social media accounts (e.g. Facebook, Twitter, Instagram) so that we can continue to communicate with each other even outside of Wikipedia? Of course it is your choice, but I do believe and trust in you a lot since you seem to understand my editing patterns very well and not forgetting the fact that you are a Singaporean too. Hope you have enjoyed this festive season with your family and friends; 3 cheers to that! :D Xinyang Aliciabritney (talk) 11:33, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Rap music articles
Hi Lemongirl942, thanks for your note on my talk page. I stumbled into editing so many rap music articles about a year ago after writing a biography about Kodak Black. I quickly found that keeping that one article properly sourced and free from spam took a huge amount of time, and the article has been permanently page protected. I would often follow the non-IP editors who added unsourced content to the Kodak Black article, and noticed a similar pattern. These were editors who exclusively edited rap, electronic music, and DJ/producer articles, and the bulk of their edits were mostly unsourced cut-and-paste discographies (no text or prose). I suspect some of these editors work for large music companies, though some of the most prolific of these editors turned out to be teens (they would disclose this on their talk page or in their block appeals). The problem was, when I checked the accuracy of the few sources that were ever added, only about 75 percent of each edit was correct, which does not really help these articles. As you've seen, I've been relentless with some of these editors, and a few have been permanently blocked.

Going forward, my concern is how to protect these music articles and enhance their accuracy. Most of my edits are to small towns in the United States, where I rarely see this sort of mass unsourced editing. These small city articles are well-patrolled by experienced editors, and unsourced "cruft" is quickly removed. Another example is the mass production of sports biographies (eg. US football players). I rarely see unsourced or inaccurate sports bios. These rap music articles are not like that (though there are a few very hard working editors who make well-sourced contributions). Compounding the problem is that discographies are exceeding difficult to accurately edit. Yesterday I spent ages teasing out unsourced content from just one article, Plata O Plomo (Fat Joe and Remy Ma album). As well, these discographies use very complex tables that are difficult to configure.

A few of my concerns are:
 * Tightening the criteria for editing discographies (perhaps through a proposal). For example, WikiProject Albums/Album article style guide does state "take care in identifying reliable sources that are added to articles."  However, Template:Track listing, which is used on many articles, does not even have a parameter in which to add sources, and when a source is added within the template, the template stops working.
 * Finding a more efficient way to support WP:E=N and WP:SOUNDCLOUDBAND. Take a look at the number of articles at User:AlexNewArtBot/HipHopSearchResult.  How are so many of these articles going live?  Does the criteria for notability need tightening?  Should a help page tutorial be created to assist the editors of these articles (along with a quicker exit for problematic editors)?

I'd be curious to hear your opinion. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 11:09, 19 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I would support a tightening of the criteria for discographies. Sourcing the tracklisting is tricky as it invariably will be WP:PRIMARY, but perhaps a 'source' field can be added that links to scans on Discogs.com for instance. I have to say, the number of articles to appear on that list does not look excessive to me. That said, notability is always an issue with album pages. Perhaps enforcing them to go through WP:AfC would remedy this issues and is worth considering. Karst (talk) 13:20, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I rarely do articles based on discographies, while I edit articles based on albums, but I mostly edit articles that are in my watch list (you can see the articles on my user page). I really don't know about this, I suggest to add a digital booklet or any other reliable source in the track list, to prove the credits are correct. That just my opinion on the issue. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 09:06, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't know why you want to start a discussion here on somebody else's talk page, I suggest to start a discussion at WikiProject Albums talk page, that way you can get more responses from other editors who are more experience with album articles. You can also start a discussion at Template:Track listing talk page, regarding your concerns about track listings being unsourced. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 01:09, 28 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Sorry for my delayed response here . There are actually 3 problems I see here
 * The persistent addition of unsourced (and someone unverifiable) content in music article. (Whether by COI editors or enthusiastic young editors)
 * The mushrooming of article about albums - and a low entry barrier. (The GNG is interpreted in a way which creates a low barrier)
 * A growing culture that somehow it is OK to add unsourced content. This is also coupled with a lack of understanding of what is RS.
 * My biggest worry is the third point as it affects consensus (but I will talk about it later sometime). I think a starting point right now would be to clearly describe what are RS in the context of album notability. Are simple reviews on any website sufficient? The second is to ensure verifiability of credits. Should the album jacket/any other source not be found, content should be removed. I would be happy to discuss a bit more and once we have something concrete, I guess we can go to WT:ALBUMS and propose a solution. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 01:59, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Let me draft something in the next week or two and go from there.  Magnolia677 (talk) 12:16, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Request for review
I'm wondering if you are interesting in reviewing the article on the Kingdom of Singapura as you have contributed in article on Singapore before, and I'm inviting reviews for the article - Peer review/Kingdom of Singapura/archive1. The reason is mainly because I believe the article needs to be overhauled, but it may not be easy because of the extensive amount that's written already, therefore I would like suggestions that can improve it. The main problem is the uncertainty in the history and what appears to be skewing of the narrative (some points raised in Talk:Kingdom of Singapura). Many historians believe that many of the kings may be mythical. Suggestions, or even edits on the article if you want to, would be appreciated. Hzh (talk) 16:19, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Re: FAC
Thank you for reviewing This England. I withdrew my FA nomination, but also asked you a question on the nomination page, which I hope you can answer there or on my talk page if the page is closed. Also, I wonder if you would have similar concerns about Joseph Schwantner: New Morning for the World; Nicolas Flagello: The Passion of Martin Luther King, or if you think this sourcing is better. I'd consider nominating this article for FA status, but only if I knew sourcing was not a problem. Thanks again for your time and feedback. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 00:07, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Do you have any thoughts, Lemongirl942? I'd really appreciate feedback here or on the FAC page. Thanks! -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 17:14, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Apologies for the delay. Will do it today after evening today. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:25, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * No worries, and thanks! --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 04:27, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

The FAC nomination page has been closed, but I am still curious about your thoughts on Joseph Schwantner: New Morning for the World; Nicolas Flagello: The Passion of Martin Luther King. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 23:13, 23 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Apologies for all the delay. I had a brief look at this a while ago. The sourcing here seems to be much stronger - the reviews in Deseret News (Utah) and SunSentinel (Florida) are by staff writers. The Billboard charting is helpful as well. There is another brief review in Washington Post which can be added to the article as well. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:42, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Pinging in case this was not watchlisted. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:09, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello
Hey Lemongirl, long time no see. I wanted to apologize for the things I said a while back, it wasn't professional of me and I hope you can forgive my actions. In the meantime, I've looked into Too High to Riot and made some changes to it. I was hoping to get your opinion on it whether what I did was right or wrong. Thanks. JayPe (talk) 01:30, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Hey . How have you been doing? I was on a Wikibreak for the past week. Don't worry about the past . All of us are human and we make mistakes and learn! Anyway, am gonna have a detailed look at the article later. But for right now, it would be helpful to source the information about the producers of the individual songs. In the references I looked, I wasn't able to find them. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:20, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Ping - Arrow Scout Group
Articles for deletion/Arrow Scout Group :)--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 02:53, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh! That's been left untouched since months. OK, will do it today. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:22, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Arrow Scout Group: Revision history Ping?--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 12:33, 2 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Yay ✅! After delaying it for months (for which I honestly deserve to be trouted). --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:28, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Please Read this
Since u all are talking to me with no respect while u all are idling the way sending me message I suggest u all should make a wiki page for Tan Jun Sheng u all have the time to leave message on my chat page I suggest u all use the time to do a research Bryan4562013 (talk) 05:41, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Lemongirl, I hope that you would help me do a wiki page of a Singapore an kid actor named Tan Jun Sheng. Thanks. 😊 Bryan4562013 (talk) 10:35, 31 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Hello ! I see that an article about Tan Jun Sheng was recently deleted. The reason for deletion was that there were no sources in the article. Whenever we create an article, our first job is to find sources - these can be news article or mentions in books. (For example, a good source for Singapore related article is a news article in The Straits Times). According to Wikipedia's policies, we should create an article only if we have enough sources first. And these sources need to have some significant information about the person. I tried searching for sources about "Tan Jun Sheng" but I could not find much (except for 2 sources with only 1 sentence mention). Would it be possible for you to find some more sources? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:42, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

page move
Thanks for your advice, will do page move according WP instructions. I read carefully the article. I moved page w/out talk page because old name is mistake apparently, doesn`t reflect the content and it means old talk page is not applicable. The article should be rewritten as I note on the talk page. Thanks for your thoughts.Swissfishpool (talk) 10:06, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Please don't move pages again, particularly not without the talk page. And if you are using any other accounts, please disclose them. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:21, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

New Page Review - newsletter No.2
Hello , We now have New Page Reviewers! Most of us requested the user right at PERM, expressing a wish to be able to do something about the huge backlog, but the chart on the right does not demonstrate any changes to the pre-user-right levels of October. The backlog is still steadily growing at a rate of 150 a day or 4,650 a month. Only 20 reviews a day by each reviewer over the next few days would bring the backlog down to a managable level and the daily input can then be processed by each reviewer doing only 2 or 3 reviews a day - that's about 5 minutes work! It didn't work in time to relax for the Xmas/New Year holidays. Let's see if we can achieve our goal before Easter, otherwise by Thanksgiving it will be closer to. Remember that we are the only guardians of quality of new articles, we alone have to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged by non-Reviewer patrollers and that new authors are not being bitten. This is even more important and extra vigilance is required considering Orangemoody,  and
 * A HUGE backlog
 * Second set of eyes
 * Abuse
 * 1) this very recent case of paid advertising by a Reviewer resulting  in  a community ban.
 * 2) this case in January of paid advertising by a Reviewer, also resulting in  a community ban.
 * 3) This Reviewer is indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry.

Coordinator election
Kudpung is stepping down after 6 years as unofficial coordinator of New Page Patrolling/Reviewing. There is enough work for two people and two coords are now required. Details are at NPR Coordinators; nominate someone or nominate yourself. Date for the actual suffrage will be published later. Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:11, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Singapore independence DRN
Hello, I have opened a DRN case regarding a Singapore discussion you participated in. If you wish, feel free to comment at Dispute resolution noticeboard. Best, CMD (talk) 16:43, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Advanced Bionics
I noticed you eliminated my article. It is factually incorrect that Advanced Bionics is "Not indepednently notable at this time." They are the world's second leading producer of cochlear implant systems. MED-EL, the worlds third leading producer, has a wikipedia article. They are featured in countless journals and articles, independent of the audiology world. The Sonova talk page, may I quote, requested that separate articles for major Sonova divisions be created. "Child companies and Grand-Child companies Sonova owns Phonak, Unitron, Advanced Bionics, and Connect Hearing Group. Connect Hearing Group owns at least 10 other brands. I've added the grand-children companies -- it'll probably be helpful for some searcher. The majority of the grand-children companies are in non-English countries, so I chose not to add a redirect. If you think it's needed, please do. I'm also gonna go through and add links to the brands. Also, it appears that the majority of these children (or even grand-children) companies have notability. Enough to merit their own page? I don't know so I'll just leave the children and grand children on this page for now. If it's deem that they have enough notability for their own page, go ahead and create it. CerealKillerYum (talk) 11:34, 8 July 2016 (UTC)" Advanced Bionics is notable by all measures, hence the article should stay.PlanespotterA320 (talk) 11:39, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Adnan Saidi and Battle of Pasir Panjang
I think you wrongly revert it. You need to re-revert to the latest version that you revert. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.165.12.118 (talk) 19:07, 14 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Hello. Yes, I reverted that because there are certain issues with the edits such as
 * We don't usually put flags in the infobox
 * It removed a citation needed tag. (It is not supposed to be removed unless the problem has been fixed)
 * It also removed content and added some unsourced content. (We need to provide reliable references for adding content)
 * It also added an image whose copyright status is unclear.
 * If you are able to find sources for some of the edits, I would be glad to discuss them. Thank you. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 19:45, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Advanced Bionics Notability
Advanced Bionics is notable, they are the second leading producer of cochlear implants. There was no reason for it to be deleted. In terms of consensus, fully owned subsidaries do have independent articles about them. For just a few examples, Delta Air Lines and (Delta Private Jets), British Airways and (BA CityFlyer) (OpenSkies), El Al and (Up (airline)). PlanespotterA320 (talk) 20:33, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

New Page Review-Patrolling: Coordinator elections
Your last chance to nominate yourself or any New Page Reviewer, See Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Coordination. Elections begin Monday 20 February 23:59 UTC. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:17, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

New Page Review - newsletter No.3
Hello , Voting for coordinators has now begun HERE and will continue through/to 23:59 UTC Monday 06 March. Please be sure to vote. Any registered, confirmed editor can vote. Nominations are now closed. We now have New Page Reviewers but despite numerous appeals for help, the backlog has NOT been significantly reduced. If you asked for the New Page Reviewer right, please consider investing a bit of time - every little helps preventing spam and trash entering the mainspace and Google when the 'NO_INDEX' tags expire. Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:35, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Still a MASSIVE backlog

Invitation to the Wikipedia Selangor Meetup 2
The 4th Wikipedia Malaysia Meetup will be held for the second time on Selangor, and you are invited!
 * Date: Saturday, 25 February 2017
 * Time: 11:00 am - 1:00 pm (Malaysia Standard Time, UTC+8:00)
 * Venue: Menara Sunway  (check page for venue/room update) , Bandar Sunway, Petaling Jaya, Selangor (3.069°N, 101.61017°W)
 * Medium of communication:
 * English language - for the general overall meetup
 * Malay language - for Malay Wikipedia section (subject to request)

→ To collaborate between Wikipedia Malaysia User Group and Sunway Group, a large corporation in Malaysia. → To create Wikipedia (and other Wikimedia projects)'s articles and edit/improve articles on the spot.

This meetup was initiated by Chongkian and the invitation was written and sent by NgYShung. For more information and updates, see the meetup page. If there is any enquires, feel free to discuss at the talk page. If you wish to opt-out of any future Malaysia meetup invitation, please add your name here. (Delivered: 11:46, 22 February 2017 (UTC))