User talk:Pinkyellow

January 2010
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page It Girls Documentary has been reverted. Your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline from Wikipedia. The external link you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. I removed the following link(s): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z48aRD6wX1Q (matching the regex rule \byoutube\.com). If the external link you inserted or changed was to a media file (e.g. a sound or video file) on an external server, then note that linking to such files may be subject to Wikipedia's copyright policy and therefore probably should not be linked to. Please consider using our upload facility to upload a suitable media file. Video links are also strongly deprecated by our guidelines for external links, partly because they're useless to people with slow internet connections. If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 23:03, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed maintenance templates from It Girls Documentary. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. The refimprove tag indicates that additional references are needed, as per our verification policy. Your edit actually removed two existing references (see below) thus making the problem worse, not better. Such tags should be reoved only when the problem has been fixed. DES (talk) 02:50, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

It Girls Documentary critical response section
You removed the contents of the critical response section of It Girls Documentary. You did not indicate in your edit summary nor on the talk page your reasons for this. I have restored the section, If you think the section should be removed or significantly altered, please discuss the matter on Talk:It Girls Documentary before making such changes. I have explained on that talk page my guideline-based reasons for inserting such a section. DES (talk) 02:44, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Frankly those were the only significant published reviews in the first several screens of Google results. i thought that while one was quite negative, the other was rather positive. But it is in any case important to have cited published reviews, as they help to establish that the film is notable, without such the entire article might well be deleted. Note that not any "writeup" will do, it should be one published by a reliable source
 * I am sorry your experience has been unhappy to date, and i am quite willing to work with you on the article. i have no strong feelings for or against the article, I found it on new page patrol, and was simply trying to get it into better shape as a Wikipedia article, which always means including references, and for a film normally means including critical responses if at all possible.
 * If the reviews I found are not representative, then i want to get a better or wider selection. Can you suggest other published reviews or commentary that could be added to the section, or perhaps replace some of the current cited content? Note that if there was a range of response, from favorable to unfavorable, we should ideally cover the entire range, but if the unfavorable comments were 1 in 100 we should not represent them as 1 in 2.
 * It seems that you know the film much better than i do -- I only know what is in the article and the sources i have been able to find and read tonight. If you have additional sources but aren't sure how to put them in the article, just mention them (with a link if online) on the talk page, and I'll be glad to help. Or feel free to insert them yourself, and I or some other editor can always fix any formatting issues.
 * If the sources i found are badly unrepresentative, feel free to say why they should be removed on the talk page. But there should be some critical response listed, since there was some in fact. I don't know how many published reviews there may have been, we may be able to link all of them, or a more representative sample.
 * I hope this helps. DES (talk) 04:10, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Please stop removing the critical response section from It Girls Documentary. If you can find some other commentary about it, add it to the section, but repeatedly removing it along with the references section and replacing it with a snippet of conversation from a transcript of a CNN interview is likely to lead to you being blocked. Wikipedia can be a bit confusing to a newcomer. I think DES has some excellent suggestions above. If you need some help formatting or refining any additions to the article, please let me know, but you can't just keep removing referenced material because you don't like it. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 12:36, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Your note on user:ArglebargleIV's talk page
I've responded there. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 12:22, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. --SineBot (talk) 12:43, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

It Girls (documentary) tone, style, and references
Please understand that phrases like "stylish females" are what Wikipedia calls "peacock terms", phrases that puff up the impression without adding any facts. They effectively state (or imply) an opinion as if it were fact and without a source. Whether the people filmed were "stylish" is for the reader to judge, unless we have an independent source that says they were, and can quote that source.

Wikipedia articles are supposed to be written from a "neutral point of view". This means that the article itself should neither praise nor blame, should not state or imply judgments positive or negative. If positive or negative views have been published by reliable sources, this should be stated, with those opinions quoted or summarized and attributed to the people whose opinions they are.

Please understand that an interview with the director and actors is not the same as a review or critical discussion, because the views being presented are those of the people who made the film, and are thus not independent of it. However the lead section of the interview you found does confirm the existence and airdate of the film, and the identities of some of the major people involved, so i have included it as a reference for those points. If it weren't being used for that, it could possibly go in as an "external link", sort of a "see also" to relevant pages outside of Wikipedia. But it isn't part of the critical response, because it doesn't give independent evaluations of the work. DES (talk) 13:20, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I have now reviewed all 88 Google hits on search "It Girls" documentary Leacock. I have added two additional critical comments to the article, one from the Baltimode Sun and one from WWD (a fashion trade magazine). These four are the only reveiws published by reliable sources that I have found. I found a number of reviews and discussions of Leacock's later work "A Passion For Giving", and I added a few of those to the Robin Melanie Leacock article. Frankly an article on A Passion For Giving (documentary) would not be amiss, there is lots of matieral for one.

If you can suggest additional reviews or critical commentary, please do, and it can also be included if published by a reliable source. DES (talk) 14:51, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * If there are (and I think there must be) relevant reviews that were published in print, they can be used in the article in addition to online reveiws. What is mostly needed is the title and author of the reveiw, the date of publication, and the name of the newspaper, magazine, or other publication. A useful quote or summary of the reveiw is also helpful. If you are able to find any such, put this info into the articel talk page, ior right into the article, and I or another editor will celan up the formatting if need be, and I'll show you how it is done for later if you wish. They should be reveiws or commentary, not interveiws with people from the film. DES (talk) 20:36, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

About the tweet
This is not a usual process to my knowledge, indeed I haven't noticved such a think before. it seems to be being done by a mmember of a group that dislikes and distrusts Wikipedia. However Anthing posted to wikipedia is automatically public, and anyone is free to reuse it provided they confirm to some very moderate conditions, mostly acknowleging the source and permitting others the same reuse rights. See WP:COPYRIGHT for details. (not at the bototm of every edit box the staztement "You irrevocably agree to release your contributions under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license." This means by clicking "submit" you conset to anyoen reusing, republishing, and/or modifing your words.) As a result although I don't like it, there is nothing I (or any other wikipedia editor) can do to stop the tweeting. Note that Google does index talk pages even if they are not tweeted. DES (talk) 20:32, 9 January 2010 (UTC)