User talk:ReaderofthePack/Archive 14

Navin Raheja
Hi, I want to know that why you only have added negative content while we have given reference links as proofs for the content I have added before. The negative content you added indicates the negative of Raheja Builders not of Navin Raheja. So if you don't want to add my content, remove the negative also because that also don't have proper reference link as proof. Also I promise that I will not post any content without appropriate reference link for that content. Bhaskargupta269 (talk) 11:26, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I've actually been thinking that it'd just be better to redirect to the main article for the company since I don't really see where he's truly notable outside of the company. Once you remove the sources that reference the negative material we're left with only the barest handful of sources- not nearly enough to assert notability for him. All of his awards have come through his work with the company. He does hold a high position with the National Real Estate Development Council, but I cannot see where that has gained him any substantial coverage. Other than him being quoted (which cannot be used to show notability), there is no coverage about him that isn't about the company. That's kind of the rub of the situation- removing the negative content will kind of hammer home that he just doesn't have that independent notability. I can run this through WP:AfD as opposed to just redirecting it to the company's page, if you like. However as far as my only adding negative sourcing, that's because that's really all that's out there about him. The sources that were on the article that I removed weren't really in-depth coverage of him and the content was overly promotional in tone. I'm not supporting the negative viewpoint of him specifically, but neither can I leave overly promotional, positive material about him in the article. Any other editor coming in will be extremely likely to tell you the same thing. I'm actually surprised that this was approved at WP:AfC, as the article at the time of acceptance did not have enough coverage to show notability beyond a reasonable doubt. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   14:58, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh wow- I saw the edits to the company's article. I have to flat out ask you: have you been hired by the company to make positive edits to the articles concerning Raheja and his company? If so, then you will need to read over our WP:COI guidelines and to disclose this on the article's talk page. If you aren't, then you still need to be cautious about our policy on overly promotional edits since continually editing in a promotional tone can lead to you getting blocked if it appears that you are not going to try to write in a neutral fashion. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   15:11, 27 November 2014 (UTC)


 * The incident page has been updated on this issue, and may be of interest to you. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Navin_Raheja_and_Raheja_Developers_Limited Leoaugust (talk) 12:21, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I would like to know about the reason behind the redirection of Navin Raheja page to Raheja Developers Limited. Both the pages are from different categories. One belong to a person while other belongs to a business. Please clear this doubt. If possible separate the article from one another.Bhaskargupta269 (talk) 12:58, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The reason was that Raheja really only has notability from his company. Once you remove all of the sources that have to do with his company, there really wasn't enough to show notability for Raheja, at least not enough to merit his own article. Plus you argued that we should not contain any negative information about the company in his article. If we do that, then we should remove the positive information as well and once we do that, that is what brought up the notability issues. I'm not going to un-redirect, especially considering that you seem pretty keen on turning it into a promotional article for Raheja. Wikipedia is not to be used as a promotional vehicle for anybody's purposes. I also note that you never answered my question: have you been hired by the company to write about them on Wikipedia? You've edited in an extremely positive, promotional manner to the point where it comes across like you are a paid editor. All conflicts of interest must be stated up front and be aware that Wikipedia does have ways to find out if someone is a paid editor or not- we've had a few people claim that they weren't, only for it to later come out that they were... and they promptly got blocked for trying to mislead others about their COI editing. I've found at least one person by your name that is involved with marketing and promotion and given your edits, I'm pretty positive that you were asked to edit this page by the company itself.  Tokyogirl79  (｡◕‿◕｡)   04:12, 3 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I did not make any paid edit for anyone. I am new to Wikipedia. I was just practicing my edit in Wikipedia. The reason behind this question is, I made some edits on Wikipedia page of Raheja Developers and Navin Raheja. After that I have found that my edit have been removed and replaced by negative content. I just questioned that undoes to my edits. I don't have time to work for anyone. If you all are feeling that I have made any paid edits then I will stop editing on these pages. That is what I can say in my answer to your queries. I was not ignoring your query. I request you to kindly let me know the reason behind removing positive content (even having ref links), and putting only negative. I am asking this to get some instruction for future editing. Also I want to know that If I will try to create a proper neutral content for Navin Raheja content, then will you allow me to do that? Actually I am unable to understand the reason behind redirection of this article. Please let me know your opinion. I want to remain connected with Wikipedia for long time.Bhaskargupta269 (talk) 12:54, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * They were removed because they were extremely, extremely promotional. Yunshui has given extremely good reasons as to why the content was seen as promotional and highlighted one particular phrase as an example. As far as the negative content goes, the negative material is sourced and can be added to the article for the company. Also as I've said before, once we removed any of the content about the company from Raheja's article, there really wasn't enough to assert notability per Wikipedia's guidelines. He's just not notable outside of his company and the position he holds doesn't seem to be particularly noteworthy per Wikipedia's guidelines. Now what bothered me most about your edits is that you seemed keen to remove any negative material while adding only positive material. That's part of the reason why I suspected you of being a paid editor- this is one of the number one things that they do and generally there isn't much reason for a non-paid editor to remove negative material and only add positive, promotional material. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   15:03, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Draft:David Clarke (Author)
I requested that the article be not removed as I wished to rewrite its content with the help of others. I wanted an example of the first appearance of what appeared to be un ambigious promotion or advertised so I could correct it. Please advise

David Clarke 09:55, 3 December 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 519Clarke (talk • contribs)
 * I saw that, but the article was so unambiguously promotional that you'd have to essentially re-write it from scratch anyway. In my history I've found that leaving the promotional content up tends to make it more difficult to re-write an article, not easier- especially if it's a new editor. It also didn't help that you didn't see where the content was promotional, which was also troublesome. I have to ask: have you been paid to create articles about various people? If so, then you need to look over Wikipedia's policies at paid editing at WP:PAY and make sure to state this up front. The way the article was written and that you didn't immediately see how it could be perceived as promotional kind of give off this impression, since it's fairly common for advertising and marketing people to not see promotional language because this is how you're used to writing. I'd also suggest that you look over the policies on what is and isn't usable as a reliable source to show notability (WP:RS) since the article contained a lot of WP:PRIMARY and WP:TRIVIAL sources. Primary sources are sources written by the author himself or by someone that is otherwise affiliated with him. Trivial sources are ones where the person is only briefly mentioned in relation to something else.


 * An example of what would be usable as a reliable source would be this news article, although some could argue that it's your typical public interest piece. Most of the links appear to be to a primary source or to various self-published sources that claim that an article was written. Now I would consider the Bucks Herald to be usable to show notability and to an extent stuff like this could be, although again- a lot of people on WP:RS/N would view it as routine public interest pieces. What bothers me is that all of the coverage appears to be local and while some of it tends to focus on the same story of conversion, the other pieces seem to just list various disturbances of the peace that Clarke did. The only substantial coverage seems to stem from his book and even then I can't really see where the book has gained all that much coverage. This article really just read like one very long advertising piece for Clarke and to be honest, I actually have some pretty serious doubts about his overall notability. Even though you posted over 70 links, very few of them can be considered usable in any format and even fewer would start to show any sort of notability. Your only hope here is to write an entirely new article from scratch and to avoid using any primary links if you can help it. I'd also suggest that rather than just linking to other pages that host the news article, that you find the date, page, and author of each piece and use that along with the links to the news articles. However at the same time since there is a pretty clear conflict of interest here, I'd also recommend that you run the sources through the reliable sources noticeboard first. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   10:38, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It looks like you're Clarke himself. Since this is the case, I highly HIGHLY recommend that you not create your own pages and that you request that someone else create them for you. I just don't see where you're really able to separate yourself enough from the article to write it in a neutral and encyclopedic tone. You can add a request at Requested articles/Biography/By profession, but you will need to show some sort of proof of notability... which I'm not really seeing here. Other than some routine local news stories that you got involved with the police, you really haven't gained any true coverage anywhere. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   10:41, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the feed back. Are able you direct me to any source of help with this project. To answer your question about payment, no  I am not paid to write I have just retired and have time on my hands.

Can I recover the draft to foreword it on to any one how I find who could help rewrite it or may be you could give me an example of how write the opening or any paragraph to that matter as to how I might or it be written along the lines you speak of. I have another Article in draft Draft:Converted on LSD may be you could advise before this is rejected. I have tried so may time and failed on every attempt so far. David Clarke 11:53, 3 December 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 519Clarke (talk • contribs)
 * Sure- I'll e-mail it to you through the address you used to sign up with Wikipedia. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   05:09, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Sentinels of the Multiverse merger discussion
You took place in a discussion in which the decision to merge the Sentinels Of The Multiverse article with that for the video game port was taken. We are attempting to discuss this merger on the videogame talk page, and are seeking input from the members involved in the discussion. If you would join us that would be appreciated, otherwise, thank you for your time. Aawood (talk) 12:39, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know! Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   13:56, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Co-op: Pre-pilot discussion for mentors
Hey Tokyogirl. I've posted some initial information and discussions points about the space for mentors here. Give it a read, ask questions on what's not clear, and feel free to add suggestions to the topics I've brought up about mentoring so far. I just pinged a bunch of people at once for this; I understand that sometimes it doesn't go through, so I wanted to make sure you were aware. Thanks, I, JethroBT drop me a line 22:43, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

This article Involuntary celibacy
Hi I found this in your userspace. It looks ready for the mainspace and was an interesting esoteric topic. I was wondering if I could move it? Valoem  talk  contrib  22:22, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Given how contentious the topic has been on Wikipedia, there's no way that you would be able to re-create this without running it through another deletion review discussion and/or getting the blessing from Coffee, who closed two of the AfDs on the subject. (The Denise Donnelly AfD ended up boiling down to a discussion on incel.) I'm not saying that I'm against the idea of there being an article on Wikipedia, just that since there have been three AfDs, one DRV, and the article for incel has been salted, I can guarantee that it'd be almost instantly deleted if anyone tried to recreate it without going through DRV. (first incel AfD, second incel AfD, Denise Donnelly AfD, first DRV run) I do think that there is merit in revisiting the discussion now that things have calmed down slightly. I do have to give you two warnings: first is that you'll be fighting an uphill battle here and because of this, you will need to provide at least 2-3 more sources than there were when the draft was brought up at the previous AfD. I have no problem with you proposing another run through DRV and offering my copy as the start of a new article, but I'd definitely recommend combing the Internet for more sources. I've added one just now, but you'll need a lot more that specifically bring up incel because one of the most persuasive arguments against having a separate incel article was that it was somewhat redundant to the pre-existing article on overall celibacy. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   05:36, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok, I gotcha, I'll see what I can do. Valoem  talk  contrib  18:08, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I started the DRV, but the template is not executing properly, I trying three debugs. I can't find anything wrong with the format. Nvm I fixed it. Valoem  talk  contrib  03:25, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi
Hi, Can you unblock creation of this page ? I want to write the page myself. thanks in advance. Mohsen1248 (talk) 22:46, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Sounds reasonable, Mohsen1248. I've unblocked the page. Mostly I was just trying to keep the sockpuppet from re-creating it again. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   22:46, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot, yes I knew your reason, and apparently it worked, at least for now. Mohsen1248 (talk) 00:16, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Dealing with personal attacks
Hello Tokyogirl79, and thanks for responding to my ANI request. The IP in question has continued to make personal attacks against me, including sexist remarks. See: How would you recommend I handle this situation? Champaign Supernova (talk) 19:41, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * You should report them to WP:ANI again. Lor Chat 20:05, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you--I added this a bit ago . Is that enough, or should I start a new thread detailing the more recent personal attacks? Thanks, Champaign Supernova (talk) 20:20, 10 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Champaign Supernova, it looks like they've been blocked- albeit temporarily. I was hoping that maybe this was just a case of misunderstandings, but the IP does appear to be above and beyond abusive. Let me know if they keep this up from a new IP or if they do it again once the block lets up. I or another admin will block them for longer unless they try to play by the rules of WP:CIVIL. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   22:44, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I appreciate it. Champaign Supernova (talk) 02:10, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Seeing the Big Picture
Hi, I noticed that you closed this AfD as speedy delete. It appears that the article has been recreated under a different name, Seeing the Big Picture. Would this be eligible for speedy deletion, G4? Or can you take a look and see if there are substantial changes to the article? Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:44, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Since I speedied it rather than a full, formal AfD, it'd isn't really speedyable as G4. There are also better sources this time around, so it'd be better to just AfD it again if you want to pursue deletion. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   05:31, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Ho ho ho!


Lor Ho ho ho is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Lor Ho ho ho 23:08, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 18 December
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/RBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/RBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=ReferenceBot%20–%20&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:16, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * On the Dopefiend page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=638615378 your edit] caused an ISBN error (help) . ([ Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:ReferenceBot/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F638615378%7CDopefiend%5D%5D Ask for help])

Deletion of Haji Springer
Hello! Tokyo's Girl why the hell you delete the article Haji Springer..?? It wasn't violating any of wikipedia's rights. Then what was the problem..!!????? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SMusaRaza (talk • contribs) 08:19, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * First, I would like to ask that you not use strong language on Wikipedia. I understand that you are upset, but please do not curse. Secondly, the page was deleted via a deletion discussion in October 2010 and the version I deleted did not show how Springer passed notability guidelines in a manner that would overturn the prior articles for deletion process. If you want to contest the deletion then you will need to take this to deletion review. (WP:DRV) However I do note that you came onto this page soon after Mnaqvii was blocked by Favonian (and he received a warning from Lor), which makes me concerned that you are the same person operating under multiple accounts or you are someone that was asked by Mnaqvii to come on to Wikipedia to make these edits (what we call meatpuppetry). I also need to warn you that if this is a case of one person making multiple accounts or one person getting a handful of people to make accounts for a single purpose, this can be fairly easily detected by the people at WP:SPI and can lead to permanent blocks depending on the circumstances. Please understand that neither of these things are really acceptable on Wikipedia and that the only way to get the page properly re-created is to go through deletion review. Vandalizing my user page, trying to re-create the page without going through deletion review, or cursing me out on my talk page is not a good way to get things done. As far as the article went, it still didn't show how Springer met the standards of WP:MUSBIO because it ultimately lacked coverage in reliable sources (WP:RS). The article had WP:PRIMARY sources like YouTube, iTunes, and his official facebook page, but it didn't show where he'd been the focus of news coverage in reliable sources. The BBC link didn't really show any notability since it came across like a routine database listing and doesn't show if his music was played nationally or anything like that. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   11:55, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Ok Sorry for that but I don't know that who is Mnaqvii. So can I get that article back..?? 😊 — Preceding unsigned comment added by SMusaRaza (talk • contribs) 14:55, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * No. You have to go through deletion review to argue for the page to be returned. There's no other alternative- you have to go through deletion review (WP:DRV). I also have to admit that I find it very, very hard to believe that you do not know who Mnaqvii is, considering that you have both edited a lot of the same articles. I have to warn you: there are ways to check and see if you are the same person or someone that is related to Mnaqvii in one form or another (ie, a friend or co-worker that was brought on to also edit the page, which we sometimes call WP:MEATPUPPETRY), so if you are the same person or related to one another then you need to say this up front. (Sockpuppet investigations) If you're just co-workers or friends editing together then you can make a good case to keep your account and sometimes even if you are the same account the SPI admin will let you keep the primary account. However if you lie about it either way and you get caught, it's extremely likely that all of the accounts will be blocked because you tried to hide this association. Seriously, I can't stress how important it is to be honest about having multiple accounts or working together with other editors on a specific set of pages. This stuff is pretty easily discovered and I'm not the only person that suspects that you're either the same person or a couple of people working together. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   04:29, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Grumpy Cat's Worst Christmas Ever
 Harrias  talk 00:01, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Persistent editor
is at it again. Would you please review the situation, as the previous blocking admin? Thanks, and best merry festive seasonal Christmas wishes, BethNaught (talk) 08:51, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * BethNaught, I've perma blocked him. I feel like a grinch for doing this on Christmas (XD), but well... Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   05:34, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Try this....
Check THIS. Considering the cast and the political climate of the early 70s, it is likely that reviews and other coverage exists to meet WP:NF. Care to assist in expansion?  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 02:45, 24 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I had the time... and with your inspiration went ahead and completed The President's Plane is Missing (film). What'cha think?    Schmidt,  Michael Q. 04:15, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

User talk:Cthwikia
Hi, please note the last comment from this account about having created another account. You're more attuned to this little drama than I am, so if you notice anything suspicious, please let me know or reopen the SPI, whichever you prefer. Regards.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:21, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It doesn't surprise me and I wouldn't be surprised if you ended up having to do an IP range block or something similar because of how single minded that editor seems to be (and I'm pretty convinced now that this is all one person doing all of this). I don't know what Alexander did to them, but I really wish that they'd just let it go. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   04:51, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll keep my eye on all of my pages since I imagine that they'd probably want to make some edits on my pages just to show that they could. I already see one potential candidate, but as long as they don't make any edits to the Fangoria and Alexander pages I don't really have any issue with them. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   04:57, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Tallin bus route list
Please review your decision, as I think I've just proven in my reply that your conclusions are totally unsupportable. Based on all available evidence, it seems to me to be obvious that a list of bus routes of a major European capital city would indeed survive an attempt to delete it, even in 2014. Indeed, I think a good case could be made that this should be an automatic assumption, at least for capital cities or cities over a certain size - I don't see the point of forcing people to jump through the same hoops every single time when you can just as easily apply a few logical tests to accurately predict what the outcome would be of a proper review of all available literature in each case where it involves a typical modern city, one which by necessity has an established and regulated bus route network (which Davey is of course, not doing in any of these cases). Notforlackofeffort (talk) 16:12, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

please take another look
at [:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Blixt.  DGG ( talk ) 02:42, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Don't delete what you don't carefully research ... and don't question the integrity of Wiki authors based on your unfounded suspicions
The VeloceToday and San Jose Mercury articles on Scuderia Non Originale appeared exactly as were printed on the group's website. The publication date, authors and content were accurate. Instead of looking them up, you as much as called me a liar. That wasn't nice or in keeping with Wikipedia guidelines. Shall we now delete you?

Below is the web content you ignored. If you don't trust it, go to the VeloceToday.com website and buy a subscription to the Mercury News that enables you to access their library:

Ripped from yesterday’s headlines

The 21st Annual All Italian Car and Motorcycle Show The following article is excerpted from the October 14, 2008 issue of VeloceToday.com, an excellent on-line publication devoted to Italian cars of all types. It was written by Brandes Elitch.

The San Francisco Bay area has many car events, but if you have an Italian car, chances are your favorite is the Italian car show held in Alameda, a charming town just fifteen minutes east of the Bay Bridge.

Steve Smith Sprint from VeloceToday The show is held the first or second weekend in October, which is just before the first rains of the season usually appear, so weather is never an issue. How many neighborhood car shows do you have in your neighborhood where the majority of cars are Alfa Romeos? It seems that Alfa owners are a particularly interesting lot, although this does seem like a hopeless generalization, and here (is one) that I found particularly so.

…Steven Smith showed his 1959 Giulietta Sprint, which he has owned since 1973, when he bought this car and a 750 Sprint in a wrecking yard for $300 (for the pair). Alfa means “Always Looking For Another” and Steve has done his best to fulfill this role, having had many cars over the years, but this is the one that stayed. He upgraded it with parts from his Guilia SS, which was hit by a garbage truck when parked in front of his house, and totaled by the insurance company (arghh!). As a result, every time he showed the car, someone would say,”This is a nice car, but (this or that) is not original.” In 2004, Steve met other Alfisti who were experiencing the same exasperating comments, so they formed Scuderia Non-Originale. It now has about 150 members, and Steve proudly displayes the club decal on his car. The club has no rules, but has entertained two mottoes: “Veni, Vidi, Veloce” (I came, I saw, I went fast), and for older cars: “Andiamo Lentimente Fumando Assaiâ” (We go slowly, spewing smoke). I think that this club is one of the more promising developments in the car collecting hobby, and you can read about it at www.gwandrw.com.

(Steve represents a ) passionate, knowledgeable, charming, and discerning car guy, in short, typical Alfa owners. There were dozens of other like minded Alfisti there, most of them with equally interesting stories. It is shows like this, with its $5 entry fee, and convenient parking, that make you glad you’re a car guy!

The story below appeared in the July 15, 2005 edition of the San Jose Mercury News, San Jose, Californa. The Mercury is a major metropolitan newspaper, covering the San Francisco Bay Area. Our story was the lead item in a popular column written by Leigh Weimers. Reprinted with permission.

Team takes pride in non-originality

By Leigh Weimers

Sweet are the uses of adversity. That applies not only to William Shakespeare, who said it first, but also to the sports car scene today.

Steve Smith and Richard Lane of Santa Clara, Ben Lamprecht of Mountain View, Ted Williams of Los Altos, Tom Sahines of Milpitas and Gary Williams of Sunnyvale were showing off their Alfa Romeos last year at Concorso Italiano, the big Italian car event that precedes the Monterey Historics races at Laguna Seca each August. But, relates Gary Williams, “Throughout the day we noticed that a number of people who wandered by grumbled and muttered because our cars are not entirely original. We have non-stock engines, different upholstery, different wheels, etc. Our quip of the day became, “Well, it’s nice, but not original.”

Thus dissed, the six decided to roll with it. As a joke, they named their team Scuderia Non Originale, Italian for “team not original.” Gary tacked a Scuderia page onto his personal Web site (www.gwandrw.com) and they had Scuderia stickers made for their cars, based on the decades-old Alfa racing symbol. Then things took off.

“Little did we know that Scuderia NO would become a hit with Italian car enthusiasts who find us and sign up for our free membership, even though we don’t advertise and all we offer is the guarantee of NO dues, NO meetings, NO publications and absolutely NO relevance,” Gary notes. Branches even have sprung up in England, the Netherlands, South Africa and, of course, Italy. Their furthest outpost: Balad, Iraq, where member Russ Turner of Texas displays the team’s colors on his battered U.S. Air Force Humvee. And yes, the team will be back at the Concorso on the Monterey Peninsula on Aug. 19. Standing proudly while purists sniff at their modified Alfas. The cars may be non-original, but their owners’ creativity isn’t.

ScuderiaNOman (talk) 08:34, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

What'cha think
about this... the longest article I've written to date and a fine way to wind up 2014: The Centrifuge Brain Project.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 22:45, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Very nice! Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   04:14, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

ANI
Hi Tokyogirl79, As you had some issues with "Notforlackofeffort", I thought I should let you know there's now a thread at ANI - Administrator's noticeboard/Incidents,

Since I've mentioned your name there I thought It was best I should let you know,

Cheers, – Davey 2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 23:44, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Dang, I'm sorry I missed that. I took a mini wiki break to catch up on household chores and exciting things happened. Guess that article won't be restored? Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   04:08, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't mean that in a nasty manner, just that I was somewhat surprised at all of what the other editors brought up. I saw how the editor was arguing at the undeletion page (not providing anything to prove notability for the article and just demanding its recreation) but I had no idea how bad they were acting across the board. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   04:13, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Think I'd rather of done household chores instead of all this crap, & No worries I knew what you meant :),


 * Since I'm one of those people who If I bring your name up at any board I then tell you (To me it's just common courtesy) ... Well this tool accused me of Canvassing which actually made me laugh ,


 * Anyway on a much brighter note I wish you and your family a very Healthy and Happy New Year :) (Just think this time tomorrow It'll be 2015 ... Time flys!) – Davey 2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 04:37, 31 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Crudpuppies, it is New Year's Eve now, isn't it? Ugh... school starts up soon and I'm just now starting to get used to being out of school. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   04:44, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Arr poor you take a month off, Make an excuse up, forge your parents signature, problem solved . – Davey 2010  Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 04:54, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Nah, it'd be more trouble than its worth. I'm in a Master's program so taking a month off would be chaos. Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together... mass hysteria! All that good stuff. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   05:28, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy New Year Tokyogirl79!


Happy New Year! Tokyogirl79, Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. NorthAmerica1000 09:17, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2015}} to user talk pages.

a shame about Articles for deletion/Dolphin Tale 3
You tagged it as a hoax with the summary "no such film has been announced", when in fact the 3rd project was spoken about (very briefly) in the news. And even though the AFD lasted only 2 hours, the article did not contain any verifiable information, and an AFD deletion was pretty much assured. However, I went ahead and sourced a sentence each in Dolphin Tale and Dolphin Tale 2 about it being discussed.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 07:59, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd seen where there were people that were saying they'd like for a third film to come about, but nothing official as of yet. Mostly it was just that the person who created the article had a pretty long history of creating hoax or near hoax articles/additions to Wikipedia. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   08:00, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, the article content was definitely imaginative, but better we judge the topic and not the author. Reports did state that it and a TV show were in discussions. Way too soon for an article, but not unsourcable enough to declare the title "blatant".  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 08:20, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Have Posted Some Information on Raheja Developers SPI
hi, have updated the SPI page with link to Raheja article which many editors under SPI seem to be drawing from. Thanks, Leoaugust (talk) 11:53, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Wikiaccnt1234

Air Lazur
Why you deleted the page? I really don't understand you people... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mashine1984 (talk • contribs) 11:10, 7 January 2015 (UTC) Thanks, will start to work over it slowly. Will read as well the materials that you've recommended. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mashine1984 (talk • contribs) 12:22, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The reason it was deleted was because of WP:A7, which means that the page did not show how the company passed WP:CORP. The thing is, just existing as a company is not enough to pass notability guidelines (WP:ITEXISTS). You would have to show where the company has received coverage in independent and reliable sources per WP:RS. For example, if there was a news article about the company then you could use that as something to help show notability for the company, although I do need to note that in most instances you would need several reliable sources to show notability. Anything released by the company itself would not be usable to show notability as these would be considered WP:PRIMARY sources, which also includes any press releases written by the company and published in other outlets. I do have to kind of echo MER-C's statement in that creating a page in the mainspace without fully understanding the various guidelines is not exactly a good idea. I'd actually recommend that you create the article at WP:AfC, the articles for creation process. This would give you more time to work on the article and if it doesn't pass notability guidelines then you would still be given more time to fix the issues. I do have to warn you that copyright infringing text is still not permitted at AfC, so you would not be able to post anything there. I'm willing to restore this and move it to AfC as long as you do two things: that you not create the article in the mainspace again until it has been accepted by someone at AfC and that you read over the various guidelines for notability on Wikipedia, preferrably while also seeking help from people at the WP:TEAHOUSE. I do see where you were trying to keep from posting copyright infringement with this second go at the article, which is why I'm willing to move it to AfC if you want. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   11:17, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I've moved it to the draftspace at Draft:Air Lazur. When you're ready to submit it for consideration, click on the tab that says "More" and it should give you a list of options, which includes "Review (AFCH)". What you'll want to do is click that and then choose "submit" and follow the prompts. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   11:25, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Tracey Jackson
They've seemed to have popped up. I'm not sure of the veracity of whether this is her or not, but given their edit summary and the legal threat, it very well could be. Tutelary (talk) 04:36, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Tutelary, I've given them a fairly strict warning on their talk page about the whole legal thing and pointed her to the ANI conversation. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   05:27, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

FYI
To this message:"'Tokyogirl79, you should really stop declining unblock requests of a user whom you blocked yourself. [...] Max Semenik (talk) 10:11, 7 January 2015 (UTC)'"you replied this:"'I won't do it again, but I do have to note that this is the first time anyone has told me that I couldn't do this. (I don't mean to sound like I'm being petulant, just that this is the first time someone's said anything about it.) [...] Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:15, 7 January 2015 (UTC)'"

(As admin, I kind of think you shouldn't be relying on other admins mentioning to you, what appears to me reasonably to be basic policy [and basic common sense]: "Since the purpose of an unblock request is to obtain review from a third party, the blocking administrators should not decline unblock requests from users they have blocked." How is it even reasonable that you are admin and did not know such basic/common sense policy?! Is it expecting too much from admin that for sure they should know [or at least suspect] there is that policy?! [Because I'm a bit astonished. Should I not be!?]) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:17, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * That's already been addressed above by another editor quite well, so if you have anything else to say I'd prefer that we keep this in the pre-existing section for this. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   08:28, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I haven't "said" anything here (excepting that knowledge of the above policy seems rather basic & commonsensical that all admins should know). I've asked Q if my expectations are too high in your opinion about that. You dodged my Q with your reply in fact. Goodbye I've heard enough. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:45, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * And I replied that another person has already come on here and said the same things, so your comment doesn't really do much to expand on this. Forgive me, but while JamesBWatson's post was written to scold and to make sure that I don't do it again, your post just looks like you're here to belittle and attack me. I don't think that there's anything I could say in return to you that would please you. Tokyogirl79  (｡◕‿◕｡)   08:50, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Did I do something wrong? Yes. Did you expand on anything that wasn't already said by JamesBWatson in a manner that would be beneficial? No. Coming on here and writing a post that was geared to be incendiary rather than educational and scolding doesn't accomplish much of anything. I mean if your goal was to make me think that for a second it'd just be nice to walk away from Wikipedia and never come back, then mission accomplished. I'm not leaving, but for a good second I did think about it. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   08:53, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I can see how you might see it that way. For the record, I wasn't aware of JamesBWatson's section prior to just now (because, I posted to your Talk after seeing the relevant dialogue and your unblock denials, that's all). So you're right - my section is redundant and stupid and I'm sorry for that. (I guess I felt someone should tell you that it is basic policy you were missing, on your Talk. JamesBWatson already did, I didn't see it, sorry. [When you wrote about a "pre-existing section", I had thought you meant the section w/ Max Semenik's comments, not JamesBWatson's section, which as mentioned I wasn't aware existed when I posted.]) Again sorry for the misunderstanding (had I known of the JamesBWatson section, I wouldn't have posted at all). p.s. Please don't blow your cool, I think your block of that user was warranted & you went over and above justifying it. Good block IMO. So you should keep your block bat handy I think you swing it with integrity, Tokyo! Sincere, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 09:04, 8 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Yeah... I probably could've replied to you better. Whack me with a trout a few times and we're good? I am going to try to avoid blocking for a few months to brush up on blocking policy a little more. Now that my hot head is cooling down I probably could've read over that a little better. It's just that I'd seen others do it and nobody had said anything to them about it, although that is pretty much just an excuse. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   09:07, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * No trout, just a New Year's *kiss* (hehe). As admin you can't be emotional (remember that!). Other admins have done it?!? (Shit I never saw that! No one "scolded" them!? Holey moley.) Tenderness to you, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 09:13, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Aw, that's sweet... but I do think that once I've soothed my ego some, I probably did deserve this sort of post and a good trouting. (sighs) I'm sorry I responded so poorly. You're right- I should be less emotional in responses. I need to channel Yunshui a little more with how I handle stuff. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   09:33, 8 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I am glad this has been resolved amicably, but I would just like to say that I did not post in order "to scold and to make sure that [you] don't do it again", Tokyogirl. You had already said you wouldn't do it again, so I didn't need to take steps about that. Rightly or wrongly, I just thought it might help you to be more clearly aware of what seems to me to be the essential nature of an unblock request, which is to get an independent review. As for scolding, there are so many bits and pieces of policies and guidelines everywhere that nobody can be expected to know everything about them, and I wouldn't even think of "scolding" anyone, admin or not, for not having some gap somewhere in their knowledge of policies. I admit I was surprised that you didn't already know that, but I have made mistakes just as bad myself. Ihardlythinkso, if ever you become an administrator, I bet you make a few mistakes about policy sometimes, too. Wink.png The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:57, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * We'll never know. But am guilty of some really embarrassing things even w/o the pressure of adminship. (Good lesson to remember; thx.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 10:13, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Shannon Kaiser
You were involved in the earlier AfD on this page, recreated by the subject it seems. Just thought you might be interested. Dougweller (talk) 10:11, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Dawahonline
u deleted my article but i thanked, "agree to disagree". But the way u commented on my username is not acceptable.
 * I'm sorry that you took offense - that wasn't my intent to give offense, but I would be remiss if I didn't warn you that your username does come across like you are editing on behalf of one of several organizations that share a similar name. I'll post the official warning for usernames on your account so that you can see that the warning was done via Wikipedia's policy on usernames. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   05:07, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Unblock request for Squeakmore
Hi, Tokyogirl79. I was surprised to see that you did not know that declining unblock requests for one's own blocks is unacceptable. I know you have now been told, and have said you won;t do it again, but I thought it might help to mention that Blocking policy says "An uninvolved administrator acting independently reviews the circumstances of the block". (My emphasis.) It is an essential part of the policy that an editor has the right to an independent review by an uninvolved administrator.

Moving on from that, my inclination in cases like this is usually to unblock. I fully accept what you say about the editor having had plenty of warnings and not stopping, but it is far from uncommon for a block to finally get the message through, and since the editor says that he or she will not do it again, it seems reasonable to give him or her a chance to prove it. The worst that can happen is that he/she does the same again, in which case we can block again, so very little will have been lost. That was "usually": I accept that in this case there are grounds for doubting the editor's competence, which makes an unblock more doubtful, but the same principal applies: if the editor shows within a short time that they are incapable of editing properly, they can be blocked again, with little having been lost. Despite your having made it abundantly clear on the editor's talk page that you would not unblock yourself, I am posting here to ask if you have any comment to make on my proposing to make a WP:ROPE unblock, subject to the editor first giving a response to Max Semenik's request for clarification. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:35, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Knock yourself out. If they do get unblocked and make the same edits again, which is likely, then I'll leave it up to you guys to do the cleanup and blocking. I won't touch the editor again. I'm actually considering just never blocking anyone again, to be honest. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   08:40, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry- that sounds really petty of me. I'm striking that last comment. Feel free to trout me for that. I'm just irritated by the post at the bottom of the page- your comment is entirely reasonable. Though I am seriously thinking about just not blocking for a good long while just because I'm looking at how badly it can all go wrong. It'd be better just to leave it to others, I guess. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   09:02, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Possibly worth mentioning that I declined a UTRS appeal from this user yesterday in which they specifically stated their intent to continue creating the Dolphin Tale 3 page - just something to bear in mind when considering whether or not to unblock. Yunshui 雲 水 08:51, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that information. It certainly puts the matter in a different light. For now, I am still leaving the possibility of a WP:ROPE unblock open, but it is looking less and less likely that it will succeed.
 * Tokyogirl79 As I have said below, no admin can always know everything about every policy. I have made mistakes over policy in the past, and I am sure I will again. I really don't think it would be good for you to lay off blocking for "a good long while", because I regard you as a good administrator, and your judgements on when to block are normally sound. You made a mistake about declining unblock requests, but that has no bearing whatever on the quality of the block itself, which was perfectly right, and besides, you have learnt from the experience, and won't make the same mistake again. If you feel shaken up by this experience, lay off blocking for a few days (or at the absolute most a couple of weeks) to give yourself a chance to feel better, but that should be enough. Smile.png The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:19, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * &uarr; What he said, TG. Yunshui 雲 水 11:29, 8 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, if it's of any interest to you, Tokyogirl, it all came to nothing, as you can see here. However, little was lost by trying. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:54, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Misplaced message
I've just been looking at your user page, and I noticed there is a misplaced message there that should be on this talk page. It's at User:Tokyogirl79. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 21:57, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the head's up! I'll move it here so it's with the other messages. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   04:22, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Speedy Deteletion Minetest
Thanks for the help. I thought I had requested the article before but I'll try it again ;) Yeah I do pretty much condede the game's not very notable, people say Mine WHAT? I'm starting to think I should wait til the game gets for popularity. Then also there would be better sources. ~User:AKA Casey Rollins
 * I'll admit it's insanely tough for any non-mainstream games to get attention. If there is a big fanbase then a good way to get coverage might be for people to write into various websites (Polygon, IGN, and so on) and request coverage of the game. Heck, even websites that seem like they may not really have much to do with stuff like this are even fair game for requests for coverage because nowadays so many mainstream websites are starting to cover the non-mainstream games. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   04:22, 12 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Could you please take the latest version of Minetest (with content, of course) and move it to Draft:Minetest? (I'm realising now I should have made a draft in the first place!) --User:AKA Casey Rollins Talk with Casey