User talk:ReaderofthePack/Archive 15

Katerina Ksenyeva
Your recent removal of almost the entire article about Katerina Ksenyeva is grossly unfair. Personally, I would consider it vandalism. When I edited this article about three years ago, I relied on mainstream Russian media. I didn't check it since then and I see that other people added material to it, some of which may be considered biased and promotional. Many old links, including the name of Ksenyeva's official website, got changed or became disfunctional after three years.

I am going to clean up this article, relocate the links and look for new sources, and remove dubious elements. However, articles about entertainers from other countries may not be edited without consulting media written in the respective language of that country. Otherwise, instead of expanding our knowledge about other languages and cultures, the English Wikipedia would be reduced to Hollywood.

Before deleting almost the entire article, you should have looked into the Russian Wikipedia, which has a long article about Ksenyeva supported by many sources, and into mainstream Russian magazines. Several English newspapers also published articles about this actress, whose work is appreciated by many Russians, especially the younger generation.

It is true that many better known Russian cultural figures have less or zero coverage in the English Wikipedia. They deserve lengthy detailed articles as well. It is even more true about, say, Iranian cinema. Probably very few Americans in today's political climate realize that many Iranian actors do often enough better jobs than Hollywood stars and require detailed coverage in English. By the way, I checked Ksenyeva's recent updates and see that she works now in New York on permanent basis and sings in English, thus being more significant for Americans than when she lived in Russia.

Unfortunately, many important historical aspects of Soviet and Russian culture are basically ingnored by the English Wikipedia. But such embarrassing gaps must be filled instead of covering them up by deleting information about other countries and cultures.
 * The issue with the article was that it contained a LOT of promotional material and things that were unsourced, although the bigger issue was with how it was written. The article was written in a fannish type tone, which was backed up by statements like "She played the cross-eyed romantic journalist Masha in Yuri Mamin's TV series Grim Tales From Russia (2000–2003), which was created as a satirical analogue of the American X-Files planted on Russian soil." Not only was this unsourced, but it's the type of thing that you'd expect to read on a press release promoting the actress. The same thing goes for statements like "ingenious choreography" and sentences that contained material like "Katerina Ksenyeva was shocked". It just comes across like someone's own personal point of view on things and like a blog article- a well written one, but still an opinionated blog article. This was part of the reason someone brought it up on BLP/N. If you want to fix the material and add more sources then that's great, but you really need to clean out the WP:PUFFERY in the article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   05:03, 14 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I looked yesterday into it and noticed a lot of weird stuff that sounded like self-advertizing. Still, this would be a reason for discussion and sorting things out instead of radical removal of almost everything. I gave this article a major clean-up, deleted about a half of it, updated some old messy links and rephrased a couple of personal statements in a more neutral fashion. When her song was on the Russian radio, several newspapers quoted this "shocking" thing as an anti-Putin political statement of sorts, which I think is significant. If you would see her funny series, you would understand why "the cross-eyed romantic journalist" is a very important detail. Her deliberate eye-crossing and over-romantic behavior is the most noticable element of the entire show. When I edited this article three years ago, I used material from various newspaper articles, including the English version of her official biography and some promotional materials in English without giving it much thought. "Ingenious choreography" and other similar expressions are now out, thanks for noticing them. ) Laplandian (talk) 14:49, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Taking liberties
I wouldn't normally edit somebody else's userpage, but since I'm watching your talkpage it shows up on my watchlist, and I made an exception for obvious vandalism. Hope you don't mind. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 14:32, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for doing that! I really appreciate it- I have a feeling that it's likely from the Patricia Driscoll (business executive) page. Apparently she's going through a fairly heated legal thing with her ex-husband and his fans are vandalizing the page. (sighs) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   09:17, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. And there was me thinking it might be an over-involved fan of a Russian celebrity! --Andreas Philopater (talk) 10:59, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Request for help at BLPN
Would you please assist in the discussion at [//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Repeated_vandalism_on_Biography_of_Living_Person_.28Polaroid_Kiss_Music_Band.29 BLPN] in re Polaroid Kiss / Steve Hewitt. I know it has become a huge wall-of-text but your opinion would be greatly appreciated. JBH (talk) 20:48, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Computer Engineer Barbie
— Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:15, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Arc Light Controversy
This is a picture that I made from a newspaper in the public domain. Please restore it. I own that blog. And, the article is from a public source. You should be more careful before doing speedy deletion and check that it's in the public domain. PLEASE FIX THE PROBLEM THAT YOU CREATED.Keizers (talk) 14:22, 17 December 2014 (UTC)


 * First, do not yell. It's Uncivil and generally a way to get ignored. Second, what was the image called? Lor Ho ho ho 23:11, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * , he's referring to the article Arc Light Controversy. The copyright issues came not from the news articles, but from the opening paragraph of his blog, which he cut/pasted as-is into the article. From what I can see, this was not taken from any of the articles and is his own work, meaning that this is his summary of the event in question., you can submit a ticket to WP:ORTS giving permission to use the material on Wikipedia, but this doesn't solve the larger issue of notability. The thing is, not every event is all that notable when it comes to the grand scheme of things. This looks to be little more than a small incident between neighbors that gained some small notice from one local paper, but was completely ignored by the world at large and all of the other papers. It looks to be so non-notable that even the local papers chose not to archive the material in their online databases, which is really saying something. It also brings up the concern that since we can only source this to your blog, we can't really verify the information to the point that Wikipedia requires. While I don't necessarily think that this is the case, we've had a few instances of people coming on to Wikipedia to create hoax articles by using made up newspaper articles. Mostly this was done as part of a class project, but it has happened and we really would need some proof other than pictures on your blog. But like I said, I don't think that this is you trying to spread a hoax- just you writing about something that would be considered non-notable per Wikipedia's guidelines. Not everything that has happened merits an article and while it has some merit as one of those "strange cases in local history" things, it just doesn't pass notability guidelines and would still have been speedyable as WP:A7 for the most part. Even if it was restored, deletion would have been inevitable in this situation- if not by speedy deletion then by a second AfD. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   05:05, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * You should have initiated a discussion about deletion, there was no reason to use speedy deletion, because then there is no way to recover it if you are wrong. I still maintain that you should be more careful and take note of what you are deleting and where it actually comes from. If I yell it's because this is such an annoying action by *some* administrators, although it does seem to happen much more on Spanish Wikipedia than here on English. Nevertheless really, really annoying. You do so much work and then it's just zapped, forever, with no discussion, and as you admit, it was viable for a discussion. Keizers (talk) 01:55, 1 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I wasn't exactly endorsing a full discussion of the topic, as even if it wasn't a copyright violation (which it was) then it would still possibly qualify as a speedy deletion candidate as a fairly non-notable event. What I was ultimately saying is that the article was desperately non-notable and that even if it were restored by some generous admin, it doesn't have a snowball's chance of survival on Wikipedia and saying that it should have gone through a full week of AfD is just splitting hairs. The event wasn't notable. Yes, it is frustrating to see hard work deleted but at the same time if the article doesn't pass notability guidelines then it will be deleted. Nothing can change that, not saying that you worked hard nor indirectly insulting me (by calling me annoying because I nominated the page per viable criteria). I'll repeat this and bold it: You cannot post copyrighted material from another website on Wikipedia unless you file a ticket through ORTS. The material that was posted was not from the articles, it was your summary of the event that you posted on your blog. That is still a copyright violation, regardless of how you slice it. Now if you don't want articles to be deleted for copyright issues, then either don't repost the content or first file a ticket through ORTS that gives permissions to use the material. You didn't do either of these things and as a result the article was deleted- again, a result that was inevitable. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   06:34, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Communio et Progressio
Hello Tokyogirl79, I'm wondering what's happened to one of the first articles I started. It has gone from mainspace, and you put in a link to a user page where it is being tinkered with. Why vanish the original article while others are tinkering in userspace? I asked on the article talkpage a while back, but answer came there none. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 21:24, 12 January 2015 (UTC) (Editing to add page history --Andreas Philopater (talk) 23:41, 12 January 2015 (UTC))
 * If I remember correctly, it was part of a series of articles that was being edited by a group of students. Part of the issues with the articles tended to stem around various issues like copyright violations, sourcing, and tone. In other words, they were being written like student papers and contained original research, lack of sourcing to back up points and show notability (ie, something other than primary sources), and so on, which caused the other articles to be nominated for deletion in various formats. Because of that, I'd moved this to the userspace so it could be worked on as opposed to outright deleted. As far as it being vanished, it was just moved to the userspace so people could work on it. The article's history is still there and once the issues are dealt with it can be moved back to the userspace. I left a fairly long message on the lecturer's page at User talk:Moconnor1414. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   04:53, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The article was created independently of and prior to these student projects. Nor did it (in its pre-student-intervention form) have any problems with copyright or sourcing. Can it be restored in that state in mainspace? Given that it was replaced with a redirect without any communication on the article talkpage or the article creator's talkpage, it was pretty much vanished. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 13:14, 14 January 2015 (UTC) Editing to add: this would be the pre-student-project version to restore --Andreas Philopater (talk) 13:20, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It doesn't look as though I'm breaking any consensus just by being bold and putting back the earlier version in mainspace, but do correct me if I'm wrong. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 10:58, 16 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Andreas Philopater I don't see why you can't have it back in the mainspace to work on, so I'll move it back. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   06:45, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * No need - I've been bold! --Andreas Philopater (talk) 06:54, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Andreas Philopater, there is an article at Communio et Progressio that I've moved back- should I re-redirect it or would you like it to remain there? Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   07:10, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, I think ideally what's now at Communio et progressio should be at Communio et Progressio with the lower-case p as a redirect. But I have no idea how to go about that. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 08:34, 24 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Andreas Philopater An option is to move it to the correct capitalization and then restore the histories. What this will do is merge the two histories together so that if you wanted to use it, you could. I could also move the userspace article back to the userspace and then you could just select what you need from that one. Which one sounds good to you? I'm thinking that it'd probably be better to just move the old article back to the userspace since it did have some issues and that way you wouldn't have to have those in the article history. Tokyogirl79  (｡◕‿◕｡)   08:39, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Sounds great. Thanks for all your help! --Andreas Philopater (talk) 09:01, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Non English
Is it ok to have non English direct? Have a look. බණ්ඩාරනායක, නලින් ද සිල්වා, ඩී.එස්. සේනානායක -- Anton Talk  11:33, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Anton, I'll have to ask some of the people at WikiProject Redirect since I'm not entirely sure, but I think that foreign language redirects are only OK if they're romanized. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   11:54, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * OK-- Anton Talk  12:00, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Email
Mike V • Talk 21:34, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Deletion: EAngel - Proofreading Service For People With Dyslexia
Hello Tokyogirl79,

Thank you for your time. I was wondering why have you decided to delete the page and the talk page for deleted page as well. I am covering all the services for Dyslexic people, and I have seen numerous articles, who do not differ. For example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ginger_Software https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_hour_translation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gengo

All of them are companies/services like the page you have decided to delete. I believe that the same rules should be apply to whole of Wikipedia content with no discrimination. I also want to write about other services as well. All the text is referenceable from content I found on the web, and I didn't intend to promote one service over the other, just simply to allow people with Dyslexia to find this important source of knowledge.

With deep respect, Stevegrtz (talk) 09:58, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * A little late to the party with this. I apologize Stevegrtz, but this got lost in the other messages. The reason I deleted the page was ultimately because it had phrases and sections that contained buzz words that are considered to be promotional per Wikipedia's guidelines. A good example of this is the phrase "with a vision to make it easier and faster for business professionals, students and individuals living with disabilities like Dyslexia, to efficiently communicate". Now the issue with other pages existing is that their existence doesn't automatically mean that they belong on Wikipedia. (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS) In most cases it's just that those pages hadn't been found and deleted yet, although sometimes an article exists because it does pass notability guidelines. In the case of the pages that you've mentioned, it looks like those pages exist because they hadn't been found and deleted yet. I'll try to get to them tonight and either source them or nominate them for deletion. (This is often an unintended side effect of holding up other pages. You may not have meant for them to be deleted, but often this is what happens.) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   06:43, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer Tokyogirl79. IMHO, all these articles (which are competitors to each other) are important services used by many people, and people with Dyslexia among them (Like myself...). These services help many people communicate better and write with less mistakes, so they are notable. I don't think one service should be mentioned, while the other one should be removed, just because one is making millions and the other is making billions. It is the right of the humanity to know them all. If you can please return back to life that article (and maybe others), I'll be happy to edit it according to the guidelines corrections you have mentioned, and maybe you can help and add your high expertise to the content style as well ;) Again, I would like to thank you for your time. Stevegrtz (talk) 16:35, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * What I can do is move it to the AfC space. That's the articles for creation process and what this means is that it won't be in the mainspace, but you will be given more time to work on the page and clear out any of the issues for the article. We do give a little more leeway for promotional speak in the AfC space- you still have to re-write it, but it's less likely to be instantly deleted since it's generally understood that the AfC article is a work in progress and is many times utilized by newer users. After it's done you can submit it for review and if accepted, it will be moved back into the mainspace. I'll go and do this now. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   04:52, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * You can find it now at Draft:EAngel. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   04:54, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. When I read it again, I understand that you are right - I removed the sentence about the vision. Can you help and say if anything else should be changed? Can you please submit it to be reviewed? Another question if it's possible - do you recommend in the future to start writing articles in the AfC space or directly in the articles space? When do I know if I'm professional enough to do it in the articles space? I understand that you have a lot of experience, so it's great to learn from you. Stevegrtz (talk) 22:23, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Stevegrtz: For newer editors, I definitely recommend using AfC or drafting them in your userspace (IE, at User:Stevegrtz/Article Title) and asking advice as needed. So far the biggest issue is notability, as you need to provide coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the company. Most of the sources in the article are primary sources (meaning that they are released and written by the company or a representative). The official website and database listings can be used to back up small information, but cannot show notability- nor can reprints of press releases like the one on this site. I do have to recommend that you remove the Google Apps link, since that's technically a merchant source and those are considered to be generally inappropriate to link to. (Since their primary purpose is to sell things.) Now as far as the other links go (TNW, LifeHacker, and Ubergizmo), some of them aren't really usable or at the very least would be subject to a lot of scrutiny. The LifeHacker one looks to be OK since it's run through Kinja and I've seen people use sources from them before. Plus it is sort of a mini-review, so you can use it on that basis. I'm not entirely familiar with TNW and it does look like it's written by a staff member (as opposed to just anyone writing it) but it is labeled as a blog (at the top of the page) and some will likely consider it unusable because of that. That's probably a source I'd recommend asking about on the reliable sources noticeboard just to see how they view it. Now the one that doesn't appear to be very usable is the one from Ubergizmo, as it looks to be fairly heavily taken from a press release or website blurb and it's also very brief, meaning that some would likely consider it to be a WP:TRIVIAL source. I also can't really verify if the website has an editorial process at all or if the author is a staff member, so odds are that this would be considered an unusable source as far as Wikipedia's rules go. Now as far as writing goes, I would recommend re-writing the lead sentence. It's not really promotional as much as it is a little clunky. I would also recommend that you remove the word "uniqueness" since that's a typical buzz word that you see in press releases and the like. It's kind of hard sometimes to find non-buzz word type phrases to replace things with, I'll admit. I'll see if I can edit the lead sentence any. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   08:16, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Wow, thanks for the edit. It's very helpful. I also discovered that the dyslexia.me article was long before the other news articles (I check the dates), so I added it. I found few other sources as well, so I hope it will be notable enough. I tried to add few other external sources, but it keeps adding the "Template" word to them. I don't know why... Who should submit it for review? You or I? Stevegrtz (talk) 12:15, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I've done some basic cleaning and I've fixed how some of the sources were formatted. I think it may be a wee bit too early for this to be in the mainspace since there doesn't appear to be a lot of coverage, but the good thing about AfC is that they give you time to work on things. As long as you don't let it go stale (ie, go over 6 months without editing it) then it will remain in the draftspace until it's ready to be placed in the mainspace. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   08:33, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

DYK for The President's Plane Is Missing (novel)
Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:02, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Adjusting pilot start date - WP:Co-op
Hello  Tokyogirl79 ,

I'll be putting out a formal update sometime soon, but I wanted to inform you that I've decided to push our start date back to mid-February rather than in January. There are number of reasons for this, but the biggest factor is that we are now facing the hard work of implementing our designs on the Mediawiki interface. It's a limiting environment to work with from a web-building perspective, and the team that worked on the Teahouse can offer similar testimonials to these challenges. We also want to make sure there is time for us and for you to test the environment out, ask questions at our project's talk page, and give us a little time to make any last changes before we start inviting editors to the space. If some of you know you will be unavailable during this time, it's totally fine if you need to bow out for the pilot. But we do need all the mentors we can get, so even if you can take the time to mentor just one or two editors, that would be fantastic. Thanks a bunch, I, JethroBT drop me a line on behalf of Wikipedia:Co-op.

(Opt-out Instructions) This message was send by through   MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:47, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

17:15:29, 23 January 2015 review of submission by Angela Taylor Baltimore
Dear Reviewer Tokyogirl79, Thanks for taking the time to review my article on the GAPS diet. Draft:GAPS_Diet Thanks also for the tips to improve it. Accordingly, I have added 3 news stories from Fox News and ABC News. Please let me know if we've made it beyond the "TooSoon" phase? and if we're approaching approval. Many thanks. Best, Angela Taylor

Angela Taylor Baltimore (talk) 17:15, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Angela Taylor Baltimore, it's definitely a step in the right direction but we're going to need more sources for it to pass guidelines. I do have to note that one of the sources is a YT video that wasn't uploaded by the media outlet itself, which could be seen as a potential copyright violation. It's a little frustrating in that the news spot does exist, but we can't use the video to source the article. If you can find the air date then you could post the air date and news spot title, along with the station name as a source. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   06:25, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Dear Reviewer Tokyogirl79, Thanks for the additional tips. Accordingly, I have added the air date, station name, and link to the ABC News website's official transcript. Also I added another news article from a newspaper. Please let me know if these additions are sufficient? (FYI there are several books on the GAPS diet sold on Amazon, but I didn't know if it would be appropriate to link to them? So I did not) Many thanks. Best, Angela Taylor — Preceding unsigned comment added by Angela Taylor Baltimore (talk • contribs) 19:57, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

A favor
Would you be willing to close Articles for deletion/Ba-Con as a WP:SNOW delete? I am not seeing any other Keep's other than the article's author. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:04, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure- I'll go and do that now. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   08:34, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:43, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

RfC: AfC Helper Script access
An RfC has been opened at RfC to physically restrict access to the Helper Script. You are invited to  comment. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:56, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Talkback
kthxbai Keastes knowthyself 10:49, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Resonance Project
Figure8state (talk) 13:53, 9 February 2015 (UTC)Regarding your speedy deletion of my article The Resonance Project

I'm unfamiliar with this interface so hopefully this is the proper "talk" process.

I have no affiliation with The Resonance Project aside from Nassim Haramein's lectures giving some validation to ideas I have been thinking about for a long time, but for which it has been hard to find reliable information about. At times the subject seems to have been suppressed by the science establishment either purposefully or just out of hubris, and anyone discussing the subject publicly ridiculed. Either way it's "flat-earth society" type behaviour that I find objectionable.

I understand your points but disagree, particularly on the notability aspect. I can easily find scores of entries regarding subjects of less notability than The Resonance Project on Wikipedia. I am suspicious of the motivation to so quickly suppress my expression of free speech in this so called "community". Instead of offering a chance for me to bring my article into compliance with Wikipedia standards you quickly deleted it, and by doing so silenced my opinions. Thats wrong. And although a comment made by another editor stated that I had a chance to contest the "Speedy Deletion" I could find no such option.

When you have notability thresholds for a supposedly public community which rely on mainstream media to set the bar, and the mainstream media is owned and virtually controlled by a few select individuals and organizations with their own agendas, then you have a problem. Wikipedia you have a problem, and if I can't get entries for "Nassim Haramein" and "The Resonance Project" in I am going to begin a campaign to discredit and inform of the corruption of Wikipedia, the not-so-"free" encyclopedia. Wake up Wikipedia editors...open your eyes and minds and be a force for good in the world, not another puppet.

This new field of spiritual science or Unified Physics, whatever you want to call it, is an important subject and needs to be represented in the sphere of social consciousness whether you agree with it or not. There are thriving social media communities of 300,000+ individuals on both The Resonance Project and Hassim Harramein's Facebook pages, and yet Wikipedia via it's ignorant (sorry it's true) editors quickly dismiss as not notable. It's notable enough for 300,000 people to include the information provided by Nassim Haramein and The Resonance Project in their social media feeds, who are you to dismiss so many people's opinions? 300,000 people think about that.

If I gather the neccessary information would you be willing to help me organize it in such a manner as to pass muster of the Wikipedia editorial drones?

Figure8state (talk) 13:56, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * If you can find coverage in sources that Wikipedia would consider reliable, I'm willing to help you write the page. However the sources must be in places that would pass muster by way of WP:RS. I do understand that if something is considered fringe then that usually translates into the topic not gaining much coverage in mainstream or reliable sources, but the site still requires coverage in reliable sources. This isn't because we're puppets or anything as mundane as that- it's because in the past people have come to Wikipedia with the intent to use it as a WP:SOAPBOX to further their viewpoints, to legitimize their films/books/projects/careers/etc, and/or to try to use it to drum up interest to make up for the coverage that the topic didn't get. There have been so many people that have abused, misused, and otherwise exploited Wikipedia to where these rules are necessary and I'll be completely honest- they're not going to go anywhere. I'm sorry if you feel that they are too harsh and make it harder for non-mainstream projects, theories, and such to have articles, but they've been in place for a reason and they're not going to be made more loose. Now you've pointed out that the Project is popular (WP:ITSPOPULAR) and that other pages exist for things that are not-notable (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS), but neither of those are reasons to keep a page in and of themselves. When it comes to other pages existing, all that this may mean is that the page topics pass notability guidelines or they just haven't been found and deleted just yet. As far as something being popular, popularity does not automatically mean that something will pass notability guidelines or gain coverage in reliable sources. It can make it more likely, but it is not a guarantee in and of itself. There are a lot and I mean A LOT of things that are insanely popular and have a very wide fanbase, yet they never gained enough coverage to pass notability guidelines. I do feel for you, but it ultimately all boils down to coverage in reliable sources. I like that you're passionate about this, but without that coverage the Project cannot have an article. Now the thing to remember with coverage is that it must be in a place that Wikipedia would consider reliable, it must be in-depth, it cannot be a reprint of a press release or be in a primary source, and it cannot be something like a routine notification of events or a passing mention. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   17:01, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Figure8state (talk) 16:57, 9 February 2015 (UTC)Why did you delete my correspondance without reply? Maybe it was accidental...if so here it is again.
 * I didn't delete it, I moved it to the bottom of the page so I can keep track of the posts more easily. Typically the newest posts go on the bottom of the page and the oldest ones are at the top. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   17:03, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I'm not sure what your background is but I'm guessing it's not quantum mechanics or sacred geometry, as neither of which are fringe topics as you describe. Perhaps you should stick to deleting subject matter for which you are more familiar, and i mean that sincerely...we are all on a path learning as we go; me, you, everyone...no judgement. But I do think we should be less zealous in our administration of subjects we are not well versed in, because we tend to miss the subtlety which separates leading edge, from tin-foil-hat illusion. It's always hard to see past our horizons, oftentimes even for those familiar with the subject matter. It's very likely you will look back at this as your Dick Rowe moment when the principles involved here go onto form the basis for technology that will revolutionize the world. And I will be sure to remind you when the time comes so you can benefit from the lesson. Don't feel bad for me, I have no personal stake in this other than recognizing the truth and raising awareness; the real winners will be those who are suffering the most in this world. Mass media, including Wikipedia is much more powerful in influencing reality than you realize, and the small cost of a Wikipedia entry for The Resonance Project and Nassim Haramein would be very helpful in speeding things up, and ultimately cost nothing but tolerance.Figure8state (talk) 21:29, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, we're done here. I've offered to help you and all you're giving me in response is abuse. I can't see where you're actually here to positively contribute to Wikipedia, especially after you post a comment on another editor's talk page where you make threats about trying to discredit us because we won't let you create an article that violates Wikipedia guidelines. I was willing to work with you in trying to find sources and make a neutral article, but from your actions I can't see where you would ever create a neutral article that would fulfill notability and neutrality guidelines. I'm escalating this to WP:ANI and I'm going to ask for you to be blocked based on your comments on here, your edits on your userpage where you use it as a slam board against myself and other editors, and your edits on Gbawden's talk page. I don't see where you're here to positively contribute to Wikipedia. You're free to talk however you want off of Wikipedia but on here you must be civil and I don't see where you're interested in doing that or in cooperating to create a page. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   05:46, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

WP:Co-op news for December 2014 – Feburary 2015
Hey, it's been a while. The Co-op team has been hard at work during over the winter, so let's get right into what's been happening: Thanks to all of the new mentors who have joined over the past few months. Big thanks to to posting about our little project here to the gendergap-l mailing list. I, JethroBT drop me a line 00:47, 13 February 2015 (UTC) on behalf of Wikipedia:Co-op.
 * Graphic design work is nearing completion and development work is coming along slowly but surely. The main components of the space, profiles, the landing page, and the mentor landing page have all been built, and we're basically just putting the pieces together.  We have close-to-final draft of the landing page, which is currently at User:Slalani/Landing_page, and in the thumbnail to the right.  You can check out other components over at User:Slalani if you're curious., , and I are working together on some of the front page elements.  We've also been doing some testing on test.wikipedia.org for profile building and matching.  If you're curious about checking that out, let me know.
 * We've finished up a survey for newer editors to assess their experiences of using existing help spaces (e.g. Reference Desk, Teahouse, IRC, The Wikipedia Adventure) on en.wikipedia.  is putting together a summary of that survey, and in the meantime, some findings from that survey of 45 newer editors include:
 * On average, editors found contributing to Wikipedia to be easier after using the help space compared to before.
 * However, after using one or more help spaces, only half of editors reported that editing, addressing social challenges, and resolving technical issues were easy or very easy. The other half of editors were either neutral, or reported that these matters were difficult or very difficult.
 * Just under 30% (11 of 38 editors) of newer editors said they probably would have stopped editing entirely had they not received support from the help space they used.
 * Editors frequently reported either 1) that they would not have been learn what they needed without the help space, or 2) That they could have found it, but admitted that it would have been difficult or taken much longer.
 * We will be making one final move of the pilot start date to March 4th, 2015. This is the last move (I promise), because we can't afford to run the pilot any later than that.  So there it is:  March 4th or bust!  But we won't bust, because there are just a few things left on our plate before we can run our pilot successfully.  I'll be alerting you about when you will be able to make mentor profiles soon, so when you get a message about that, please take a minute or two to create your profile here (otherwise, you won't get matched to any editors!).

(Opt-out Instructions) This message was send by through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:36, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

20:51:24, 10 February 2015 review of submission by Bookspro
He's notable apart from his mother in that he's written three novels since his mother's death, all published by one of the world's leading publishers (Macmillan), along with large print and German Translations, and widely read in the US, Canada, Great Britain, and Germany. A side-note on the page of a deceased author would be misleading and inaccurate.

Bookspro (talk) 20:51, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Bookspro Unless you can provide reliable sources for the books, just getting published isn't enough to show notability for an author, nor is popularity or being wide-spread. It used to be enough for notability back in the early days of Wikipedia but since then the guidelines have become far more strict. You have some reviews from Publishers Weekly, but you'd need to have more in order to assert notability. In any case, popularity, translations, and being published by a mainstream publisher will not be considered notability giving elements anymore on Wikipedia. These things can make it more likely that Clement will have received coverage, but it is not a guarantee. As far as him being mentioned in his mother's article, what I was suggesting wasn't a subsection for him but rather to add a sentence about him in the main article that says that he is currently writing the series. It looks like that's already in the article, so I don't particularly see where there needs to be anything more than that. The guy just doesn't seem to be notable enough in his own right to warrant his own article unless you can find additional coverage to show otherwise. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   04:52, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * On a side note, I do notice that your name is the same as a book sale website, so you may want to change this since it can appear that you are editing on behalf of a company. I don't think that you are representing this specific company, but it's usually a good idea to try to avoid having a name that coincides with a business since it can unintentionally give off a WP:COI vibe. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   04:57, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Request to look at an ANI case
Could you do me a favor and take a look at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents and tell me if I'm crazy? In part, it's another WP:DEADREF situation, like Cthwikia, and I'm being told that this is perfectly fine behavior. This is not my understanding, but I'll give up the debate if you say that it's different than that situation. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:17, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * NinjaRobotPirate: Hmm... I can see him replacing the dead link with Invictus since the previous link wasn't put in the formal cite format and BOM was current, but I don't entirely see the reasons for removal at Interstellar and All Is Lost. With All Is Lost I can see your argument for wanting both box office numbers there since you're correct in that they are both reporting different numbers and since both are considered to be reliable sources, we should have it reflect on that unless there has been a lot of coverage favoring one number over the other. What kind of confuses me a little over the Interstellar content is that they just removed it without explanation. I could see them merging it somewhere else in the article like maybe the lead, but blanking the section without at least explaining the reasons why is a little rash. I think the main thing here is that the IP isn't communicating with you at all and is just blanking and reverting without comment. If they'd explained their actions a little then that would have softened things a lot. I'll drop in on the ANI and give my two cents. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   05:25, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I've made a post in the thread about it. It doesn't look like you were the first to post on his talk page about this so I've mentioned that as well. I've tagged Summer in the discussion since they did make a post on the IP's talk page warning them that their edits could lead to a block a month before you posted on there, so I'm not entirely sure why that's not being noticed and mentioned in the thread. I didn't see anything wrong with your post on the talk page, but I guess I can see the others' point of view but even so... this IP has been doing this for a while and it's fairly clear that they haven't responded to any of the other posts or concerns. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   05:46, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Basically I'm trying to play devil's advocate for both sides. Even if this is a little soon for ANI intervention, I do think that the IP will probably end up getting mentioned somewhere because they aren't communicating with anyone. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   05:50, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I should probably go do something else before I become even more irritable.  Maybe I'll go watch a French art-house film on Netflix and pretend that I'm all sophisticated.  L'enfer, c'est les autres. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:29, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Martin Pistorius
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:07, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

A kitten for you! re alyse squillace speed delete
Hi tokyogirl79 thanks for speed deleting this article. It was the 1st one that i have put up for deletion (not that i meant to, i was just looking at lonely little orphan articles and came across this one lurking in the shadows:))

Coolabahapple (talk) 06:47, 17 February 2015 (UTC) 
 * Coolabahapple, it's a very good catch on your part! A lot of older hoax articles tend to stick around because it's assumed that if they remained that long then they must be true- definitely a good move! Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   06:49, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:The Initiation of Sarah 1978 vhs cover.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:The Initiation of Sarah 1978 vhs cover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 23:49, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Sizemore redirect
Hey, I redirected the article on the Sizemore sex tape. I can't really see where the video is independently notable outside of Sizemore, since it doesn't appear to have won any awards or received any true coverage outside of a handful of brief mentions that it was going to release and a few more that show Hilton denying his claims of having had sex with her. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:47, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Tokyogirl79, Thanks for looking into this. You're right about this not having any true coverage/awards. Originally, I came across this existing blank page thru a redirect. I did not create the page, but decided to spend time researching and what I found I thought would be an interesting. The 'scandal' being not just the tape but the fact it was a promotional hoax, a drug addled Sizemore a sad participant. I then added info, links, refs to an existing page. I am learning Wiki as I go along, and still don't fully understand it's criteria. And also, the harm in keeping this article. To me, it seems more than a 'you naughty boy' story. Perhaps not. Well, thanks for the help and interest.Dante Dos (talk) 00:24, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

About that Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. T.A.H.I.T.I. page
Is this how I talk to you? I saw what you wrote about the page and it kind of makes sense to me, but I also looked at the page you recommended and saw that it started life like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=42_%28Doctor_Who%29&oldid=106874142 I'm assuming RS means reliable sources. Doesn't the page already have two reliable sources in IMDB and Tv.com? Don't those count? Not trying to be argumentative, just trying to understand. I wasn't going to make the page as good as the Dr. Who page, but I was still improving it and it will take work from a lot of users before it gets that good. But I'm saying that the page wouldn't have been deleted if I hadn't stupidly put up "a stub" while I worked on the content. I'll never do that again. Karriaagzh (talk) 05:27, 18 February 2015 (UTC) Wow, thank you! You certainly taught me a lot about Wikipedia and how it works tonight. As I said, I'll work on it some more tomorrow, and I certainly see what you did and how to do it next time. Karriaagzh (talk) 05:54, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Karriaagzh: No- IMDb and TV.com are both considered to be database entries at best and while they can be used to back up small information like cast list and episode number, they can't be used to show notability. Now the thing about the original state of the article for the Doctor Who episode is that that diff was back in 2007, when the standards for notability were way, way more loose and you could have an article on an episode without really showing sourcing. Somewhere along the line the guidelines got more strict and the article was eventually filled out more, although I will say that there are likely articles out there for episodes that would probably fail notability guidelines that are pretty much ignored. It's just that the AoS is a pretty high profile show so people tend to notice new articles for the show sooner. FWIW though, it probably would have been nice if they'd helped out more since it was fairly clear that you were still editing the article or at least tried to pull in enough sources to show notability for the article, but not everyone does that and I kind of feel bad that they didn't. It's kind of a harsh lesson I learned myself: you have to kind of assume that anyone coming into the article will try to delete it instead of helping. Sometimes you can get around that by posting Template:Under construction on the article, but I usually just do stuff in my userspace because I don't know if I'll get called away from the computer and that way I can take my time if I need to. Plus it's good for incubation purposes, since I tend to love making articles for barely known films since I love a good underdog and coverage for them can be slow. In any case, I'll help you with the article if you want- we have enough sources now to where we can slap them on pretty quick and they won't be able to redirect it since it will have established notability. It'd be way incomplete, but it would still pass notability guidelines. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   05:39, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Tokyogirl79: Thank you. I understand better now. If you can help that would be great. Right now it's pretty late here so I'm going to bed, but I put it up on my userspace as you suggested. Can you access it there?Karriaagzh (talk) 05:46, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Karriaagzh, already started working on it. I'm about to move it back to the mainspace and merge the histories so that all of the edits are present. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   05:52, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The only part of that you wouldn't be able to do is to delete and merge the page histories since that's an admin thing, but any admin would be willing to do that for you. Other than that, slapping some sources on the article is a pretty quick and dirty fix for notability issues. The article still needs work but this way it shouldn't be deleted and you'll have more time to flesh it out. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   05:56, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Fifty Shades of Grey: A XXX Adaptation listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Fifty Shades of Grey: A XXX Adaptation. Since you had some involvement with the Fifty Shades of Grey: A XXX Adaptation redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 02:38, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Death Threat directed at me on Wikipedia
Dear Tokyogirl79, you reverted messages left on my user and talk pages with some sort of administrative revert that does not allow me to read them, and before I had a chance to read them. You said they included a death threat. I plan to proceed with legal action, and I would like to obtain this reverted transcript for my legal action. How can obtain this transcript from "Wikimedia"? Thank you, Gouncbeatduke (talk) 16:23, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Userfy request
Hi,

Remember this, Involuntary celibacy, can you restore both the talk page and the article to my space? Valoem  talk   contrib  04:35, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * As long as User:Coffee and User:Sandstein (the admin who closed the most recent AfD and the one who closed the appeal at DRV) don't have a problem with it. Given how contentious the whole AfD was it'd be best to have their blessings on this just to make sure that everything is kosher. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   04:48, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Have to go with a no on this one. Way too much drama surrounded that debate, and it was a huge time vacuum for our editors. &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 04:52, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Just a heads up
Looks like the IP vandals were ready to pounce the instant the protection expired at Patricia Driscoll (business executive). Actually, it's almost amusing, because there are in fact two camps of them now going on in this manner. Anyway, some attentive editors have been reverting them fairly reliably, but thought you'd want to know all the same.  S n o w  -I take all complaints in the form of rap battles-  05:40, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll keep an eye on it. If it gets vandalized one more time this month I'll semi it again. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   05:41, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

IP Vandal
Hi Tokyogirl79,

Would you looking into this IP vandal User:97.117.243.236? Looks like a problematic IP hopper. Thanks. --I am One of Many (talk) 07:58, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It definitely looks like he's singling you out as an editor. Normally I'd just warn an IP, but this is so extensive that I think a short block is definitely in order. If he's an IP hopper that may not stop him, but at the very least it'll prevent him from doing it on this address. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   08:02, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I reverted an edit he/she reverted on materialscientist and that when I notice he/she was and IP hopper with a past.  After warning him/her, they started going through my contributions and reverting them.  I hope I have seen the last of them! --I am One of Many (talk) 08:05, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I hope so too! I guess I may become a new focus for them since I blocked them, but oh well. Comes with the territory. XD Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   08:07, 22 February 2015 (UTC)