User talk:ReaderofthePack/Archive 17

Careless criticism
@ Tokyogirl79

>The other issue is that this article reads like a promotional press release for Stevens, so much so that I have a strong suspicion that this was taken quite heavily from one. If it is, please understand that we cannot accept WP:COPYVIO and that you must write articles in your own words.<

Apparently you are an inexperienced editor. It is a serious thing to accuse a person of plagiarism, as you do in these sentences. I suggest that you should not question a person's motives. That most definitely is not friendly. I am a teacher and writer and wrote every word that I submitted. It was my first submission, and naturally I will make mistakes. I have been making small corrections here and there to help various Wikipedia entries. I do this because I think support is more effective than careless criticism.D2 02:45, 23 March 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Folkrelic (talk • contribs)
 * Opening a criquite of someone else with an ad hominem remark is behaviour not befitting the proper conduct of a teacher. If you truly are a teacher then you would be advised to conduct yourself in a civil manner more befitting someone entrusted with the most scared duty of educating others. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie &#124; Say Shalom! 3 Nisan 5775 02:51, 23 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that Flinders! I've actually been on Wikipedia for about 5 years now, during which time I've weighed in on many articles up for deletion and I've made about 500 articles, so I'm not really inexperienced. In any case, the main issue with the content was that it was promotional in tone and read like something that you would read on an official website in an "about ____" section. In my experience with articles in the mainspace and at WP:AfC, if something looks and feels like it was written for an official website then odds are that it very likely was previously published somewhere else. It's extremely common and many of the people who frequent AfC (and WP:REFUND) will vouch for this. Most of the time that stuff happens because the person posting the information from somewhere either wrote the content themselves or the person who did write it asked them to post it "as is". However the thing with that is that if something has previously been posted somewhere else, then that technically makes it a copyright violation unless the content was published in a way that marks it as falling within WP:CC BY-SA or similar. (IE, anyone can use it without fear of reprisal.) This is extremely, extremely common at AfC (and overall) because when a lot of people think copyright violations or plagiarism, they're thinking of content that was created in order to make a profit. Because this is so common, myself and others tend to leave comments along the lines of what I have, letting people know about Wikipedia's copyright policies. Tokyogirl79  (｡◕‿◕｡)   05:01, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Folkrelic, please do not edit this to remove other people's comments. If you'd only edited your comment I would have let this slide, but you removed Flinders's remark as well. It's highly discouraged to edit other people's comments and in this situation you edited this to make what you said seem less WP:BITE-y. Please do not alter this again. While WP:TPO does allow for some slight editing, what you did pretty much changed the tone of what you wrote and for Flinder's remark. Just leave it as is- it'll disappear off my talk page and get archived eventually. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   04:05, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Tokyogirl79, thank you for helping me with protocol. I understand your replacing the material. I edited my remarks to make my response professional rather than personal, and removed Flinders's remarks about me as a teacher because they were personal. I would like to move forward. One way to do this would be to place my Userspace draft on the appropriate page to receive specific suggestions on how I might revise it to meet the standards of Wikipedia. Please let me know to proceed. Thank you. D2 21:15, 28 March 2015 (UTC) Folkrelic


 * Tokyogirl79, here is a revision of the Joe Stevens (photographer) entry. I tried to resolve the issues you raised. I would appreciate your suggestions for improvement.

Joe Stevens (photographer)

Joe Stevens is a rock photographer who photographed David Bowie 12 to 15 times in his career[1]. Several of his photographs are included in Paolo Hewitt's 2013 book on Bowie, "Album by Album."

Career

Stevens sees himself as a chronicler of history[2]. He is a contemporary of rock photographers Jim Marshall (1936-2010)and Bob Gruen (1945- ). He lives near Portsmouth, New Hampshire.

Accolades

"Stevens isn't a rock & roll photographer. He is rock & roll" (Adam Coughlin, "Pictures: A look at the images, not just the rockers," The Hippo, Nov. 3, 2011)

"Hot Shots: Joe Stevens reflects on his time photographing David Bowie," Christopher Hislop, Seacoast Sunday, Jan. 20, 2013 "Pictures: A look at the images, not just the rockers," Adam Coughlin, The (Manchester, NH) Hippo, Nov. 3, 2011

Thank you. D2 03:30, 30 March 2015 (UTC) Folkrelic

What do I do if no sources or citations exist?
The title speaks for itself. What do I do if say, no sources exist that were actually usable as a citation (not another wiki article)Cyber demigod (talk) 21:19, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * In that instance unfortunately there's really not anything we can do as far as notability goes, so it can't be approved to the mainspace. What you may want to do instead is take the material and create a full wiki for Contract Wars on a site like Wikia or similar. I know that they're not Wikipedia, but the wiki would still be visible on a Google search for the game and you'd be able to do a lot more with this than you would on here. You'd be able to include all of the full gaming details like you have in the draft article now, as well as upload pictures from the game and so on. That would also possibly help with gaining coverage (although it's not a guarantee) since you (or the game developer, if you're not them) could refer to it in press materials that get sent out to gaming websites. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   03:44, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I am working on finding suitable sources. A Wikia already exists, I am not responsible however. The devs are Russian and their English relatively average for Russian English speakers. A Russian wikipedia article already exists for the game, with NO citations what so ever (It got approved) - I worked back from that page, manually translating everything to the best of my ability so they will match up and seem more fluid. I do communicate with the game developers, and once I have an accepted article they are going to give me copyright permission for the Contract Wars logo for the article itself. I asked around Teahouse and they said Russian sources are suitable, so that actually means citations do exist for this article. I thought they had to be same language. I did add some citations, but I am not sure if they are acceptable, could you take a look and let me know? You don't have to but it would help me know I am going in the right or wrong direction. Cyber demigod (talk) 20:27, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of Pretty Little Liars (season 5)
Hi. I was wondering why the page for Pretty Little Liars (season 5) was deleted, as it said you deleted it. I'm curious since I was the one who made the page and I have supervised it almost everyday making sure everything is sourced and if so, the sources are reliable. Which is why I am very confused as to which criterias the page forfilled to be deleted. I for one, Don't think it should be deleted as it is not unreliable with sources, and the strukturert and the tone is neutral as it should be for Wikipedia. So I dare to ask to why would you delete the lage with no concrete reason. Twotimer17 (talk) 10:30, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It wasn't deleted per se. What happened with this is that the mainspace version that was formerly at that location was turned into a redirect by GB fan because the season did not yet pass notability guidelines. It remained as a redirect until a day later, when your AfC submission was accepted by Ktr101, who requested that it be moved to the mainspace, which I did with this edit. There were some edits deleted when I moved the page, but by large your AfC copy (upon its acceptance by Ktr101) looks to be identical to your edits to the page prior to GB fan's redirect. So basically, I didn't really delete anything. I just moved your approved AfC copy to the mainspace. If you want the prior 23 edits restored then I don't particularly mind. The majority of the edits don't really add anything to the current article and if I can be so bold, the only edits of worth were yours, which are identical to the AfC copy that was accepted to the mainspace. The article was not deleted due to a lack of notability, just routine maintenance when accepting an AfC article. I'm really confused as to why you assumed that I completely deleted everything and I can only assume that you mis-read the summary at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Pretty Little Liars (season 5). I would like to ask that you assume WP:GOODFAITH when asking about deletions because in many instances like this one, there was no actual deletion per se since the move still resulted in your edits remaining in the mainspace. If there were any other deletions to the page other than the routine move maintenance, it's not in any format that I can detect and it was not done by myself. I made no edits to Pretty Little Liars (season 5) (which is still in the mainspace) other than to move your AfC submission to the mainspace. Coming on here and accusing me of deleting the page for no good reason not only comes across as an WP:AD HOMINEM attack, but it's also misguided in this instance. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   04:11, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * If you are referring to a different deletion, then please let me know which article it is. I'm usually fairly easy going about restoring things (usually to draftspace or the userspace) as long as there is the potential that it can reach notability guidelines. I just don't see where I ever actually deleted the PPL season 5 article in the way that you're describing. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   04:13, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Signature
You might want to change your signature from:

to

Just a tip. Less characters, more standardized. (t) Josve05a  (c) 20:19, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I've changed it! Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  04:20, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Request on 11:18:39, 26 March 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Maybelline Ooi
Dear Tokyogirl79,

I have seen your review. Thank you so much for your help in the edits, I truly appreciate it a lot. I will continue working on the article and improving on it to make the subject more informative. Hope to continue seeing you around in the Wikipedia community.

Maybelline Ooi (talk) 11:18, 26 March 2015 (UTC)Maybel

Maybelline Ooi (talk) 11:18, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * No problem! This was slightly frustrated since it is a recognized award but for some reason it didn't really gain that much coverage. You'd think that with Queen Silvia endorsing it, that more places would cover it. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  04:35, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

WARx2 = warx2
WARx2 = warx2 Please allow redirect warx2 to WARx2 – case sensitive. I tried, but it requires your permission. --Lifetough (talk) 23:46, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks lifetough — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lifetough (talk • contribs) 23:32, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Hello Tokyogirl, I have opened a SPI on this user. JMHamo (talk) 00:56, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * JMHamo, thanks! I wish that we'd opened an SPI on the users from the prior AfD. If these are socks, then that would make it extremely likely that the prior AfD's accounts were socks as well and could be linked with these users. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  04:38, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Deerrrpppp... we did. Total brain fart. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  04:40, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

8-)
I rather think that being "part of an exhibit in a notable museum and/or part of their permanent collection" would make anyone living person unusual at the least, if not notable.... Peridon (talk) 08:54, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Heh, grammar fail. On a fun side note, my local art museum has an art piece where someone painted a mannequin silver, but in such a way that she looks fairly realistic so it's easy to see her as "real" for about a second. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  08:56, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Request on 15:22:09, 26 March 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Apotichnyj
Hi Tokyogirl79, I have made the requested and changes and have also included some more notable sources. I want to thank you for all your time and help.

Apotichnyj (talk) 15:22, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It looks good so far, but I'm a little leery that the sources are so slim. Most of this is because of how prone Bitcoin-esque articles are deleted, since anything with "bit" in the title tends to be fairly closely scrutinized. If kikichugirl or Onel5969 are cool with it, I'm cool with it going to the mainspace. I'd prefer a few more sources but this does seem to pass for the most part. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  04:33, 31 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi Tokyogirl and - I try to err on the side of the new article, not caring if it goes to AfD.  I've had about 5 articles go to AfD, and only two of those got deleted, so I try to encourage new editors. I share your wariness of the notability, but I'm going to move the article to the mainspace, and let's see what happens. Onel5969 (talk) 00:23, 1 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Onel5969, sounds good. It's just that I'm fairly cautious because AfC tends to get an insanely bad reputation at AfD because many of the accepted articels tend to get nominated and it makes a lot of the editors at AfD frustrated since there have been more than a few articles that really didn't pass guidelines. I don't think that they were yours necessarily, but I've come across articles with essentially zero sourcing other than primary links and trivial sources. I think that one editor said that they'd accepted it because there were "many sources" but hadn't really looked at them. It's gotten better recently, but AfC has a pretty dismal reputation at AfD, hence my hesitation. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  04:11, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Some Excellent Closes at AfD

 * (Takes a bow.) What are April Fool's AfDs for, if not a little fun? Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  04:08, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Motel (version 2)
The content at Motel (version 2) does not qualify for db-g6 as its deletion is disputed and WP:CSD is "Uncontroversial maintenance, including...Deleting redirects or other pages blocking page moves. Administrators should be aware of the proper procedures where a redirect/page holding up a page move has a non-trivial page history. An administrator who deletes a page that is blocking a move should ensure that the move is completed after deleting it." Deleting a page which has an edit history and was moved to a weird title during a content dispute is outside the scope of DB-G6. Could you please put this through the proper channels, namely WP:AfD as this is controversial? K7L (talk) 05:41, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Strongly disagree – the deletion as carried out by Tokyogirl79 was correct: the page had no value in and of itself, was named incorrectly, and was the result of an improperly done, non-consensus article move attempt. Motel (version 2) was nothing more than the detritus of that. I thank Tokyogirl79 for her diligence here. --IJBall (talk) 05:52, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest you read WP:CSD and see what it's intended to do. Deletion of content in the heart of a content dispute isn't it. K7L (talk) 05:58, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * "At the heart of a content dispute"?! It was nothing of the sort. It was a malformed side-product of your against-consensus Move attempt. --IJBall (talk) 06:05, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Deletion review for Motel (version 2)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Motel (version 2). Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. K7L (talk) 05:58, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I have no problem restoring it to your userspace, but why didn't you just ask for its restoration on my userspace before escalating this to DRV? Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  08:15, 3 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment: If we end up with two articles on this topic, it would be best to keep the lesser of the two evils. K7L (talk) 15:05, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * What is this even supposed to mean?... --IJBall (talk) 16:05, 3 April 2015 (UTC)


 * However the question is which of the two is the lesser of the two evils- something that should not be decided by one person. If you want to propose that your article is the one that is kept and used in the mainspace, you need to open a discussion at Talk:Motel, which you have not done yet. Please discuss any big changes to the article at the appropriate space before making any large changes, especially since so many people find your edits/changes controversial. I see that you've already been blocked once on April 2 for edits that appear to be related to the article for motel and there are people suggesting that a topic ban may be one of the next steps pursued. I really want to emphasize that at this point the best course of action would be to discuss any edits on the article's talk page before actually making big edits and above all else, remain open minded as far as merging and compromising goes. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  06:21, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Rowland V. Lee edits
That article was a mess and it still had issues even after I got done. I did what I could to clean it up (especially all the dablinks and botched formatting) but I fully understand if edits needed to be reverted wholesale. I'll take a look around on it. Nusumareta (talk) 23:01, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Regius Professor of History
Thank you for showing me 2DABS. How is this different from what that page describes, where there are two equally important topics? "If there are only two topics to which a given title might refer, but per the criteria at Is there a primary topic? there is no primary topic, then the base name should lead the reader to the disambiguation page for the term. For example, John Quested is a disambiguation page for the two people by that name who can be found in the encyclopedia:"

John Quested may refer to:
 * 1) John Quested (aviator) (1893–1948), English World War I flying ace
 * 2) John Quested (producer) (born 1935), film producer and owner and chairman of Goldcrest Films

The two Regius Professorships are apparently the same importance: they were even created in the same year! People look at both pages the same number of times. Cambridge has a lot more prose, but so does Quested the aviator, and both Oxford and Quested the producer are more just lists. 65.210.65.16 (talk) 14:25, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * However at the same time, there are also similar pages for Regius Professors of different types that have one of the two located at the main page and then has a hatnote at the top. In most cases the consensus is to not create a dab page for two entries. You can resubmit it and see if someone else will say something different, but I can personally say that I've created dab pages for two topics of equal importance and had someone delete the dab pages. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  03:37, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

AfC review
Hey Tokyo - hope you've been well. Just wanted to let you know that Draft:Grill, Interrupted has been re-submitted with a couple more sources by its creator. Since you did the original review and requested additional sources, I'll let you review and pass this one, if you wanted to. Thanks! ~ Super  Hamster  Talk Contribs 02:35, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks! It looks good now, so I've moved it to the mainspace. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  03:39, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
Thank you for your help.

Tokyogirl79, here is a revision of the Joe Stevens (photographer) entry. I tried to resolve the issues you raised. I would appreciate your suggestions for improvement.

Joe Stevens (photographer)

Joe Stevens is a rock photographer who photographed David Bowie 12 to 15 times in his career[1]. Several of his photographs are included in Paolo Hewitt's 2013 book on Bowie, "Album by Album."

Career

Stevens sees himself as a chronicler of history[2]. He is a contemporary of rock photographers Jim Marshall (1936-2010)and Bob Gruen (1945- ). He lives near Portsmouth, New Hampshire.

Accolades

"Stevens isn't a rock & roll photographer. He is rock & roll" (Adam Coughlin, "Pictures: A look at the images, not just the rockers," The Hippo, Nov. 3, 2011)

"Hot Shots: Joe Stevens reflects on his time photographing David Bowie," Christopher Hislop, Seacoast Sunday, Jan. 20, 2013 "Pictures: A look at the images, not just the rockers," Adam Coughlin, The (Manchester, NH) Hippo, Nov. 3, 2011

Thank you. D2 03:30, 30 March 2015 (UTC) Folkrelic

D2 00:18, 4 April 2015 (UTC) 
 * I'm having trouble finding the Hippo source in a search. Is it a book or a news story? I did find the Seacoast story and fixed the link to that, but I'm having a bit of trouble otherwise. The text is good, but we would probably need more sourcing for this. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  03:44, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I've done some cleaning, but I've done so much work that I'm not sure if I could entirely accept it. I've resubmitted it and the article should be accepted now. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  04:05, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Request on 21:33:41, 7 April 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by RobM PAG
Hello Tokyogirl79. Thank you for reviewing my article. I understand your comments and will incorporate your suggestions in the next revision before resubmitting it for review.

I used the following article as a template, since this is a company we know well and work with frequently. It appears their article has fewer references (including a LinkedIn profile) and is written in the same tone as mine. I'm not trying to "cry foul" about their article - my question is this: how is their article different from ours so that I understand and can make appropriate changes to my draft.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papillon_Airways

Will you be the reviewer when I resubmit the article? I hope so - that would create continuity in the review process. Thank you again for your help!

RobM PAG (talk) 21:33, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

RobM PAG (talk) 21:33, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It's actually not that much different and to be honest, there's little in the article that would show how they pass notability guidelines and it is fairly promotional in tone, so I've tagged it for deletion. However that said, what you can do right now is just try to clean the promotional language out and to try to find more sourcing. Unfortunately with a lot of articles for companies it usually ends up that all we really have is a stub since it's so incredibly easy for various things to be seen as promotional, but a stub is still a good thing. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  04:33, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

inre Purification (film)
We also have Technorati page one page two. I !vote a keep.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 02:17, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Reliant Air
Hi - I'm trying to find the AfD discussion for this, it seems to be missing from the deletion log?

11:23, 13 January 2014 Tokyogirl79 (talk | contribs) deleted page Reliant Air (A7: Article about a company, corporation or organization, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject)

Any idea where it went? I have no connection with the above organization, but feel they are regionally important enough to merit an entry in Wikipedia.

67.189.138.128 (talk) 01:59, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It was deleted as an WP:A7, so it didn't have a deletion discussion since it fell under speedy deletion criteria. The issue with asserting something is regionally important is that you must be able to show where the company has received coverage in independent and reliable sources to pass WP:CORP. Just saying that something is important really isn't enough. If you have an account on Wikipedia I'm willing to transfer a copy to the draftspace for you to work on sourcing and improving, but offhand I am not going to restore this to the mainspace without enough proof via WP:RS that the company would pass guidelines. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  05:29, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Hey, sorry if you find that you can't reply to this under an IP address. I recently had a slew of IPs post some vandalism to my talk page, so I had to semi protect the page for a few days. If you sign in under your account (if you have one) then you can comment. If you don't, then I'd recommend signing up with one since I'd be willing to send you a copy to your userspace. Mostly why I'm asking for that is because if you were the original article creator then you should still have that account. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  10:16, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Question about template:AFC submission
Hi Tokyogirl79. I noticed that you added template:AFC submission to Draft:Mobile Installation Solutions UK Ltd after you moved the article it to draft space. As part of my efforts at NPP, I occasionally move incomplete articles to draft space. Should I also be adding this template so that users knows to submit their article to AFC review when they have completed the article? Many thanks.- MrX 20:10, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You can, but you don't have to. I've started doing this with articles that come across as especially incomplete and/or they look like they were written by someone with an obvious COI (promotional, etc). Mostly I'm doing this because I've noticed that occasionally some of the users will not edit the draftspace copy and either re-create a copy in the mainspace or they'll just abandon Wikipedia altogether, so tagging it with this makes it easy for one of the draftspace bots to tag it with a WP:G13 later on down the line. If the editor returns they'll still be able to get it back and the process will be much easier than if the page was deleted via other avenues (A7, G11). Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  09:21, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks Tokyogirl79. That's good to know.- MrX 12:28, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

I believe my Article was notable enough this time
Hello. I believe my Article was notable enough this time however it is deleted without giving me any satisfactory explanation. The procedure i have followed: Make draft, join chat and spend 1 whole day to edit and compose excellent article based on suggestion and edits by experts at the chat, submit draft, draft accepted, draft reviewed and edited by WikiProject_Video_games editor and completely published. Then i ask chat again about isn’t this too much edit? then primefac opens speedy delete then it is deleted without giving me any explanation in matter of minutes. If you check the issue i appreciate ty very much : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MonsterMMORPG. And there were not any discussion it was deleted immediately. One more notice: I checked same genre games articles and majority of them have way more less authority references and even some have 0 references. Thank you very much for your help. OnlineGamesExpert (talk) 12:36, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Re submission Atlantic Horns by Guruness Brownie
I edited it down once more, having taken your suggestions & feedback gratefully on board. Am I getting there? I would appreciate another look on it, before I would resubmit it. My problem is also to find a good sourcing about the current three-piece band, but I hope it'll do how it is now. Guruness Brownie (talk) 21:07, 22 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Tokyogirl79, any chance that you would have another look on it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Atlantic_Horns and to get some further helpful feedback? Would be so much appreciated. Guruness Brownie (talk) 20:23, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Another fine mess
Hi, Tokyogirl79! Here's another fine mess where I'd like your advice: was tagged as copyvio; the COI/SPA creator started a rewrite at, which was then mistakenly moved to Draft:PREMature (TV Series)/Temp where you  for good reason. Undeterred, the editor removed the copyvio template from his/her original draft, from where, presumably unaware of that or of your decline, accepted it and moved it into mainspace, PREMature (TV Series). Question: should it be there? If not, can it be moved back to Draft space?

The Temp version is not useable, as it copied over the previous copyvio. Could I ask you delete that, or should it now be kept for the history? I've nominated the images for deletion on Commons, some speedily as copyvios. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:38, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Justlettersandnumbers Erf... I remember that. The troublesome thing about that article was that there was so much copyvio mixed in everywhere that (at the time) it would have taken forever to weed it out. From what I can see through the article history, the submitter seems to have gone through and cleaned everything up before it was accepted by Onel5969. A quick sweep with the duplicate detector doesn't bring anything up, which is good. The only thing that would maybe cause it to go back to the draftspace is the sourcing since it's a little weak, but it's not so weak that I'd move it back. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  08:30, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Many thanks, Tokyogirl! I'll go and tag the COI problem. I see you've dealt with the other pages. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 08:40, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Blood Willow
I have been trying to find better sources for this band...not easy. But I'm wondering if I can re-pos this, since I am not the original poster. I came across this while monitoring my own It was such a sad little post, I couln't help playing with it.Inkwell765 (talk) 19:39, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You certainly can! I'll try to take a look at it later, but you definitely can resubmit it even if you're not the original submitter. I've done that myself on occasion. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  12:42, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

AfD notices on TP
Regarding this addition, is it possible to get those to line up in the correct date order? Also, the 3rd nom is a phantom (see this discussion), and should be removed. Pax 07:16, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It looks like it's lining up with the most recent date first, but I've managed to get it to link to each AfD in chronological order. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  07:36, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Much better. Thanks. Pax 11:34, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

You're an admin?
Hi Tokyogirl79, I had no clue you were an admin, that's great! You have a great contribution to AfC, thank you so much!  CookieMonster755   (talk)   21:11, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Carl Ludwig Sherburne
Hi there, the above page requires attention (at the very least, page protection). Could you take a look? -KH-1 (talk) 07:52, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh wow... I think that page needs to go to deletion. That looks like it could be a serious BLP issue. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  07:53, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * That's what I was thinking. A7? -KH-1 (talk) 07:54, 19 April 2015 (UTC)


 * You tag it, I'll delete and salt it. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  07:55, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually I just went ahead and did it. I'm considering this the equivalent of you tagging the page. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  07:55, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks. -KH-1 (talk) 07:58, 19 April 2015 (UTC)


 * ༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ PRAISE TOKYO ༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ Would you mind banning the vandal too? Just for thoroughness.. Interference 541 (talk) 08:03, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I've blocked the vandal and I had to revert some of this because unintentional vandalism. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  11:06, 19 April 2015 (UTC)


 * A note to anyone coming in: if you can show where Sherburne has received enough coverage to warrant an article and can create a neutral version in the draftspace at WP:AfC, then I'll unblock the page. The problem with the article that was deleted was that it was being used as a joke page and had some bio of a living person issues going on with the page. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  08:52, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

University of Limerick Debating Union
Dear Tokyogirl79, 2 Questions - and I hope I am not violating any Rules or Etiquette by approaching you like this..... 1) - You deleted the University of Limerick Debating Union Wikipedia Page in August 2014.     It's URL was: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Limerick_Debating_Union Where can I get a private Backup of that Page? It contained information I would like to have privately - concerning the History of the Debating Society in question. www.archive.org only contains a 2009 Backup. I was hoping that you might still have the August 2014 version and email it to me. I would be most grateful. [ brianofarrell   at    gmail   dot    com ]    2) -  What would you like us to do about it's Notability Problem. How should it have been improved and edited? I regret we were inattentive to the issue over several years. Regards,    Brian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.31.97.77 (talk) 21:01, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually since it was deleted by PROD, we can restore it on request. PRODs are proposed deletions where someone posted a deletion rationale and if the rationale is not deleted or removed within a week, the article will be deleted. It's not like a speedy deletion or an Articles for Deletion type process where it'd have to go through a more rigorous restoration process. In any case, what you need to do here is show where the union has received coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the union and the college. This means that you cannot use any coverage from the college or the college newspaper. Local newspaper coverage can work but it'd have to be in-depth and routine notifications of events or brief mentions in relation to something else (like charity work done by the group) won't count. I'm going to log this at WP:REFUND just to show that there was a request for this. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  03:26, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

YouTube bait
Hello and thank you for not completely deleting my new page. Wouldn't it be smarter though to have a section of that in the Let's Play page but have a footnote or "see also" to a minor page about it? I.E; Let's Play (video gaming)/YouTube Bait. Having 1 sentence does not contain all the information that was given in the original article. --Anarchyte (talk) 11:13, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I had put it in the history section, but it was moved to the contemporary area. In any case, all we can really do is have the 1 sentence bit about it since there really isn't a lot out there that truly describes the term. As far as terms go, it's still incredibly new and would be considered a WP:NEOLOGISM. Right now there's really not much more we can do with the term. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  03:54, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Request on 23:10:42, 22 April 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Gorgenkor
I'm writing with a question about your suggestions on 4/17, about my article "Canoe Journey helps revive the Two Row Wampum Treaty." You mentioned removing peacock phrases, but I believe I had removed them all in response the previous reviewer's comments. For example, I'd replaced "epic journey" with "long-distance journey," and deleted adjectives such as "moving" (from "moving speech") and "leading" (from "leading diplomat"). I'd appreciate some guidance on what other ones might still remain in the article.

I'm looking into incorporating your other suggestions too, and might have further questions if you'd be available to advise me.

Many thanks, Kor Paul Gorgen

Gorgenkor (talk) 23:10, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * There are still promotional type phrases in the article. Here's an example of one: "On the 2013 enactment journey, the paddlers lined up their boats in two rows on the river, to embody the treaty’s vision of traveling through life side by side while respecting each other’s independence. " I really have to be blunt: this is because you're still trying to use the original text rather than re-write the article from scratch. The problem with using newspaper articles is that they're written to entertain and they're almost always written in a casual tone, meaning that they really aren't appropriate to cut/paste into Wikipedia as is. Even if the most WP:PEACOCK type words are removed, the overall tone of the article will still be considered inappropriate for Wikipedia. The original tone of the newspaper article may not have been meant to be seen as promotional, but it was still not written in a neutral tone. I don't mean any of this to seem like I'm saying that the newspaper article was bad or anything like that, just that the standards for tone and content on Wikipedia is dramatically different. It's kind of the difference between a running narrative and an encyclopedia article- a running narrative will differ greatly in its structure and tone to the point where the two things are pretty much completely different. I think that the best thing you can do right now as far as tone goes is to just re-write the article. I know that it may not seem like it, but it's actually a lot easier and far less work to re-write the article from scratch than it would be to continually go back and pick out bits and pieces of the article in an attempt to make it fit policy. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  03:42, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks - I'm rewriting the article from scratch, trying to use a neutral tone. I'll post it as a new contribution soon, and would appreciate your input on it.

Many thanks, Gorgenkor (talk) 14:15, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

02:49:54, 25 April 2015 review of submission by Soyrice
Thanks reviewing my article on the mixtape Playtime Is Over! I wanted to discuss the sources with you before I bring it to deletion review, and make the case for their reliability. (Hopefully I'm interpreting this right, that the issue is with the notability of the mixtape and whether the sources make the mixtape notable.) The issue with finding a source like you described is that this was produced way before Minaj gained any major popularity. Mixtapes like that rarely receive any press, and I understand that an article on Playtime Is Over still requires independent evidence. The reason I wrote the article, though, is that Playtime Is Over is consistently mentioned when people talk about Minaj's career in hindsight. All of the sources I found suggested that certain aspects of the mixtape were integral to establishing Minaj as an artist, so they discuss the mixtape in the timeline of her career. Even the MTV article that talks almost exclusively about Playtime Is Over (http://rapfix.mtv.com/2012/04/04/nicki-minaj-playtime-is-over-mixtape-shoot-footage/) is written in 2012, because that's when people were interested in her early music. I think that situation signals that Playtime Is Over is notable -- it just requires aggregating a lot of sources to support that claim since that is the only content available.

I also understand that the notability guidelines state that a recording "Has [to have] been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble who created it." I definitely think Playtime Is Over fits into this criteria. The subject of a published work can either be the basic matter of discussion or the motivation for discussion, and in many of the articles Playtime Is Over is the motivation for a discussion about Minaj's career. In other instances the basic matter of discussion is Minaj's persona and success as an artist, a matter of discussion that cannot be discussed without talking about Playtime Is Over; they're that intimately linked.

Soyrice (talk) 02:49, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Soyrice That's kind of the rub with this- the sources mention it, but it's usually in passing in relation to Minaj's career as a whole. There's not really much out there that focuses on this mixtape specifically and gives it a fairly in-depth shake. The reason I'm being so strict about this is because the article was previously deleted at AfD and there have been so many attempts to re-create it that the article has been protected. Now what makes that unfortunate is because that means that the scrutiny for this article will be strict, far more strict than it would be for most other articles and sources like the ones on the article tend to get picked apart pretty quickly at AfD- especially if it was an AfC article since AfC currently has a fairly poor reputation because of a few trouble editors. (I hate saying that, but it's sort of true- there's sort of a bias at AfD about this that will affect every AfD article.) I think I'll bring this to deletion review because if it passes muster there, it'll be safe from further deletions as a whole unless someone can make a really, really strong argument. Basically I'm worried about someone getting pedantic about the article's acceptance and bringing it straight to deletion. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  05:03, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll drop a note on Ymblanter's page about this and ping him in this discussion. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  05:04, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Basically what I'm afraid of is that it'll get sent back to AfC and if that does happen, it'll be twice as hard to get it accepted the next time around. If it's accepted with at least the closing admin and deletion review's blessing, then it'll have that going for it if it does go to AfD. I know that this is frustrating, but it is something we have to be very careful of with articles that are guaranteed to have a high profile in the mainspace. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  05:13, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * He said to go for it, so I'll trust him on this. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  08:48, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Club Manitou -updated  4-25-2015  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adyoo3 (talk • contribs) 20:30, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Unprotect Talk:Connie Garner
Hallo. Please unprotect Talk:Connie Garner - you was the admin protecting it long time ago with the reason: "protected Talk:Connie Garner‎ ‎[create=sysop] (indefinite) (Repeatedly recreated) (hist)", but it has an article now, and I want to add a WikiProject tag. Thanks. Christian75 (talk) 19:10, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I've unprotected the page but I do note that the article needs cleaning for WP:OVERCITE issues. Rather than putting 13 sources behind one sentence, these should be interspersed throughout the article and/or reduced to about 3 sources. It also needs some cleaning for consistency. Article subjects should be referred to by their last name throughout the article and in the article there are sentences that refer to Garner by her last name and by Connie. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  04:02, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Special Correspondents
Hi, thank you for reviewig my submitted article, and giving me the most comprehensive advice. I've taken in account your recommendations on why it was rejected. I've been working on improving it. I wonder if you would look at it. I'm aware of the following;

it's still too soon filming begins in May, thus lack of reliable sources, twitter or the star's blog are not suitable(they could be external links?) Many news reports nowadays do take from their twitter feed. So if the source is not tabloid will it count?

Need help coding it, should I repeat the same citation more than once. References are similar in content but I picked out the differences. Should I put citations after each sentence or point made, or at the end of a paragraph?

My main concern is if it sounds more like an encyclopedia entry.

Here is my original draft: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Special_Correspondents

This is my edit: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Adyoo3/sandbox#Production

Thank you. Adyoo3 (talk) 20:26, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You can use the same source more than once, but you can do that by using the tag " at the beginning of the reference. Your userspace version has more sources, but it does need editing for tone. Hmm... the thing about WP:PRIMARY sources is that you can sometimes use them to show that something has begun filming if the account is legit, but sometimes you have ones that look legit but aren't. Also, if the coverage as a whole is still too light then a primary source announcing filming may not be enough just yet to really have it pass WP:NFF. I'll try to do some editing on your userspace copy at User:Adyoo3/sandbox for the tone and create an example of the reference name. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  09:07, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I also think it'd probably be best if you only edited in one area, mostly because that way it's easier for you to keep track of what you've used and written, but that's not mandatory. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  09:09, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * If I remove anything I'll comment to show why I removed it. So far I do see some press releases on the page. Generally speaking we try to avoid those since they're WP:PRIMARY and cannot show notability, plus in many cases there are usually non-primary sources that could establish these facts just as easily. You can still use them, but they can't show notability. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  09:12, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I removed the primary sources from the article (tweets, press releases) since they were pretty much redundant to the sources already on the article. The general idea for primary sources is that you should really only use them when you can't back up the information from any independent RS. I've also removed the section about Netflix since I summarized that in the article's lead in fewer sentences and the quotes made it seem a bit promotional. I know that this wasn't your intent, but it was still promotional-ish. I figure that a section on its release can always be expanded later if there is more information about the release that would warrant it having a longer section. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  09:29, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Dimension 5 (film): What have I done?
What have I done? There is a duplicate reference I can't remove, and both citations say "1". Please help! Inkwell765 (talk) 23:28, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Inkwell765, you were listing the references twice in the 'References' section of the article; by having a reflist tag and by manually typing your two refs there. i have fixed it for you, only issue is they may not be deemed reliable (please see my edit summary under the 'view history' tab of the article).  By the way, WP:CITE has some good info on references.  Coolabahapple (talk) 16:58, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Captain Underpants and the Sensational Saga of Sir Stinks-A-Lot
Hi Tokyogirl79, the above article has had quite a bit of vandalism over the last few days (removal of afd template etc.) from unregistered users. Could you please put a semi-protect on it, at least until after the afd? thanks. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:12, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Sounds good- I'll go and do that now. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  04:15, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * thanks heaps.Coolabahapple (talk) 05:44, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Tunisia
Thank you for rescuing WikiProject Tunisia. Unfortunately the talk page has now disappeared; I think it had been moved to Portal talk:Project:Tunisia. In cases like this, should I tag the talk page with a separate db-move? -- John of Reading (talk) 06:24, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I fixed it- that's strange though, it should've moved with the page. I guess you may have to if this happens again- I would've thought that the portal talk page would've moved with the main page move. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  06:26, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Special Correspondents Ricky Gervais
Thank you, you have help me tremendously I understanding Wikipedia. I really enjoy writing & editing articles. I'm going to post it for approval. I expect it will take a month to be reviews, maybe ther will me more realible sources by then. Adyoo3 (talk) 22:32, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

IP editor on convention articles
I'd like your guidance on something, right now I'm dealing with a IP editor User:68.107.71.233 on primarily the Sac-Anime, but to a lesser extent FanimeCon pages who continues to add non cited or badly cited primary source edits to those pages, and has made little effort to improve. Attempts to contact the IP user over there talk page get deleted by the IP, and undoing the edits usually get the response "Go to the cons webpage and fix it yourself." At this point, I do not know if I should escalate this to one of the noticeboards, or if I am not showing enough patience and good faith and should just instead "Go to the cons webpage and fix it myself." Thanks! Esw01407 (talk) 18:47, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * If I understand correctly, essentially what's going on is that the IP is adding names that aren't on any official roster and also adding people but not properly citing them (ie, not filling out the cite template). All we can really do at this point is remove the names that are not confirmed and to fix the citations on the people that have been officially confirmed. I think that the best way to go about this would be to do two edits: one that fixes their improper citations and one that removes the unconfirmed names. I'll see if I can find any proper sources though. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  04:22, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I found a source, but I do think that the IP could have tried to work better with you as opposed to telling you to do all of the work. If they'd supplied the source I'd found from the start then it would have saved you both a lot of time. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  04:25, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your help. Hopefully the situation will improve from here! The IP has already blanked their talk page again, so we'll have to see. Esw01407 (talk) 21:21, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

14:27:36, 2 May 2015 review of submission by P. Utopia
Hello Tokyogirl79, thank you or the review. Women Help Women is a new organization, with 7 months of existence only. Because of this, notability on the media is still little, that's why only 2 articles were cited, including a Vice one,which is quite a popular news provider giving Women Help Women some notability, don't you agree? My question is if the problem is the lack of media visibility or the text itself, that needs more references? Thanks you for you attention.

P. Utopia (talk) 14:27, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The lack of media visibility is pretty much going to be the biggest hurdle for acceptance. I've been repeatedly told that Vice is unusable as a reliable source, partially because of comments like the one at this AfD. Mostly it's that although the site does have an editorial staff, they do gonzo journalism. I'll ask at RS/N for you, though. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  03:59, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

20:30:01, 2 May 2015 review of submission by Tnguyen4321
Tnguyen4321 (talk) 20:30, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Just a question: how do I change the title of the submission to The Pleime Campaign before resubmission?Tnguyen4321 (talk) 20:30, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I've moved this to the title you've specified. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  04:01, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

"The Hellcat News", the newspaper of the 12th Armored Division (United States)
Can I as why the article I submitted wasn't given at least a Start Class instead of being rejected in its entirety? I used other military newspapers (e.g. Stars and Stripes) as a template for the article, and it has as many references as many other start class articles. Many newspapers, including the New York Times, The Times of London and Le Monde predominantly have references to their own articles cited within them. I can put the information on the newspaper back in the article I revised on the 12th Armored Division (United States), but another editor removed that entire section without explanation. Thanks. N0TABENE (talk) 20:30, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You didn't show where the newspaper passes notability guidelines and there's sort of a difference between a major national publication and the newsletter for a specific military division. Yes, the NYT does refer back to itself but WP:PRIMARY sources cannot show notability. They can back up minor details, but they are unable to establish notability for something. The NYT article has several sources in its article that would establish notability, as does ToL and Le Monde. Saying that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS for newpapers in the mainspace isn't an assertion for notability. All that could mean is that the other articles may pass notability guidelines in a way that Hellcat News may not or that the articles may not pass notability guidelines (which isn't the case here with the highlighted articles) and just haven't been deleted yet. As far as the other editor's actions go, you'd have to ask them as to why they removed the information. In any case, when it comes to giving draft articles classes, we do not rate draft articles until they have been submitted because a declined draft article will almost always have to be reworked and the content can sometimes change dramatically during that time. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  03:47, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Question re deleted article
Hi there, I just wanted to ask you whether User:Раціональне анархіст‎ had opposed the deletion of the Rawhyde article, which I originally nominated for speedy deletion? This concerns the discussion here, in which the editor has proposed I be banned from nominating articles for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AusLondonder (talk • contribs) 15:56, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * As far as the page itself goes, I see nothing in the edit history that would show that he had contested that deletion, nor did anyone else. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  03:50, 4 May 2015 (UTC)