User talk:ReaderofthePack/Archive 20

Submission declined of Draft:Soulflower
Hi, Thank you so much for reviewing the Draft version and adding comments on it. Its helpful. I didn't know that in the EL section only official links are needed. That's why I put all other links into EL. I am thinking to do some more reasearch and connect the relevant links to the references. Also, you spoke about the tone of the content as promotional, I feel its neutral. Kindly suggest. Thanks a lot!!! Vivek.bekhabar (talk) 07:05, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Vivek.bekhabar, it's pretty promotional in places. For example, this sentence is pretty problematic:
 * "It serves as a platform for Indian Contemporary artists to present their individual art, their inspirations, their desires and most importantly, a part of their soul."
 * This type of thing is written in order to promote something and it's seen as fairly non-neutral on Wikipedia. You've got to be very careful of these things since they can cause an article to be deleted on that basis alone. I do have a question: are you affiliated with the company, possibly with the marketing department? If so, you will need to disclose this on your userpage per WP:COI, but the main reason I'm mentioning this is because in most cases marketing people are very used to writing in a promotional tone - so much so that you won't see the promotional-ness when others point it out. I've had that happen on multiple occasions with marketing people (or just people who are used to writing promotional material). In any case, the promotional-ness isn't so bad that it can't be fixed, though. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  07:17, 26 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi, Thanks for your inputs. I too thought of that sentence as promotional. But I didnt change it because it was cited in the news article. I thought if its in the sources, then its OK! Anyways, its a learning for me.
 * And I am not affliated with the company. I am a student currently pursuing post graduation and I had a project on aroma industry in the last semester. I had trouble in finding the information on the internet. So, thought of putting some.
 * Thanks for the comments, they are really helpful!!! I will remove this kind of contents. Vivek.bekhabar (talk) 08:40, 26 June 2015 (UTC)


 * No problem - let me know if you need any help with this. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  08:44, 26 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Sure and Thanks!!! Vivek.bekhabar (talk) 09:43, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi, based on your feedback, I have edited the tone of the draft. And cited references from known and trusted sources like The Hindu Business Line, The New Indian Express and Free Press Journal at appropriate places. Is the Draft ready for resubmission ? Kindly give your inputs. Thanks! Vivek.bekhabar (talk) 12:16, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It needs some tweaking, but I'll try to see if I can help with that later on tonight. I've taken some allergy medicine that's made me drowsy so I want to make sure that I have a clearer head when I edit the draft article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  03:28, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I've cleaned it up some. I'm still somewhat concerned about the sources, but hopefully the Gallery Soulflower coverage will help push it forwards. I've done some substantial re-writing to the article to remove some of the stuff that would come across as promotional to others, although there are still some portions that I'm worried could still come across as promotional. I think that you can submit it now, if you want and I'll leave a tag on the page to that effect. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  09:20, 30 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi, Thanks for the help and guidance. I liked the way article is being connected with references, its a new learning for me. I have resubmitted the draft. And in the last you said "leave a tag on the page to that effect" means ? Vivek.bekhabar (talk) 13:22, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Tokyogirl79
Thank you for your efforts. I sincerely appreciate them. CrazyAces489 (talk) 10:25, 29 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Only for a short while. I aim to fix up the last few articles an move on. CrazyAces489 (talk) 05:10, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

El Deafo
Hi tokyogirl79, I've just done a bit of a rewrite to the plot of El Deafo to bring it to a present tense. I hope this is okay. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:35, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * No problem! I struggled a little bit writing that since I didn't have the book next to me and was going by memory, so I know that it was definitely awkwardly written. Thanks!! Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  10:07, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

11:58:30, 2 July 2015 review of submission by Asiebhan
Dear TokyoGirl79,

I am confused why you have rejected the submission based on what you said here: "the page for the Tromsø Palm award says that another film, I AM KUBA, won this award." This is *precisely* what the statement in the article proposed - that Åse's second film I AM KUBA won the Tromsø Palm. Please re-read the article carefully before you reject the submission. And since we are at agreement, why is the article rejected?

I have added now photos taken live at the LA Film Fest when the film premiered on 14 June 2015. I have also added the link to buy tickets to the film at the LA Film Fest. If there are more links you need to verify the article, please let me know.

Regards, Asiebhan

Asiebhan (talk) 11:58, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Notability can only be established by sources that focus specifically on the film discussed in the article. You can put information in the article about other films or projects that the director has done, but this will not give the topic of the article notability since notability is WP:NOTINHERITED by other things that the director may have done. If this had been a page about the director then this would be beneficial, but by large there's no reason to mention prior films in an article about one specific film since the article should be about Maiko and not the director or their prior films. To be honest, you really shouldn't have a huge section about the director in the article in general for this specific reason since it can put WP:UNDUE weight on the director's other work when the article is supposed to be about one specific film. A quick look at the sources in the article now (since you've added some) still have issues and I'll give a more in-depth rundown about them on the draft page. Long story short, all you really have are things that show that the film exists and has shown, but neither of these two things are elements that would give the film automatic notability. I'll explain more on the draft page. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  04:39, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Plucking the Azerbaijan Peacock
What ho, Tokoyogirl! Thank you for reviewing and the - when I come to think, justified - remarks on tone and style. Hope I rendered the article more matter-of-factly. Kind regards Antonio

PS: Might you, pray, give me a hint (take a look at) Draft:Sabina_Sakoh which has been troubling me for some while and already went through substantial re-editing: the focus ought now to be on her role as (half-haphazardly) having provided a political icon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AntonioRusconi (talk • contribs) 09:14, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I have to say that this heading made me laugh pretty hard! I'm getting ready to leave work for the day (I edit a lot at work since there's frequently downtime), so I'll try to take a look at these articles tonight. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  10:07, 2 July 2015 (UTC)


 * AntonioRusconi, I've looked through Aziz's article and did some cleanup. Since you'd already submitted it to AfC I went ahead and accepted it. The coverage on the article is a bit sparse, but it's enough to back up the assertions of notability per WP:NARTIST. One thing I do need to note though, is that if possible try to use the cite format on Wikipedia. It should show up on the edit tab at the top. This isn't an absolute necessity but it is helpful if the link ever goes dead for whatever reason, since it'll show that someone was able to access the article in the past and verified its content. I've had that happen on occasion, especially with news stories since sometimes websites will archive material for various reasons. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  10:15, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll try to take a look at the other article in a little bit. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  10:15, 3 July 2015 (UTC)


 * AntonioRusconi, something I can definitely recommend is that you cite each news source independently rather than lumping them all together in one large citation. The reason for this is that it can be a little confusing, since it gives off the impression that there is only one citation as opposed to many. I'm also doing some tweaking for promotional language. Also, be careful of phrasing. This isn't entirely a way to get around this, but if you have someone that has written a review of the artist's work you can quote them even if the quote sounds promotional. The only coda is that you can't overuse quotes or it can still seem promotional and/or turn in to a WP:QUOTEFARM. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  10:53, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * On a side note- do you have a conflict of interest with these artists? By this I mean to ask if you're representing them or if you've been asked to create an article for them. I noticed that you have used links from Galerie Michael Schultz for both of the articles. You can still edit if you have a conflict of interest, you just have to disclose this on your userpage. Other than that, you're doing everything exactly as you should if you do have a WP:COI - you're submitting articles through AfC and you're trying to address issues and concerns as they arise. I'm mostly asking this because I don't want you to get caught up on a bit of policy since otherwise you're doing everything that you should. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  10:57, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Dear  (｡◕‿◕｡) ! First of all: Always a pleasure to share some jocularity across the globe ;-) Then: A thousand thanks for your troubles and the ton of advice! And the hint to cite-news-template, I merely realized your editing, for which I am once more obliged, while I was taking my first staggering steps with this novelty. Henceforth I shall, methinks, make good use of it.
 * Aside: Yes, I know that Schultz-chap personally, thus I disclosed the acquaintance and some other informations about my activities within the Wikipedia on my user page - high time, by the way, I gained some profile. Cordially AntonioRusconi (talk) 12:07, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Roman colonies in Berber Africa and Tingis
Could you please explain your deletion of the Roman colonies in Berber Africa and Tingis articles? These were two perfectly good articles that provided encyclopedic, well-sourced information. Although I have these articles in my watchlist I do not recall a recent discussion about a proposed deletion. The user Brunodam you refer to has been banned back in 2008, while the mentioned articles showed no signs of degradation brought about by Brunodam's edits. Please reconsider your deletion. &#9798; CUSH &#9798; 19:27, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Cush, both articles were created by a sockpuppet of Brunodam in 2014. They were the only significant contributor to the article Roman colonies in Berber Africa and in the case of Tingis, the article was originally a redirect to Tangier - the only article content that was added was by the Brunodam sock (Cresthaven) that was active in 2014. (I've restored the redirect.) I've also noticed that one of the reocurring issues with his pages has been that people have questioned whether or not the content was actually accurate, meaning that there's the possibility that some or all of the content that he'd created was either completely or partially false. According to the SPI history, this is a very, very common reoccurring theme. Because of this I really do not feel comfortable restoring any of his content to the userspace. I can send you a copy of these articles, but I would really really recommend that you not repost them to the mainspace as is without factchecking every claim in the article extremely thoroughly. In any case, articles can be deleted without discussion if they're created by a sockpuppet. Sometimes an article will be kept if there's been enough substantial edits by other editors and in the case of the Brunodam articles the sockpuppets were the only really substantial editors. The deleting admin can still make a judgement call to keep a page despite this, but I decided to go ahead and delete the pages because there was an extremely large concern that the content was either partially or completely incorrect. But again - I can e-mail you a copy as long as you promise to factcheck everything and promise to take responsibility for the pages' accuracy. I just didn't feel comfortable keeping pages created by a sockpuppet for a user that's extremely well known for making factually incorrect articles. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  05:07, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Have you conducted any actual factchecking to see whether the articles hold valuable encyclopedic information before removing them from the public? Certainly, there do exist notable archaeological sites of Roman colonies in Berber Africa, and the existence of an article about them is certainly justifiable, do you not agree? I do not see how sockpuppetry devalues the subject matter of the article. The talk page with concerns about accuracy that you refer to also no longer exists, so I have no way to do anything here, so I ask you to do the work and check every site and remove only the inaccurate parts, instead of just delegating substantive work. &#9798; CUSH &#9798; 11:47, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

— Berean Hunter   (talk)  14:57, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I did not completely check all of the articles, no - but this editor has a long term history of creating articles with factual errors. Here's the sockpuppet investigation, if you want to look over this. He's been doing this since 2006 and is pretty well known. I'll say this again: if you want to quality check every one of their articles and take responsibility for any potential errors, I'm more than happy to give them to you via e-mail. However considering that this user has a very, very long history of creating articles that are either partially or completely false, I am not at all comfortable with restoring their material to the mainspace without at least someone checking over the content. Since he's gone over a few of the SPIs, I'll tag Berean Hunter in this as well. I'm also going to tag Vituzzu, the administrator that tagged many of the articles for speedy deletion. Basically, if there's even a slight chance that an article created by a blocked, notorious sockpuppet could have issues with accuracy, it's better to delete them. If you don't want to do all of the articles yourself that's fine - if you can find other experienced editors willing to look over the work I'll be more than happy to send them to them as well. I just do not feel comfortable restoring these pages in this particular situation. If it was just a case of someone that was only creating spam pages then that'd be one thing, but this is a person who created multiple pages and was known for his inaccuracy. Now if either of the other two admin I've tagged want to restore the pages, then I have no problem with them doing that since they're both aware of this user and aware of his history. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  04:26, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Basically BDA's explicit goal is glorifying Italy's history, including Roman past. The central clue is lots of people have raised various issues about his contents (so it's not only me finding something wrong with them). Therefore we should assume bad faith when dealing with him. Also he doesn't worry about copyright and is inclined to use weak, but still misinterpreted, sources. Even without considering his massive sockpuppeting, harassment and trolling I think there are still 5 or 6 valid reasons to revert everything he does. I obviously didn't remove some minor fixes or self-evident sentences, but no one should be let pursue such a similar agenda in a such trollish/uncivil way. --Vituzzu (talk) 10:25, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * , your assessment of being properly sourced does not appear to be true. After looking both of these deleted articles over, what I see is that a bibliography is provided but only one ref actually has page numbers and that ref is a broad 43 page range for sourcing a single paragraph. All other refs do not include page numbers but are vague and illusory. In short, verifiability would be a nightmare and I would go so far as saying that it was intentionally crafted that way. You have only one minor edit to each of the articles and aren't at a great loss of labor here. In fact, no other editor other than the sock has significant contributions to the articles. Tokyogirl has offered to send you a copy of the deleted article(s) so that you may use this as a basis for writing and properly sourcing a new revision. That is your choice. Another option would be to place the bibliography and few ref links here on the talk page (or yours) so that you may write from scratch. Now in the meantime, a brand new account has created the article Christian Berbers and someone has neatly included the template that was crafted by a Brunodam sock. That article is poorly sourced so you are free to go through and fact check and add plenty of refs.

Issues
Sorry to say it, but ever since CA was left to roam free he has started some more conflicts. Right now he is at AN/I and his last edits are controversial to say the least. I know our relationship wasn't healthy, but I kinda kept CA in check for awhile. It really unleashed the monster, figuratively speaking, when I agreed to leave him alone, so I think he needs to be addressed soon for the sake of everyone else's sanity.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:30, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

It unleashed no monster. So please stop with the ad hominim attacks. Please read WP:HOUND. CrazyAces489 (talk) 03:34, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Draft:2015 Hong Kong protests
How is the sourcing not adequate? Which sentences need referencing? --George Ho (talk) 16:30, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * My basic issue with the page was that the coverage so far has been fairly light and so far the protests haven't been very well attended. I can easily see this getting merged into the main article for the Umbrella Movement or added to the main article for last year's protests as a subsection. I think that right now the best thing is to just wait and let the protests get more coverage. Basically, I have to judge whether or not the topic has enough coverage to really warrant its own article at this point in time. It's unlikely that these protests will be the last ones of the year or the last ones to gain coverage, but I really can't approve an article with the idea that it'll eventually gain more coverage. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  04:05, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It's just WP:TOOSOON. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  04:06, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The sourcing issue was vague. Can you rewrite your phrase to be more elaborate? I'll try harder. --George Ho (talk) 17:41, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * George Ho, basically what you need here is to provide more sources that go into depth about the 2015 protests. When I'd come across the article it had about 8 sources to talk about two protests, which were pretty poorly attended in comparison to what was expected. (IE, they had about less than a tenth of what people were expecting.) My basic worry was that if I'd accepted it to the mainspace people would say that these protests had such a mild turnout that it didn't really show where the 2015 protests were large enough to warrant their own articles at that specific point in time. (IE, WP:TOOSOON.) Even though there was a third protest, I'm still worried that this might not be large enough to warrant a separate article considering that the basic gist of everything is that more protests were held but most had a poor turnout. In other words, I'm concerned that even if I did accept this, people could argue that this could be summarized in one paragraph on one of the other pages since the protests aren't getting as much coverage as last year's protests did. I don't want to accept it to the mainspace only for it to be quickly nominated for deletion. If it got nominated and redirected to one of the other pages it would make it that much harder for it to be recreated later on down the line. Essentially what I'm saying here is that you need to source this up to the gills and really show how these three new protests are independently notable outside of the prior year's protests. I'll drop a line on the main page for the 2014 protests and the UM for people to come and help you flesh the article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  03:28, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I was supposed to say the banner in the Draft page. I understand your point though in both paragraphs. --George Ho (talk) 07:18, 4 July 2015 (UTC)


 * The banner on the draft page? You mean the red one? That's pretty much a standard banner that gets posted at AfC. I typically use the preset banners and then write something underneath of that. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  07:30, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

DRV vs REFUND
Thanks for the heads up on the DRV/REFUND mixup. Having read through a few of the talk page comments at REFUND I can see why it would be an issue pointing people there (though it's not terribly obvious anywhere that A7 is not valid for that page). I shall change my future responses accordingly. Cheers, Primefac (talk) 11:41, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

CrazyAces
Hi, Tokyogirl. I made a proposal re CrazyAces on ANI. If you'd like to add your opinion, please do. Bishonen &#124; talk 20:31, 5 July 2015 (UTC).

The name
In case it wasn't clear CrazyAces newest known account is NegroLeagueHistorian. I say "known" because after yet another attempt to evade scrutiny, he has decided to make another account as he says. Hopefully you can sort him and the articles out soon.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 08:29, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for this! I'm going to tag User:Bishonen in on this. I'm sort of frustrated since I do think that there has been some good faith attempts here, but I'm concerned over the huge spate of moves with articles that have some serious issues with them in various formats, but then you've seen that can of worms on his talk page. In any case, I do need to caution User:NegroLeagueHistorian/User:CrazyAces489: creating new accounts is only an option up to a certain point. You have a habit of creating articles that have various issues with them. Moving to a new account does not give you immunity and after a while a chain will be noticed if you continue to engage in the same practices that resulted in you wanting to create a new account in the first place. Part of WP:FRESHSTART requires you to start learning from past mistakes and I don't entirely see where you're doing this. The fact that you went back to your old account to push a ton of articles with various issues into the mainspace doesn't really give off the impression that you're looking to learn from past mistakes. If anything, this gives off the impression that you're really just trying to avoid scrutiny and having to deal with the aftermath of your mistakes. To be perfectly honest... at this point the best thing for you to do would be to go back to your first account and face the music. You made a lot of mistakes with articles and while there are a lot of issues to deal with as far as those goes, they're not things that would cause me to throw the banhammer at you. The only thing I've really recommended so far is that you only create articles at AfC for the time being since you do have several issues with your articles. This would actually solve a lot of issues for you because if someone accepts one of your articles at AfD then the onus is more on them to explain why they accepted the article than to explain why you did or wrote a certain thing. Running to new accounts every time you start having a problem is not really a solution here - especially if you end up editing many of the same types of articles since that'd only make it likely that you'll run into the same editors again. (Although even editing new articles isn't a guarantee since many editors on here edit a wide variety of topics.) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  08:46, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I just feel if CA took more time to write a cohesive article rather than spit out as much as he can, these issues wouldn't be brought up as much. There is so much potential in CA to be a great contributor, but he isn't learning from mistakes. I agree he needs a single account and needs to face what ever scrutiny or punishment comes with it. Otherwise I feel we're taking a wrong turn and his last chance may just run out.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 08:53, 29 June 2015 (UTC)


 * That's kind of my take on this. I think that there is good intent here for the most part and to a degree I can see his point on you hounding him. There is definitely some bad history between the two of you, so I'd have personally recommended that if you believed him to be the same editor that you instead went to an uninvolved third party and reported your concerns, then let them deal with them. However at the same time this has already happened and at this point there's not much that we can do about that. I am going to tag some other admins on this and let them see what they think should be done here, if anything. I'll post that in a minute but I want to direct this at you right now: Basically right now if you see a new account that is making the same errors and you believe it's the same guy, just report it to someone and let them handle it. At this point if you did get involved with a third account of his it would likely be seen as hounding at this point. You've got promise here but also a bit of a history, so I'd hate for you to jeopardize that over this editor. That doesn't mean that there isn't absolutely nothing that can be done, but I'm going to see what these other guys say. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  09:03, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Can you please read this Tokyogirl79 [ ]. When I was outed, TheGracefulSlick started following me around on that account. I was barely using my new account and TGS was already following me around. On this account, TGS was warned for 3rr, reported at AN/I and blocked for Canvas (since I reported him). He is not acting in good faith. and   I simply wanted to honestly use a new account. On subjects that were not so problematic. I was specifically avoiding martial arts. The problems that existed with many of the martial arts articles was notability. NLH did not make articles on martial arts (with the exception of a collegiate wrestler, if you would call that a martial art). I simply would like to create small stubs of proven noteworthy subjects so others can contribute. CrazyAces489 (talk) 09:06, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, here's the deal: CrazyAces489, if you want to keep your original account then you can. I'd actually prefer that, but that's just me. However here's the exchange: TheGracefulSlick, you have to agree to not directly interact with him. This is not an official ruling and it's not an official interaction ban, just a request from myself. There's some bad blood between the two of you. To be fair, I don't think that this was intentionally malicious on either person's part. I think that this was basically two people who are fairly new at what they're doing that just don't really work well together for the most part. This might change over time - I know that I'm a dramatically different editor than when I first started editing, but for right now you two are just like oil and water. Here's my request: Crazy, please run your article submissions through AfC. Grace, please try to avoid interacting with Crazy. If you see something that's wrong, let someone else know and ask them to edit the page on your behalf. (Just calmly state that you've been asked not to interact with the editor and that you'd like them to investigate a specific edit. No more, no less.) Crazy, this applies to you as well. If you two find that you're at odds over something, approach another editor to act on your behalf - preferably one that has a lot of experience in the specific edit topic. To this end I'd like to recommend the adoptee program on Wikipedia, since that's a good way to get an experienced editor to help give you general advice and to follow along your general edit style. You can also use WP:TEAHOUSE to this effect, although it's more general and not a one-on-one like a mentor would be. However I will say that the Teahouse is always staffed whereas a mentor will not always be on - I would recommend doing both, optimally. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  09:18, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * However if you do want to have a new account, Crazy, you need to completely walk away from everything you've edited to this point. That's not an easy thing to do at all, which is why I'm mostly recommending remaining at your original account since you'd still be able to edit articles you've previously edited, as long as it doesn't end with you and Grace interacting. (This does not mean that either of you should start staking out claims on articles, mind you.) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  09:20, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * You do need to take into consideration that if you do go to a new account you will need to deal with the issues you've dealt with under your old accounts, at least when it comes to tone and sourcing. I do see where you've been trying, FWIW, I just disagree with your recent page moves to the mainspace. I don't want this to seem like I'm coming down harsh on just you. 09:22, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I will gladly leave Crazy alone, so long as they start trying to make articles that do not violate so many policies on a consistent basis and he keeps one account. It just irritated me to see such a thing, but from now on I will uphold your recommendation.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 09:25, 29 June 2015 (UTC)


 * BTW, all those AN/I were with Crazy and the community agreed he was the problematic factor in it all. Even the canvassing block lasted just ten minutes, and turned against CA. He then "retired" to evade an indefinite block, just so we're clear.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 09:28, 29 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Well... not all of them. Basically what I want you to do here is just follow the spirit of WP:IBAN. The problem is that after a while stuff like this can somewhat stick to a person and I think that in this situation an IBAN might become inevitable. You may have meant well with your edits but Crazy does sort of see them as harassment. I don't necessarily agree, but at this point I don't think that he's going to respond well to anything that you say. I've had that happen with me as well and after a while I just had to walk away from the other editor (or even an entire page) and let others handle it. If he continues to edit under this account and you see where something is an issue, bring it up at WP:BLP/N or on another person's page. The only requirement with that is that you need to phrase the issue with the edit in a manner that complies with IBAN. Again, this is not an official IBAN - you can only get those through ANI, however I think that this is a good solution for the time being. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  09:39, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Tokyogirl79, I was considerably less active on my new account. ( The only reason I pushed through the last articles was because they were userfied and I was doing finishing touches on this account.) I just got so annoyed with TGS and some of the arguments on Wikipedia. I would really appreciate an official interaction ban with TGS. He just stated he would leave me along, "so long as they start" (meaning he won't leave me alone). I don't approach other editors about TGS like he has with me. I haven't posted on any of his topics in a while. I am not new, I have been here for a few years (just more active this year). I am only replying to individuals. I will leave this account as soon as I stop receiving messages. BTW the block was for 48 hours but lasted two. I was also not trying to EVADE any indefinite block. I had spoken previously (about 3 weeks) about leaving Wikipedia due to all the arguments prior to me retiring this account. CrazyAces489 (talk) 09:33, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * CrazyAces489, part of the issue with an interaction ban is that we can only really enforce it as long as we know what account you're editing under. (And an official one can only be given through ANI.) I can caution Grace to let someone else know if they think that they're interacting with you and not to engage your new account. However if you edit under your new account and he doesn't seem to know that it's you, there's not really anything to be done about that. I also want to make sure that you understand that if you go to a new account that means that you need to essentially abandon your old editing style and you'll need to avoid editing on the same topics you've edited about before. Again, this is an extremely hard thing to do and one that you've already shown difficulty doing. Retaining your old account and editing under that name will enable you to edit some of the same topics/articles that you've edited previously. The only difference here is that I'm asking Grace to essentially leave you alone. This does not mean that you will not run into other editors trying to let you know about issues with edits or articles, but it does mean that Grace is requested to not interact with you directly per WP:IBAN. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  09:39, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Now if you do want to request an official IBAN (as opposed to me asking Grace to follow the spirit of IBAN), you need to go through ANI. I'm hoping that this isn't necessary, but I'll support an IBAN if it comes to that. Again, I think that both of you have good intentions here, but right now you're both sort of worked up to the point where I can't see the two of you really collaborating well together. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  09:41, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Ok how about this, since you are trying to make thing difficult, I will leave you alone, period. If you wish to make stub articles that will more than likely be deleted, fine by me. I'm going back to the music articles. And I said ten minutes, because that is how long it took after my unblock request. And you were trying to evade scrutiny, but I don't care. I'm here to improve Wikipedia and I'm proud of it. I agree to the recommendation and that is final. Peace. Tokyogirl I appreciate your civilty and understanding in all of this.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 09:42, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you TheGracefulSlick. I know that this isn't an easy thing to do, walking away and again - I do think that you meant well. However at the same time I just don't think that CrazyAces489 is really going to listen to anything you say. I do think that the new account move is a bit of a way to avoid scrutiny, so I'd recommend remaining under the old account name since that'd enable them to continue to edit the same type of articles. A new fresh start would basically keep them from editing any of the same articles period. However at the same time this doesn't mean that you can't let people know about issues: for example, if you see something wrong with a page you can let WP:BLP/N know about the article. You just can't say that it's because it's an article edited by Crazy. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  09:46, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * This isn't me agreeing with one specific person as much as it is me trying to avoid blocks and official ANI sanctions here. Crazy, if you do go back and try to edit prior pages then you run the risk of violating WP:FRESHSTART and this can bring with it a host of issues. Grace, basically I don't want you to get in trouble if you do accidentally interact with Crazy in the future and he accuses you of harassment. He does have issues with his pages, but that's something to leave to other editors for the time being because he's not going to really listen to what you're saying, even if you meant well. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  09:49, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The only way he can ensure that he doesn't interact with you again is to remain under the name that we're familiar with. If he edits under a new account then he'll know who you are, but you won't know who he is- and as such, you can't be held responsible if you have some WP:GOODFAITH interactions with an editor that you believe to be a separate person. However again, I have to make sure that CrazyAces489 is aware that a fresh start requires that you abandon all old accounts and the pages associated with them, move to new topics, and edit in a different pattern. That's not an easy thing to do and in many cases ghosts of old accounts can come to haunt you - especially if it's believed that you haven't learned anything from the old accounts' past issues. You'd still have to deal with issues with tone and sourcing with your old account, but it's less of a tricky landmine to navigate. Your main reason for abandoning the account seems to be Grace, who has agreed to leave you alone. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  09:53, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * He especially needs to make sure to read Clean_start. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  09:54, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I understand, the pages were my main concern. So many have issues that are so fixable, if only CA takes a little more time to write the article. Perhaps a more experienced user can teach him, but he needs to be willing to learn. Hopefully CA is ready for that. But, again, I'm not involving myself anymore.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 09:56, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Just two things, could you tell CA to remove his "retirement" sign since he clearly is no longer retired on that account. Also he made a new article, you can see why I was so concerned when you read it. But, again, no longer my issue. Thanks.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:40, 1 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I've removed the tags and left a note on his talk page - I'll try to take a look at the page he created a little later tonight and see if there's anything I can help with. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  05:10, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I requested an IBAN on TheGracefulSlick. Bischonen closed it as retaliation. I would like it implemented. Any help would be appreciated. CrazyAces489 (talk) 20:43, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Please Help
Please Tokyogirl....Help........I have spent all day searching references the same my husband used that they approved We worked on the same recordings Why am I being deleted this is exhausting I would pay anything you want to help me My neck has bolts I hurt after all day finding links to magazines albums movies all my work Help me PLEASE !!!!!!#! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kitty Terry aka Kitty Woodson Terry (talk • contribs) 21:08, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library needs you!
We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!

With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways: Sign up now Send on behalf of The Wikipedia Library using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Account coordinators: help distribute free research access
 * Partner coordinators: seek new donations from partners
 * Communications coordinators: share updates in blogs, social media, newsletters and notices
 * Technical coordinators: advise on building tools to support the library's work
 * Outreach coordinators: connect to university libraries, archives, and other GLAMs
 * Research coordinators: run reference services

Romano-Berber template
Hello, I enjoy reading about the Roman Empire. I have noticed various pages made by some random user about the Neo-Latin Berber states in North Africa were deleted. I read the pages before and they seemed fine. Why have the pages been deleted because the user is now blocked from Wikipedia? That seems a little ad hominem. What will happen to the pages too? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.207.57 (talk) 15:37, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The user was blocked because they were a sockpuppet of a user that was very well known for creating articles that had multiple factual issues. Some of their articles were either partially or entirely false. Because there was such a long term history of abuse from this user and because they were well known for these issues, they were speedy deleted as pages created by a blocked user evading a block. I will not restore them unless an experienced Wikipedia editor agrees to vigorously fact check the articles and take complete responsibility for their content. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  04:09, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I find that a weird attitude. Extensive articles should be cleaned up, not deleted just because you cannot be bothered to put in the necessary work to "to vigorously fact check the articles". Stop using the letter of the rules against the spirit of the rules. &#9798; CUSH &#9798;  12:20, 3 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Please see the above remarks by Berean and Vituzzu at User_talk:Tokyogirl79 as far as this is concerned, since they make an extremely good case for the articles' deletion and against the undeletion of the content "as is". Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  08:11, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Library of Amartya
I would have put this in the deletion discussion earlier, but I was viewing it on a mobile and I find it extremely difficult to edit anything on a mobile.

I think you're right in that it was someone's idea of a joke (delivery of any book. any book? really? Not sure about its free membership either. And I don't think the author has made many edits outside of the article, but I could be wrong.). If it's a personal library (and the article didn't say it is) there would likely be something out there, otherwise how would people know about its existence? (the article didn't provide specifics; only vague information) Also, there does appear to be a place called Amartya, but it's not in Delhi (I don't think Delhi is in Amartya either), which makes things more suspicious.

Which brings me to my question; should it be listed? It's survived for 8 and a half years, and as we saw in the discussion, someone appeared to believe it (listed under public libraries), and they'll likely continue to do so. There's certainly a lack of evidence of its existence (I also got mostly results about Amertya Sen, with no mention of this library). Adam9007 (talk) 01:35, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Adam9007, I think that this is a good idea, especially since it was included in a powerpoint presentation somewhere. I'll get started on that in a few minutes. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  08:13, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks Tokyogirl79. I noticed a slight error in the listing; it's 8 years 6 months, not 9 years 6 months. Still it's going to be pretty embarrassing if somehow it does turn out to be real, but this is highly unlikely given the evidence (though it's certainly not Wikipedia-worthy in any case). Adam9007 (talk) 13:30, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Vactruth.com
Wp:Soapbox does not seem to apply since I am obviously not supporting the site and all claims where footnoted. “Scandal mongering” is rumor or gossiping and this information is all sourced. If the issue is how “it comes across” that sound a bit arbitrary but that can be corrected. To meet the requirement that the article not be “cut and paste”, I paraphrased. I could extract exact words from the sources if that is acceptable? In that case, the “tone” and nature would exactly match the sources.

Deleting the Science blogs sentence or using another source with an exact quote is a reasonable although in the Natural News Wiki article, Steve Novella’s personal blog is sited as a source for a Steve Novella quote and I fail to see the difference. As for the tone, I’ll change all comments to exact quotes such as the highly critical ones in the Wiki Naturalnews article. I can also find better sources. I was using sources that are easy access as opposed to print sources but they are available.

It seems an issue for you appears to be if the site is relevant. To me. it seemed as relevant as naturalnews.com and I did not see any difference between the two sites in terms of the Wikipedia rules. I did not see a special criteria for a “threshhold of interest” in the Wikipedia rules. I noted that the article met the criteris for “The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself” so I thought that was settled.

As for my comment on Gjoyle’s talk page, It was a serious question since one person rejected the first version for being and attack page, Gjoyle undeleted it, then a third part deleted it again, all without comment. Knowing that this page was kinder to its subject than naturalnews page, this was a serious question. With no commentary, the implication was that it would not be acceptable in any form. Blind rejections indicate bias along with the history I read on Gjoyle’s talk page.

I do appreciate your commentary and actually agree to a large extent in terms of tone on sourcing. I have a lot to learn. I think I could follow your guidelines and meet your requirements. The only problem I see is that no matter what I do, it is impossible to please all of the people all of the time. The next attempt will be reviewed by somebody else with different interpretations of the rules and tone. It seems an insurmountable task for difficult subjects. The goal posts are continually moving. I’ll return to Wikipedia when I have the patients to try to please a multitude. Still, I really appreciate you replying to me and giving me useful advise. You are one out of five.Everyoneshouldknow (talk) 18:51, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I've looked at the pages and I'm more concerned now that you're here to use Wikipedia as a soapbox against VacTruth. From what I can see, you first created the page in the draftspace. It was deleted as an attack page by Diannaa. You then reposted the exact same content in the mainspace, where it was deleted by JohnCD. Within a day you reposted the content, at which point I deleted it as an attack page. I can't see where this was ever restored at any point in time and to be honest, I find it unlikely that any admin would restore this content at all. At most I could maybe see them e-mailing you the content, but as I have not seen any of the other admins post an e-mail message or mention this anywhere, I have to assume that they have not. I'm also not sure where Gjboyle comes into this since I don't see where he edited the now deleted pages at all. I also do not see where he's edited any of the other pages you've been on. At this point I have to ask: do you have any other accounts that you're editing under? That's the only explanation I can see here. If you are editing under different accounts you will need to either provide an explanation for the other accounts that satisfies WP:VALIDALT or abandon them, as multiple accounts are not permitted on Wikipedia.
 * Now as far as bias goes, there was no bias as far as the deletions go. The pages came across as attack pages and if it looks to be pretty unambiguous, the pages can be deleted instantly without commentary. It's a legal issue since it could be considered libel and someone could lob a lawsuit against Wikipedia if they don't think that the site acted quickly enough. It's happened before. Also, the thing about soapboxing is that it doesn't have to be in support of the site - soapboxing basically means that you're here to further a specific point of view, whether it is favorable or negative. The tone of the pages combined with your username comes across like you really, really don't like the site and that you want to use Wikipedia as an outlet to tell everyone how awful VacTruth is as it is something that "everyone should know". Wikipedia is not meant to be a platform to raise awareness over how good or bad something is. I have to give you a pretty big warning: if you continue to make pages that come across like attack pages you run a very serious risk of getting blocked from editing. I need to make sure that you're aware of this. I'm not making any threats, just letting you know that this is a possibility.
 * I also want to point out that while you're continually comparing VacTruth to NaturalNews, the fact is that saying that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS on Wikipedia doesn't really hold any water on here. NaturalNews has received quite a bit of coverage, enough to where it would warrant a page on here and pass WP:NWEB. From what I can see via a search for VacTruth, their site is pretty solidly ignored by the media for the most part. The reason it's likely not received coverage is because most of the sites treat it like a crackpot conspiracy site and from what I've gathered from a search for sources, it looks like even the anti-vax groups tend to view it as a crackpot site for the most part and pretty much give it a wide berth. I don't really think that it's likely that this group/website will ever pass guidelines and to be completely honest, I think that your efforts would be better served trying to edit other anti-vaccination topics on Wikipedia. VacTruth has been around since 2009 and they haven't gained any substantial coverage and while it's possible that this could change, it's also entirely likely that it won't. If you want to try to continue to make a neutral page then you can (although I will say it should only be created at AfC at this point), but I do think that it might be for nothing since I really don't see where this site passes notability guidelines and if you create something that comes across like an attack page again, the next admin may block you. I think that you do mean well for the most part so I don't want you to get in trouble for a site that really isn't worth it. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  04:12, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Editor for Kogan Page
Hey Tokyogirl. I had an editor,, request mentorship who is exclusively interested in working with this article, which appears to be involved in a big sockpuppet investigation. The editor appears earnest, and hasn't edited the article itself, but has declared a COI on their userpage, though the specifics of that COI are unclear right now. I usually give the benefit of the doubt here, but I suspect some funny business. Let me know what you think. I, JethroBT drop me a line 17:15, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I, JethroBT Hmm... I suppose that we could give them a chance and give them a little rope. However what bothers me is that they say that there's a COI without exactly stating what that is. I think that given the sockpuppet investigation and the blatant COI issues with the pages, it'd be well worth it to point blank ask her what her affiliation is with the company. It's quite obvious that she was specifically asked to come here. It might also be worth getting someone to check her out just to make sure that she isn't a sockpuppet. Either way, she needs to make her COI extremely clear as far as her relation to the company goes. My guess is that she's likely an unpaid intern or a friend/family member that was enlisted, assuming the claim of no rewards or financial compensation is true. (If she's an unpaid intern then I actually feel a little bad for her since they're essentially throwing her to the lion's den.) I think that this line of questioning might go over better if you ask her, but I can ask if you want. In any case, this is one area where it doesn't pay to play coy with how they're associated, given the SPI and the mass deletion of Kogan Page related articles. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  07:43, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

TGS
Although I highly disagree with him working to do edits. I have seen enough edits like this on various talk pages to make me think differently. I can probably pull up about a dozen of these types of diff's.  I will though work with him. CrazyAces489 (talk) 04:30, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Crazy, you're not really helping your case much right now by pulling up these diffs. At this point in time what I'm endorsing is this: that you only create via AfC, that you get a mentor that's willing to do a 1:1 with you, and that you try to stick to minor edits (providing dates, adding sources, etc). You don't want to work with certain editors. That's fine. However at the same time you need to understand that several editors have had issues with your edits and at this point you're pretty visible so it's likely that you'll probably have various editors coming behind you to verify your work. At some point you may have an interaction with them. What you need to show us is that you can take criticism in a mature manner and not try to make it seem like they're bad guys for doing this. The only thing that Grace has really done that I disagree with is that he continued to interact with you after you showed that you were clearly not going to listen to anything he said. I agree with his concerns over your editing habits since there has been a problem with your editing habits. Right now that ANI thread is not about Grace. It's about you and ultimately whether or not you should be allowed to continue editing with restrictions or if you should be blocked. It's easier for Wikipedia to block someone than it is for them to work with someone. Please don't give them a reason to take the easy out. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  04:41, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It seems that there is nothing left for me. I said I am willing to work with him.  I will work with him and others.  I am going to get banned from creating articles.  All that is going to do is have me do minor edits.   I have asked for a mentor before April of this year.   .  No one ever came by.    So minor edits is what I am left to.  Life is weird sometimes.   I am going to go for a walk.   CrazyAces489 (talk) 04:53, 9 July 2015 (UTC)


 * It's not a ban, it's AfC. Yes, it will take a while to get them approved, but that's kind of the point. Also, you can ask people to review AfC articles as long as you ask the right people and in the right way. (IE, someone that is a good editor that is likely to give it proper scrutiny.) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  04:58, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Heather Bresch
I noticed you've been very active at BLPN and was wondering if you might have an interest in reviewing my Request Edit here on a BLP page where I have a conflict of interest. CorporateM (Talk) 18:14, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Nevermind. Another editor just took care of it; sorry for being a bother! CorporateM (Talk) 19:47, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Anime Expo problems
So, I'm one step away from having to post this to a noticeboard because it's a continuing issue. I've posted this to the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Archive 63 before, so I don't want to appear to be "shopping," as another user posting on the editors wall has also not helped. While this has not got to the stage of WP:EDITWAR, it's close, and I'm escalating this due to a major concern I have. To start, User:Ucla90024 doesn't like to use sources/citations or update them for the vast majority of their edits. To try to fix this, I went back and at least cited the official webpage for Anime Expo, as it's a heavily visited page. Lots of undo's and talk page comments later, nothing has really changed but at one point they cited Anime News Network for a few edits. This has been fixed as animecons.com has published the whole list for 2015.

The current issue I have is, while using a press release for an edit about the location for the next four-five Anime Expos (2015-2019), Ucla90024 added the dates. While it's probable that Anime Expo will happen around these dates, the source as far as I can read (and re-read many times) does not have these dates. We have 2016's dates from the official webpage. Right now there's potentially false dates on the page, and that's concerning. I would appreciate if you could look into this, as it's extremely frustrating, and Ucla90024's communication is rather poor. Esw01407 (talk) 21:53, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Esw01407, I've reverted this and left a message. They've been warned about edit warring, so I may block them if they do this again. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  03:58, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the help, but they didn't listen and restored the removed content. Esw01407 (talk) 17:22, 9 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Esw01407, I went ahead and indefinitely blocked them. It was originally going to only be for a week, but it looks like they have a long, long history of edit warring. They've have been doing this since 2008 and in 2010 even created several sockpuppets at one point to actually try to give off the impression that others agreed with his edits. Let me know if anyone starts trying to restore the edits since that'll more than likely be a sockpuppet and I'll take that to SPI in a heartbeat. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  10:55, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for your good work

 * Thank you! I wasn't aware that there was a specific copyright barnstar! Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  06:18, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I can fool the Administrators
Hi Administrator. After CosmicEmperor's block I ABUSED BEEBLEBOROX AND GB FAN POSING AS CE WITH THESE IPS FROM HIDEME VPN PROXY. CONFIRMED WITH SOCKPUPPETRY THAT BEEBLEBROX CHANGED COSMICEMPEROR'S USERPAGE.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/74.120.223.185

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/74.120.223.126

THERE ARE SO MANY LESSONS YOU ADMINISTRATORS NEED TO LEARN FROM US.

IF YOU GET DESYSOPPED. I CAN ABUSE YOUR BLOCKING BUREAUCRAT COPYING YOUR LANGUAGE, AND THEN TOKYOGIRL79 WILL ALSO BECOME A SOCKMASTER.--Copycat troll (talk) 11:50, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * You really don't have anything better to do with your time, do you? Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  13:07, 13 July 2015 (UTC)