User talk:ReaderofthePack/Archive 31

Flix Premiere page deletion
I would like to enquire as to why the Flix Premiere page I recently created has been deleted without any consultation? I do not believe the page to be for advertising purposes.

Northds (talk) 09:39, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It was deleted because it was promotional in tone, which is something that can qualify a page for speedy deletion - which can take place instantly. should have placed a deletion notification on your talk page - it's not required, but it is considered to be good Wikipedia etiquette.
 * In any case, what marked the page as promotional were phrases like this one:
 * Flix Premiere was founded by serial entrepreneur, Martin Warner as a way to shine a light on the diverse array of independent film, with the convenience of online access, and the enjoyment of going to the theatre.
 * This is the type of phrase that you would see on a promotional piece created to promote the business. Phrases like "shine a light" and writing about the convenience and enjoyment of the service can be seen as WP:PUFFERY and are almost always inherently promotional. The article was short, but had enough of this type of writing to where it would need to be completely re-written in order to fit the WP:NPOV policy.
 * You can re-write the article, but I do have to caution you about something, namely the claims of Flix Premiere being the "world’s first online cinema theatrically releasing movies". The thing is, this can be somewhat tricky since Endgadet doesn't describe the service in this way, not exactly, but you use it to back up this claim. The press release issued by the company does, but a company can claim whatever they want about themselves. You can say that they claim to be the first online cinema, but you cannot write it in a way that suggests that the statement is absolutely true beyond their claims. The reason for this is that they might not be the first - you have to wait until this is said in enough places and even then, in places that would be considered reliable sources that aren't just reposting what is on their website or PR releases. In other words, they have to be places that would look into the claims. It's one of those tricky little things that you have to be very careful about on Wikipedia. (We actually get a lot of marketing people who come on that don't notice promotional writing since they use it so frequently, along with the claims a company make.)
 * I do have a bit of a suggestion - you may want to just include this in a subsection of the article for Warner, its founder. That article is fairly small and so far the amount of coverage for this is fairly light. The article really only had three usable sources - the Endgadet article, the Fox article (this is just the film clip from this article, so it's considered the same source), and this Metro article. The press release is seen as a WP:PRIMARY source since it was released by the company and My Trending Stories looks like they accept content from all users - it doesn't look like they do any sort of editorial control over the content and their ToC page says that users are responsible for their own content, so this would be a WP:SPS that wouldn't be seen as a RS on Wikipedia.
 * Also on a side note, are you someone who was paid or otherwise asked to create this article for Warner and/or Flix Premiere? You should read over our WP:COI guidelines, as any conflict of interest will need to be declared. If you do have a COI then that's ok - you can still edit, but you will have to declare the COI and just be careful about how you edit. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  10:09, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, I will re-write the page content, taking note of your suggestions. I'm pretty new to adding content to Wikipedia. My tone of language, I agree was to generic and advetorial like. I shall re-create but only state true and relevant information.

Northds (talk) 21:43, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Just be cautious about it - I'd recommend starting with a draft at AfC first, since that will give you more time to work on the page than you would if you worked on a live version of it. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  06:03, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Question on Brian Cain
I was just a bit curious as to why you objected to speedying this. Since you had, I didn't actually do it (and since you objected, I technically couldn't), but I certainly would have absent that. I'd agree G4 wasn't quite met, since it was different than the deleted version, but G11 certainly seemed to be. Created by a brand new editor, with a bunch of puffery ("...standout...", "...using his knowledge and experience to help teach others how to get the most out of their career and life" (what does that even mean?), "...bestselling author..." (with that claim "sourced" only to his own website), and so on), and the Big List O'Books, complete with a "reference" of an Amazon link, would normally be more than enough red flags for me to G11 it. Anyway, it's at AfD now. Seraphimblade Talk to me 10:20, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It was a CYA type of deal. As you said, G4 didn't really fit here. I could've speedied it as promotion, but it was at that level where it could have maybe been overturned at DRV and then taken to AfD. What also crossed my mind was that even if this was speedied, it's likely that it would just be re-added eventually - making a second AfD necessary at some point in time. Running an AfD now would make it easier in the long run, since this new AfD would take into account any new accomplishments that he's done since the 2011 AfD. Basically, it was a borderline case for speedy deletion and I got the feeling that any deletion would be temporary, since the person would likely either object or just recreate it at some point. (Or someone else would, since it's likely that there's some undeclared paid editing here - he'd probably just pay someone else to write it.) This way there's more of a safeguard against future recreation. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  06:08, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Alarms & Clock (Windows)
Hi Tokyogirl79,

It looks like you were working on an article for Alarms & Clock but didn't get a chance to finish. I created a fairly basic version today. Check it out and see if you'd like to add anything!

Thanks,

Onecatowner 12:51 UTC —Preceding undated comment added 00:51, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I wasn't from what I can remember - I think I was helping someone else out on an article and only did a very little bit on it. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  09:56, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for Helping with the Anne Elizabeth Page
I've tried to get this article included now for a couple of years. Anne Elizabeth is as notable a romance writer and comics creator as 90% of those already on Wikipedia and I'd like to see her have an entry here as well. She has influenced the genre for Navy Seal Romance and for larger teen comics. Thanks again for your assistance.Odubhain (talk) 00:23, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Luke
Saw your ANI comment, and I concur. You might want to see this and this for why we initially suspected just that. GABgab 16:52, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I saw that, which is part of what made me voice my concerns. He's just a bit too familiar with everything to be some complete newbie. I definitely get the sense we're being toyed with here. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  16:56, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Víctor M. Marroquín
Hi Tokyogirl79. Hope you're having a good 2017 so far. Would you mind taking a look at Víctor M. Marroquín when you get some time? The article's been tag with some maintenance templates since late last year, some of which may be warranted and some of which may be not, but it's kinda hard to tell be it appears to be quite a lot of IP SPAs editing the article, including some making claims like this. I re-added some maintenance templates just removed despite the edit sum since they reason did not seem like one that really addressed the issues, and now there's an IP apparently edit warring over them, I did start a discussion about this at BLPN, but the it was archived without getting much of a response. So, I was wondering if you'd mind taking a peek and see whether you think the subject is notable and whether the COI tag is warranted. Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:47, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The version you've created looks like it should be OK as far as BLPN goes, but as far as notability I'm not entirely sure. I'm not as familiar with PROF and so I'm really unsure as to the person's notability. Testing it by fire at AfD might not be a bad idea, I suppose - but let me ask about this since he's more familiar with the notability guidelines for professors and with biographies in general. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  09:49, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for taking a look Tokyogirl79. The current version of the article is not really one I created per se: there were some other editors more involved with the clean up. Even so, most of the content seems to have been edited by IPs who might be trying to slant the article in a particular way (both good and bad). -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:36, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * , though the article asserts he teaches corporate law at the University of the Pacific in Lima, the  web page for the department  does not list him. I assume he is just a part time adjunct there, and W\WP:PROF does not seem relevant. I see nothing in the article to demonstrate that he is  notable as a lawyer. Ofh is two awards, one is from the school where he received his law degree and the other appears minor. I see the notability template you quite appropriately placed  has been repeatedly removed. In a situation like that, the best way to settle the issue is to list the article for deletion at WP:AFD DGG ( talk ) 11:22, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for tking a look . The maintenance templates had already been added to the article when I came across it. I just re-added them after they were removed by a couple of IPs. As for the subject's Wikipedia notability, I'll do a little more WP:BEFORE before bringing it to AfD. Thanks again. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:45, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Telco Productions Inc.

 * Hello, please copy edit my Telco Productions Inc.. Open Source 2.0 (talk) 06:39, 22 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I've removed the copyrighted content and added an external links section - there's not much else that needs to be copyedited and I've also made a note on the article's talk page. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  07:05, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello, please add more references to this article. Open Source 2.0 check me 11:54, 23 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I can look, but I can't make any promises that I'll find anything. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  05:33, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:My Name is &#39;A&#39; by Anonymous poster.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:My Name is &. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 19:09, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

February 2017 at Women in Red
(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 20:55, 28 January 2017 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Beyond Unbroken
Hey, I've been gathering sources and news coverage on Beyond Unbroken and I plan on submitting a edit request of a re-created version of the page. Just a heads up seeing as your the admin who has the lock on it. Let me know what you think :)  Teddy2Gloves (talk) (contribs)  18:33, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I salted the page but it was actually deleted at AfD by and it looks like you did take it to DRV in November 2015. Long story short, you need to talk to Julian since he was the closing admin and he's still active - I can't really do anything here. The deletion I did was a G4, as there had been an attempt to recreate the page despite the AfD. I salted it since it was the second attempt at recreation after the original AfD. You could probably ask him if he could send you a copy of the deleted material. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  16:50, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

19:45:03, 31 January 2017 review of submission by Colineverest
Hi!

Thanks for your thorough review of the submission for Emily Noyes Maxwell. I have reflected on your comments and feel that resubmission with minimal revision is warranted. I'll explain in a little bit of depth right now:

1) The basic premise of this resubmission, as of the original submission, is that Emily Noyes Maxwell (ENM) is notable independent of her husband. This is supported by two strands in her working life: her painting and her writing. A sub-thesis of this resubmission is that ENM is independently notable because of her relationship with her husband. This is an independent argument from derivative notability, like might be claimed, for example, by Melania Trump. The relationship that ENM had with her husband was an essential part of working life for a number of authors. This is referenced directly in the Salinger warrant. Wikipedia's own entry on literary salons confirms the importance of these informal gathering spaces for artistic production, and also the central place that women had in them. I think both of these claims for notability were clear, though I can see how only a cursory reading would elide the salon role into a derivative notability claim.

A bit tangentially but on this same topic - the suggestion that ENM ought to be included in her husband's Wikipedia entry is: a) not supported by Wikipedia's own entries regarding the independent notability of women in creating spaces for work, for example in the salon example cited above; b) entirely unsupported by any of EMN's independent work; c) a bit disconcerting, given that I see no precedent for such a suggestion in Wikipedia's own guidelines.

2) I have reviewed your specific source concerns. They are not convincing.

a) You say: "The claim of popularizing TPT is problematic because the New Yorker doesn't actually say that she was responsible for popularizing it." Tricky attribution issues aside I'm happy to concede the point that the New Yorker itself does not say this: it is in fact THE AUTHOR of TPT who makes this claim, in an article published in the New Yorker. The full quote is: "Fifty years ago, the book was rescued from the remainder table, Juster recalls, when a rhapsodic review appeared in this magazine, by Emily Maxwell (who was, among many other things, the wife of the longtime New Yorker fiction editor William Maxwell), and then children readers instantly, mysteriously, took to it." Failure to recognize the source of the quote here is understandable as a byproduct of speed. I hope I have now cleared this up. Overemphasizing the "mysterious" nature of the relationship between the review and the subsequent popularity of The Phantom Tollbooth would require being willfully obstructionist and obtuse. The claim that because this is an essay about the New Yorker in the New Yorker and is therefore biased is supported by no Wikipedia editing policy that I am aware of, and quite candidly, given the extensive reliance on poor-quality internet sources abounding throughout this website. Even if this were not a comparative matter, I would assume the presumption would be on an editor to establish the biased nature of a source, rather than merely assert bias.

b) You say: "The New York Times obituary isn't really useful ... since it's more of an obituary." I am at a loss to understand this argument. Here is a comparable article on the wife Akiva Goldsman which is entirely dependent on an obituary: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebecca_Spikings-Goldsman. Here is another article entirely dependent on obituaries that I produced and that passed editorial standards: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cecily_Mackworth. I understand the concern about press releases. Again, I think the presumption ought to be that if you wish to discredit the New York Times (or any newspaper) or the New Yorker (or any magazine) as biased as a result of either press-release style writing or shoddy internal auditing, that is upon the editor. The presumption should be in favor of reliability in these cases, as it is throughout this site.

c) Neither of these source concerns, it should be noted, answer the core of ENM's core claims for independent notability: writing and painting. These are can be sourced elsewhere in the submission. The claims in both the obituary and the NYer piece add color to these primary claims.

3) Systemic Impacts:

Finally, you write: "In the end it's super difficult to establish notability for one spouse when the other is the far more notable of the two." You cite Tabitha King as a counterexample to ENM. It would not do to overemphasize this point, so I will make it succinctly: this counter example is as poorly chosen as possible. It merely establishes that the MORE notable the dominant spouse, the MORE LIKELY there will be coverage of the other spouse. This issue is precisely the opposite of independent notability - it is a form, rather, of superderivative liability.

As a mea culpa, I will admit: I have a deep personal interest in couples in which the wife, after a long and productive marriage, dies and the husband follows short after. (See, e.g., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnny_Cash; see also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Friendly) In my haste to emphasize this personal taste, I included the fact of EMN's marriage in the first line of this short submission. It has now been removed to later in the submission, to allow ENM's own work to stand independently. I think this a sufficient edit for inclusion in the People's Encyclopedia.

If this change is not sufficient, it will pain me deeply. This will be for at least two reasons:

A) The difficulty of establishing the independent notability of wives of notable spouses is a particularly fraught issue at this time. For generations the only path to notability for women was through marriage. I had thought that America, at least, was entirely past this cruel (and ultimately unproductive) mode of accomplishment. And I had thought that the example of the independent successes (and subsequent notability) of ENM was evidence of this fact. Discovering recently that not only was America not past this wretched ghettoization of female notability has been difficult; an official Wikipedia announcement that ENM has not even established her independent notability would be, I think, devastating.

B) While encyclopedias make claims to being purely descriptive reality, Wikipedia at least acknowledges a number of its shortcomings in this area. It is a normative position, and not a descriptive one, to claim that ENM is not notable, because her husband is. I think it also revealing of the systemic bias that this institution is often accused of, but which I thought was a result of participation matters, and not a result of ideology. Because of my enthusiasm for, and reliance upon, this institution, recognizing the depths of its inherited biases will be quite a blow to my self-conception of my mind. Which is really the only thing I really value.

Once again, thank you for the time you have taken to review ENM's submission and resubmission, and also, hopefully, this response. I look forward to a new, and hopefully revised, disposition on this matter.

Peace and aloha for 2017,

Colin Everest
 * You've linked to other articles, however be careful of saying that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, as the existence of other articles doesn't necessarily mean anything. The people in those articles might be notable in other ways or they might not pass notability guidelines at all and just haven't been found and deleted yet. For example, I don't know that Rebecca Spikings-Goldsman necessarily merits her own article, as a search doesn't bring up an awful lot that covers her independently of her husband. Now in the case of Cecily Mackworth, that article is severely underreferenced and I'm kind of surprised that it passed on only two references, as most articles require 4-5 sources at the very least. (The two sources pass argument was originally written to refer to people who have done extremely notable things, like be the first person in space or have won very, very notable awards.) This one was written by one of the paper's journalists and as such, would be considered a newspaper article since it's very long and goes into Mackworth in depth. The thing about obituaries is that most of them are written by a family member or someone who is otherwise affiliated with the person who died. Some even have more than one - an initial obituary written to announce a death right after the person dies and another published later on, after funeral arrangements have been made. You can usually tell these by the way they're written and the one biggest tell that you're looking at a family-written obituary is the lack of a journalist's name attached to the article, as is the case with the NYT piece.
 * Something else that I didn't notice when I went through the article is that it looks like her husband worked for the New Yorker, so that means that any reviews or articles written by that publication would be seen as a primary source, as they're more likely to say nice things about the wife of one of their employees - especially as it makes them look better to have ties to published authors.
 * If you want to put this back through you can, but the problem here is that I am unlikely to be alone with my concerns and you have to be careful when sourcing articles. I'm not the only one who declined the article and if you want to ask either or  to review the article with its current sourcing, you can - I've also tagged them in this message. I just don't find the sourcing strong enough to pass GNG. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  06:45, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Open Source 2.0
Thanks. Last night I was going to suggest this to you and see what you thought but didn't get around to it. Doug Weller talk 09:31, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter - February 2017
News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.

Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg NinjaRobotPirate • Schwede66 • K6ka • Ealdgyth • Ferret • Cyberpower678 • Mz7 • Primefac • Dodger67
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13

Guideline and policy news
 * A discussion to workshop proposals to amend the administrator inactivity policy at Wikipedia talk:Administrators has been in process since late December 2016.
 * Pending changes/Request for Comment 2016 closed with no consensus for implementing Pending changes level 2 with new criteria for use.
 * Following an RfC, an activity requirement is now in place for bots and bot operators.

Technical news
 * When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
 * Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
 * The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.

Arbitration
 * The Arbitration Committee released a response to the Wikimedia Foundation's statement on paid editing and outing.

Obituaries
 * JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.

Discuss this newsletter • Subscribe • Archive

13:38, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Request on 16:13:10, 1 February 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Josephine Salt
Josephine Salt (talk) 16:13, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

I require assistance from an ADULT ENGLISH PERSON WHO UNDERSTANDS HOW DIFFICULT IT IS TO FIND LIUNKS TO NON EXISTANT NEWSPAPER ARTICLES DUE THEM BEING WRITTEN IN 1928.
 * One of the best places to start would be some of the libraries in the area Hunt lived in, as many of them tend to have archives of past newspaper articles, typically on microfiche but occasionally in other formats. If you don't live in the area then you can always call some of the libraries and ask for their help. Since there is a trust in his name, it would be a good idea to start with them, as they can help you find this information.
 * Something I didn't mention in the article, but really should have, is that the last paragraph looks like it's written to malign the St Vincent de Paul Society because they do not mention Hunt at all. Please be aware that this can be read as an attack against this society and content of that type cannot be placed in an article. Wikipedia is not a place to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and content like that alone can keep an article from getting accepted. I've removed this content. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  04:34, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

The Absinthe Drinkers (film)
Hi - I noticed in September 2013 here you re-directed this film from a disambiguation page that was deleted for being non-notable to the director's page, here:. I found this in searching for films on the late actor's page John Hurt which lists the film as a direct link. This causes much confusion to users unfamiliar with how WP works since the film is not listed in the director's credits, it was never released, and does not show up in IMDB for many of its actors. I would kindly suggest that you remove this redirect since it will most undoubtedly cause more problems in the future. In addition, by removing this link, it will allow others to create a more notable page in the future; since a "The Absinthe Drinkers (film)| The Absinthe Drinkers" tag will be red - indicating that a page is in need of construction. Thoughts? Comments? Thank you. Best. Maineartists (talk) 13:06, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Maineartists, you can restore it if you want to - the reason it was redirected was because someone had nominated it for deletion. I came across it via the proposed deletion category pages and figured that it would be better to redirect it until more coverage became available rather than leave it to be deleted, as it looked unlikely that it was going to be otherwise saved before the seven days were up. If you want to restore it and try to save it, feel free, but since it was never released as far as I know (I haven't searched for it since 2013) it would potentially run the risk of becoming a deletion candidate. At the time I figured that the director's page was the best target, as opposed to any of the actor's pages since at the time I believe it was listed on his page. In any case it was a proposed deletion that never came to fruition since I redirected it, so it doesn't have the same rules as a speedy or AfD deletion. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  16:44, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Tokyogirl79 No. That is not my intent. I am asking that you discontinue the redirect. It is confusing to users and forces them to search for a website on a director's page in the External Link section for a single website that is an unreliable source giving false information. I have no interest in salvaging the article for the film; but your redirect is not helpful. The mentioned film on WP should simply have no redirect at all; especially in its present state. Thank you. Maineartists (talk) 23:19, 30 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I can't just delete the page. The only way that it can be deleted at this point is to restore it and take the page to AfD or to bring it to RfD. It doesn't qualify for a speedy since the redirect isn't new (and there is no speedy criteria for films) and it can't be PRODed since my turning it into a redirect was a contesting of the PROD. Of course if you think that it can be turned into an article now, that's always an option, as is listing the film in the filmography on the director's page and noting that it was an unreleased film. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  23:27, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Now if you're saying that the film is a hoax, that's another matter entirely and something that can result in a speedy deletion. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  23:29, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Pinging Maineartists. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  04:37, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Circumvented salting of Kyle Kulinski?
FYI please see my edit summary here. - Brianhe (talk) 03:34, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Yup, sure looks like it. The radio show itself had a page deleted at AfD, so between the show and the guy's name, I think it's safe to G4 this one. Might be worth asking for a blacklist on the guy's name. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  07:03, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Brianhe Hey, what's your thought on Justice Democrats? Offhand I have serious doubts about its notability. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  07:13, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Well it obviously might be WP:TOOSOON since the earliest source is from the last week of January. But right off the bat, I also wonder about the lede: a movement within the Dem Party? Is Uygur in fact a Democrat? It doesn't actually say that anywhere in his WP bio. - Brianhe (talk) 07:46, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
 * He's an independent with but votes democratic. GeekInParadise (talk) 20:24, 4 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Not sure why he keeps getting deleted. Considering he's one of the top news shows in the world, has nearly 300 Million views, and started a political organization with over 100,000 members. Not to mention he's a regular commentator on The Young Turks. There are many YouTubers and viral videos with less exposure than Kyle. See here and here GeekInParadise (talk) 20:24, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Hearsay Social
Hi! I noticed that in the past, you've been involved in improving Hearsay Social. I'm hoping you can help with some edits to that article, which hasn't been significantly updated in several years. I've proposed and mocked up several updates on the article's Talk page, including updating the company name, updating the infobox, and fleshing out the details of the page. I work for a communications agency that represents Hearsay, and due to my COI I won't be editing the article myself. Would you be willing to take a look and implement my suggestions or share feedback? Thanks for your time! Mary Gaulke (talk) 17:14, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll try to take a look later tonight. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  04:37, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi! Checking in whether you've had a chance to take a look, or if I should go ahead and take this request elsewhere. Thanks! Mary Gaulke (talk) 14:53, 6 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm so sorry! I had completely forgotten and I've been so busy lately that I haven't been on as frequently. Feel free to ask around for additional help - I won't take it the wrong way. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  15:27, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * OK! Thank you again. :) Mary Gaulke (talk) 16:00, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Freezy weezy...
I've just deleted another Wisdom Collins thing and blocked User:John Michealson as 'not here'. I don't know if an SPI is in order, as there may be more lurking. One thing that seems to be lacking is wisdom... Peridon (talk) 21:37, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure, honestly. Might not be a bad idea, but I get the impression that these guys only open a new account once the last one has been blocked so it may not produce anything. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  13:14, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * See how it goes, then. Peridon (talk) 20:05, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Now at WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Collins wisdom. Peridon (talk) 13:28, 8 February 2017 (UTC)


 * (sighs) I was hoping that they'd get the hint without us having to go the SPI route. Ah well... Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  13:43, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

question about contesting a G4 deletion

 * What is the proper procedure for contesting your deletion of Secular Talk? I believe this is a misapplication of G4.Lizzymartin (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 05:51, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Lizzymartin It isn't, not really. The page as it was deleted didn't have the information that was on the prior version deleted back in September 2015 at Articles for deletion/Secular Talk Radio - The Kyle Kulinski Show. It also looks like it was a way of trying to get around the repeated A7s and salting of the main page for Kulinski, as at least a third of the page was his bio. There were seven sources in the article, four of which were primary (,, , this is a malformed version of the second link) and one of which was in the article deleted back in 2015 . The remaining two sources (Newsbusters and Humanistischen Pressedienstes (Humanist Press Services)) don't really seem to be the type of sourcing that would be considered a RS on Wikipedia, so I didn't count those. The only thing that would've truly helped is if it made any new claims, which it really didn't other than updated follower counts. Honestly, I seriously doubt that it would survive another AfD if it was restored in its current state and without any new/additional sourcing. I can transfer a copy of it to your userspace, if you're interested in fixing it up. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  13:12, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  14:58, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for Edit on Silent Hill: Betrayal
Just wanted to say thanks to the edit on my Silent Hill: Betrayal pages. Wasn't sure how to reply to your message. I've noted your edit and agree with the removal of specified items. Shadowolfdg (talk) 17:41, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Reference errors on 8 February
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/RBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/RBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=ReferenceBot%20–%20&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:39, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * On the Carol Goodman page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=764335491 your edit] caused a URL error (help) . ([ Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:ReferenceBot/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F764335491%7CCarol Goodman%5D%5D Ask for help])

Dice Bob hoax
Hello Tokyogirl! Thanks for taking care of the Dice Bob AfD. For longstanding hoaxes, it is customary to follow the archiving instructions at List of hoaxes on Wikipedia. That way there is a public record of them for later analysis. Kaldari (talk) 16:56, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
 * We do normally and I'm actually one of the most avid followers of this. However in this situation the guy openly wrote on the AfD that he wanted this kept around on Wikipedia for his own nostalgia (not in the hoax portion, but as an actual live entry) and didn't show any true remorse over having created the hoax or it being up for so long on Wikipedia. In this situation I felt that archiving it in any format would have been a reward of sorts for him because he'd be getting what he wanted, albeit in a different format, and it might encourage him to commit more vandalism since he's done some vandalism-esque (or at the very least unhelpful) edits in the last few years. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  18:17, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi! User:Tokyogirl79, Please help J-Pimp Wikipedia article by re-review.
Hi! User:Tokyogirl79, I have resubmitted this article - Draft:J-Pimp (Recording engineer) - to incorporate all the changes suggested by Wikipedia reviewer (User:SwisterTwister). I have made substantial changes throughout this article J-Pimp (Recording engineer), I believe this article significant for independent notability. Please help J-Pimp Wikipedia article by re-review Tokyogirl79.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:J-Pimp_(Recording_engineer) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:581:4503:4B55:DE6:E468:B6D:8673 (talk) 13:43, 14 February 2017 (UTC)


 * The IP is almost certainly a sock of Prince-au-Léogâne, who has made countless attempts to create articles about this individual. The draft is therefore eligible for speedy deletion under section G5. Favonian (talk) 13:51, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

--UTRSBot (talk) 17:26, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Deletion Grace Wan
Dear Sir/ Madame Tokyogirl79

The bradlay2016 and gwan123 both were not my account. I did not use these users to create Grace Wan Wikipedia website.

My user account is Gracewan2016.

I want to ask who are you? Are you Wikipedia editor?

I want my name to be appear on the Wikipedia. There were few editor Wikipedia that sent me message such as Tokyogirl79, etc says my name will be delete. Why delete my name on Wikipedia.

There were few Wikipedia users says want to delete Grace Wan on your website. I want to know why you want to delete Grace Wan?

I believe myself as Grace Wan is real person and the information that I shared biography is real. I am wellknown person on website. I am real did film/tv job.

I telling you that My real Wikipedia user account is Gracewan2016.

I don't know Bradlay2016 and Gwan123 because i am not those users. Two users were different person not me. They are different users not Grace Wan. They both try to edit Grace Wan page on Wikipedia.

I want to know why Brittney Wilson she have no biography on your website why her name post on your website and my name Grace Wan delete?

I did read the Wikipedia instructions, but i am no create my own biography. Its another person Bradlay2016 edit and talk about me on Wikipedia website.

My name was on Jia Fu family portrait show 2004 on google website and almost showed my name to Wikipedia, but why the Wikipedia did not accept Grace Wan on website?

All my information that another person Bradlay2016 edit and post my name on Wikipedia are all real.

Can you tell me how to avoid speedy deletion. I want my name to appear on Wikipedia website.

Why other well known people get to appear on the Wikipedia and my account is delete? I did not violate and copyright. Why there is speedy deletion policy? All those info about Grace Wan is real is not fake.

Please email me ASAP. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gracewan2016 (talk • contribs) 10:04, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Any arguments you make should be placed at the SPI here. I have to say that I'm somewhat skeptical of the claim that you didn't have either account, given that the earliest (Gwan123), openly stated that they were Grace Wan. Also, the claims that you did not try to create your own page is false, as you did try to create the page at Grace Wan on February 16th and again on February 17th. After those two attempts were deleted, a new account under the name Bradlay2016 showed up and began trying to create the entry. And now suddenly an entirely different account is trying to make the page as well. If these accounts are unrelated then a check will show that, however given how obscure of a public figure you are (I mean no offense by that) it's very, VERY unlikely that the other two accounts are people that you do not know. I must warn you, Wikipedia can check to see if the accounts are being used by the same person. Also, if you have hired or otherwise asked people to create a page for you, you must disclose this - as must they.
 * As for establishing a page on Wikipedia for yourself, I'm afraid that you just don't pass the notability guidelines on Wikipedia for creative professionals. Don't take this badly, as it's very difficult for people to pass this criteria and there are a lot of people who are very active in the entertainment business who do not have the required coverage in independent reliable sources to justify inclusion. Wikipedia isn't like IMDb, Linkedin, or other professional sites, as existing as a professional does not mean that a person would pass inclusion criteria on Wikipedia. (WP:ITEXISTS) Also, the accuracy of the content wasn't really in question - what was in question was the notability. As far as why other people have articles (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS), the existence of other articles may just mean that they pass guidelines on one criteria or another or the pages haven't been found and deleted yet. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  02:05, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Shut up Tokyogrl79. You are lying that you are no japanese girl. You are lying your name. Are you famous well known star celebrity. No you mot. You have your user name, but you don't have your real name. You are bsh. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bradlay2016 (talk • contribs) 05:37, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * OK wow... did you read my user page? It states that I named myself after my favorite Ace of Base song. You're blocked now, but I can only assume that you're going to do this with your userpage, so I'm revoking your talk page access. I seriously hope that you're not like this with your job, as this is a sure fire way to ensure that it'll be that much harder to get to where you want to be. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  08:17, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Secular Talk / Kyle Kulinski
Hi TokyoGirl,

It appears Secular Talk & Kyle Kulinski have been created and deleted before. Where could I find the discussion so that I could try to address the notability issues? Thanks in advance. AshLin (talk) 08:02, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
 * It had been addressed at Articles for deletion/Secular Talk Radio - The Kyle Kulinski Show last year - I discussed this above at User_talk:Tokyogirl79 and the main gist is that the sourcing in the latest version of the article was either the same as the content at the prior deletion or it wasn't really the type of thing that would overturn the prior AfD, as it was either WP:PRIMARY (released by Kulinski, the show, or others affiliated with him) or it was released in a place that Wikipedia wouldn't consider a WP:RS. It didn't really make any true new claims other than an updated follower count, so it was WP:G4 eligible even though it was under a new title.
 * You've said that you're interested in addressing the issues that led to the article's deletion, so I'm going to transfer a copy of the G4'd article at Secular Talk to your userspace. The AfD'd version was deleted by and normally we don't restore an AfD'd article that has been deleted by another admin, but they're inactive and I'm going to go ahead and make a bit of a decision on their behalf. Since I was the last person to delete Kyle Kulinski, I can restore that one as well. I'll post in a minute with the names of the locations where I'm restoring each version. I figure I'll restore the two versions of Secular Talk to different locations so you can pull what you need from either.
 * I'm also pinging . They'd expressed interest and I'd offered to restore the article but didn't get an answer, but I imagine that they'd probably like to help with the process if possible. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  16:06, 15 February 2017 (UTC)


 * You can find it at the following:
 * User:AshLin/Secular Talk
 * User:AshLin/Kyle Kulinski
 * User:AshLin/Secular Talk Radio - The Kyle Kulinski Show
 * Hope this all helps! Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  16:11, 15 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Tokyo Girl. This is my first attempt at undeletion & I do hope that I can get it restored by improving the article and getting the concerns addressed properly. Thank you for replacing the texts in my userspace. I hope you won't mind my asking guidance if I'm stuck, AshLin (talk) 13:17, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Hey TG, no worries about the restoration on my account. I'm hoping to get back on here more in the coming months, but work has been very busy. Ged  UK  18:02, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Cool - I was hoping that you wouldn't mind! And, you can always feel free to ask me for any help! I'm not on as frequently due to school, but you can always come to me! Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  08:39, 17 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I think The Nation might be considered a reliable source: . (Apparently, it's been praised by Barack Obama.) Also, Wired (website): . -Spacemartin (talk) 19:52, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The Wired source only mentions Secular Talk in passing in relation to the Justice Democrats, which is itself kind of a secondary mention in relation to the overall topic of social media and politics. The same thing goes for the Nation source as well, as it's only a brief mention in passing, saying that the Justice Democrats will be using it as a platform for their message. Although the two are obviously tied together, one doesn't inherit notability from the other so you'll have to show independent notability for it to have a separate page outside of the movement. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  21:51, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've just been reading WP:WEB, and it seems that these subjects might not be notable enough to justify separate articles. However, perhaps they could redirect to The Young Turks? -Spacemartin (talk) 23:21, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Hmm... I'd ask around first. Justice Democrats was nominated for AfD, but ended up getting kept via a non-admin closure. You could bring it up at deletion review since it wasn't closed by an admin, but I'd first ask for a recommendation at the talk page. This looks like it's going to be a fairly tricky thing overall and it looks like any deletion of the content or merge proposals will possibly be a bit of a headache, given that there seem to be a lot of people who feel very passionately about TJD and ST. I'm not really all that savvy in this particular area, so I can only really tell you if a particular source is in-depth or very reliable or not. I'd also recommend looking for help at WP:INTERNET and WP:NETPOP. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  23:49, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, maybe leave Justice Democrats alone, then. But having Secular Talk and Kyle Kulinski redirect to The Young Turks would be better than having deleted articles, IMHO. At the moment, Secular Talk fans are left with the impression he is being "silenced" by critics, which is certainly not the intention here. "This article was deleted" sends a powerfully negative message. A redirect would give a better impression.
 * Secular Talk is listed in the nav-bar on TYTNetwork.com, while "TYT Network" is the most prominent side-bar on Youtube - Secular Talk, so they are clearly affiliated.
 * I think the Justice Democrats article may be a separate case, because the rapid growth of the movement is cited as grounds for notability. Also, there are articles about it rather than just mentioning it. At the moment, the only grounds for notability of Secular Talk are its ~0.5 million subscribers (me included!) and affiliation with The Young Turks - and WP:WEB makes it clear that popularity on its own doesn't count, and notability can't be "inherited" by association. In any case, it would probably merit at most one article, not three. Meanwhile, The Kyle Kulinski Show only has 1300 subscribers.
 * I realise that AshLin is working on this now. However, perhaps the redirects could be put in as a temporary measure while the article(s) is/are being improved? I might do this myself. -Spacemartin (talk) 18:48, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Spacemartin's suggestion. AshLin (talk) 04:49, 1 March 2017 (UTC)


 * That's not a bad idea - it looks like you've already done that, so good job! I think that it might be a good idea to look into a single article at least for the show and Kulinski, but the only thing that concerns me about Justice Democrats is that it was also started by one of the people that started TYT. Hmm... while notability of course isn't inherited, you could make an argument that there is some notability from co-founding Justice Democrats as long as you can find sources that go into depth about the group and heavily mention Kulinski. You'd need to show notability for the talk show, of course, but that might help justify an article for Kulinski apart from the main article for the group. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  05:04, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

The Spook's Nightmare
Thanks for your addition to the article on The Spook's Nightmare. You added a citation but the URL is impossible for almost all WP readers to access it as it is via a university access system. Please could you adjust the URL to an address that people who are not related to the university can use? (even though the URL will go to a site that is behind a paywall). Thanks,  Guffydrawers (talk) 18:01, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Found one - I didn't find it when I'd first searched, but now there's one. I'm guessing you couldn't find it either from the other day? If so, then that makes me feel a little better for not finding it then. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  05:10, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I would have corrected the URL, but Google clearly doesn't index the Times. Best wishes, Guffydrawers (talk) 10:15, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Percy Allen De Zylva Karunaratne
Appreciate your intervention. Dan arndt (talk) 10:28, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * No problem, after I saw that they were attacking you on your talk page I figured that I may as well just block them. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  10:43, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Serious Help
Respected Wikipedia Security Team, My Name Sreedeep.Ck Alavil an Independent Web Security Researcher, India (Kerala Police Cyber Dome Volunteers Commander) Today on of my friend create a page on Wikipedia he make my name with my permission now I can't see that page.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sreedeep_ck_alavil

Sir I need to recover this page in that page 101% genuine content

I'm in Google, Microsoft, Intel, Belkin , ESET, Trendmicro, Sony Hall Of Fame list so plz get back that profile

It's my humble request plz Sreedeep007 (talk) 14:01, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The problem with the page was that ultimately it didn't show where you passed WP:NBIO. You exist as a professional, but you haven't received the coverage in independent and reliable sources (like newspapers) that would establish how you pass notability guidelines. I looked at the Hall of Fame lists, but it looks that ultimately those lists aren't the type that would establish notability on Wikipedia. It's not that reporting a bug to those companies isn't something good, it's just that as far as Wikipedia goes it isn't something that would be considered notable. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  03:23, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Share What Ya Got
Hello. You deleted Share What Ya Got because Defiance, Ohio (band) was deleted in error. I'm wondering if you could reverse this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Evanw (talk • contribs) 14:29, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I've restored the article, but the content still has issues with notability as the album doesn't automatically inherit notability from the band. It's still at risk of being deleted if someone wanted to take it to AfD. If no secondary, in-depth reliable sources are available (ie, album reviews) I'd recommend that it be redirected to the band's page. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  03:20, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Meet the Press episodes
@Tokyogirl79: I saw your comment and I wonder if you can help me create an article. I have been trying to create a Wikipedia page called List of Meet the Press episodes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:List_of_Meet_The_Press_episodes Can you help me create this page? Here is a link that can help you, if you decide to help me create the page. Thanks!!! http://www.digitaldeliftp.com/DigitalDeliToo/dd2jb-Meet-The-Press.html PoliticalBuff (talk) 15:09, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll try to see if I can help, but my concern is still that there are just too many episodes to really make it a tenable article or even series of articles. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  03:21, 28 March 2017 (UTC)