User talk:ReaderofthePack/Archive 40

How we will see unregistered users
Hi!

You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.

When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.

Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.

If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.

We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:13, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Welcome to the 2022 WikiCup!
Happy New Year and Happy New WikiCup! The 2022 competition has just begun and all article creators, expanders, improvers and reviewers are welcome to take part. Even if you are a novice editor you should be able to advance to at least the second round, improving your editing skills as you go. If you have already signed up, your submissions page can be found here. If you have not yet signed up, you can add your name here and the judges will set up your submissions page. Any questions on the rules or on anything else should be directed to one of the judges, or posted to the WikiCup talk page. Signups will close at the end of January, and the first round will end on 26 February; the 64 highest scorers at that time will move on to round 2. The judges for the WikiCup this year are: and. Good luck! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:37, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Welcome to the 2022 WikiCup!
Happy New Year and Happy New WikiCup! The 2022 competition has just begun and all article creators, expanders, improvers and reviewers are welcome to take part. Even if you are a novice editor you should be able to advance to at least the second round, improving your editing skills as you go. If you have already signed up, your submissions page can be found here. If you have not yet signed up, you can add your name here and the judges will set up your submissions page. Any questions on the rules or on anything else should be directed to one of the judges, or posted to the WikiCup talk page. Signups will close at the end of January, and the first round will end on 26 February; the 64 highest scorers at that time will move on to round 2. The judges for the WikiCup this year are: and. Good luck! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:02, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Your deletion of a source at Draft:The Secret of Skinwalker Ranch
Gooday. I intended to explain (well before now) the reason why I had added a particular source, and a recent change to the draft article history prompted me into action.

You objected to a source that was about Skinwalker Ranch in this edit summary.

You probably didn't trawl through the previous changes, but the Las Vegas Sun ref qualified the previous team; I had templated the prose "Thanks to a new team of scientists and skeptics in this edit, so I had sought to answer my own query and succeeded (June 2021).

The words "...a new team..." appear in each episode as a part of the voice-over intro. I reacted to the then-existing prose, and sought to improve the draft. Per AGF, I didn't anticipate anyone would simply delete the prose (written by other than myself).

The ref was germane to the prose as it was then, before you deleted it. You edited-out the prose first, arguing the ref not suitable; you deleted the ref separately soon after the prose. I believe it was relevant, otherwise I wouldn't have added it.

Thank you.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 21:00, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * You can re-add it and have another edit review the draft, if you wish. ReaderofthePack (formerly Tokyogirl79)  (｡◕‿◕｡)  20:23, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Help needed
Hey, I see that you are an admin - I just undid a couple of changes from a user that does not seem to be here to help. Can you do something more about it? Superboilles (talk) 21:20, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi! Sorry that I wasn't on when this happened - it looks like the user was blocked. Definitely feel free to reach out to me with stuff like this - I'll try to catch things while I'm on! ReaderofthePack (formerly Tokyogirl79)  (｡◕‿◕｡)  12:46, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

candle cove
tell me everything about candle cove i just started watching it and i felt the tv attracting me. I didn't want to take my eyes off the screen. I had to stop. My head started to hurt. When I paused it stopped. This show is known to brainwash kids. Like 1970s kids not 2000s. I listened to the theme song and I swear I was being hypnotized. Send help. More about the show is that adults can't see it. It's static to them and to kids it's the actual show. 2600:8804:8682:7100:80E4:E7FF:FEFD:F9F3 (talk) 00:33, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
 * If you like the series, check this out. I've really enjoyed the creepypasta and EU for this as a whole. ReaderofthePack (formerly Tokyogirl79)  (｡◕‿◕｡)  12:29, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

User:Gatarekwizera/sandbox
I tagged this page for speedy deletion because it is spam. The account that created this page is a sock that is used to repeatedly promote this website and should be blocked. See Sockpuppet investigations/Inumwanews24. Johnj1995 (talk) 15:13, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah, gotcha - I'll go and delete it. ReaderofthePack (formerly Tokyogirl79)  (｡◕‿◕｡)  16:02, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Murder One
Thanks for the close at WP:Articles for deletion/Murder One (film). I was surprised by your comment, and reread the thread. I have no idea how the word "ass" slipped into my final comment. I think I was originally going to write something like "passing quickly", and then reworded it! Despite your closure, I've edited my comment back to what I meant to say, to avoid unnecessary offence. I do however remain concerned by JPL's delete voting, which they often do so quickly between edits, that there's can't be any BEFORE - which I find very troublesome, especially when they are the first or second person to weigh in (as is often the case). Nfitz (talk) 19:28, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * That's a fair concern. I was honestly more referring to Fram - they're a pretty good editor and they've always tried to do a good BEFORE when nominating things for deletion. JPL does skew far more towards the deletionist side, but he's willing to change if there's a lot of evidence towards notability. I do admittedly share your concern that he's far too strict on what is considered to be usable as far as RS and towards notability guidelines. ReaderofthePack (formerly Tokyogirl79)  (｡◕‿◕｡)  12:04, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Happy anniversary!
&#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 17:25, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you! <3 ReaderofthePack (formerly Tokyogirl79)  (｡◕‿◕｡)  11:27, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

WikiCup 2022 May newsletter
The second round of the 2022 WikiCup has now finished. It was a high-scoring round and contestants needed 115 points to advance to round 3. There were some very impressive efforts in round 2, with the top seven contestants all scoring more than 500 points. A large number of the points came from the 11 featured articles and the 79 good articles achieved in total by contestants.

Our top scorers in round 2 were:


 * 1) Epicgenius, with 1264 points from 2 featured article, 4 good articles and 18 DYKs. Epicgenius was a finalist last year but has now withdrawn from the contest as he pursues a new career path.
 * 2) 🇨🇽 AryKun, with 1172 points from two featured articles, one good article and a substantial number of featured article and good article reviews.
 * 3) Bloom6132, with 605 points from 44 in the news items and 4 DYKs.
 * 4) Transgender Pride flag.svg Sammi Brie, with 573 points from 8 GAs and 21 DYKs.
 * 5) Vexilloid of the Roman Empire.svg Ealdgyth, with 567 points from 11 GAs and 34 good and featured article reviews.
 * 6) Panini!, with 549 points from 1 FA, 4 GAs and several other sources.
 * 7) 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 Lee Vilenski, with 545 points from 1 FA, 4 GAs and a number of reviews.

The rules for featured and good article reviews require the review to be of sufficient length; brief quick fails and very short reviews will generally not be awarded points. Remember also that DYKs cannot be claimed until they have appeared on the main page. As we enter the third round, any content promoted after the end of round 2 but before the start of round 3 can be claimed now, and anything you forgot to claim in round 2 cannot! Remember too, that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them. When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Cwmhiraeth Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:39, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

April Editathons from Women in Red
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:46, 22 March 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Roped
Can you rewrite an article on this film?

Can you also create an article on The F**k-It List?


 * I can take a look and see if it's doable. ReaderofthePack (formerly Tokyogirl79)  (｡◕‿◕｡)  11:45, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The coverage on Roped is just a little too light to create an article. The only somewhat promising review I saw was with Digital Journal, but they sell sponsored posts - this tends to make sites that offer them unreliable on Wikipedia. I'll look into the other movie next. ReaderofthePack (formerly Tokyogirl79)  (｡◕‿◕｡)  11:51, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The F**k-It List already has an article. ReaderofthePack (formerly Tokyogirl79)  (｡◕‿◕｡)  11:52, 12 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Ok. Take a look at these: Family Pack,        Tom and Jerry,      and Seetharam Benoy.

New administrator activity requirement
22:53, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Vinesauce review
Hello, ReaderofthePack. I wanted to message you today for two reasons. I remember reading a comment you wrote on the original draft about the difficulties internet personalities face with obtaining their respective Wikipedia articles, and seeing your response (along with Vinesauce's mention on the Super Mario 64 article) encouraged me to find as many sources as I could that prove Vinesauce's notability. I'm mostly done with the draft for the moment, but I wanted to get some feedback before moving forward with final edits and submitting the draft, especially from someone who reviewed the draft before and especially with the numerous deletions and rejections of the article in the past. I stated on the talk page that Vinesauce had received coverage in multiple WP:VG/RS, including Kotaku, VG247, PC Gamer, GamesRadar and Nintendo Life and that they should pass WP:GNG and WP:WEB, but I would like to ask if you would like to unofficially review the draft and leave feedback about it (preferably on your talk page here).

Also, since you're an administrator, the second thing I wanted to ask is if you could unsalt the Vinesauce page after you read it, if you decide to do so. This way in case it does get accepted in AFC it would just be as simple as publishing it to mainspace. It seems the original admin who salted it isn't too active here anymore, and seeing as how you have admin privileges and reviewed the draft, I figured why not kill two birds with one stone?

Thanks in advance, PantheonRadiance (talk) 06:59, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

P.S. In case you do decide to read the draft, here are a couple notes about it you may wish to see beforehand.


 * 1) The first reference is a Q/A interview from HEAVY Magazine about Vinesauce and Red Vox that does count as a primary source, but I included it because it delved into the history of Vinesauce quite comprehensively. There's another source about the Red Vox group in the draft as well.
 * 2) While there are several sources in the draft from Kotaku and Uproxx that are brief 1-paragraph summaries about a particular video they did, the GamesRadar article on #16 discusses their process in corrupting games significantly. Not to mention, several outlets covered the Active Worlds stream significantly along with their role in a farming game conspiracy. I still included those brief sources for verifiability and using WP:100W as a guideline, as WP:GNG doesn't specify an official word count.
 * 3) I wasn't sure whether to include this Daily Dot source. While they're reliable for internet culture, I'm unsure if it should be included per WP:BLPCRIME, like how the controversy with Dan Avidan from Game Grumps around that same time period was debated on its suitability for inclusion. I included a Game Rant source about the controversy but only for general information about Vinesauce as a group, keeping in line with its consensus on VG/RS.


 * It looks like it was salted by RHaworth, so I would check in with them first. They rarely unsalt, but still worth asking. I would also ask them for feedback. While they're really strict about sourcing and notability, if they say that the person is notable then you're golden.
 * As far as the controversy goes, I tend to lean on the side of caution and say that something shouldn't be included unless there's a lot of coverage and over a lengthy period of time. It looks like there was some talk about the accusations being fake, so that's also a good reason not to include them without a lot of coverage over a longer point in time.
 * Now when it comes to notability, this is a bit difficult. It looks like he should be notable, but I also see where the draft has been declined several times since I did. Part of the issue with sourcing is finding sourcing that specifically focuses on him and/or his work, rather than mentioning him in relation to something else. For example, this mentions him but isn't actually about him or even about his work. The emphasis is on the mod rather than his video. ReaderofthePack (formerly Tokyogirl79)  (｡◕‿◕｡)  19:45, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Hey, sorry for the late reply, I had a fairly busy week.


 * First off, I initially did plan to message RHaworth, but I looked at his talk page and saw a message from someone else saying they weren't too active anymore, so that's why I messaged you instead. From the looks of it RHaworth might not be an admin anymore, so I don’t know if he has unsalting privileges. I might ask them for feedback, but I think I'd prefer messaging someone whose area of editing expertise lies in video game-related articles.


 * Second, yes I figured I shouldn't include the controversy anyways. Besides the Dot source, there aren't really any other reliable sources that cover the accusations anyways, so omitting it doesn’t seem like too big of a deal.


 * Also just to clarify, the focus of the Vinesauce page is meant to encompass the group as a whole (similar to Game Grumps and The Yogscast) rather than just Vinny. Although he is the founder of the group and received the most coverage out of everyone in the group, there are sources about the other members as well, like Vinesauce member Joel's contribution to a purported farming game conspiracy that was debunked, their philanthropy streams which were conceived by member "Hootey," and several sources which do refer to them as a collective group (like Kotaku, Uproxx and Game Rant).


 * And finally, while some of the sources are admittedly brief like the PC Gamer one, there are definitely sources here that do actually talk about their videos in-depth and/or as the main topic, like the Active Worlds stream, various Kotaku, Vice and Uproxx sources and the GamesRadar corruption analysis as aforementioned. I'll honestly admit that the main dilemma with Vinesauce's notability is that there isn't an overarching secondary source that covers the history of Vinesauce as a whole like the Yogscast or Game Grumps, or at least one I could find besides the interview. I feel that the existence of that could easily make Vinesauce pass GNG and WEB with flying colors. However, I still feel that the sources are just enough to pass the notability guidelines - not necessarily enough for the article to be GA-class but enough to survive an AfD. it seems to me that the world at large (mostly various gaming media outlets) have taken substantial notice of their gaming videos, which should be enough to pass WP:WEBCRIT #1.


 * But anyway, thanks for your feedback. I'll try to look for more sources that do cover the group's history. PantheonRadiance (talk) 05:44, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

A cheeseburger for you!

 * Thank you! :) ReaderofthePack (formerly Tokyogirl79)  (｡◕‿◕｡)  12:37, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your edits at Hooker with a heart of gold
Just wanted to say thanks for digging for sources to improve the article. I hope you don't mind that I was a bit heavy-handed turning quotes into summaries. While the notability is being debated I think it's helpful to have things distilled a bit but I do appreciate your work. I've also realised that I mis-remembered/oversimplified WP:SCHOLARSHIP-- a Masters dissertation is not an RS unless it is shown to have significant scholarly influence, but a dissertation can be used "with caution". So I think some of the dissertation material that I cut could go back in. I don't think I will get to that soon but I wanted to let you know you can selectively restore some of that if you're interested / want to. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 03:11, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Definitely understandable! Dissertations are kind of tough - the general rule I was told was that Masters dissertations should typically be avoided while PhD dissertations would almost always be seen as a RS. The justification there was that a PhD dissertation is going to be raked across the coals by its editorial board, which is made up of professors/experts in the field. Of course the things to watch out for would be degree mills and the like, as well as dissertations in progress. ReaderofthePack (formerly Tokyogirl79)  (｡◕‿◕｡)  13:24, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Haha, as someone who just completed a dissertation, that sounds a little optimistic. But at the same time, six people did read it looking to catch major problems, and the remaining known flaws/errors in my diss are not doozies. And sometimes a diss is the most thorough/detail-oriented treatment of a topic. I will remember to be less dismissive of PhD dissertations from well-regarded universities. ~ L 🌸  (talk) 23:50, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

June events from Women in Red
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 09:22, 31 May 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging

The Speakeasies swing band
Hello! :)

In a rather spontaneous act, I was listing to the aforementioned band in the title and I thought I'd read a bit about them at Wikipedia. Turned out an article for them didn't exist. I researched a bit and saw that many years ago an article for that band had been deleted by you because of notability reasons.

If you check my contributions, here or globally, you'll see that I rarely deal with article creation/editing, dealing mostly with the technical details. So, I'm not that good myself in determining notability inclusion criteria or other similar details like that. I became curious to know what would you think of an article about them being re-created now? Would it still not be able to pass the notability criteria? The band doesn't look like it has countless of YouTube video views. That all made me wonder about swing music in general nowadays. It is one of those genres that surely isn't as famous as rap or pop so I was wondering what may be considered as notable enough (or famous) in its aspect. Trying to make some "relative measurements" I searched for categories related to swing bands here to see what other contemporary swing artists we have included and I believe there weren't many (maybe as you'd expect?) or maybe I just couldn't find the right categories. In a last try I tried seeing if Postmodern Jukebox had an article and it did, so I tried looking for the categories that article is part of and I was a bit surprised to see that it had none related to swing, they were all related to jazz (not that surprising when you think of it). That made me think that maybe that's why I couldn't find many swing entries on categories.

I don't know much about the SSB and I'm surprised I got invested this much in this matter but, since I did, I'd be grateful, just for the sake of quenching my curiosity, for whatever information you can provide in regard to the article recreation matter, general music notability aspects and any information about jazz/swing articles/categories in regard to what I mentioned above. - Klein Muçi (talk) 12:14, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi! Can you give me a link to the deleted title? I searched under The Speakeasies and The Speakeasies (band), but didn't see anything. As long as it wasn't an AfD, I'm generally fine with restoring the article and moving it to your userspace. ReaderofthePack (formerly Tokyogirl79)  (｡◕‿◕｡)  15:25, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, here. To be honest, I'm not sure if I'll go ahead and write that article myself. Curiosity got the best of me and, as strange as it may seem, I was mostly interested in the "behind the scenes logic" in the aspects that I mentioned above. - Klein Muçi (talk) 00:55, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Eh, even if you only think that there's a small chance you may, it's still worth restoring if it means that the article could get improved. Looking at the draft, the article had no sourcing and was just the band listing, a brief description, and a listing of the two albums they'd released at that point in time. I probably also did a quick search at the time and didn't find much or anything source-wise either. TBF, I don't see a lot of coverage in English language sourcing now, but it looks like there may be RS in Greek. I don't know if it would pass NBAND now, but I don't see the harm in someone userfying it and trying to improve it over time. ReaderofthePack (formerly Tokyogirl79)  (｡◕‿◕｡)  14:59, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I would probably fail at finding the relevant RS as well. That's why I was led to Wikipedia in the first place, I was struggling to find information about them online. I did find this, which got me the information I needed but as far as being a relevant source on Wikipedia, I don't know how much that counts. I imagine it would be especially poor if I were to just put that as a very general reference for the whole article. Not to mention if I wasn't able to find more information beside the one on their website. It would be straight up copy-pasting at that point. But anyway, give me an userfied draft. I'll take a look and ask for deletion if I can't make myself to be helpful on the matter. - Klein Muçi (talk) 16:24, 14 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Done! You can find it at User:Klein Muçi/Speakeasies swing band. And no rush about nominating it - there's really no time period on it being in your userspace, at least as far as I'm concerned. I've got drafts in my userspace that have been there for years (like this) while I try to find sourcing. Just make sure to mark it as watched so that it stays in your watchlist, that way if you forget you can always remind yourself when going through your watchlist. ReaderofthePack (formerly Tokyogirl79)  (｡◕‿◕｡)  17:12, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Women in Red in July 2022
--Lajmmoore (talk) 15:49, 27 June 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging

The problem with one section of an article
Hello, ReaderofthePack. Remember the user who worked hard with a draft about a character from the actual first Pixar short film? After spending months studying 3D Animation, I'm back. With my return to this wiki, I just want to get out my issues on the article about The Adventures of André & Wally B.:

As of May 15, 2022, one user added an "Other appearances" section in the aforementioned article. Despite having one source in it, this section violates the following guidelines and policies: MOS:YOU, WP:NOR and (possibly) WP:TRIVIA. That is to say, this section is mostly inaccurate and it may be considered fancruft despite the responsible for creating this section is not an André and Wally B. fan at all.

If I were you, I would remove the entire "Other appearances" section, with stating that "Wally B. (the bumblebee) doesn't have a monopoly regarding André & Wally B.-related cameo appearences" and that it is not necessary to create an "Other appearances" section in individual articles about Pixar films. I say that because the list of Pixar film references still exists and the author of this section's creation appears to be disinterested in this short film or has a false memory (specificially confabulation). In addition, André has his own cameo appearances and mentioning the short film in the form of a cameo doesn't mean that contains Wally B. in it. In case of the former, keep in mind it is André and not Wally B. the one who has a cameo appearance as a sticker in Soul.

If we do not act soon, this section will produce misinformation effect to future readers. What is your opinion regarding this problem? Is there any solution to remove misinformation from the article for good?-- André the Android (talk) 12:55, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Let me bring this up at the Disney WP to get a consensus, but offhand my thought is to remove it. ReaderofthePack (formerly Tokyogirl79)  (｡◕‿◕｡)  15:31, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok. Besides, I see that one has replied you in the section you created in the talk page of WikiProject Disney.


 * While my top choice is still to remove the "Other appearances" section from the article due to its content being both mostly unsourced and inaccurate, the other option is to "keep" this section but with the condition of having its content altered according to what the sources and the Manual of Style actually say (e.g., replace "Wally B." with "André" when one of the other appearances refer to the André & Wally B.-related cameo appearances that, in fact, only contains André instead of Wally B.). If the result is to keep it but to alter the "Other appearances" section, then it will serve to fight agaisnt misinformation and systematic bias that makes André underrepresented.-- André the Android (talk) 16:28, 16 June 2022 (UTC)


 * I've made it more specific. ReaderofthePack (formerly Tokyogirl79)  (｡◕‿◕｡)  15:50, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * No offense, but I didn't mean to simply rename the "Other appearances" section to be more specific (which, in my opinion, is insufficient for this section to be properly adapted to this wiki's policies, guidelines and Manual of Style). I actually wanted to say that you should make the "Other appearances" less biased and more balanced if we should "keep" this section.


 * That is to say, if we keep the "Other appearances" section, then we should modify the "Other appearances" section based on what the sources actually say. I have known that Wally B. the bumblebee never appeared in Soul, but André appears in this film.


 * To sum up, the "Other appearances" section deserves a radical change if we keep this section.-- André the Android (talk) 17:45, 28 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Ah - I see what you mean then. If the claims aren't backed up by the sourcing, feel free to remove or correct them. ReaderofthePack (formerly Tokyogirl79)  (｡◕‿◕｡)  20:24, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't hesitate to remove the "Other appearances" section in the article. In my opinion, all the articles related to Pixar films that are good articles don't have an "Other appearances" section at all. My intention is to turn the article about The Adventures of André & Wally B. into a good article, so it mustn't have this section in order to improve its quality. The only thing that we could add similar content to the "Other appearances" section is creating a "Legacy" section, which in theory explains not only the characters' other appearances, but also the film's impact in computer animation.


 * Should I remove the "Other appearances" section with a summary that justifies this content removal? I say that because I am concerned that someone might revert my edits if I attempt to remove this section for good.-- André the Android (talk) 10:44, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * If you do, just make sure to make a note of it in the edit summary and on the talk page. If someone reverts it, start discussing it on the talk page. ReaderofthePack (formerly Tokyogirl79)  (｡◕‿◕｡)  12:56, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm ready to remove the "Other appearances" section, but I'm worried if my (future) content removal may be affected by an abuse filter, namely one that tags the user's edit that at least one reference is removed.


 * Does the abuse filter I am referring to affect autoconfirmed users like me?-- André the Android (talk) 17:14, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think it will. Even if it does pop up, I wouldn't worry. It shouldn't as long as you put an explanation into your edit summary, I think. ReaderofthePack (formerly Tokyogirl79)  (｡◕‿◕｡)  19:45, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The result is remove the "Other appearances" section. I know that this section has many issues compared to the other sections the article has, including but not limited to: inaccurate information, presence of second-person pronouns, content that is considered trivia, unsourced information, presence of bulleted list format and what appears to be original research. Additionally, I had to justify my content removal with an edit summary, as I had promised.


 * By the way, I regret to inform you that the author of this (inaccurate) "Other appearances" section doesn't distinguish reliable sources from unreliable ones. This user also added an "Other appearances" section in another article about a Pixar short film, but with a self-published source instead of inaccurate, unsourced information. Additionally, the source that accompanied the now removed "Other appearances" turned out to be a generally unreliable source (namely from Amazon) that was used in place of the already existing template to cite books.


 * As I said before, every "Other appearances" section isn't neccesary for each article about films from the Pixar library. This wiki already has a list of Pixar film references, so it doesn't make sense that they add an "Other appearances" section in articles about animated films if Wikipedia already has a list of references in said films.


 * Besides, I think one of the essays related to handling miscellaneous information should include mentions of the "Other appearances" sections in articles that is not about fictional characters. What is your opinion?-- André the Android (talk) 19:36, 4 July 2022 (UTC)


 * I'm not entirely opposed to such sections, but if there's already an article for the sections then an overall one would be far preferable. Something that could be doable in situations like these is to add the content to the main article and then just link to the article in a "see also" section. ReaderofthePack (formerly Tokyogirl79)  (｡◕‿◕｡)  17:56, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Article
Hi ther can you please help with Draft:His Wife (2014 film)? DareshMohan (talk) 02:07, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Women in Red August 2022
--Lajmmoore (talk) 11:00, 29 July 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Menotti Lerro and a walled-garden of associated articles
Hello ReaderofthePack, please forgive the length of this message. I am reaching out to you as some years ago you unpacked a walled garden surrounding the Menotti Lerro in an AfD a number of years ago. A couple days ago, I came across a new article for the Contemporary Center of Arts (CCA) founded by Lerro, I then looked at the Menotti Lerro article and the other articles created about his work, business ventures, and projects - by one editor User:Gingeksace - it became quite clear to me that I had encountered a WP:WALLEDGARDEN filled with promotional articles - all of which promoted Lerro and his various projects and books.

I reached out to another experienced editor, who speedied the CCA article as unambiguous promo and. I then noticed many photographs in these articles (dating from 2015) were all uploaded as the "own work" of Gingeksace used in the articles, which seemed like a clear-cut conflict of interest..

The editor in question sent me a message on re: my tagging the article. They admitted that they were in fact connected to Lerro, so I posted a Managing a COI message on their talk page, and started a discussion. I have never filed at WP:COIN and wanted to reach out to an admin first who is familiar with the case from the past for advise and feedback on my observations as I want to assume good faith of the editor Gingeksace, and I don't want to be too heavy-handed if I do decide to file at COIN. I hope that is ok with you.

Here is a list of the articles in the walled garden: Menotti Lerro, Ritagli, Il Dottor Faust, Augusto Orrel: memorie d'orrore e poesia, 2084: Il potere dell'immortalità nelle città del dolore, I Battiti della Notte, New Manifesto of Arts, Cultural Pyramid of Cilento, Empathism, Donna Giovanna, l'ingannatrice di Salerno, Cilento Poetry Prize.

Many thanks in advance, and sorry this is so long! Netherzone (talk) 02:59, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * as the deleting admin. ReaderofthePack (formerly Tokyogirl79)  (｡◕‿◕｡)  14:40, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I look forward to hearing JZG's thoughts. I am not sure if I should speedy them or AfD them, file a COIN report, or just leave it to admins to figure out the best course forward. As I am working my way through the articles one by one, I am finding that most, if not all of the sourcing, which I'm slowly translating, are simply press releases or event listings or calendar listings, not real sources. The main Menotti Lerro biography may have enough real sources, but I haven't determined that yet. His article was deleted on the Italian WP from what I can gather from various talk pages there, but I can't find the actual AfD itself there. Netherzone (talk) 16:21, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I would definitely put in a COIN report. At the very least that makes a paper trail. As far as deletion goes, you'd need to take it to AfD, as the two versions are dramatically different. This one has more prose in it. The main thing I would recommend for that would be to do a rundown of the sourcing to a) make sure that everything is usable and if not then b) highlight and explain it in the AfD. You could do an overall check on the article's talk page. If it does end up that the sourcing would establish notability then you can then shift focus to improving the article and making it less promotional. I would absolutely recommend getting someone familiar with Italian language sourcing if you aren't or aren't fluent. (Check out WP:ITALY) Google Translate can be good if all else fails, though. ReaderofthePack (formerly Tokyogirl79)  (｡◕‿◕｡)  17:32, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I am much less concerned about the Menotti Lerro article as I am with the walled garden of ten articles listed above, and the COI and possible UPE. They are all PROMO for Lerro. It will take me a while to write up a COIN report, as I've never done one before and the case is complicated. Netherzone (talk) 18:10, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Phobias (2021)
This film needs an article - 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6. DareshMohan (talk) 23:53, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I'll try and work on it either today or tomorrow! ReaderofthePack (formerly Tokyogirl79)  (｡◕‿◕｡)  21:04, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Women in Red in September 2022
--Lajmmoore (talk) 15:38, 31 August 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging

WikiCup 2022 September newsletter
The fourth round of the WikiCup has now finished. 383 points were required to reach the final, and the new round has got off to a flying start with all finalists already scoring. In round 4, Bloom6132 with 939 points was the highest points-scorer, with a combination of DYKs and In the news items, followed by BennyOnTheLoose, Sammi Brie and Lee Vilenski. The points of all contestants are swept away as we start afresh for the final round.

At this stage, we say goodbye to the eight competitors who didn't quite make it; thank you for the useful contributions you have made to the Cup and Wikipedia, and we hope you will join us again next year. For the remaining competitors, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 4 but before the start of round 5 can be claimed in round 5. Remember too that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them, and importantly, before the deadline on October 31st!

If you are concerned that your nomination, whether it be for a good article, a featured process, or anything else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. The judges are Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:44, 3 September 2022 (UTC)