User talk:Toddklinck

Your submission at Articles for creation
 Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.
 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia&.
 * To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the help desk, via real time chat with helpers, or on the [ reviewer's talk page]
 * Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia!  David_FLXD  (Talk) 07:28, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Mandy G article
Hi Todd

It's been a week since you posted, so I'm replying here in case you've given up checking my talk page. I'm extremely busy with studies, and only checking in occasionally; please forgive the slow response! I just checked on the info you were looking for, and I believe that was about the time I added the archive bot; your stuff missed getting archived. However, I did some digging and I think this is it:

Hi David: I am writing to inquire as to the rejection of the Mandy Goodhandy page, due to notability issues. I have been following the links provided, doing research, and I want to speculate: is the sole reason the page was rejected because of my ASSOCIATION with the subject? Because if that is the case, I can simply get somebody else to submit the article. I am clearly associated with the person, she is my business partner and I have written published articles in mainstream press which mention her. Other than that, I cannot see any reason why Mandy Goodhandy is not "notable" and would greatly appreciate your help. She is a legitimate director of adult movies with many credits, she is a legitimate member of a respected actor's union, I have cited numerous verifiable sources from mainstream publications, and I did my best to remove any "fluff" or non-verifiable details. I have huge, huge, respect for Wikipedia, I use it constantly, and I am utterly confident that Mandy Goodhandy is "notable" enough. I have tried the chat room, but am not receiving any help. So I am writing to you, the person who rejected the article, to ask for your help. Thank you in advance, sir. Todd Klinck Toddklinck (talk) 01:25, 5 July 2012 (UTC) Hi Todd, thank you for coming back to me. It makes it possible for us to discuss issues in more detail, which is very helpful for you! From the reviewer's point of view I would just like to explain why we wait for contact from the contributor. I have reviewed something like a hundred articles in the last week, declining 80% of them. If I take the time to send a detailed message to the talk page of every contributor, explaining every important fault in the article, this would have taken me four weeks - and only about 1 in 4 of the contributors would have made use of that information to improve their articles. In the meantime, another 400 articles could easily have come in! Ok, to MG. Your association was a small factor, but not the reason why I declined it. The main reason was that I had the impression that MG was only locally notable, ie in the Toronto area. Here is your opening para (try to read it as I did, knowing nothing about her) "Amanda Taylor is a Canadian transsexual entertainer, comedian, adult movie producer, adult movie performer, nightlife personality, entrepreneur, and activist. She is best known by her stage name Mandy Goodhandy, and owns and operates a Toronto nightclub named Goodhandy’s." And "Toronto" appears in a number of your references. Your opening para is very important in establishing why your subject is notable. You need to be able to say something like, "she has performed across Canada" or "her films are popular with adult movie audiences throughout Canada". And then you MUST be able to justify that by tagging that statement with a specific reference, preferably more two, and those references are critical: they must be independent, verifiable, wide-coverage references. An adult movie mag would be fine, if it has substantial sales across Canada, and if the article is about MG (not an interview with her). Once you do that, you have demonstrated notability. If you really want to nail it down, find somewhere near the end of the article to specify how widely read or watched your source is. Just so that you know, don't use YouTube videos or blogs as references. They are unverifiable, and we reviewers hate them! (You haven't, I don't think, I'm just telling you so you know for future reference.) Another factor was the tone of the article. It is just a little too informal for an encyclopedia, just a little too cosy with the subject. For example "She realised that she was more comfortable in her female persona", "she made it her mission" (in fact, I would take that whole sentence out, because the dvd has not yet been released. Wikipedia does not generally consider forthcoming events to be suitable encyclopedia fodder). I would have said "She took the decision to adopt a female persona full time." I hope you can see that my version is just a little more distant from the subject than yours! There is actually not a lot else wrong with the tone. However: I would take out all but a minimal reference to yourself, as the author of the article. Mentioning that you are her business partner in Mayhem North is, in my view, both acceptable and correct. The bits at the end of the article need not mention you again. Conflict of interest is usally applied to straight advertising from businesses with new products (which constitute something like a quarter of all new submissions! sigh). So, in my opinion, it would not normally be applied to your article, unless an editor decided that you were only submitting the article because of the benefit to your business. I don't believe that an entry on Wikipedia is going to make any significant difference to your business one way or the other, so I don't think it's an issue. You should also add an infobox (see Help:Infobox) and categorise the article. I believe that if you address all of the issues which I have mentioned above, the article should be accepted. If it is not, you are welcome to come back to me for further help and possibly even intervention if necessary. I'm sure you are aware that there are many for whom your topic is undesirable but Wikipedia does not censor it's content, as long as the quality of that content meets Wikipedia's criteria (which are, admittedly, extensive). I hope that you will find all this helpful. If you need any more information, please feel free to ask. I am keeping this conversation here, where it started, and posting a Talkback on your talk page. If you edit here, I will see it. David_FLXD (Talk) 06:25, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

If you believe you are ready to resubmit then do this: resubmit to AfC AND ALSO put a note on my talk page. I will have a look when I get the note; in the meantime it will be working its way through the queue and I will have a look if/when I get your note, whether or not it has been reviewed yet. How's that? Regards,  David_FLXD  (Talk) 17:50, 16 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi David. I have asked a writer to take over the project, and he has now submitted to another editor. Is that appropriate, or is that going to cause problems? Would it be more effective to have him continue submitting to you? I had him do it because you were obviously busy. I appreciate you finding the archived information, that was what I was seeking to help him complete the entry for me. He is going to go ahead and make the edits you have suggested. Please advise Toddklinck (talk) 14:55, 18 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Oh, please, by all means, take it off my desk (there's no room there anyway)! Seriously, feel free. Glad I could find the right stuff for you. Regards,  David_FLXD  (Talk) 17:17, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Mandy Goodhandy for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Mandy Goodhandy is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Mandy Goodhandy until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Dovid (talk) 15:13, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Mandy Goodhandy
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Mandy Goodhandy, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Mandy Goodhandy and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Mandy Goodhandy during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:29, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Mandy Goodhandy (Amanda Taylor) (April 8)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Primefac was:

The comment the reviewer left was:

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.


 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Mandy Goodhandy (Amanda Taylor) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the or on the.
 * You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Primefac (talk) 19:26, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Mandy Goodhandy (Amanda Taylor) concern
Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Mandy Goodhandy (Amanda Taylor), a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 21:00, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Mandy Goodhandy (Amanda Taylor)


Hello, Toddklinck. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Mandy Goodhandy".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the, , or  code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing.  T K K ! bark with me! 22:45, 1 December 2017 (UTC)