User talk:ReaderofthePack/Archive 29

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 25 ← Archive 27 Archive 28 Archive 29 Archive 30 Archive 31 → Archive 35

Talk:Take_the_Time#Protected_edit_request_on_4_August_2016

Greetings, did you see this ping? Posting here to confirm. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:39, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Nathan Lee

Could you please help me list it for deletion review? I am confused as to how to do it. The subject has since won silver medal in Gina Bachauer International Piano Competition [1] Thanks so much, and also, I got your message on my talk page about writing about topics close to me. Just FYI, I am a scout for a management company for young musicians so I just discovered Nathan Lee. I will take care though to make sure my edits are not promotional. THANKS!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by KoreanWon (talk • contribs) 06:06, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

-Thanks!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by KoreanWon (talk • contribs) 06:26, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

  • I made a small edit just so this wouldn't show up at the bottom of the page as a ref. No other alterations were made. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:41, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

User:Tokyogirl79/Common notability arguments

I borrowed this essay of yours to provide extra context for a Military history Project Academy Course on article deletion. I hope you don't mind, but I thought it would make a good complement to the already well establish Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions essay. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:39, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

This deserves a kittenCoolabahapple (talk) 03:29, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Re: Name to be cautious of

Thanks for the message you posted on my talk page. I'll avoid his name should I see it as you suggest. Willowandglass (talk) 17:05, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

I am writing to invite you to the upcoming WikiConference North America to be held in San Diego Friday to Monday 7-10 October. Here are further details:
  • We are accepting submissions until 31 August.
  • We are accepting scholarship applications 9 August - 23 August. About 40 scholarships are available only for people in Canada, the US, and Mexico. Last year about 200 people applied for scholarships.

I know that you have supported organizations in contributing to Wikipedia and that you have ideas about community organization. I think we have not met in person, but from what I know you seem like the sort of person who would enjoy a meetup of this sort if you were able to attend.

If you have interest and availability to attend and would like assistance either in making a program submission or a scholarship application then let me know, and I might be able to help in some way. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:13, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

  • I've been thinking about going - I've got a conference I'll be attending later in October, but I think I might still apply. :) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:32, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

CSD

Let me know when and where you have drafted your criterion for CSD non notable book. You have my support. Is it going to be a sub section of A&? --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:41, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @Kudpung: See WT:Criteria for speedy deletion § Speedy deletion criteria for books. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:44, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Anantara Hotels

Hi. Yesterday I stumbled upon Draft:Anantara Hotels, Resorts & Spas in CAT:CSD. I took a cursory glance at the page, saw it reasonably well-referenced with a slightly promotional tone that could be sort of expected, maybe even created by the company's PR, but being far from spam. I also noticed that a) its publication to mainspace has been denied on notability (!) grounds by LaMona, who has recently been criticized at ANI for being too demanding on draft publications, requiring perfection and often citing quite spurious notability concerns (Anantara Hotels are one of the most important chains in Asia [2]) and b) it has been tagged by SwisterTwister, also criticized for complete lack of research in CSD tagging and AfD nominations, and who has recently narrowly escaped a NPP topic ban for those reasons.

Out of sheer curiosity, I put the draft on my watchlist, not bothering to contest the speedy, expecting an admin to decline the deletion. It was IMO nowhere near the G11 criterion: pages that are exclusively promotional and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to conform with Wikipedia:NOTFORPROMOTION. It wasn't exclusively promotional and it didn't need to be fundamentally rewritten, just edited for tone.

Now, I don't care about Anantara hotels, and I'm far from being an inclusionist, but I am concerned with the process. A salvageable draft on a notable company gets declined by an overzealous reviewer, tagged by an overzealous patroller, and speedily deleted by an admin contrary to G11. Had that article been created straight in the mainspace, it would survive an AfD with flying colors. If we cannot accommodate creation on notable company articles and edit out the promotional tone by our regular processes, it's no wonder we are witnessing proliferation of undisclosed paid editing.

I'm not sure if I'll pursue any further action, but I'd like to share my concerns and hear your thoughts on the matter first. No such user (talk) 07:36, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

P.S. If we're going to discuss the draft's contents, I would appreciate if you could temporarily undelete it to draft space or my userspace. No such user (talk) 07:39, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

  • @No such user: What pushed it for me was the foundations and projects sections, which were written in PR-type speak. It was kind of a "yay for us, aren't we great" type of thing. It's not the most promotional thing I'd ever read but it was bad enough that if it'd been in the mainspace it would have likely been deleted fairly quickly as promotional. There might have been the potential for someone to clean it up, but in my experience it usually doesn't happen. I think that part of the reason it likely survived for as long as it did was because it was in AfC, where we typically give people more leeway on editing. I think honestly, most probably passed it over in the hopes that the person who created it would come back and try to clean it up. It's probably why LaMona didn't tag it as promotional, honestly, that she was hoping that the person would come back and try to clean it up overall. As far as notability goes, I'm not going to wade into the sourcing overall to judge it either way. Now when it comes to Swister, he's definitely made some mistakes with tagging but he does also does some proper tags sometimes. I usually just try to take a closer look at what he's tagging. I think I've declined just as many of his tags as I have accepted them.
As far as her decline goes, I think that her reaction comes in part from past experiences with AfC and how the articles are received once they're accepted. In the past we'd had a large, large rash of articles accepted when they clearly failed notability guidelines. Now I'm not talking about articles that are borderline like the one I'd speedied. I'm talking about articles where the content was sourced to some random person's blog and various places that are so wildly non-reliable that you'd almost think that it was done as a joke. There was a bit of a fallout on AfD, which resulted in a lot of people automatically assuming that AfC produces nothing but garbage and many accepted articles were subjected to some pretty stiff bias as people assumed that they were non-notable, whether or not they actually passed GNG. The reviewers got some guff as well. I would say this is likely why some people walked away from the project entirely. In any case, that scenario ended with at least one editor getting restricted from reviewing AfC submissions, if I remember correctly, although I seem to remember there being 2-3 that were especially problematic. (This isn't even going into the articles that were so unambiguously spammy that it was actually jaw dropping what got accepted.) In any case, my point in this is that because all of that resulted in people reviewing accepted AfC articles fairly harshly, people began judging submissions a bit more stringently in order to make up for it, because they're just afraid of people eating a borderline article alive.
Now as far as the article goes, I figure there's no harm in restoring it. It's promotional and it definitely needs to be cleaned, but if you're interested (and I'm going to take this as a sign of potential interest, whether that's what you meant or not) then I say go for it. I'd say that I'm usually willing to restore most stuff if there's an active interest and it could potentially be salvageable. The stuff I don't restore are usually things that include vandalism, copyvio, the extreme spam, and the like - the stuff that really doesn't belong on Wikipedia.
In any case, here are some examples of what I found promotional:
Set up by the Minor Hotel Group, the Mai Khao Marine Turtle Foundation (MKMTF) is engaged in protecting and conserving endangered sea turtles in and around Phuket in Thailand. (My note: This is written a lot like you'll see in press releases. Terms like "engaged" are typically PR puffery. There are a lot of similar terms in the article, but especially in the foundations and projects section.)
The projects and foundations sections in general featured lengthy, loving descriptions of the projects. Typically there's little need to have this much detail, as much of this could be summarized with little issue. Like I wrote above, this is the type of thing you tend to see in PR pieces and brochures for something. The article is peppered with similar things like this.
I think that AfC could definitely do with some rehabilitation as a whole and I think that one thing that could really help is for people to leave more feedback about the various problems. I think part of the reason that so many people get frustrated is that there's this idea that reviewers should limit their decline rationales to just one problem. I've actually seen this chase a lot of people off, because they fix one problem, only to be confronted with another one. You then have an angry submitter who doesn't understand why the article can be accepted after they fixed the promotion problem and then have to try to find a way to try to convince them that it's not just you finding a new reason to decline because you're a hardass. I think another thing that could help would be to try to get new blood in there reviewer-wise, since burnout is extremely easy. It's why I typically only review AfC every once in a while.
Anywho, this is long enough as it is. I'm going to cut it off here before it gets even more TL;DNR. Long story short, the article was promotional enough to warrant speedying and would likely have met the same result in the mainspace, only faster, and AfC is pretty borked, plus a bad reputation that is likely the cause of a lot of strictness nowadays. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:21, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. Since I involved myself into it, I guess I'll give it a shot at fixing the issues. Since we're both in TLDR mode, I'll add my further 2c: The systemic problem with company articles is that the people who care most about their content are their PR teams and paid freelance writers. We put our blind faith into our unpaid volunteers to manage and curate their contents to satisfy our core policies, but the catch is that working on such articles is uninspiring, to put it mildly. It is hard to find a volunteer who will invest their time into a topic such as a luxury hotels chain: completing such an article simply does not provide the sense of achievement and sharing a valuable knowledge with the world, something that is the common driving force behind our volunteer time.
Still, upon reviewing the article in slightly more detaiol, I must say that the contents were mostly factual up to #Foundations and #Projects sections, featuring typical PR-speak indeed. Still I'm flabbergasted with LaMona's declining reason that This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability when it contains Currently, the company operates resorts in Thailand, Cambodia, Maldives, Indonesia, the United Arab Emirates, Oman, and China, sourced to Bloomberg.com, shows 50,000 employees, and lists no less than six awards by organizations that don't seem like award mills. And of course, it lacks any mention of criticism and controversy; but maybe there isn't any to speak of? As a big and rich hotel chain, they seem to invest in nature conservation and charity projects – surely that's worth a mention? No such user (talk) 09:26, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  • It would merit a mention, it's just that it'd likely be better if it were summarized in a fashion like "John Smith Corporations supports multiple charities that support causes such as land preservation, children's education, and sustainable resources. In 2016 they began working with Apple Inc to fund the Blah Blah Charity, which works with refuge orphans. The organization also works with the (list name of specific foundations)." That's mostly what should/could be done, since it's expected that any given business will have their fingers in some sort of philanthropic actions, as even my local power company does quite a bit of philanthropy. There really only needs to be a basic overview, especially as some of these projects tend to be temporary or only semi-permanent and are frequently the target of promotional content. As far as controversies go, that might be because there is none or because it wasn't added into the article. That's not completely uncommon but eh, it's most likely that if there are any, they weren't covered enough.
Now as far as awards go, be careful, as it looks like at least one of those was a reader award, which holds a lot less sway on Wikipedia. I know that they're not always considered to be notability giving. Anywho, since we're discussing this I suppose it would be fair as well if I went through the sourcing. I will say that it would've been nice to have a bit more detail on the sourcing so the editor could've known what was going on, but I guess they're getting it a little late? I'll post the rundown on the draft talk page. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:14, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Timothy Parker (puzzle designer)

Hi Tokyogirl79, I notice that you spent some time on this bio in March, and it appears very much like new COI IP accounts have started to edit there again. I've requested page protection. Any further assistance and perspective you may provide will be helpful. Thanks, 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:27, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Upcoming editathons: Women in Nursing & Women Labor Activists

You are invited...

Women in Nursing editathon & Women Labor Activists editathon
Hosted by Women in Red - September 2016 - #wikiwomeninred

(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 16:44, 27 August 2016 (UTC) via MassMessage

Hey, Thanks I need help

Hey, Thanks I need help
how do i format my draft properly? Skyegh1234 (talk) 16:56, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

THANK YOU

Dear Tokyogirl79, I thank you for your valuable feedback, guidance and time. Such guidance and feedback from Wikipedians like you motivates people like me in a very positive manner to follow guidelines and policies of Wikipedia strictly. Thanks once again. --Piyushratnu (talk) 07:33, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

New article improvement drives

Check out the following new article improvement drives/contests. North America1000 11:51, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Anime Matsuri

I would appreciate getting your input on the Anime Matsuri article. Long story short, AnimeDisneylover95 and I have been in a long term back and forth about sources. AnimeCons.com now provides all of the content we would normally use for the article, including attendance figures and guests lists, and I usually remove any primary sources used at that point. AnimeDisneylover95 feels that Facebook sources should remain despite them now being redundant. This latest back and forth started of the simple fact of them not using sources at all for the latest guests, of which I revered and posted to their talk page. So far on most of these issues, AnimeDisneylover95 will not talk except in rare circumstances on their talk page, or only communicates via the edit summary, while reverting any warning posts on their talk page.

I've gone back in, did all the usual cleanup including removing those redundant sources, cited the guests, but made additional updates as some content had changed. Again, reverted, but this time they've missed most of the new edits. At this point, if I have to walk away on the Facebook issue, so be it, but AnimeDisneylover95 needs to at least have basic communication to improve the article. They seem very intent on using Facebook Primary Sources, something not exactly usual. Esw01407 (talk) 01:06, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Restoration of Creately from deleted PROD

Thanks for pinging me when you restored Creately from a deleted PROD. I have neither the mop nor the secret handshake so am unsure about what the book of rules says in these cases, but I do wonder if it might be better restoring such articles as Drafts rather than into main space. That would at least encourage (although not enforce) a review of the content before it came back as a fully fledged article. It might just save some time in managing AfDs. Regards  Velella  Velella Talk   19:54, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

  • True, but I figured that I'd see whether or not you wanted to pursue anything further. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:15, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
- Hi Tokyogirl79, should there be a Template:Old prod full, or something on the article's talkpage? kitten stalker - meowr! Coolabahapple (talk) 07:41, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Creating For Redirection Purposes

I noticed that you were the last person to delete the page for Kyle Kulinski. I request that the page be able to be recreated to be redirected to the Secular Talk page. Kyle is more than big enough to have his page created for redirection. His channel is the 5th largest political channel in terms of views on YouTube at 19.5 Million+ views a month, making his content some of the most viewed political commentary online. In addition, he regularly appears on The Young Turks and other TV news shows. TempTTC (talk) 22:02, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

  • I'm somewhat concerned about the lack of sourcing on the Secular Talk page - the sourcing there looks to be entirely WP:PRIMARY, which cannot show notability for the show. My concern here is that even if I create a redirect for the show the article may still be deleted because the show might not pass WP:GNG. One thing to remember is that popularity (WP:ITSPOPULAR) does not give notability on Wikipedia, nor does its association with other networks (or its host's association with other things) give the show notability (WP:NOTINHERITED). Right now the most important thing is for you to add coverage to the article to show where Secular Talk has been covered in independent and reliable sources per WP:RS. Views and followers on YouTube will not give notability on Wikipedia - at most it might save it from being speedied via WP:A7, but that's about it and it could still be deleted via WP:AfD if it was nominated and notability giving independent RS could not be provided. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 02:00, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

2Leaf Press

See also: Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests § 2Leaf Press

Murph9000 referred me to you. Please tell me why you deleted 2Leaf Press. Thanks. Gdavid01 (talk) 19:50, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

  • I've answered this here. The long and short of all of that is that the article was extremely promotional, which was the main reason that I deleted the article. There were also concerns of notability, but that was more of an aside than the main reason. If the article had not been so promotional I'd probably have declined it since notability was borderline, but the article was so unambiguously promotional that it fully qualified under WP:G11. I've given examples of this at the editor assistance page.
I'm concerned about your conflict of interest here since it looks like you've made a lot of edits about this publisher and there's evidence that suggests that you work for this company. You have not disclosed this COI anywhere that I can see offhand, nor has the other editor that has been creating the pages either. This must be disclosed and I'm concerned that it looks like you've been editing since 2012 without disclosing your COI. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 00:33, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Lake Bodom

Thanks for that nomination - it doesn't look notable to me, and it's blatantly self authored.

But one thing - Mr. Jeffries is a New Zealander so uses dd/mm/yy notation. He is saying it will be released on the 3rd December. Blythwood (talk) 02:44, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Ah! Thanks for that, I'd completely forgotten about the change in format! I think that the US is the only one that really uses the month/day/year format, honestly. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:45, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
OK. Might it be good to update the AfD then for fairness' sake? Blythwood (talk) 12:41, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection

Hello, Tokyogirl79. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.

Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.

In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:

  • Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
  • A bot will post a notification at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard of each use. MusikBot currently does this by updating a report, which is transcluded onto the noticeboard.

Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:49, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Invitation to Women in Architecture & Women in Archaeology editathons


October 2016

Women in Architecture & Women in Archaeology editathons
Faciliated by Women in Red

(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 20:05, 24 September 2016 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Sarah Tiana (revistied)

Hi Tokyogirl79. A while back you helped me sift through some possible sources for Sarah Tiana at Talk:Sarah Tiana#Possible sources. I have been looking for better sources off and on since then, but have not found anything at all. I also noted that User talk:Tokyogirl79/Archive 26#Sarah Tiana s statement was made which says Tiana's filmography should make her notable. Unfortunately, I cannot find anything in their which seems to satisfy WP:NACTOR.The only possibility I can see is "Has a large fan base or a significant 'cult' following", but I am not sure how this is assessed. The article has been edited a bit recently by the same SPA who created the article, but no additional sourcing has been provided at all. Anyway, I am wondering if you would mind taking another peak at the article when you get a spare minute or two and see if AfD may be warranted here. Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:06, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Hmm... I remember it being very borderline and it looks like this is still the case. She has ties to various notable shows and people, but nothing to show that her roles were particularly major enough to show overall notability. Since it's likely that any attempt to redirect it to Reno! 911's cast of characters would be reverted, AfD would probably be a good idea in this situation. You can start one with the redirect option as a possibility. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 01:45, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for taking another look. I posted something at WT:BIOG#Sarah Tiana just as one last try; perhaps somebody there will be able to find some sourcing that I have missed. I can discuss a redirect on the article's talk page, but it does not seem as if it will get much of a response. I can also be bold, but as you say it would probably be reverted. So, it does seem as if this is eventually going to end up at AfD.-- Marchjuly (talk) 02:27, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I'd say open up a discussion on the talk page and redirect the article. If it gets contested, take it to AfD. That way you can say that you at least tried to make it a redirect. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 02:40, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
I started a discussion at Talk:Sarah Tiana#Redirect to List of Reno 911 characters. Maybe other editors will offer some suggestions. Thanks again for your help. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:09, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi again Tokyogirl79. There were no replies to my post after about a week, so I just went ahead and redirected the article. Should the article's talk page be redirected to Talk:List of Reno 911! characters? -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:44, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

MindStir Media

I see that you nominated MindStir Media for speedy deletion giving G5 (creation by a block-evading editor) as a reason, although the article was created on 13 July, while the sockmaster was not blocked until 5 September. It doesn't make a lot of difference in this case, as I have deleted the article under CDS G11 (promotion) anyway, but it may be worth watching out for similar mistakes, as it could make a difference another time. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:04, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Restore draft article

Dear TokyoGirl, I noticed you deleted the page "National Capital Poison Center". I kindly request to recreate the page. I'm writing about an NGO - not sure what you were referring to in terms of "unambiguous advertising". Happy to take a look at the copy you noted was taken from another WP page and cite it accordingly. Sincerely SherlockPoems (talk) 21:50, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

  • There were several portions that came across as promotional. The basic gist was that it looked like you were writing the article to put the center in as positive light as possible and to highlight every service they offer, in order to make it more likely that someone would use their services. To be very honest, it greatly resembled a press release or something that was generally written by someone who is involved with marketing/PR for the center. Here are a couple of things that I notice just offhand:
You use the registered trademark symbol. This is considered to be inappropriate for Wikipedia because it can seem promotional (it's extremely common in press releases) and also because it goes against the site's general WP:MoS.
You list the organization's hotline number, as well as a lot of nitty gritty about the call in options. Wikipedia almost never includes phone numbers unless this number has been the focus of a lot of in-depth coverage and even then, it's almost uniformly excluded. You adding this in made it promotional.
A lot of the article looked to be written in promotional speak. Offhand it looks like it was also taken from this press release and likely others. It looks like you closely paraphrased or at least directly lifted phrases from here and here, among other places. You also copied from this Wikipedia article without giving credit to the page itself. I should also note that material existing in a certain format elsewhere does not make it appropriate for Wikipedia. Part of the issue with taking material from somewhere else is that it's almost always written to promote the topic in question because they want people to use their services and see them as generally good.
I did not notice the copyright issues in the beginning and I've re-deleted the page to show that copyright was also an issue here. Using material verbatim or closely paraphrasing from this material is considered to be a copyright violation and articles can be deleted on this basis alone. The way that the article was written gives off the strong impression that you likely have a conflict of interest here. You can still edit with a COI and AfC is exactly the right place for this, but you will need to disclose this and you will also need to be very, very careful about how you phrase things. This can be difficult, especially if you are used to writing PR or other marketing materials, so I would recommend using the WP:TEAHOUSE pretty heavily throughout the editing process. I don't have any problems with you making a new version of the draft, but it must be written neutrally and in your own words. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:10, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the tips. Interestingly in the AAPC article you're quoting the telephone number is ok to be used. Can you please provide me at least with the copy of my original article so that I can modify it according to your comments and work with the teahouse - I don't have any copies of it. Thanks in advance. SherlockPoems (talk) 16:04, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Request to Comment on Draft Entry

Dear Tokyogirl79,

I saw your profile on Wikipedia and realised you make very objective comments. You seem like a nice person who makes sense.

For a start, two of my entries were accepted Kok Heng Leun and Lim Teck Yin, but I thought I could further improve in my writing quality, especially when it comes to bio writing and helping local talents.

I am new to Wikipedia, so can I trouble you to help me improve or comment on this draft entry? : )

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Kwong_Weng_Yap

PS: Yes, I was scouting, and Yap was on the news lately. So I thought he merited a wiki page after zooming through his online stuff. Realized it's not a one-time off event that he received some national fame. I think he does have something credible going on.

Thats why I decided to write it, and string it together first.

Look forward to hearing from you.

Warmest, Superwifi (talk) 08:30, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

  • I'll try to take a look at this tonight - school just started up so I have had less time to work on Wikipedia lately. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:32, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Dear Tokyogirl79, Thank you for your reply. Hope school is treating you well! The start of the semester is always rather tedious. Anyway, I just put up the article but still await for your valuable inputs so I can improve on the article. : ) I have created three articles now, each with its own merit. But am trying to do better for each one. Please kindly take a look:

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

Warmest Superwifi (talk) 18:40, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

  • I'm doing some editing. The main thing to be careful of is that you don't put in promotional writing or personal opinions, as either of these things can make an article a target for deletion. Sourcing is also an issue since you use a lot of WP:PRIMARY sources to back up claims. This isn't against the rules per se (unless it's Linkedin, which can't be used at all), but they can't show notability, which is something that needs to be established in each article - especially as he does not automatically inherit notability by working for notable companies or being active in his professions. Secondly, you also used sources that don't actually mention Yap. For example, you used sources that talk about the companies he's worked for, but they don't mention Yap. You can't use these to back up claims that he's worked for the company in question.
The biggest issue so far that I'm focusing on is the repeated praise you put in the article. Yap does seem like a nice, hardworking person, but this is inappropriate to put in an article and something like that runs the risk of getting nominated for a speedy deletion as unambiguous promotion if the wrong person sees it. Examples of this would be the repeated dropping of quotes and comments by other people. Some quotes can be fine depending on how and where you use them, but this was added frequently. Also be careful of statements like this one:
The tone is lighthearted, but the message of hope, with specific emphasis on competitive Singapore, is unequivocal.
At best this is a personal opinion, but at worst it's something that you'd find in a press release, which is what we need to avoid with articles. On a side note, if you are someone who was paid or otherwise asked to write the article, you do need to disclose this in order to satisfy WP:COI requirements. The way the article was written gives off the impression that you likely are and that's OK, you just have to be careful about how you write and source articles as well as make sure that you follow COI guidelines. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:46, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
  • OK, cleaned the rest of the article. One thing I noted with the writing section was that it used a lot of primary sources, which I removed since they aren't entirely needed here. From what I can remember, I think one of the other sources mentioned him writing for various publications. The other thing I want to note is that you used a lot of quotes from various people. Something to be very, very careful about is that you don't use book blurbs in an article. Book blurbs are short 1-3 sentence quotes that the publisher and/or author directly seeks out in order to promote a book. Sometimes, but not always, these quotes are done as sort of a "tit for tat" type of situation, which is part of the reason we can't use them. One of the other reasons is that because they're sought out directly by the publisher to be placed on the book jacket or website for the book, they're seen as primary to a certain degree. If you can show that they were part of a longer review then that can be used then that can be added, but you'd need to be able to verify it. The main one I think could probably be used is the one by the Straits Times journalist, as long as it's part of a book review and not an offhand mention in an article. The sentence was a little vague so it could be the journalist's opinion or it could be them mentioning some of the book's press material - you have to be very careful about that.
In any case, the main thing you need to do right now is find sourcing like the article in the Straits Times that writes about him in-depth. Something to take into consideration is that the sourcing doesn't have to be in English - if there's coverage in another language you can use that as well, as long as it's in a WP:RS. I'm still a little concerned about notability, but I figure that I'll let you work on improving the article. If anyone tags it for deletion before you finish searching, just ask them if you can transfer the draft to your userspace at User:Superwifi/Kwong Weng Yap or to move it back to Draft:Kwong Weng Yap (admins can do this). Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:11, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Dear Tokyogal79,

Let me start off by saying a huge thank you. Your inputs were useful, relevant and precise. To be honest, I was trying different methods of expressing myself in this one, i.e. quotes, primary sources, opinions. I am now much clearer, and agree with the points you made. There is no COI here. My English is definitely not good enough to get paid to do up a professional wiki article. Nevertheless, I wish I could be paid more on my job in very expensive Singapore. :) Oh and yes, I was confused between book review and book blurbs. I thought the comments made on the book can be used in the article but it is clear now. Pardon my ignorance... Anyway, let me now work on finding sources to substantiate the points, and continue to improve the article.

One quick question: there are currently no references on both books listed in the article. Would editors be keen to know where the books came from? I found one review from a magazine that reviewed Yap's book but couldn't find any review for the Special Forces book. Should I just include the primary source references or just leave it as it is, since editors would check online anyway if they wanted to verify? Once again, thank you very much for pointing out to me the mistakes I would have made otherwise.

Wishing you a wonderful day ahead. Warmest, Superwifi (talk) 16:39, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

16:35:58, 4 October 2016 review of submission by Andre Farnsworth


Hi Tokyogirl79 I appreciate your feedback it definitely helps to edit my submission, however I have to question the fact that you claim that for an actor to be on a broadway play as a performer it's not reason enough to make him notable... I disagree... there are thousand of actors that never even make it to a NY stage so I think being one of the best, being cast on a show in one of the most competitive cities in the world is something to show for. You can search for actors on wikipidia that have done movies and never won awards and they still have approved pages... also I based our page on another voice teacher's wikipedia page, and this one is live https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seth_Riggs how was his page approved when he never won awards and in my view as more self promotion then our submission...? happy to continue to do edits on my end, just think that our page can go live with some minor adjustments and not be declined based on your current feedback and judgement of our sources (as they are, for our industry, the leading channels at this point). Let me know what you think, Thanks so much!! Andre Farnsworth (talk) 16:35, 4 October 2016 (UTC)Andre Farnsworth

  • That's part of the Wikipedia guidelines - just being part of something does not give automatic notability on Wikipedia, as notability is not automatically inherited by the notability of Broadway. Any experienced editor worth their salt will tell you the same thing. The reason for this is that there are thousands of Broadway actors. Some will gain coverage, some will not, and the way Wikipedia works is that an actor will only gain notability when they have been the focus of in-depth coverage in an independent and reliable source - or they have performed in a production that has been reviewed in an independent RS and they are mentioned in the review itself in a critical manner. As far as the existence of other pages goes (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS), you need to be aware that in many cases the other article probably doesn't pass notability guidelines and actually warrants deletion. Sometimes the people do have the coverage necessary to pass GNG, but in most cases pointing out the other article just results in the deletion of said article. Riggs's notability is somewhat in question so I've brought it up on our BLP noticeboard and it's possible that it might go up for deletion, which likely wasn't your intent in mentioning it. This is why it's really, really not a good idea to try to argue for inclusion based on other people's articles. Sometimes it can backfire and end up with someone else losing an article.
Now as far as the sourcing goes, I gave a pretty detailed explanation as to why the sources on the draft wouldn't be able to establish notability on Wikipedia. Most of them were either trivial mentions, didn't mention Farnsworth at all, or they were routine database listings. Only one of them was truly in-depth and mentioned Farnsworth. The thing about sourcing is that a publication itself doesn't automatically make a source a sign of notability. For example, Playbill can be seen as a RS on Wikipedia, but the fact that it's Playbill doesn't automatically make the source independent and in-depth. The source would still need to go into depth about Farnsworth and not be a routine database listing or a reprint of a press release. You need more coverage like the BWW article, if it exists. There's no way around that and anyone who tells you differently would be doing you a huge disservice. I would highly recommend that you check out the WP:TEAHOUSE and WP:RS/N while editing your article and looking for sources, as they can also help tell you if something can be a RS or should be added to the article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:35, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Also, are you related to Farnsworth? If so, you need to disclose this on the draft's talk page. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:36, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Just because I like your username. :)

AIZENMEMORY•THOUGHT 01:54, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

User:LeTroubecker

Special:Contributions/LeTroubecker

Needs immediate blocking, suppression etc. Cheers, Muffled Pocketed 10:26, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Dealt with and I contacted an oversighter so that they can do what else needs to be done. I'll also contact the WMF in general. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:44, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
Seen, many thanks. Apologies, I should've said, I did email OS, and asked for it to be passed on to legal, but haven't heard back. Sorry about that. Mind you, TWO reports might activate their alarm clock ;)'Muffled Pocketed 10:51, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Yeah, that was a pretty bad one. I've dealt with my own share of death and rape threats, but I've never had anyone say that they knew where I lived while making said threats. At least in the ones I have been able to see. There are a few that were wiped by an oversighter to where even an admin can't access them. They're related to this SPI, so I tagged them accordingly as well. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:57, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
Hardcore. Of course, we're also the Encyclopedia that anyone can troll, huh. I was involved in the Kurdish Cinema guy's earlier incarnations, but took my eye of the ball there. Carry on! Muffled Pocketed 11:12, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
My own thought process behind leaving the request visible at the Kurdish Cinema page is that it should be known what this potential long-term abuser will be pushing for, so far as content is concerned. It seems to have rattled you what was said- who did he snap at this time? I know he has a personal vendetta against LouisAragon. DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 11:22, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
Majora, for starting the SPI. Agree about leaving that request up, it will form part of a paper trail. Muffled Pocketed 11:26, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
Eh, the little darling will probably go after me next. He'll probably nominate Dota 2 and Sidney Hall (film) for deletion, since "they're not real countries". :P DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 11:31, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

I would just like to say thank you for the quick action on that. The sock will probably be back. Good thing I don't scare easily. --Majora (talk) 22:39, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks everyone here for the prompt action! - LouisAragon (talk) 00:38, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Tokyogirl79, I just sent you an email as well. - LouisAragon (talk) 00:42, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Do you know if there has been a sweep for socks? Really, the only thing that is causing this editor problems is that they're determined to add I Want to Live to Wikipedia. If only they'd stop trying to add that no-name movie, they'd have a better shot at getting along here. I wish they'd understand our perspective that it's simply not worthy of inclusion. DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 17:49, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure, honestly, but probably given the amount of SPIs opened in the past. I know that there's an SPI open, so if there wasn't one already there should be one now. However from what I can see, it looks like he's creating his accounts one at a time, after the prior account has been blocked. He might also be doing something to hide his trail, which would make a sweep difficult or even impossible. There might be a case for a title blacklist if this continues, but the title seems like it might be common enough to where it could be more harmful than helpful. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:56, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
I haven't seen anything for I Want to Live pop up, so that's a sign they're not back yet. At this point, I'm not even sure they could edit Wikipedia without trying to recreate that damned page. By the way, I'm willing to bet they're the director Karzan Kardozi. I can't imagine anyone else on the face of the planet caring this much. DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 09:20, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
  • You'd probably win it too - most people don't care about Wikipedia enough to go to those lengths. If it is him, then yeah... not a way to progress your career, especially if someone were to research a little deeper and find the death threats. I mean, you'd think that a guy who made a film about a group of people known for making (and following up on) threats of death and violence against others would realize that it's not a good idea to make threats himself. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:25, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
Oh my God. Within four minutes of the semi-protection status being lifted, they have at the page again. We are officially dealing with a nut... who is also probably a certain filmmaker. By the way, I've made some notable films myself, but I wouldn't in a million years create pages about that. Let the work speak for itself, not the author. DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 02:01, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
Just want to point out that the new suspected sock is autoconfirmed now and Kurdish cinema is still protected (at least for a few more hours). --Majora (talk) 02:05, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
Shit, you're right. I suppose we'll just have to keep on reverting and blocking KurdoKardir's socks from here on out. Indefinite semi-protection wouldn't hurt, however. DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 02:15, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/KurdoKardir for the newest sock. I'm also asking if you would be willing to ECP that page due to the persistent sock puppetry that semi is not seeming to fix. --Majora (talk) 23:53, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Jerry Toupin

Thank You for trying to keep my page in Wikipedia alive.....You are right....my name is also in a dictionnary...please let me know as to how I can improve the page. I have included 2 links...one about my book from Amazon.ca and my interview about my book in Youtube....You can also see my Curriculum Vitae in Academia.

Thank You — Preceding unsigned comment added by JERRY1414 (talk • contribs) 19:58, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

  • @JERRY1414: The problem though, is that Amazon is not usable as a source to establish notability. This is an e-commerce site, so it only exists to sell things to someone, so it can never be neutral. To make matters worse, putting an e-commerce link on a Wikipedia page can make it instantly promotional because it's purpose. The YouTube link isn't really usable for a couple of reasons. The first is that since you posted it on your own channel, it brings up the issue of copyright since we don't know if you own the rights to it (if it was done on TV then the TV station would own the rights) - that poses an issue per WP:COPYVIO, which is why YT links tend to be so infrequently used. The other issue is that we can't really see where the interview was aired or when (if I go by your CV it looks like it would be Le Téléjournal but I can't make out the logo), two things that we'd absolutely need to know in order for the appearance to be useful. There's also a side issue with this - some editors consider interviews to be WP:PRIMARY sources since half of the content is provided by yourself. I don't necessarily agree with this since I believe that if a reliable source (like say, CNN or even a smaller but equally well known local station) were to bring someone in for an interview that's specifically about them, that should count towards notability. In any case, at best interviews tend to be depreciated as a source on here. The other issue is that the dictionary that covered you was written by your alma mater. This makes it a bit of an issue because even though it's a university press, it's "your" university press, which means that of course they want to cover successful graduates. This last portion is a bit frustrating because a person can be successful, but success doesn't guarantee notability on Wikipedia. We've had people form million or billion dollar companies, yet still fail notability guidelines on here. Also, the CV doesn't really do anything as far as Wikipedia goes. We could use it to back up some basic details, but we can't use it to show notability. The main thing to remember is that notability isn't automatically inherited or given because you've put out work or had an association with notable places and people. This last part isn't meant to sound snotty, just that it's super difficult to establish notability for academics on here. To put things in perspective, Stanley Salmons was up for AfD and if not for a bunch of us fighting for it, it would've likely been deleted and our research ended up showing that he was a hugely influential pioneer in his field. It's just that since his field was pretty niche, RS weren't falling over themselves to cover him like they would Watson and Crick.
I looked at the CV and it looks like you've received some coverage, however the thing to be careful of is the how of the coverage. The coverage has to be about you specifically. If you were brought in to comment on something that you know about then this won't give notability on here. Someone can be a reliable source in and of themselves, but this doesn't give notability on Wikipedia, at least not automatically. If any of the coverage is articles about you, reviews about your book, and the like, that could be usable to establish notability as long as it's published in a place that Wikipedia considers to be reliable. It would also have to be independent of you, so it couldn't be written by an outlet that you're affiliated with, or by someone who is affiliated with you in some form or fashion. You would probably have to provide scans of the articles if they're not on the Internet, but they could be used. I've posted to ask if any of the affiliations or honors you've received would be enough to establish notability per WP:NACADEMIC. That's a possibility, but the problem here is that it's really, really hard to pass this guideline because the bar is set insanely high. This is because it's expected for an academic to put out a large body of work (the old "publish or perish" saying still rings true). Academics tend to have to be of near Shakespeare notability within their fields to pass NACADEMIC, so it's actually easier in many cases to pass other criteria. Offhand I'm not sure if the achievements on your CV, while obviously impressive, would be enough to pass over the bar - which as I said, is insanely high for academics.
Now from what I did see and understand in the CV, what type of bestseller list did the book hit? Bestseller lists can establish notability in very specific situations. By this I mean that it hit a national bestseller list on a major newspaper or media outlet's charts. We can't use stuff like Amazon bestseller lists because the lists on there are relatively easily tweaked (ie, very dynamic), hard to verify, and are specifically eliminated as a bestseller list via the WP:NBOOK guidelines. The same thing goes if it was a bestseller at a specific store, ie - if it was "just" a bestseller at Audrey's Bookstore then this wouldn't show notability on Wikipedia. It has to be a major list, which can be very hard to establish. It's part of the reason that it was so difficult for myself and others to get bestseller lists added to the NBOOK guidelines, despite it being such an obvious sign of notability when you look at the extremely well known lists like the New York Times Bestseller Lists.
Hopefully this long section give some clarity about everything. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:14, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

He's Back

Davide Anselmi (composer)

I don't have the sockmaster history to file on him, nor the sorcery to see how close this article matches previous ones, so letting you and your stalkers know. :) CrowCaw 18:29, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

  • @Crow: It doesn't match entirely. He's made some new claims, however one of the things about this guy is that he likes to make a lot of huge claims, like Sacha Baron Cohen starring in one of his films, which ended up being obviously false. Cohen is a big enough star to where him being in a film would give notability, so there would've been coverage. A quick look for his name along with Maze Runner produces no results in reliable sources - just in places reported by Anselmi or ones that can be easily edited by random users. I'm going to delete it as a block and AfD evasion, then go and ask for some sort of title blacklist for the guy. He's just a hoaxer looking for some fame. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:01, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks! I left a suggested regex that should work, just need someone to sanity check and add. I think MER-C is the only one regularly updating the list these days. CrowCaw 21:54, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

An invitation to November's events


November 2016

Announcing two exciting online editathons
Women in Food and Drink and Women Writers
as well as our strong support for articles on women in connection with
Wikipedia Asian Month
Faciliated by Women in Red

(To subscribe: Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 18:07, 23 October 2016 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Halloween cheer!

Happy Halloween!

Hello Tokyogirl79:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!
    – North America1000 00:06, 1 November 2016 (UTC)



Send Halloween cheer by adding {{subst:Happy Halloween}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ReaderofthePack/Archive_29&oldid=1141425759"