Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 24 Archive 25 Archive 26 Archive 27 Archive 28 Archive 29 Archive 30 Archive 31 Archive 32 Archive 33 Archive 34 Archive 35 Archive 36 Archive 37 Archive 38 Archive 39 Archive 40 Archive 41 Archive 42

This page has archives. Sections older than 31 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Thank you for taking the time to edit this page and make some adjustments to the tone of the writing. I posted this comment on the Women of Tibet: A Quiet Revolution page but I didn't hear anything back so I thought I would respond to you here as well. You have held the page up in review because you question the notability of the film. I'd like to assuage your concerns by giving you some insight into film industry.

Firstly, a regional Emmy is notable. An regional Emmy award is an Emmy and it is considered one of the most notable 'peer- judged' honors in television. I mention 'peer-judged' to be clear that the judges for these awards are professional filmmakers in the specific field they are judging. For example only working film producers can judge films nominated for production. If you are still unsure about an Emmy’s notability please read this article, it should help you understand what an Emmy is. [1] It is also important to note that Northern California is a very large and thriving community of documentary filmmakers. These filmmakers make up this competitive pool of Emmy contenders who are producing high quality films that are informative and groundbreaking. A Quiet Revolution, had to compete in this pool in order to be awarded an Emmy.

Secondly, it is not a given that a film is accepted at a film festival and for some film festivals, you must be invited. With that said, in the film community, it is an honor to be accepted and screened at a film festival, especially one as prestigious as the Mill Valley Film Festival—as was the case for this film. In short, being invited to be screened at film festivals does increase the films notability.

To be clear, there is no dispute that this film has won multiple awards, including an Emmy; has been aired on PBS; has been screened at prestigious film festivals; screened at reputable universities, included in university curriculums and libraries, at institutions such as Stanford University, University of Southern California, the University of Virginia, among others. As far as the film community, there is no issue with notability.SeaSalt7 (talk) 22:42, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Film festival showings cannot show notability. They can make it more likely that a film will gain coverage but it is never a guarantee and Wikipedia does not consider showings to be something that will give notability. I'm not sure where you heard that they would, but they do not. We've had multiple films get deleted via AfD due to a lack of coverage despite the films screening at various festivals, sometimes even festivals that are exceedingly notable. When it comes to the Emmy, regional Emmys tend to be greatly depreciated on Wikipedia and are not considered to be on the same level as the Emmys seen on TV. Generally speaking they're considered to be the type of award that can give partial notability since they are an Emmy, but they cannot give the complete notability that a national Emmy would. As far as being the focus of instruction in various colleges, that also doesn't guarantee notability. The same thing goes for being shown on PBS. Like film showings it can make it more likely that there will be coverage, but it is not a guarantee. The long and short is that there just isn't enough coverage right now to warrant this film passing notability guidelines.

Also, are you the film's director or anyone involved with the film in any context? By this I mean that you are part of the cast, crew, friend/family, or someone who was asked to create an article for the filmmaker? I'm asking because your edits tend to center predominantly upon Rawcliffe's work. If you are, I would like for you to read over the conflict of interest guidelines and I'd also like for you to declare your COI on your userpage. You can still edit with a COI, but the issue with COI editing is that it's very easy to take things more personal than they are intended and it's also easy for you to see more notability than there may otherwise be. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:42, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Tnguyen4321 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Ia Drang Battle in its Pleime Campaign Context (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Mjkelly26 (talk) 09:32, 12 May 2015 (GMT)

Hi Tokyogirl79, a few months ago you deleted a submission of mine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ConcertHotels.com, but you provided some fantastic feedback. I've taken your points on board and I've just resubmitted my entry. I hope that you feel it is much improved and would love to hear your feedback, Many thanks, Mike \

Hi Tokyogirl79, i have posted the following message on FreeatlastChitchat talk as i was a little bit peeved that i was unable to put in my 5 cents worth:)

Hi FreeatlastChitchat, just wondering why i wasn't pinged for the 4th nomination even though i commented on the 2nd nomination with a suggestion that it might be a keep? See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rape jihad (2nd nomination) Also, im a bit confused about the timing of the final two nominations - 4th opened 0605 on 13 April (only two days after previous nomination was closed?) and closed at 1534 on 13 April and then the 5th nomination opened at 17:39 on 10 May 2015 and closed at 17:01, 11 May 2015. I am also copying this message (with some more words:)) to Tokyogirl79 an administrator who may be able to clear up the timing issues of this afd avalanche and puts up with my, at times, naive 'kittenish' comments/questions.thanks, Coolabahapple (talk) 07:20, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, are you able to clear up the timing of the afds as they are extremely confusing for a wikieditor like me, let alone a casual reader who may stumble across them....

And a question about the red rape jihad page, here is the log at the top:

This page has been deleted. The deletion and move log for the page are provided below for reference.

17:02, 11 May 2015 Spartaz (talk | contribs) deleted page Rape jihad (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rape jihad (5th nomination) closed as delete)

00:29, 27 March 2015 DGG (talk | contribs) restored page Rape jihad (39 revisions restored: temp undelete)

22:42, 26 March 2015 Hut 8.5 (talk | contribs) deleted page Rape jihad (G4: Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion)

01:38, 4 March 2015 Coffee (talk | contribs) deleted page Rape jihad (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rape jihad)

just wondering why all the afds aren't shown.

and just wondering why a 'redirect' wasn't entertained as i think some curious kittens net readers might google the term, then think about wikisearching it.

and finally (phew!:)),(humor alert!) could this be seen as an example of wp:mobbing or wp:avalanche (where are the wikiarticle on this?), where wikieditors pile on to an issue?

thanks Coolabahapple (talk) 07:20, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Coolabahapple I have to admit that I wasn't aware of the last two AfDs while they were active. I know now that they happened, but at the time I'd been relatively unaware because of how relatively quickly everything happened. Given how controversial everything had been over the article I do think that it might have been slightly better if it'd run for a full week instead of just 1-2 days. In any case, the reason why not all of the AfDs show up on the page for Rape jihad is because the article had been present under a different capitalization. Here's basically the timeline I'm somewhat familiar with:

1. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rape Jihad September 2013 (first AfD, closed as delete)
2. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rape jihad March 2014 (second AfD, closed as delete)
3. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rape jihad (2nd nomination) April 2015 (marked as the second AfD, but this is actually the third AfD for the article, closed as no consensus)
4. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rape jihad (4th nomination) April 2015 (fourth AfD- the number of this one is changed to reflect on the prior AfDs, closed as speedy keep due to it being too soon to renominate)
5. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rape jihad (5th nomination) May 2015 (fifth AfD, closed as delete)

The article has only been deleted four times, technically. The first one at Rape Jihad was deleted and never re-created, but the second article at rape jihad was deleted three times: the first time was for an AfD, the second time was as a recreation of a deleted article (but was recreated in order to bring to AfD again), and the last time was for an AfD. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:03, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the explanation, yes it would have been nice to have the discussion open for a bit longer, oh well.... next! :) Coolabahapple (talk) 08:45, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Tokyogirl79. It would be appreciable if I am given one more chance to improve and resubmit the article Draft:Kendriya Vidyalaya, Rayagada Hpsatapathy (talk) 14:09, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Hpsatapathy, it looks like the article is back in the mainspace at Kendriya Vidyalaya, Rayagada. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:32, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Puppysnot (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:University of Virginia Greek life (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi Tokyogirl79, thank you for reviewing my draft article. I would like to request a re-review of the article based on the alleged lack of primary sources in Draft:University of Virginia Greek life. I believe that notability was very clearly established, as the university was the birthplace of two national fraternities (in addition to having a very large number of Greek organizations that were significant to the history of the university itself, and significant coverage in national media in the past year). I've looked back through my references, and there are a number of sources that meet WP:RELIABLE, certainly a greater number than required by WP:NOTABILITY. The following are just some of the sources I used that are published, independent, secondary sources permissible under WP:PRIMARY:

• Baird's Manual of American College Fraternities, by William Raymond Baird. The author was not involved with U.Va. and the book was published independent of U.Va.
• "The Worst Journalism of 2014", by David Uberti of the Columbia Journalism Review.
• "Rolling Stone Retracts Article on Rape at the University of Virginia", by Ravi Somaiya of the New York Times.
• "A Rape on Campus: A Brutal Assault and Struggle for Justice at UVA", by Sabrina Rubin Erdely.

The following are also permissible as reliable sources under WP:PRIMARY, which states: "Secondary sources are not necessarily independent or third-party sources. They rely on primary sources for their material, making analytic or evaluative claims about them." The sources listed below meet these guidelines; even though they are related to the University of Virginia, they are published histories that analyze the material and do not rely on the author's own experiences.

• Jefferson, Cabell, and the University of Virginia, by John S. Patton, Librarian of U.Va. This reliable source was published by The Neale Publishing Company, an independent publisher.
• Mr. Jefferson's University: A History, by Virginius Dabney. Published by the U.Va. Press and the author was a U.Va. alumnus and fraternity member, but again, a published source that analyzes primary material, making it a reliable secondary source.
• History of the University of Virginia: 1819-1919, by Philip Alexander Bruce. The author was a U.Va. alum but was a notable historian and the work was published by Macmillan, an independent publisher. The source is secondary and reliable for the same reason as listed above.

With this, I think that there are a very appropriate number of reliable, independent, and secondary sources used in this article. I do use a lot of primary sources as well, but those are mainly for the brief notes about each chapter listed in the tables towards the bottom of the article.

Also, I tried to avoid any issues with WP:PEACOCK, but I'd be happy to go back through and try to remove any phrases that may sound too pro-Greek life.

Thank you for your help, and I hope to hear from you soon. Puppysnot (talk) 15:45, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Puppysnot, the issue with the rape allegation stories is that it could be argued that it's redundant to the article on the false charges and as such, the information about Greek life can be divvied up between the main UVA article and the one on the false charges. However what makes the other sources primary is that Patton is the Librarian of UVA. He's an employee of the college, so that would make him primary. The same thing goes for the one printed by UVA Press, the college's publishing arm, and for the one published by someone who attended UVA. The thing about these isn't that they used primary sources to write their work but that two of the people have direct links to the college and UVA Press is part of the college. Basically, one is an employee of the college and as such, would have a vested interest in writing about the college in a positive manner. The same thing goes for the alumni- since he attended the college there's the potential that his view could be altered by this fact. That UVA's official publishing company could be prone to biases goes without saying, as everything they release is a reflection on the university itself. What makes primary sources unusable is that it's in their best interests to promote themselves and since they are writing about themselves, there's the potential that they could either gloss over facts, eliminate them, or change them. They're not secondary in the slightest and all of the sources here are too close to the topic (UVA and by extension its Greek life). There's also the issue that it's obvious that UVA and its alumni will want to write about the college- the question here is whether or not an independent, secondary source would. In other words, the issue here isn't that the authors are using materials that were released by UVA but that the authors/publisher themselves are very closely affiliated with UVA. You need to have more coverage on Greek life that isn't written or published by someone that is directly affiliated with the school. For example, if Alexander was not an alumni of UVA, his work would be fine to use as a secondary source. However because he's alumni, that makes him a primary source.

Now this doesn't mean that any of these people would compromise the material for their work and odds are that they wouldn't. However the fact is that Wikipedia has had this happen with primary sources to the point where they just can't be used to show notability. In this instance what I'm more worried about isn't that the claims in the article aren't true (although it'd be good to back them up with non-primary sources) but mostly that someone will come in and say that UVA's Greek life has not been covered in secondary, reliable sources apart from the recent coverage about the Rolling Stone controversy and say that it should redirect to the main article. It can and has happened before with college related groups and I've seen some fairly well-known organizations get deleted/redirected to the main article because of a lack of secondary coverage. However you should also gradually try to find non-primary sources to back things up just so you can fact check things. It's something that people tend to ask for with research in general, really. If you research for a living you're eventually going to be asked if you looked at sourcing that wasn't directly released by the subject, just to make sure that you double checked things. Sometimes you find nothing different when you look and the apple is just an apple. Other times you look and find that the apple isn't an apple, but a pear. And then other times you look and the apple is actually a zebra. But again, what I'm more worried about is that someone will come in and lob "not notable" at the article. AfC articles tend to get a pretty bad reputation so they sometimes get scrutinized far more than articles that are just transferred to the mainspace.

What I'm basically asking for here is for you to throw about 2 sources covering UVA's Greek life that are more than just 1 sentence long. For example, this source would be a good secondary, reliable source to add to the article. Geiger isn't affiliated to UVA and the book isn't the UVA publisher, so this would be usable. To a degree this book would be as well. The mentions are pretty insanely brief, but there are two separate mentions on two different pages. A news search didn't really produce much, mostly because there are so many recent articles on the Rolling Stone stuff. Mostly what I want is to be able to say that when/if someone asks about the article's independent notability, I can say that there was enough non-Rolling Stone coverage to where it'd pass notability guidelines independently. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:02, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tokyogirl79, thanks for your reply and for your advice. I have no problem adding additional sources, I just felt that the article contained enough reliable sources already. Anyway, I have added the two sources that you mentioned as well as a third independent source that briefly mentions a UVa student who helped preserve chapters of Sigma Chi during the Civil War. (This fact is also mentioned in the Encyclopedia of Southern Culture that you linked). I have resubmitted the article for review. In the meantime I will continue to look for more secondary sources.

To address what I said in my last comment, I guess my confusion is with Wikipedia's WP:PRIMARY policy. Under the definition of a "secondary source," the article states: "Secondary sources are not necessarily independent or third-party sources. They rely on primary sources for their material, making analytic or evaluative claims about them....Whether a source is primary or secondary depends on context. A book by a military historian about the Second World War might be a secondary source about the war, but where it includes details of the author's own war experiences, it would be a primary source about those experiences." In this respect, the Patton and Bruce books should be considered secondary sources, because the authors research and analyze the history of Greek life at UVa based on primary sources; they don't discuss their own experiences. Based on the policy above, that would mean the works are secondary sources when discussing the history of the university's Greek system. Any part of the book that relied on their own experiences, however, would be considered a primary source. I'll agree that the Dabney book is more of a primary source because it is published by the U.Va. Press.

Furthermore, WP:BIASED states, "...reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject" and goes on to say, "When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control and a reputation for fact-checking." I believe at the very least the Bruce book, and likely the Patton book as well, also pass this test. Even though the authors likely have bias, both works were published by reliable third-party publishers (or at least Patton's was since it was published by Macmillan; I couldn't find much information on The Neale Publishing Company).

Puppysnot (talk) 15:01, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The long and short of what I wrote was that if the author or publisher has a direct tie to the subject material then that makes it primary. The authors/publishers all had direct ties to UVA and as such, to the Greek life. It doesn't matter what aspect of UVA they write about- it will all be considered a primary source. Basically the worry with primary sources is that since they have that direct tie they have a very strong bias. It's far more likely that they will not want to write about the university in a negative bent, either because they don't want to think about it negatively or because the're afraid that by "biting the hand that feeds/fed them" they will suffer negative repercussions. For the librarian writing negative things about the school could cost him his job. For the author, it could make his degree seem less prestigious and/or interfere with other things. Again, I don't think that either person would be afraid to do this and by large there are more people who have integrity than those who do not. However at the same time there have been multiple cases of bias factoring into academic writing and research (aside from the non-academic bias) to where anything written or published by someone with a direct tie to the topic will be considered a primary source that cannot show notability. That's the biggest thing with this- even if the primary sources are accurate they're not considered to be something that can give notability. It's well within the best interests of all of the people involved to write about something they're involved with. That's only part of the PRIMARY stuff. The other part of it is that there's a concern that even if the material is accurate, that it doesn't show that the topic is of any interest to anyone outside of UVA. That's why the sources need to be completely secondary/independent of the topic. The question/concern here isn't entirely whether or not the sources are accurate but whether or not the topic is of enough interest to where non-UVA people/publishers would write about the topic. Although on a side note, it is good to look for secondary sources as well when you're researching just to get outside opinions and reflections- if your work only contains primary sources then at some level people will start to wonder why you aren't bringing them in. I know that when it comes to history it's harder to look for secondary sources because in many times the historians are drawing from primary accounts (narratives, letters, records, etc), but sometimes you can look at secondary sources to see if others interpreted the source material differently. It's usually easier to explain this with science related materials since a scientist that only references work from his own institution and its scientists will show more obvious flaws.

Notability is proven through secondary sources, which is what I'm most worried about here. If someone goes to the page and sees only primary sources then they're going to wonder why there aren't any non-primary sources. Sad enough to say, a lot of people on Wikipedia do not perform very in-depth source checks. Some don't perform them at all. That means that if they may just assume that there are no secondary sources because no secondary sources exist and that Greek life at UVA is of no interest to anyone other than UVA, which will make them doubt notability and (worst case scenario) they'll put it up for deletion. I've seen people do it with some incredibly notable things. Heck, just recently someone put Captain Sabertooth up for deletion and a search easily proved that the character was notable- he's the Mickey Mouse of Norway for the most part. Same thing goes for a lot of different topics, enough to where I can't remember all of them. AfC articles are scrutinized incredibly heavily, to the point where there's a pretty clear cut bias that AfC is equal to "non notable". I want to ensure that when this gets accepted to the mainspace that people see that there are non-primary sources in the article that do not pertain to the Rolling Stone debacle and don't assume that UVA's Greek life isn't notable. I know that it seems like this would be obvious, but that's how obtuse things are on Wikipedia when it comes to notability. UVA has been around since forever and it makes a lot of sense that this aspect of the university would be notable, especially if you live around the area and see how strong the university (and by extension Greek life) is in the community, even beyond the whole negative, unfair stereotypes towards Greek life. However on Wikipedia whether or not something merits an entry all boils down to secondary, independent coverage and there are a lot of editors that are so single minded about this that unfortunately the rest of us have to edit and source accordingly. They're very vocal and while the standards now are pretty strict, people are only making them stricter and trying to insert some common sense guidelines practically takes an act of Congres. Now that said, if you add those sources to the article I'd be more than happy to accept it. I was trying not to say that directly, but so it goes. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:45, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for clearing up my confusion. It makes sense that the article would need to demonstrate that it's of interest to the general population, not just people at UVa. That said, I've added the two sources you mentioned and the third source that I found (mentioned above), and I've listed the article in AFC again. If you wouldn't mind reviewing the article again at some point, I'd appreciate it! Thanks for your help. Puppysnot (talk) 19:18, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• No problem- I was thinking about it and I realized that we were thinking of primary sources in a different way- you're thinking of them from a historian's point of view and I was thinking about them from the notability point of view. I volunteer at the Library of Virginia and had a similar-ish conversation with one of the historians there over primary sources and then realized that what was going on here. Don't worry if all of this sounds really, really maze-like. Initially the guidelines weren't meant to be as labyrinthine as they are now, but they had to make them more strict over the years to help keep the obviously non-notable stuff off Wikipedia (like my personal family history). It's unfortunately made it harder for the less mainstream visible but obviously notable stuff to get in. (sighs) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:35, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your reversion of the removal of the term "Dego Hoe" because you didn't provide any references, indeed nobody so far has found good references for the term, ie ones that pre-date the first mention of it on the Hoe (tool) article. Batternut (talk) 09:59, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Just added one to the talk page from the University of Chicago Press. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:01, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The reference you subsequently found actually post-dated the first mention of it on the Hoe (tool) article, and has now been shown to be WP:CIRCULAR (see the talk page - the author has confirmed that it was sourced from wikipedia). Any other good reference you can find to support mention of the derogatory term "Dego Hoe" would be useful a contribution. Your edit did actually provoke further improvements to the article for which we can all be grateful. However, I'm sure you're familiar with WP:WIKIHOUNDING - given your recent disagreement with SageRad, I'm afraid that your edit to Hoe (tool), an article in which you haven't previously shown interest, reverting an edit of SageRad's, only 4 minutes after calling for a topic ban on him on Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard might cast the wrong impression! Batternut (talk) 11:21, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are two articles on same city, Majalgaon(2005) and Manjalgaon(2007). I have tagged latest, very very stub and wrong spelled Manjalgaon for deletion. Please delete it. Thank you. --Human3015 Say Hey!! • 09:33, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please be more careful when closing discussions. Your requested move close at Windows 10 Mobile stated that it was "unanimous" in the edit summaries when in fact it clearly was not. Mdrnpndr (talk) 02:33, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I later realized that the "close to" part means "near" as opposed to the meaning of "close" usually used for discussions on Wikipedia. I guess it's more of a clarity issue then... Mdrnpndr (talk) 13:41, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Those weren't really my words. Someone had requested a speedy deletion (WP:G6) where they'd written that as the rationale- I hadn't come across it to specifically close the move discussion. I should have looked closer at the wording, but the consensus at the move was pretty much unanimous towards the end and there was really only one vote against the rename. There was one person asking for caution, but that wasn't really a vote either way. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:25, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything in the guideline you referenced that states that I need more than 3 sources. And can you be more specific about the problem with the tone... it's a description. Miami19 (talk) 15:09, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Miami19, it's more bits here and there, paired with the fact that the sourcing is fairly light. It's not awful, but it is enough that I can tell that you either work directly with the group or were asked by them to create the page. It's the WP:BUZZWORD type of stuff and you can see it best in the sections about the theater and digital world. Don't take this badly, it's just that it's easy to miss buzzwords when you might have a conflict of interest, are used to writing promotional materials, and/or are just unused to editing on Wikipedia. I know that sounds condescending, but it's an issue that just about every new editor on Wikipedia will have when starting out. It's simply just that it's exceedingly easy to write things as a bit of a soapbox or promotion without realizing it. Your article wasn't as bad as others go, but it was noticeable enough to where I felt it needed to be mentioned.

As far as sourcing goes, the issue with organizations is that they are very frequently scrutinized and articles that have exceedingly sparse sourcing are very frequently challenged and brought to WP:AfD or otherwise nominated for deletion. It's expected that they'll have to have a lot of sources- more so than for most other articles. This is partially because many organizations tend to get coverage from outlets they are affiliated with. For example, if RECAA has worked with the University of Concordia then that would make UoC a WP:PRIMARY source or at the very least, a very depreciated source. For example, this source gives off the impression that they've worked together, as did the word "partners" in the article. You can't really rely on awards to give much notability because most of the awards out there aren't considered to be all that major per Wikipedia's guidelines. A lot of editors tend to say that less than 5% of any award ever given (Nobel, Pulitzer, Stanley Cup, etc) would be the type that would give notability. The ones that would give total notability (the very major awards) tend to make up about less than 1% of that 5%. Basically, when an article only has sparse sourcing it leads other editors to believe that those three sources are the only ones that exist and they'll be more likely to tag it for deletion in some form or fashion. Articles accepted at AfC tend to be especially scrutinized since a lot of editors feel that too many articles are prematurely accepted. Many get nominated for deletion and my thing is that I want to make sure that if I accept something, that it won't be challenged and deleted within a year of its acceptance. In other words, you shouldn't be aiming for the bare minimum of sourcing since the minimum level of anything on Wikipedia is extremely likely to be challenged and deleted. Notability standards get strict with each passing year. When I first started editing you only needed 1-2 sources to show notability. The general rule of thumb now is that an article will need at least about 4-5 very solid RS to really be considered notable. The point of all of this is that you shouldn't be complacent with only 3 sources for an article about an organization- they're exceedingly prone to getting nominated for deletion and I'd go so far as to say that they make up about 40% of the articles deleted on Wikipedia.

I'd say that you'd probably need about another 2 sources to really give it a comfortable level of sourcing. Sources like "RECAA"+elder&hl=en&sa=X&ei=5YxmVZmHEeTjsATBwoFw&ved=0CB0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22RECAA%22%20elder&f=false this academic text are excellent things to add to an article and are actually considered to be even stronger than newspaper sources for obvious reasons. Journal entries like this one are also extremely usable for notability purposes. Of course newspaper articles are still usable (I've added one to the article), but academic sources tend to hold a lot more weight since textbooks and journals tend to be considered more authoritative and official. Newspapers are more frequently written so they can cover more material- academic sources tend to be more infrequently written so when they do cover something, it's considered to be quite weighty.

I've added one source to the article and provided two more- these should be able to show notability for the organization. However the RECAA section still needs to be re-written to read a little more neutral. Again, be careful about descriptions since they can very, very easily become promotional without you intending it to read as such. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:04, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• It's very funny to see how different wikipedia's referencing rules are from our standard in academia! What is unveiled as a partnership or affiliated source and what is not! Miami19 (talk) 13:02, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Well... one of the biggest differences between academia and Wikipedia is that academia is free to write almost whatever they want, to the point where many of us on here will readily state that an encyclopedia article is a completely different beast than most things created/written in the academic world. They have some limitations of course, but they can do more original research and use fewer sources to back up their claims. This is because they're creating research and they don't have to rely on proving notability and backing up claims. Academics also have more freedom to insert objective prose into their work- especially if there is an open tie between its author and the topic of their research/article. They can't be over the top promotional, but they have much more freedom with buzzwords, descriptions, and peacock phrases than they would in an encyclopedia article. However the thing with encyclopedia articles is that they have to be completely free of anything that would come across as being a potential bias (promotional tones, overly negative tones, etc) and they have to solidly assert notability. The notability part is especially important since as was said above, academia doesn't always have to have a ton of sources to back up their work and can rely on only a handful (or none, although that's frowned upon in many places). They don't have to assert notability- they only have to back up claims. However with Wikipedia articles you have to assert notability, which is probably one of the most important parts of the article's creation. Promotional tones and OR are issues that need to be fixed, but the vast majority of deletions on Wikipedia are done because notability was not thoroughly asserted. There have been pages that have been proposed for deletion based on promotional or OR concerns, but were saved because there were enough sources to thoroughly assert notability- in other words, to show that it would be worth someone's time to clean things up. However there have also been times when pages were deleted based on promotional/OR concerns because notability was not thoroughly asserted and a page that's borderline promotional with a low amount of sourcing is more likely to be deleted because it raises concerns about notability overall. I can't stress how important it is to try to properly source things with as many good, strong RS as possible. Don't do the bare minimum, as standards constantly change. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:30, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Menotti Lerro - analysis of remaining references:

1. Chiappani Rodichevski, Gloria. "Intervista a Menotti Lerro: editoria e poesia". Moroedro. Retrieved 28 May 2015. -> This is one person's site (Chiappani), a rather extensive blog.

2. Annali Storici di Principato Citra - IX, 1, 2011, pp. 5-27" (PDF). Retrieved 2012-07-23. -> This lists a work of his in a table of contents, but that's all.

3. Poesia, Crocetti, Anno XVI Giugno 2003 N° 173 - ?? No access to this

4. The Poetry of Menotti Lerro". Cambridge Scholars. Retrieved 28 May 2015. - a sales site

5. "31 STYCZNIA - Pieśni Tomasza Krezymona". The University of Gdańsk. Retrieved 28 May 2015.n -- Announcement of an event with his name

6. "Menotti Lerro a Danzica". Sudsostenibile. Retrieved 28 May 2015. -- A single paragraph announcement of an event using his poetry. Unclear editorial status of the publication -- seems to be a local news outlet for a small area of Southern Italy.

7. Andrew Mangham, The poetry of Menotti Lerro (Newcastle upon Tyne, 2012), p. 15 -- You already commented on this. However, this may well be the most significant of sources. It appears to be a "facing text" translation, and given the authorship to Mangham must include some analysis.

8. "04/04/2008 - PREMIO DI POESIA "RENATA CANEPA" III EDIZIONE 2008 Ecco i premiati- La cerimonia il 10 maggio prossimo a Rubiana (TO)". Il Grappolo. Retrieved 28 May 2015. --> This says that he was a finalist, but did not win the prize.

9. Pontiggia, Giancarlo (2010). "Primavera (review)" (PDF). Testo 59: 159-160. Retrieved 28 May 2015. --> This is a literary journal with a full page review of his book of poetry "Primavera." I would guess that this is a reliable source.

10. "Rescigno-Lerro, Gli occhi sul tempo". Manni. Retrieved 28 May 2015. --> is a review of a book about two poets, one of which is him. The book itself, if we could access it, could well be a significant resource.

-- So, we seem to have 3 possible reliable sources, #s 7, 9, and 10. LaMona (talk) 15:18, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• LaMona, the problem with Mangham is that he works for UoR. Lerro has not only received his degree from that university, but he also works there as a guest lecturer. That poses a pretty strong tie between the two, since Mangham is pretty much writing about a fellow employee/former alumni. It helps that it was through a different publisher, but I've seen sources with weaker connections get labeled as primary. I figured that given the promotional concerns, it'd be best to just name it a primary source. The Poesia source concerned me since I couldn't access it at all. It's a journal so it'd be good if it was an in-depth source, but since we can't access it we can't verify it.

I took a second look at the Manni link. It looks like the book is a collection of Lerro's poetry that was released by Manni. (See here.) There are prefaces by someone else, but from what I can see it's a book of his work that Manni published. I didn't realize that they'd published the work as well, so this would make any Manni reviews invalid as a RS. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:41, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Since 7 & 10 are primary, that essentially just looks like only 9 is a reliable source. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:43, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Good catch on the Manni site -- I was so focused on the text I missed that it is a publisher! Meanwhile, we've got a SPA adding links back into the article... but you've already seen that. *sigh* LaMona (talk) 13:42, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Yeah... and now they're continuing to make ad hominem attacks against everyone. I hate to assume bad faith, but they seem to be ticking off all of the "what not to do/say" boxes. First they say that there were different people, now apparently there aren't (RainerMaria's writing gives off the impression that there's just one person), and now they're essentially calling us all mean people. (sighs) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:36, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I think that I'm going to take this guy to AfD and let it get hashed out there. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:36, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your discussion on this on WP:BIO Talk and wondered if it was moved elsewhere to get a consensus? I'm in support of your position and want to see a clear guideline on this. Right now I'm working my way through past recipients of the RITA Award on the assumption that this makes them notable, but some have been tagged as questioning notability. Many are bestsellers too, so this will help.plange (talk) 17:06, 28 May 2015 (UTC) plange (talk) 17:06, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• plange: It's still active here. Someone brought up something that poses a good point: that arguing for bestsellers lists as a sign of notability would probably need to be added to NBOOK along with NAUTHOR. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)

• Walking High Point (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:John Harrison Finger - Mr. Walk America (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I would like to know how to link my references to Wikipedia? If I can get photocopies of the newspaper articles that I referenced could I e-mail them to you? I still trying to figure out how to put my article in encyclopedia format. Maybe I could log on to another Wikipedia article and use that as a guide. I NEED HELP!Walking High Point (talk) 15:18, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Walking High Point (talk) 15:18, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Hmm... It's not as easy as just mailing me, but I wonder if there's a way around this. Let me ask over at WP:RS/N to see if there's anything that can be done. I know that this is a pretty common issue with topics that have mostly/only received coverage in the pre-Internet era so there must be something that can be done. I'll tag you in the conversation, so feel free to join in. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:37, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Can you upload them to a website maybe? I know that it's not preferred, but sometimes we can use that if the article shows the full information needed to really verify the source. (IE, it shows the date of the article, who wrote it, and so on.) Something like this is sort of what would be needed. I'll post on RS/N, though. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:42, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Zombiezilla (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:The Sky Has Fallen (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I just wanted to say thank you very much for your help! I understand completely why my article was declined and I will definitely follow all your suggestions. I really appreciate how specific and clear you were with plenty of examples. I didn't even know about Daily Dead so thanks again! I will resubmit after getting a lot more sources like the ones you named. ZombiezillaZombiezilla (talk) 07:56, 1 June 2015 (UTC) Zombiezilla (talk) 07:56, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• No problem- I hope that there will be more reviews and other coverage. We always need more coverage of horror films on here, but then I'm a big horror film fan so that's probably just me. XD Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:58, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have checked the source of khaleej times and the article is present online http://www.khaleejtimes.com/kt-article-display-1.asp?xfile=data/uaebusiness/2014/January/uaebusiness_January38.xml&section=uaebusiness Regarding the amendments to casual write up, i will edit it to perfect state. And make sure the links are as reference and not external links. I had a word with Masala Magazine and due to server issue, some of the links aren't popping up. --NGupta123 (talk) 08:14, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• It's still far too promotional to restore, even if you promise to clean it up. I'd prefer that you create a new copy from scratch at WP:AfC. Being at AfC would be better because this way you'd have more time to provide more sources to show notability. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:30, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tokyogirl79 I have redone the article in my drafts (sandbox) is it possible for you to have a look and advise if its an improvement to the previous article i did. as per your advise, i have inserted citations and removed the lines that sounded like promotion and casual writing NGupta123 (talk) 16:47, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No problem with an indef ban, once you heard the duck the quacking was very loud. Nthep (talk) 07:55, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Cool- I was worried that I might have been stepping on some toes there. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:56, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, I as bordering on a NOTTHERE indef myself for the hoaxes I knew about plus lack of undertsanding of copyright plus just generally being annoying (see his interactions with Giant Snowman). Nthep (talk) 08:04, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Could you look at the history of Gary Anthony Ramsay? It was posted as a 10,000 byte article in one edit, and that edit included a citation needed tag. That makes me think that it may have been recreated after having been deleted for some reason. Although Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gary Anthony Ramsay is a redlink, Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2011 March 28 links to the page. So, I guess it was probably speedy deleted as a copyvio? The current version looks like would survive at AfD, so I marked it as patrolled. But it would set my mind at ease if you could peek into the article's history to verify I didn't make a mistake. I'm already having second thoughts about it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:30, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have a few questions regarding the edits made to my article Stephanie Bond (author). You removed references and links to her hometown, including a link to a country singer also from her small hometown in KY. I thought Wiki preferred these links...I also thought it interesting that this small town produced two talented people; so I'm curious as to why it was removed. Also, the revisions made don't truly reflect what has happened in her career. She now only self publishes her books, unless the rights have not yet reverted. The article now sounds like she only decided to self publish certain books. Finally, as you can tell, I'm new to this and had difficulty attaching a photo; any hints about successfully attaching a photo are appreciated.Thanks. Southerngal23 (talk) 23:49, 3 June 2015 (UTC)southerngal23[reply]

• Southerngal23, the reason I removed them is because I couldn't really verify that the sources mentioned this and there were large chunks of the article that had no sources at all. You need to be able to back everything up with reliable sources. In the case of basic information like home towns and such, it's rare that this sort of thing will be wrong but it has happened before, which is why I removed it. I do remember putting in the article that she chose to self-publish books where the rights had reverted back to her or had gone out of print, so this is mentioned. Other than backing things up with RS, the other reason I removed a lot of the article was because it was written in a fairly promotional tone. You have to be extremely careful about this because promotional articles can be deleted regardless of whether this was your intent or not. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:43, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for creating this article. I added it to Wikipedia:Wiki Loves Pride 2015/Results, which records LGBT-related articles created during the month of June as part of the annual Wiki Loves Pride campaign. If you happen to create or improve other LGBT-related articles this month, feel free to update this Results page accordingly. Thanks again! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:05, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• No problem! Actually you should thank NRP- he kept getting after me to move it to the mainspace but I felt sort of weird moving it because of how silly some of the book titles were. He's the one who really deserves the credit here since he was bold enough to move it for me. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:30, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ha. I only wish I could take credit! NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:56, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Nah, take the credit. I probably would never have moved that to the mainspace otherwise! Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:57, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Tokyogirl, could you please semi-protect Ádám Bogdán, lots of non-constructive IP edits. The player does not join his new club until 1 July. Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 10:35, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Can do! I was going to just protect it for a few days or a week, but 2 weeks should help deter the worst. If it needs it past that, let me know. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:40, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you JMHamo (talk) 10:53, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tokyogirl79 and thanks for the heads-up about the SPI on Certified&Verified et al. I definitely suspected something like this given the various accounts' eagerness to promote a film that clearly is a figment of their imagination. I spent some time trying to find evidence that it existed when the first article was posted, but like you I found nothing. That is unusual because Indian films tend to be written about in blogs and on Facebook if nowhere else, as soon as they are first talked about - and in addition there is another upcoming Bengali-language film based on the Mahabharata epos, Mahabharat (2015 film), featuring several of the same actors that were listed for the other film. I don't believe two films in the same language based on the same epic story would be created that close to each other (the most recent version of the hoax article said that the film was to be released Dec 31, 2015, which is only a couple of weeks after the release of the other film...) I thought at first that there was some confusion and that the editors were in good faith trying to create a second article about the 2015 film, but since there were also other actors mentioned (in particular Jeet, who was impersonated by one of the accounts), and a different producer, director etc, I really don't think that's the case.

This is turning into a bit of a wall of text, sorry - I see that the SPI has confirmed that these are sock puppets, so there the matter rests. Thanks again for alerting me to it. Cheers, --bonadea contributions talk 10:45, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• No problem- I figured that it had to be a hoax for the same reason- there was no chatter about this film. Like you said, if the film was going to happen it'd be mentioned somewhere since Indian films tend to get a lot of blog/forum chatter, which is picked up by a Google search even if the news sources aren't always found. I found the lack of a TOI article to be one of the most telling bits- they usually cover any of the films worth covering, especially if there are any major players. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:47, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. At least one of your recent edits, such as the edit you made to Adam Bogdan, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. TeaLover1996 ^{Talk to me ☏} 13:21, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker)lol! I'm sure she will, Tea Lover, one way or another _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 15:31, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• No, they weren't test edits. I was asked to protect the page by another editor since people were pre-emptively adding team information to Bogdán's article. The reason why some of my edits (the addition of a protection template) were reverted was because I'd edited a version that had the wrong information on the page. That information was removed by JHamo and in the process it ended up reverting my edits as well. While this might have looked suspicious at first, they were not unconstructive edits and as such, putting this template on my page was unwarranted. I think that you meant well, but you do need to be careful about adding this template without checking to make sure that this should be added. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:38, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please block the obvious sock Againt frustrated chauvinist slovak IP (talk · contribs). This account restored info added by the previous socks Invetorlist (talk · contribs) and Inventiorlist (talk · contribs). 213.229.69.40 (talk) 06:00, 13 June 2015 (UTC) 213.229.69.40 (talk) 06:01, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• It looks like this account was already blocked by Jimfbleak. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:13, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please accept my sincere apologies, when I saw that 3 of your edits were reverted I presumed you had done wrong, without checking what and why they were reverted, I jumped to conclusions, and I am sorry for that, in the future before adding warnings to talk pages, I'll check the edits and why they were reverted. Thank You. TeaLover1996 ^{Talk to me ☏} 07:52, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@TeaLover1996: Eh, no worries. :) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:27, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	Thank you for your help with my students this semester! HullIntegrity\ talk / 13:13, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies about the ED page, that was the other rapper in the group. Homosexual Compound is a legitimate, non-satire group.

I'm assuming i'm not aloud to re-add the page? I do have references this time.

Thank you for the info as well, sorry for the misunderstanding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zazier (talk • contribs) 17:35, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Zazier, what type of sources do you have? To show notability you would have to show where the group has received coverage in independent and reliable sources like newspaper articles and reviews in notable media outlets like Pitchfork. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:44, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

dear tokyogirl79 hello! :-) you have deleted my page Eby G. Friedman due to G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion: G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement of http://www.ece.rochester.edu/~friedman/

so i wanted to clear a few thing so that my page could be up again and also ask a few question

this page is a biography of Eby G. Friedman and it has been given to me by the dean of the department of computer science in my university. it is a gift to Eby G. Friedman ,for his long and important help for the departments of electronics and computer science in our university. the site http://www.ece.rochester.edu/~friedman/ is his! and he accepted to receive this gift

so why is there problem with copywrite ?and why is it advertising?

thank you ! :-) Gal lilos (talk) 13:15, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Gal lilos: Just to clear up any misunderstanding: Tokyogirl didn't delete the page(s). I just recommended her in case you need some further advice as she knows a lot more about copyright than I do. Tokyogirl, hope you don't mind :) --TMCk (talk) 14:13, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@The Magnificent Clean-keeper:@Tokyogirl79: guys. this page is important (not only for Eby G. Friedman and my university.but also for me to finish my degree!! :-) ) so please tell me what i need to do to restore this page corectly. thank you very much! Gal lilos (talk) 19:16, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@The Magnificent Clean-keeper:@Tokyogirl79: --TMCkUser:tokyogirl79 dear mr TMCk i see that tokyogirl179 is the one who deleted my page!! if not please tell me to whom should i talk Gal lilos (talk) 10:54, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Gal lilos, I did delete the page but I was not the one who tagged it. What you will need to do is re-write the article in your own words without any promotional tones. Regardless of whether or not this is needed for graduation Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted or promotional materials. It may actually be even more important that you write this in your own words since cut and pasting or closely paraphrasing the source material can be seen as plagiarism- something that will earn you a zero (and possible disciplinary action) at almost all educational facilities. You can re-create the page, but you should not post copyrighted material. I also have to note that I'm also more than a little leery of the fact that you were asked to create this by the college and that they made it a requirement for your graduation. That seems a little bit like your school is extorting you since it sounds like they will not pass you if the article is not on Wikipedia. In other words they weren't looking for an attempt (ie, showing that you got experience) but an article itself and unfairly punishing you if the article is not kept for whatever reason. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:05, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Now as far as copyright goes you can always get the school to file a ticket through WP:ORTS that would give Wikipedia permission to use the material but even so it would still be promotional, which would also keep it from being used. It reads too much like a CV (ie, trying to show how great he is) than a neutral article- the entire research summary section is pretty unambiguously promotional. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:06, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Basically, Wikipedia articles should not be given as a gift nor should the absence of a page be grounds for not passing someone. A class that uses Wikipedia as a tool should take into consideration that they can be removed for various different reasons- notability, promotion, copyright violations, and so on. Like I said above, I have no problem with you re-creating the page in your own words, although offhand you will need to provide better sourcing since everything was WP:PRIMARY. In order to show notability per WP:PROF you will need to show how he's notable outside of his own college. Publishing things is not enough by itself to show notability, nor would holding patents. Also something to take in mind is that not all awards are considered to be noteworthy on Wikipedia because there are so many awards out there. A common saying is that if you took all of the awards that were ever given for any accomplishment (from Nobel Prizes to Newberry Medals) only about 5% of them would be considered the type that would give even partial notability. Of that 5%, less than 1% would give notability. That doesn't mean that the awards aren't difficult to receive or impressive, just that Wikipedia is pretty strict about this sort of thing. I'm not saying that he is non-notable (him being a fellow with IEEE alone makes him pass WP:PROF), just that you will need to find better sourcing for any future incarnations of the article or it will run the risk of getting deleted due to a lack of notability even if you fix the copyvio and tone issues. Any claims that are not sourced are typically removed in articles, so if the IEEE fellowship isn't sourced and that gets removed and there's nothing else in the article that would pass notability guidelines, then the article is at risk for deletion. Again, not saying that there aren't things that would make him notable, mostly I'm just trying to show how important it is to properly source things and to write things properly- this is something you will absolutely need to know how to do in a professional setting if you choose to say, write a paper for an academic journal. (You'll likely have some leeway with promotional prose to a degree since some non-NPOV tone is allowable, but most journals really want to make sure that you properly source material and do not take material from other places without proper attribution!) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:26, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tokyogirl79 ok. thank you for the elaborated answer .but i have a problem i need the page i wrote. since it has alot of changes i did can i have it in beck in my sandbox? i had alot of work on it.this is more then "copy paste" from other website! tnx Gal lilos (talk) 12:14, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Since some of it was closely paraphrased it's still considered to be a copyright violation and as such I cannot restore it. I can, however, e-mail you a copy if you enable this in your user account. I would recommend that you not re-add the information that was taken from other sources, though. I would also recommend that you get your college to file a ticket through WP:ORTS that gives the site permission to use material from the official page, since that would give you some wiggle room on material that you can't really rephrase without it coming across like possible copyvio. I still have to stress that it's important to re-write the material in your own words since pages that heavily take material from other sources are frequently targeted as promotional and WP:COI pages. I've had experiences with fairly neutrally written pages where it was actually more work to deal with incoming editors accusing the page of bias due to the use of copyrighted text than it was if I'd just re-written everything. (And it ended up that everything was re-written anyway, at which point the page was left to its own devices.) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:22, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tokyogirl79 i will do as you say.and get the permission as you say.because i want this page to stay forever :-) i will be happy to recieve it by mail. what do you mean enable the user acount is it not enabled? TNX Gal lilos (talk) 17:29, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I checked and you have e-mail enabled.
  BTW, my comment above is confusing, just as I was early that morning. I had referred them to Moonriddengirl and didn't realize they posted here.--TMCk (talk) 22:13, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Weird- when I'd checked earlier I hadn't seen it enabled. Anywho, it's up now so I've emailed it out. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:17, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

It was handful receiving an email saying that my article had been declined then accepted. I got quite confused. I am aware about the theft, but I hadn't been able to add the new content. As for your proposal for the Fifty Shades of Grey series, I am in! I had initially made Draft:Fifty Shades (film series), but I was told to only submit it once the second movie had been released, and that's it in two years. Regardless, I'd be more than happy to contribute into creating the franchise article. Callmemirela (Talk) ♑ 16:17, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @Callmemirela: Yeah... I'd initially declined it since I was worried that it'd be too soon for an entry, but the more I thought about it the more I felt that it could stand on its own despite it not releasing yet, so I went back and reversed the decline. I figure that at the very least if anyone argues against it we could always redirect for a few days, although I doubt that anyone is going to really question the article. In other words, I made a mistake by declining it the first time, but at least I realized that before the night was out. :) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:34, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• In any case, I'll start on the franchise page in my userspace at User:Tokyogirl79/Fifty Shades (franchise), although I anticipate moving this to Fifty Shades (franchise) very soon. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:36, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I wonder if I should style it after the Harry Potter pages? One for the book series, one for the film series? It may be too soon slightly for the film series. Hmm... I think I'll go with the one about the franchise and just let it get figured out from there. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:41, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Huh. Looks like there's already one for the book series at Fifty Shades trilogy. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:02, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I wonder if we should create one for the franchise or if the trilogy page is enough. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:40, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The decline for the film series page doesn't entirely make sense since I'd say that the film series page could go live as soon as filming for the second film has officially begun. The rationale for that is that we can have pages on un-released films if principal filming has begun, so it stands to reason that a page on the film series could go live at the same time. Filming is supposed to start this month, so as soon as that starts I'd say that the film series page could be created. I'm going to shelve a page on the franchise for now since we already have a page for the trilogy in favor of working on a page for the second film. (Plus it looks like the standard here is to have separate pages on the film series and the book series and not a franchise page.) You've already got a lion's share of the work on that done with the film series page so we should be able to port a lot of the information over. Sorry if some of this sounds a bit disorganized- it's sort of the way my thought processes go when I'm working on new pages. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:56, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Damn woman. 6 replies within 4 hours lmao. Yes, it is a bit disorganized :P Let me answer reply by reply. I don't remember who told me, or how, about publishing the film series article, but I do remember them saying to only publish it once the second film had been released. I reluctantly agreed to it and I update the article whenever there are big chunks of information available instead of wasting time going one source to another. I totally understand about the franchise article. It was fun for a moment there :P "Lion's share of the work"? I suppose that's good? Hahah Callmemirela (Talk) ♑ 20:50, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I wanted to request an english translation of this article: https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/ClassDojo. However, when I checked to see if there was a translated, I found that the page had been deleted by you: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ClassDojo because of somekind of ban of an editor. Is still alright to request at least a translation of this article into english? While ClassDojo is a very notiable in Spain, it used starting to be a few teachers in the US. How can I request a translation? 162.242.9.16 (talk) 02:19, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Sure, I don't mind. I do need to give you one slight warning, though: the page has a history of being connected with a very well known sockpuppet so some of the translators may be quite hesitant to translate as a result. I will say that if you can translate it you can always sign up with an account and translate it yourself, although odds are high that you'll likely get a perfunctory check to make sure that you're not the same person avoiding a ban. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:31, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The page is deleted by you as ‎"(G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement of {{{url}}})", I don't know who added copyright content, so please restore and check all edits, and hide the copyright content edits. Chander 17:48, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd checked and it's in most of the past edits. It was honestly just easier to delete the history and just recreate it with the sources that had been in the article, minus the copyrighted content. The only ones that didn't have copyvio were the first 1-3 versions that only had about a sentence's worth of content. Other than bragging rights as to who created the article, there's really no reason to restore the article history. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:45, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, That's not a good reason to delete all good edits (edits with no copyright material). You are an admin so please do hard work like an admin Wizardman, please see this. Chander 15:10, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for Putting Mouseheart are going to do the Characters of Mouseheart. and Thank for putting The Mouse with the Question Mark Tail When are you going to put the Characters and Plot onThe Mouse with the Question Mark Tail and Secrets at Sea. When? 90731fly (talk) 05:47, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not, although you can feel free to add these if you wish. I was more just working on the pages to show enough notability to where the pages would not be deleted since I knew that the pages were notable. I left you a long message about this on your talk page. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:48, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I just wanted to make sure everything ok. Bye? 90731fly (talk) 05:57, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

o== USA Best Book Awards ==

Hi Tokyogirl79, I have just come across the above awards by i310 Media Group ([2]). Although they don't appear to have a wikiarticle, would being a winner or a finalist be okay for an article's notability or should we just treat it as a bit of industry cruft? thanks Coolabahapple (talk) 11:50, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can very short articles be GA? After one claim is referenced or removed I think the Adi Hasak article might qualify in so much as everything will be sourced and it covers all available information. I also hope that the prospect of it being a GA might temper its COI editor's desire to add un-referenced material while still giving him a certain 'feel-good' factor. There is not much on the subject but ultimately I think he is notable enough. I would also like to get a feel for getting some of the short marginal topic articles we have up to some standard. Cheers. Jbh^Talk 18:31, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]