User talk:Lemongirl942/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Lemongirl942. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

I need to chat with you a bit about some of the AfD issues. You don't seem to understand systemic bias and what a problem it is across wikipedia, sometimes even in the GNG guidelines. I don't know how old you are, but you seem young and a little naive about how the real world operates. I am over 50 and I have seen a lot more of the world and it is a sad place where there is a lot of discrimination. It's important to bring forward the voices and images of people who have not had a voice. We do not "lower" standards to say that different standards are sometimes needed, we acknowledge the reality that some people simply do not have access to as big of a megaphone as does a white male in the United States. When pornstars and minor-league baseball players can get and keep a wikipedia article, but academics and people who work for NGOs cannot, we have a serious, serious problem. I hope you can see this. Montanabw^(talk) 06:36, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Hey Montanabw I'm younger yes (mid to late 20s) and maybe a bit naive sometimes ;) I do understand that Systemic Bias is a problem. I'm not totally opposed to having "separate" standards but I still feel a basic level has to be maintained and unless a consensus emerges for having separate standards, I would like to stick to the current ones. That said, I think a site wide conversation needs to start on this and I would willingly contribute. I have some ideas on it myself, particularly about Geographic Bias where a discussion needs to be started about identifying reliable sources in certain countries. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:53, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

The problem with the "current standards" is that there really is no consistency to them. When a pornstar's article is kept because she won an award no one outside the industry has heard of (for being a "cougar" and a "MILF", no less) while a respected university professor's article is at AfD because no one gives a flying damn about Pakistan, that is just beyond ridiculous.

Forgive me for butting in, but I think you're off the mark here. Your argument boils down to an ILIKEIT and a plea for social justice, but that's not our role. We reflect published information and social interest as it is, not as it ought to be. If pornographic performers and athletes receive more published attention than humanitarians and academics, then they are inherently more appropriate subjects for Wikipedia articles. Moreover, recall the intent behind the notability requirement: it's nearly impossible to write a meaningful, balanced, reliably-sourced article when the subject hasn't had significant coverage. If you think subjective importance and systemic bias ought to be considered in deletion decisions, then you should get them added as criteria to the guidelines rather than upbraiding other editors for faithfully following established community consensus. Rebbing 07:33, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

I disagree. For example, we immediately stomp on things like holocaust denial, and that is also a "social justice" argument. The guidelines are vague and GNG is basically a set of suggestions spun off from WP:N. WP:N is simple: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." End of story, it's not about how prestigious the source or how many people live in a given country. GNG is also often supplemented by the "outcomes" list that isn't even a guideline it is merely a !vote of IDONTLIKEIT crowd, but, your comment about adding systemic bias is a good one and I may initiate that process now. It is abundantly clear that there is a huge problem with bias against women and articles about women on Wikipedia, and even if it is unconscious and unintentional (AGF), or mostly rooted in sheer ignorance, it's still a problem. Montanabw^(talk) 20:17, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Since some of us are butting in, I agree with Montanabw here. "there is a huge problem with bias against women and articles about women on Wikipedia" I hope you will initiate the process Montanabw, because I hope we may be able to make some more progress against the systemic bias on Wikipedia. Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant 20:36, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Lemongirl492, your RfC clearly shows that you don't understand the issue at all. I would most graciously ask that you retract your RfC and allow the one I just posted to move forward. We don't "dumb down" the standards, or "pink it and shrink it." We address the reality that there is a double standard and address how to deal with it. Montanabw^(talk) 22:41, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

I specifically wanted the RFC to be neutral (and I didn't want to compare porn bio with profs as it would set a bad example for the reasons Rebbing mentioned above). I wanted to make the point clearly and I was proposing a separate standard of notability. The fact that systemic bias exists is acknowledged by many. But I prefer to propose a practical, to the point solution to the problem and that is what I tried to do in the RFC. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:46, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

But your wording showed that you completely misunderstand systemic bias -- it is not giving someone an A when they deserve a B. It is when someone EARNS an A and gets a B, just because their accomplishments are ignored or belittled as less important. It is when there are two people, of equal brains, talent, and accomplishments, but one is deemed less than the other. This is not about "relaxing" or weakening standards; it is about understanding the role that systemic bias plays in the coverage and publication of the true accomplishment of people who are not white males from the first world. There is the adage that women have to do twice as much as men to get half the credit, and that is very, very true. I have seen situations -- on wiki -- where an article about a woman is AfD'd while one about a very similar man is not even tagged, and when someone points that out, they are slapped with the usual "don't give us an OTHERSTUFF" argument. (Just like the pornstar problem is always defended with the totally bogus false NOTCENSORED argument). Montanabw^(talk) 17:55, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

In response to your request [1], [2] are just two examples. SusunW (talk) 19:11, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Interesting. I had noted the Sarah Ballard one before. If a subject truly passes WP:GNG, then the SNGs are not useful. However, it should be noted that GNG itself is quite nuanced and requires a depth of coverage. The Sarah Ballard one just managed to pass GNG as I voted in the AfD. I haven't look at the other one though. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:44, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Not sure precisely which page to spin off from, or if we want to add it to WP:NMODEL, but I'd be quite pleased to work with you on an SNG for these beauty pageant articles. I think we could collaborate even though we've had some differences of opinion -- and in fact, the difference in our perspectives would make for a very solid and strong SNG once we finished. Interested? Montanabw^(talk) 05:08, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Sure, I would like to work on this. Differences on opinion is fine and I think that is important for Wikipedia. I will do a bit of research about how pageants work. At this time, I am willing to say that participants in "Miss Universe" and "Miss World" are generally notable. Since they are representing their country, there will be at least some national coverage. Let me see if there have been any previous discussions on this. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:59, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

	The Defender and Lover of Lemon Award!
	Thank you for loving lemons and defending Wikipedia from people who steel lemons! ✉cookiemonster✉ 𝚨755𝛀 19:17, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Haha, thank you CookieMonster755! This was a pleasant surprise. I do like lemons a lot. I suppose you like cookies? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:49, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Hmm... I surely do like cookies! Enough for my username to be named after cookies! ✉cookiemonster✉ ^𝚨755𝛀 18:00, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

I'll accept the argument in theory, but a few things that occurred to me were:

As [3] shows (see page 2, but I'll give you the figures) there are 17,985 police stations and over 1.1 million employees (as they differentiate "sworn" (i.e, badged LEOs) and "unsworn" (admin staff). That's a lot of hiring numbers to maintain, and a lot of reliance on primary sources to do it. I'm also not sure how we get to a level of "encyclopedic utility" from the current level of WP:NOTDIR, and it seems to be a perennial problem - big cities tend to be able to meet a bar of coverage, but little places don't, and even if they do, it's sometimes tangential - there was a big story about how a cop claimed he was under fire and was "killed", and in the end, the discovery was that the cop was embezzling money and committed suicide. So, in the end, the police agency itself had nothing ot do with it. MSJapan (talk) 00:08, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

@MSJapan:. Yes, I am not particularly fond of keeping such list articles. But I would like to get more community input before deciding. I'm looking at both a short term and long term solution. For the short term solution, if a few AfDs can establish that small town police departments are not notable, we can actually boldly redirect similar articles to the list articles without sending each to AfD. This saves a lot of time which would otherwise be spent debating on AfD. As for the long term solution, we need to decide if we want to actually keep the "list of law enforcement agencies in state x" articles. This can be decided later using an RfC since it would affect a lot of lists. If these lists are deleted, any articles redirecting to these lists would be deleted as well. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:21, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

If you have some time, you may be interested in Eden English School Btl. It's a wholly unreferenced article about a private boarding school that has some serious undisclosed COIN editing. This is what it looked like before I cut out the worst of it. The tables of student names and photo arrays of graduates were all made by the article's author—clearly someone with inside access. It's currently up for deletion and slated to be kept based on a misunderstanding of SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Cheers. Rebbing 16:23, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Whoops—never mind. The discussion just closed as "keep." Apparently, our guidelines go clear out the window when it comes to schools. Rebbing 16:26, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Rebbing, sorry I am a bit busy these days and unable to respond in time. A facebook page and other profiles of students/teachers shows that the school exists (and it is not a hoax). However, none of the information in the article (not even the address) can be verified. I see that you have redirected it and it is the correct decision here. I would have gone for a redirection here as well as WP:V is important. Btw, I had previously encountered a hoax article about an alleged Nepalese language where the article creator had taken the pains to create a facebook page/twitter hashtag to convince us that it is real. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lapring language, link to deleted content and the Facebook page. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:11, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for taking a look and for the advice. The redirecting was undone per the AFD consensus, which seems to me to be contrary to the verifiability policy's direction that "[a]ny material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source," but it's probably not important as the whole mess is at DRV now (link if you're interested).

The Lapring hoax was pretty interesting. Rebbing 23:09, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

The article Pulau Saigon has been proposed for deletion. The proposed deletion notice added to the article should explain why.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.--Moon King (talk) 07:01, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

@Moon King: I have DEPRODed it per WP:GEOLAND. You are welcome to AfD it if you want. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:15, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

I am. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pulau Saigon. Hopefully this will suffice as a notice. --Moon King (talk) 07:18, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. Please note that WP:POINTy actions can get you blocked. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:08, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm not trying to make a point. I just nominated an article for deletion. --Moon King (talk) 08:23, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

I know I shouldn't write to you though I am out of Laura Branigan and her wiki. But that's not the point right now. During my 2 years research I never found anything that Laura's parents were separated. And I have read 100's of papers. My friend from Armonk, who grew up with Laura has never mentioned a word about a separation. You need to talk to your friends that sources must be shown. Personally I would never mention it without sources. But that's me. You need to think about the consequences when you turned 1952 to 1957. Again, who's birthday will you delete or change? Laura's? You can't touch her, though you must in the same time apologize to me. All my sources said 1952. But they were not reliable. But OK, you must have better sources than I have. (Do they really beat Billy Branigan, Laura's little brother who told me about Mount Kisco). You need to show sources of 1957! If Laura's birth year will stay at 1957, when was Billy born? US Public Records says 1957, his birth announce says 1957, etc. But you say it is Laura's birth year! I don't get it. That's why I wrote yesterday...how will you solve this? One question...Do you self believe in 1957? Are you fully convinced over 1957? Could it be 1952? Did Laura graduate in 1970 as I have shown in my sources? Watch this link https://se.pinterest.com/born53/laura-branigan-high-school-1966-70/. There are pictures from Laura as a student, cheerleader, etc. If this is not Laura? Who is she? Shall add that pictures came from her classmate. Do you think Laura graduated 1970 now? If not, I have no more add. You seemed a little bit different than the others, and I thought maybe I can get you on my side. So, am I right or am I wrong? Note! If you find this ridiculous, please don't answer.--Born53 swe (talk) 16:05, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

@Born53 swe: Hey Stig. For the parents separation, I found it here [4].

Anyway, here's my personal view of the whole birth date matter. From all the sources I saw, there definitely has been an effort to change Laura's birth date to make her look young. If you look closely, it seems these were done to launch her career as a young star. And the birth date was actually changed twice

• First in 1978 [5],[6] she was advertised her as a 23 year old (which gives a birthdate of 1954/1955)
• The second was in 1982 after her song Gloria became popular. She was popularised in the media as a 25 year old, which gives a birth year as 1957.

I don't know who did this - perhaps her manager or Laura herself - and why. Maybe they thought that people would like her more if she was young? I don't know the reason. But as the school records indicate, she was clearly born earlier.

You research is amazing and I think very well done. You have analysed multiple sources and helped reach a conclusion. Now let me look at the problem from the perspective of Wikipedia as a whole. Wikipedia's policies say that Wikipedia should contain "no original research" and no synth. (Original research here refers to research which has been done, but not published in a journal/reliable media site). Based on this policy, the 1952 birthdate is not being included in the article.

Alright, now let me come back to the situation and explain my perspective. I would like the correct birthdate to be on the article and I also want to respect the policies of Wikipedia. How to proceed then? I have a solution to this. Your research (the pinterest page) needs to be published somewhere. Once your research is picked up by the mainstream media (I hope so, because Laura is a popular singer), there will be no obstacles left and accordingly Wikipedia will have to change the date as well.

Now the next step is where to publish. I have identified some sites which might be willing to publish your research.

• TMZ - contact
• People Magazine - contact (they published a lot of information about Laura previously)
• HuffingtonPost - contact They allow people to send "news tips" to an editor
• The Denver Post - contact Many contact emails, maybe the arts department would be suitable
• LA Times - contact Try contacting editor Lorraine Ali, she deals with pop-music.

I know it might seem like an uphill task, but publishing your research is important. Once it is published by multiple media sites, it would be hard to dispute her age. Please don't give up Stig! Try contacting the media organisations I listed above. If you need any other help like finding out which editor to contact, I can search online and help you with it. But please try your best to get this published. I also think that if the media publishes it, the truth will go out to so many people. Good luck! And let me know if the organisations respond. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:05, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Email is sent to Lorraine Ali at LA Times. Hopefully she will answer. --Born53 swe (talk) 13:07, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Please, don't risk anything by writing to me. I had a real knife in my back from someone who mention that Billy Branigan has nothing to do with Laura. So please, no more contacts. I will find a way of restoring my reputation that wikipedia has crushed into dust. It's over for me. Hopefully I found someone who will support me and my research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Born53 swe (talk • contribs)

@Born53 swe: Hey Stig, just ignore. My suggestion: don't reply on that page any more. Like I said before, the best way of solving this whole thing is to get this research published. Publishing this research also gives you credit, since you were the one who found this fact out. I really hope Lorraine Ali replies (you may need to wait for 4-5 days because it is weekend now). If they are not interested, we can always try with another media organisation. I am sure there will be someone who would want to publish this story. Good luck and keep your hopes up! :) --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:48, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

This is from IMDb, a very trustful source according to wiki...http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2375148/bio Billy Branigan born 1957 Is that OK for wiki, or? And I don't have any account to make changes!--Born53 swe (talk) 14:18, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Many years ago Billy lived in Florida. He had an voter ID for elections. His voter ID can be seen in this link ....http://flvoters.com/by_number/1120/61343_william_c_branigan.html Is this enough?--Born53 swe (talk) 15:57, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Scroll down "Branigan died in her sleep in 2004, suffering a cerebral aneurysm. She was listed as 47 years old with a DOB of July 3, 1957. However, some reference sources claim her high school records show her graduating in 1970, which would mean she graduated at 13. Those records show a DOB of 1952. - See more at: http://www.goldminemag.com/news/goldmines-hall-fame-inductees-volume-59#sthash.USb1v2ts.dpuf http://www.goldminemag.com/news/goldmines-hall-fame-inductees-volume-59 --Born53 swe (talk) 19:16, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

@Born53 swe: Hey Stig! IMDb, Findagrave and other sites which contain user submitted content (by any user) are unfortunately not considered as reliable sources according to Wikipedia. The voter id site (flyvoters) may or may not be - I will have to check it. Usually, the definition of a reliable site is a website which has a "strict and well known editorial process". Thus, most well known news organisations are considered reliable.

The goldminemag is a useful source, though at present it can only be used along with the footnote, because it doesn't really explain the research behind 1952. Had it properly explained the research, it would have literally washed away all the sources saying 1957.

For Billy's birthdate, I am curious about one thing. Where is it written than Billy was born in 1961? Because I found an old article in the people magazine (vol 22, no. 5) [7], published on July 30, 1984. It gives the age of Billy Branigan as 26, which would give a birth year of 1957/58.

This is from an old website http://www.reocities.com/sonman7/page32.html Billy Branigan born 1961 You see, when Laura and her label occupied 1957, they had to do something about Billy's age. They had to have the real (almost) gap between them, so Billy suddenly was born 1961. What he thought about it is something to wonder over?--Born53 swe (talk) 11:30, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Anyway, did you get a reply from Lorraine Ali? If she replies yes, then you can suggest her to explain your research in the article as well. The explanation is important. In the meantime, I will look for more sources for Billy's birthdate. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:26, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

No answer yet. Following link is from a site "Copyright Encyclopedia". It seems to be those songs that Billy Branigan, born 1957-, has the copyrights with some others. http://www.copyrightencyclopedia.com/mesmerized-by-island-music-ltd-as-employer-for-hire-of-nick/ I don't know reliable an enclypodia can be in wikis opinion. One thing is clear, I haven't done it!--Born53 swe (talk) 08:52, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

@Born53 swe: I just checked this [8]. The website seems to be privately owned by one person, which unfortunately wouldn't fulfil Wikipedia's criteria for a reliable source. Similarly, this website [9] which gives a birth date of 1961 is also not reliable. So at the moment, Billy's birthdate seems to be 1957/58 according the source [10] from People Magazine.

Actually I am wondering something. Would it be possible for Laura's brother Billy to do an interview? Maybe if Lorraine Ali replies, one of the things you can suggest her is to interview her brother. If they don't want to publish this story right now, they can always publish this later in July, to coincide with Laura's birthday. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:14, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

This is the way it is....Branigan's has cut all bands and connections with Lauras official website and its owners, Kathy and Vince Golik. Golik's has only pieces comparing Branigans family. Branigan's all copyrights, royalties, etc. They dislikes

them for what they have done. Look at their website, just pencils, mugs, are all they can give to their fans. No pictures, etc,! So Billy, forget him. I did a short look in my collection and found this. Billy Branigan both birth years, 1957 & 1961! Nitesky was a Laura fan who sadly believed in 1957, so she had to give Billy 1961. Then Billboards poster came with Billys right birth year 1957. Funny is that Billboards denies changing Laura to 1952. But letting siblings have same birth year is nothing they have problems with. Hopefully you can see this link...https://se.pinterest.com/pin/ Billy Branigan born 1957 and 1961. --Born53 swe (talk) 18:11, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Three adorable artists, who graduated from the academy 1972. https://se.pinterest.com/pin/204913851774507986/ The American Academy 1972 "Ali"%20Ryerson,%20Class%20of%201970,%20Laura's%20classmate https://se.pinterest.com/pin/ Alice "Ali" Ryerson, Class of 1970, Laura's classmate --Born53 swe (talk) 04:50, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

@Born53 swe: That billboard clipping is interesting (and it seems they published the correct birth date of Billy). Can you tell me which edition it is (Year and month)? If the edition number can be found, then it can be used as a reliable source of Billy's birthdate. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:12, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

I need to look more after Billy's Billboard. It is not easy finding it. Here is another I had totally forgotten. From 2004, San Francisco paper had a story of passings that year. August 26 - Laura Branigan, 51, whose song, "Gloria," was featured in "Flashdance. "http://www.sfgate.com/entertainment/article/Passings-They-created-beauty-laughter-music-2660998.php She was 52, but it is better than 47!--Born53 swe (talk) 07:41, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Some references and sources about Laura Branigan. #4 is my research. If you take your time and watch all pages you will hopefully see that Laura was born 1952. Libraries and van Cleaves can also be found at the research.

• 1- Laura Branigan 1952-2004 at famous British Library http://explore.bl.uk/primo_library/libweb/action/search.do?fn=search&vl(freeText0)=Branigan%2c+Laura%2c+1952-

2004&tab=local_tab&mode=Basic&scp.scps=scope%3a(BLCONTENT)&vid=BLVU1&vl(1423900464UI1)=all_items&vl(488279563UI0)=creator

• 2 - Laura Branigan 1952-2004 at House of Names https://www.houseofnames.com/branigan-family-crest
• 3 - Laura Branigan 1952-2004 at Library of Congress http://id.loc.gov/authorities/names/n91051432.html Laura Branigan 1952-2004
• 4 - Laura Branigan 1952-2004 at my research about Laura Branigan. Everything you need to know about Laura included with sources. https://se.pinterest.com/born53/
• 5 - Chris van Cleave, former friend and member of Meadow. Read his story how he and Walker Daniels discovered Laura in 1972 at the American Academy in New York. http://www.chrisvancleavemusic.com/feature/home.html
• If this is not enough, I must say I don't know what else wikipedia needs. Van Cleave's story has a lot of people named who was involved when Meadow started in 1972. At last, Laura never talked or speaked about Meadow or the academy. It was impossible for her to hide she was born 1952. The academy demands high school for acceptance, and if Laura was born 1957, she was just 15y!--Born53 swe (talk) 22:50, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

@Lemongirl942 ...Remembering Laura Branigan on Her Birthday July 3, born 1952, Mount Kisco--Born53 swe (talk) 12:45, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

@Lemongirl942 ... Another website says 1952 and Mount Kisco. rateyourmusic.com/artist/laura_branigan

With remembering Laura's 64th birthday yesterday (July 3) my research of her early days ended. I have no longer any interest or intention of trying to change Laura's wrong 1957 or Brewster. Laura's former neighbours, friends and classmates from Armonk are laughing at wiki and how wiki has managed to first say Laura was born 1957, and later say her little brother Billy was also born in 1957. But it is up to wiki's writers (or Devilmanozzy?) to make the changes. I prefer to watch, read and also laugh until Laura's 1952, Mount Kisco and age 52 has replaced 1957, Brewster and age 47. On the other hand, there are so many internet users saying I shall do my homework about Laura. Maybe wiki should do their homework though wiki's different languages shows different data about Laura. Why should a wrong English wiki rule when other languages are right?--Born53 swe (talk) 09:58, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

@lemongirl... There are requests of having Laura's obituaries re-written.--Born53 swe (talk) 11:08, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Please take a closer look at what you're doing here. The other editor isn't changing capitalization of "the" in "the Beatles". The change has nothing to do with capitalization. It is simply a change from "the [[Beatles]]" to "[[the Beatles]]" to avoid a redirected link. I'm sure you mean no harm, but you're edit warring over a minor edit that does not change the text of the article. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 14:54, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

I left it long back. My personal opinion is that "the" shouldn't be hyperlinked but yeah it's a minor issue so I'm not very bothered by it. I warned the editor though because the editor has been involved in a pattern of disruptive behaviour with a severe case of WP:IDHT (See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:_Moon_King_disruptive_AfD). --Lemongirl942 (talk) 00:58, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Are you continuing to insist you were right? This is the refusal to get it right here. "the" is linked to avoid a redirect. How many times are you not going to get this? --Moon King (talk) 03:49, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

You have a clear case of WP:IDHT. You tried to AfD a couple of articles to prove a point but failed horribly. Now you are being given a chance to prove that you can contribute to the encyclopaedia without edit warring and pointy editing, so I suggest you take the rope and not hang yourself with it. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:54, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

That is irrelevant to this discussion. You are actually the one with the "I did not hear that" and the WP:Competence problem in this particular instance. Do you still not understand why the "the" is linked and why it is better to have a direct link rather than a redirect? Do you still not understand you were in the wrong for edit warring about this? --Moon King (talk) 04:03, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

No, I was not wrong. You were wrong for edit warring because edit warring is wrong regardless of who is right. And you edit warred with multiple editors. And as for the "the", I don't support hyperlinking "the" in this case but it's a minor matter. I left it long ago, you are still going on about it. And please look into the mirror - will you admit that you were totally wrong about the AfDs and apologise for disruptive editing? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:14, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

No you were wrong. Forcing a redirect is not a legitimate view. I am willing to admit I was wrong to nominate your articles. I've already said I would stay away from AFD for some time. Why can't you admit you were wrong to edit war to force a redirect?--Moon King (talk) 04:32, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Oh the irony. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:36, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Not sure what's ironic. What I do see is that you are insisting on an illegitimate view. You cannot favor a redirect over a direct link. Why can't you see this? --Moon King (talk) 04:40, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

I am very clear that I do not favour linking "the" in "the Beatles". This is consistent as in many places we simply say "x is a Beatles song". A redirect does no harm btw and you could have changed the redirect to a direct link while still avoiding linking "the". But you edit warred with 3 different editors over this. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:50, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Actually I maintained the status quo. "the" is linked in every article about the Beatles, including this one in which you decided to edit war to force a redirect. The "the" is part of the name. You're continuing to confuse the issue. The "the" was always linked. Initially I decided to capitalize it. After learning about the consensus I did not do this anymore. Someone corrected it but did not link "the" as it always was and is on every Beatles article. MSJAPAN mistakenly believed I was causing a redirect, even though I wasn't. Then you edited, focusing on the capitalization even though that was not even the nature of the edits. Then you decided to edit war. Now you are clinging to an illegitimate view just to dispute me. --Moon King (talk) 05:02, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

It appears that you have restored material that was campaigning. See WP:CAMPAIGNING.  Even if you support WP:TPO, when you restore inappropriate material, you take personal responsibility for what was restored.  Thank you. Unscintillating (talk) 02:12, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

@Unscintillating: I had a closer look now and I don't think it is really WP:CANVASSING (campaigning). The discussion seems to be specifically about flaws in how WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES is implemented. The potential for a campaign at a policy talk page is greatly diminished due to the varied interests of talk page watchers. Nevertheless, do you really think it is canvassing/campaigning? If yes, I will request the editors to word it in a neutral manner. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:21, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

@Unscintillating: I believe your removal of those comments was improper: TPO does not support the removal of canvassing, and this was not canvassing. Have a look at Wikipedia:Canvassing § Campaigning, which indicates that campaigning is permissible in certain discussions: it's clear from the context that the disputed comments were relevant to the effects of the essay under discussion and not mere discussion notifications (which should not include campaigning). Rebbing 02:52, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't really see how my comment could be seen as canvassing. I posted it on a relevant talk page, did not target specific editors, and worded it to be descriptive rather than prescriptive. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:05, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

• I see that I incorrectly believed that the post that followed yours, diff, was already at AfD.  My mistake.  Unscintillating (talk) 10:48, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi again, Lemongirl. Could I have your opinion on Pay Fong High School when you get time to look at it? It appears on the list of Chinese independent high schools in Malaysia that you informed me about here (thanks for that), but the school's website says that it is called Pay Fong Middle School. What do you think is happening there? Cordless Larry (talk) 20:28, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

@Cordless Larry: This is a genuine "high school" as well. Actually this school was established during the British colonial period in Malaysia. Chinese secondary schools in those days were termed as "Chinese Middle Schools" divided into "Junior Middle" and a "Senior Middle" sections in the same school. See this, page 99 for an explanation and also this for a related background. For all practical purposes, these are actually high schools as students go to university after finishing their schooling [11]. The term "high school" is generally used for schools which were established more recently while the term "middle school" continues to be used interchangeably for older schools. Pay Fong High School and Pay Fong Middle School are the same [12], [13]. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:52, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I didn't doubt that it was genuine, but was just a bit confused about its name and status. Thanks for expanding the stub, too. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:21, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome! :) --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:55, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for starting the COI investigation Welsh (Walled garden)-- it would be interesting to see how it develops. I've found these articles to be odd. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:06, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome K.e.coffman . I decided to post now as I am soon going to be offline for a day. It is best to have more eyes on the topic. I will keep a lookout for more when I return though. Cheers! --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:11, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Greetings! First of all, at first level I am really really thankful to you, because I was not aware of all these conflicts that you brought to my notice. Now as I have great honor for you as you are much more senior and great editor. Honestly I request you to be my mentor, I first confess what I have done wrong. I was asked on fiverr to make some specific changes, about the Legal issues of Mr. Fredrick Achom, I was not aware of the conflict at that time and I took the project just for 40$, I had to change the heading and some data in that category. I researched, and found that my client has some legitimate claims, so I made the edit. But later, I got interested in the page, as it is my nature I get interested in things I do, (like you can see my contributions, I have made edits to a single article many times to make it better) and I was not even paid for that. I added the information after studying the references. It was just because of my curious nature, I was not paid a single penny after the first change. But I was not aware of the severity of controversial case. You can see my contributions and you would know that I love Wikipedia as it has been my source of knowledge and I love to spread knowledge. I apologies for my immature behavior, as I was not aware of such policies and conflicts, I request you to forgive my mistakes. I was trying to make some living out of my skills but I think I need a mentor to learn more, would you like to accept me as your student? and I promise I would never ever do anything like that again. and kindly guide me, how can I disclose that I was paid for that one page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Awais Azad (talk • contribs) 17:23, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Hey Awais Azad. Thank you for being gracious about it! I have to go offline now though. I will explain in detail later on your talk page. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 20:05, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

@331dot: Please provide diffs showing that I am in an edit warring. Or otherwise remove this template yourself. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 01:16, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

You are entitled to remove this yourself if it bothers you. Threatening to haul someone into ANI for removing a speedy sounds like an edit war to me. Unless they are the page creator(which AFAIK isn't the case here) anyone can remove a speedy tag especially if they provide a reason, which was done. The next step you can do is begin an AfD. 331dot (talk) 01:21, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

@331dot:The 2 editors in question have severe competence issues and have been hounding me for a while - declining my speedies such as this. This article has a history of COI editing btw and it is badly promotional. It was largely written by a paid editor who I explained the process (of COI management)yesterday and who is now working on a new draft Draft:Surbana Jurong Private Limited which can go through AfC. I then tagged this article for speedy (which was declined no idea why by an editor with competence issues). I then moved it to draft. The same editor (who removed the speedy) then submitted it to AfC and accepted it themselves. How does that work - since when do editors submit an article to AfC and self accept it? I tagged it for speedy again and another of the editor's buddies joins in declining a G11 speedy with an A7 reasoning. And then you turn up and decide to revert and template me. Another editor has now reverted your removal of the speedy btw. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 01:28, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

My attention was drawn to the ANI statement so I am obviously unfamiliar with the situation. I still think the best solution is to start an AfD(which if removed is a blockable offense) however, I pledge to stop my interference. My apologies 331dot (talk) 01:34, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

@331dot: No worries. I'm sorry for my outburst as well. I understand that you only looked at that last statement. I think I will have to go to ANI though because these editors are not stopping their disruptive editing at all. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 01:40, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Please take this advice in the spirit with which it was intended (charitable)...

You really need to back off and cease templating Zpeopleheart, going after their frequented articles, edits, and the like. It now looks like you are targeting them and it's very possible your charge against them of hounding will end up boomeranging on you. If I were you, I'd leave the articles they frequent alone for a while and definitely not do things that now just look like retaliation on your part. Every time you do what you're now doing, in light of the SPI and AN/I, it looks like you're intentionally poking them. And that kind of behavior typically ends badly in Wikipedia. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:18, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Hey Winkelvi. I understand you are talking about this [14]. I unreviewed the page in question (to let another editor review it) but it seems the page curation tool automatically left the templated message on Zpeopleheart's talk page the moment I unreviewed it. There should be a way of making this optional >.< (Anyway, I have self reverted now, since I'm not fond of templating either [15]). I understand about the boomerang and which is why I intentionally stopped looking at Zpeopleheart's edits after I filed the ANI and let the community handle them. This unreviewing (after 12 hours) is actually the first action I took after the ANI and even then I took care not to edit the page itself. Didn't realise about the templating though, so thanks for the head up. Don't worry, I try to stay on the high ground myself, although I may dip my toes in water. ;) --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:43, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your effort in creating a thorough ANI. Wow, the experience with the editors was bizarre -- but I'm glad it's resolved now. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:48, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you as well K.e.coffman. You were a great help! I am glad this is over haha. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:08, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Lemongirl942,(such a funny name :) ). I am creating the article "Leung Tsang". He is my advisor. But I did not write the article subjectively, I copied almost everything from his resume. And I was not paid to write an article for Leung Tsang. Thanks so much for your suggestions. Joestc (talk) 19:30, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the discussion just above this one, I'm thinking WP:SLEEPER account (it was created in 2011 and has not been used until now. Is there anything in regard to the article discussed above that you think might connect the two accounts just indeffed at ANI and being looked at for SPI? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:46, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Hey there! Was combing through several Singapore-related articles recently. Came across two which I think are deletion worthy (National Night and J-Walk (Jurong East, Singapore)). Give the two a look and tell me what you think. The two articles seem to have a little coverage in secondary sources and could potentially be improved as an alternative. -- MageLam 06:17, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

MageLam Hey thanks! Just tagged J-Walk (Jurong East, Singapore) for CSD. (This was created by a sockpuppet of an indeffed user. I mean seriously, who creates an article for a covered walkway?) For the other one, there are secondary sources so I can't use speedy, but since it will be permanently a stub, it may be appropriate to cover it in the 2012 national day article. Also the campaign was actually called "Mentos National Night". Since "National Night" is a generic term and may involve other users, I think the first step is to do set up a request move. Once it is moved, a merge proposal can be set up. I can set up the RM if you want. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:30, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, who says Wikipedia doesn't create articles about covered walkways? Lol. XD Well of course, this really depends on notability. But anyways, yeah, I do think that the National Night page could be moved, it appears to be a rather generic term. As for merger, I'm not exactly too sure if we should merge it with the NDP 2012 page. -- MageLam 06:59, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Lemingirl, with all due respect, you are missing the point entirely. One policy is that our policies are not graven in stone. If a school is proven to exist and is a high school, it will be kept. You can't change the way way we do things here that are agreed by consensus evidenced by thousands of high school AfD closures. Perhaps voting on AfDs is not the best task for you - I've noticed you do some excellent work on Singapore articles, perhaps you can help more (I'm the coord of WP:WPSCH) to keep the the spam and promo out of the Singapore school lists and articles, they are particularly notorious for it. Primary schools in Singapore, List of secondary schools in Singapore. Regards, --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:57, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Kudpung Thank you, I do gnome Singapore/Malaysian schools once in a while and I might consider doing some more. I respect IAR and if there is consensus that the school exists, I generally tend to defer to that. But the reason I insist on WP:V is not simply because it is an essential part of WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, but because it goes a long way towards improving the encyclopaedia. I have noticed that many previous AfDs have been kept even though not one source was provided for verifiability during the discussion. While this has been going on for a long time, I think it is worth changing the culture. I see the AfDs as a good opportunity where the community (who may otherwise have never encountered the article) tends to at least look at the article. And this opportunity can be used to actually find sources and add it to the article or at least mention on the AfD. I have done so previously (See AfDs SMK Raja Muda, SMK Kok Lanas, SMK Mahsuri). While there may have been many previous AfDs where the school was not verified, it doesn't mean we need to continue that forever. I am trying to change this for the better and I think it is beneficial in the long term. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:38, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, it will be continued forever until such times as the rules or accepted procedures are changed by formal RfC. There really have been many attempts and they have all failed. Some people try the back-door approach through AfD (one user regularly sends an arbitrary selection of 100 or so schools to AfD every year in January, but they get nowhere with it. The community's tacit consensus is anchored on the clear statement by Jimbo Wales many years ago, the fact that literally 1,000s of school articles have been kept as long as their existence is proven, and that, most importantly, schools are the one and only type of articles in the entire Wikipedia that are even exempted from WP:A7. Anecdote: Have you tried changing Singapore law by deliberately chewing gum? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:10, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Kudpung With regards to this, I'm not sure if we are on the same page. My stance (explained in the AfDs) is very clear

Keep any accredited high school as long as one reliable independent source can be found to show that the school exists

I am struggling to understand how is this different from WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES in any way. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:20, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

An organization is obvioualy dependent on its leadership to attain growth and that is clearly evident in this case too. While we see mention of FIFI in electeonic and print media every now and then we also see name of Amit Lohani with it. Why do we have wikipedia pages on living individuals like John Mackey and others we should have a page only on whole foods as thats the organisation because of which he got recognition. As stated earlier the page has not been created to have Amit Lohani's cv but, with an objective to being his work at a platform. Also, you might be intetested to note that owing to his voice on several trade barriers, interactions with Government of India's his work has been recognized by several country governments. Indian market is growing at a considerable pace and should be given its due importance and it is extremly important to recognize trade voice like his in Indian context instead of not giving it due gravity and considering his work as negligible or of no importance. Thank you for your understanding. Mishra S Shukla (talk) 06:31, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Mishra S Shukla. Wikipedia has slightly different rules for notability: we rely on what has been reported. John Mackey is notable because there are sources like this article and this article which give detailed information about the subject. If you can find similar articles for Amit Lohani, I will be willing to keep it.

I'm not saying that Amit Lohani is of "no importance". I'm just saying that the article on him is not suitable for inclusion according to our policies and guidelines. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:47, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Lemongirl942. Thank you for your reply as I see that you expertise in Singapore I would want to highlight that Amit Lohani has been invited by Singapore Minister of Trade and Industries, Mr.S Iswaram, to sign MOU with singapore trade ministry. He also led delegation of 43 stakeholders for this initiative and has been covered well by media in Singapore.1 /article 2 [16].

He has been selected by Government of United Stated in 2013 for IVLP program which President and Prime Minister of numerous countries as its alumini. His views have been covered several times by numerous renowned print and electronic media groups, which clearly indicate that the subject holds a important position in the changing FnB trade scenario and also that such personalities are required to continue to bring India on a global platform. We are givng few for your reference and can refer to more if need be. We strongly urge that importance to India trade scenario and people involved should be given on platform like this. 1. Economic Times times 2. NDTV [17]. 3. Dollar Magazine (page 3: [18] 4. Progressive Grocers : ( Page 10 10 5. Media Today today. 6. Koam TV: TV. 7. FnB News news.

Umm, none of that is significant coverage. See WP:BASIC and WP:GNG for what is significant coverage. A quote is not significant coverage. I gave you a couple of articles in a reliable media which are reasonably detailed and talk quite a bit about the person. We need something like that. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:28, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

I understand you are creating the article in good faith, but we need reliable source: See WP:RS. Some of the sources above are not reliable. Newspapers with a track record of good circulation and sound editorial process are reliable sources. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:46, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Newspaper articles we referred to are obviously reliable and have great circulation. We can not question reliability of national media groups like Economic Times, NDTV, and others. These are widely accepted in Indian as well as global context. Also, that we do not have a one page article in newyorker on Amit Lohani but, we have his views covered by several renowed groups in pages. And I am sure that you understand that no media house of international fame will publish an individuals views in great length without any base to it.

To an extent UAE governement too covered him: UAE Embassy. Media today group had a two page interview by him and had him on the cover page story. Bussiness Standard : on technical barriers I have given you number of citations indicating that he is a strong voice and is heard across the board in FnB trade. From several country governments to government of India, to media groups both in India and abroad. You will have to give context to Indian trade scenario and importance of such notable personalities as India can not be compared to Singapore or United States, as a develiping economy it still has several teething issues and the work which might appear of less or no importance to you has great relevance here. This should be given gravity by team WP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mishra S Shukla (talk • contribs) 09:15, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

NDTV and Economic Times are definitely reliable sources. The problem here is the amount of content about him is restricted to 1 line in economic times [19]. We need something like the majority of the article focusing only on him and gives details about his life and work. The NDTV link ihas only 1 short quote by him.[20]. Sources in national media are what helps to make a person notable. We need significant coverage specifically about the person. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:25, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I just wanted to let you know that I am so sorry for my insensitive post to that talk page yesterday. I can guess how you must be feeling. My behavior was indeed inappropriate and hurtful. I hope you will be able to forgive me. I look forward to seeing you around the project. Mona778 (talk) 12:25, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Hey Mona778! Thank you so much. (I love Strawberries! It is one of my favourite fruits).

Don't worry about that post. I am not feeling bad anymore. I understand that you were stressed out at that time. No hard feelings! I would love to see you around the project. I was reading some of your articles today and I think you are doing a really good job! Cheers! --Lemongirl942 (talk) 12:40, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Please see comments from PamD and myself at User talk:Donald1659 and in extended form with some additional discussion on my talk p. DGG ( talk ) 14:24, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you DGG. I will comment there. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 01:20, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi there, I just found out that "deepin" has been deleted for "not notable" and "not significant in its particular field". So I got deeply, deeply confused, because as far as I concern, deepin, whose popularity currently ranking 14 on distrowatch^[1] among Linux distributions, while SliTaz ^[2] (no offense, just an example, randomly selected) ranking 91, got a wiki-page. Actually I randomly checked several distros ranking below 50 and no surprise, they all have a wiki-page, so we just do not understand why is this happening. We are just a free open source distro trying to contribute to the community. We have submitted millions of strings in Github. So please, do please give instructions. AlickDeepin (talk) 01:29, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi AlickDeepin Distrowatch is not what I call a reliable source of ranking - a ranking on distrowatch is not an indicator of popularity. In additional, notability involves multiple factors.

I appreciate that you are working to create a good distro and contribute to the community. I commend you for it. However that doesn't correlate as to whether the topic should have a Wikipedia page. An important policy of Wikipedia is WP:NOTPROMO.We are not here to promote any distros. This is not notable at this time. I will not encourage you to try again because it might be considered disruptive. Maybe after a couple of years?

As for your questions about why there are other articles and why I chose to delete this one, it is possible that the other do not meet the notability criteria as well. You may wish to read WP:SEWAGE, a page which humourously explains a similar situation. I stand by my view that the distro is not notable at this time. My suggestion for you would be to try again in a couple of years once it actually starts being used by a significant percentage of linux users. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 01:46, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Lemongirl942, this user Lysimachi has added a lot of citation needed tags to the Han Chinese article previously. While I have no problem with adding tags to unsourced statements (but what about tags that are added to something that is fairly obvious), now the entire article is flooded with tags. The over representation of tags in the article is strange. It is also strange that in Lysimachi's edit [21], the user label the language as "Han languages", and changes link to the likes of Hakka Chinese, Gan Chinese to Hakka language and Gan language.--Balthazarduju (talk) 08:30, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Balthazarduju, I'm beginning to see slow POV pushing (and advocacy editing) going on by one particular user. Anyway, I'm reverting some of the changes and have added it to the watchlist. Thank you for letting me know. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 22:36, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I just want to thank you for cleaning up the Han Chinese article in the midst of tag bombing. On that paper [22] you were talking about, I think one analysis titled "Constructing Peace in the Taiwan Strait: a constructivist analysis of the changing dynamics of identities and nationalisms" isn't really relevant to prove a whole identity.

Also, Lysimachi last year created an article called Han American (See here). But that was redirected. And the Han Taiwanese article is also fairly new, and it was created by Lysimachi in November of 2015.--Balthazarduju (talk) 02:12, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Balthazarduju, thank you for your help. I have seen a lot of POV pushing going on in China/Taiwan article and I'm seriously sick of it. That paper was for a dispute at "Han Taiwanese". In English, "Han Chinese" is ethnicity regardless of nationality and this is the English Wikipedia. So a Han Taiwanese is actually a Taiwanese of Han Chinese descent. Somehow, Lysimachi doesn't want the word Chinese in the article. I'm sick of the edit warring at Han Taiwanese as well, so if you don't mind could you help discuss and show Lysimachi where they are wrong? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:00, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I changed the citation needed span into just a citation needed. Lysimachi used to put many citation needed span onto the Han Chinese article [23], which made the paragraph in my opinion, more laborious to see.--Balthazarduju (talk) 04:00, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

@Balthazarduju: The quotes in the citation are specifically because the sources are not accessible/paywalled. In such cases, we quote the relevant parts. As for citation needed span - it is generally preferred over the citation needed. In this case though, since the entire paragraph needs citations, I have removed the span. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:13, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi LG, saw your comments at Talk:Whacked Out Media FYI: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Barney83Stinson. Two of his socks are indeffed. He was blocked for a week. If the disruptions persist, I'll indef him too. Lemme know if you see anything, please. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 08:31, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Hey, thank you for the SPI link. I will dig around to find more. Pretty sure they have been pushing a lot of articles. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:35, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

NativeForeigner confirmed another account, KittyLynch. I've indeffed her and upgraded Barney83Stinson's block to indefinite. If you have any other socks in mind, could you please add them and whatever behavioral evidence you have to the "Comments from other users" section at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Barney83Stinson? Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:17, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

HazelAB (talk) 14:06, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. I just replied. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:47, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't understand why you revert my restoration of the RfC's ending. It's a result of vandalism and should be restored. Thanks for any explanation. Dino nam (talk) 02:07, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

p/s: If it's because of the IP, then I'm sorry for forgeting to sign in. Dino nam (talk) 02:09, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

@Dino nam: If one particular editor has reverted an RFC's closure twice, you are not supposed to reclose it again. You edit btw was bordering on comment refactoring. You started the RFC and you are not supposed to reclose it at all. Believe me, that is grounds for blocking. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 00:08, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Oh, actually I don't close it but restore the closure of another editor. It's the exact thing that user:AustralianRupert has put onto the RfC, no modification. Dino nam (talk) 08:02, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi lemongirl,

Thanks for pointing out flaws in Vuk Krakovic wiki page, as well as being so thorough on Grace Chia's article. It would have been fair if you did some research on edited article before deleting the contribution. Being apparently a native English speaker and Singaporean yourself, you should be aware that no female poet has won The Singapore Literature prize in English Poetry since its inception, and that the comment was directed towards this odd coincidence which suggests that either: a.No Singapore female poets opus was worthy of receiving the English Poetry prize, or b. Ther is an obvious preference and sort of commeradery between predominantly male judges when it comes to choosing the winners. I would really appreciate if YOU could address this fact about SLP in English Poetry section, so that people become aware of it, because Singapore certainly produced some outstanding female poets in last 50 years. Thank you. Tchkovu (talk) 10:04, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

You are involved in a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:.25C3.259Cr.25C3.25BCmqi.23Demographics.Rajmaan (talk) 17:33, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Absolutely nothing has happened with this in about a month. I'm still inclined to get rid of it or redirect it. MSJapan (talk) 01:05, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Hey MSJapan. I actually looked at certain stuff which makes me doubt supporting a redirect. For one, it seems the radio station is a well known radio station which produces its own original content. Here they interviewed a senator. This (although not sure how reliable), describes it as "dzXL, the flagship AM station of Radio Mindanao Network (RMN)". There are a bunch of small mentions in this blog (though self published), here, here. here and some union activity at this station. Although many are trivial mentions, my guess is that this looks to be important in the Philippines, so I am willing to let it be a stub. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 01:22, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Hey there, it's been awhile again. First of, I would like to apologize if you believe any of my recent edits appeared disruptive to you. Rather than being extremely bold, I've started to turn a little bit more lenient and pacifist with the way I handle things on this site now, given my recent brushes with a number of editors. Anyways, damage control isn't the main topic of this discussion, rather, I would like to open up on what I did in the past and I thought you would be the appropriate individual to handle this odd case. When I was still new to Wikipedia (circa 2012), I created several articles within the scope of old Sentosa (circa 1980-2007). Most of my edits were concentrated on articles regarding the Sentosa Musical Fountain, such as Magical Sentosa and Songs and Tunes from the Original Soundtrack of Magical Sentosa. I was an obsessed cult fan of Magical Sentosa at the time and as a result, the edits I made back then were heavily COI oriented (with an added hint of original research and unreliable sources of course). I also created stub articles regarding the Fountain Gardens and the Sentosa Ferry Terminal, most of which were also heavily original material (with few citations). Thinking of it now, I believe that these articles could be easily nominated for deletion given the way they are cited and written. However, if there's a possibility of cleaning up this mess as an alternative, I would gladly appreciate your help. Oh and finally, I'll leave you with a cringy "dedication quote" that I made in one of the older revisions of the Magical Sentosa article. XD -- MageLam 03:27, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Hey MageLam. The articles your wrote are pretty well written. Actually, I have noticed the same in most Singapore articles. There is tonnes of good content but lacks citations. This is a problem because other editors can remove the content and (although I might disagree with the removal), I can't do anything per policy as the WP:BURDEN lies on me. I feel quite sad because so many articles have good content. It is also worth mentioning that many were written at a time when the encyclopaedia was in the expansion phase with focus on content creation rather than citations (it is now in the maintenance phase). Although your article might contain a bit of original research, it contains a lot of valuable information as well. In fact, sometimes it is easier to search for sources on seeing the information in the article, rather than the opposite.

I can try to look for citations for your articles. I'm pretty sure there will be some reliable sources, considering the long history of the events and places. The topics are notable according to me so it shouldn't be nominated for deletion. If it does get nominated before I can improve, please let me know and I will help out.

About COI, you don't have a COI here. ;) COI is usually for someone connected with the subject of the article. Fans don't have a COI.

Wikipedia is built on collaboration. I have learnt a lot too and I now lean a bit towards eventualism. I don't immediately remove text, particularly for articles about places, unless it is blatant advertisement or directory. I trust that someone will come and provide citations.

That quote is nice (though a bit cringey)! :D But I read a lot on fantasy and magic, so I wouldn't mind it lol. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:53, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

@Lemongirl942: Thanks for taking the time to look through this. By the way, about the Songs and Tunes from the Original Soundtrack of Magical Sentosa article. I originally created the article because of how much content space it was taking up on the parent article. But now, I kinda feel that it doesn't really fit the criteria for a notable album. There's barely any sources out there that discusses in detail, the show's soundtrack. The most I could find at the time was a track listing on a website and a collection of audio recordings that were rediscovered in 2013 (ala original research). If there's actually a possibility of improving said article, please, do let me know. ;) -- MageLam 09:27, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

The NPP backlog now stands at 13,158 total unreviewed pages.

Just to recap:

• 13 July 2016: 7,000
• 1 August 2016: 9,000
• 7 August 2016: 10,472
• 16 August 2016: 11,500
• 28 August 2016: 13,158

You naturally don't have to feel obliged, but if there's anything you can do it would be most appreciated. I've spent 40 hours on it this week but it's only a drop in the ocean.--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:07, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place to request that New Page Patrollers be suitably experienced for patrolling new pages. Your comments at New pages patrol/RfC for patroller right are welcome. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:07, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I'm Graeme Bartlett. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Socioeconomy, and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:21, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Graeme Bartlett: I apologize for intruding, but may I ask why you unreviewed this and Socioeconomies? Both appear to have been correct patrols—they were already at RFD when Lemongirl checked them off—and, from the page histories, it doesn't appear you changed anything. Thanks. Rebbing 22:31, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I clicked the review tick, as it at first said not yet reviewed, and it unreviewed it instead. Some kind of review edit conflict. It was a mistake caused by me not reading the confirm box carefully. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:41, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Oh, no worries Graeme Bartlett. I have noticed similar edit conflicts previously as well. I guess the software takes some time to update the review status. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 23:06, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Rebbing for clarifying! --Lemongirl942 (talk) 23:07, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

As always! I'd heard murmurs about this bug months ago, but I assumed it'd long since been resolved. At least now I know! Rebbing 23:41, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Now I see what happens if the page is opened for patrol and left too long—the token expires. But issuing a token does not stop anyone else from patrolling. I am not convinced that it is a "bug", as edit conflicts work like this too. Anyone can get in and edit and save if they are the first to do so, and everyone else gets an edit conflict. For "patrolled" though the option changes from "patrol" to "unpatroll". Though I think "unpatroll" should not be such an easy option to use, as it would be quite rare in its use. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:01, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

It seems to me the tool ought to be set up differently. When the editor opens the toolbar with the page unreviewed and the tick mark unticked and the page is subsequently reviewed by someone else, clicking the review button should do nothing instead of transforming into the opposite. Similarly, if I click "undo" on a change but spend a minute typing out an edit summary and you revert it first, my change is simply discarded (a null edit). Rebbing 00:50, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Although I'm not sure, my guess is that the tool simply "flips" the "reviewed bit". When 2 editors do it in succession, it results in the page being unreviewed. I think Rebbing's suggestion is worth looking into. Instead of flipping the value, it should simply discard the second value if it is same as the recent one. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:33, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi, the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hokkien and Hoklo Americans has been closed and the result was "no consensus". From the discussion, the only users who supported keeping the article were Prisencolin, who created the article (does the creator of the article's vote count?) and Lysimachi, who wrote keep twice. With a result of "no consensus", what does it mean, what's next?--Balthazarduju (talk) 01:42, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm not very sure either. I guess you can start an RFC if you want. I have a lot to do right now though, so I will let it be for the time being. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:34, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "Talk:Han Taiwanese#Lead_sentence_WikiLink".The discussion is about the topic Han Taiwanese. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! --—UY Scuti ^Talk 13:19, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi, so the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hakka Americans ended in a result of "keep"? I don't quite understand that. It had three votes of "redirect" to Chinese Americans, three votes of "keep" (one of the three votes came from the creator of the article, and I'm not sure what is the guideline on the creator's vote). One vote of merge to Taiwanese Americans, and one vote of keep or merge to Chinese ethnic groups in the United States. But how did this ended with "keep"? I think the discussion should've been kept open for longer.--Balthazarduju (talk) 00:40, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't understand how editors would see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manchu Americans need to be deleted, and yet Hakka be kept?--Balthazarduju (talk) 00:40, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:06, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

You should have access to Newspapers.com now. Please note that our WP Library free accounts do not include Publisher Extra content. HazelAB (talk) 14:15, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you HazelAB. It's working and I just managed to create a clipping! :) --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:07, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

You did a cursory reading of the page for Sharon Christian and on the basis of what must have been only 2minutes of research conclude the page is a "delete". Seriously? Look a little harder. There is verifiable evidence in the Calgary Herald (a MAJOR newspaper), the Much Music/Much West national television broadcast (a MAJOR TV show from the 1980s and 1990s), the Arts West Journal (a MAJOR publication in its time), the Canadian Painters in Water Colour (the premier society for Water Colour artists in Canada), and the Alberta Foundation for the Arts (a MAJOR Foundation for arts). Unfortunately most of this documentation requires more than a trivial internet search, despite what some might think. You cannot find the full page spread in the Calgary Herald on the internet because the Calgary Herald does not have internet accessible archives; but when you do find it, you will see a large reproduction of the artists' work, which is clear evidence of notability per wiki definitions. And it's worth remembering that "Notability is not temporary; once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage." Although her work did have on-going coverage. We all need to remember that research is not just about a quick romp through the internet, which itself was only invented recently and which documents a tiny fraction of the notable work pre-internet. Icareaboutart (talk) 00:49, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi Icareaboutart! I looked for more than 30 minutes. And my !vote was after looking at everything. GNG is clearly not satisfied here and neither WP:ARTIST. Being on a TV show is not an indication of notability (I have been on a TV show as well some years back). What is required is that multiple notable artists have looked at the artists work and it has won critical acclaim. This is something which seems missing here. The Alberta Foundation of Arts gives out grants, but it is not a major museum. If you can show me that the collections have been kept in a museum like Royal Ontario Museum or the Montreal Museum of Fine Arts. I would be glad to change by vote. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 01:00, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

In response to the sensible (and open-minded) comments by Lemongirl942 and User:Mduvekot, I contacted the estate of Sharon Christian to ask about some of the newspaper articles I recall seeing when I was a kid. Apparently Christian's executor has archived much of this, and has now put it on her website: http://www.sharonchristian.ca/acclaim/ (and no, I am not Christian's executor). Contrary to some of the arguments presented by some editors, WP:ARTIST does not require that the work be in permanent collections or major museums.

WP:ARTIST can be fullfilled by evidence that "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews."

Christian's work was the main subject of a TV report, of multiple reviews in national newspapers and journals (evidence is provided for four), was honored by the Canadian Society for Water Colour painters through elected membership, was selected by the first lady of Canada to represent Canada, was selected by the Alberta Society for Artists to represent Canada on an international tour to Korea, was represented by two significant galleries in Calgary, was selected by Avon and used on their Nationally distributed Annual Christmas Card (twice), was used to illustrate a book (which was so popular it went on for a second edition), and can be found the permanent collection of the Alberta Art Foundation.

The evidence in the case of Christian clearly fulfills WP:GNG. GNG spell out the requirements, each of which I address below:

""Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material."

Christian's work received significant coverage in Canada, at the national level, in multiple media formats including TV, newspapers, art journals, public exhibitions, and nationally distributed cards (such as the Avon annual Christmas card).

""Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language."

The evidence of Christian's notability is provided by reliable published sources.

""Sources"[2] should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected."

There are multiple secondary sources, and they are of high quality and provide deep coverage of the artist.

""The Sources [3] Sources do not have to be available online or written in English. Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability.""

Contrary to the assumptions made by a number of editors, the GNG guidelines clearly spell out that the "Sources do not have to be available online or written in English". Because Christian worked largely before the rise of the internet, much of the evidence for her notability is in secondary sources that were widely read at the time, but are not available in on-line archives (e.g. newspaper articles and TV shows). The GNG guidelines clearly spell out that "Sources do not have to be ... written in English". This admits additional evidence in the case of Christian, as there are secondary sources in Korean advertising Christian's work, representing Canada. The GNG guidelines state that notability is furthered by having different sources authored by different people. Christian clearly meets this bar as there is evidence that many reporters and art historians acknowledged Christian's critical acclaim: Carol Fleming (Arts West), Brooks Joyner (Calgary Herald), Patrick Tivy (Calgary Herald), Zena Cherry (Globe and Mail), and at least one other person (author of Landmark magazine article). Christian was also represented by two separate widely recognized galleries.

""Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent."

All the evidence is independent of the subject; we are lucky in the case of Christian that her estate has made tracking down the non-primary sources easier than it would otherwise have been.

""Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.[5]"

With the "presumed" criterion, the GNG guidelines provide for editorial discretion; here I would caution editors who are keen to delete the article to remember that they themselves are subject to unconscious prejudice. The arguments for delete make this prejudice likely: For example, arguments such as a requirement that work be "a major museum like Royal Ontario Museum or the Montreal Museum of Fine Arts" perpetuate the widespread notion that Eastern Canada is the center of Canadian life; one result of this prejudice is the gross under-representation of artists from Western Canada in Wikipedia. Wikipedia should represent notability of people without geographic prejudice (and in Christian's case, she was very widely known in Western Canada, in Calgary and Vancouver).

I invite dispassionate editors like Lemongirl942! and User:Mduvekot! to take a close look at the revisions to the article. Christian was a very important figure in Western Canadian art. I say this as someone who has absolutely no vested interest: she was a famous artist when I was growing up, a celebrity known mostly in Western Canada, but also recognized at the National level. As a woman artist, and an artist from Western Canada, we must be cautious that we do not undermine the case for her because of our own prejudices (most artists on wikipedia are men, and the few Canadian artists are from Eastern Canada, Ontario or Quebec). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Icareaboutart (talk • contribs) 11:48, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate that I can only vote once, but you deleted *all* my votes. Please correct. Icareaboutart (talk) 18:40, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

@Icareaboutart: I still see one of your "Keep" votes in the current version. Search for "Keep: the article is clearly about an important if lesser-known Canadian artist". Your very first keep vote is still there. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:39, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

@Lemongirl1942: cool. but why doesn't it show up on the stats tally?

Oh, weird. Maybe you can try adding you signature there (replace the "preceding unsigned comment" part with you signature). But usually the admin closing it will check the votes manually, so it's not something to worry about. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:57, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

@Lemongirl942: Hey there, wanted to bring back this topic to light. Saw some recent edits by Morrisonjohn022 recently. Though they are constructive, they appear to be full of uncited material. Thoughts? -- MageLam 16:43, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Copied from above. Had mistakenly overwritten content. (diff)

Hey MageLam! Yes, I agree. We have a lot of "drive by" contributors on Wikipedia who may not know how the various policies and guidelines are applied in practice. Some of the edits are actually good (none of it is vandalism or bad faith). It's just that the constant addition of unsourced information/OR is a bit problematic because it ultimately leaves the WP:BURDEN of WP:V on others. I tried to tell this to them on their talk page but I wonder if they read their talk page (or even know that they have one). To be honest, I'm also at a loss how to deal with stuff like this. Sometimes a blanket reverts removes good (but unsourced) content. On the other hand regularly adding such information means that volunteers have to constantly check the contributions (something like policing, which wastes time). I don't have a clear answer myself at the moment, except to just keep a watch on their edits. But I think this is something to think about for long term. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:55, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

This is what happens when you create an encyclopedia on line that anyone can edit— you get a lot of drive-by editing and there just ain't much you can do about it except undo it if it's egregious. Truth be told, I got my own start here this way: I had no intention of developing an edit history or of obtaining "user rights", I just wanted to fix some things I saw in some articles, nothing more. And then someone undid some of my edits, and I was like, "Hey, wait a minute! That was good stuff!" And then I had to get a long hard lesson in policy which was hard to swallow, and then I learned, and many years later now here I am with a stack of 12,000 edits (which still ain't much by many people's standards). But I suspect that drive-by editing is how many Wikipedians get their start. They don't begin by reading about the five pillars or reviewing the notability guidelines or by contacting the Welcoming Committee, they just edit a few things and see what happens. It's backwards, I know, but like I said, not much can be done about that (I so wish I had begun by reading about the five pillars and reviewing the notability guidelines! What a fool this mortal was!). KDS4444 (talk) 10:18, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

You know, I have some empathy for your "let's not do the 'White Man's Burden'" comments, but I also think that you do need to study up on systemic bias. There are so many ways that people who are not WASP males from the first world do have a tougher time meeting GNG even though they are notable and it is important to recognize that GNG is not the purely neutral set of criteria we'd like it to be. Also, a lot of the "consensus" at AfD isn't policy-based at all, but is a group of people's interpretation of words like "significant" or "widespread" and so on. I liken it by analogy to people who live in a "food ghetto" who are criticized for feeding their kids junk food—to do exactly the same thing that people in the middle class do takes a poor person in a bad neighborhood far more time and effort, expending a far greater proportion of one's income and energy. First world people, especially men, and especially white men, similarly have a far easier time of it when it comes to pretty much every criterion of notability we use. We can apply common sense and see that people in some parts of the world clearly pass GNG if we can just take off our bias blinders, view the source material on content and reliability (as opposed to a blind set of rules) and look at what they are actually doing. Montanabw^(talk) 21:17, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

• (Everyone else loves suggesting other people read up on stuff. I love that. WP:CLEARLY. KDS4444 (talk) 10:23, 7 September 2016 (UTC))

I assume everyone here saw that the recent RFC about this topic closed with the conclusion that there is consensus against relaxing GNG and SUSTAINED to compensate underrepresented subjects. The sad fact of the matter is that white men from the First World are simply more likely to be notable (by opportunities and by media attention) than other groups. Wikipedia's mandate is to report extant coverage, not to right social wrongs. Moreover, without coverage sufficient to meet GNG, it is virtually impossible, even with heroic effort, to write an article that does not run afoul of at least one of V (inadequate sourcing), NPOV (single source), or NOTDIRECTORY (permanent stub). Rebbing 11:53, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Hey, there, Lemmongirl! Am just wondering what you mean by "valid search term" (as you mentioned in the UP Naming Mahal deletion discussion). I am not sure myself what that means, but I figured you had a well formulated thought on it and I wanted to find out. Thanks! KDS4444 (talk) 02:37, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi KDS4444. You mean here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/U.P. Naming Mahal right? In certain cases, the article title is a plausible search term (that is there are references out there for it, but the subject is not independently notable enough for an article). This hymn for instance is referred in multiple source, although these are all trivial mentions. The article has also existed for sometime, so there might be incoming links from external websites. In these cases, I go for a redirect as long there is a single clear target. "Valid search term" is just a term I use in my lazy WikiEnglish ;) --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:01, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Interaction between Authorincharge and that last editor you interacted with there: this interaction is combined wth Aic's known sock ('Utimatebeneficiary'). I note a structural siimilarity in username, as well as editing style (language etc) in edit-summaries, and general editing areas... FYI. (Update) Also, your remark about COI fits in perfectly when we consider this- Authorincharge is the subject's lawyer. Cheers, _Muffled ^Pocketed 14:49, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi. Sorry, got caught up in some real life work. This looks like pretty much someone from the same law firm who want to constantly update their clients Wikipedia pages. I don't understand why do they have to add their "net worth" to the articles. Anyway, I have watchlisted the rest of the articles as well and will keep a lookout on them. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:58, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Madam, I noticed that in one of the interactions you/others raised doubts on my edits as well as my integrity. I have nothing to do with any subject/article's lawfirm or related directly or indirectly to the persons/products named in the article. I am an independent editor on wikipedia and have edited wide range of articles which are quite visible from my contributions section(s). I am a journalist by profession and a university professor teaching journalism as well as political sciences in India and visiting professor to Iowa University USA. So please keep me out of any controversy and kindly read my work with embedded citations whenever or whereever I contribute before reverting my edits to another previous version. Whenever my edits on any subject are reverted, I feel like someone destroyed my manuscript which I painstakingly wrote and crafted. I can assure you that none of my work on wikipedia would ever fail the COI test. Should it be ever so required, I am happy to email to wikipedia my credentials and my press council membership card. Mainstreamwikipedia 03:43, 7 September 2016 (UTC)mainstreamwikipediaMainstreamwikipedia 03:43, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Ah, blocked I see. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Authorincharge/Archive. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:08, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) 200 people all on the same IP, apparently  ;) _Muffled ^Pocketed 14:11, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Thankyou for your informed, well thought out contribution to the discussion on weather the article on Talyah Porter should be deleted.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:00, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome Johnpacklambert! Cheers and thank you for your efforts. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:43, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I'd like to thank you for being proactive and keeping Tharman Shanmugaratnam's wiki page free of unnecessary edits. Linguistic chauvinism (ie. the act of pushing a language in a place where it is not required or necessary, especially when the language in question isn't the person's native tongue) is rather rampant on Wikipedia. I see that you recently reverted yet another edit (after we reached the consensus on the talk page) by a user by the name of 'Goldencheesepie'. I checked the contributions of the user and he or she appears to be going on a spree to add extra languages to the bio articles of prominent persons in Singapore. I have reverted the edits so far. Tiger7253 (talk) 18:20, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! I will keep a lookout as well. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:44, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Appreciate your bringing that article and obvious WP:DUCK paid editing situation to light. Accounts like this are throwaway sock accounts and not much can be done about them. The problem, as you know, is that Wiki editors allow such contributions and are unwilling to police them. Indeed, the AfC process is a welcome mat for paid editors. That's just how it is and it is not changing, which is why I rarely become involved in such situations. Coretheapple (talk) 16:29, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Coretheapple, thank you. Sorry for the late reply. Yes, I do agree that AfC needs some changes. I like the idea by Widefox that articles shouldn't be accepted unless the paid editor declares that it is paid content and edits the article to an NPOV state. I'm a bit busy IRL at the moment but I will discuss more on this soon. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:52, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, it really is startling how much garbage comes through AfC. The problem really goes beyond paid editing and COI, although apparently AfC is used in large measure as a kind of back-door way to allow COI editors to put stuff in Wikipedia. One AfC product that recently came to my attention was pure promotional content. Yet it was approved by an administrator and sent on its way. Yet another reason to both distrust the AfC process and to limit administrator terms. Coretheapple (talk) 16:15, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

AFD for ref: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sweat Cosmetics --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:45, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments on Pál Milkovics. Just FYI, this particular user has threatened me with WP:AIV because of my actions tagging the article... see here. Any advice? --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 07:13, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

@Zackmann08: Ah, let me comment there. We just need to be careful not to WP:BITE and yet at the same time explain why we have the rules. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:17, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

On that I will concede the point. I need to get better about not biting the newcomers. I will confess it is rather irritating when someone with 79 edits (all about the same article) comes along and threatens to report me to administrators because they don't like the way Wikipedia works. That being said, I agree that a better job could be done. Thank you for the advice. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 07:39, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed followup you left on that page. You beat me to it by only a few moments.... Damn edit conflicts. :-p You made some excellent points!!! Well said and thanks for helping me take a step back. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 07:51, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Zackmann08: Actually, you are not wrong and I totally understand why you are irritated. When I saw almost all edits on a single article (SPA like behaviour), I suspected a COI as well (and I have seen multiple COI cases where editors were paid to remove tags). This may or may not be a COI case - only time will tell. At the moment, I guess I will AGF a bit. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:52, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Also, just to be clear I don't see any WP:BITING from your side. Your warnings (at least the ones which I saw) were pretty reasonable and descriptive enough. Thank you for your help as well! --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:52, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Hey, any chance you could reach out to User:Fruitmince? I see you've posted at that user's talk page. S/he is enthusiastic, but a bit over-enthusiastic and needs a mentor. As this editor appears to be Asian, and I think you also live in Asia, perhaps you could assist this editor to understand that some of the issues s/he is having are not related to content but to things like formatting, citation, and so on. This editor is wreaking havoc at horse slaughter and while we "get" the point about a Eurocentric point of view, their approach is, well, see the article history. I don't want to bite a sincere editor, but they are causing problems and maybe some other voices can explain matters better than I can. Montanabw^(talk) 20:18, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Hey Montanabw! The editor seems to be from Finland (but knows some Japanese) and possibly not a native speaker of English either. I see now that they have started discussions on the article talk page so I guess they understand the situation a bit better. I will keep a watch on their talk page and should there be more warnings, I will try to explain. Alternatively you can let me know if they persist in editing against consensus. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:33, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

OK. Right now, they seem to be just stressed out about the whole situation. The problem I'm having is that I can't seem to get across the concept that I'm not arguing with them over content, I'm trying to get them to use citations properly and to stop making big drastic changes without discussion, particularly when they remove sourced material. As I tend to get a little sharp with people when they DONTHEARTHAT, sometimes it works better for someone who is a little more diplomatic to talk to them. But no worries. I guess we'll just wait and see how they proceed. Montanabw^(talk) 17:59, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

	The Malaysia WikiProject Newsletter
Issue 6 • October 2016 • About the Newsletter
Sabah had been promoted to Good Article. Kudos to everyone who help contributing to the article, even a little. Our current goal for now is to help assess every WikiProject Malaysia of the articles' quality and importance. You can use this link and save it at the bookmark bar. Currently there are about 25% unassessed articles. See also: Wikipedia:WikiProject Malaysia/Assessment. Follow our Facebook page here! We'll keep you up-to-date of recent happenings in the WP:MY. Welcome new users who have interest on Malaysia-related articles with the new template: {{Welcome-my}}. Please help participating in the XfD discussion that was Malaysia-related. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Malaysia. Thank you! Tips of the month: Watchlisting the Wikiproject Malaysia Article Alerts can help you keep up to date of all the XfD, GAN and other related alerts about Malaysia articles.
Past Newsletter • Newsroom • Malaysia Noticeboard • Malaysia Portal
Newsletter written by NgYShung huh? (Delivered: 12:30, 1 October 2016 (UTC)). You may opt-out of this monthly newsletter by removing your name here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:30, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

HazelAB (talk) 12:34, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your third opinion on Talk:Académie Julian#Lists of notable professors and students. I am trying to hold back from further interventions on this until we get another third opinion. Verbcatcher (talk) 15:42, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

The geographic location of the IP that made this edit is...interesting. Not really sure what we can do, but deleting the article might be the best move at this point since notability is marginal and there appears to be a persistent WP:COI issue. Safehaven86 (talk) 21:54, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

I am somewhat suspicious that the possible sockpuppet has a master who has participated in the AfD for Zeek. Do you think we have enough info to launch a sockpuppet investigation? Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 17:19, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

@Stevietheman: I am suspicious as well, but I don't think we have enough evidence. I am unable to find which one is the master account. There's actually a possibility that this is simply a paid editor recruited via one of the freelancer websites, in which case SPI is technically not very useful. The behavioural characteristics are hard to pin point. This is unfortunately a case but I don't see any way to proceed. :( --Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:01, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Thwack. Since you had some involvement with the Thwack redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Guliolopez (talk) 09:10, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

• Ah just done! Thank you Guliolopez :) --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:19, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello. I see one of my edits at Yale-NUS College was reverted. I got the information that Yale-NUS is under NUS, although autonomous, from these two pages: [24] [25]. It turns out that it's more strongly related to NUS than to Yale. Comments?--Officer781 (talk) 08:45, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi Officer781. Thank you for discussing. My impression has been that Yale-NUS is actually autonomous (with a separate governing body). Which is why I'm not sure if it is correct to term NUS as its "parent university". It is of course, closely related to NUS (partly sharing the campus). Usually the term parent university is used in cases of colleges which are affiliated to an university. In these cases the parent university specifies the syllabus, examinations and awards the degree. For example for the colleges at List of colleges affiliated with the University of Delhi, University of Delhi would be the parent university (as it specifies the syllabus, examinations and awards the degree). That doesn't happen in the case of Yale-NUS and NUS. Let me search for a bit more over this though. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:55, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Ah. Yeah I think that would be good, as the List of universities and colleges in Singapore lists a few autonomous schools of NUS and NTU as having a parent university. That term was actually included by me so if it's wrong I can go correct it. I'm from Singapore too, by the way.--Officer781 (talk) 09:00, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

This is interesting though. Every student will graduate with a Bachelor of Arts degree with Honours or a Bachelor of Science degree with Honours from Yale-NUS College, awarded by NUS So the degree is awarded "by NUS" but "from Yale-NUS". They couldn't have made it any more ambiguous lol. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:01, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

There's also another question I'm trying to solve: When MOE says that certain publicly-funded schools (like UniSIM, NAFA and LASALLE) are private schools, it means that the schools are managed privately (here "private" which means self-funded doesn't seem to apply)? What's the difference between them and autonomous schools (the other 5 universities) that also seem to be managed privately? The difference between these and the polytechnics (classed as fully public) are obvious enough (polytechnics are statutory boards). --Officer781 (talk) 09:12, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, this is a bit ambiguous as well. I guess I will have to look at similar lists for other countries to see how they do this. Over here it seems there are 3 different concepts of "Ownership", "Funding" and "Management". Let me look up the lists for other countries. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:22, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

It seems any institution in this list is considered private.--Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:26, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

A response. Thank you! Yvarta (talk) 17:31, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

A response again. Thank you! To avoid becoming frustrated in my responses, I will be stepping away from the issue for at least a day. However, I suspect we shall be able to discuss this issue in more detail when I return. Yvarta (talk) 17:37, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Let's keep the discussion on the talk page itself. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:38, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Yvarta (talk) 18:31, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello Lemongirl942, I look forward to engaging in productive discourse. Yvarta (talk) 18:31, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

And I look forward to you not POV pushing on the article. Now please keep discussions on the article talk page. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 21:21, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

jealousy can cause all sources seem unreliable, Wiki should set up standard so unreliable editors can't even write here Zandradiliges (talk) 20:05, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

@Zandradiliges: What exactly are you trying to say? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 18:09, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Note: This is related to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Linjie Chou Zanadu --Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:01, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Would appreciate if you can delete Outeniqua Yeilowwood, or nominate it for deletion. It is a misspelling of Yellowwood. I am not familiar with AFD procedure. JMK (talk) 10:25, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

@JMK: This seems like a plausible redirect to me. Outeniqua Yellowwood might be incorrectly typed as Outeniqua Yeilowwood (due to the i and l similarity). I am generally not a fan of too many redirects, but this seems kind of OK to have. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:22, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

A redirect must represent a valid alternative name, or a commonly made mistake, and this one is neither of these. JMK (talk) 16:58, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

so, if Xinhua publishes an editorial on someone, they're not notable? I'll just restate the definition of Xinhua here for you. "The Xinhua News Agency (English pronunciation: /ˌʃɪnˈhwɑː/[1]) is the official press agency of the People's Republic of China. Xinhua is the biggest and most influential media organization in China. Xinhua is a ministry-level institution subordinate to the Chinese central government. Its president is a member of the Central Committee of China's Communist Party." See Wikipedia. Drop the stick... your insistence on tearing apart refs like this incredible one from Xinhua is silly. The State of China does not spend their time publishing critical editorials on "nobodies". They deal with serious stuff. And this Xinhua ref is only one of dozens. Notability is very very clearly established.104.163.141.133 (talk) 09:58, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

National Husband Of China Jokes 'Big Boobs' Is A Must For A Girlfriend; State News Agency Fires Back. Please! We need better coverage than this. Also, keep discussions at the same place. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:26, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

I thought you would want to know about a filing at the dispute resolution noticeboard. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Summary_of_dispute_by_Rniterjr.3B_Black_Kite.3B_Lemongirl942 First, the filing was very badly field. That isn't the problem. I could have fixed it if it had been a dispute that was appropriate for DRN. Second, the filing party has a conflict of interest because they appear to be the subject of the article. That isn't the problem. Third, DRN isn't the forum for review of AFD. I closed the filing (rather than fix it) and advised that review of an AFD close should go to deletion review. So it is likely that it will go to deletion review. I just thought that you and User:Black Kite should know. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:53, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Hey Robert McClenon. Thank you for letting me know. I had a hunch they would try to re-litigate the AfD after it was re-closed as a delete. All of this smacks of paid editing. Anyway, DRN is definitely not the venue, so if they want to do anything, they must go to DRV. Thank you for closing that. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:16, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

By paid editing, I assume that you mean paid by the subject of the article. As to thanks for closing that, you're welcome, but I will note that closing at DRN is very different than closing at AFD. Closing at AFD, like closing an RFC, is a formal assessment of consensus. A close at DRN may be for any of a number of reasons, such as that the case was not properly filed or doesn't belong at DRN, or that the editors have failed to respond, or have reached an impasse, or have agreed. In this case, it didn't belong at DRN, but at DRV. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:08, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Also, it appears that you and Black Kite are implying that there may have been sockpuppetry in the AFD, and/or paid editing by the subject. Unfortunately, there is often sockpuppetry in an AFD. I know that there is often paid editing in AFC, and one letter off is only one letter off. (One of the challenges for an Articles for Creation reviewer is that a lot of the drafts are spam.) Robert McClenon (talk) 23:51, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

• 99.242.160.75 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Kinron Community Event Planning Services Inc (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Why was our submission declined. We supplied enough Articles in respect to the festival Scarborough Community Multicultural Festival

Hello. Yes, there were quite a lot of references, but the references need to provide indepth coverage of the organisation. The references also need to be reliable sources - major newspaper like NYT/WSJ or the like. There also needs to be non-local coverage. At the moment, I see mostly local coverage. Please see WP:NORG for more. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 01:26, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I wonder if I could consult with you on a civility-related matter? K.e.coffman (talk) 22:30, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

@K.e.coffman: Sure, no problem! What is it about? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 01:13, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

I am wondering what you'd make of this exchange: Talk:Wolfgang Lüth#Recent edit? "Ridiculous complaints"; "your edits are ridiculous"; "you (try to) use one source to denigrate another"; "your article"; "you've abused the RS source policy" etc. I wonder if it would be appropriate to take this to ANI at this point.

There's a pattern of similar behaviour from the editor in the past; more material on my user page from earlier in the year, in sections: User:K.e.coffman#Saga continues & right below it, in "Epic edit summaries from involved editor". This seems to be a cross between IDONTLIKEIT and outright uncivil behaviour. What would you do? K.e.coffman (talk) 05:19, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

@K.e.coffman: Apologies for reply late. Hmm, this seems bad. At the same time though, don't take the bait. In the interest of de-escalating the situation, the best way is to call for an RFC or post on a noticeboard. That helps to get eyes. I will take a look myself soon. I had a brief look and some of them is indeed a bit too much detail. I might tolerate detail someone (as long as it is sourced to a reliable source), but if the sources itself is not reliable, then there is no point in keeping it. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 18:59, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

I need help on starting a redirect debate on Transsexual pornography please. Dwanyewest (talk) 03:57, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

@Dwanyewest: Done! See Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 October 23#Shemale porn. You can add your opinion over there. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 19:10, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Ping! :)--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 04:09, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Haha thank you Kintetsubuffalo! I will do the merge later today. The photos at Arrow Scout Group are valuable and I will add some to the target article. Regards, --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:12, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Ouch! Time flies. Still, it's on my to do list and I will do it. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 19:17, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

For the tip to make my editing easier and more distinctive. I'm sorry for the length of my messages, but I used to get paid by the word, and brevity has never been easy for me. Beanyandcecil (talk) 00:05, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome. Using the templates just makes it a lot more easier. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 19:18, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

It is unfortunate that this request seems to have been ignored. I addressed the same issue here and my message was promptly deleted. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:52, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

@Magnolia677:, yes this is problematic behaviour, although I wanted to AGF first. I'm wondering if this needs to go to ANI or DRV. What do you think? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 19:03, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

There was a lengthy discussion at ANI last summer (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive930) and their talk page shows numerous warnings. At least the editor didn't swear at you (I wasn't so lucky). I will certainly add a comment whichever route your follow. Cheers. Magnolia677 (talk) 19:56, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

I asked again. Hopefully they will respond. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 20:12, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

I found your comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GroceryRun to be very crass, insulting, and offensive. Editors are free to disagree on a topic, there is no need to attempt to ridicule anyone or make any personal attacks. There's no room for that in AFD.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:01, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

@Paulmcdonald: Do you mean this? I'm curious how is this a personal attack or an attempt to ridicule. You posted that "do not confuse stub status with notability" and I said "no, we aren't" confusing stub status with notability. I'm not sure why you think this is a personal attack or an attempt to ridicule. I have absolutely no intention to do that. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:13, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

It's picking a fight, and it doesn't belong. Discuss the topic, please don't argue or ridicule.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:20, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

I have no idea how is that considered picking up a fight or even ridiculing someone. There was no intention to ridicule you or denigrate you. If you didn't like that comment, I will remove it immediately. But I am still willing to listen and understand how it ridicules someone. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:31, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

It added nothing to the discussion, and since it adds nothing it takes away. It's targeting the credibility of my comment based on personal understanding and pulling the point that "everyone else agrees, you should too" which could be considered WP:BULLYING or at least Wikipedia:POV railroad. I'm convinced now you did not do it on purpose, but it was still done.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:39, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Actually, telling seasoned editors they are 'confused' is more of an attack, Paulmcdonald. _Muffled ^Pocketed 14:34, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

I was the one who was confused. Please stop ganging up on me, I don't like it.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:53, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

• Since the subject of "seasoned editors" was brought up:
  • Lemongirl942--not in the top 5,000 edits. #6687 with 11,267 edits. See Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits/6001–7000. Nice job, keep it up.
  • Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi--not in the top 5,000 edits. #5262 with 14,454 edits. See Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits/5001–6000. Admirable. Well done.
  • Paulmcdoanld--#1864 with 35,618 edits. See Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits. Not everyone agrees with me on a lot of things, and I'm still looking to learn too. It's best to refrain from any comment that could even possibly be considered an attack. Even if the person you are addressing does not feel attacked, other editors may and that can turn off a lot of new editors. It's not just what one person feels, but what one person could feel.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:06, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Sounds like we're comparing edit-counts behind the bike sheds: and absolute nonsense it is. Congratulations on being #1864 however; the air must be very thin at those dizzy heights. Whilst you get your breath back, may I suggest WP:EC as proferred reading? Cheers! _Muffled ^Pocketed 05:05, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

That is absolutely and without question a personal attack.--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:45, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

No, it's a measured response to what could be perceived as another personal attack. You must see that comparing editors on the grounds of a mere edit-count is belittling when not justified? I'm sorry, you have, if I may say so, a curiously one-sided view of what constitutes a p.a. Cheers! _Muffled ^Pocketed 11:51, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

On reconsideration, I will accept that what I said was mildly sarcastic, so apologies for Basil Fawltyesque remarks. However, I must reaffirm my then-following description of the situation. I also note that we've probably taken up enough time on LG942's TP that we should probably both start paying her rent... Cheers, _Muffled ^Pocketed 13:19, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

OK people let it be - no more discussion about personal attacks and edit. But to clarify Paulmcdonald, when Fortuna talked about the confusion part, it was because of your statement "do not confuse stub status with notability" - your statement implied that the other editors were confused about stub status and notability. I replied with that comment because none of the editors who had commented had expressed that confusion. I'm sorry if you felt my comment was a personal attack. Looking over it again, my comment was short and I believe you might have felt it was dismissive. But that's the way we talk here in Singapore in an informal setting. Sentences are short, to the point and without much grammar. For example, instead of asking a taxi driver "Hello. Would you be able to drop us at Esplanade?", we just say "Uncle, can go Esplanade?" I try very hard not to use it on Wikipedia but I guess stuff slips through sometimes. I'm sorry if that offended you. Anyway, this is done and gone. Now lets move on. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:49, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I feel like I'm letting the good fight down a bit, but I really lack the enthusiasm to deal with what are obviously stooge accounts intent on edit warring their version of the world in at the moment. The lead is so hopelessly biased that it's not going to convince anyone, and actually works against what these people are trying to achieve. Happy to comment on ANI/3RR/RFPP posts though if you ping me. Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 10:01, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Hey Nick-D, I'm a bit down on enthusiasm too. The meatpuppetry is just waaaay too obvious over there. I'm also sick of it and I would actually prefer to let the current puffy version stand there. Whoever looks at the article would obviously notice the bias and also the tag. All this puffery is just going to have the opposite effect. Should something happen that it needs to go to any of the noticeboards, I would be happy to ping you! Cheers, --Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:13, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

@Nick-D: Looks like the 2 SPAs are now tag teaming on the article to remove the maintenance template. I'm not sure if they will listen to me that their behaviour is persistently disruptive. Would appreciate if you could tell them that their behaviour is blockable - if they listen and cease then it is well and good. Otherwise I will go to ANI and seek a PBAN. But I want to ensure that they understand how serious their disruptive editing is. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:09, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Wrigleygum is edit warring despite being recently warned, and could be reported at WP:3RR. I've warned the other account. Nick-D (talk) 09:53, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello,

I am hope you are doing well. You just tagged Beini Da, an article I created with COI tag. I do not have a conflict of interest with the subject of the article. I have never met or spoken to Beini Da. I found the article about her in the declined Articles for Creation. I saw she was notable, so I picked up the article, fixed it and created it. I guess the photos in the article might have given the impression of a COI. I didn't upload the photos. They were already uploaded on Wikimedia Commons, along with several other photos of her. As such, I have removed the COI tag.

Take careSusana Hodge (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:30, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

@Susana Hodge: Firstly, you should never have created that article like that. Wikipedia requires attribution. You copied content from the draft to mainspace without attribution. My suggestion is to blank the mainspace article and add your content to the existing draft. Then submit it to AFC and let it be accepted. Please note that there was a previous history of COI editing on the article and it was obvious that Wikipedia was being used for promotion. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:47, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

I actually did not copy anything from that article. I had to change almost all of the content in the draft. I had intended to create it as a draft and then submit it to AfC, however, I find the AfC process to be very arbitrary. I have done it in the past: fixing a draft, submitting it to AfC and then having it declined for the wrong reason. I am not going that route again. The page is on my watchlist and I will keep an eye on it to make sure its not used for promotion. Susana Hodge (talk) 09:22, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Hey, I think you are misinterpreting the meaning of Aspie. If you read the last sentence in the top definition, it says "Aspie is an affectionate term, and is not meant as a put down" [26]. Because of that, it can not be a personal attack. I hope the situation is clear now. CerealKillerYum (talk) 14:00, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Yeah? You are seriously using urbandictionary to justify that? (For reference, the second definition of retard according to Urban Dictionary is "George H. W. Bush"). Would it be OK if I say you are a retard? Look, I am pretty tolerant on humour but making jokes on developmental disorders and targeting it at other users is just way not appropriate. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:52, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

That's a fallacy. Retarded is not equivalent to Aspie as the former has only negative connotations whereas the latter has a positive connotation. Look at the second definition, it says "those who have it are often very intelligent!" CerealKillerYum (talk) 14:58, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Your logic is laughable and you remind me of the people who say "Nigga" has a positive connotation, so it should be OK for use on Wikipedia. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:08, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

I reverted your edits as there is an ongoing discussion on the talk page about WP:PROMO - that section is about awards and accolades but it is neutrally written and referenced with third party sources. As the link you provided says (a guideline I am well aware of), "Information about companies and products must be written in an objective and unbiased style, free of puffery. All article topics must be verifiable with independent, third-party sources" - which this section complies with. I'm assuming good faith and hoping you can do the same! Garchy (talk) 22:09, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

I read your comments about WP:WEIGHT - that makes sense to me. I strongly decent the section is written in a neutral tone and is referenced to third party sources, however you are correct that for the size of the article the section is not necessary. Thank you for the insight. Garchy (talk) 22:17, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Your removal of sources from an article[27] was extremely bad form and reflects extremely poorly on your actions at AFD. You are much better than that Lemongirl942. Do better from now on. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 08:20, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

I removed it from the article because Wikipedia is not a link farm. The further reading section is not necessary. If you actually looked at it, my very next edit was to move the links to the talk page. Whoever wants to improve it can still find those on the talk. AfD or not, there is no need to dump the sources on the article page. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:56, 30 October 2016 (UTC)