User talk:ReaderofthePack/Archive 7

1427:, with the big difference being that rather than list things individually, the article summarizes them and relates on the subject matter as a whole as far as the magazine and its history goes. In any case, the biggie here is sourcing. If you can, I'd recommend getting some of the bigger gaming websites seen as RS to do a retrospective on the magazine over the years, if possible. Be careful of asking blogs to cover the magazine- those don't generally count unless they're by a very big name that hasn't worked or contributed to the magazine. GameSpot is a good place to start, as would be N4G or IGN. Mainstream coverage is also good, so if you can get a newspaper such as the New York Times or the major paper of any state or bigger city to cover you, that'd be an option as well. i09 is also nice and is pretty approachable, from what I've heard. I know it's not always as easy as e-mailing an editor and saying "hey, write about me", but you'd probably have more pull than if a random fan wrote them and asked them to cover the magazine. As long as they're not quoting from press releases, the news sources would be usable. 3816:

majority and policy-backed arguments with their loud and baseless protests. It is completely clear that the subject merits its own article and I've doubled the size to meet their "requests" of the issues. Both Lucia and Ryulong's actions were hinted (rather overtly in one case) to be a proxy for the unresolved Ghost in the Shell dispute. Lucia's emotional and personal problems with me have disrupted Knowledge and she blames me for anything and everything; it is true I was upset at her deliberate falsification at Ghost in the Shell; but no one seems to have cared enough to respond to that. Not even at ANI when I brought it up. Quite frankly; the inability to separate personal issues from content issues are the reason why this silly dispute has persisted. If they stuck to content reasons; the article would already have in mainspace and able to be freely edited by all editors; I just want credit for my efforts (through a hist-merge) and they can play with it as they want; because any edit warring means DRN anyways to resolve it.

1100:, an article that I suspect that you were quickly aware that it was at least a likely to be aimed for the trash heap. That's something that I sometimes do - not that frequently at this point - not just trying to source things, but taking care of all the formatting, the phrasing, all the niceties. At some point, I'm hoping to write up an essay on this practice, on why it can be a good thing... not only in the rare chance that in doing so, you find that the article is salvagable, but also that you can put it down with full confidence that the it is the right thing, that the person who created the article knows that your deletion is not a whim, and possibly they learn about how to do it better for the next time. And then there's just the grace of doing everything right. Or maybe you have a different way of viewing things. Anyway, when (and if) I get around to that essay, I hope that I can ask you to have a looksee at it and add your own thoughts and suggestions. -- 2751:. There's just enough mention in various places (along with the more frivolous ones such as South Park and the like) that this would be considered to be a notable neologism. I fully understand your frustration with this since many of the arguments boiled down to "obviously notable" and "not censored" in the various deletion discussions. I'd liked to have seen more people argue based upon reliable sources since they are out there- they just weren't added to the article. You have more of people arguing w/ RS in the most recent discussion, but there were still some arguments along those lines. Even so, there are sources to show notability and I'll add some of the ones I mentioned to the article. It would have been nice if the other person had assumed good faith and not seen it as an attack, but at this point it's just better to let it go. 3592:. Secondly, the other reason is that there was nothing to show that the opening of a Hindu temple on the island is of enough importance to merit its own entry. Very few religious buildings of any denomination or religion will meet notability guidelines. We would need extended coverage of the temple in reliable sources to show that it merits an entry. Reliable sources are things such as articles in newspapers, television news shows, and things of that nature. Statements from the temple or anything affiliated with the group doesn't count towards notability. Stating that the temple would be important to other people and that you'll add more later is not sufficient. I also was bothered that you were telling people to "mind their own business" and essentially trying to claim 3789:

usable. It's just that she doesn't have any of this. I checked for sources and other than brief mentions, a handful of unusable blog entries, and some primary/merchant sources, there really isn't anything out there about her. As far as Knowledge's guidelines go (which are very strict, mind you) she's just not that notable of a designer. Don't take this badly- the guidelines on here are very, very strict when it comes to people and the fashion world is notorious for not giving in-depth coverage to anyone that isn't lucky enough to make a huge splash with the right people when they start producing their stuff. Aghili just isn't notable per

1423:

magazine? No, of course not. It might be interesting in a wikia or fan entry elsewhere, but for a general Knowledge or encyclopedia page, it's unnecessary. Again, we summarize rather than go into as much detail as you'd find in a book or wikia devoted specifically to a magazine. If you can find a better way to summarize it, add it in, but part of the big problem was that the bulk of the article was listing various things that the magazine had without really giving much information about it or why these were such integral parts of the magazine. A good example of how to work it in a little better would be the sections for

3977:

themselves. They have no intention of working and developing the article on their own; as evidenced by the alternate sandbox being unedited and continued sniping at me. Ryulong actually referred to the manga as "presenting the information in a false manner" which upsets me at his previous allowance of deliberately false information at Ghost in the Shell and Lucia is taking issue for me citing sources and adding two sentences to another article. They have no intention of improving the content or fixing it themselves and desire it only to not exist beyond what the criteria for inclusion is.

3597:

an article for deletion. From that point, any administrator on Knowledge can review the rationale and delete it if it falls under those guidelines. The other reason that many of your articles were probably deleted (not just the one I deleted) is because it came across as promotional. There is no reason to list meeting times on an article or to write the article as if you were writing a blog entry or news story. Even if you did so with good intent, Knowledge is not a place to promote meeting times or anything to that extent.

3906:

argue that it rehashes too much of the stuff in the main article. There is still an emphasis on the English dub, but that can be fixed over time, I suppose. On the other hand, the main article for DB is insanely long at times and some forking of content would probably help with flow and ease of reading. I'd say go for it, but I would like to get another experienced (and non-involved) editor's say-so on the content. Given that there's some back and forth for a while now, the more eyes looking at this, the better.

901:

Just being a writer isn't enough to be considered a reliable source as far as stuff goes. I saw that he won an Ellery Queen award, but that's an award voted upon by readers and not entirely something I'd say would mark him as an authority on the subject of flash fiction. It's a tricky thing as far as whether or not someone is a reliable source or not and unfortunately the best way of proving reliability tends to fall under whether or not the person has been quoted or referenced in multiple mainstream sources.

2529: 1904: 1479: 3144: 2819: 1943: 1611: 1144: 650: 31: 1044: 1716: 3290: 528: 1414:

We give a general synopsis, saying that the magazine contained articles, tips, and other content, but it's considered to be unnecessary to list everything that was ever posted in the magazine. In other words, there was no need to list everything from the contents page to the miscellaneous data such as the "Token of the Month" feature. It's not the norm for magazine articles to include this, as Knowledge isn't considered to be a place for

1207: 959: 363: 3462:

own so see no reason why anyone should think otherwise. Yes I understand that the picture is also on Facebook but that's because I uploaded it for our band back in 2012. Anyway, I really am grateful that you have gone out of your way to edit the page rather than just flag it for deletion. If any problems with the page still occur please post on my talk page HOW to fix it as I have no idea how to use Knowledge properly. Thank you :)

1329:

copies at its peak. It regularly outsold many other gaming magazines that still have their own dedicated pages on Knowledge, and outlived most of them as well. The magazine was highly respected in the industry, and its editorial lineage can be traced directly back to a publication that actually pre-dates both Electronic Games and Computer & Video Games, which are generally considered to be the very first video-game magazines.

1118:

great. If not, then I don't have to worry about looking at it months later and wincing. Then again, sometimes I'll do it because a more neatly presented article will give others more of an incentive to look for sources. I know that if I see an article up for PROD or AfD that looks poorly put together, I'm less likely to be inclined to look for sources and whatnot, so I know that this is probably the case for others as well.

3356:

undesired aspects of the community. Which is certainly needed at times. Sadly though, we oftentimes neglect to recognize the positive aspects of the community or express our appreciation for consistency and dedication. I hope to bypass any inkling of my own personal complacency or neglect in this area, simply by keeping my eye out for the good I see around me. Again, thanks! Your work is appreciated. Best regards,

3952: 3496: 2122: 2040: 926: 2960:

like it's more then one. So blacklisting the URL won't stop the article from being recreated but will help with them posting their URL anywhere on Wiki. Since Tokyogirl79‎ is an admin maybe she can blacklist at our request? Or report it? Anyway this is the first time I encountered a spammer that is so determined to get into wiki!

131:, a new page about a notable topic by a new user I've been helping. Unfortunately, I've got to go offline in a moment, and it still needs a good deal of attention - if my favourite book-article-editing fellow admin has a bit of time on her hands, perhaps she'd like to take a look? Sourcing's the most pressing issue. Cheers, 2789:

general editing board, as this term is used explicitly for academic journals and while it can be misused, JSTOR is usually very good about what sources they list. Of course, not every journal in JSTOR is peer-reviewed, so it's good to apply a little caution and see who the journal/article/book is being published by.

2740: 3674:

PayPal" is completely and totally unacceptable. There is no reason why you should be writing what type of payment formats her website takes. That's so above and beyond promotional that it's probably why someone tagged the article as spam. As far as the sources go, here's a rundown as to why they don't work.

2772:

offending but that is irrelevant) I just never heard of the term. Also not sure how much RS from 1 comedy show means anything. Again the papers by students not sure that is RS, you know more about this then I do and thank you for explaining. I will also see if I can find some more RS if I get free time lol

3826:

She doesn't want compromise to be made and thinks it is a matter of winning; by mentioning "showing signs of defeat". I've long since welcomed interaction on this mess. I had to make an RFC about Lucia's "deletion campaign" which expressed massive amounts of IDHT; yet she persisted only to be dragged

3815:

Please... please... remain involved in the discussion! For months I have asked people to remain involved because without outside opinions and greater involvement the dispute will never end. Given their eagerness to avoid consensus building, including Lucia's refusal to DRN, they attempt to override a

3596:

of the article by saying that nobody has the right to delete it. Nobody owns an article on Knowledge and taking this stance on Knowledge will not help you when it comes to editing. Any user who believes that an article doesn't pass notability guidelines and can back it up with guidelines can nominate

2944:

have to keep going till they either give up or actually become notable." The IP who posted on that talk page claims to be a reporter and writer for the 'times magazine', but doesn't say WHICH 'times' - if there's any truth in it, it'll be a potty little village rag to judge from the level of English.

1422:

rather than itemized bit by bit like this article was. That's the type of thing that really belongs more on a fan page rather than an encyclopedia entry. It's interesting, but you've got to think: in the long run, do people really need to have an explicit and painstaking layout of each portion of the

1349:

The big problem here is coverage, which the magazine doesn't have at this point in time. I can transfer a copy into your userspace for you to work on, but the most important thing is that this would need coverage in reliable sources to prove any of the claims you have. Being circulated doesn't really

856:

Some do, depending on where they come from. If one of the regular horror sites (Bloody Disgusting) were to write a review on it, that'd count. If someone in the forums wrote a review, it wouldn't count unless the site were to repost it on the main site somehow. I'd say that a PROD would probably work

591:

when you get a moment? I don't think these refs pass RS, but the author seems to think they do. (On a side line, how can a secret society be published in a year book and have its doings recorded in a campus newspaper? I don't understand the American education system - it seems far more concerned with

4001:

Lucia is willing to drop the issue; she may not like it, but given the history between us... it means a lot to me for having the courage to make that comment. I've recreated the article and will leave it up to Knowledge and not the little circle; as to its direction and improvements. I hope this can

3864:

Thanks; the sandbox5 listed at the bottom of the Dragon Ball talk page is Ryulong's preferred variant with the stripped cast, crew and I also did the theme song removals (which was unasked) to hopefully point out that it deserves being in main space. I have a lot of work tonight to do with a special

3822:

The real issue is that they do not want to see the page recreated, because as Lucia mentioned before that would me "I win". This was the case with consensus building at Ghost in the Shell where Lucia instructed Ryulong on his talk page. Here's a fairly decent example (the entire "Comprimise" section

3073:

another page in order to try to get around the deletion of the pages about Wlinkster. He replaced all of that page's information with information about his site- pretty blatant and awful behavior. His IP range has been blocked, but I kind of expect him to try again in the future or for him to try to

1117:

Sure! I have to say that sometimes I'll do it for just the reasons you stated- sometimes it's just to show that it's not just going to be deleted on a lark, although I do admit that sometimes I do it just to kind of do it. It's sort of a risk-free practice of sorts. If it gets kept somehow then it's

195:

grants notability). The reviews mentioned on the jacket would be great, but like you, I had a hunt and came up short (they were from the 70s or earlier, so it's not too surprising that online archives don't seem to exist). The problem I found was that pretty much all the sources about the books seem

3905:

to get a look at this as well. She's more familiar with the editing of anime and manga stuff for the most part. I'm sort of more experienced with books in general and I'm not as familiar with content spinoffs of main articles. It looks to be good to go, although my only concern is that people might

3788:

The thing is, none of the sources show notability. No amount of slideshow images or brief mentions in magazines will give notability. What we need to show notability would be things along the lines of news articles about Aghili. If Glamour magazine were to do a full article on Aghili, that would be

2719:

because as far as I can see it is not a real slang (certainly not common) I never heard of it. Secondly if wiki won't allow user created blogs, web pages etc. to be used, then why is uploading a PDF any different? I got attacked for starting the AfD, even the creator sent me a "false warning" on my

1413:

It is, but you need to realize that much of that was deleted because not only was it not properly sourced, but it was also a lot of miscellaneous data about the magazine. When it comes to Knowledge articles containing content of magazines, we don't list every chapter or feature that a magazine has.

1328:

I also have to question the basis for your assertion that "T&T was always one of the less popular out there." Tips & Tricks had national distribution in major retail chains for 13 years (17 if you include the Tips & Tricks Codebook spinoff), and its monthly circulation exceeded 200,000

900:

No, but the author has to be considered an absolute authority, which unfortunately usually translates to the person being extremely notable or the type of person that has written a ton of papers for peer-reviewed journals, is quoted heavily, has won a boot locker full of big impressive awards, etc.

3673:

The big reason is that it was considered to be so obviously promotional that it was considered to be an advertisement for Aghili. Phrases such as "rose to prominence" should be avoided because they sound promotional. Other phrases such as saying that the "website accepts all major credit cards and

3461:

Hi there thanks for your help on my Wiki page 'B Yellow'. I was wondering why it kept getting marked for deletion, hopefully that's all over now :) About your query concerning my photo. I am very much affiliated with the band and the picture is entirely my own work, I uploaded it stating it was my

170:

I've added a bit more to the article and I'd defend it if it came up for AfD, although it'd be a somewhat weak keep. The book jacket is sort of a dodgy source. I can see where others would argue against it. I just wish I could find those articles so I could list the actual newspaper date and page.

3355:

Hey there, I just wanted to check in with you and offer some feedback. Your work on AFDs is greatly appreciated. I think your thoroughness in discussions is a breath of fresh air. For the most part, I think a lot of Knowledge editors tend to spend more (and more) time addressing vandals and other

3249:

The "Raingers" word obviously one of the things that I would like to put it. Thank you for noticed that. Another is about the early life of the band, being rejected by Johorian fans with harsh and abuse word (YouTube - watch?v=TRDqSxSZBY0) but kept it professionalism. Perhaps, I need to find very

3245:

for your effort and help, build the article flawlessly. Actually, it was the second time my article (about Hujan) being remove. It was quite surprised since the band was really well known already. Mostly of it probably because lack of reliable references link, since I don't know well the format.

3020:

Looks like it. I've looked at the blacklist page, and am not sure if this fits. That seems to be more for addition of links repeatedly here, there and everywhere rather than repeated use in articles about the subject. I'm pretty sure there's no way of banning a word from use in titles, either. In

2959:

Hi Peridon, thanks for your added support. They're clearly spamming that site which was created a few weeks ago. They are determined about it. It maybe more then 1 person involved, since the one user left me a message saying "my friend's page is not advertising" but I can't prove it, but it looks

2943:

This what I was posting at the AfD but found it closed when I hit save... "I've speedied this one, and protected all the other titles (except the one already protected by DGG...). I don't think just protecting the word Wlinkster can be done. (It's a protected title now anyway.) I think we'll just

2655:

I'd go ahead and open one up, although if you're hesitant I can always do one for you. I'd pretty much be saying that you were concerned about it, so it'd be better if you did it. It's better to open one and have it end up being false than to have socking continue and have it potentially sway the

1551:

I think a PROD is a waste of time as it would simply be removed. I think it might also be a waste of time to do an AfD right now. As a new little press that is making some waves in limited circles, in the next year or so those waves may either break out into a broader notice in which case the AfD

2788:

When it comes to potential student or academic papers, the rule of thumb is that it depends on where it's posted. If it's in a journal, it can count- especially if it's a peer-reviewed one, which means that experts in the field reviewed and edited the article. Status as a PRJ is more than just a

422:

and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the

3767:

This is a non-notable blogs. Only rarely are blogs usable to show notability and this isn't one of those exceptions. The rare exceptions are when the person writing the blog is considered to be such an expert (think in terms of doctorate degrees and multiple peer-reviewed journal articles) that

2771:

No worries in replying sooner, admins are busy as it is! Thank you very much for the full explanation and I understand why. I don't have enough of support (and not enough people interested) to open another AfD. I agree censorship is NOT what we want and that was never an issue (though I find it

1332:

I was always reluctant to edit the TIps & Tricks page myself, as some of my peers had frowned upon the idea of adding and/or editing information about one's own career on Knowledge. But I know more about Tips & Tricks than anyone else, and I would welcome the opportunity to clean up the

1324:

You mentioned that you're surprised at the lack of "coverage" the magazine received, and that "gaming magazines didn't start becoming mainstream until relatively recently." Are you referring to online discussions of the magazine and its contents? Can you clarify what you meant by "mainstream"?

3976:

In that case; should that mean I just push it into mainspace? Lucia and Ryulong have not provided a single valid reason to keep it out of mainspace. N and GNG have been met and they are only refusing on personal grudge matters, if they have issues with parts of it, then they can deal with it

2736: 1295:

I'm a little embarrassed, especially considering how hard I came down on the other editor. But hey, I figure it's better to bite the bullet when you're wrong, right? I'm just glad that you were able to find the sources! I'll have to remember that trick the next time I have to look for stuff.

1838:

I hope it'll survive, but if not then well- that's the way things goes. Regardless of whether or not it does survive, I've noticed that this is sort of a rite of passage for all recent murder cases. A page for a murder/suspect can't really say it's truly existed on Knowledge until it's been

1396:...it's obvious that someone cut a lot of information from the page just prior to the redirect. I can cut and paste from the Wayback Machine version as a starting point for my rewrite, but I thought I would ask if it was possible to restore the page with all of the previous revisions intact. 1354:

might just mean that those pages haven't been noticed and deleted just yet. It might also mean that they received coverage in reliable sources. But like I said- I can transfer a copy into your userspace, but you'll want to get someone else to look over it to verify that it passes notability

395:, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, images, a rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see 3191: 883:

Hi. Not be be confrontational, but I'm confused. The Flash Fiction article sought references (see heading) and didn't include examples, both which I provided. I wasn't aware the importance of a citation author mattered as much as relevance. Are we quoting only NY Times bestsellers?

244:

a group nomination. It is confusing, because the subject article shows up in red, but the other articles nominated are still up for deletion and still have tags on them. How do we handle this? Do we simply remove the tags and renominate the other articles or reopen the discussion?

3926:

Please do so; Ryulong will just revert it out otherwise. The content deserves to be worked on in mainspace at this point. The English dub focus is just longer because I used the material from the "list of Dragon Ball Z episodes" which seems like a weird spot to have that as well.

772:

It had originally been redirected, although I'm not sure where it went off to. I seem to remember it being up for a PROD (proposed deletion) due to a lack of notability and I ended up redirecting it to AEE, which is how I discovered it. I'm not sure what happened to the article.

1861:

There's a time and a place for witch-hunts-- medieval Europe, colonial Salem, 4chan. But not here-- not Knowledge. Thanks for your opinions and oversight on the ABC articles. We share the same goal, and your oversight doubles the clarity of our combined vision.

1320:

I'm not sure if this is the proper place to ask about this, but as the former editor in chief of Tips & Tricks magazine, I'm struggling to understand your decision to delete the TIps & Tricks Knowledge page and redirect it to that of the magazine's publisher.

805:

to me and I had a lot of difficult filtering out the sources relating to this film opposed to other things that share the key words. What I did find wasn't much. Always trust your opinion on these matters since you schooled me so badly at one film AFD in the past. =)

2978:

Howdy folks, got a message from Tyros which led me here. First, apologies Peridon for closing the AFD before you had a chance to. I was going to comment but when I clicked through to the AFD sub-page the title was redlinked so I just added the archive templates

1762:

Please don't take this personally, but I just don't see this as an article - it's an accounting of two media-driven events in one man's life, one a relatively-minor viral video and the other a murder allegation. In my opinion, there's not enough there, there.

263:

Actually came here to ask the same question. At this point, with so many relists (and no mention whatsoever of the other articles), I might recommend a re-nomination, but reverting your close would be much cleaner. I won't do either until you comment. Thanks!

1350:

give notability in and of itself- we've had other magazines with a relatively wide circulation not pass notability guidelines. The big thing with holding the other magazine pages up is that those pages might not necessarily merit their own pages. Saying that

936:

regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You do not need to participate however, you are invited to help find a resolution. The thread is

3736:

source as far as this contest goes. Even if Aghili is otherwise unaffiliated with the magazine, she's running a contest with them. No contest entry or info page will show notability for someone. If anything, this is actually unusable as a source in any

3722:

This didn't come up, but it has the word "slideshow" in it and assuming it's the same type as the other WWD picture, simply being in a slideshow of images isn't enough. That isn't in-depth coverage. At most, things of this nature are considered to be

3520: 2146: 2064: 1989:

when I saw you'd said you were wanting to do the exact same thing. So, I've deleted Mother Seacole, please redir away (I'd do it but I assume you'd like to add some refs to the film to the Mary Seacole article, so I'm leaving it to you). Cheers,

1742:

until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

822:

I searched under both names, but couldn't find anything of note. I found two trivial sources and one review and that's about it. If I could've found at least a few more reviews I'd have said it'd be a weak keep, but they're just not out there.

3865:

event that will keep me busy; so I do apologize, but I will be inactive on Wiki for a good 11-12 hours as a result. I reworked the organization and flow of the page to better reflect the material; but as you can see... a few gaps remain.

991:

You put on one heck of a show at the AFD for Arch Enemy Entertainment. I picked it up from the call for help to Yunshui and well, yeah. I also think the two who had no contributions outside of the AfD were sockpuppets, what do you think?

2640:. As you can see, a couple of special purpose accounts have been created to vote on this AfD. Should I just wait and let another editor notice the likely socks or should I open an investigation? Thanks in advance for you advice.-- 453:. templating an admin with "If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article. You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.". Really? - 1574:

Sure appreciate your help improving the article currently under the microscope at AFD and, as my shaky Time Warner internet connectivity allows will be doing more. I was myself a bit surprised the nominator had such poor luck with

2656:

AfD. It normally doesn't sway arguments unless they're very, very persuasive (meaning that they're in the right, which usually isn't the case with socks), but it can be annoying and disruptive. I recommend opening one up, anyway.

2475:

Wow- it's like the old gag comic strip where someone sees a pair of shoes poking out from underneath a curtain and tells the person to come on out, only to find eight other people jumping out asking how they knew they were there.

2720:

talk page stating my edit was vandalism. Yes I find it offensive, but I also am having a hard time believing that this term is notable in Wiki as seems to be made up by a few people, who do NOT classify as "reliable sources".

107:

Hi, thanks for marking DPHOTO as advertising. I was half way through writing it and was using their advertising material as a guide for some of their features, accidentally published it. wasn't supposed to. Thanks for that.

1819:

etc. etc., and even that one is touch-and-go as to whether it will end up Keep or Delete. I fear that this one is going to have a tough sled on the basis of NOTNEWS, even if this is sourced to the hilt. Good luck with it.

2015:

Am I able to just delete things because they were promotional and in the way of a redirect? I thought that I had to tag it and then wait for another admin to do it, to ensure that I wasn't just deleting things randomly.

521: 1746:

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

4002:

reach GA one day. Given the issue; AFD would be the proper challenge given past contention, but self AFDing is disruptive, so I'll let any challengers do the honors... now that they can edit it as they wish.

3621:, but please be careful of how you talk to others. It will not help you when it comes to your articles and if anything, makes other users more defensive and less likely to want to help you in the long run. 3118:

It appears the above mentioned articles were put up for speedy deletion and deleted at some point. I am assuming these articles were then recreated. It appears most of them are being created and edited by

1566: 3716:

This has the same issues. This is just a picture of her on a website. It doesn't matter how notable the company is that is putting her picture up, the end result is that just having a picture up is not

2867:

Having a problem with an anon user who continues to remove the AfD. I have seen this before, the creator logs in under their IP in hope to stop the AfD. I could also use your help with AfD as always.

1451:

Hi - you're pretty good with publishing and book sources, aren't you? I've already had a look around, but would appreciate your looking - if it's not too much trouble - for anything you can source on

3442:

Not a problem. I was the one who requested the original move. I just figured it was uncontroversial given the previous consensus seemed to imply the title was contingent on the guilt of the accused.

3884:

No one has responded my improvements and new sandbox prototype at Dragon Ball; Lucia and Ryulong have both been active, but have gone quiet on the matter. When can it be transferred to mainspace?

1037:

Good point. Either way your efforts in that AfD are something to proud of, I would have barnstar'd you but the Wikilove wasn't showing up at the time and I remembered {{subst:cookie}} and thought

2232: 976:

and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

1815:

I've always been really paranoid about that with my own stuff, condolences. The 2011 IHOP Shooting in Carson City, Nevada is at AfD currently, an event which was on World News Tonight, in the

1670:

It would be a pretty close call at AfD. Seems pretty "True Crimey," to coin a phrase. If I were betting money, I think it'd be a delete. But it's nice work and hopefully it never goes to AfD.

577: 3384:

This page was "delete" via AfD, a new registered user has recreated it. I resubmitted AfD before I realized it and also tagged it with G4. It should be SALTed at this point and user banned.

1599: 3516: 2735:

Sorry for not replying sooner! A search for this in just JSTOR articles brought up quite a few mention in various journals and texts, many of which are peer-reviewed. An example would be

196:

to assume that the reader is already aware of its importance in the field, and so they barely discuss it - it gets cited so regularly that scholars expect you to have read it, I guess...

2142: 2260: 228: 154:

Hmm... this is a bit of a challenge. I can see where it's heavily utilized as a source and heavily referenced in other books, but I'm having trouble finding concrete sources for this.

3100:

appears not to meet our notability guidelines and nominated it for deletion. Doing more research I found many other similar articles that do not appear to meet notability guidelines:

938: 588: 4027: 2060: 317:

No problem! I must have been pretty sleep deprived when I first did that, as I completely missed the big comment by another admin explaining why it was being relisted. (facepalms)

920: 560:" link (it is located at the very top of any Knowledge page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any 1756: 1568: 257: 3844:

Hey! Sorry- I had the other day off from work (where I do most of my editing) and didn't get to get back on the computer until now! I'll go back and take a look at everything!

3706:

must be things such as articles that go in-depth about the subject. This is not that type of article. Brief mentions in a list of other items is not enough to give notability.

556:

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "

512: 947: 1705: 2339:

Good thinking- I was actually thinking of that for a moment myself, but then I sort of brain farted and forgot! Glad one of us has all of their synapses firing tonight!

2270:

Howdy! Sorry, was doing some AFD log clean-up and didn't realise you were doing the same with a couple of AFDs at the same time. Hope I didn't step on any toes! Cheers,

2234: 1772: 237: 440: 3381: 3329: 749: 1739: 2743:, along with some of the ones from the article itself such as "Keio Journal of International Studies". There has also been coverage in reliable newspapers such as 1401: 1338: 1007: 765: 351: 3720: 2636:

Hi Tokyogirl, since one of your areas of expertise is AfD, I want to ask your advice on what to do about a situation regarding an article I recently nominated:

1850: 1806: 1790: 1405: 1342: 1065: 4011: 3613:

I also want to once again warn you about how you talk to other users. Many of your statements come across as rude and even sort of hostile, saying things like

784: 2699: 2685: 2667: 1081: 1026: 912: 705: 3936: 3917: 3874: 3855: 545:, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Knowledge. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. 3273: 3161: 3069:

I hope we can get the site blacklisted, partially because he has created the page so many times in different formats but also because the guy has actually

2836: 1956: 1628: 1161: 1097: 1015:

I think it was more meat puppetry than socking, as I think she'd asked another person at work or someone that she knew to come in and help argue the case.

663: 345: 274: 1888: 1438: 1386: 1366: 328: 3804: 3632: 3120: 2542: 2509: 2487: 2466: 2440: 2422: 2400: 2380: 2350: 2328: 2302: 1540: 1397: 1334: 1315: 868: 3986: 3971: 2027: 1561: 1129: 549:

if you think that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Knowledge (see

3015: 2914: 2896: 2800: 2781: 2762: 2008: 952: 533: 109: 2676:

I'll go ahead and open one up. They aren't stating any policy reasons for keeping it, but a new one shows up every day. Thank you for your advice!--

490: 476: 462: 3768:

they'd be usable or when the person writing the blog is so overwhelmingly notable that they'd be considered a RS. This isn't one of those exceptions.

3431: 3085: 3034: 2312: 1949: 1942: 1829: 1699: 638: 620: 218: 182: 165: 292: 3771: 3097: 3056: 2969: 2928: 2868: 146: 2593: 1307: 851: 834: 3333: 2244:

do not mean the reviews do not exist, and there is enough other coverage in various book sources and non-English sources to have this thing meet

1679: 3325: 3236: 2637: 1871: 3227: 1109: 240:, a nomination that I relisted, as delete because the subject article was somehow deleted in another group AfD. This discussion, however, was 3608: 3404: 306: 1928: 1617: 1610: 843:

I'm not sure if the run-of-the-mill reviews establish notability. Maybe a notability maintenance tag and we'll see if the article improves?

3393: 2623: 2609: 1514: 516: 3311: 1525: 3793:

and when you consider that the article was written as if it was an advertisement for her, that's pretty much why I deleted the article.

1464: 283:

Sorry to sort of pile up, but I also support reopening the discussion. Or closing in any way that addresses all the related articles. -

3755: 3730: 122: 3132: 2554: 1500: 892: 3416: 1728: 857:

best in this situation. Considering that the film came out in 2009, it's highly unlikely that more sources will ever come available.

721:

Question for you. You came across the Arch Enemy Entertainment page while reviewing a PROD of Urban Monsters. Where is that page?

565: 427:. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request 3750: 3665: 2283: 1975: 1653:

The link for the draft article you asked me to read for a notability assessment is red. Where is that again? Best regards, —Tim ///

1643: 3757:

This is pretty much a trivial source as well. It's just such a brief mention that it cannot be used as a source to show notability.

3714: 933: 814: 741: 686: 3893: 3836: 1994: 1624: 1531:

You can post in English at the embassy. A Korean speaker there can help you. Several users on the Korean Knowledge speak English.

2879: 1795:

On an interesting side-note, I think that this is the first time something I've created has been specifically nominated for AfD.

1546: 1392:

Thanks very much. Wow, is that the way the page looked when you redirected it? If you compare that copy to the one visible here:

737: 2649: 3482: 450: 352: 3176: 1287: 4060: 3551: 2857: 2241: 1662: 1062: 1004: 3451: 3157: 2196: 2115: 3371: 2832: 601: 117: 94: 2953: 2729: 3700: 3577: 3478: 1266:. :) I often check the trade papers for references for a topic like this. A handy trick is to include in a Google search 1195: 89: 84: 72: 67: 59: 3614: 2211: 1455:

which is up at AFD? Fully understand if you don't have time, but you do seem to have a talent for this kind of thing...

3345: 2715:

Since you are an admin and know a lot more then me, I wanted to get you take on this article. I opened a second AfD on

2227: 1372: 1157: 1091: 341: 270: 2905:

Can you ask (or tell me how to) request that the URL wlinkster.com be blacklisted considering the repeated SPAM etc.

656: 649: 3661: 3269: 2748: 1856: 609:

I've always chuckled at the "secret societies" that have any such recordings of their proceedures. I'll take a look!

557: 3824: 3556: 3376: 1446: 3181: 1393: 1252: 3709: 3096:

I was wondering if you could look into a possible issue as I do not know what action to take. I noticed the page

2576: 1917: 542: 396: 3617:

to someone that declined an AfC for valid reasons. This might not necessarily be your intent, to come across as

2001: 3422:

I opened a sockpuppet investigation, though not sure if I did it right? But hopefully that will be sufficient.

2994:

I commented on. I imagine he'll now see this and so can comment. I think what we're asking for is that the url

537:. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Knowledge under a 550: 3966: 3745: 3280: 3113: 3091: 2852: 2519: 1894: 1768: 1752: 1217: 790: 213: 141: 3519:

again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on

3070: 2145:

again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on

2063:

again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on

670:

The short answer is yes. I explain why on my talk page. Heading to bed now. Working early in the morning at

3588:

The reason the article was deleted was for several reasons. First, there is already a very nice article on

3047:

be blacklisted is correct. Thank you Peridon and toykogirl for your help with this. I am off to sleep now.

1508: 1263: 372: 2990:(who will get a ping because I linked his name). He just blacklisted another spammer site connected to an 3702:

This is just a picture of her products and not an actual article focusing on her in an in-depth fashion.

1469: 1186: 890: 733: 671: 2744: 1639: 3398: 2695: 2681: 2645: 2223: 1351: 1283: 424: 404: 38: 2690:

Thanks again for your advice. The socks were out of control and the article was deleted and SALTed.--

2265: 983:}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{ 3224: 2257: 1972: 1732: 1723: 1707: 1596: 1553: 1225: 1055: 997: 762: 683: 47: 17: 3765: 399:

for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on

4054: 4007: 3982: 3932: 3889: 3870: 3832: 3740: 2172:

Britain during this period therefore tended to offer their audiences few revelations about ... 1953

1764: 1748: 1415: 1257: 1215:

It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can

500: 472: 436: 379: 3640: 3573: 3474: 2178:, and Great Patriotic War adventures, such as Brave People (Konstantin Yudin, 1950), predominated 1924: 1190: 408: 3532:

url=http://bookverdict.com/details.xqy?uri=Product-44826169948919.xml|publisher=Library Journal

3021:

quite a few cases of re-creation under varied titles, I've never come across anyone doing that.

423:

speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with

3437: 2862: 1980: 1867: 1552:

would be unnecessary ... or have completely faded and there be a greater case for deletion. --

729: 508: 253: 1635: 387:

Hello, and welcome to Knowledge. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on

3910: 3848: 3797: 3657: 3625: 3601: 3364: 3307: 3265: 3078: 3008: 2889: 2793: 2755: 2691: 2677: 2660: 2641: 2586: 2502: 2480: 2459: 2433: 2415: 2393: 2373: 2343: 2321: 2295: 2276: 2207: 2020: 1881: 1843: 1799: 1783: 1692: 1536: 1521: 1431: 1379: 1359: 1300: 1122: 1074: 1019: 905: 878: 861: 827: 798: 791: 777: 698: 613: 321: 175: 158: 113: 3561:

There is no room for me to ommunicate. Why did u delet my page? Who are you? Do I know you?

2567:

Hi, could you please take a look at the AIV log. There are several active vandals. Thanks. -

3649: 3565: 3547: 3508: 3466: 3257: 3217: 2250: 2192: 2111: 1965: 1648: 1589: 1105: 1051: 993: 885: 755: 725: 676: 573: 400: 8: 4046: 4003: 3978: 3928: 3885: 3866: 3828: 3593: 3428: 3413: 3390: 3053: 2966: 2911: 2876: 2778: 2726: 2210:, I actually have concerns about this film's actual existence. See my posting at WT:FILM 2134: 1936: 1496: 468: 432: 3776: 3123:

and there is some sort of conflict of interest here, possibly for advertising purposes.

3810: 3569: 3470: 3172: 3150: 3143: 3137: 2812: 1920: 1604: 973: 582: 419: 388: 356: 2367:- it's the middle of the day for me, so you'd hope mine was working at full capacity! 3960: 3760: 3733: 3724: 3694: 3489: 3341: 3128: 3030: 2949: 2938: 2924: 2846: 2825: 2818: 2550: 2364: 2201: 1863: 1825: 1675: 1658: 1419: 802: 634: 597: 336: 265: 249: 207: 135: 128: 3907: 3845: 3794: 3653: 3622: 3598: 3456: 3350: 3303: 3261: 3075: 3003: 2886: 2790: 2752: 2657: 2583: 2497: 2477: 2454: 2430: 2410: 2390: 2368: 2340: 2316: 2292: 2271: 2033: 2017: 1878: 1840: 1796: 1780: 1689: 1576: 1532: 1517: 1460: 1452: 1428: 1376: 1356: 1297: 1137: 1119: 1071: 1016: 902: 858: 824: 774: 716: 695: 610: 501: 318: 200: 172: 155: 3732:

This is a contest that she's running through the magazine. This would make this a

2919:

I'd be interested too - never done it yet myself... Please see thread below, too.

467:

Sorry, well I sort of forgot about that part and I failed to check. My apologies.

3618: 3543: 3500: 2707: 2188: 2126: 2107: 2044: 2005: 1991: 1394:

http://web.archive.org/web/20130321014050/http://en.wikipedia.org/Tips_%26_Tricks

1182: 1150: 1143: 1101: 980: 966: 569: 486: 458: 446:

Once I'm here... (Tokyogirl79, excuse me for stalking you page for a short while)

302: 288: 192: 3645:

Whdy did you delete my article? It was informative and had verifiable sources.

3302:

Thank you for the contribution and helping me build my first reliable articles.

392: 391:

requesting that it be speedily deleted from Knowledge. This has been done under

46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

3447: 3357: 3319: 3211: 3109: 2631: 2619: 2605: 2572: 2429:

Definitely! It's something to kill time when it gets slow, that's for certain.

2219: 1584: 1580: 1492: 1279: 1250: 984: 942: 849: 812: 546: 428: 102: 2528: 1903: 1478: 4017: 3790: 3168: 3105: 3101: 2991: 2987: 2983: 2363:

and all that) but experience of these things suggests otherwise. Oh, and I'm

2360: 2052: 3209:

in appreciation for your superb work in finding sources showing the article

2614:

P.S. you only have to block - there is a bot which removes the IP or User. -

522:

Orphaned non-free media (File:I-love-New-Year-Movie-First-Look-Poster-1.jpg)

3957: 3956:. I think you may have me confused with someone else. More on my talkpage. 3902: 3711:

This has the same problem. Simply being in a list will not give notability.

3703: 3589: 3337: 3124: 3026: 2945: 2920: 2843: 2600:

Two IPs who continued to vandalize after final warning. Pretty clear cut. -

2546: 2245: 1986: 1821: 1671: 1654: 1235: 1200: 630: 593: 538: 204: 132: 191:

You've done a sterling job, thank you! I think it's pretty safe from AFD (

4042: 3691: 2562: 2359:

Yeah, there might be a perfectly ordinary explanation for it all... (and

2097:{{cite web|title=Steel Panther to Offend Conservative Types With 'British 1456: 1333:

deleted Tips & Tricks page if you would be kind enough to restore it.

481:

Thank you. As far as I am concerned, all is fine. Enjoy and take care! -

371:

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read

1985:

Funny, that – I was about to delete it and place a redir to the heroic

1779:

Nah, I don't take it that seriously. I was borderline about it myself.

1169: 482: 454: 298: 284: 3289: 932:

This message is being sent to you let you know of a discussion at the

414:

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may

3443: 2615: 2601: 2568: 2291:

Nah, it's all cool- that was a bit of a messy bit of AfD stuff, huh?

2215: 1275: 1245: 844: 807: 629:

Thanks a lot. Just what I thought, and had been trying to tell them.

3948:

regrets to note that he knows next-to-nothing about manga and anime

958: 4026: 3022: 2389:

I work nights, so I get the vampire hours over here in the States.

1963:

2:30 AM here. Time for bed. I'll look for more in some 8-10 hours.

1688:

I hope not- if you want to fix some of it, feel free to edit away!

1424: 3504: 2453:

Holy hell! I threw a grenade into a sock drawer! Have a look! LOL

2130: 2048: 1212:

Hello, ReaderofthePack. Please check your email; you've got mail!

3190: 2716: 2311:

Yeah! The whole thing actually prompted me to kick off an SPI -

2240:

Care to come back to the article and assist in its improvement?

1491:

Congratulations. I'm done editing wikipages. Enjoy your tenure.

3512: 3112:. More can be found linked to from here in their product list: 2982:

My suggestion would be that we all (four of us? ha ha) contact

2138: 2056: 1569:

Knowledge:Articles for deletion/And the Violins Stopped Playing

969: 2090:

Steel Panther released their first Live DVD ''British Invasion

3164: