Jump to content

User talk:ReaderofthePack/Archive 37

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 30←Archive 35Archive 36Archive 37Archive 38Archive 39Archive 40

To improve a draft about an obscure Pixar character

@ReaderofthePack::

Dear Madam, I am very sorry that my first draft's submission was declined... and sorry for the inactivity. A few hours ago I had read your message in my newly created talk page. Well, let me comment your observations on how to improve it:

1. On the subject of sources, I admit that there are sources talking about the short film André appeared, but, as The Adventures of André & Wally B. is an obscure short film (and even André himself is obscurer than Wally B., as the latter one is more recognizable if we talk about the short film itself), searching for more sources to prove the information about André is an extremely difficult task: when I try to search in Google by using the keywords containing his name, most of the information I get things that have nothing to do with the character himself (including, but not limited to Pixar's feature films, unrelated people/characters with similar names, list of films and series available in Disney+ and Star Wars, being the latter in case anyone googled "André Lucasfilm") or there is a source related to the short film but it focuses more on Wally B. or (chiefly) the short film itself. In order words, there is no doubt that the fictional character is obscure.

2. In the context of the unofficial media (specifically the fandom part), the reason why I put the fan animated series in the article is because I questioned about the "Luxo Jr. Short Series" part's presence in the Popular culture section of the short film Luxo Jr.'s article so I thought this draft could be moved to the mainspace with this fandom-related content. The fan animated series has actually existence but it is not notable, as it was created by a dog lover who is a VeggieTales fan (to be honest, I don't share his interest on this American Christian children's animation franchise) and only exists three examples about its existence (which composes two deviantions in DeviantArt and one Youtube video). In short, in order to the next submission to be accepted, I have no choice but to delete all the "Unofficial media" subsection and merge the "Official media" subsection to the "In other media" section.

3. As for discussing the article's topic, it is clear that this is a character who appeared in a short film. It seems that the "Description" part has no problem, but in the article's "Concept and Creation" part it contains a background talking about Pixar's foundation as The Graphics Group and the section alternates both the character's development and the short film's development. However, it ends with how many controls and pages has André's model and where his name come. That is all I have answered to your comment. This would summarize that I would have to make some small radical changes and, in the case of the sources, ask for help from contributors who are interested in Pixar, animation and/or fictional characters.

No disrespect intended.

- André the Android (talk) 20:59, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

@ReaderofthePack: Yesterday I tried to ask for help in this WikiProject's talk page but I didn't received an answer, as I didn't know the Help me template's existence until now. Besides, I have many doubts about what I can improve a draft after its submission is declined, so I'm going to say two of them plus one about the mentioned template's use: Can I add draft categories in a draft after its submission is declined? Which of the sources that appear in the draft are reliable and which are not? Can the "Help me" template draw attention to those who work for either WikiProject Disney, WikiProject Animation's Pixar work group or WikiProject Fictional characters (regardless if I have it on when I create a section or edit it by adding something that I forgot some time after creating the section)? - André the Android (talk) 10:08, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
@ReaderofthePack: That is, can it be added regardless if it is included in the section's in any talk page or not? - André the Android (talk) 10:25, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
  • It looks like you can - also, you can be "adopted" by an editor as well. Here are the ones that are doing the "adopting" - basically they'll provide you with more/better guidance than I'm doing. I feel a little bad that I'm not, since I know that you have a lot of questions. It's just been a bit of a "may you live in interesting times" sort of year for me, to be honest. I want to make sure that you aren't left feeling bereft! If I can recommend anyone, TheAafi is an excellent editor, as is DESiegel. ReaderofthePack (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:50, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
@ReaderofthePack: OK, I will follow your advice. Also, it seems that an adopted user is the Wikipedia equivalent of a disciple. In brief, thanks for your answers! - André the Android (talk) 11:30, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:31, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Imagined Life

Dear ReaderofthePack,

thanks for reviewing the draft to "Imagined Life" article. I wonder if you could help me bring the article to publication? You point out in your message that while there is some sourcing, it's insufficient and you would be more comfortable with 1-2 more sources. Unfortunately the sources are not exactly easy to find. "Imagined Life" is a fairly recent podcast, so mostly the information about it is available on the podcast's website, in listening apps and in a few articles about it, all already quoted. Theoretically I could link each of the 48 episodes to the corresponding listening link, but that's probably not productive.

I've also found this review by a blog, as well as this one by a student newspaper, and this very short review by some local magazine.

Perhaps you have a good idea on how to imrpove the article?

Miketarmac (talk) 23:13, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

  • @Miketarmac: Most school newspapers will be unusable unless it's one that is well known and respected, such as The Harvard Crimson. Even then there have been people who have pushed back against that. The Plymouth Magazine one looks to be OK, but be a little careful about local sources since some see them to be weaker as local sources are more likely to cover local persons- however that said, I don't know that I'd really consider this to be a local source per se since they don't mention anything about it being local. For the blog one, this looks to be a self-published source and there's not really a lot of information about the site's editorial oversight. If we can show that the site is routinely cited as a reliable source by other reliable sources, especially academic and scholarly ones, then we could argue for it as usable but this is often a lot easier said than done. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:41, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

December with Women in Red

Women in Red | December 2020, Volume 6, Issue 12, Numbers 150, 173, 178, 182, 183


Online events:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:41, 26 November 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Draft: The Lurker (film)

I am still fairly new to Wikipedia. I submitted a page I worked on {Draft: The Lurker (film)} and you rejected it because the reviews of the movie weren’t from approved sites. However you indicated that you are working on a page of approved horror movie review sites that if approved would translate to The Lurker (film) being an acceptable page. Here’s my question – how will I know when to resubmit the page I worked on?EmilySawRed (talk) 17:42, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Please read Draft:Donald Trump (Wikipedia article)

The Donald Trump article has received media coverage, not just because of vandalism. Thank you. 180.249.82.56 (talk) 00:00, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

How about a temporary page move to article space by removing AfC templates and move the draft to the article space? 180.249.82.56 (talk) 06:44, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Try to move it and move it back after the first few minutes. 180.249.82.56 (talk) 06:49, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Request on 19:47:50, 24 October 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Mehwei


Hello and thanks so much for the review. Please can you clarify your notion about writing it more "neutral"? This article contains lots of citations - over 60 scientific, published sources. Therefore, and as Professor in Nursing Science and content expert in this topic, I don't really understand what is needed for being suitable. Which other reliable sources are missing? It's ok to write more neutral. However, if scientific evidence demonstrates that the Advanced Nursing Process describes the latest state of the art, this should not be hidden. Otherwise, this article would not represent the actual scientific status quo.

If you have other suggestions, please let me know. Thank you Mehwei

Mehwei (talk) 19:47, 24 October 2020 (UTC) Mehwei (talk) 19:47, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

  • @Mehwei: Essentially it reads like it's trying to appeal to the reader to utilize this process by detailing its best qualities, similar to how a purchase page for a book or service would tell someone that X or Y would be better or that they would like Z if they were to complete the purchase. For example, this section falls into that area;
The aim of the Advanced Nursing Process is the application of scientific knowledge to clinical patient situations by valid concepts of nursing diagnoses, interventions and nursing-sensitive patient outcomes [43-54]. This aim can be reached by applying the NNN in the Advanced Nursing Process in practice and by implementing it into Electronic Health Records.
Basically, this is written in a way that seems to be aimed at making the ANP more legitimate rather than giving a neutral description. I would re-write it like this, perhaps:
The stated aim of the Advanced Nursing Process is to apply scientific knowledge to clinical patient situations by utilizing assessment tools and concepts that per Müller‐Staub et al., have been determined to be valid because they "are rooted in scientifically based nursing classifications”. These tools and concepts include valid concepts of nursing diagnoses, interventions and nursing-sensitive patient outcomes and can be applied by applying the NNN in the Advanced Nursing Process in practice and by implementing it into Electronic Health Records.
While this may seem like it's longer winded, the key here is that we're more clearly attributing the claims to the person(s) making them. It's also worded in a way that more clearly explains the term 'valid'.
You also want to avoid sentences like "This expert-consented paper was published in English, French and German". This is generally unnecessary to the article for a few reasons. The first is that the different languages it was published in is kind of irrelevant to Wikipedia since the article is supposed to be about ANP, not the paper in specific, and this is just sort of ancillary data. The second is that the term "expert-consented" can come across as us applying value to the paper and us posting our opinion about the paper and by extension, the validity of the claims, rather than us summarizing what others have said on the topic. To add to this, the article shouldn't really be us arguing for or against the validity of something - if there is reception on the concept then there can be a reception section that covers this, but us arguing for or against kind of defeats the purpose of an encyclopedia article.
Aside from this, the article is also kind of unclear as to what ANP is, what the basic concepts are that makes it differ from the basic nursing process, and its development. I got the basics, but it's just sort of muddled. I think that separating it into sections similar to how the nursing process article is set up would help in this regard. It would also be good to talk to the users at the medicine WikiProject about this - I'll post there for you as well. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:51, 27 October 2020 (UTC)


Talkback Mehwei (talk) 18:38, 29 October 2020 (UTC) Im happy to get help in revising into Wikipedia language, thanks. Mehwei (talk) 18:38, 29 October 2020 (UTC) Mehwei (talk) 18:14, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm grateful for help to revise the text on the Advanced Nursing Process for fitting to Wikipedia. Im experienced in scientific writing, but not in encyclopaedia style. If you can assist in rewriting, I appreciate the draft, thanks.Mehwei (talk) 16:29, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi If you can help with editing the Advanced Nursing Process, I would be thankful Mehwei (talk) 17:56, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Olivier Marteel

Hi ReaderofthePack, I hope you are well. It's an odd request, recently Marteel has taken charge of the 2020 UK Championship, after a period fighting COVID-19 in Belgium. There's quite a bit of press on this, so I'd like to do an article on them. There's a pretty good draft from 2015 that was G13'd by yourself, whilst I have the technical ability to restore the article - would you mind REFUNDing the article? Thanks for your time Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:17, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Season's greetings!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2021!

Hello ReaderofthePack, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2021.
Happy editing,
Enwebb (talk) 18:50, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Thanks!

ReaderofthePack Thanks for the kind message - so great to hear from you. I've been missing seeing you every week. I hope you're hunkering down and enjoying the holidays too! Talk to you soon! Wskent (talk) 14:15, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Luca (2021 film)

Hi, I was wondering if you could remove the protection? The draft already is ready to be put there as the film is already in production. A sneak peek was seen at Disney Investors Day. Starzoner (talk) 14:06, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

  • @Starzoner: More needs to be added to the draft to show that it is in production (ie, coverage of some sort for this) as well as more general coverage to help bolster that it meets NFF. I mean, while it seems likely that something put out by Disney/Pixar would be notable at any stage, the article List_of_unproduced_Disney_animated_shorts_and_feature_films shows that it is possible for a film to be announced but still fall through. I don't want it to be nominated for deletion or speedied, as each time that it happens it gets a little (or sometimes a lot) harder to argue for notability, even if something seems to pass a notability guideline. @Bovineboy2008: what's your thoughts as the last person to nominate this? If you say that this is enough and that it can get fleshed out in the mainspace, I'm fine with unprotecting this. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:53, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
    • If there is more coverage, then it would probably meet WP:NFF. The draft has not been updated since it's last AfD, so I don't think it is advisable to publish as is. But If there is significant coverage, then it should be added and then it should be Submitted for review through AFC. It is my strong opinion that if an article is taken to draft after an AfD, then a third party should be responsible for moving back to mainspace, not the original creator or those who have worked on it since. BOVINEBOY2008 09:56, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank You!

Thank you for the advice on Draft:Austin Powell as well as all the tips about rules and resources! :)

Cactusdillinger (talk) 00:45, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Did you know § Student DYK nominations

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Did you know § Student DYK nominations. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:44, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Merry Merry!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2021!

Hello ReaderofthePack, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2021.
Happy editing,
★Trekker (talk) 16:29, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Season's Greetings

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2021!

Hello ReaderofthePack, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2021.
Happy editing,
Starzoner (talk) 17:45, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

I wish you a Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays! Starzoner (talk) 17:45, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Happy holidays!

Thanks for the note on my talk page! Wishing you a very happy holiday season as well. :) Liannadavis (talk) 04:37, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

~~~ Merry Christmas! ~~~
Joyeux Noël! ~ Buon Natale! ~ Vrolijk Kerstfeest! ~ Frohe Weihnachten!
¡Feliz Navidad! ~ Feliz Natal! ~ Καλά Χριστούγεννα! ~ Hyvää Joulua!
God Jul! ~ Glædelig Jul! ~ Linksmų Kalėdų! ~ Priecīgus Ziemassvētkus!
Häid Jõule! ~ Wesołych Świąt! ~ Boldog Karácsonyt! ~ Veselé Vánoce!
Veselé Vianoce! ~ Crăciun Fericit! ~ Sretan Božić! ~ С Рождеством!
শুভ বড়দিন! ~ 圣诞节快乐！~ メリークリスマス！~ 메리 크리스마스!
สุขสันต์วันคริสต์มาส! ~ Selamat Hari Natal! ~ Giáng sinh an lành!

Hello, ReaderofthePack! Thank you for your work to maintain and improve Wikipedia! Wishing you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!
Linguist111talk 23:57, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove and leave other users this message by adding {{subst:Multi-language Season's Greetings}}

A New Year With Women in Red!

Women in Red | January 2021, Volume 7, Issue 1, Numbers 182, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188


Online events:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 03:02, 29 December 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Thank you for the improvements!

You did such a great (and fast) job improving my second-time-ever article. I really appreciate it! (Also, this is my first time posting on a user's talk page so I hope I'm doing it right...) Mastimido (talk) 17:41, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

On Merging

Thank you, for helping and adding the reliable refs. Please avoid adding primary sources or self published sources such as those by Voice of India publishers as refs in Goel's article. That article is already in a poor shape due to sourcing issues. I am ok with the redirect as you proposed. Happy New Year. Walrus Ji (talk) 08:51, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

On second thoughts, I feel your addition of Goel's book as ref on Goel's article was justified. A third party ref would still be better. --Walrus Ji (talk) 08:56, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

  • @Walrus Ji: Thanks for the input! To be honest, I was more merging just to get everything in one place since it'd make it easier to argue for any redirect or deletion of the work. I'm debating trying to do some cleanup of Goel's article but admittedly it's an intimidating task because of how much work is needed, particularly in searching for sourcing and factchecking. It's definitely something I'd have to do a bit later next year when I have more energy, as the best option would be for anyone working on the page would be to work on a draftspace copy. If you're interested in cleaning up the page I'd definitely help you out in this! I have some limited access to some college databases due to my current employer, as well as some experience studying religion. It's not my favorite area to edit on Wikipedia but I'd like to see the article spiffy'd up since Goel does seem to be fairly notable just from what I've seen via the searches for the AfDs. (I think I'd seen his name before but hadn't really read anything about him until now.) ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:02, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Is it a standard practice to merge the entire thing just as a procedural step? I like to weed out the spam while merging as I am responsible for my edits.
Thanks for the detailed reply. It would really be great if you could find the time and courage to improve Goel's Bio. It is a big task and the article could really use some help. In the past few years due to changes in political landscape in India, the topics related to Hindutva are getting more coverage. I may not be the right person for the page overhaul as I lack the expertise and time for the same. I am watching the page and would try to help wherever and whenever I can, with incremental improvements. Walrus Ji (talk) 09:18, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
  • @Walrus Ji: Not always, it depends on what is being merged. With this one I took it more or less verbatim since I was unfamiliar with his overall stance other than it being anti-Christian. I'd have to do more research before I could feel more comfortable adding in any new information other than what I added to the book article. I do think it will need to be eventually re-written since I get the impression that there's a lot of context and other information missing.
If you like, we can work on various sections. It doesn't have to be done right away or all at one time. I can try tackling the Christianity section since that's what I've seen sourcing on most recently due to the AfDs. Since you have an interest in India related topics, are you able to search for sourcing that US Google typically doesn't pick up? That's one of the biggest hurdles I tend to face with India related topics. WP:INDIA used to have a tool to help with that, but I think it's generally been defunct for a while (the search tool). ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:43, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Don't know what defunct tool you are referring to. The customized Google search and Google Scholar works for me most of the time. Sometimes using the Hindi or Bengali script in the search throws some interesting results that may not appear in English searches. I must also note that many of them may not pass the high bar WP:RS demands. I have no idea why US Google will not pick something up. I believe they have common shared database. About Goel's Bio, I think the Life section is something that I feel I can help to improve, Will certainly post on the article talk page when I do. Walrus Ji (talk) 12:13, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Happy New Year!
Hello ReaderofthePack:


Did you know ... that back in 1885, Wikipedia editors wrote Good Articles with axes, hammers and chisels?

Thank you for your contributions to this encyclopedia using 21st century technology. I hope you don't get any unnecessary blisters.

Starzoner (talk) 15:19, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Happy New Year elves}} to send this message

I wish you a prosperous 2021! Starzoner (talk) 15:19, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Request on 10:59:32, 1 January 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Madalena77


Draft:Symbiotic Art Manifesto

Please consider
Fact1: The Manifesto was first included in a book published by an important (and reliable) Contemporary Art Institut and not a blog...
Fact2: It has been reproduced in many other places and was the object of debate in articles, conferences, and of course the Internet (it is not interesting to add dozens of links and references)
Fact3: An Art Manifesto is itself a statement and not a theoretical or academic endeavor...


Madalena77 (talk) 10:59, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to the 2021 WikiCup!

Happy New Year and Happy New WikiCup! The competition begins today and all article creators, expanders, improvers and reviewers are welcome to take part. If you have already signed up, your submissions page can be found here. If you have not yet signed up, you can add your name here and the judges will set up your submissions page. Any questions on the rules or on anything else should be directed to one of the judges, or posted to the WikiCup talk page. Signups will close at the end of January, and the first round will end on 26 February; the 64 highest scorers at that time will move on to round 2. We thank Vanamonde93 and Godot13, who have retired as judges, and we thank them for their past dedication. The judges for the WikiCup this year are Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email) and Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs · email). Good luck! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:11, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Lost Islamic History: Reclaiming Muslim Civilisation from the Past

Hi! ReaderofthePack,

I'm Incognipedia, I submitted a draft for review recently which you declined today. You declined it because it was not written in a formal tone of a encyclopedia article and it contained Goodreads as sources and the review i mentioned in the article was very short. You recommended to find some article to prove notability of the topic of the article which is a book.

So, I made some changes i removed the Goodreads citations and I have included a longer review by a magazine named AramcoWorld in the article. Can you please have a look at the article and point out current imperfections in the article that will lead to a decline of the review of this article.

Thanks in advance :) --Incognipedia (talk) 13:23, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

First of all, thank you so much for taking out time and editing the draft and making it much much better.

Now, as you've edited it, do you think I should resubmit it for review? Incognipedia (talk) 09:09, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

  • I've left a note on your talk page. Ultimately I'm a little unsure as to whether it would pass. I'd like to approve it, but it's really kind of borderline and I'd like to have a fellow user check it out first. If he says no, then unfortunately it's not going to be able to be moved. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:19, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Roman Staněk

While I wasn't involved in this article's deletion or whatever went on to warrant the creation protection of its talk page, the article has since been recreated and I was hoping to add WikiProject banners to the talk page. Is it possible to get the creation protection removed or should I go through the formal request for protection reduction? Thanks,
5225C (talk • contributions) 22:53, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

  • @5225C: Eh, no need - long story short, someone had used the talk page to post some fairly nasty stuff about the deleting admin and nominator. I decided to protect against them using the talk page as a place to kvetch, but I've restored the talk page (minus the nasty comments) and removed the protections. No need for them, now that the article is back. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:59, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Ok, thank you.
5225C (talk • contributions) 07:21, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of TanaCon: What Really Happened for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article TanaCon: What Really Happened, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TanaCon: What Really Happened until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 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.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:04, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Luca (2021 film)

Draft looks to be a clear pass now of WP:NFF due to multiple credible sources sharing screens and a confirmed release date. As such, we'd like to approve it out of AfC. Giving you a courtesy ping since you were the protecting admin on the redirect currently in place. If you agree with my assessment would you mind clearing the protection on the page or just outright deleting it so I can move the draft to mainspace? Cheers Sulfurboy (talk) 15:16, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

If consensus agrees that it passes GNG and/or NFF (preferably both for a bonus) then feel free to move it to wherever it needs to go through whatever process. Missvain (talk) 16:13, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

February 2021 at Women in Red

Women in Red | February 2021, Volume 7, Issue 2, Numbers 184, 186, 188, 189, 190, 191


Online events:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Rosiestep (talk) 15:00, 27 January 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Thank you

Hello ReaderofthePack, I wanted to drop by and say thank you for explaining to User:Thaeon about the declined draft. It is very much appreciated. :) --Ashleyyoursmile! 17:32, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

  • No problem! Once I looked into it, I realized that it was likely just a case of the name spellings being different. I can see where it could've been seen as a hoax, as well as Thaeon's frustration over it being tagged as such. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:40, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

From N32756377

Jenyire2 is threatening to delete Demonic Toys (film series) if we don't compete the discussion to keep it in the Wikipedia, — Preceding unsigned comment added by N32756377 (talk • contribs) 15:30, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Badshah Khan

As you can see, I tagged in my comment about Badshah Khan on the Wrestling Wikiproject talk page. Your response is necessary. If you check the article, I made some edits. There are things that need sourcing. It states he won the CWE Tag Team Championships twice, but doesn't mention of with who or when. I can only do so much. You need to also continue working on the article. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 04:00, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

)

Brslxyl (talk) 13:54, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Request

The title Ashish Chanchlani (correct title) is protected by you. Whereas I have placed a submission on the draft Draft:Ashish Chanchalani (already created) which is a name similar to the first title. Now a user commented on that draft that title is protected by you and only administrators can create it. I will request you to either remove the protection from the title or else you publish it with the correct title. Marwadi Indian (talk) 12:53, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Please can you patrol this page?

Are you able to patrol this new page please? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blake_Ridder thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brslxyl (talk • contribs) 02:04, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

@ReaderofthePack: Okay thank you
@ReaderofthePack: Hey, I see you have edited the page, thanks for doing that. Would it be possible to mark this page to be indexed please? Thanks
  • @Brslxyl: By indexed, do you mean show up on Google results? If so, then that's not really anything we can control here. It should show up, but may not show up in the first page or two. I believe it's based on frequency of "clicks" on a given link, so as people visit the page it may go up in visibility on Google. You'd need to talk to Google about that though. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:03, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
@ReaderofthePack: Sorry yes, the page currently has a noindex meta being added, which means it is intentionally telling Google not to index it. I read that articles newer than 90 days will need to be patrolled by an admin first to be approved?
@ReaderofthePack: Oh really? Hmm, that is really strange. If you right click the page to see its HTML source. you can see the noindex tag has been added. Upon searching the URL on Google also brings up no results to that page, which suggests not being indexed. If you don't think there is anything you can do from your side, I will do what you suggested above, thank you.
@ReaderofthePack: They have come back to me and said the page hasn't been reviewed yet. So I'm unsure who to go to to get it reviewed.
@ReaderofthePack: I wonder if it will make a difference if you were to move the page back into drafts then into the main space again because you’re admin? Probably not but I’m just thinking out aloud.
  • To be honest, I'm not entirely comfortable doing that since I've done enough editing on the page to where some might question the move. It would be better to ask another admin or someone else to do this just to be on the safe side. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:35, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
@ReaderofthePack: Someone has now put this page into a deletion process, please can you give your opinion on the discussion section?
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ReaderofthePack/Archive_37&oldid=1096633084"