User talk:Lemongirl942

Sweet Cosmetics

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)

As to the deletion of "deepin"

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 among Linux distributions, while SliTaz (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)

References

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)

Han Chinese

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 [1], 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 [2] 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 [3], 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)

Already on it

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)

Battle of Ia Drang talk page

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)

Wikipedia email re Newspapers.com signup

Hello, Lemongirl942. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

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

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

Deletion of facts in Grace Chia's Wiki page

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)

Dispute Resolution Noticeboard

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)

DZXL?

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)

A scope regarding old Sentosa articles

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)

Backlog

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)

Proposal: New Page Reviewer user right

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)

I have unreviewed a page you curated (Aug 2016)

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)

Hokkien, Hoklo, and Minnan people and language in the United States

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)

Your Newspapers.com account

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)

Chinese names in non-Chinese S'porean bio pages

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)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

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)

Hakka Americans

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)

Sharon Christian

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)

Systemic bias

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)

Regarding drive-by edits 2

@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)

Anca Verma

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)

Curious

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)

Talyah Porter

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)

Pál Milkovics

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)

This might be something you could do

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)

September 2016

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Han Taiwanese. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Lysimachi (talk) 21:00, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

About edits to SG articles by User:Morrisonjohn022

Hi Lemon! It is sometimes hard to define his/her edits if matching local facts & wiki rules, although I reverted some improper or useless descriptions from his/her works... Since this person is effecting many SG geo pages, could you please help on them accordingly? Thank you.Gzyeah (talk) 09:10, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

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. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Lemongirl942 reported by User:Lysimachi (Result: ). Thank you. —Lysimachi (talk) 09:49, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

WikiProject Malaysia October 2016 Newsletter

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

Wikipedia email re NewspaperArchive signup

Hello, Lemongirl942. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

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

Third opinion on Académie Julian

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)

Enough info for a sockpuppet investigation re Zeek AfD?

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)

Pioneers press

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)

LA times and SF Weekly

Can you explain why you think LA Times and SF Weekly are unreliable sources on the article talk page please? Pwolit iets (talk) 09:35, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Yale-NUS and NUS

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: [4] [5]. 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)

Thwack listed at Redirects for discussion

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)

Response on the vulture lead issue

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)

Thanks for your comment

Hi Lemongirl942 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), so glad to find another Singaporean Wikipedian here! Nice to meet you and thank you so much for understanding my editing intentions! You pointed out something that many other editors have not noticed. I realised that Magnolia677 doesn't seem to be friendly when she left a message on my talk page, she warned me that I will be blocked if I continue to make unsourced edit and adding unreliable references. I was so scared of her that which is why I tried to include as many references as possible within a limited period of time to defend myself from other editors whom lack understanding in my editing patterns. Only you and Arjayay (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) seems to truly understand my good faith in making constructive editing, and I truly appreciates it. While I understand your perspective, I just couldn't resist listing out all the entertainment events for a huge music fans like me. I believe that what I have added are useful for music fans but of course I understand that not everyone will find it beneficial or meaningful and I totally respect their opinions. I am trying my best to include as many reliable references as possible and my apology if I am unaware of how strict it is to have a reliable sources. Some of the unreliable sources I have added may appear to be reliable to me as long as it is relevant to the event that I wished to source upon in the first place. Please teach me on what are reliable and unreliable sources so that I can look at it very carefully before adding it. Lack of citacions shouldn't be the reason for my edits to be reverted since I am very busy editing many other articles at the same time. It takes time for me to include more useful references but I hated it when editors becomes impatient. I hope to hear some advice from you on that, thank you so much for putting yourself into my shoes in the first place, cheers! Xinyang Aliciabritney (talk) 13:52, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

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)

Comment all of a sudden by Zandradiliges

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)

AFD

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)

Admin?

Are you admin on wikipedia, i want to report something (someone precisely)? a serious matter 84.255.215.13 (talk) 17:10, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

No I'm not an admin. What is it about? Is it any article? (Note: If it involves any private data, please do NOT reveal any information here). I can direct you to the appropriate forum. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:13, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Its about admins who are involved in WP:Paid but didn't disclosed their paid work. I have proofs. 84.255.215.13 (talk) 17:19, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. You will have to email this information. The correct place to send this information is "arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org" (this is the mailing list of the arbitration committee who can look into your queries). --Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:25, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for reference. 84.255.215.13 (talk) 17:26, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome! --Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:28, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Ah- trolling then. There's an admin that's repeatedly being accused of that but for the life of me can't remember who! It was at AN/I a while back though. _Muffled ^Pocketed 17:33, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I vaguely remember seeing something like that. Was it some Orangemoody related case in which they pretended to be an admin and gave assurances that their article would be kept? Regardless, the best place for this stuff is arbcom who can look into it. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:36, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

I have conversations with admin on freelancing site of him being committing that he/she is an admin , left me couple of his/her created pages. 84.255.215.13 (talk) 17:38, 14 October 2016 (UTC)