User talk:Innisfree987/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

2016

Welcome!

Hello, Innisfree987, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or , and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! SwisterTwister talk 08:14, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Heben Nigatu article

Hello, thanks for writing this article! I’ve just read it and I’m a bit concerned that it has no citations. That worries me since without proof that this person is notable, meaning covered enough in media to get a Wikipedia article on them (here's a specific guide for authors), the article may get deleted. (Let me just explain that - I'm aware that as a writer for Buzzfeed, this person probably publishes many articles a day. What's needed for notability is articles about this person as the subject - interviews, profiles and so on.)

Are there any reliable sources (ones not written by or for this person) you can add? If so just edit the article and add citations using the cite tool, or if you have any thoughts or questions just let me know. Blythwood (talk) 20:08, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

I see you also created the Tracy Clayton article which does not indicate the significance of the person. Music1201 (talk) 22:18, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Another Round (March 28)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by DGG was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Another Round and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

DGG ( talk ) 01:45, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello! Innisfree987, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! DGG ( talk ) 01:45, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Jazmine Hughes for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jazmine Hughes is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jazmine Hughes 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.

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. Laxnesh LOKEN (talk) 19:39, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Rembert Browne (July 6)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by SwisterTwister was:  The comment the reviewer left was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Rembert Browne and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

SwisterTwister talk 23:01, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Writer's Barnstar
	Dear Innisfree987, thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia, especially your recent creation of Forbes 30 Under 30. Keep up the good work! You are making a difference here! With regards, AnupamTalk 07:24, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Rembert Browne has been accepted

Rembert Browne, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

SwisterTwister talk 22:10, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for that lightning-fast response SwisterTwister! Much obliged. Innisfree987 (talk) 22:13, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

BLPPROD

I see that you placed a BLPPROD on Anne Paulk. I understand the belief that this page may not have been properly referenced, but as odd as it may sound, WP:BLPPROD is only for pages that have no references covering the information. Even if it has an unreliable source, that means you're not to BLPPROD it. (People are often confused by this, because once a BLPPROD has been put properly into place, it takes a reliable source to un-PROD it.) I have removed the BLPPROD... and then went and put a reliable source in anyway. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:49, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for all your help with this NatGertler. Yes, was led astray by the requirement for a reliable source to de-PROD in BLPs, but now I understand. (It is odd!) In any case yes I am quite sure there are reliable sources for this one--my concern was only for leaving up an unreliably-sourced BLP, so, thanks also for getting the ball rolling on remedying that. Innisfree987 (talk) 16:54, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

August 2016

Hello! Thank you for your recent contributions to Jenna Wortham. I did have one note for you. I am working on a maintenance project to clean up Category:Pages using infoboxes with thumbnail images. In the future, please do not use thumbnails when adding images to an infobox (see WP:INFOBOXIMAGE). What does this mean? Well in the infobox, when you specify the image you wish to use, instead of doing it like this: |image=[[File:SomeImage.jpg|thumb|Some image caption]], instead just supply the name of the image. So in this case you can simply do: |image=SomeImage.jpg. There will then be a separate parameter for the image caption such as |caption=Some image caption. Please note that this is a generic form message I am leaving on your page because you recently added a thumbnail to an infobox. The specific parameters for the image and caption may be different for the infobox you are using! Please consult the Template page for the infobox being used to see better documentation. Thanks!! Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 19:28, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

AfC

Hi. Thank you for enrolling as an AfC reviewer. Please however proceed with extreme caution as 500 mainspace edits is only the basis qualification and your editing history suggests you may still not be fully conversant with our policies and guidelines. Happy editing! --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:01, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Kudpung, thanks for your message. I'd welcome any specific feedback you have about what policies and guidelines I might profit from reviewing, as in truth I had the impression my editing history suggests I am pretty conversant in the guidelines and policies: I've created 21 new entries that have been reviewed as acceptable; only one of the entries I've created has been sent to AfD, and it was closed as keep; my own participation at AfD presently has 86% green cells (and for what it's worth, the two red cells on my record are both cases that I understood to be borderline for guidelines that offer presumptive notability, but I nevertheless felt we had enough to develop a reliable entry--per WP:WHYN--and therefore that Wikipedia was better served by keeping. The group didn't agree with me which is fine, but I don't think I was making an argument that was out of line with the principles.) So if you could give me some more concrete guidance on what I'm overlooking, that'd be very helpful. Or for that matter I'm willing to remove my name from the list if there's concern about me participating. It's fine; I have other things I'm happy to work on instead. Thanks for your help! Innisfree987 (talk) 17:47, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

If I had thought you were a potential danger to the project I would have removed you from the list. I was just pointing out that 500 edits is a low threshold and that candidates for 'reviewer' are often subject to closer scrutiny. AfC is a troubled project Happy editing! Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:34, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Ok Kudpung. If you have any specific trouble spots you think new reviewers should particularly be attentive to, I'd still be glad to hear them; in any event I'll certainly do my level best! Innisfree987 (talk) 19:39, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Alex Deans

My apologies. I didn't mean to offend you with that; I was snarking about Upworthy, not about you. Bearcat (talk) 05:17, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Bearcat, I appreciate hearing that. Much obliged. Innisfree987 (talk) 20:07, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

The Practice of Diaspora

Wouldn't it make more sense to write about the author instead, and use this as a section? I can help you move it that title if you have any problems DGG ( talk ) 19:04, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi DGG thanks for checking in! I definitely agree the author should have an entry (he recently won a Guggenheim for a different project) and plan to make one; based on my acquaintance with the sources, I'm inclined to think Practice of Diaspora is enough of a "big book" in the field that it's worth having an separate entry, but I'd actually love your guidance on policy for distinguishing between when an author should have a page, but not a book, or vice versa, or both should have pages. (It's been on my mind since a recent AfD + ensuing discussion about whether one notable book sufficed to confer notability on an author, as the book was judged notable but the author's page had been sent to AfD.) So if you have any thoughts to share, or can point me toward some reading on the matter, I'd be grateful! Innisfree987 (talk) 19:24, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

With one book, it's equivocal whether to make the article on the book or the author. (he's ed. of a few collections, but I don't see any other books authored ). My view is that it's best at the author, because the author is likely to write more books, so the article will be expandable. As for an article on the book as well, there's no consistent standard, but if it wins a major prize, there's a very good case. DGG ( talk ) 21:52, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Re: Qias Omar

Re your message: Sorry about the delay in getting back to you. I have been busy outside of Wikipedia. I see that you did de-prod the article as you said that they was coverage from reliable sources in your edit summary, but you didn't add any of them. I'm willing to restore the article into your user space so that you can work on it, but it really needs reliable sources before it can go back into main space. All of the sources are either his own YouTube videos, his Twitter, or famousbirthdays.com.

As for the double deletion, that is because after I deleted it the first time, a now blocked troll account decided to turn it into an attack page. It was those vandalism only edits that I alerted me to the article. Obviously, I will not be restoring those edits. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 03:28, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

All sounds great Gogo Dodo--yes I have references from The Washington Post, MTV, Chicago Tribune, etc. that I now realize I should've saved to the talk page at least, if I wasn't going to enter them just then. I was pretty new and unaware of that option. So great, yes if you'd post the non-vandalized version to my user space that'd be great. Thanks. Innisfree987 (talk) 03:33, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

The article has been restored to User:Innisfree987/Qias Omar. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 03:40, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Robyn Semien for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Robyn Semien is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robyn Semien 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.

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. Bearcat (talk) 22:49, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The 10,000 Challenge

Hello. I've revamped the contest page into this, based on the new British model. Long term goal, but I've added entries since the beginning of July to give it some initial life. Please add anything you've done then this then too! I hope it proves productive long term. The contests are still planned, but will be more tools towards increasing bulk output in overall goal. It's a permanent goal now, and open! I would be grateful if you could keep a record of all your articles you do there, as I really think seeing the combined efforts will encourage others to create more content too! Please spread the word to the others, cheers!♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:22, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Darren Seals

I was typing up about it when I got the revert, would it be appropriate to say this? (Yes there are references about this, I make sure by checking before saving my changes, and there is more references than provided here about his death. If you're wondering I go through and check articles in 2016 deaths to update them) Adog104 ^{Talk to me} 01:11, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Seals was found murdered on September 6, 2016 inside a burning car. He was 29.

References

Hey Adog104, thanks so much for your work on this. So I was going to give a little while before I added just to be absolutely sure (I was recently reminded that some newsmedia erroneously reported Gabby Giffords had died when she had not, which is obviously the kind of error to be strenuously avoided), but maybe a viable solution would be to say something like, "On September 6, 2016, Seals was reportedly found dead inside a burning car." with the references you mention? What do you think? Innisfree987 (talk) 01:17, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Ah, I see another experienced user has added it as well now, so I defer to group wisdom on this. Innisfree987 (talk) 01:52, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Sounds good, and I understand. Likewise Islam Karimov was being reported dead a week or so before he actually died. It's fine that you reverted to make sure it was the correct information, also sorry about responding late I'm doing some education stuff. Adog104 ^{Talk to me} 01:55, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

All good, really I thought it was a very efficient group effort to get something reliable in place quickly on an important and sensitive topic. I appreciate your contributions and collaboration Adog104! Innisfree987 (talk) 16:17, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Autopatrolled

Hi Innisfree987, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the "autopatrolled" permission to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the patroller right, see Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 06:33, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Women in Red

I've just noticed you've signed up as a member of Women in Red. That's great, given your high standard of editing and the articles you've recently created. I've added your name to our mailing list. You'll be kept informed of our activities. Just drop me a line if ever you run into any problems.--Ipigott (talk) 18:55, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Oh, thanks so much for the kind message, Ipigott--I really appreciate the welcome. I'm looking forward to getting more involved in the community at WiR! Innisfree987 (talk) 20:26, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

T-Money (rapper)

I received your message and hope you will be able to direct me in editing my article. Thank you. JoslynCorvis (talk) 19:54, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Invitation to Women in Architecture & Women in Archaeology editathons

October 2016
	Women in Architecture & Women in Archaeology editathons Faciliated by Women in Red

(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 20:05, 24 September 2016 (UTC) via MassMessaging

RfC for page patroller qualifications

Following up from the consensus reached here, the community will now establish the user right criteria. You may wish to participate in this discussion. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:47, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Destubathon

Hi. thanks for your contributions towards the challenge. I'm running Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon from October 15 to November 27 which needs contributors. Before it starts contestants will be asked if they want articles done for it to also count towards the 10,000 challenge, and it's also a chance to win some prizes for contributing towards the whole range of countries, so sign up at the destubathon if interested! Even if not interested in prizes, there will be the focus on destubbing anyway and hopefully people can still be a part of it. For this there will be prizes for women destubs and new articles on women, but no stubs are permitted, minimum 1.5kb prose creations.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:25, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Policies for dealing with new articles at NPP & AfC

HI. Following 5 years of unstructured discussion, a dedicated venue has been created for combined discussion about NPP & AfC where a work group is also being composed to develop recommendations for necessary changes to policies and related software. It is 'not an RfC, it is a call for genuinely interested users who have significant experience in these areas to join a truly proactive work group. There is some reading to be done before signing up. See: Wikipedia:The future of NPP and AfC. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:43, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

BLPPROD

Hi,

I noticed you recently added some clarification to the policy page on BLPPROD, and were talking about proposing a revision to the wording on the talk page. Sadly, I don't think the former will help, but thanks for trying anyway. The wording is clear to me, but I've encountered a lot of editors who, despite the clarity, still think BLPPROD means no reliable sources, rather than just no sources. It may seem strange, but there is a reason for the "double standard": it can sometimes be difficult to judge the reliability of sources. I've actually been told off for removing BLPPROD tags from articles where it shouldn't have been placed because there was already at least one source when it was placed. Several weeks ago, I wrote an essay detailing the common BLPPROD mistakes I encounter. What do you think? I don't normally "advertise" my essays (I haven't even put a link on the policy page, though if anyone does want to put a link there, I won't object), but in this case I wanted to make you aware in case you aren't already, as you (and others, such as NatGertler, who I see explained it to you originally) have shown signs of wanting to deal with this confusion, and this may help as people are still confused about the placement and removal requirements of the tag. Regards. Adam9007 (talk) 01:35, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

BLPPROD doesn't really need an essay, Adam9007, although it might become useful when Innisfree volunteers to train our new, super-qulified New Page Reviewers. The conditions for the use of BLPPROD could not be clearer - I know, because I drew the enormous RfC for its creation to its successful conclusion 7 years ago. The reasons are twofold: 1. avoid discussion over what links might be a source or a reliable source, and 2. post the template quickly while the creator is still logged in.I'll add your essay to a few related essays, tutorials, and advice pages. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:23, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Hey Adam9007, thanks so much for reaching out! Yes my sense is those of us without the benefit of Kudpung's extensive context for the project often are not finding the instructions nearly so self-evident (I know I read those specific instructions three times and still got it wrong), and the resulting friction isn't pleasant for anyone! (Though NatGertler was the model of collegiality and clarity in steering me back to the right track, for which I am very grateful.) If others might be interested in discussing as well, want to meet over at the talk page to continue? I agree that the couple of words I added really aren't sufficient to solve the problem but I'm wondering if we could find some plain language that would make the policy itself clearer to newcomers; if group can't agree then I do think an essay is the way to go, just hopeful we might find a way to clarify without adding to reading necessary to execute the task properly. Thanks again for reaching out! Innisfree987 (talk) 21:28, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

@Innisfree987: @Kudpung: I don't know about others, but the first 2 paragraphs of WP:BLPPROD are perfectly clear to me. At least 2 editors who have told me off are experienced admins. That's quite shocking, and I find it rather worrying that they're getting it wrong. One of the reasons I wrote the essay is so I don't have to keep explaining the same stuff again each time someone tells me not to remove BLPPROD tags without adding a reliable source, even when the article didn't meet the placement requirement. Others have tried making it clear in the past (such as this edit), but the confusion still exists. I'm all for making it clear, but I don't see how much clearer it can be. It could well be that people are simply not reading the page properly. If that's the case, I really don't know what to do. In fact, only a couple of months ago, the prob blp template itself was boldly changed to read "no reliable references" instead of no references. Adam9007 (talk) 23:06, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

One of the big problems on Wikipedia which is a worldwide human problem (I know, because I studied and researched KommWiss for 9 years for a higher degree), is that you cn give people the best instructions and they still won't bother to read them (leading horses to water?) - only last week someone in the airport asked me the way to Gate B4 for the flight to Udon Thani and we were standing right next to the 1 metre high sign pointing to the moving walkway for all the B gates. One other problem is that we are reluctant to protect important pages and templates again arbitrary changes by clueless drive-by users. These are all reasons why we are having to control who can patrol new pages - something that Innisfree oddly appears not to be ready to support.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:43, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Kudpung I'd appreciate it if we could please keep this thread focused on BLPPROD (if you have a specific NPP query for me, you could start a separate thread or add it to the post above about the working group.) For BLPPROD. I understand your view that a large percentage of WP problems is that people don't read instructions. I disagree with this view (in part because every single time you've suggested I did not read the instructions or preliminary materials, you were mistaken), so I consider it worth my time to try to improve clarity of instruction, and more generally try to bring the same care to how we lay out information in policy pages as we do for how we organize information in mainspace. But I understand entirely why the effort might not interest you, given your differing view of the underlying problem, and I don't mean at all to try to persuade you it is how you should spend your time. Certainly, no shortage of things to work on! Innisfree987 (talk) 01:58, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Adam9007, yup I agree it's worrying how many people are getting it wrong. I suppose I'm hopeful I might be able to help specifically as someone who learned this procedure very recently, and has a fresh memory of what I couldn't decipher despite best efforts! Now that it has been explained to me in plainer terms, I can see the items I didn't understand are technically already in the text (which is good, no policy change required!) but I do think the phrasing is unnecessarily opaque and we could do better. (Strikes me as a particular example of a divide between the plain, clear language we require for mainspace articles, versus not necessarily holding policy pages to same standard for accessibility.) Tonight or this weekend I'll hop over to talk page and mention a couple things that particularly come to mind. Innisfree987 (talk) 02:08, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Innisfee, for so clearly illustrating the point which I have tried so patiently and politely to explain, but which you shrugged off as off topic. As an expert in communication, I am absolutely, totally aware of the fact that most of our instructions and template messages are horrendously verbose which leads to lack of clarity, but please don't hint at me how I should refocus the 60+ hours a week I spend on Wikipedia. One of the reasons our instructions are so verbose, even TL;DR, is because many people like to see themselves in print (not to be confused with informal discussions on talk pages). I acknowledge and admire your efforts to look into these things, and if I had the time, I would actively assist you; be bold, do whatever you think necessary to render any parts of Wikipedia more succinct. You have my support.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:53, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

No hinting intended, I was fully, entirely sincere when I said I didn't mean to tell you to change your focus Kudpung: on the contrary, I was trying to acknowledge what I've heard you say repeatedly about how few people you feel read directions, so it honest-to-god made sense to me that you might prefer not to work on something you think people won't read anyway! I was really saying I thought I understood where you were coming from even if I saw it differently. As for "the point which I have tried so patiently and politely to explain, but which you shrugged off as off topic"--I'm honestly not following? But in any case I thank you for encouraging me to be bold in trying to improve concision of instructions; as I've mentioned elsewhere I am very aware of the deep seriousness and sheer volume of your investment and experience in the project, so it's very helpful, not to mention heartening, to have your assessment that I could contribute usefully on this front. Innisfree987 (talk) 03:38, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

What I would strongly discourage you from however (which despite AGF also adds to the growing concern that some of your comments might be due to some personal bias), is taking text out of context or otherwise purporting it to say what it doesn't by rephrasing it in your reported sources in in an attempt to substantiate your arguments. In some contexts such possible misrepresentations could be described as disingenuous. If you need diffs, I (and several others) would be happy to provide them. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:04, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Kudpung At minimum I probably need to know which others you're speaking for. Innisfree987 (talk) 12:33, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't think you need to know anything more at the moment except to adopt a more collegial and collaborative approach to Wikipedia. RfCs are not only a head count, the comments made are also taken into account by the closer and also greatly influence other potential !voters. In the extreme, persistent participation in a manner in which I'm fast beginning to recognise as a pattern could be broadly construed as disruptive. But all it would achieve is my retirement from Wikipedia, not that anybody cares, or me even - I've achieved most of the major changes I fought for for years here, and I written a fair few articles, and helped many new editors into their Wikicareers.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:01, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Hm. I'm really surprised and sorry to learn you feel that way Kudpung; I definitely did not see my participation in this light. I care about the encyclopedia and spoke up only because I have concerns for how this reform could affect the pool of reviewers, and consequently the new contributors they interact with. But I certainly had no desire to be a source of disruption so I'm willing to strike my RfC comments if you'd like. Innisfree987 (talk) 15:14, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

The RfC will probably pass. Your vote won't make much difference at this stage and most RfC that are well researched, well presented, and which propose logically needed new policies or software, will get a consensus. Nobody minds opposition, even when an important RfC does fail, it's the nature of fair debate. Debate is not fair however when the arguments are based on the personalities of the participants or on contrived rationale. Editors like you who show a genuine interest in the Wikipedia 'back office' are very much needed, especially when their comments and suggestions can be based on fact rather than conjecture, and presented objectively. Their opinions will garner a lot of respect. If you're interested. when the current RfC is over, I'd be happy to go through it (and/or its precursor) with you and point out which votes (on either side) make sense, which ones additionally make a significant impact on the outcome, which ones a closing admin will dismiss as trolling, and the character of the people behind them. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:53, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

The RfC has already been closed with an overwhelming consensus. We now need:

• Editors to request the patroller right
• Editors to sign on to be instructors at Wikipedia:New pages patrol/School
• More new admins.

Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:08, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Kudpung. Means a lot you'd offer to spend time helping me. Right now I think I better decline as I wouldn't want to waste your time, and at present I'm having doubts about whether back office work is something I'll continue. Thank you though. And congratulations on the RfC passing! Innisfree987 (talk) 13:23, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

An invitation to November's events

November 2016
	Announcing two exciting online editathons Women in Food and Drink and Women Writers as well as our strong support for articles on women in connection with Wikipedia Asian Month Faciliated by Women in Red

(To subscribe: Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 18:07, 23 October 2016 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Thank you for your help

I'll be working on it over the next few days. JoslynCorvis (talk) 16:43, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome JoslynCorvis! Yes, if you have more references, I would add them as soon as possible--because the topic's already been through community discussion once, if admins don't see significant additions beyond the already-discussed version, it'll be deleted again without further discussion.

Or another idea just came to mind: if you'd rather have more time, you can leave a note on the entry's talk page asking that an admin convert this to a draft for you. That way you can work on it for as long as you want without having to worry that it'll be deleted at any moment. And, once you finish, you click the button to submit the draft and an experienced user will look it over and say if it meets criteria, or let you know what else you need to change before it can go live as a "mainspace" entry. That might be an easier way to do it! Innisfree987 (talk) 17:35, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

How would I go about getting into the page to edit? Both pages won't allow me to access them so I wouldn't know how to go about requesting it to be put back in a draft. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoslynCorvis (talk • contribs) 19:32, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi JoslynCorvis, that's odd that you can't access! Should work the same way leaving a note for me here works--you go to the talk page for the entry, click edit, leave a note requesting the page be converted to a draft for you to work on, and then save changes. The admin who does it for you should leave a link on your talk page that you can follow. Hope that helps! If it still doesn't work, you may need to ask at WP:Helpdesk, because this may be beyond my expertise! Innisfree987 (talk) 19:56, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi again JoslynCorvis, I see unfortunately the page has been deleted; it's probably because no additional references had been added. I think at this point my advice for you would be get some practice editing other parts of Wikipedia to get the hang of things, before trying to restart this entry. It's a much easier way to get proficient with using the site; as you've seen, starting a new entry can be tricky, and it's only more complicated once the topic's already been through community discussion for deletion. Working on some less complicated tasks first can help demystify things--you could start with the WP:ADVENTURE, a game-like training tool that will walk you through the main aspects of how to use the site. Good luck and happy editing! Innisfree987 (talk) 15:34, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

Hi Innisfree987! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

• The Wikipedia Adventure Start Page
• The Wikipedia Adventure Lounge
• The Teahouse new editor help space
• Wikipedia Help pages

-- 15:25, Tuesday, November 1, 2016 (UTC)

Mission 1	Mission 2	Mission 3	Mission 4	Mission 5	Mission 6	Mission 7
Say Hello to the World	An Invitation to Earth	Small Changes, Big Impact	The Neutral Point of View	The Veil of Verifiability	The Civility Code	Looking Good Together

Get Help

About The Wikipedia Adventure | Hang out in the Interstellar Lounge

AfD Bleitrach

I have a personal opinion about AfD and that is that there is a lot of systemic bias in the nominations... your article is about a person who hits four problem categories: 1) A woman, 2) A person whose prominence arose in the pre-Google era, 3) A non-English-speaking person, and 4) A left-wing political figure. The best you can do is to add more source material (print material is OK). A person can also alert relevant wikiprojects, but you do have to be careful of WP:CANVASS rules and only post something very neutral like "this discussion may be of interest to members of this project: and link it. Don't do it for this one, I'll do so for you Montanabw^(talk) 05:45, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

New Page Review needs your help

Hi Innisfree987,

As an AfC reviewer you're probably aware that a new user right has been created for patrolling new pages (you might even have been granted the right already, and admins have it automatically).

Since July there has been a very serious backlog at Special:NewPagesFeed of over 14,000 pages, by far the worst since 2011, and we need an all out drive to get this back down to just a few hundred that can be easily maintained in the future. Unlike AfC, these pages are already in mainspace, and the thought of what might be there is quite scary. There are also many good faith article creators who need a simple, gentle push to the Tea House or their pages converted to Draft rather than being deleted.

Although New Page Reviewing can occasionally be somewhat more challenging than AfC, the criteria for obtaining the right are roughly the same. The Page Curation tool is even easier to use than the Helper Script, so it's likely that most AfC reviewers already have more than enough knowledge for the task of New Page Review.

It is hoped that AfC reviewers will apply for this right at WP:PERM and lend a hand. You'll need to have read the page at WP:NPR and the new tutorial.

(Sent to all active AfC reviewers) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:33, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Allison Aubrey has been accepted

Allison Aubrey, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Smmurphy^(Talk) 16:46, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Innisfree987. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer - RfC

Hi Innisfree987. You are invited to comment at a further discussion on the implementation of this user right to patrol and review new pages that is taking place at Wikipedia:New pages patrol/RfC on patrolling without user right. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:43, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer - RfC

Hi Innisfree987. You are invited to comment at a further discussion on the implementation of this user right to patrol and review new pages that is taking place at Wikipedia:New pages patrol/RfC on patrolling without user right. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:10, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

December 2016 at Women in Red

File:Roza Shanina.jpg December 2016
	Two new topics for our online editathons Women in Aviation and Women in the Military Our geographical topic of the month is Caribbean Women During the period of 21 Nov - 8 Dec, we are also supporting BBC 100 Women Women in Red

(To subscribe: Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 22:43, 23 November 2016 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Misty K. Snow

As I explained in my deltion nomination, having an article on Snow goes against the consensus on candidates for elected office. We need extremely good sourcing, that is better than passing mention but shows study of the candidate as a candidate by many sources. This is lacking on the part of Snow. Beyond that Snow was trounced in the election, and various issues that seem to have gained widespread attention in media reports were not at all brought up in the election process. The coverage is not enough to rise above one event coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:33, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

• This [1] article is the main reason I think it makes absolutely no sense for Wikipedia to have an article on Snow. It illustrates that despite holding a major party nomination for senate this was not at all a viable or noted campaign, and not the level of campaign that should be seen to give the campaigner permanent notability for a stand alone article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:48, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Johnpacklambert, thanks for your reply and I'm really glad to see you've now renominated the entry for AfD in lieu of a redirect. When an AfD closes in a way we disagree with, it's really essential that we engage community process to handle it (whether deletion review request or a follow-up AfD later on), rather than overrule it unilaterally--the latter doesn't lead anywhere good! To that point, if I may make a friendly suggestion--this one's not required by policy, but you might consider leaving questions like mine up on your talk page rather than selectively deleting them. It goes a long way to make clear to all these were good faith edits you're willing to discuss openly toward developing community consensus, rather than trying to impose your own view. Actually, feel free, if you like, to add a link to this discussion so folks can see it got sorted out! Thanks again for replying. Innisfree987 (talk) 21:58, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Another Round

Hello, Innisfree987. It has been over six months since you last edited your Articles for Creation draft article submission, "Another Round".

In accordance with our policy that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:19, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

beauty pageants

I just posted an intial draft of an idea for notability guidelines for beauty pageant winners. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Beauty Pageants I proposed tentative guidelines. You were one of the major advocates of broad posting when the subject was discussed earlier. I am not sure how to get any let alone broad attention for the post.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:52, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

BBC 12-hour Editathon - large influx of new pages & drafts expected

AfC Reviewers are asked to be especially on the look out 08:00-20:00 UTC (that's local London time - check your USA and AUS times) on Thursday 8 December for new pages. The BBC together with Wikimedia UK is holding a large 12-hour editathon. Many new articles and drafts are expected. See BBC 100 Women 2016: How to join our edit-a-thon. Follow also on #100womenwiki, and please, don't bite the newbies :) (user:Kudpung for NPR. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:02, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Precious

entries for journalists

Thank you for quality articles such as Rachel Kaadzi Ghansah, for countless new entries for journalists, comedians, poets, for welcoming new users, for helping with articles for creation, for support, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:08, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Oh what a very kind message! Thank you Gerda Arendt, I'm so touched by your thoughtfulness! Innisfree987 (talk) 21:14, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Seasons Greetings

Merry Christmas from me! Thanks for your company during 2016. We have seen the percentage of articles on women rise from 15.5% to 16.77%. 20% is within our grasp and that's an increase of 11% over what we first found. Victuallers (talk) 15:50, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Belated thank you and hope you're having a happy start to 2017 Victuallers! This is a great bit of news--wonderful to start the new year with something hopeful. Thanks! Innisfree987 (talk) 21:23, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5